reply to post by YourPopRock
I think if OBAMA actually wanted this to be put to rest, a simple disclosure of the ss#'s, the long-form birth certificate and the school records
wouldn't be much to ask.
He really doesn't have a right to privacy... he is the most public figure in the country.
Yes, in fact, he has exactly the same right to privacy as you or I. And as voters, the public must also have the right to know more about the
prospective President than we do our next door neighbor.
Notice that neither is an explicit Constitutional right. Right to privacy is a 'found right' based on the 9th amendment. Right to know is implied
from democratic principles that require an informed electorate to work properly.
A balance between these two 'rights' must be maintained. It is every President's duty to protect the rights, not only of himself, but of future
Presidents.
Medical record privacy is a prime example where Presidents have slowly given up
some of their rights to total privacy. Note emphasis on
'some'. The public is served by knowing about the general health of the President and his physical ability to discharge the duties of his office.
What could the detail of his school records possibly tell the public of his abilities to discharge the duties of his office? He has released all the
'standard' information about his University career, grades and honors and what not, and the schools confirm it.
What else would be there that would more fully inform the public? That he got reprimanded for participating in a "panty raid" (I just made that up)?
That he got caught smoking pot in his dorm room? (he has admitted smoking pot in University). How would any of that kind of stuff further inform the
public?
The BC has been done to death. There is nothing that could be on a birth certificate of any detail that would have any bearing on anything other than
his location and date of his birth. Nothing else has any bearing what-so-ever on his eligibility. The official Hawai'ian Birth Certificate that has
been published contains this information. End of story.
The Social Security number controversy baffles me. The lists I've seen are filled with so many obvious errors that they are rendered totally useless,
and frankly I have no doubt they are made up from somebody's fantasy world.
The lists, supposedly listing various SSN's used by Barrack Obama, seem to concentrate on his mother for no apparent reason. She is invariably listed
as Male, I suspect because the compiler of the list didn't realize that his mother's name was Stanley. Again that strikes me as the result of
someone inventing the data.
Some of the entries list his address as "White House" or "123 White House" and don't have a SSN listed in the record. This kind of stuff strikes
me as pure invention.
In fact, my background as a Computer Systems Programmer/Analyst/Project Manager gives it a very familiar look. It looks a lot like dummy data for
testing data conversion or reports or data entry screens, etc. On my projects we usually made up data and use pop stars names, like Elvis Presley or
Brigit Bardot. Our test databases would end up with those names all over the place, on invoices, as employees, as service providers, etc. It certainly
wasn't real.
Futhermore, what does it mean to have a Social Security number 'associated' with an address? Was he using it as ID on the rental agreement? SSN's
are not allowed to be used that way, so maybe the number is really a driver's license number. I know I used to refuse to give my SSN to people as ID,
but they could have my driver's license number. I have watched people write my DL number on a form in a space labeled SSN. This means that there are
probably records on databases somewhere that have me with several different SSN's, but I only have one.
Does it mean that he received SS benefits at the address using false SSN's? If that is the case then 'WE' have to charge him with SS fraud if we
want to get anywhere. There is nothing we can do to force him to incriminate himself. And more importantly, if he choses to remain silent on the
matter, we cannot use the silence to condemn him.
(I am not big into having someone who carries the nuclear football being someone I have questions about).
Its fine having questions. I had a lot of doubts about every President starting with Johnson having the keys to that briefcase (except oddly, Carter
and Bush Sr.) I mean really, Reagan was completely demented the last 3 years at least. He was just about as likely to bomb St. Petersburg Florida as
he was St. Petersburg Russia (Lenningrad at the time).
But having questions and doubts is one thing, demanding to cancel Constitutional and legal procedures is quite another, wholy unacceptable thing
altogether.