Donald Trump, Unlike Obama, Mans Up When Challenged

I’m sorry, I just can’t resist posting about this story.

One thing that I have maintained all along about the “birther” issue is that Obama, whether guilty or not, has behaved like a guilty man. When he released the short form birth certificate and people questioned its authenticity and wanted to see the long form birth certificate, the thing to do is not to brush it off or roll your eyes or make snide comments or hide behind your spokesman or call the other side names or hire lawyers to fight it in court or claim that Hawaii won’t release it or whatever else. All that makes you look either like you have something to hide and/or like you’re a dude who is completely oblivious to guy code. (This being a family friendly site prevents me from saying that in a more graphic manner.)

When Philip Berg, for example, questions your credentials, particularly in the context of this already being a big story, (not just some random claim from a lone wacko) the appropriate response is to march into the Hawaii DOH and demand they release a copy of your long form which you would then wag in the face of all the doubters and personally attempt to shove up Philip Berg’s posterior. When they ask for it in court you gladly turn it over saying “Here you go Judge. Anything else I can help you with?”

When Donald Trump calls you out publicly and says he will donate 5 million dollars to the charity of your choice if you produce your college records, you produce your college records. This does three things. It clears any doubt there may be about you, it makes Donald Trump look like a fool, and it get your charity 5 million dollars. What did Obama do? He wiffed. (I’m not defending the way Trump led us to believe he had something new when all he had was a challenge.)

So, when Bill Maher laid down a five million dollar challenge to Trump, what did Trump do? He did what a man would do, he stepped up and produced.  Obama should take a lesson. I didn’t see the Maher interview. I’m sure he was his usual snide mocking self. But now that Trump has called his bluff, is he going to pay up or look like a sniveling weasel?

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

18 thoughts on “Donald Trump, Unlike Obama, Mans Up When Challenged

  1. savrola

    That’s why I come to Conservative Times, because Red can’t resist posting the news and commentary on it that nobody else cares about.

  2. ehancock

    When Obama posted the short-form birth certificate it was sufficient. Why? Because the short-form birth certificate is the OFFICIAL birth certificate, get it? The short-form, known as the Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii and has been since 2001. Everybody who asks for a copy of their birth certificate, even people who were born before 2001, get the Certification, and it is used successfully every year by thousands of people to get their US passports. When people said that it was forged, they were—wait for it–birthers, Obama’s enemies. They said that it was forged because they were his enemies. So the officials in Hawaii, who at the time were under a Republican governor went into their files TWICE and checked whether or not there was a birth certificate there and whether or not it said that Obama was born in Hawaii and they said that both were correct. Then so did the Republican governor. But birthers and Trump still said that they did not believe. Why? Not because they had any rational evidence that the officials and Republican governor were lying, because they hated Obama. So Obama asked Hawaii to make a special exception and to send him an official copy of his long form birth certificate, and it did and stated that it did and subsequently stated that the facts on the published image of the birth certificate are EXACTLY the same as on the birth certificate in the file.

    Trump has shown only an image of his birth certificate. Obama showed both the images of the short form and long form on the web. But he also showed the actual physical copies, on security paper with the seal affixed, to the press. In addition to his showing that, the officials in Hawaii have confirmed the facts on Obama’s birth certificate. No official has done that for Trump. And in addition to that the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers (in a section that was only sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii) has been show. Nothing like that for Trump.

    I’m not saying that Trump needs more evidence. His birth certificate, which also is the short-form, by the way, is sufficient. But then the short-form birth certificate was sufficient for Obama too.

  3. Matt Weber

    Trump has shown only an image of his birth certificate. Obama showed both the images of the short form and long form on the web.

    First, Trump sent a physical birth certificate to Maher. The reason he only showed an image on the web should be obvious.

    Second, Obama only showed the long form after Trump turned up the heat on him. I say this while agreeing that the short form should have been sufficient to prove what was asked. When it wasn’t, however, Obama should have graciously provided the long form and put an end to it rather than stonewalling for four years. This is the only point being made here.

  4. RedPhillips Post author

    ehancock, context is everything.

    There was some question about Obama’s birth. What the source and motivations of that question were is irrelevent to the truth. Obama did not then immediately produce the short form. He hemmed and hawed and dragged his feet and then produced it.

    There were then questions about the authenticity of the short form as well as issues with regard to HI law. (Was the short form based on an attested to original or an actual hospital generated bc?) Because of these concerns, people wanted to see the long form. The anti-birthers then proceded to lie and bluster. They said you couldn’t get a long form. Yes you could. There were several examples floating around and HI even required the long form for certain things (native issues) up to a point. There was even a law on the books that required access to a persons records if requested by the person. HI did not change the law to prohibit the long form until it became an issue and they did so in response to it becoming an issue.

    The HI officials who then checked on the BC to assure everyone that all was OK did not issue an unambiguous statement that addressed all the concerns. In fact, the statement was so ambiguous that it caused more concerns than it settled. The second statement was necessitated by the ambiguity of the first and even it was unsatisfactory. It didn’t address the attestation possibility. It didn’t address the father. Etc.

    One thing that I said all along while we were awaiting the long form, was that all the legal nonsense about how HI was not authorized to realease it etc. was foolish anyway. Obama is the President of the United States. If he asked HI for the long form, he would get the long form, which, as you admit, is precisely what happened.

    A few reporters have reportedly seen the hard copy, but it was not made widely available. It certainly wasn’t submitted for forensic authentication. What the public has now is a computer image the authenticity of which has been vigorously questioned. We still await the forensic analysis by our supposedly neutral press.

    For the record, I have never believed that Obama was born in Kenya and have never believed he was born anywhere but HI. What I think is possible is that there may be parts of his story that are untrue and he might have something to hide.

    All this discussion proves my point. Regardless of the truth, Obama behaved like a man with something to hide. Why fight the release in court? Just release it. Why have the anti-birther brigade lie and bluster about the availability of the long form? Just release it.

    Let’s just say for the sake of the argument that all is in order and everything is as Obama said and everything matches his story and there is no damning information, why did we have to go through all this? Just release the stuff. Why hire lawyers? Why have an internet anti-birther attack corp?

    Which also gets to the primary point of this post. Not only did Obama behave like a man with something to hide, he didn’t behave like a man at all. When challenged, he should have gotten his back up, demanded his long form and proceded to shove it down Philip Berg’s throat. (We wouldn’t have even gotten to Trump had he dealt with Berg or the other early skeptics.) So not only did our President behave like a guilty man, he behaved like a wuss. I hope you’re proud.

  5. ehancock

    Re: “There was some question about Obama’s birth…”

    No, there were only Obama’s ENEMIES saying that there were questions. That is all. When you have shown your official birth certificate and the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed the facts on it, and it is further confirmed by the Index Data and the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers, then the idea that you have to do any more to be “gracious” is far-fetched.

    The fact is that the birthers kept saying, and still are saying, that the proof is insufficient, even though it is OVERWHELMING. (And the very idea that Obama’s mother flew from Hawaii, where there were excellent hospitals, to some other country, and in most birther’s minds it was Kenya, LATE in pregnancy is itself nutty.) Obama did enough with the short-form birth certificate. He was indeed gracious when he showed the long-form, but it was unnecessary. He was not “behaving like a guilty man.” He was behaving like a teacher who might say something like this: “I have told you eighty times that the world is ROUND, not flat, and I’m not going to tell you any more.”

    It is entirely possible that Obama is a wuss. So what? He was re-elected on November 6, and will be president for the next four years.

  6. RedPhillips Post author

    ehancock, I never bought the born in Kenya story for the reasons you mention. It didn’t make logistical sense. But while what we might call orthodox birthers steadfastly stuck with the “born in Kenya” story, “birther” concerns quickly grew beyond that to something more broad like “he might be hiding something/something smells fishy here.” So it was inadequate to simply address the Kenya vs. HI issue even if we concede he did that.

    Born in Kenya birthers will be born in Kenya birthers, but by simply saying that the place of birth question was answered, you leave the other questions hanging. Now either the anti-birther hysterics were unaware of the broader issues or they were setting up straw men to knock down and evading the broader issues. This too contributed to the sense that something was being hidden.

    This is all very plain to see, and all the rationalizations for Obama and his team’s behavior are just silly. I don’t see how it can be debated that if Obama has nothing to hide, that upfront transparency would not have been a better option.

  7. ehancock

    Okay, we agree that Obama was not born in Kenya. Are we in agreement that he was born in Hawaii? If not, consider these facts:

    Some things that show that Obama was born in Hawaii:

    1. Obama’s two official birth certificates, with the state seals on them. (The official physical copy of the long-form birth certificate was handed around in the White House press room, and one reporter said that she had felt the seal and took a photo of the document.

    2. The confirmation of the facts on the two birth certificates (short form and long form)—-that Obama was born in Hawaii—by THREE Republican officials in Hawaii and several Democrats, and by the public Index Data file. The acceptance of the written confirmation of the facts on Obama’s birth certificate by the conservative secretary of state of Arizona.

    3. The notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 that were sent to the papers “Health Bureau Statistics” section by the DOH of Hawaii—-and only the DOH could send those notices. (Also, the claim that the DOH could have been influenced by lying relatives turns out to be false because whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital, Hawaii insisted on a witness statement.)

    4. The absence of a US travel document for Obama in 1961. Nor has there been an application for such a travel document found. (A child born in a foreign country would, of course, require either to be on his mother’s US passport or to receive a US visa on a foreign passport. Either of which would have had to have been done IN a US consulate in that foreign country, and the application for that document would still exist, and would have been found by the Bush Administration during the eight years in which it was in charge of the US State Department, but they didn’t.)

    5. The teacher, who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii in Kapiolani Hospital in 1961 and writing home about it (about the birth to a woman named Stanley to her father, also named Stanley).

    6. Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was BORN IN HAWAII, and she said in another interview (Hartford Courant) that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter FROM HAWAII.

    7. Hawaii is thousands of miles from any foreign country, and it was rare for women to travel late in pregnancy in those days. WND has proved with a FOI Act request that Obama’s father remained in Hawaii throughout 1961, which would have meant that she would have had to have made that long, expensive and risky trip without him—and that is hardly likely at all.

    What is the explanation that the birther issue continued despite these facts? Birther LIES of course. One of the most recent ones was that the registrar of births in Hawaii, Onaka, had admitted that the birth certificate was forged. Before that they claimed that Obama’s lawyer had admitted that the birth certificate was forged. Before that they made up the claim that Obama’s birth certificate was forged. Before that they said that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya. And there the one that said that Obama was registered as a foreign student at Occidental College. They are all simply lies.

    Some people believe lies. But they are still lies. Perhaps the Obama administration should have spent more time saying “Obama’s grandmother never said that.” And “Obama was not registered as a foreign student” and “Obama’s lawyers did not say any such thing.” But if they did, birthers probably would just have made up different lies.

    Re: “Transparency.” What are you talking about? He showed his birth certificate twice. He does not have to show his college grades, and no president every has and Mitt Romney certainly didn’t. What else do you want?

  8. C Bowen

    ehancock;

    If Obama’s mom flew from Hawaii to Washington state to rent an apartment and start school a couple weeks later–well she took a newborn on long flight.

    I find that curious.

    You raise many great point because the point of the Birther issues was to distract folks from looking at the longtime relationship of the Obama family with Intelligence–they were in Indonesia supporting the ruling party whilst it was mass murdering for goodness sake. That is what is being covered up–and don’t mention Peter Geithner.

  9. Pingback: Donald Trump to Bill Maher: Pay Up | Independent Political Report: Third Party News

  10. ehancock

    Re: “If Obama’s mom flew from Hawaii to Washington state to rent an apartment and start school a couple weeks later–well she took a newborn on long flight.”

    Answer. Haven’t you noticed that there is a difference between a newborn and a woman late in pregnancy? The difference is the word STILLBIRTH—which was a lot more common in 1961 than it is today. Besides Obama was born in EARLY August, and courses began at the University of Washington in LATE September—and that is nearly two months. Moreover, we do not know whether Obama’s mother was actually there on the first day of class.

    In short, the fact that Obama’s mother traveled in 1961 is not proof that Obama was born anywhere else than in Hawaii. Obama’s birth in Hawaii is proven by his birth certificate, short form and long form, and the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they have Obama’s birth certificate, and that they sent him the short form and the long form, and that the facts on the long form are exactly the same as those in their files, and that is further confirmed by the public Index Data file and by the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 and by the Hawaii teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after being told of the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley.

  11. RedPhillips Post author

    ehandcock, to answer one of your questions I do think HI is the most likely place Obama was born. I don’t dispute that he was born there, but I have always thought that if he wasn’t born there it is more likely that his mom was “sent away” to Washington State rather than she went to Kenya. I don’t think C Bowen was arguing for a Kenyan birth. He was just bringing up the issue of the mom’s rather soon post partum move to Washington. The move, which is now seemingly conceded by all, already contradicts the narrative from his book and his “son of a goat herder” Democrat Convention speech. He implies that his father left when he was around two. But now we know that his mom and alleged father likely never or only very briefly lived together as husband and wife.

    I’ll try to address your questions specifically when I get time, but try to think like someone who doesn’t buy the official line, instead of like someone who takes the official story for granted. The issue isn’t just about citizenship. The issue is about the accuracy of the whole narrative. Once you create a story you’re stuck with it unless you come clean. So the point in hiding things might not just be to prevent some scandalous detail from emerging, but also to prevent the release of otherwise benign details that would contradict the story.

  12. ehancock

    Re: “But now we know that his mom and alleged father likely never or only very briefly lived together as husband and wife.’

    So?

    Obama either got that fact wrong or made a mistake about it, so what? The issue was ELIGIBILITY. ALL politicians’ biographies have mistakes and lies in them. Big deal, Obama has some mistakes and lies in his too–so what?

    If Obama was born either in Hawaii or the State of Washington he was born in the USA. That makes him a Natural Born US Citizen.

    Bowen alleges that Obama’s family supported the ruling party in Indonesia. If it did, so what—he was a kid at the time, and their sins (if they are sins, a lot of people in the US government supported the ruling party in Indonesia) cannot be inherited by their children.

    The fact that Obama’s mother went from Hawaii to Washington AFTER Obama was born does not prove that she traveled at all (much less out of the country) BEFORE he was born.

    Logically, unless somehow Obama forged his birth certificate AND slipped a copy of it into the Hawaii DOH files, he was in fact born in Hawaii.

    That is because the short-form birth certificate says that Obama was born in Hawaii, and short form birth certificates are generated by clerks looking into the files, seeing the facts that are in the files and entering them on the computer form that generates the short-form BC. So, the clerk MUST have see a BC that said that Obama was born in Hawaii. You could claim, of course, that the clerk was lying, and that the officials of the Republican governor’s administration who checked on the clerk and said that indeed the document in the files said that OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII were also lying—but that would be difficult to believe. Or, you could claim that the birth certificate in the file is a forgery, but that is also difficult to believe–how would a junior senator from Illinois do that?

    So, unless Obama somehow slipped a forgery into the DOH files in 2007 AND arranged for the birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send notices to the “Health Bureau Statistics” section of the paper, and it only did so for births in Hawaii) AND arranged for the teacher who claimed to have written home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley—then Obama was indeed born in Hawaii.

    Some things that show that Obama was born in Hawaii:

    1. Obama’s two official birth certificates, with the state seals on them. (The official physical copy of the long-form birth certificate was handed around in the White House press room, and one reporter said that she had felt the seal and took a photo of the document.

    2. The confirmation of the facts on the two birth certificates (short form and long form)—-that Obama was born in Hawaii—by THREE Republican officials in Hawaii (including the former Republican governor, a friend of Saraah Palin’s) and by several Democrats, and by the public Index Data file. The acceptance of the written confirmation of the facts on Obama’s birth certificate by the conservative secretary of state of Arizona.

    3. The notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 that were sent to the papers “Health Bureau Statistics” section by the DOH of Hawaii—-and only the DOH could send those notices. (Also, the claim that the DOH could have been influenced by lying relatives turns out to be false because whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital, Hawaii insisted on a witness statement.)

    4. The absence of a US travel document for Obama in 1961. Nor has there been an application for such a travel document found. (A child born in a foreign country would, of course, require either to be on his mother’s US passport or to receive a US visa on a foreign passport. Either of which would have had to have been done IN a US consulate in that foreign country, and the application for that document would still exist, and would have been found by the Bush Administration during the eight years in which it was in charge of the US State Department, but they didn’t.)

    5. The teacher, who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii in Kapiolani Hospital in 1961 and writing home about it (about the birth to a woman named Stanley to her father, also named Stanley).

    6. Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was BORN IN HAWAII, and she said in another interview (Hartford Courant) that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter FROM HAWAII.

    7. Hawaii is thousands of miles from any foreign country, and it was rare for women to travel late in pregnancy in those days. WND has proved with a FOI Act request that Obama’s father remained in Hawaii throughout 1961, which would have meant that she would have had to have made that long, expensive and risky trip without him—and that is hardly likely at all.

  13. Hawthorne

    Hawaii is not a legitimate state, so that legal line of inquiry has no purpose here, but you reveal your legalistic point of view nevertheless.

    That said, Red is correct, I just look for holes in the story and point out that legalism are cluttering the narrative of a deeply connected family in the Dunhams and their curious life that no author wants to deal with, hence a rightwing ‘fraud to the thrown’, ever the monarchists that they are.

    I happen to think Obama was born in HI, just not in early August–Stanley Dunham’s trip to Washington state might have been as early as late August–it’s ambiguous, and an eyewitness, a friend of hers, places her in the states with Obama at 3-weeks of age. I am just saying that a newborn on a lengthy flight is torture, that we can agree right?

  14. ehancock

    Re: “Hawaii is not a legitimate state…’

    Answer: Hawaii is a perfectly legitimate state. We agree that Obama was born there. That makes him a Natural Born Citizen..

    Re: ” a newborn on a lengthy flight is torture, that we can agree right?”

    Answer: Since Obama really was born in EARLY August (you have not a shred of proof to the contrary, and the officials in Hawaii of BOTH parties say that the facts on Obama’s birth certificate are EXACTLY the same as the long-form BC that is online) and since the university started in LATE September (and Obama’s mother may have missed the first few course meetings), Obama was roughly two months old.

    The trip may not have been good for him, but so what?

  15. Ranchoazulmt

    Natural Born US Citizen as defined when the Constitution was written says that Both parents are either naturalized citizens or citizens by birth when the child is born.

    In 1961 the country of Kenya was a British territory and his father was a subject of the British. His fathers brithplace was put down as Kenya and he was not a naturalized US citizen when Obama was born.

    That requirement was written to ensure that the President could not have birth ties to two countries and therefore have two seperate home countries (like Obama does.) The writers of the Constitution had just fought the British to esablish their own country. They certainly did not want a President with Divided loyalties being elected and have to fight the British all over again.

    That is why the phrase Natural Born US Citizen is included under the requirements for Precidency vice just saying Citizen. He is a citizen but does not meet the higher Natural Born US Citizen criteria.

    By the way, I am not a birther but I can read the Constitution and the words are pretty small and understandable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>