Trump Needs to Shift to Second Gear on Birth Certificate Challenge

According to the typical liberal media narrative, those of us who have questioned President Obama's life documents are kooks.  Nuts.  Creeps.  "Birthers."  When Donald Trump raises issues with the birth certificate, members of the left, right, and center assume that he's doing so for political reasons and that there's no real story.  They use the Old Jedi Mind Trick: "nothing to see here ... move along."

There's only one problem.  There's something to see here.

There has been an enormous amount of misinformation with regard to Obama's life documents from well-meaning grassroots activists (some of whom are too trusting or inexperienced to know how to vet information properly) to media personalities (who are often sloppy and/or ignorant of the facts involved) to agenda-driven snake oil salesmen (who are using grassroots ire to fundraise or sell their books) to outright disinformation supplied by the Obama Administration itself.  But just because there are many people who confuse the life documents issue doesn't mean there isn't one.

In fact, there are two.

For over two years, I have been privy to private investigators' files, have seen private investigations of other private investigations, have done my own research -- and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are two crucial problems with President Obama's life documents.  First, the registration number on Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" (which, as Trump recently explained to an incredulous Meredith Vieira, is not a long form birth certificate) is out of sequence to other birth certificates issued on the very next day in Hawaii to a pair of twins named Nordyke (certifications of live birth and birth certificates carry the same registration number). 

Second, according to a private investigator, Susan Daniels, whose work was validated by at least two other investigators I'm aware of, the Social Security number that Obama used for approximately 25 years was issued with a Connecticut-based number, though neither Obama nor anyone in his family lived in that state at any point during their lifetimes.  Bill O'Reilly claimed on his April 14, 2011, show that Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr., lived in Connecticut "for several years", but when I called O'Reilly for verification of his source(s), I was put into a voicemail and received no return call. As of this writing, it appears that O'Reilly's Mailbag Segment on Obama's Social Security number has been scrubbed by Fox News from the podcast of the show, along with some viewer mail on the subject.

Contrary to Mr. O'Reilly's claim and according to private investigations, after Obama Sr. left Hawaii, he lived in Cambridge, Mass, which he left for Africa in 1965.  Obama Sr. never worked or took classes in Connecticut, and no one has ever proven or even given a reason for his living in that state.  We know that 1977-79 was the period when Obama's Connecticut-based Social Security number was issued because private investigators have tracked down the dates when the Social Security numbers directly above and below Obama's number were issued.  Both of these numbers were issued to Connecticut residents. But from 1972 until his death in a car crash in 1982, Barack Obama Sr. was in Kenya.  During this period he was never in America. We reach this conclusion because Obama Sr.'s addresses have been tracked and can be seen in several private investigator data bases.

So it appears Obama Sr. had nothing to do with the application for Obama's Social Security number, as Mr. O'Reilly suggested. But then again, this is the same O'Reilly who also announced on his April 14th show that, although Obama's birth certificate has not been made public, Hawaii officials have it on file. This about-face conflicts with his 2008 statement that he'd actually seen the birth certificate and that's how he knows Obama is legitimate. "We have a copy of it," he said at the time. (NB: such a possession would have been illegal.)

Not only have these issues been ignored or derided by the press, any attempt to answer these questions has been stymied at the state level.  Obscured by countless charges and counter-charges, and under the cover of stealth legislation, Hawaii has changed the law and the language with regard to the release of birth certificates, making it very difficult if not impossible to establish the veracity of any charges with regard to Obama's.  One can only surmise that if fraud has indeed occurred, a cover-up of that fraud was the goal -- and accomplishment  -- here. 

But we need not allow state governments, or anyone, to cover up the Obama birth certificate conundrum.  There is something we can do.  We can ask states to adopt legislation that requires candidates to make public their long form birth certificates in order to be placed on the presidential ballot, and in accordance with Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.  Arizona has already attempted something along these lines, but Arizona's law doesn't go far enough: it permits forensics testing only on secondary documents -- which is to say, if a long form birth certificate is not submitted, there will be no forensics testing on it.  Instead, states must pass bills requiring forensics testing of any and all life documents submitted to them, if questions arise about them.

In order to push for such legislation, we all must shift into second gear.  Instead of asking "where is the birth certificate?," we must now demand that whatever documents are released on a candidate's life, such documents must be subjected to forensic testing.  Anyone who's concealed his documents (and hired lawyers to fight efforts in court to reveal his place of birth), as Mr. Obama has, appears not trustworthy; his actions alone demand forensics testing for any document he produces as proof of his "natural born" status.  As Ronald Reagan famously put it, "Trust, but verify."

To date, no such total verification has taken place and thus secrets remain hidden.  Instead, sloppy reporting and careless statements, including one made by the Republican National Committee (whom I also called to verify their sources and have received no return call), have been based on second-hand reporting rather than on investigative fact checking.  And Obama has something to hide.  If he didn't, Obama's attorney, Bob Bauer, would not be sending bullying letters to other attorneys promising sanctions, court costs, etc., if the birth certificate case were pursued against them (see threatening letter here).  Obama wouldn't be spending money to defend against these lawsuits if there were no problems -- he'd be releasing his documentation pronto.  For his trouble, Bob Bauer has been promoted to White House Counsel.  Clearly, Obama's life documents -- which remain sealed from public view -- pose a problem for him, and the behavior of his inner circle proves it.

This is something that Mr. Trump seems to know instinctively.  He has been unafraid in his pursuit of Obama's birth certificate.  He has suggested an investigation of Hawaiian Governor Neil Abercrombie, who brashly promised that he would release Obama's birth certificate when he took office, only to say -- after having dug into the birth records -- that he didn't know he wasn't allowed to release such a thing.  After Mr. Trump's perfectly reasonable suggestion, Abercrombie has been quiet. 

Trump has stated that he has investigators on the ground in Hawaii checking on the birth certificate firsthand, and has stated that they "can't believe" what they are finding.   Trump may understand that deception has already occurred here -- when Obama released his "Certification of Live Birth" in 2007 as if it were a valid birth certificate, it appears he meant to deceive the public. Trump's refusal to back off the birth certificate issue has the elites frowning, the base in an uproar, and Obama on his heels.

Meanwhile, the Republican establishment continues to shrink from the once-in-a-lifetime political opportunity Obama has handed them by his concealments.  Frightened to attack Obama's "character," they instead insist on attacking his policies -- the same failed strategy that McCain (and they) have already tried.  The Obama campaign and presidency, day after day, assassinated Bush's character (and now others) and lied continually, full of guile, about Obama's policies and political beliefs at the same time, and they continue this practice even today. 

Why? Because it's effective. The vast majority of Americans already agree with Republicans on the major issues -- health care, "don't ask, don't tell," the stimulus package, the deficit -- policy arguments which Republicans have lost to Obama because they refuse to pull out the big guns.  Were the Democrats thinking about beating Nixon on policy when they went after him on Watergate? The Republicans seem willing to allow Obama to waltz to a second term, unchallenged in this terribly important Constitutional issue, and Americans care deeply about their Constitution, simply out of spinelessness.

Trump has a spine, which is why he is gaining momentum and has pulled way ahead of the pack.  Now we must convert that momentum into action.  Instead of passing judgment about who is crazy or sane on the issues of the birth certificate and the Social Security number, we must ask Obama to show his hand, and we then must forensically test whatever he has, or he must fold.  Forensics testing is not an outlandish idea; as distasteful as this analogy might be -- a sordid affair vs. a serious Constitutional issue -- forensics testing of a blue dress a few years ago revealed another set of lies of a young U.S. president, also attempting to defraud the public.

Because of the irregularities and unanswered questions outlined above, certainly the American people have a right to know whether the birth record that supposedly establishes the eligibility of their president is un-tampered with.  And they also have a right to know whether the social security number that he has been using is genuinely his or stolen.  Use of another person's social security number is a felony. 

In the interests of full transparency and disclosure, in the interests of protecting the Constitution and the integrity of our elections, we need to force Obama and all other presidential candidates to show us their birth certificates before they join any presidential campaign and demonstrate they are eligible to serve us.  Anything less is a deep betrayal of our most basic democratic ideals.

Carol A. Taber is president of FamilySecurityMatters.org
According to the typical liberal media narrative, those of us who have questioned President Obama's life documents are kooks.  Nuts.  Creeps.  "Birthers."  When Donald Trump raises issues with the birth certificate, members of the left, right, and center assume that he's doing so for political reasons and that there's no real story.  They use the Old Jedi Mind Trick: "nothing to see here ... move along."

There's only one problem.  There's something to see here.

There has been an enormous amount of misinformation with regard to Obama's life documents from well-meaning grassroots activists (some of whom are too trusting or inexperienced to know how to vet information properly) to media personalities (who are often sloppy and/or ignorant of the facts involved) to agenda-driven snake oil salesmen (who are using grassroots ire to fundraise or sell their books) to outright disinformation supplied by the Obama Administration itself.  But just because there are many people who confuse the life documents issue doesn't mean there isn't one.

In fact, there are two.

For over two years, I have been privy to private investigators' files, have seen private investigations of other private investigations, have done my own research -- and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are two crucial problems with President Obama's life documents.  First, the registration number on Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" (which, as Trump recently explained to an incredulous Meredith Vieira, is not a long form birth certificate) is out of sequence to other birth certificates issued on the very next day in Hawaii to a pair of twins named Nordyke (certifications of live birth and birth certificates carry the same registration number). 

Second, according to a private investigator, Susan Daniels, whose work was validated by at least two other investigators I'm aware of, the Social Security number that Obama used for approximately 25 years was issued with a Connecticut-based number, though neither Obama nor anyone in his family lived in that state at any point during their lifetimes.  Bill O'Reilly claimed on his April 14, 2011, show that Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr., lived in Connecticut "for several years", but when I called O'Reilly for verification of his source(s), I was put into a voicemail and received no return call. As of this writing, it appears that O'Reilly's Mailbag Segment on Obama's Social Security number has been scrubbed by Fox News from the podcast of the show, along with some viewer mail on the subject.

Contrary to Mr. O'Reilly's claim and according to private investigations, after Obama Sr. left Hawaii, he lived in Cambridge, Mass, which he left for Africa in 1965.  Obama Sr. never worked or took classes in Connecticut, and no one has ever proven or even given a reason for his living in that state.  We know that 1977-79 was the period when Obama's Connecticut-based Social Security number was issued because private investigators have tracked down the dates when the Social Security numbers directly above and below Obama's number were issued.  Both of these numbers were issued to Connecticut residents. But from 1972 until his death in a car crash in 1982, Barack Obama Sr. was in Kenya.  During this period he was never in America. We reach this conclusion because Obama Sr.'s addresses have been tracked and can be seen in several private investigator data bases.

So it appears Obama Sr. had nothing to do with the application for Obama's Social Security number, as Mr. O'Reilly suggested. But then again, this is the same O'Reilly who also announced on his April 14th show that, although Obama's birth certificate has not been made public, Hawaii officials have it on file. This about-face conflicts with his 2008 statement that he'd actually seen the birth certificate and that's how he knows Obama is legitimate. "We have a copy of it," he said at the time. (NB: such a possession would have been illegal.)

Not only have these issues been ignored or derided by the press, any attempt to answer these questions has been stymied at the state level.  Obscured by countless charges and counter-charges, and under the cover of stealth legislation, Hawaii has changed the law and the language with regard to the release of birth certificates, making it very difficult if not impossible to establish the veracity of any charges with regard to Obama's.  One can only surmise that if fraud has indeed occurred, a cover-up of that fraud was the goal -- and accomplishment  -- here. 

But we need not allow state governments, or anyone, to cover up the Obama birth certificate conundrum.  There is something we can do.  We can ask states to adopt legislation that requires candidates to make public their long form birth certificates in order to be placed on the presidential ballot, and in accordance with Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.  Arizona has already attempted something along these lines, but Arizona's law doesn't go far enough: it permits forensics testing only on secondary documents -- which is to say, if a long form birth certificate is not submitted, there will be no forensics testing on it.  Instead, states must pass bills requiring forensics testing of any and all life documents submitted to them, if questions arise about them.

In order to push for such legislation, we all must shift into second gear.  Instead of asking "where is the birth certificate?," we must now demand that whatever documents are released on a candidate's life, such documents must be subjected to forensic testing.  Anyone who's concealed his documents (and hired lawyers to fight efforts in court to reveal his place of birth), as Mr. Obama has, appears not trustworthy; his actions alone demand forensics testing for any document he produces as proof of his "natural born" status.  As Ronald Reagan famously put it, "Trust, but verify."

To date, no such total verification has taken place and thus secrets remain hidden.  Instead, sloppy reporting and careless statements, including one made by the Republican National Committee (whom I also called to verify their sources and have received no return call), have been based on second-hand reporting rather than on investigative fact checking.  And Obama has something to hide.  If he didn't, Obama's attorney, Bob Bauer, would not be sending bullying letters to other attorneys promising sanctions, court costs, etc., if the birth certificate case were pursued against them (see threatening letter here).  Obama wouldn't be spending money to defend against these lawsuits if there were no problems -- he'd be releasing his documentation pronto.  For his trouble, Bob Bauer has been promoted to White House Counsel.  Clearly, Obama's life documents -- which remain sealed from public view -- pose a problem for him, and the behavior of his inner circle proves it.

This is something that Mr. Trump seems to know instinctively.  He has been unafraid in his pursuit of Obama's birth certificate.  He has suggested an investigation of Hawaiian Governor Neil Abercrombie, who brashly promised that he would release Obama's birth certificate when he took office, only to say -- after having dug into the birth records -- that he didn't know he wasn't allowed to release such a thing.  After Mr. Trump's perfectly reasonable suggestion, Abercrombie has been quiet. 

Trump has stated that he has investigators on the ground in Hawaii checking on the birth certificate firsthand, and has stated that they "can't believe" what they are finding.   Trump may understand that deception has already occurred here -- when Obama released his "Certification of Live Birth" in 2007 as if it were a valid birth certificate, it appears he meant to deceive the public. Trump's refusal to back off the birth certificate issue has the elites frowning, the base in an uproar, and Obama on his heels.

Meanwhile, the Republican establishment continues to shrink from the once-in-a-lifetime political opportunity Obama has handed them by his concealments.  Frightened to attack Obama's "character," they instead insist on attacking his policies -- the same failed strategy that McCain (and they) have already tried.  The Obama campaign and presidency, day after day, assassinated Bush's character (and now others) and lied continually, full of guile, about Obama's policies and political beliefs at the same time, and they continue this practice even today. 

Why? Because it's effective. The vast majority of Americans already agree with Republicans on the major issues -- health care, "don't ask, don't tell," the stimulus package, the deficit -- policy arguments which Republicans have lost to Obama because they refuse to pull out the big guns.  Were the Democrats thinking about beating Nixon on policy when they went after him on Watergate? The Republicans seem willing to allow Obama to waltz to a second term, unchallenged in this terribly important Constitutional issue, and Americans care deeply about their Constitution, simply out of spinelessness.

Trump has a spine, which is why he is gaining momentum and has pulled way ahead of the pack.  Now we must convert that momentum into action.  Instead of passing judgment about who is crazy or sane on the issues of the birth certificate and the Social Security number, we must ask Obama to show his hand, and we then must forensically test whatever he has, or he must fold.  Forensics testing is not an outlandish idea; as distasteful as this analogy might be -- a sordid affair vs. a serious Constitutional issue -- forensics testing of a blue dress a few years ago revealed another set of lies of a young U.S. president, also attempting to defraud the public.

Because of the irregularities and unanswered questions outlined above, certainly the American people have a right to know whether the birth record that supposedly establishes the eligibility of their president is un-tampered with.  And they also have a right to know whether the social security number that he has been using is genuinely his or stolen.  Use of another person's social security number is a felony. 

In the interests of full transparency and disclosure, in the interests of protecting the Constitution and the integrity of our elections, we need to force Obama and all other presidential candidates to show us their birth certificates before they join any presidential campaign and demonstrate they are eligible to serve us.  Anything less is a deep betrayal of our most basic democratic ideals.

Carol A. Taber is president of FamilySecurityMatters.org