Ed Morrissey Obama absolver teaches hot air rules of evidence

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/23/does-this-kill-the-obama-birth-certificate-myth/

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air

Undoubtedly, this will not stop the speculation among conspiracy theorists. Taking a spin through the comments and the trackbacks at the site, one title actually says in part, “Mystery continues.” Unless someone wants to argue that the Advertiser decided to participate in a conspiracy at Obama’s birth in 1961 to provide false citizenship on the off-chance that an infant from a union of a Kenyan father and a teenage mother would run for President, then I’d say the “mystery” is over.

(not linked to in post but the reference “mystery continues” in the page indicated is to this blog.

http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/texas-darlin-finds-proof-obama-born-hawaii-mystery-continues/

)

Back to analyzing the logic in EM’s long sentence.

“the Advertiser decided to participate in a conspiracy at Obama’s birth in 1961 to provide false citizenship on the off-chance that an infant from a union of a Kenyan father and a teenage mother would run for President”

According to EM, each element of this union must be true or there is no mystery. Lets list them all out. Notice its an AND logical operator that applies between each element of the list.

1. the Advertiser decided
2. to participate
3. conspiracy
4. at Obama’s birth
5. in 1961
6. to provide false citizenship

which now depends on the following linked set, again connected by the AND operator.

1. off-chance
2. that an infant
3. from a union of a Kenyan father and a teenage mother
4. would run for President

So if the first list all happened, but some element of the second was missing, according to EM, there is no mystery. Thus the paper could have done every single item in the first list, but if it wasn’t for the intention of the second list, then it would not be a mystery. It is what he wrote.

What about the following questions for Mr. Ed.

1. What if Obama was adopted in Indonesia by his step-father and changed his name legally to his step-father’s last name?
2. What if Obama was enrolled in school as a citizen of Indonesia and this was marked on official documents?
3. What if Obama later filed to change his name in the U.S. from what it had been changed to in Indonesia?
4. What if he didn’t bother, and just picked up the old US name when in America?
5. If Obama became a citizen of Indonesia, when did his citizenship lapse?
6. Did Obama send notice to Indonesia of it?
7. Does Indonesia require registration of a person’s religion?
8. Is Obama registered as a Muslim citizen of Indonesia?
9. To this day?
10. What about his mother?
11. What about citizenship registrations in Kenya?
12. Did Obama visit Pakistan in 1981 when only Muslims were allowed to visit, according to some reports, and visit as a Muslim?
13. What if Obama reverted back to his father’s name in the US because Obama was in a Muslim religious phase?
14. What if Obama at birth was not in fact Barack Hussein Obama II but something else?
15. What if Michelle Obama is right that Obama’s mother was single when he was born?
16. If Michelle Obama is right, doesn’t that mean the newspaper is wrong on the Mr. and Mrs Obama?
17. If the newspaper is wrong on that, doesn’t that cast doubt on whether it is right on anything else it asserted?
18. Does the newspaper say the baby was born in Hawaii?
19. Doesn’t Hawaii allow a registration that is late to parents for a birth not in Hawaii?
20. Is the newspaper announcement a registration?
21. The word African appears as the race on Obama’s birth certificate on his web page. At any time from 1961 to present has Hawaii used that as a race? Did Obama petition to have that changed to its current form?
22. Did Obama ever attend a mosque?
23. Did he attend religious class in Arabic?
24. Was that the basis of his quoting the Muslim Call to Prayer in Arabic to Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times in 2007, which is apparently on tape?http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/kristof-new-york-times-has-tape-obama-muslim-prayer-arabic/
25. The list goes on of Obama mysteries. When did he meet Ayers and Dohrn? Did Michelle Obama meet Dorhn at the law firm they both were at in the 1980’s?
26. http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/ayers-dohrn-obama/

Mystery is work. You have to study and review evidence.

We have the FRE, Federal Rules of Evidence, and then we have the Ed Morrissey, Hot Air Rules of Evidence, HARE.

Let’s compare the FRE to the HARE

1. Common plan or method evidence. FRE in. HARE out. (Obama has a common tendency to say, no tape, no case. Or no files no case. Then he doesn’t release the files.)
2. Hearsay exceptions. FRE: in. HARE: out.
3. Jury listens to all the evidence before forming a conclusion. FRE in. HARE out.
4. If its complicated, its still admissible. FRE in. HARE out.
5. If you have to read, you know, like two entries in Wiki then its too complicated.
6. Evidence is only admissible to prove what the evidence says, not more, unless combined by logic. FRE in. HARE out.
7. Combination inferences. FRE in. HARE out.
8. Expert testimony. FRE in. HARE out. (The green border that is the wrong color to any known Hawaii COLB for example.)

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-born-in-hawaii-wrong-can-of-worms/
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5695

List of Adrian Messenger

Not to spoil the movie for you Ed, but the main plot is solved, but the mystery remains and there are actual several at the end that are wrapped up. You can find out who did it, and then there are still little mysteries left to tie up. Glad you didn’t waste your time or money on writing or reading or listening to mysteries, since you were busy on your new Simplified Hot Air Rules of Evidence, SHARE. Under SHARE, you just say what you feel and that is all the proof you need.

In the SHARE system, you just say, Let me share this with you, and what follows is admissible. Like the lengthy unions of disparate elements in the sentence analyzed at the top. This is an example of SHARE thinking. You don’t use logic to analyze what you say, you say what you feel.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/

You can buy a copy of the FRE in a little size that fits in your pocket. You can take it to the gym or on walks or the bus or subway if you ride to work.

NITA publishes it, I get nothing from this link.

http://images.google.com/images?num=100&hl=en&suggon=0&safe=off&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=federal%20rules%20of%20evidence%20nita&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

You can also study the FRE on audio-tape, every good law bookstore carries them.

My fav is Faust F. Rossi (no not even an Amazon fee to me)

http://www.amazon.com/Law-School-Legends-Evidence-Audio/dp/0314160949

He has many comic characters who illustrate fallacies in the law of evidence. You might volunteer to be one for his next tape. Morrissey’s Fallacy. Except there seem to be multiple ones.

My favorite law bookstore is Washington Law Books. If you live in the DC area or get there you can shop there. (No fee to me either.)

http://www.washingtonlawbooks.com/index.cgi

Files we are waiting for Obama to authorize released.

1. Hawaii birth certificate.
2. Hospital he was born in, wherever in the world.
3. Indonesia – passport, school, adoption, citizenship, mosque
4. States: Hawaii, Washington, Illinois, NY, Mass, DC.
5. Canada any birth records, even none to apply to hospitals, customs, etc.
6. Kenya: any registration as a citizen. Religion. Any records relating to his recent trips or activities.
7. Pakistan: In 1981 did he travel there as a Muslim?
8. US: Passport, FBI, tax, etc. Also Social Security registration of his name and any changes.
9. Countries: US, Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan, Canada.
10. Schools: Indonesia. Also at Harvard, did he get financial support from the Ayers family? Any letter of reference. The full file.

Ed Morrissey: No mystery about Obama.

Obama himself, stock answer: No tape, no case. No files, no case.

Ed, haven’t we had enough, “no tape, no case” presidents? Do we need another? Right now? Do we need to replace the phrase OJ lawyers with Obama lawyers?

I don’t expect you to answer this Ed, because its combination evidence, and that just takes too long to learn.

==Additional links on this issue.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/obamas-birth-no.html

==

I assume Ed wrote his off hand comment with little thought or consideration or respect for any of those he included in it. The point of this post is to point out there is a substantial basis for questioning Obama and his defenses and for finding a common plan of hiding evidence on his life and delaying answering or making files available until too late.

The many who have spent time on this have made a contribution. This includes Texas Darlin, Larry Johnson, Polarik, Techdude and others. We have learned a great deal about documents and their provenance. As pointed out in another post, everything under the sun that man does is allowed to be studied by man. This includes why Obama’s COLB on his webpage does not look like other COLB’s in certain respects, especially the border appearance. That is still a mystery. Obama has delayed answering.

The overall set of issues are more than just the COLB. Obama has a common plan or method of avoiding answers, delaying answers, keeping files closed, and then providing skimpy bits of info to seem like he is providing due diligence to the person who casually follows the news but who doesn’t pay attention. Axelrod Obama are targeting that group by their methods. The Axelrod method is you give out little bits of nothing in answer to serious document requests and delay, delay, and delay.

The COLB links into many other issues, but by itself is not the sum total of the mystery of Obama’s life. He keeps avoiding answering questions, providing documents and authorizing governments, schools, mosques or others to answer questions or release documents. This common plan or method is worthy of being pointed out and is itself grounds for the trier of fact, the voters, to reject the candidacy of Obama, even if he provides some partial answers that are accurate within certain limits from time to time. But as we have seen, Obama can change his answers and remove information from his web page. Maybe even Hot Air has some examples.

This is draft and preliminary. Comments and corrections are welcome. This is opinion, speculation or hypothesis. This is subject to revision. All other disclaimers apply.