Obama: True and False

April 27, 2011 • 1:33 pm Comments Off

True! State of Hawaii Health Department Confirmed Obama’s Original Birth Certificate On File

On April 27, 2011, President Obama released his long form birth certificate, provided at his request by the Hawaii Department of Health, and showing he was born on August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii–just as he’s always said he was.

President Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/7751154

View more documents from White House

False! Executive Order 13489 Sealed Obama’s Birth Records On January 21, 2009

Executive Order 13489 was signed by President Barack Obama on January 21, 2009, his first day in office; that much is true. However, it applies to presidential work product, not personal records of presidents.

President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12667 on January 18, 1989, authorizing the United States Archivist to release presidential records for past presidents and for future presidents who did not object within 30 days of notification of release. Executive Order 12667 was in effect until November 5, 2001, when President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13233, revoking it. The Bush order made presidential records unavailable for 12 years following the end of a presidency and extended the notification period from 30 days to 90 days.

President Obama’s Executive Order 13489 revoked Bush’s order and substantively reinstated Reagan’s, thereby expanding access to presidential records, rather than narrowing it, as Birthers choose to think. But most importantly, as far as Birther mythology goes, no president’s birth records were involved in any of the three Executive Orders; therefore, President Obama did not seal his birth records with Executive Order 13489. His birth records are sealed by law in the State of Hawaii, where he was born, like anybody else’s.

Filed under: Biography, Executive Order, False!

January 23, 2011 • 12:33 am Comments Off

True! Hawaii issues only “Certifications of Live Birth” as official Birth Certificates

The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.

The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.

And, it’s only available in electronic form.

Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.

“At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.

Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.

–

Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.”

“The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models,” she said.

Okubo also emphasized the certification form “contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate.”

She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”

The issue of what constitutes an official Hawaii birth certificate received national attention during last year’s presidential campaign. Those who doubted Barack Obama’s American citizenship called the copy of the Hawaii birth document posted on his campaign Web site a fake.

Asked about that document, Okubo said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.”

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, June 6, 2009

Filed under: Birth Certificate, True!

October 8, 2010 • 1:58 pm Comments Off

False! Stanley Ann Dunham’s SS-5 Filed 1959 Revised 1965

Larger image here.

A contemporary SS-5 filed a year earlier in 1958:

Filed under: Biography, False!

May 3, 2010 • 2:44 pm Comments Off

True! Hospitals Cannot Disclose Birth Records

US Department of Health and Human Services: HIPAA Privacy Rule

Protected Health Information. The Privacy Rule protects all “individually identifiable health information” held or transmitted by a covered entity or its business associate, in any form or media, whether electronic, paper, or oral. The Privacy Rule calls this information “protected health information (PHI).”12

“Individually identifiable health information” is information, including demographic data, that relates to:

* the individual’s past, present or future physical or mental health or condition,
* the provision of health care to the individual, or
* the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual,

and that identifies the individual or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe it can be used to identify the individual.13 Individually identifiable health information includes many common identifiers (e.g., name, address, birth date, Social Security Number).

Criminal Penalties. A person who knowingly obtains or discloses individually identifiable health information in violation of the Privacy Rule may face a criminal penalty of up to $50,000 and up to one-year imprisonment. The criminal penalties increase to $100,000 and up to five years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves false pretenses, and to $250,000 and up to 10 years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves the intent to sell, transfer, or use identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain or malicious harm.

Filed under: Birth Certificate, Citizenship, True!

April 16, 2010 • 4:41 pm Comments Off

True! 1961 Birth Announcements Reported As Hawaii Bureau Of Health Statistics

Announcement of Nordyke twins, who were born contemporaneously with Barack Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 5, 1961. Note heading of newspaper column for August 16, 1961 Honolulu Advertiser, ‘Health Bureau Statistics’ announcing their birth:

Announcement of Barack Obama’s birth on August 4, 1961, published August 13, 1961 in the Honolulu Advertiser:

Washington Independent:

Parents and relatives don’t, and didn’t, get to place birth announcements in the Honolulu Advertiser or the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. As a Star-Bulletin employee explained to WorldNetDaily, the editors “print what we receive from the Department of Health Vital Statistics System,” and did so in 1961. And the Advertiser worked the same way.

Filed under: Birth Certificate, Citizenship, Media, True!

July 30, 2009 • 3:05 am Comments Off

False! Obama’s Father’s Race Would Have Been Reported as “Negro” In 1961 Hawaii

Parents’ race self-reported in Hawaii:

We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn’t tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama’s father’s race listed as “African”? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father’s race and mother’s race are supplied by the parents, and that “we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be.” We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as “African.”

FactCheck.org

A Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth, issued in 1973 and certifying a 1907 birth record, exhibits nationality as race:

Father’s Race: American

Mother’s Race: Hawaiian

IMAGE

Here a 1977 Certification of Live Birth again shows nationality as race:

Mother’s Race: Japanese

Father’s Race: Japanese

IMAGE

How Kenyans reported their race in their own country in the 1960s:

Race.- Write European, Arab, Somali, or African, etc. Asians must write Indian or Pakistan.

Instructions for the 1962 Population Census of Kenya

Filed under: False!

July 29, 2009 • 4:25 pm Comments Off

True! Political Opposition Research On Obama’s Eligibility Turned Up Nothing

McCain Campaign Investigated, Dismissed Obama Citizenship Rumors
Frivolous ‘Birther’ Lawsuits Fuel Conspiracy Theories, Media Coverage

By David Weigel 7/24/09 8:38 AM

In the final months of the 2008 presidential race, Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) campaign learned of a lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania that asked the state to strip Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) of the Democratic nomination on suspicion that he was not an American citizen. The complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed by Phil Berg, a former deputy state attorney general who left government in 1990 for a series of gadfly political campaigns. His last round of notoriety had come when he filed RICO complaints against George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein and multiple members of the Bush administration for “accountability” for the 9/11 attacks. Still, Berg’s complaint had gotten glancing local media attention, and the Democratic National Committee’s counsel had filed a motion to dismiss it. One lawyer who was doing some work for the campaign was tasked with reading Berg’s lawsuit and gauging its chances of success.

“The conversation was along the lines of ‘this is idiotic, but explain to me why,’” said the lawyer, who spoke under condition of anonymity to TWI. “I looked at whether the lawsuit was going to be dismissed. I said yes.”

-snip

“We monitored the progress of these lawsuits against the Obama campaign,” said Trevor Potter, a Washington attorney who served as general counsel to the 2008 and 2000 McCain presidential campaigns. “The McCain campaign faced a series of lawsuits like this, too, alleging that he could not be president because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Both campaigns took the position that these plaintiffs lacked standing.”

-snip

While they ruled out any chance of the ‘birther’ lawsuits holding up in court, lawyers for the McCain campaign did check into the rumors about Obama’s birth and the assertions made by Berg and others. “To the extent that we could, we looked into the substantive side of these allegations,” said Potter. “We never saw any evidence that then-Senator Obama had been born outside of the United States. We saw rumors, but nothing that could be sourced to evidence. There were no statements and no documents that suggested he was born somewhere else. On the other side, there was proof that he was born in Hawaii. There was a certificate issued by the state’s Department of Health, and the responsible official in the state saying that he had personally seen the original certificate. There was a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser, which would be very difficult to invent or plant 47 years in advance.”

Washington Independent

Keyes and Birthers, Buckley and Birchers
By Bill Pascoe | July 28, 2009 12:30 PM |

As one of the GOP operatives whose job it was to defeat Barack Obama in a campaign for federal office (there have only been three GOP campaigns run against him, and I’ve been involved with two of them), I can attest to the fact that [b]nowhere in our opposition research did we find any reason to believe that the man was not a natural born citizen of the United States[/b].

I can also attest to the fact that this man — who, at about 1:22 into this video, shot on February 20 of this year, lays out the Birther case against Obama — never raised any doubts about Obama’s alleged overseas birth while he was running against Obama for the United States Senate in Illinois in 2004.

Oh, Alan Keyes said all sorts of other nutty things while he was the GOP Senate nominee in 2004, the kinds of things that cause campaign operatives to go gray prematurely — “Jesus Christ would not vote for my opponent,” Second Daughter Mary Cheney was a “selfish hedonist,” and other such bon mots — but he never once challenged Obama’s place of birth.

CQ Politics

Filed under: Birth Certificate, Citizenship, Politics, True!

June 24, 2009 • 1:13 pm Comments Off

False! President Obama was a Citizen of Indonesia

US Department of State/US Department of Homeland Security:

- President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a U.S. “natural born” citizen and is eligible to serve as the United States President, pursuant to the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

- President Obama is not an illegal alien and has never been a citizen of Indonesia.

- President Obama never was adopted by Lolo Soetoro.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Case No. 1:08-CV-02234 (RJL)
Strunk v. US Department of State, US Department of Homeland Security

Filed under: Biography, Citizenship, False!

June 17, 2009 • 10:17 pm Comments Off

False! Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands Would Not Accept Obama’s Birth Certificate

Not that he’s ethnic Hawaiian, in any case, but it’s an argument Birthers like to use.

There are two categories of documents used in determining eligibility: primary and secondary.

Primary Documents

Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.

Department of Hawaiian Home Lands

Filed under: Birth Certificate, False!

June 10, 2009 • 1:45 pm Comments Off

False! Michelle Obama was disbarred

Michelle Obama was licensed to practice law in 1989 by the State of Illinois Supreme Court. In 1993, she became voluntarily inactive.

Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law – Last Registered Year: 1993

There were no disciplinary proceedings against her license of any kind:

Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings: None

In 1999, there was a procedural change not relevant to someone having already been voluntarily inactive since 1993:

CHANGING FROM RULE 770 INACTIVE STATUS

Prior to November 1, 1999, former Supreme Court Rule 770 provided for a proceeding in the Court for any voluntary transfer to inactive status, whether because of some incapacitating condition or solely as a matter of the lawyer’s preference because the lawyer would not be practicing law.

The current registration rules provide a procedure for lawyers on Court-ordered inactive status under former Supreme Court Rule 770 who might wish to register. Whatever registration status the lawyer wishes to assume (active, inactive, or retired), the lawyer must first file a motion with the Supreme Court for restoration to active status under Rule 759. The motion process is necessary to screen for those who transferred due to circumstances that require some review of present fitness, and the motions will be contested only in such cases. In all other cases, the ARDC will consent to the transfer, and when a consent is submitted, the Supreme Court typically allows the motion within a few weeks of when it is filed.

Filed under: False!, Michelle Obama

June 7, 2009 • 3:26 pm Comments Off

False! Obama could not have been a natural-born citizen, because his mother was too young

The minimum qualifications for the presidency of the United States specified in Article II of the Constitution are few and seemingly straightforward: In order to be President, a person must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, must be at least thirty-five years old, and must have been a resident of the United States for fourteen years.

–

In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama’s birth when she was 18 in Hawaii. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama’s birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen…. Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other info does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S. citizen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16.

–

The item quoted above posits that Barack Obama does not qualify as a natural-born citizen of the U.S. because the law in effect at the time he was born specified that “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Since Barack Obama only had one U.S. citizen parent (his mother), and his mother had not been residing in the U.S. for at least five years after the age of 16 when Barack was born (because she herself was only 18 at the time), then he’s not a natural-born citizen.

A few facets of this claim immediately jump out as being far-fetched: first, that a sitting U.S. Senator who has already spent a good deal of time and money securing his party’s nomination for the presidency would suddenly be discovered as ineligible due to an obscure provision of U.S. law; and second, that U.S. law would essentially penalize someone who would otherwise qualify for natural-born citizenship status simply because his mother was too young. The fact is, the qualifications listed in the example quoted above are moot because they refer to someone who was born outside the United States. Since Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, they do not apply to him.

Snopes

Filed under: False!

June 5, 2009 • 3:54 pm Comments Off

False! There was a US travel ban to Pakistan in 1981

Obama did go to Pakistan that year when he was 20 years old with a college friend, after first seeing his mother and half-sister in Indonesia. That much is true.

–

“Birthers” claimed that the Pakistan trip constituted indirect proof of Obama’s supposed Indonesian citizenship. Philadelphia lawyer Phil Berg even told the U.S. Supreme Court last year, before it refused to hear his case challenging Obama’s qualification to be president, that Pakistan “was on the State Department’s travel ban list for U.S. Citizens.”

But that claim is quite false. There was no such ban. Americans traveled there without incident, as shown by a travel piece that appeared in the New York Times in 1981, dated June 14. Barbara Crossette, an assistant news editor of the Times, told her mostly American readers they could travel to Lahore, Pakistan, by air, rail or road, adding: “Tourists can obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports.”

Her article prompted a letter to the Times from the U.S. consul general in Lahore saying he would “welcome an influx of Americans” to Lahore. He cautioned only that in addition to getting a visa for Pakistan, American visitors also should be careful to line up an Indian visa for the return trip if they planned to travel overland. The letter is dated Aug. 23, 1981.

Also, a travel advisory from the State Department dated Aug. 17, 1981 notes that Americans traveling to Pakistan require a 30-day visa, and that any staying longer must check in with Pakistan’s Foreigner Registration Office. A digital copy of the advisory is archived at the Electronic Research Collection, a partnership between the State Department and the Federal Depository Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Fact Check Wire

Flight: Karachi – Peshawar

Flight number: PK-326

Description: On March 2, 1981, Pakistan International’s flight PK-326 began as a routine domestic hop from Karachi to Peshawar . In midair three heavily armed men seized the plane, diverted it to Kabul, Afghanistan, and demanded the release of 92 “political prisoners” from the Pakistani jails. On March 7, twenty nine hostages including women, children and sick men were released in Kabul. The Boeing 720B sat in Kabul for a week, and when Pakistan’s President Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq refused to give in, the hijackers shot a Pakistani diplomat Tariq Rahim in full view of the other passengers and dumped his body onto the tarmac.

Next, on March 9, the plane flew to Damascus, Syria, and by the time ordeal ended there on March 14, more than 100 hostages had endured 13 days of tension and squalor. At that time it was the longest hijacking episode in the history.

The gunmen repeatedly threatened to blow up the plane, but were talked into long extensions while negotiations continued by radio with Pakistani and Syrian officials in the Damascus control tower. Finally the hijackers said they would settle for just 55 prisoners – but they coupled the concession with a grim warning: they would soon kill the three Americans on board. “Be ready to pick up the bodies,” they told the tower. Just twenty minutes before the deadline President Zia gave in, ordering that the prisoners be flown to sanctuary in Libya. “It’s over,” said Pakistani negotiator Sarfraz Khan.

History of PIA Hijackings

The toast of Ronald Reagan at a state dinner at the White House for President Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan, Dec. 7, 1982:

Our people already work together in significant ways through educational exchanges, tourism, economic cooperation, and through bonds of family and friendship.

Ronald Reagan Archives, University of Texas

Filed under: Citizenship, False!

June 4, 2009 • 1:27 pm Comments Off

False! Barack Obama was born in Kenya

US Department of State/US Department of Homeland Security:

- President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a U.S. “natural born” citizen and is eligible to serve as the United States President, pursuant to the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

- President Obama was not born in Mombasa, Kenya.

- President Obama was not born in Kenya or anywhere outside the state of Hawaii.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Case No. 1:08-CV-02234 (RJL)
Strunk v. US Department of State, US Department of Homeland Security

Court of Appeals of Indiana, Ankeny v. the Governor of Indiana, Opinion for Publication, November 12, 2009:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Coast Provincial Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya:

Officials at the hospital confirm they’ve been besieged with requests for information on Obama’s birth but haven’t been able to find any record of it.

“We do not have computerized records going back to the 1960′s and can only sort through our archives by hand,” Dr. Christopher Mwanga, an administrator at the Mombasa hospital tells GLOBE. “We have searched for all the names of babies born on Aug. 4, 1961, and have not found the name of Barack Hussein Obama. That is all I can tell you.”

“We can neither prove that he was born here nor disprove it.”

View the full page.

Globe Magazine; January 12, 2009 issue, Vol. 56, Number 02; p.30
Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under: Biography, Birth Certificate, False!

May 30, 2009 • 2:42 pm Comments Off

False! Judge Sotomayor is racially biased when deciding cases

Judge Sotomayor and Race

-snip

It seems to me that there is an infinitely simpler and more accurate way of figuring out whether Judge Sotomayor decides cases involving race fairly and dispassionately – read her decisions. So I did: I am in the midst of reviewing every single race-related case on which she sat on the Second Circuit.

There are roughly 100. They cover the gamut from employment discrimination to racial bias in jury selection. I decided that I would stop and write an interim report once I got through her 50 most recent race-related cases other than Ricci because the numbers are sufficiently striking and decisive. Here is what I found.

In those 50 cases, the panel accepted the claim of race discrimination only three times. In all three cases, the panel was unanimous; in all three, it included a Republican appointee. In roughly 45, the claim was rejected. (Two were procedural dispositions.)

On the other hand, she twice was on panels reversing district court decisions agreeing with race-related claims – i.e., reversing a finding of impermissible race-based decisions. Both were criminal cases involving jury selection.

In the 50 cases, the panel was unanimous in every one. There was a Republican appointee in 38, and these panels were all obviously unanimous as well. Thus, in the roughly 45 panel opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Judge Sotomayor never dissented.

It seems to me that these numbers decisively disprove the claim that she decides cases with any sort of racial bias.

-more

SCOTUSBLOG

Filed under: Blogs, False!, Justice, Supreme Court

May 21, 2009 • 2:40 pm Comments Off

Speech: National Security, 5/21/09

Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery
Protecting Our Security and Our Values
National Archives Museum
Washington, D.C.
May 21, 2009

These are extraordinary times for our country. We are confronting an historic economic crisis. We are fighting two wars. We face a range of challenges that will define the way that Americans will live in the 21st century. There is no shortage of work to be done, or responsibilities to bear.

And we have begun to make progress. Just this week, we have taken steps to protect American consumers and homeowners, and to reform our system of government contracting so that we better protect our people while spending our money more wisely. The engines of our economy are slowly beginning to turn, and we are working toward historic reform of health care and energy. I welcome the hard work that has been done by the Congress on these and other issues.

In the midst of all these challenges, however, my single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe. That is the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It is the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.

This responsibility is only magnified in an era when an extremist ideology threatens our people, and technology gives a handful of terrorists the potential to do us great harm. We are less than eight years removed from the deadliest attack on American soil in our history. We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it.

Already, we have taken several steps to achieve that goal. For the first time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are investing in the 21st century military and intelligence capabilities that will allow us to stay one step ahead of a nimble enemy. We have re-energized a global non-proliferation regime to deny the world’s most dangerous people access to the world’s deadliest weapons, and launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years. We are better protecting our border, and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster. We are building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. And we have renewed American diplomacy so that we once again have the strength and standing to truly lead the world.

These steps are all critical to keeping America secure. But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights –are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.
Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under: Justice, National Security, Speeches

May 20, 2009 • 11:33 pm Comments Off

False!—Obama Promised A Single Payer Health Plan During His Presidential Campaign

In 2007

‘If you’re starting from scratch,’ he [Obama] says, ‘then a single-payer system’-a government-managed system like Canada’s, which disconnects health insurance from employment-’would probably make sense. But we’ve got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that’s not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they’ve known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside.’

New Yorker, May 7, 2007

At a roundtable with a handful of invited guests at Lindy’s Diner in Keene, Obama said if he were starting from scratch, he would probably propose a single payer health care system, but because of existing infrastructure, he created a proposal to improve the current system.

Concord Monitor, August 14, 2007

In 2008

Here’s the bottom line. If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably set up a single-payer system…But we’re not designing a system from scratch…And when we had a healthcare forum before I set up my healthcare plan here in Iowa there was a lot of resistance to a single-payer system. So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices….Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system. For now, I just want to make sure every American is covered…I don’t want to wait for that perfect system…The one thing you should ask about the candidates though is who’s gonna have the capacity to actually deliver on the change?…I believe I’ve got a better capacity to break the gridlock and attract both Independents and Republicans to work together.

Seniors Town Hall, Ames, Iowa, January 5, 2008

“I have been entirely consistent in my position on health care. What I said . . . is if I were designing a system from scratch, I would set up a single-payer system.” But given the existing health care system, such a change would be impractical, he said.

Democratic Debate, Manchester, New Hampshire, January 5, 2008

I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single-payer [health insurance system]. What I said was that if I were starting from scratch, if we didn’t have a system in which employers had typically provided health care, I would probably go with a single-payer system.

Democratic Debate, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, January 22, 2008

“If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy.

“Given that a lot of people work for insurance companies, a lot of people work for HMOs. You’ve got a whole system of institutions that have been set up,” he said at a roundtable discussion with women Monday morning after a voter asked, “Why not single payer?”

“People don’t have time to wait,” Obama said. “They need relief now. So my attitude is let’s build up the system we got, let’s make it more efficient, we may be over time—as we make the system more efficient and everybody’s covered—decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively.”

Town Hall/Women’s Round Table, Albuquerque, New Mexico, August 18, 2008

And in 2009, as President

If I were starting a system from scratch, then I think that the idea of moving towards a single-payer system could very well make sense. That’s the kind of system that you have in most industrialized countries around the world.

The only problem is that we’re not starting from scratch. We have historically a tradition of employer-based health care. And although there are a lot of people who are not satisfied with their health care, the truth is, is that the vast majority of people currently get health care from their employers and you’ve got this system that’s already in place. We don’t want a huge disruption as we go into health care reform where suddenly we’re trying to completely reinvent one-sixth of the economy.

So what I’ve said is, let’s set up a system where if you already have health care through your employer and you’re happy with it, you don’t have to change doctors, you don’t have to change plans — nothing changes. If you don’t have health care or you’re highly unsatisfied with your health care, then let’s give you choices, let’s give you options, including a public plan that you could enroll in and sign up for. That’s been my proposal.

Town Hall, Rio Rancho, New Mexico, May 15, 2009

Filed under: False!, Health Care

May 18, 2009 • 12:30 am Comments Off

True!—Obama Winning Debate Over Bipartisanship

First Read makes an important point about the appointment of Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R) to be ambassador to China:

“Whether it is Specter switching parties, Judd Gregg accepting the Commerce post (even for a few days), or this appointment — it’s going to be hard for Republicans to make the public case that somehow Obama hasn’t attempted to reach across the aisle. Of course, the White House has been very strategic in its attempts at bipartisanship, which no doubt frustrates many Republicans because the president isn’t being bipartisan on everything.”

Remember what Rahm Emanuel told the New Yorker a few months ago: “The public wants bipartisanship. We just have to try. We don’t have to succeed.”

Political Wire

Filed under: Bipartisanship, True!

May 18, 2009 • 12:12 am Comments Off

True!—Obama plans new fuel limit by 2016

President Barack Obama will announce plans on Tuesday for a national fuel-economy and greenhouse-gas standard for automobiles in an effort to give more certainty to car companies as they struggle for survival, industry and administration sources told POLITICO on Monday.

The administration will bill the tailpipe-emissions announcement as historic, because it avoids a patchwork of standards and has won agreement from so many stakeholders, including automakers, state governments, the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The national emissions policy for autos, which will ramp up to a new mileage-per-gallon standard in 2016, will harmonize the CAFE standard and the EPA’s greenhouse-gas standard, so that industry will not have to worry that the administration will regulate those on separate tracks.
Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under: Energy, True!

May 17, 2009 • 1:42 am Comments Off

False!—Catholics Opposed Obama’s Notre Dame Commencement Speech

U.S. voters say 56 – 31 percent, including 60 – 34 percent among Catholic voters, that Notre Dame University should not rescind its invitation to President Barack Obama to speak at the university’s commencement, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

Observant Catholic voters who attend religious services about once a week say 49 – 43 percent that Notre Dame should keep President Obama on the program, while Catholics who attend services less frequently say 70 – 26 percent that Obama should speak, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University survey of 2,041 registered voters nationwide finds.

Quinnipiac National Poll

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Six in ten Americans continue to approve of how Barack Obama is handling his job as president — and despite the controversy over Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame on Sunday, Catholics have a high opinion of him, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.

…

The results from U.S. Catholics are virtually identical to the rest of the population. Sixty-one percent say the president’s abortion views don’t have any impact on their view of him. Twenty-two percent say it makes them feel less favorably toward him, and 15 percent say it makes them feel more favorably.

CNN

The Pew Research Center found that, of those Catholics who say they’ve heard about the controversy, 54 percent approve of the school’s choice. 38 percent oppose it. Among those who hadn’t heard about it, only a plurality approved, but the margin was much wider — 45 percent in favor, 18 percent opposed.

Those numbers are actually eclipsed by data Joan had previously pointed to: 73 percent of Notre Dame students, including 97 percent of its seniors, support the invitation.

Salon

It was the Catholic right wing and they lost this one.

By facing their arguments head-on and by demonstrating his attentiveness to Catholic concerns, Obama strengthened moderate and liberal forces inside the church itself. He also struck a forceful blow against those who would keep the nation mired in culture-war politics without end. Obama’s opponents on the Catholic right placed a large bet on his Notre Dame visit. And they lost.

Washington Post

Filed under: Ethics, False!