Free Markets, Free People


A Word To The “Birthers”

Do you remember how we all laughed at the “truthers” and wondered how they could be so gullible as to believe all the nonsense being spread about (fire doesn’t melt steel, etc.)?

Well now you’re the one’s being laughed at. You’re just like the truthers and the leftist dead-enders who wouldn’t let the 2000 election go.

Birthers.  Truthers.  One in the same.

Barack Obama is from Hawaii, he’s the president, there is no “smoking gun” here and you need to get off of this before you further ruin your credibility. I mean think about it – you’re taking your lead from a ditzy lawyer who has become addicted to the media coverage she can generate and dimbulb’s like this Army Reserve Major who played the reserve system to allow him to make a political statement.  The vast majority of Republicans know a stinker when they smell one.

Get over this stuff.  This is the “Bush/AWOL” story for the right.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

92 Responses to A Word To The “Birthers”

  • Yeah,  you’re right. That Constitition… stupid meaningless document. Besides, there’s no reason to have any doubts:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4GX3Otf14&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpitchpull.blogspot.com%2F&feature=player_embedded
    So you stupid people just move along… nothing to see here at all.

  • You know, Greybeard, we had this thread before. I seem to recall you never responding to the facts I brought up.

    No one’s saying the Constitution is meaningless. It’s grossly unfair of you to claim that. All we’re saying is that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Go ahead, call me stupid again. Coming from the likes of you, it’s a high compliment.

  • No one called you stupid. (I’m being called stupid in this post for wanting proof my Commander in Chief is eligible to hold that position, but I have thick skin.)
    And truly, I think Obama was probably born in Hawaii. But this whole issue stinks for some reason. The COLB claimed by so many as proving Obama was born in Hawaii doesn’t. Only the “Vault Copy” will do that.
    I’ll ask the simple question I’ve asked over and over, Steve. What’s on that copy we aren’t being allowed to view, and why?

  • Tell you what, believe what you want about the Birth Certificate issue, but how about some pragmatism? Even if you’re right (you’re not but this is hypothetical)- so what?

    SO.
    WHAT?

    You think they’re gonna remove him from office or something?

    This is a non-starter. Believe whatever lunacy you wish, but have a shred of common sense please

  • Forget about the birther stuff. What is important about the birth certificate is like Obama’s school/college transcripts and just about about anything else about his past we know nothing. Medical records that consist of his doc writing a one page letter saying he’s healthy. We know less about Obama then about any other president we’ve ever had.

  • The COLB claimed by so many as proving Obama was born in Hawaii doesn’t

    You’re wrong.

    1. The COLB lists Honolulu, Hawaii as Obama’s place of birth.
    2. The COLB is certified by the state of Hawaii as correct.
    3. The COLB states that is it prima facie evidence in any legal matter of the facts it contains.

    So, how can you possibly claim that the COLB does not prove Obama was born in Hawaii?

  • I’ll ask the simple question I’ve asked over and over, Steve. What’s on that copy we aren’t being allowed to view, and why?

    I don’t know what’s on the copy, and I have no idea why. But it doesn’t matter. The COLB is sufficient proof of Obama’s citizenship at birth to qualify him for the office of President.

  • And consider the harm and discord to the country.   It opens a can of worms like none before.  You have a hot button – ‘First Black President’ you’re talking about booting from office, and I’m sure there’s birthers out there that are only trying to adhere to the letter of the law (Constitution), but you try and tell that to the millions of people who would only see it as “whitey keepin us down”.
    And then there’s the rabid left end movement that wouldn’t let the Bush election(s) go uncontested, you think they’re all just going to go “okay, you’re right of course, silly of us, what were we thinking?”.
    Talk about a replay of the divisiveness of the Bill Clinton impeachment, this would be that on super alien 100 foot woman makin steroids.
    We just don’t want to go there unless your proof is beyond beyond reproach, and what you’re complaining about is lack of proof (that will satisfy YOU….).
    If you guys think it’s as deep and sneaky and secret as it all is, you tellin me you’re all willing to accept a piece of paper allegedly produced back in the late 50′s as proof?  Especially given the fact that the administration has the document experts in the FBI/CIA and whatever nefarious Illumanati Manchurian Candidate President selecting and appointing organization behind it to CREATE one?
    If they showed you one, half of you would assume it was fake in the first place.

  • I completely believe Obama was born in Hawaii. But I had to prove my citizenship to get my job. Everyone I know had to prove their citizenship or immigration status to get their jobs. Why shouldn’t Obama have to prove his citizenship to get his job? It’s not at all unreasonable to ask for such simple documentation.

    Now if you want to argue “he presented a SS card and DL when he filled out his I9 for the president gig, and that’s good enough”, I can probably go along with that (did he?). But if you want to argue that the burden of proof should be higher given the constitutional requirement, that seems reasonable as well. Asking the man to show his birth certificate is not some obscene invasion of privacy – I had to do that just to get my latest DL!

  • Consider the repercussions if Obama really isn’t a “natural born US citizen” …  an entire nation made a fool, the validity of laws and expenditures (like the “stimulus”) put into question  …   it would take years to clean up the mess.
    The truth is out there, but who in their right mind would want to know it.   I’ll wait for the Oliver Stone movie.

  • The difference between Truth theory, a/k/a Rosie O’Donnell and Birther theory is that the Truther theories can not be falsiified. Refute forty-five of Rosie’s theory and she simply invent forty-five more. Whereas President Barack Obama could refute the Birther theory by releasing a copy of his birth certificate, if he had one.

    It is quite apparent the one is hiding something. I am not sure what. Further, as Blondie, b/k/a Ann Coulter, noted the public does not trust the media to report the truth with respect to Obama. That tingle going up Chris Matthews’ leg is not any new found regard for the truth.

    • It is quite apparent the one is hiding something.

      No, it’s not at all apparent. What he is doing is driving one segment of his opponents into a tizzy, and making them look like fools.

      Heck, if I were him, I’d do the very same thing.

      As far as Obama showing his qualifications for office, that should have been done with the Secretaries of State for each of the 50 States when he submitted his application to run for office. If you think your Secretary of State didn’t check Obama’s qualifications, maybe you ought to take it up with your SoS.

  • The best the “Birthers” can hope for is that if Obama tries to run for re-election, some Secretary of State in one fo the 57 US states asks for the the long form birth certificate to show proof of eligibility as a “natural born US citizen” before allowing him on the ballot.

    • Since the State of Hawaii’s laws state that all birth documents issued by their Department of Health carry the same legal weight, I’m not sure this would be a successful tack.

  • The best the “Birthers” can hope for is that if Obama tries to run for re-election, some Secretary of State in one fo the 57 US states asks for the the long form birth certificate to show proof of eligibility as a “natural born US citizen” before allowing him on the ballot.

    That should really be part of the job application process for the job of president. Not retroactively, of course, but it seems like a perfectly reasonable procedure for candidates when they declare.

  • … and who says that the Birthers” are Republicans ?
    Did they look at the registration cards ?  .. their long form birth certificates ?

  • It would help if it didn’t have such a “massive joke” feeling to the demands.  I mean, talk about your desperate ploys.  By comparison this makes a Hail Mary pass look like a 100% certainty.
    And lets be clear, I’m on record calling him a field mobile can of Spam and noting he’s well on the way to easily break the record for the title “Worst President Ever”.  He’s even made me pine affectionately for President Hillary Clinton.
    But this is just silly.

  • You’re exactly right, Steverino.  Why would the Pres. want to satisfy the conspiracy nuts?  So that they can move on with their lives and focus all that energy on defeating his agenda?  Besides, the Birthers can be used to make all of his political opponents look bad.
    If I were Obama, I’d have someone covertly seeding the Birthers.

  • I have a Hawaiian Birth Certificate (original) and I have a an abstract sent by the State of Hawaii just like Obama’s.

    The original lists the hospital and attending physician and his signature.

    The abstract does not.

    For the life of me, I cannot figure out why someone would not show a copy of their original, unless:

    1. They don’t have a copy….nothing wrong with that.
    2. Something on it is incomplete/embarassing.

    Interestingly, I was born at the same hospital listed by Obama.

    • The original lists the hospital and attending physician and his signature.

      As far as I know, there is no Constitutional requirement for a President to reveal the hospital he was born in or the attending physician. Maybe it’s in one of the Amendments.

      Don2, the COLB lists the date and place of Obama’s birth, does it not? If so, that is sufficient to prove his qualification for office, correct?

      If his qualification for office is proven, does anything else matter? Or is this just an attempt to embarass a President for no reason other than partisan politics?

      • Well, looking at my original it’s clear that the second document I have is an abstract of my COLB, just like it says on the certification statement, ie it’s a certified copy of a COLB on file.

        Clearly, it’s not an original.

        US Code clearly defines what is meant by natural born citizen. So, does the abstract provide enough information to satisfy the US Code requirements that were in effect at the time of Obama’s birth? I don’t know, maybe, maybe not.

        The original would certainly answer, but the abstract? I don’t know.

        • You didn’t answer the question, Don.

          The State of Hawaii has declared through its laws that the COLB is prima facie evidence of the facts of birth.

          Whether or not it’s an “original” does not matter, at least to Obama’s Constitutional qualifications for office. The fact is that the State of Hawaii, through the COLB, has certified that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.

          US Code clearly defines what is meant by natural born citizen. So, does the abstract provide enough information to satisfy the US Code requirements that were in effect at the time of Obama’s birth? I don’t know, maybe, maybe not.

          By this paragraph, you seem to indicate that you know what the US Code states, but you don’t know whether the COLB would satisfy the US Code. That’s more than a bit incongruous.

          Let me ask you again:

          1. Does the COLB show Obama’s date of birth?
          2. Does the COLB show Obama’s place of birth?
          3. Is the COLB certified by the State of Hawaii?
          4. Is the COLB prima facie evidence of the facts of birth?
          5. Does the COLB show that Obama was born on August 4, 1961?
          6. Does the COLB show that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii?

          Birth in the US automatically makes one a natural born citizen. Therefore, if the COLB states that Obama was born in Hawaii, he’s a natural born citizen.

          And if you really want to get into US Code, the mere fact that Obama’s mother was a US Citizen makes him a natural born citizen. So, unless you want to argue that his mother really wasn’t his mother, I think I’ve more than proven my point.

          • All the abstract means is that a live birth document was filed with the State of Hawaii.

            In fact, my abstract has my mother’s State/Country of Birth and my father’s State/Country of Birth.

            The copy posted of Obama’s does not: it should appear just to the right of both his mother’s and father’s names (it does on mine)

            http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/images/2008/06/13/bobirthcertificate.jpg

            Look, I don’t know what’s going on here; but the picture we have of Obama’s DOES NOT contain the the same information as my abstract of my Birth Certificate.

            I don’t know if there is any fire here; but boy, there sure is smoke.

          • “And if you really want to get into US Code, the mere fact that Obama’s mother was a US Citizen makes him a natural born citizen.”

            Actually, not so by itself. There are residency requirements so that we don’t have generations of natural-born citizens born abroad and living abroad for most of their lives. A natural-born American citizen can have a child abroad who is a natural-born citizen, but if that child doesn’t live long enough in the U.S., then the child’s children with a non-American citizen will not be natural-born U.S. citizens if they’re born abroad.

            The U.S. Code, Title 8, Section 1401, states:

            “g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years…”

            Ann Dunham had evidently lived her entire life in the U.S. prior to giving birth, so that satisfies this section.

            I’m more concerned about Obama’s actions defining him as unworthy of being called “American,” not where he was born. But I find it curious that there’s no original birth certificate, when I myself have three original, certified (with seal) copies of my birth certificate in addition to my FS-240. When a scan was posted some time ago, it was shown to be faked. Why not produce something original to put the kibosh on all the questions? It’s Obama’s own refusal to rebut the issue that has brought it to my attention.

            But like I said, it’s his actions that give me the most proof. I cannot imagine anyone more singularly evil who’s occupied that office, so it wouldn’t surprise me if his real name were Damien and he was born of a jackal.

            Now on the general point of Hawaii’s laws defining this and that: such laws are meaningless. If Hawaii’s laws defined up as down, does that make it true? What if the laws were later repealed, and replaced with one stipulating that only a sealed original will suffice?

            “But it’s the law” is an excuse for the individual’s submission to the state. Kings throughout history have rewritten or repealed laws to suit their needs. As Jefferson put it, “I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” So I don’t put any stock in what any particular law says, but whether something is true and just.

  • I agree with Bill Quick on this matter.

    I don’t really believe there is any truth to that thesis. So why do I want Obama to allow the original birth certificate – which has never been seen in public – to be released so we can all see it?
    Because he apparently doesn’t want to do that. And that is more than enough reason for me to demand that he do so.

    However there is no point in pushing the birther’s fight because even if the birthers are proven right, the Courts and Congress will take no action to remove Obama .
    BTW, the progressives who say there is nothing to birther’s claims  are same people who said the same about the Swiftvets and called them lairs.

    • I’m not a progressive, and I thought there was a lot of meat in the Swiftboat Vets’ claims.

      However, there really is nothing to the birthers’ claims here.

      Let me lead you through it one more time:

      1. A President must be a natural born US citizen of at least 35 years of age.
      2. The COLB issued by the State of Hawaii states that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, and is over 35 years of age.

      Are either of these points in dispute? If so, what is the dispute?

      If Obama has met his qualifications for office, why is everyone insisting on seeing a document which will give us no further information on his qualifications?

  • McQ: If my experience with the truthers is any guide, there’s nothing you can do with the birthers but lock them out of your site and consistently delete all their comments until they give up and find someone else to annoy.  They’re like the pod people in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. They won’t listen to facts or reason, and they won’t leave you alone until they decide you are One With Them.

    Good luck!

  • To be honest, I’m far more concerned that he wouldn’t — not in a million years — have passed a security clearance screening. This has supposedly been “debunked” (by a lot of people who have never undergone the process themselves). Speaking as someone who has, many times and for various organizations, I can assure you he never would have passed the same level of scrutiny. Any one or two of these issues alone almost certainly would have precluded passing: history of drug use (more than just ‘experimentation’), close personal associations with foreign nationals, associations with black militants/nationalists, the radical views he expressed as a college student, and associations with criminals. Of course, the same thing could be said for probably most members of Congress, which is equally alarming.

    As for the birth issue, I personally think he was born in the U.S., but his handling of the situation was either due to his childish temperament or brilliant Machiavellian maneuvering. First, it’s possible that his very strong sense of entitlement made him lapse into indignation rather than see it as a reasonable and lawful request. On the other hand, he may have realized the destructive paranoia he could sow among his opponents by being artful about the whole thing, and then once that took root, to release the birth certificate and make “birthers” look ridiculous.

  • If Obama released the actual Birth Certificate, would the Birthers actually say, “Okay, I’m satisfied?” Not on your life.  They’d claim that it was phony; that Obama’s team had plenty of time and resources to create a fake document.  Some of them would go back to the claim that he was a British citizen.

    There is no way to satisfy these people, just as there is no way to shut up the Truthers.

  •  

    “…you need to get off of this before you further ruin your credibility” – McQ

    “before”????

    Barn door. Horse. Gone.

    OTOH… the do drive a lot of traffic.

  • How about the theory that Obama is Malcom X’s love child?  THAT would make him a natural born citizen……
     

    • Neo, that site seems to argue that since Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen, then Obama was one, too. Is that a correct summary?

      At worst, that would mean Obama had dual citizenship, since he was a US citizen by virtue of his place of birth. There’s no Constitutional disqualification of someone with dual citizenship.

  • Are the Democrats going to handle this one ?

  • Frankly, I have no idea.  That is one of my favorite “nut tracking” sites.
    They had a great 9/11 Troofer story that claimed the FBI, CIA, USAF, NYPD and (I love this) TIAA-CREF as conspirators that was a real laugher.  What imaginations .. wasted on this tripe.

  • What is hilarious about this is that the same people who perpetrated the ridiculous myth that “Bush was behind 9/11,” or some such other nonsense, call the birth certificate myth a thing of the “crazy right.”

    I don’t remember, but maybe someone can remind me: did the media label the Truthers “part of the crazy left”?

    I didn’t think so.

    • I don’t remember, but maybe someone can remind me: did the media label the Truthers “part of the crazy left”?


      Yeah, I don’t remember either.
      Something else I don’t remember.  Were there a school of Democratic congressman willing to entertain the Truthers and their silly conspiracies?  Because there seems to be at least a few Republican congresspersons at least willing to entertain the possibility that the Birthers are right.

      Okay, a few caveats about the link.
      Yes – This is a liberal blogger with an agenda.
      Yes – He’s chasing around no doubt annoyed Republicans not wishing to help further his agenda.
      Yes – There are plenty of other Republican politicians perfectly willing to say that Obama is a US citizen that the filmmakers don’t wish to portray.

      All of that a given, what this at least does is give ammunition to both the Birthers and the media outlets wishing to expose the fringe Right and portraying them as somewhat mainstream -  after all, they have a handful of politicians willing to entertain the message.

      Remember last week when Obama foolishly commented on the Gates arrest?  And his whole message of health care reform took a back seat to this issue that should not have been a national issue?  Well this is the same thing.  When Republican politicians go home to discourage Obama’s health plan, they will no doubt be hounded by Birthers armed with the knowledge that a handful of Republican politicians are at least sympathetic to their loony conspiracies.

      And that will become the news.

      And like the wise old sage McQ suggests, Republicans will do well to drop it. ;)
      And like shark, Steverino, looker, and most others here also acknowledge.

      Cheers.

      • PogueMahone said:

        “Something else I don’t remember. Were there a school of Democratic congressman willing to entertain the Truthers and their silly conspiracies? Because there seems to be at least at least willing to entertain the possibility that the Birthers are right.”

        I haven’t see any Congressmen say that Obama was born outside the US. They did say that a President should have to show his birth certificate to be elected. Of course, it skirts close to the edge, but it is not full-blown lunacy.

        Meanwhile, plenty of Dems went on record that Bush “knew” about a lack of WMD in Iraq, or he “knew” about 9/11 but did nothing to stop it, or that he was AWOL from the Alabama National Guard, or that he “knew” that Valerie Plame’s name was leaked inside the White House (which it wasn’t).

        So, the Left played the “Bush knew” conspiracy game for eight years, had a ton of fun accusing the man of every crime under the son. So do not blame me to have some fun watching the same loons cry foul when the stench of their rotten thinking comes back to bite them in the arse. It is only natural, and the Left can blame no one for the “birthers” than their own rotten selves. It serves them right.

        • I haven’t see any Congressmen say that Obama was born outside the US. They did say that a President should have to show his birth certificate to be elected. Of course, it skirts close to the edge, but it is not full-blown lunacy.

          Correct.

          Meanwhile, plenty of Dems went on record that Bush “knew” about a lack of WMD in Iraq, or he “knew” about 9/11 but did nothing to stop it, or that he was AWOL from the Alabama National Guard, or that he “knew” that Valerie Plame’s name was leaked inside the White House (which it wasn’t).

          Absolutely.
          I can’t disagree with a word of that.  You’re right.  The Left was out-of-their-mind crazy.
          Good luck on getting the Republicans to focus on real issues, as the news revolves around truthers.

          So, the Left played the “Bush knew” conspiracy game for eight years, had a ton of fun accusing the man of every crime under the son. So do not blame me to have some fun watching the same loons cry foul when the stench of their rotten thinking comes back to bite them in the arse.

          I wouldn’t blame you, if you’re only interested is in the entertainment value of certain members of the Left scrambling to defend your fun and tongue-in-cheek accusations.  Hell man, that’s my game.  Heh, and it’s lots of fun!!
          But put yourself on the opposite of that game for a minute.  As you once were.  Remember how ridiculous the conspiracy nuts were?  Well… now that’s you.  And if you realize that you are supporting claims equally as ridiculous if not more so, you are the fool that you once derided.
          Which brings me to this:

          It is only natural, and the Left can blame no one for the “birthers” than their own rotten selves. It serves them right.

          It is only natural to those who subscribe to the tribal mentality.
          It’s like I’m watching a buncha’ pagan rituals.  On one hand you have moon worshipers, who say the sun worshipers are crazy.  And when winter has come and gone, the sun worshipers say that it is the moon worshipers that are crazy.
          And the cycle repeats itself.

          It may be natural, but that doesn’t mean it’s not stupid.

          After all, we all know it’s the flying spaghetti monster that reigns supreme.

          Cheers.

  • Troofers weren’t “crazy Left” .. rather they were “Jeffersonian patriots” (even though Jefferson never said that “protest was the highest form of patriotism”).

  • IS there good reason to think that TAO was not born in Hawaii? Snopes seems to think not, and a couple of lawsuits bear that out.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

    I think that J hits the nail on the head:

    “[I]t’s possible that his very strong sense of entitlement made him lapse into indignation rather than see it as a reasonable and lawful request.”

    As we’ve seen with the Gates kerfluffle, TAO appears to be the sort who IMMEDIATELY plays the race card and would naturally assume that ANY negative (or even mildly probing) question about him and his background is motivated by RAAAACISM. This is, after all, the same man who made it clear that the public use of his middle name was not at all welcome. So, it’s not surprising that he might wax indignant about somebody wondering whether he really is an American.

    That being said, the hypothetical consequences of finding out that he really isn’t constitutionally eligible for the office are… interesting… to ponder. Would ANY bill he signed into law be legally binding? Any appointments? Who would become the president if he was made to step down (something I can’t imagine the Congress pushing)? Biden? But would Biden legally be the VP given that he was elected under what amounts to fraudulent terms?

    Interesting. I wonder if there might be some quiet steps taken in future elections to make d*mned sure that the candidates are UNQUESTIONABLY American citizens.

    As for birthers being like the truthers… Well, maybe. As I see it, the problem is that there is simply so much controversy about this issue, so many different stories and rumors, that it’s easy to see why reasonable people would question whether or not Barack Hussein Obama really IS an American citizen and therefore legally eligible to be the President of the United States. The fact that he didn’t just produce an unimpeachable copy of his birth certificate when the questions were first raised, combined with his (ahem) reticence to release any other records about his life, fueled this little fire. I DON’T think that this was part of any machievellian plan on his part to make (some) of his opponents look like fools; he’s not that smart. Further, it has done SOME damage to his credibility because, even if people don’t believe that he’s ineligible for the office, they’ve certainly asked WHY he didn’t simply produce a birth certificate AND they’ve started to wonder a little about the black hole that his life has been.

    •  

      Well, maybe. As I see it, the problem is that there is simply so much controversy about this issue, so many different stories and rumors, that it’s easy to see why reasonable people would question whether or not Barack Hussein Obama really IS an American citizen and therefore legally eligible to be the President of the United States.


      And the fact the 9/11 footage clearly show the overpressure waves blowing the windows out on each successive floor below the plane strike points is proof to reasonable toofers that there were det charges on each of those floors to hurry the collapse along.   Their suspicions and assertions don’t make any of it true even with photographic ‘evidience’ of the fact that the windows DO in fact blow out (30 odd stories of concrete/steel and building material acting as a plunger will tend to do that to mere windows).
      I don’t think reasonable people are giving this any thought at all, and is asked they may think people who are wondering about it might be a little looney.
       

      The fact that he didn’t just produce an unimpeachable copy


      As Steverino consistently points out – the document provided IS considered unimpeachable proof by the State of Hawaii. The problem is it’s not satisfactory for some people, who want unimpeachable unimpeachable proof, along maybe with eye witness accounts & personal interviews with those involved conducted under water boarding to verify the truth of their statements.

      Seriously, Hillary wasn’t going to catch this? Even if McCain’s people were too stupid to do so? To believe that all these groups who vetted this information would have missed this really IS to believe there is a higher authority in charge of ALL of them that prevented them from revealing the truthy truth they discovered.
      Where are Scully and Mulder when you really need them?

      • Where are Scully and Mulder when you really need them?

        LOL, looker.  That’s a good one.

        Wait a minute though…  It’s all coming together now.  Obama smoked cigarettes…  OMFG!!! OBAMA IS THE CIGARETTE SMOKING MAN!!!
        Don’t bother though, I’m sure the MSM will ignore this new development.  ;)

        Cheers.

      • looker – “As Steverino consistently points out – the document provided IS considered unimpeachable proof by the State of Hawaii. The problem is it’s not satisfactory for some people, who want unimpeachable unimpeachable proof…”

        FWIW, I’m not a birther. As you point out, even if that old fool McCain didn’t have sense enough to check into TAO’s birth, the Hilldabeast certainly did. I never spent much time worrying about it, being much more concerned about what TAO plans to do NOW rather than where he was when he popped out of Mom’s belly forty-odd years ago.

        My point is that there are enough internet rumors out there, including (IIRC) an alleged statement by one of TAO’s aunts that she was present at his birth in Africa. Further, as we learned from the Dan Rather / Bush / TXANG documents, it’s not hard to fake a document AND there are plenty of people who are more than willing to do so AND there are people in MiniTru who are more than willing to report the documents as authentic if they support their own political agenda. Compare and contast:

        (A) George Bush somehow rigged the WTC with thermite charges, then arranged for robot-controlled jets to smash into them, leading to perfect implosions;

        (B) Barack Hussein Obama, son of a Kenyan, forged a birth certificate to show that he was actually born in Hawaii.

        One is rather easier to believe than the other, no? And would YOU believe Cap’n Dan or The Perky One or Cwissy Matthews if THEY told you that they’d “checked” on TAO’s birth certificate and found it “authentic”?

  • I believe Barack Obama is eligible to be the POTUS, and I don’t believe anything on the long form birth certificate would change that status. I would still like to see the long form Birth certificate. There are two possibly interesting things on it.

    1) The state of HI will issue a COLB based on a parental affadavit. If that was the case, it would be shown on the long form. Such would not prove that he is not a native born citizen, but it would sure elevate the question. I doubt this is the case, but would like to know that it is not.

    2) Something embarrassing in the details. Possibly a different original name. ‘Barry Dunham’ would cause him some authenticity issues. Also may be that his father was listed as ‘Unknown’ or someone other than Barack senior. If it something he is trying to hide, I would like it out there so that our President cannot be subjected to blackmail.

    I believe he is eligible to be President. But I want to know why he so does not want to show it. I would also like his transcripts…I want to see how he stacked up academically, and even more what subjects he studied and missed. Has the man ever taken an economics course?

    • If you believe he is eligible to be President, then the matter should be closed. You have no right to know anything else about his birth. And if he doesn’t want to say anything, then drop it.

      • If you believe he is eligible to be President, then the matter should be closed. You have no right to know anything else about his birth. And if he doesn’t want to say anything, then drop it.

        Why should I drop it? The fact that he does not have a Constitutionally mandated reason which forces him to provide it means we can’t ask awkward questions of the One? Keep in mind he doesn’t have a Constitutionally mandated requirement to hold press conferences, or talk about his legislative goals or laws he signs or vetoes, or say another word publicly beyond his State of the Union speeches. The fact that we can’t legally compel him to disclose it doesn’t mean it isn’t a legitimate question that needs to be dropped. Is the standard now that a politician (at least on the left) is only to be asked questions that are Constititionally mandated?

        • Ah, now I see the glow of rabid partisan lust.

          See, I thought the reason you wanted to see Obama’s birth certificate was to prove his age and citizenship at birth.

          But you want to see Obama’s birth certificate for the following reasons:

          1. You think there might be something embarassing on it
          2. You are “counting coup”, and getting Obama to reveal his birth certificate means you won this round.

          You are demanding from Obama something you’ve never demanded from any other President. And you don’t care that he’s already met his legal obligations, you just want to rub this in his face.

          As for me, I’ll oppose just about any program of Obama’s creation. But I’m not willing to crawl way out onto the outer branches of the crazy tree to try to embarass him.

          • I don’t think it is at all fair to categorize me as having ‘partisan lust’ My motivation is political, but I have just as many issues with statists in the GOP as the DNC. To the extent I am a ‘partisan’ I am against both sides, and rarely have a dog I can root for.

            I believe that many Americans bought a pig in a poke, and elected our President on very mistaken assumptions about him. I believe that damaging him politically will slow and reduce the amount of damage he does to liberty, and there is something damaging he is struggling (and spending money) to keep out of the public view. You want to feel good about yourself and how you won’t fight dirty, that is fine. Statists fight dirty hardball. We either play in the mud with them or lose. I am willing to get in the mud. You are willing to lose.

            You’re right that I have never demanded the full birth certificate from a previous President. If it could have damaged a statist one, I would have. It was irrelevant to previous Presidents, now it is highly relevant to this One. Showing that our President’s campaign was a very nicely decorated facade will slow his very deliberate assauly on liberty. Neither asking about his Birth Certificate, nor his plans to stop the Iranian nuclear program, nor his response to Nork missile launches nor the contradictions in Obamacare have a Constitutional mandate requiring his response. All are awkward questions for him…and all should be asked.

  • As usual, I was way ahead of you guys on calling the Birther Conspiracy ;)   /popcorn time

  • As some others have pointed out, based on the existence of two Hawaiian newspapers that announced Obama’s birth in the right place at the right time, I also conclude that Tony and Doug at the Time Tunnel base were snookered into planting the necessary false evidence of his birth 48 years ago.  They’re not available now because after that, based on the way the TimeTunnel operated, they were probably hurled back to the England of Henry Tudor and Bosworth field to help Edmund Black Adder become king.

  • All the abstract means is that a live birth document was filed with the State of Hawaii.

    The Certification of Live Birth (it’s not an abstract, no matter how many times you say it) is issued by the Hawaii Department of Health and contains facts about the birth of the named individual. The State of Hawaii holds it to be legal evidence of the facts it contains.

    That’s far more than what you claim. Go read Hawaii statutes, you’ll find that all documents issued by the Department of Health have the backing of the State, and are prima facie evidence of the facts they contain.

    Do you have any legal evidence that anything on the COLB is untrue? Do you have any legal evidence that the COLB does not mean the State of Hawaii has certified the facts therein? (Here’s a hint: “certification” means that someone has “certified” it…neat how they come from the same root, huh?)

    In fact, my abstract has my mother’s State/Country of Birth and my father’s State/Country of Birth.

    The copy posted of Obama’s does not: it should appear just to the right of both his mother’s and father’s names (it does on mine)

    There is no Constitutional requirement regarding a President’s parents. Please explain why the Country of Birth of Obama’s parents are at all relevant if Obama was born in Hawaii. And, by the way, we know Obama’s mother was born in the US by virtue of her birth certificate.

    Look, I don’t know what’s going on here; but the picture we have of Obama’s DOES NOT contain the the same information as my abstract of my Birth Certificate.

    I really don’t care what your abstract says. The Certification of Live Birth for Barack Obama contains the date and place of his birth, establishing that he was born in Honolulu in 1961. That meets the qualifications for President.

    I don’t know if there is any fire here; but boy, there sure is smoke.

    I don’t even see any smoke. Obama has met the Constitutional qualifications for office. That should be the end of it. But you keep going on about how he’s hiding something.

    So what if he is?

    Since he’s met the qualifications for office, you have no right to know anything else.

    • Nice strawman.

      All I’m saying is the information on his abstract, and yet it is an abstract, because the certification by the same State of Hawaii says it’s either an orignal or abstract of the original, IS NOT the same as mine.

      If you think that what was posted was a copy of the original certificate of live birth, you are incorrect, it clearly is not.

      That’s all, period.

      I’m asking why the difference? My abstract is dated this year (ie the date I did the search).
      Obama’s can’t be much older than mine.

      My original has info that is not on the certified abstract (hence the official certification statement on the back).

      In fact, the State Certifying Offical on mine, is the same as the name on Obama’s, which makes total sense.

      What does not make sense is the discrepancies between his abstract and mine. Which begs the question, which abstract is in the correct format, his, mine, neither, both?
      Why does mine have information the posted copy of his (our abstracts) doesn’t?

      That’s my question.

  • As I said above, I really believe Obama was born in the U.S. However, there is simply no comparison between the truther movement and the so-called “birthers”. Even that moniker is a manipulative form of framing. Bruce got part of it right: this is a parallel to the Bush AWOL theory. But neither are of the paranoid, deluded, and downright slanderous caliber of dementia that is the truther movement, which postulates thousands of American government employees, servicemen, and citizens were complicit in the murder of 3,000 of their countrymen. Most libertarians understand no government bureaucracy could execute such a thing so well. By the same token, though, the AWOL/birth certificate “conspiracies” would have required only a small group of people and therefore at least have some superficial credibility. To lump in with the truther lunatics people who demand proof that a potential candidate for the highest office in the United States actually meet one of the Constitutional requirements is a little much.

    • What should the presumption be of those of us who are convinced by the proof already provided by the state of Hawaii.
      What should we think about the newspapers published at the time announcing his birth?
      What should we think about research done by his opponents in both his own party primary and in the presidential election which failed to uncover this fatal flaw in the nefarious plan?
      Having provided the necessary legal proof already, why should the President be obligated to provide MORE proof? Why should we conclude that the hunt will stop if and when even more proofy proof is provided?
      Having been provided numerous proofs from multiple angles, why should anyone conclude the people who are clinging to this need for more proofy proof aren’t somewhat obsessed?
      When does it stop? Why should anyone observing this at this time conclude it will stop?

      • I don’t know if you meant to reply to my post or to someone else. If you did intend to reply to mine, I don’t understand the relevance of any of your questions to what I wrote. I said that it is a false analogy to compare the truthers and “birthers”, and I said that the Bush AWOL memo/”birther” parallel is analogous. I did not say that “birthers” had a point or that there remains a doubt about Obama’s place of birth.

  • Talk about strawmen.

    I don’t think the COLB is a copy of the original birth certificate.  What I do think is that it was certified by the State of Hawaii as bearing facts of Obama’s birth.  Please stop calling it an abstract, it is not an abstract:  it is a certification.

    I don’t understand why you keep railing on about differences in the documents that don’t matter.  The differences do nothing to establish Obama’s date and place of birth beyond what’s already in the COLB.  The differences between the documents have nothing to do with Obama’s qualifications for office.

    The reason the COLB doesn’t contain information that your original birth certificate contains is that the state chose to shorten its birth certificates.  Oher states do the same thing:  the State of Colorado issued a COLB for my son.  Does your COLB contain the correct date and place of birth for you?  If it does, then why do you think Obama’s is any different?

    Now, I’m going to ask you ONCE AGAIN:

    1.  Does the COLB contain the date and place of Obama’s birth?
    2.  Is the information on the COLB sufficient to prove Obama’s qualifications for office?
    3. If the information is not sufficient, then tell us all why it is not.

    Do you think you can answer those simple questions?

  • Okay, Greybeard has left the thread after being challenged.  Don2 keeps refusing to answer any questions, and accuses me of using strawmen.

    I have one question for those who insist on seeing Obama’s birth certificate:

    What must Obama prove to you, beyond his date and place of birth?
     

  • One additional thought as to why we haven’t seen the original … older original birth certificates used to list … the religion of the child. I guess to be more precise, the religion the parents intend to raise the child in.

  • Hawaii affirms Obama’s birthplace

    So, now we have the Hawaiian Healt Director saying Obama was born in Hawaii:

    “I … have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen,” Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said in a brief statement. “I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

    Emphasis added.

    So, the birthers are down to this:

    1. The COLB doesn’t say what it actually says
    2. The head of the Hawaii Department of Health is lying

    Oh, and as for Republican Congressman…

    However, it appears Congress has moved on and has accepted Obama’s island birthplace. The U.S. House on Monday unanimously approved a resolution recognizing and celebrating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii becoming the 50th state. A clause was included that reads: “Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”

    Seems they agree unanimously that Obama was born in Hawaii. So much for that.

  • “What I do think is that it was certified by the State of Hawaii as bearing facts of Obama’s birth.”

    And you think the State of Hawaii can’t lie?

    _That’s_ the problem with the COLB.  It isn’t the actual document made at the time.  It’s somebody asserting after the fact, “yeah, that happened”.  If we’re not going to take Obama’s word for it there’s no reason to take the COLB’s word for it – neither one has any substantive evidence to support their position.  That’s the argument: show us the actual document written at the time of the event.  With assorted side issues such as who the doctor and nurses present were and can they testify.  This is a simple matter of evidence as opposed to unsubstantiated assertion.

    And no, I _don’t_ think that even if the actual birth certificate couldn’t be found or seemed questionable he’d be removed.  But that’s because the Constitution is no longer operative – because people like McQ – I’m not singling him out, there’s millions more like him – refuse to defend it and insist that it actually be adhered to.  This is just another step in the death of the republic.

    • You are 17 scoops of crazy.

      Is your position that the State of Hawaii is lying? Based on what evidence?

      Here’s how Certifications of Live Birth work:

      The original birth certificate is entered into a database. When someone wants a birth certificate, a data entry clerk types in the information given (like name, birth date, parents’ names, whatever). The health department’s computer retrieves the record from the database and prints up the COLB.

      Now, go read Hawaii’s statutes regarding birth records. They state that any form which the Health Department uses has the full weight of the law with it. In fact, it states at the bottom of the form that it is prima facie evidence of the facts it contains in any legal proceding. Do you know what prima facie means? It means that lacking rebuttal, the document has met the burden of proof. So, where’s the rebuttal? What evidence do you have that anything on that document is incorrect?

      So, what you are saying is that the State of Hawaii has deliberately falsified birth records. What evidence do you have that this has happened?

    • To put a finer point on it:

      “Evidence in rebuttal” is not “We should see the original birth certificate”.

      The fact is that the COLB meets the legal burden of proof, unless there is actual evidence that it is false. You need to show that either the information on the document is incorrect or the document itself is fraudulent. (A side note: I’ve read the sites which claim the document is a fraud, and can refute their arguments, but it would take a great deal of time to type it all out. The arguments boil down to the existence of a number of electronic copies of different compression qualities, and that’s somehow proof that all of them are fake. But looking at the image in the LA Times article, I can show you reasons why it’s a faithful reproduction of a real document.)

      It doesn’t matter whether you believe Obama. Right now, his case would beat yours in court because you have no evidence to present.

    • “But that’s because the Constitution is no longer operative – because people like McQ – I’m not singling him out, there’s millions more like him – refuse to defend it and insist that it actually be adhered to.  This is just another step in the death of the republic.”

      Dude, are you f***ing serious? Is this, like, your first time here? Or on the internet in general?

  • “But that’s because the Constitution is no longer operative – because people like McQ – I’m not singling him out, there’s millions more like him – refuse to defend it and insist that it actually be adhered to.  This is just another step in the death of the republic.”

    It’s actually because some of us understand the Constitution represents Rule of LAW, not rule of whim and “my side lost the election and Ima stamp mah little feet a lot now”.

    The COLB isn’t good enough, now you want to interview witnesses (I thought I was joking above….). As I asked, jokingly, then….would you like them waterboarded or tasered to guarantee they’re giving accurate testimony and haven’t been ‘turned’ by the secret organization that planted the birth notices in the Hawaiian papers and subverted the State of Hawaii that issued, and re-affirmed the veracity of, the COLB?

    Will you personally be conducting the interrogations interviews of witnesses to make sure the proper questions are asked and that the interviewers haven’t been turned by the secret Obamanchurian Candidate organization that subverted all the other official agencies that have maintained he IS a natural born citizen?

     

  • Now on the general point of Hawaii’s laws defining this and that: such laws are meaningless. If Hawaii’s laws defined up as down, does that make it true? What if the laws were later repealed, and replaced with one stipulating that only a sealed original will suffice?

    You’re engaging in sophistry. The fact is, Hawaii isn’t redefining up and down. What it has done through its laws is give full legal weight to the forms it issues. Even if that law were to be repealed in the future, the fact would remain that at the time the document was issued, it carried the full backing of the State of Hawaii.

    I am not sure you realize what you are saying here. If you refuse to accept a State’s laws certifying one document, why on earth would you accept any other document it certifies?

    So, the original birth certificate bears Hawaii’s seal, why is this any more or less valid than any other document bearing the same seal?

    Aside: looker, you’re right about thinking you were joking…these birthers are serious.

    • In fact, it’s not sophistry in the least. It’s a simple matter of simple logic, and my refusal to worship whatever the state puts in front of us. One more time: if a law says something is true or not true, but that law can be changed, then that law is meaningless. If this particular law were repealed in the future, thus changing the game when it comes to what constitutes proof of birth, then that law never had substance to begin with.

      Think beyond “redefining up and down”; that was just an example. It applies to any situation where the government throws “the weight of the law” behind something. And so what if “the law” backs something? Something is true because it is. That may seem a tautology, but it’s in contrast to the essence of your argument, that a bunch of people elected by plurality can decide arbitrarily to state something is true.

      Your reliance on the state is a form of legal positivism. It comes down to, “Well, the government has said so, and that’s that.” Your trust in any situation, not just this, should be based on careful weighing of the evidence, not because some law declares a copy to have the equal weight of the original. I never ask anyone to trust the validity of my birth certificate based on what “the law” states as acceptable, for example. They can rely on the document itself, using their own judgment instead of something imposed upon them.

      If it’s an original birth certificate, that puts the entire issue to rest (at least in any rational person’s mind). Otherwise it smacks of convenience, or at least incompetence.

      But beyond what arguments “birthers” use, Obama is in fact not an American. Not a real one, just like untold millions of “citizens” in this country aren’t real Americans. Real Americans don’t worship the state, or use its power to redistribute property, or tell people how to live their lives though they harm no one else.

      • So, saying that the COLB is authorized by the State of Hawaii and is prima facie evidence of the facts therein is crazy.

        But believing ONE document issued by the state and not believing a DIFFERENT document issued by the state is rational.

        What color is the sky in your world, Perry?

        • Good grief, you haven’t understood a single thing I’ve said. Just WHO says the document is prima facie? And why should I take it at face value? I don’t ask you, or anyone else for that matter, to take me at my word. The difference between me, a private individual, and the government is that the government has the force of law to make itself “trustworthy.”

          I could accept that a birth certificate is genuine, based on a matter of trusting the document itself — not the state’s “word” that it’s trustworthy. The sad irony is that it’s the government’s insistence that “It’s genuine!” that’s fueling the fire. The credible thing to do is to show that the document is likely genuine, perhaps not beyond a reasonable doubt, but sufficient to satisfy a reasonable person’s questions.

          The sky in my world varies depending on atmospheric conditions, and if I don’t see it for myself outside my house or office window, I go by sources I’ve come to trust. My local weatherman: trustworthy. Dan Rather, my county executive or Obama: I wouldn’t trust either to tell me if it’s partly cloudy.

          Do you actually understand the principle of what I’m saying, or will you keep dwelling on the specific topic of the birth certificate? Are you resorting to acting like a jerk because I corrected you on the USC, or because you’re transferring your aggression on the others to me?

          Again, you are missing your own point. If you would not accept some documents from the government, why would accept others? Don’t you believe that the doctor’s signature could be forged? Don’t you believe that hospital records can be faked? So, why trust the “original” birth certificate? It might not even be the original.

          Asked and answered — it’s you who misses my point. Don’t be such an apologist for the state. Several hundred years ago, the likes of you would have me burned at the stake for questioning your dogma.

          Now, being the world’s greatest skeptic, I believe that any document from anyone could be a forgery. In my personal and professional life, I have to function by the motto that no person is inherently above reproach. That said, what makes someone or something credible? It’s the credibility of the person, the evidence backing the claim, and if there’s a motive to making a forgery. For those reasons, particularly the second, the Bush memos were easy to expose as frauds. Obama’s birth certificate ought to be able to stand on its own. “Birthers” are only more convinced when the Hawaii government and U.S. Congress must make declarations of authenticity, rather than producing something that can be examined.

          All along you don’t seem to understand me: none of this is to say the birth certificate isn’t genuine, but wouldn’t you prefer something trustworthy on its own, rather than accepting something because government says it’s true? As I said, your legal positivism boils down to, “The government tells us it’s so.” That’s your freedom to worship what you seem to perceive as the uncontestable word of bureaucrats and politicians. I don’t share it and choose to judge things for myself.

          Ponder this and get back to me. “It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”

          • Just WHO says the document is prima facie?

            The State of Hawaii says so. In full compliance with its laws. Are you arguing that Hawaii’s laws regarding documents certified by the state don’t apply? On what basis?

            I could accept that a birth certificate is genuine, based on a matter of trusting the document itself

            But how do you know the document itself is genuine? It could be forged. After all, if the State of Hawaii is going to forge the COLB, it could certainly forge the birth certificate. Doctor’s signature? Pffft — easily duplicated.

            My point is, and you just keep missing it, that you have very selective criteria for which government-issued documents you will believe. And there is no logical basis for this selectivity.

            But keep railing on about how you won’t accept as valid a document certified by the State of Hawaii as being prima facie evidence of the date and place of Obama’s birth. It makes you look sooooooo sophisticated.

          • You still don’t understand the point I’m making.
            “The State of Hawaii says so. In full compliance with its laws. Are you arguing that Hawaii’s laws regarding documents certified by the state don’t apply? On what basis?”
            Yes, on the simple logical basis of just because “the law” declares something to be true does not mean it is necessarily true.
            In certain jurisdictions, “the law” defined you as black if you had a single black ancestor, no matter how far back. Was that right? Of course not, but it was wrong not just because that particular law was wrong. One more time: just because “the law” declares something to be true does not mean it is necessarily true.
            “But how do you know the document itself is genuine? It could be forged. After all, if the State of Hawaii is going to forge the COLB, it could certainly forge the birth certificate. Doctor’s signature? Pffft — easily duplicated.”
            Could certainly be. But you have yet to answer my point: why do you fall back on “Well the law says so,” rather than arguing the validity of the document itself?
            Documents can be authenticated. A law can say whatever the government wants, no matter how wrong it is.
            “My point is, and you just keep missing it, that you have very selective criteria for which government-issued documents you will believe. And there is no logical basis for this selectivity.”
            Actually, no, I don’t have this “selective criteria” you claim I have. So stop putting words in my mouth, ok? We all have enough of that from Erb; you don’t need to play his game too just because you hate to lose a point.
            The simple logic escapes you: I don’t inherently believe the validity of any government-issued documents, not just certain classifications, for the simple matter that I don’t trust the state in general. Now, you don’t seem to have understood any of my points about the credibility of the person, the evidence backing the claim, and if there’s a motive to making a forgery. Those are the basis on which a document can be authenticated, not because some government officials say something is so.
            “But keep railing on about how you won’t accept as valid a document certified by the State of Hawaii as being prima facie evidence of the date and place of Obama’s birth. It makes you look sooooooo sophisticated.”
            Good lord, have you paid attention to anything I’ve said? If you actually care to read any of what I’ve been saying here, you state-worshipping dolt, you’ll see that I’m not arguing the document isn’t genuine. Show me where I did; I challenge you. Can’t find it, huh? That’s because I’m only pointing out that you need more than “The state government of Hawaii says it’s prima facie evidence.” I don’t know either way about this purported birth certificate, having seen only the fake, but it should be a simply matter of producing something that can be authenticated.
            Like I said, your kind centuries ago would have had me burned at the stake for questioning your dogma. Your kind just doesn’t like to think for itself when told by authority that it cannot. You’re enough of a state-worshipper, accepting whatever is put it in front of you “in accordance with the law,” but don’t be such a jackass. You’re the unsophisticated one here, but even worse, you’re being disingenuous and misrepresentative of my arguments. Don’t stoop to the level of liberals, who often resort to strawmans.

    • Oh, and on accepting documents from government:

      Considering I’ve had police and a DA lie about me in their “official documents,” and magistrates and their clerks bear false witness against me AND threaten me arbitrarily with incarceration, you’ll kindly excuse me for ascribing zero face value to any government documents.

      I’m not stating this about Obama’s birth certificate (including the lack of an original). I’m stating it as a general principle.

      • Again, you are missing your own point. If you would not accept some documents from the government, why would accept others? Don’t you believe that the doctor’s signature could be forged? Don’t you believe that hospital records can be faked? So, why trust the “original” birth certificate? It might not even be the original.

      • Having indicated you don’t trust the ‘government’ to give you legitimate documentation or witnesses, and outlining your reasons for that view, and adhering to the distrust as a general principle – I’m forced to ask an obvious question -
        What documents would you accept from which authority regarding Obama’s birth that would satisfy you?  Which individuals would you trust to tell you the truth in this regard?
        The answers it would seem if they were applied to this case have a high probability of being none and no one.
        And this is precisely the point we’re trying to make with regard to the birther demands for proof that will satisfy them.  There is none.  Any evidence provided would be suspect.
        If it were you having demands placed on you to provide additional proof that your claims of something were true, and you knew the people making the demands would never believe the additional proof in the first place,  and you had already provided ‘legal’ proof of your claim on the first pass, how likely would you be to cooperate any further than that if they couldn’t force you to do so?
         

        • Actually, I’m saying that I don’t trust the government to be believable inherently. That does not mean that anything the government produces is a lie. (“Just because Bob lies, even often, does not necessarily mean Bob always lies.”) But look at the outright lies over California’s budget woes, the stream of mendacity from D.C., and my own county executive’s repeated lies on property taxes. I wouldn’t trust them, or my past accusers, to pick up my garbage until I see it for myself.

          I’m not talking about only the birthers; I’m taking this to a more general level of thought. I’m bothered that you and Steverino fall back on “Well the state of Hawaii says it’s genuine.” Why not argue the document’s validity on its own merits? All I recall is the original “fake” that some Democrats foolishly passed around, not thinking it would be debunked. I haven’t seen any afterward, but if they’re genuine, then certainly the border, seal, font placement (e.g. slightly out of place), scan quality (e.g. alphanumerics are too sharp for a scan), could be scrutinized and validated.

          I’ve been on both sides. At work I’ve put more than a few people through the ringer, asking tough questions and demanding solid answers. It’s my job to go after blood I smell in the water. However, I’m a reasonable person and eventually accept reasonable explanations for why something happened. For my own part, in the past I’ve offered proof that any reasonable person would accept, but blockheads were so convinced by their single failed experiment that they wouldn’t believe anyone else succeeded.

  • I think it’s amazing that Greybeard and Don2 left the thread after being challenged.  I think they’re both lurking here…I wonder, do they have any answers to my questions?

    • The Hawaiian papers have posted a copy of a Certificate of Live Birth of two women who were born a day or so after Obama.

      Their COLB is exactly the same as mine.

      I also have the ‘abstract’ version of mine WHICH IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT FORM/FORMAT of the COLB.

      Somehow, you seem to thing the ‘abstract’ is the original; it is not.

      So, rather than leave, I just ignored you because it’s clear you can’t distinguish between an abstract and an original form. Arguing with someone who won’t even acknowlege such a basic point is a total waste of time.

      The Just One Minute blog has a reasonable hypothesis on why Obama won’t release his original, and what documentation Hawaii used to issue a COLB.

      • Somehow, you seem to thing the ‘abstract’ is the original; it is not.

        Again, I have stated clearly that I don’t “thing” the COLB is the original. I’ve said that many times, and you seem to be ignoring that.

        What I have said is that the image which appears at this link is a faithful reproduction of a real document.

        What I have also said is that the COLB states Obama’s date and place of birth.

        Now, I’ve answered your questions politely, it’s time you answered mine.

        So, rather than leave, I just ignored you because it’s clear you can’t distinguish between an abstract and an original form. Arguing with someone who won’t even acknowlege such a basic point is a total waste of time

        No, you’re wrong: as I have pointed out, I stated clearly that the COLB is not the original birth certificate. It does, however, bear Hawaii’s seal and carries the full weight of the law with it. Do you understand that, even though it’s not the original, it still is information certified to be true by the State of Hawaii?

        Frankly, you keep arguing things that are not so. You accuse of me of not understanding something that I have clearly said was true. And you try to weasel your way out of the argument with that line. It’s bad faith, and everyone here knows it.

        Once again, please answer the following questions:

        1. Does the image linked (aka, the COLB) show that Obama was born on August 4, 1961?

        2. Does the image linked show that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii?

        3. Do you have any evidence to show why that document is not authentic?

        I’m debating in good faith here, I’d appreciate it if you started.

        • And the absolute WORST part of this for me, if not for you,  is we’ve been digging and manning a trench line around the self propelled can of Spam to try and DEFEND him as being the legitmate President of the United States!

          • I agree completely, looker. I oppose Obama on every issue, but I won’t let craziness like this prevail.

            But at least I can look into the mirror and know that I am intellectually honest, since I’m defending a political enemy on an issue that I believe him to be right about.

      • I just ignored you because it’s clear you can’t distinguish between an abstract and an original form.


        The argument is the abstract has identical legal standing with the original in the eyes of the State of Hawaii.

        • Supplementing looker here…

          Go check the following Hawaii Revised Statutes:

          HRS 338-11 (forms authorized)
          HRS 338-12 (prima facie evidence)
          HRS 338-13 (copies of certificates)
          HRS 338-14.3 (verification in lieu of a certified copy)
          HRS 338-41 (Issuance and procedures of Hawaiian birth certificates)

          Seriously, if you want to argue that Obama’s “abstract” isn’t legal, you need to understand the laws you argue against.

        • Steverino 29 July: No, you’re wrong: as I have pointed out, I stated clearly that the COLB is not the original birth certificate

          Steverino 27 July: The Certification of Live Birth (it’s not an abstract, no matter how many times you say it)

          You can’t even agree on your own facts.

          The form Obama posted is an abstract of the original record. Why? Because it says so on the back of his form.

          It say’s the same thing on the back of mine. Why do I know mine is an abstract? Because I have the original.

          That’s all I’ve said from my first post.

          That’s all I’m interested in discussing.

          If I had to hazard a guess, my guess would be the original, long form, is based upon affidavits by Obama’s mother and Grandmother that state he was born in Hawaii, at the Grandmother’s home, and not at the Kapeolani Maturnity Hospital.

          Since mom and grandmom are dead, the issue is rather moot.

          The ‘smoke’ I was referring to is the simple fact that this would all be settled by looking at the long form. Why Obama won’t release that form is beyond me. I would release mine.

          • Steverino 27 July: The Certification of Live Birth (it’s not an abstract, no matter how many times you say it)

            You can’t even agree on your own facts.

            Saying “it’s not an abstract” is not the same thing as saying “it’s an original”. Here I was thinking you understood English, my bad.

            That’s all I’m interested in discussing.

            So, why is this document not valid? It bears Hawaii’s seal, and states that it prima facie evidence of the facts therein. You have yet to show any evidence why the document isn’t valid.

  • I once read that Obama’s Kenyan Grandma said she witnessed his birth in Kenya. Why would she lie about a thing like that? When Obama lived in Inodenesia, I am told that he traveled on an Indonesian passport. Is it common for American citizens to travel the world on foreign passports? I have never been out of the country so I don’t know.

    • Based on the use of the phrase “son of this village” (or daughter of)  – a common usage throughout the world that indicates not only literally being a child born in a town, village or country,  but a person effectively considered a member of that town, village or country by lineage, but not because they were directly born there.
      I’m not supposed to accept the government document on the man’s birth, but I AM supposed to accept the claim by some guy on the internet that he understands Kenyan well enough to know that Grandma Obama meant exactly that Obama was born in the village in Kenya, rather than he is figuratively a son of the village.  Or based on some unknown individual on the internet saying that he traveled on an Indonesian passport….
      Does that seem totally rational?
      Daughters of the American Revolution, Sons of Unions Veterans, Sons of Italy, etc, etc, etc.