Supreme Court Didn’t Reject Obama Birth Certificate Case Yet!!!!11!!!!11!!!
The Supreme Court did not issue their expected decision on the big OBAMA IS NOT A CITIZEN OMG!!!1!!! case yesterday. Jan Crawford Greenburg says this thrilling news merits an “eh” and a shrug:
There is nothing unusual about a bizarre, meritless case reaching the Supreme Court. The Court gets more than 10,000 petitions a year from losing parties in lower courts—many of them repeat requests from prisoners and the like arguing such things as “cruel and unusual punishment” because, oh, they aren’t getting skim milk or because doctors planted computer chips in their dental fillings.
—Often, these cases go first to an individual justice. It is absolutely ROUTINE for the Justice to, as a matter of course, simply refer it on to the full Court. It has nothing to do with how the Justice views the case. Nothing. It’s a matter of procedure.
—Once a petition reaches the Court, it has to either agree to hear it or dispose of it. Review is completely discretionary. Of the 10,000 or so requests it gets every year, the Court agrees to hear only about 80. As a matter of course, it simply disposes of all of these kind of cases at its regularly scheduled conferences.
This case is no different. Justice Thomas has done nothing unusual or different in referring it to the full Court. All of this is routine Supreme Court practice. I see no more chance the Court will grant this case than it would grant the prisoner’s skim milk case.
It likely will issue an order denying cert in this case and hundreds of others on Monday.
Yes, scream the Obama truthers, but what about the dental fillings case?!?! Because I have a computer chip in my dental fillings too!!!1!
The guy with the most well-known lawsuit, Philip Berg, is a 9/11 truther. He has said in a letter to the nations of the world:
It is time for the nations of the world to come forth and take the leadership because of the failure of the United States Government and the States where crimes were committed on 09/11/01, where no thorough investigation and indictments occurred, to investigate, arrest and prosecute the people responsible for the murders on 9/11/01, specifically including George W. Bush and Richard Cheney.
That’s the level of seriousness we’re dealing with.
Contrary to what I see in the comments or hear every time I turn on talk radio, Obama has indeed released a copy of the birth certificate:
The relevant officials have confirmed that they have the original on file, that they have reviewed it, and that it states Obama was born in Hawaii.
This is going nowhere, folks, and to continue to claim it might is little different from Andrew Sullivan’s “questions” about Trig Palin.
As much as I doubt that this suit has any merit, the simple thing to do would be for Obama to release the original certificate showing the hospital, attending physician, etc. By not doing so and hiring teams of lawyers to prevent that from happening it does make one wonder, what is he hiding? This whole issue could be rapidly put to rest by releasing the original birth certificate that was produced in 1961 rather than the one subsequently generated above. Sure those with the computer chips in their fillings would still wonder, but reasonable people like myself would be satisfied. I want to trust my president and if cannot be transparent enough to reveal his original birth certificate, what else will he hide?
K Malone (f7ee74) — 12/6/2008 @ 12:59 pmIt pains me to say this, but your Sully analogy is actually unfair to Sully. Even he/she/admits that the Trig non-controversy would go away if only someone would produce a birth certificate. Of course this is different ‘cuz BHO hasn’t produced a birth certificate, just a birth “certification.” The former really, really and truly certifies stuff, while the latter merely … um … certifies it.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/6/2008 @ 1:03 pmK Malone, I am no Obama Defender….
But….
No matter what he does, the nutzoids will attack it.
If he releases the original, I promise that there will be some kind of blotch or smear (as in ALL documents), and the nutzoids will seize upon it, demanding an interview with the physicians and nurses involved in 1961.
Most folks are satisfied, as they should be. The nutzoids will never be satisified.
For those who aren’t satisfied with the birth certificate, I have one piece of advice: go look at Andrew Sullivan. That is your future.
Find something else about Obama to attack. There are many, many, many legitimate targets.
Eric Blair (8f93a0) — 12/6/2008 @ 1:05 pmK Malone:
I think we all know exactly how much we can trust O! based on his conduct throughout the campaign–him hiding his actual birth cert for whatever reason (while Patterico insults those with legitimate conserns such as yourself because, deep down, O! is a “good man”) isn’t going to change that fact.
ECM (de5660) — 12/6/2008 @ 1:06 pmK Malone: if you are not satisfied, and have no evidence that the above certificate is a forgery, then with all due respect, you are not a reasonable person. A short-form birth certificate is just as valid as the original, long-form certificate. The end.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/6/2008 @ 1:07 pmBHO is fine with letting the birth certificate folks rant and rave. Makes conservatives look like loons. Great politics.
Huey (c2b194) — 12/6/2008 @ 1:07 pmcan we talk about something important, like the USC-UCLA game instead?
redc1c4 (27fd3e) — 12/6/2008 @ 1:11 pmWell, coots and loons are sorta similar; put me in K. Malone’s camp.
Old Coot (a8acc7) — 12/6/2008 @ 1:29 pm#5 by XLQR
A short form BC was not good enough when I joined the military or when I got married or when I applied for a passport. I would think that becoming President of the United States would be a little more important than any of those issues.
As for whether he is or isn’t qualified, nothing has been proven either way, no matter how many times you state “The end”. Demonstrate illegibility and the question goes away. Don’t and the election will be contested in court until someone finally proves it one way or the other.
Now, about then Chargers….
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 12/6/2008 @ 1:33 pmAha! But Barack might have gone back in time and fathered himself!! Note the similarity of names!!
Prove he didn’T!!!!!
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:01 pmJC: both forms of birth certificates are equally valid to prove what they say. The only difference is that the short-form birth certificate says less. Presumably, joining the military required you to prove more than appears on the short form certificate. Not so for the Presidency. The short-form certificate proves Obama is at least 35, and that he was born on U.S. soil (a fact which, when read in conjunction with the Fourteenth Amendment, conclusively establishes him as a natural born citizen). So yes, something HAS been proven, no matter how many times you stick your fingers in your ears and say “la, la, la, I can’t hear you.” Obama has made a prima facie showing of natural born citizenship. You truthers have presented no evidence whatsoever to rebut it. And you think that means YOUR side wins?????
Kevin: good point. Without the original birth certificate, how do we really know Obama was born at all? Maybe he was created in a test tube on some other planet in a distant galaxy where, in a bizarre coincidence, they speak a language identical to English.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:03 pmShort form – long form makes no difference. Obama’s lawyers did not proffer either to the court in response to the lawsuit. He should have done that and the court should have required him to do it. The Supreme Court should remand thus to the lower courts with an instruction to make a determination about Obama’s status and not try to suggest that there is a constitutional requirement that no one has standing to see enforced.
I’m sure that Obama is a natural born citizen, but that needs to be demonstrated in court if challenged by any citizen. The whole thing should have taken about 10 minutes in a lower court.
Charles Harkins (971090) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:04 pmFrom the wire story linked above:
“Tangible interest?” Why doesn’t proving one meets the Constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen fit that definition?
Pat, you, Michelle Malkin, Ed Morrissey, and whoever else compare this to smears against Sarah Palin are flat dead wrong. There is nobody on this earth who has the right to inquire about Trig Palin’s birth mother based on an internet rumor. OTOH, Barack Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” is something that should be everyone’s concern. Who says so? Oh, only those dead white guys, y’know, the framers. Think they wrote Article II when they were drunk and didn’t know what they were doing?
Is the Constitution only supposed to be consulted when it is politically convenient? Sorry, Pat, I can’t go with you on this one.
Huey wrote:
You’re probably unaware, Huey (as is apparently our gracious host) that the person who started this whole thing — Philip Berg — is a HILLARY supporter and lifelong Democrat.
Great politics? Yeah, I guess it’s a good move as long as you know you’ve got the MSM C’ing Your A. But the fact remains that Obama’s campaign has spent more money fighting these challenges than was spent the Palin family’s wardrobe. Which is more important?
I’m serious about this. If you have a friend that is tsk-tsking Palin about the expense of her clothes, ASK THEM WHY IT MATTERS. If they are like the ones I’ve talked with, they have NO idea. They just enjoy hearing and reading people hating Palin, and that’s it. That’s what’s keeping Andrew Sullivan’s glutes warm after Palin’s no longer a threat to his beloved B-HO — he just hates her.
What’s my motivation for wanting to see this birth cert thing to the bitter end? I want the Constitution to still stand for something while there is still a significant number of judges who don’t view it as pliable, which Obama has stated for the record will be a requirement of future appointments.
L.N. Smithee (47463a) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:17 pmAdd my voice to the chorus of those who can’t figure out why Obama just doesn’t release said birth certificate.
I don’t buy into all the crap floating around here about this, it simply doesn’t compute to ME why he simply won’t defuse the whole sorry mess by that easy step.
Regardless, he can be YOUR President–he won’t be MINE. As always I’ll respect the office, but never the man, in this case, and couldn’t care less who that may offend.
irongrampa (8332bb) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:22 pm[…] proving, the only thing they are proving is that the right wing is every bit as capable of insanity as the […]
damnum absque injuria » ZOMG! Supreme Court Doesn’t Toss Idiotic Suits On First Day That It Could Have! They Must Have Merit, Then. (490ac4) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:24 pmCharles Harkins wrote:
Exactly!
L.N. Smithee (47463a) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:25 pmHere’s my hang-up with the whole thing that people don’t address: according to various sources, those certifications of birth can be created for people not born in the country, such as babies adopted from Vietnam, etc., for the purposes of getting the child proper legal documentation. Now, if that is the case, then the inquiry here is perfectly valid, if unlikely.
If it is not true, then the only case that those looking for a birth certificate can make is that the document is a forgery, in which case it would be no stretch of the imagination to presume that Obama could forge a long-form cert, as well as any other documentation, which then spirals down into trutherism and lunacy.
I just want to know if this is the case or not. Until someone can address that question, I will remain cautiously skeptical.
Dan G. (d354f8) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:33 pmLook, Xrlq, you can be a profanely insulting as you like (and you do like). But you can’t honestly say that Obama isn’t dragging this out longer than he had to. Even if he finally does release the contemporaneous Certificate of Live Birth and it’s on the up-and-up, the question will remain, “Why couldn’t you have done this during the campaign and saved hundreds of thousands of dollars?”
There is no answer that could fit his carefully-honed image as a glittering tower of transparency. It will raise more questions than a released COLB answered.
L.N. Smithee (47463a) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:33 pmMy overall theory is that Obama was born in Hawaii as a dual citizen of the UK, but lost his US citizenship when adopted by his Indonesian stepfather. (Commonly known as the “grassy knoll” theory.)
Official Internet Data Office (2284a0) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:39 pmI’m not going to get into where he was born and whether he is eligible to be POTUS, but there are those that are dismissing these suits that have some of the facts wrong. The state of HI has never released any info about the contents of the BC they have on file. The statements have been consistent that they do have the vault copy, but they have never said that Obama was in fact born in HI. And there are provisions for foreign born or born in another state to obtain HI BC’s. I believe Obama’s sister also has a HI BC and she was not born in HI.
That being said, my questions has always been why is he paying three high priced law firms tons of money to fight these suits (17 and counting) when all he has to do is pony up $12 and provide the BC?
I would like the SCOTUS to actually rule as to who has standing. As it stands now no one does. I would assume that Keyes would have standing since he was a candidate for the office and his suit does cite precedence of the CA SOS ruling two candidates ineligible in prior elections.
Does the constitution really mean anything if there is no enforcement?
rls (14b9d3) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:43 pmDan G.: your hang-up is meaningless. As I noted in the other thread (and unlike the truthers, actually linked to the source), the only situation where someone not born in Hawaii can obtain a Hawaii birth certificate is if his parents were declared Hawaii residents for at least a year beforehand. Even then, the birth certificate wouldn’t falsely claim that the person was born in Hawaii when he wasn’t.
Smithee: screaming “constitution” as an excuse to act like an idiot doesn’t make you any less of an idiot. Obama has made his prima facie showing of natural born citizenship. Truthers like you and Berg (a 9/11 truther to boot) have provided no evidence whatsoever to the contrary. There is no reason on God’s green earth why Obama should provide anything else unless and until a court orders him to do so.
Sorry if you consider it insulting to call you an idiot just because you insist on acting like an idiot, but I feel I owe it to the truth to call a spade a spade and a piece of shit a piece of shit. When you spew ignorant shit like this, I give you all the respect you deserve, which is none.
RLS: you are the one who got your facts wrong. When in doubt, read the goddamned COLB. It states clearly that Obama was born in Hawaii. Anyone who argues otherwise is illiterate, or worse.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:45 pmhttp://savagepolitics.com/factcheckfraud
Karen (dda662) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:57 pmPhilip Berg, is a 9/11 truther.
That says it all.
ML (14488c) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:57 pmAny 9/11 truther is nothing but a complete ignoramus.
I have a friend who is a “truther” and he is not the sharpest tool in the shed.
My comment was about what the State of HI said in their released statement, not what was on the COLB. I do not know whether one born outside of the state and obtains a HI COLB via application has the actual place of birth recorded or not.
I do know that my two adopted children’s new birth certificates have listed as the place of birth the city, county and state where the adoption was finalized.
Other than that I don’t know anything else.
OH…and your condescension becomes you.
rls (14b9d3) — 12/6/2008 @ 3:00 pmDude, it’s right there in front of you.
Hawaii is not one of the 57 states.
Therefore, Obama is unqualified.
–JRM
JRM (de6363) — 12/6/2008 @ 3:09 pmhttp://savagepolitics.com/factcheckfraud
If you go to this link, you will read an excellent article detailing why that birth certificate as a forgery.
Karen (dda662) — 12/6/2008 @ 3:09 pmXrlq, I knew you would come through for us with the potty mouth.
The bottom of the Certification reads, “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”
Enlighten me, oh great X. Which courts have actually seen the Certification?
L.N. Smithee (47463a) — 12/6/2008 @ 3:11 pmNone, yet, AFAIK. So what? The rest of us have seen it, and what makes you think this court won’t, if the case gets far enough that they need to?
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/6/2008 @ 3:19 pmI do know that my two adopted children’s new birth certificates have listed as the place of birth the city, county and state where the adoption was finalized.
This is the nature of the problem I described earlier. Could someone clear this up – preferably someone with less anger issues than Xrlq?
Dan G. (d354f8) — 12/6/2008 @ 3:23 pmOne unexplained detail in the so-called “Certification of Live Birth” image (posted above) is that the father’s race is listed as “African.” In 1961, that wasn’t the word commonly used.
Official Internet Data Office (2284a0) — 12/6/2008 @ 3:35 pmPatterico:
Kevin Murphey:
Xrlq:
Tom (b778ae) — 12/6/2008 @ 3:54 pmLOL.
Just two observations:
1. Focusing on this birth certificate business makes many Republicans look…well, wacky. And for what it is worth, the MSM protects left of center wackiness. Not so Republicans. And what I wrote before is the truth: even if BO released the original document, I can confidently predict it would not be sufficient.
But BO’s people like all the nonsense. They like all the conspiracy whispering.
The reason it is not an important argument is simple. It uses up the oxygen in the room for really important questions, like:
2. Why is it that BO’s proposed cabinet members and assistants have to go through more of a background check than he did? I mean, if it wasn’t important for the CiC, why is it MORE important for his flunkies?
So he is delighted to hear all the energy on the far Right going toward this birth certificate/secret Muslim (where this is all going, I’m pretty sure) business.
But, hey. Argue about it however long you like. But keep in mind that BO is smiling about it. Raum Emanuel is whistling and grinning as he cruises the blogs.
Eric Blair (8f93a0) — 12/6/2008 @ 3:58 pmFew , I guess , have taken the time to look at the laws of Hawaii.
The COLB can be as good as gold and still mean very little. It is the vault certificate and supporting documentation which matter.
There are nearly a dozen ways a COLB can be legally altered under Hawaiian law.
You can be born in a foreign country and still get a Hawaiian Birth Certificate and COLB.
The press release was carefully parsed and only said their was a valid birth certificate there.
It did not even say that the information on the COLB matched the information.
The issue here is who and where does the certification of meeting the constitutional requirements for President get done by and was it done or just taken for granted.
daytrader (ea6549) — 12/6/2008 @ 4:49 pmXrlq:
L.N. Smithee: Enlighten me, oh great X. Which courts have actually seen the Certification?
Xrlq:
I’ll tell you “so what” — if indeed none of Obama’s lawyers have defended him in court using the Certification, they have thusfar refused to actually put into use what YOU accept as prima facie evidence despite multiple opportunities to do so. So, it seems, not only are they preventing the contemporaneous Certificate of Live Birth from being viewed, they are keeping subsequently generated evidence proving the existence of a Certificate out of court proceedings.
But naaaah, there’s nothing fishy about that. Just trust the guy who said “My State Senate records might have been thrown out.” And “I will accept public funds.” And “William Ayers is just someone in my neighborhood.” And “I always said the surge would reduce the level of violence.”
OK, X, your turn. Let’s see if you can top your cuss word and insult total.
L.N. Smithee (34e392) — 12/6/2008 @ 5:03 pmObama’s Certification of Birth is a very limited document. It does NOT claim to be prima facie evidence that he was born in Hawaii or of any other facts about his birth, only of the fact that this person was born. Read it carefully. The only document that could reasonably claim to be prima facia evidence of Hawaiin birth would the original vault copy birth which contains about 35 different pieces of information.It would list a hospital or residence and the name of the attending doctor or midwife. Because obama’s claim of being born in a Hawaiian hospital has been contradicted by all hawaiian hospitals it is reasonable to require him to make his birth certificate public. He is not applying to be a gas station attendent He is applying to be the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.
Barry Donovan (976755) — 12/6/2008 @ 5:08 pmEric Blair wrote: The reason it is not an important argument is simple. It uses up the oxygen in the room for really important questions, like:
2. Why is it that BO’s proposed cabinet members and assistants have to go through more of a background check than he did? I mean, if it wasn’t important for the CiC, why is it MORE important for his flunkies?
Do you honestly think that this would be the concern of the MSM if his COLB wasn’t being discussed?
L.N. Smithee (34e392) — 12/6/2008 @ 5:12 pm1#: Comment by K Malone — 12/6/2008 @ 12:59 pm
K Malone: You ROCK!
Pons Asinorum (cb0a34) — 12/6/2008 @ 5:21 pmLNS, for good or for ill, the birth certificate discussion is seen as being wacky and Trooferish.
Sorry, but that is how it is being seen.
But the other issue? It is demonstrable, and deals with issues of media complicity and fairness. For example, all it takes is ONE applicant with a wacky friend being rejected (as I am sure has already happened). Heck, the very language of the requirements to work for BO’s administration eliminate BO himself.
I’m waiting for Ace to write up a hypothetical application by BO to work with BO’s administration.
You see, there is no “version” of the truth that could be trotted out by BO’s folks, as with the copy of the birth certificate form.
Too bad that so much Right of center passion is being expended on the first argument.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 12/6/2008 @ 6:20 pmBush is vermin.
Larry Reilly (d11f9a) — 12/6/2008 @ 6:37 pm“The state of HI has never released any info about the contents of the BC they have on file. The statements have been consistent that they do have the vault copy, but they have never said that Obama was in fact born in HI.”
I provided a link in the post to support my contention. The links are there for a reason. Click it, whydontcha.
Patterico (11de1f) — 12/6/2008 @ 6:39 pmLarry, there is nothing wrong with being a lesbian.
(Sorry, Patterico, I think this person posts drunk).
Eric Blair (57b266) — 12/6/2008 @ 6:43 pmI want to thank Patterico and Michelle Malkin (et al.) for not joining in this looniness.
Timothy Watson (92eba3) — 12/6/2008 @ 7:12 pmHey, isn’t the background pattern incorrect even on the published certified copy? Rather than a repeating pattern of a pair of horizontal lines followed by a pair of vertical lines, shouldn’t it be a pair of vertical lines followed by a pair of horizontal lines?
By the way, even a paranoid is sometimes correct, though probably not as often as a broken clock.
Ira (28a423) — 12/6/2008 @ 7:25 pmLarry, there is nothing wrong with being a lesbian.
Ha, that was brilliant!
Mike LaRoche (73c7b8) — 12/6/2008 @ 7:28 pmEric Blair wrote:
Better prepare yourself, Eric. Unless he does something to cause an unmitigated disaster of Carterian proportions, EVERY complaint about him from the right — no matter how legitimate — will be deemed “wacky and Trooferish.”
President Obama may be inevitable, but I refuse to relax and enjoy him.
L.N. Smithee (34e392) — 12/6/2008 @ 7:33 pm#40 Patterico
I don’t think this statement says what you think it says.While I freely admit to not having a college education or even a Law degree, I simply cannot see how anybody who has ever taken a logic class can claim that Fukino has made a statement as to the content of that document.
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 12/6/2008 @ 7:46 pmI looked at the link and all I see is the writer of the article making that declarative statement and the quotes from the HI officials stating simply that they have the certificate. Or am I missing something. Here is the gist:
I have seen that exact same quote elsewhere without the declarative sentence not in quotes. It appears that the writer has drawn a conclusion.
rls (14b9d3) — 12/6/2008 @ 7:51 pmSmithee:
Shorter Smithee:
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/6/2008 @ 8:16 pm“not try to suggest that there is a constitutional requirement that no one has standing to see enforced.”
The first person to feel any harm from an act by president obama will have standing to challenge his legitimacy.
imdw (de9ac8) — 12/6/2008 @ 8:20 pmThe same misrepresentations and outright lies from the conspiracy nuts again. Just as in the last thread.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/6/2008 @ 8:31 pmY’all are claiming that the bolded part of that statement is not supported by this:
WTF? Do you think that Hawaii is storing a birth certificate that says Obama was born in Kenya??
Patterico (cc3b34) — 12/6/2008 @ 8:46 pmWho is making this statement? It certainly is not a HI official. What I said above – this statement of fact appears to be a conclusion by the writer of the article. Tell me where in the quoted official’s statement does it say this.
rls (14b9d3) — 12/6/2008 @ 8:50 pmI don’t know what it says. According to HI statutes it very well could say he was born in Kenya or anywhere. Look, I’m not an attorney but I can read and I can attribute the quotes. If one wants to look at the preponderance of the evidence one could certainly come to the conclusion that Obama was born in Hawaii, i.e. the COLB on his website, the birth notice in the paper and the HI official saying that they “have” the birth certificate in the vault.
Still that doesn’t negate what you said the HI official stated and what that official did in fact state.
rls (14b9d3) — 12/6/2008 @ 8:57 pmRLS:
The statement was that the COLB was valid. To which you brilliantly replied, in effect, “la, la, la, I can’t hear you, you never verified anything, nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah.”
Forget this “I don’t know” stuff and try employing an ounce of common sense for once. Setting aside the fact that you were obviously too stupid and/or lazy to look up the Hawaii statutes relating to birth certificates, do you seriously believe that any state would knowingly issue a birth certificate to anyone falsely claiming that the person was born there if they knew he was born somewhere else? Doesn’t it stand to reason that they would either list the actual place of birth or leave the entry blank (or perhaps list it as “unknown”) This isn’t rocket science. It’s tinfoil hat territory.
Just for grits and shins, let’s try applying your own logic to that statement. First, you never actually came out and said you had adopted any children, so by RLS-logic, I should rightly assume you haven’t. Second, even if I assume you did adopt two children, you never said they were born in different cities, counties or state than the ones in which the adoptions were finalized. So by RLS-logic, you haven’t really said anything of substance. You either have no adoptive children, or their birth certificates accurately reflect the cities, counties and states in which they were born, they just happen to be the same cities, counties and states where the adoptions were finalized. Right?
Dan G.:
I don’t have anger issues. I have disdain issues. There is a difference. I try to confine my disdain to those who richly deserve it, though. And anyone who thinks that a Hawaii birth certificate stating that BHO was born in Hawaii doesn’t constitute a certification by the State of Hawaii that BHO was born in Hawaii certainly qualifies. As does anyone who argues with a straight face (I assume RLS types his/her/its comments with a straight face; this being the Internet I can’t actually know) that Chiyome Fukino stating in plain English that the birth certificate in question is valid doesn’t really mean she’s saying it’s valid – only that a different one is – one that would not even exist or be in the state’s possession if he had been born anywhere else.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/6/2008 @ 9:17 pmFriends, we all know that BO was born in Honolulu in 1961. C’mon.
Compare the stuff you are writing about “why doesn’t he just release that form,” and the accusations of coverups to what Andrew Sullivan has been saying regarding Trig Palin’s parentage.
The birth certificate business is small potatoes. I would much rather investigate his associations with Rezko.
But if you want to start looking at watermarks on documents, I wish you well.
Eric Blair (8f93a0) — 12/6/2008 @ 9:20 pm#44: I couldn’t help it, Professor LaRoche.
I denounce myself.
But then, I also denounce the Troll-like Item for posting something that made my reply something I could not help.
Eric Blair (8f93a0) — 12/6/2008 @ 9:23 pmIndeed it will, and the crap you’re spewing now will be cited as Exhibit A to support that claim. Just as the goofy claims about Bill Clinton murdering Vince Foster were routinely trotted out to discredit every legitimate attack made against the Clintons from that point forward.
As do I, as does Patterico, as does Michelle Malkin, and as do too many others to count. By pressing idiotic challenges like this one, you’re making all of our jobs a lot harder.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/6/2008 @ 9:44 pmrls wrote:
I’m with you on this, rls, because a search of wire reports from this past summer show they almost always wrongly suggest that what the Obama camp posted on his “Fight the Smears” site was his Certificate of Live Birth, when in fact it was the Certification of Live Birth. And for those who are about to scroll down and suggest they are the same thing, they are NOT. Save your keystrokes.
Most of us remember Clintonian language that was so careful and precise, we couldn’t trust a word the President said was sincere. The questions were more broad and general than the responses dictated (“I did not have sexual relations with that woman” … “There is no sexual relationship” … “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”). Obama hasn’t even been inaugurated yet, and already he’s sending out minions to evade addressing the pertinent issue in these suits — his citizenship and thus his eligibility for POTUS — by challenging the standing of the plaintiffs.
And remember whom he’s hired as White House counsel: Clinton veteran Gregory Craig. Not an encouraging sign for fans of clarity.
L.N. Smithee (34e392) — 12/6/2008 @ 10:13 pmAm I missing something? Was not Barack’s mother an American citizen? Does not this make Barack, who is unquestionably her natural child, automatically a natural citizen of the United States? Whatever his father’s citizenship status, or his place of birth, being born to a citizen makes him a natural-born American, as I always understood it.
Sally G (c4b55b) — 12/6/2008 @ 10:27 pmXrlq wrote:
All right, X, if you think that’s true, tell me: What “legitimate attack” against the Clintons was “discredited” by allegations that Foster was murdered?
You said the Foster conspiracy theories were “routinely trotted out” by Clinton defenders. So you must have at least ONE example of how somebody going off half-cocked and saying “Clinton killed Vince” stopped people from believing something damning about Clinton they should have believed.
Give me just ONE example. Take your best shot. Don’t chicken out.
L.N. Smithee (34e392) — 12/6/2008 @ 10:35 pmYour comparison to Andrew Sullivan and the Trig “controversy” is totally apt. We’re doing a bad job of fighting mental illness in this country.
Terrence (b9534f) — 12/6/2008 @ 11:29 pmMost of the people posting here are missing the most obvious point. What could logically be on the original BC that obama wants kept from the public . That his birth name is Mohammed? and he was born in Kenya? No . It is probably something much simpler. The BC will list his place of birth as not a hospital birth but an at at home birth with a late registration. This will lead to a lot of questions.
Barry Donovan (976755) — 12/6/2008 @ 11:35 pm=yawn= life imitates art. I’ve seen this episode before. His name was Gary Seven, not Barack. And some of Michelle’s dresses do look like hand-me-downs from Teri Garr, star date circa 1968.
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/6/2008 @ 11:42 pmEric Blair wrote:
Oh, you mean the indicted criminal that he made the land deal with? You must have missed it. Obama said it was a “boneheaded mistake” back in January. Th-th-th-th-that was all, folks. Nothing more to see here.
What’s that? You don’t want to take that for an answer? You want more investigation? Alrighty, then! Just tell Mr. Holder you want him to get right on the case. You can count on him!
L.N. Smithee (34e392) — 12/7/2008 @ 12:07 amI thought this was a moot issue as Fact Check found a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser(Aug. 13, 1961) that mentions both parents names, their address, the DOB and the gender.
Pat Patterspn (f44efe) — 12/7/2008 @ 12:45 amSmithee:
Right, don’t bother actually reading the Hawaii Revised Statutes, which make it plain as day that they are the same (one is the original certificate, the other a short-form certificate, but both are valid “birth certificates” under Hawaii law), just believe Smithee because he insists they are not.
Monica Lewinsky. You may have heard of her. Recall the early days of that candal, when the story first broke, and the party line was not that lying about sex was no big deal, but that it WAS a big deal but had never happened. Drudge said there was a stained dress, everyone else said there wasn’t, and the whole story was an evil concoction of the VRWC. Hillary Clinton defended Bill by saying “I’ve just been through this so many times. We’ve been accused of everything, including murder.” It worked for a while, which was all the Clintons needed. By the time the truth came out, it was old news, and the Republicans were big meanies for beating this dead horse. And general voter fatigue over all manner of Clinton scandals, real and imagined, guaranteed that Juanita Broaddrick’s credible charges of rape were met with a collective yawn.
You asked for one example involving the Clintons, and I’ve already gone one better, but here’s a third example for good measure, this time involving John Kerry. Remember when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth surfaced? Remember how many people reflexively discredited everything they said because of crazy crap Ted Sampley had been saying about Kerry and others over the years? My guess is no, you probably don’t remember that, but I’d love to be proved wrong. In the parable, only the individual boy who cried wolf paid the price of not being believed when he later told the truth. In the real world, we all do. A few little boys cry wolf, and the rest of us pay the price when there a real story surfaces later, and no one wants to hear it.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/7/2008 @ 6:26 amObama DIDN’T hire teams of lawyers to deal with these lawsuits. As a matter of practice, politicians in office retain law firms to handle all legal matters, as well as the many litigations thrown at them. They pay these law firms a yearly retainer. Obama has had law firms on retainer since the day he was elected to public office and throughout his presidential campaign. It’s these law firms on retainer that are dealing with the citizenship lawsuits, and so far all they have done is submit dismissals, which have been granted. I repeat: Obama did not hire special lawyers for this issue.
sweetwater (c79edc) — 12/7/2008 @ 8:59 amYou can call names, you can make unfair comparisons, you can drink the kool-aid, and you can make excuses till the cows come home. But you can’t make the digital image of a COLB into a birth certificate.
You can say they’re the same thing, but saying it don’t make it so.
President-Elect Obama can produce his birth certificate as proof he’s a natural born citizen, or he’ll begin his term in office under a cloud, as it seems he can and will, unless the SCOTUS acts to prevent it.
It’s Obama’s call, but he’s got to have compelling reasons to stonewall the inquires. If he’s got nothing to hide, he’s going to have one hell of a time explaining why he refused such a simple and direct solution for defusing a dangerous and divisive issue on the eve of his inauguration.
If well begun is half done, then it ain’t lookin’ to good so far.
Ropelight (5b609a) — 12/7/2008 @ 12:13 pmThe two documents are not identical, but they are interchangeable for the purpose of satisfying the Constitutional qualifications for the President.
Answer these questions:
1. Is the COLB issued by the State of Hawaii?
2. Is the COLB prima facie evidence of the facts of Obama’s birth in any court proceeding?
3. Does the COLB list the date of Obama’s birth?
4. Does the COLB list the place of Obama’s birth?
If your answer to all of these questions is “yes”, then the COLB proves that Obama is above the age of 35 and a natural born citizen, which is all the birth certificate can prove.
If any of your answers are “no”, please explain why.
If you’re going to claim that the digital image is a fake, then show your evidence to support that claim. I’ve already given my evidence as to why I think the image isn’t fake, and neither you nor anyone else here has attempted to refute that.
If you have no evidence that the image is fake, then what is your evidence that the actual document is fake?
If you have no evidence that the actual document is fake, then why do you insist on Obama producing yet another document to prove what is already proven?
Steverino (db5760) — 12/7/2008 @ 12:20 pmRopelight, you are correct that simply stating that the COLB and the original birth certificates are equally valid birth certificates does not make them so. Hawaii law does.
Xrlq (e0ec4f) — 12/7/2008 @ 12:37 pmI’m with Patterico on this. And I agree with Xrlq on crying “wolf.” Having said that, a part of me is enjoying this in the context of payback for the stupid more-than-a-decade-long “Bush was AWOL” moonbattery crap.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (1f5390) — 12/7/2008 @ 12:41 pmPaul, I understand your sentiment, but it’s a bit like saying, “I’m enjoying watching my side look like a bunch of screaming, manic imbeciles for a change.”
Steverino (db5760) — 12/7/2008 @ 12:52 pmStererino, you demanded that I “Answer these questions:” but you forgot to say please.
That aside, I don’t know if the digital image of Obama’s COLB is a fake or not. Others, claiming expert status, seem to come down on both sides of the issue.
As for your last question, “…why do you insist on Obama producing yet another document to prove what is already proven?” My response is that since I don’t accept the image of his COLB proves anything, I insist on seeing the best evidence available, namely his birth certificate, and since he’s gone to such lengths to conceal it, and risks so much in the process, I do not believe the President-Elect has put forth satisfactory efforts to show he meets the minimum qualifications for the office of POTUS.
I think it shows poor judgement on his part and I for one expect more from our elected leaders.
Ropelight (5b609a) — 12/7/2008 @ 12:53 pmRopelight – That is asking too much. You must be a racist. Listen to steverino. He knows better than everyone. Anyone that disagrees with him is a wingnut twoofer.
JD (059bab) — 12/7/2008 @ 12:55 pmSteverino #72:
More like “See how you guys like it!”
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (1f5390) — 12/7/2008 @ 1:01 pmGod, you a tool. Okay, “PLEASE” answer those four questions.
If you refuse, you are not interested in honest debate.
Upon what do you base your refusal? Is the document not issued by the State of Hawaii? Does it not have Obama’s date and place of birth? Seriously, I don’t understand why an authentic state-issued document with the date and place of birth isn’t sufficient in your mind to establish Obama’s age and natural born citizenship.
Shorter answer: you don’t have anything to refute my evidence, so you’re just going to play stupid. Hint: it looks like stupid’s winning in your case.
JD, you got your ass handed to you on the other thread, now you’re resorting to petty name-calling. Please tell me where I’ve called anyone on this board at any time a wingnut or a twoofer.
Can you answer any of the questions in comment #69, JD? Do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that you offer no evidence to refute any of my points?
Steverino (db5760) — 12/7/2008 @ 1:03 pmhey folks, I hate to bust your left leaning overly inflated liberal bubbles, but, you MIGHT, and I only suggest might, out of trying to prevent you looking any sillier and disinegenous than you already do, to make clear in your minds you understand the difference between a COLB and a certificate of birth or birth certificate. but don’t take my word for it. take the state code where Obama’s BC currently resides.
The state offers “Certificates of Live Birth” and “Certifications of Live Birth.” What Barack Obama has posted on his website is a “Certification of Live Birth.” So let’s talk about the difference between the two documents. As you probably know, the document we commonly refer to as a “birth certificate” (more formally called a Certificate of Live Birth) is packed with detail. Detail like the hospital you were born in, the doctor who delivered you along with his/her signature, etc. It looks like a tax form with all the boxes and everything. The Certification of Live Birth is really just a snapshot of that. So which one is more credible? Which one does the state of Hawaii give the “last word” to? Based on information that existed long before this issue came up, let’s take a look at one example of what the state of Hawaii has to say on it:
“In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.” ( http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl ).
so either what I posted it true or false. Since it is not false, the link confirms it is true, the colb is not sufficient for DHHL job application in Hawaii itself, why would any fool consider the COLB sufficient for natural born status for POTUS?
good luck answering that one.
facts are so annoying to you libs, they irritate and annoy, and you can only vent vitriol, name call, rant and go apolplectic when faced with a fact you cannot circumvent, ignore, or spin away.
what kind of wine would you like with your crow libs?
zeb431 (5fe290) — 12/7/2008 @ 1:03 pmPaul, the problem with that is I don’t see any damage to the Obama side as a result of this. I’m sure they’re loving the fact that their opponents are looking like idiots.
Steverino (db5760) — 12/7/2008 @ 1:04 pmZeb, you might try reading a bit before you gloat. First, I’m not a liberal. I’m not an Obama supporter. Neither is Xrlq.
Second, the DHHL passage you cite has already been dealt with on the other thread.
Steverino (db5760) — 12/7/2008 @ 1:07 pmIf by getting my ass handed to me, you mean that you destroyed points and positions not held by me, or advocated by me, then yes, you destroyed me.
Ropelight – Steve is the kind that demands answers to his questions, but will deem your questions irrelevant, and ignore them. Convenient, that.
JD (059bab) — 12/7/2008 @ 1:07 pmALL HAIL STEVERINO! HE KNOWS STUFF! IF YOU DOUBT ME, JUST ASK HIM. HE WILL TELL YOU.
JD (059bab) — 12/7/2008 @ 1:11 pmHint: The idiots are the ones spouting dogma and calling names. They also occasionally forget to say please.
Ropelight (5b609a) — 12/7/2008 @ 1:11 pmI answered all your questions, JD. You refused to answer some of mine. What you are doing is known as “projection”.
I’ll also note that you have added nothing of substance to this thread, and have refused to engage in honest debate here.
So, you are refusing to answer my questions even after I said please? Okay, thank you for admitting your intellectual dishonesty.
Steverino (db5760) — 12/7/2008 @ 1:16 pmPaul, the problem with that is I don’t see any damage to the Obama side as a result of this.
There wasn’t any damage to the Bush side over the “AWOL” story. Ann Richards was the one who first brought it up, and Bush destroyed her in the 1994 governor race.
Look, I share the same concern you do. But still, a small part of me is enjoying a little payback after spending over a decade rhetorically smacking moonbats upside the head repeatedly refuting the ridiculous AWOL charges.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (1f5390) — 12/7/2008 @ 1:31 pmThen what is to enjoy about our side looking like idiots — with the prospect that we’ll get destroyed in the future?
Hey, JD: kindly point out any of your questions that you think I didn’t answer. I’ll be happy to answer them right here. Once I do, then you go and answer all my questions in comment #69. Deal?
Steverino (db5760) — 12/7/2008 @ 1:34 pmNo, no deal. As I noted, your idea of debate is saddling people with positions and ideas not held by those people, and then demanding someone answer to the positions that you have made up for them. After trying to discuss things with you the other night, I arrived at the conclusion that you have no desire to actually discuss these things, outside of your desire to claim some kind of superiority over those that disagree with you. That kind of discussion seems to be fruitless.
JD (059bab) — 12/7/2008 @ 1:39 pmThen what is to enjoy about our side looking like idiots — with the prospect that we’ll get destroyed in the future?
They do it, ride it to victory.
We do it, get our asses beaten.
I see.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (1f5390) — 12/7/2008 @ 1:43 pmzeb, the fact remains that the Certification of Live Birth nonetheless is prima facie evidence of the birth, date and place and is therefore sufficient evidence of Obama’s qualification under the Article II of the Constitution. What you’ve brought up is that the COLB does not provide evidence of other issues ( like native Hawaiian ancestry ) irrelevant to Obama.
Ropelight – your quibbling about the differences between the COLB and the BC continue to ignore the bottom line: that the COLB is sufficient evidence by itself.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/7/2008 @ 1:52 pmJD, in case you don’t understand the point to my questions in comment #69, let me state it here:
I have always maintained that an authentic COLB is sufficient to prove Obama’s age and place of birth. This would prove Obama is old enough to be President and a natural born citizen. That’s exactly the same thing that a birth certificate would prove. Therefore, if the COLB is authentic, then Obama has met his burden of proof, and would not need to present any other documents.
You said I assumed the COLB was authentic. I listed my reasons why I thought the image was genuine. I listed my reasons why I thought Phil Berg was incorrect, and why the authenticity was not rebutted.
You, in turn, have offered no evidence that the COLB is fake. You have offered nothing to refute any of my points. You just said repeatedly that Obama should present his birth certificate.
Okay, here’s your chance to explain your position:
Is the COLB sufficient proof of Obama’s age and place of birth? If it is not, why not?
Small steps. I’ll be happy to discuss this limited issue with you. But you need to stop calling me names and claiming I haven’t answered your questions.
Steverino (db5760) — 12/7/2008 @ 1:52 pmYou said that Ann Richards got destroyed in 1994. That’s what I based my comment on.
Seriously, Paul, there is nothing to enjoy about a group of conservatives looking like idiots.
Steverino (db5760) — 12/7/2008 @ 1:54 pmsteverino – I already laid out my position, at length, previously. Should you be able to state it accurately, I will be happy to discuss it with you.
JD (059bab) — 12/7/2008 @ 2:15 pmYou said that Ann Richards got destroyed in 1994. That’s what I based my comment on.
That’s a very simplistic view of that election.
Seriously, Paul, there is nothing to enjoy about a group of conservatives looking like idiots.
I’ve already said I share your concerns. But there’s no harm in sticking the other side some richly-deserved payback.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (1f5390) — 12/7/2008 @ 2:26 pmSPQR, it’s not quibbling to ask for the best available evidence. It’s the right thing to do.
You continue to ignore the bottom line. The COLB isn’t good enough when there’s better evidence available. Obama’s refusal to produce his birth certificate itself isn’t the act of a responsible leader. It shows he’d rather be considered an illegitimate office holder than reveal what’s on his birth certificate. Now, that’s troubling.
Ropelight (5b609a) — 12/7/2008 @ 2:31 pm“The COLB isn’t good enough when there’s better evidence available”
Oh. So if the original had been destroyed, you’d be satisfied now?
imdw (688568) — 12/7/2008 @ 2:40 pmRopelight, the idea that the COLB “isn’t good enough” is simply a fabrication by you. Likewise, the idea that you are entitled to the “best evidence”. There are no such requirements and your attempt to invent them is indeed “quibbling” at best.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/7/2008 @ 2:40 pmI’ve figured out what this all reminds me of
Your position, as I understand it, is that Obama should be required to produce his birth certificate. Is that a fair encapsulation of your position?
And you continue to ignore the fact that “sufficient evidence” is sufficient, no matter what other evidence is available.
Still ducking my questions at comment #69?
Steverino (db5760) — 12/7/2008 @ 2:40 pmSPQR, clearly we differ. The COLB may be good enough for you and for many others, but I’m unwilling to accept a digital image of another document when there’s an actual birth certificate on record. I want the real McCoy, and I’ve said so often enough.
We are entitled to know if our President-Elect meets the minimum qualifications for office, and we are absolutely entitled to the best available evidence to prove it one way or the other.
You say, “There are no such requirements…” and that I’m attempting to invent them. I don’t see it that way. The Constitution lists the minimum requirements.
Steverino says the digital image of Obama’s COLB, is sufficient to establish natural born status. Well, no it’s not, not even close.
Ropelight (5b609a) — 12/7/2008 @ 3:43 pmRopelight, the Constitution does not state that you are entitled to the “best evidence”. That is clearly an invention of yours.
Nor does it state you are entitled to the birth certificate, a document that did not exist in 1789.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/7/2008 @ 3:45 pmNo, that’s not what I’ve said. What I’ve said is that the digital image is a genuine image of an existing document. I haven’t filled in the blanks from there, but I figured anyone with common sense could do so. For your benefit, however, here is the rest of my argument:
Because the digital image is a genuine image of an existing document, and that document appears to be valid (no one has come forth and stated the actual document is invalid), then that document is genuinely issued by the State of Hawaii. Because the State of Hawaii holds that document to be prima facie evidence of the facts of Obama’s birth, then the State of Hawaii is affirming that Obama was born in 1961 in the city of Honolulu, Hawaii. Therefore, Obama is (a) at least 35 years old and (b) a natural born citizen.
You haven’t answered my questions in comment #69. Are you incapable of answering them? Or are you afraid that honest answers to them will lead you to conclude you’re wrong?
Please show us all where the Constitution requires that Obama produce his birth certificate.
Steverino (db5760) — 12/7/2008 @ 3:58 pmStevrino, I guess it’s like a finger pointing at the moon. Too much focus on the finger, and you miss all the hevenly glory.
Ropelight (5b609a) — 12/7/2008 @ 4:24 pmRopelight, “Enter the Dragon” 1973.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/7/2008 @ 4:28 pmSPQR, you have a decent argument, but you appear to have ignored the best-evidence-according-to-Ropelight rule. That, plus the a-birth-certificate-isn’t-a-birth-certificate-unless-Ropelight-says-it-is rule. Never forget that.
Xrlq (e0ec4f) — 12/7/2008 @ 4:28 pmYes, well, I’m still trying to figure out where Ropelight got those rules … I have a suspicion of course. And it explains why those rules have a temp of 98.6 deg. F.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/7/2008 @ 4:31 pmBecause the digital image is a genuine image of an existing document
You can’t know that unless you have the image and the hard copy document to compare, and you don’t.
Just because a legal disclaimer is at the bottom of the Certification of Live Birth doesn’t tell us about the hard copy Certificate of Live Birth, which is what Hawaii issued during that era. (I posted both types of images on the other “Birth Certificate” thread.) And just because they claim the Certifciation can be used in court doesn’t mean it will stand up in court when the question is whether The One is a natural born citizen.
My BS detector tells me, somehow, that Obama is a fake, a phony and a fraud.
Official Internet Data Office (d766c9) — 12/7/2008 @ 4:36 pmSPQR, correct identification. 2 flashes. Also, I believe I failed to give your position fair response in my comment at #97. Sorry.
Xrlq, you mischaracterize my position, you know I distinguish between COLB and BC. Further, I note all we have is a digital image of a COLB. I make other points restated frequently in comments above.
My wireless connection is fading in and out. I may be through for now. Courage!
Ropelight (5b609a) — 12/7/2008 @ 4:43 pmIOW, I mischaracterized nothing. Hawaii law is crystal clear on the point that the COLB is a birth certificate. To argue otherwise is to venture into tinfoil hat territory.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/7/2008 @ 4:48 pmXlrq, you can say a dog has 5 legs, but then you have to count the dog’s tail as a leg. That, however, that makes it a leg that neither the dog nor the argument can stand on.
Ropelight (5b609a) — 12/7/2008 @ 4:54 pmSTOP POSTING THAT A CERTIFICATION OF BIRTH IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF HAWAIIAN BIRTH.. IT IS NOT!! Obama’s Certification of Birth is a very limited document. It does not claim to be prima facie evidence that he was born in Hawaii It only claims to be prima facie evidence of the “fact of birth” READ THE BOTTOM LINE CAREFULLY. The only document that could reasonably claim to be prima facie evidence of Hawaiin birth would the original vault copy birth which contains about 35 different pieces of information.It would list a hospital or residence and the name of the attending doctor or midwife Because obama’s claim of being born in a Hawaiin hospital has been contradicted by all hawaiin hospitals it is reasonable to require him to make his birth certificate public. He is not applying to be a gas station attendent He is applying to be the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces IT IS NOT!!
Barry Donovan (976755) — 12/7/2008 @ 6:03 pmRopelight,you can scream all you want that a dog only has two legs, not four, because the front two don’t meet your personal definition of “leg.”. As far as the English language is concerned, if someone “certifies” something in writing, then by definition, it’s a “certificate.”. Under Hawaii law, same result. But in your special world, apparently some certificates really aren’t certificates, and the rest of us are supposed to care because … um … remind me why, exactly?
BD: you make some excellent points, but I think you’d be more convincing if you typed the entire thing in caps. And more convincing still if you explained what information is missing from the short-form birth certificate that was released, as opposed to the original certificate that wasn’t, which bears on the question of whether Barack Hussein Obama is either (1) at least 35 or (2) a natural born citizen.
Xrlq (e0ec4f) — 12/7/2008 @ 6:57 pmBarry, with or without capital letters and exclamation marks, you just are wrong. And you have no proof that all Hawaiian hospitals are “contradicted” Obama’s claim of birth in Hawaii.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/7/2008 @ 7:24 pmPatterico: “The relevant officials have confirmed that they have the original on file, that they have reviewed it, and that it states Obama was born in Hawaii.”
quote from Patterico’s link: “Citing her statutory authority to oversee and maintain Hawaii’s vital records, Fukino said she has ‘personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.'”
WHERE does she say that Obama was born in Honolulu????? In 1961 Hawaii allowed Hawaiian residents to register in Hawaii the births of their children that occurred OUTSIDE Hawaii. Fukino says the DOH has an original birth certificate on file for Obama. She does NOT say that it is a Hawaiian BC, she does NOT say that Obama was born in Hawaii; just as releasing the original birth certificate to non-relatives is illegal, divulging the contents would be illegal. SHE DOES NOT STATE THAT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII! Anyone who thinks that must have failed reading comprehension in school.
CalifGirlInMaine (48575f) — 12/7/2008 @ 7:49 pmOn the same goddamned birth certificate Patterico posted in this very blog entry. Can’t you fucking read?
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/7/2008 @ 8:28 pmWhy does Obama think he is above the great unwashed masses of right wing voters, as if he doesn’t OWE ANYONE the evidence that satisifies the requirements of the Constitutions? If we can’t trust that he respects it BEFORE he takes his oath of office, why should we believe that his oath to “protect and defend the Constitution” and “faithfully execute the laws” MEANS A DAMN THING????
At this point, I don’t care whether there is any basis for doubting the facts surrounding his birth or NOT. I just want to see him RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION by satisifying our demand to see the PROOF!!! Otherwise —-> NOT MY PRESIDENT.
Sillie Lizzie (b6e854) — 12/7/2008 @ 8:28 pmTo Xriq I don’t usually post stuff and accidentally pasted “it is not ” at the end of my post. If someone wants to be POTUS they should be required to prove natural born status. I don’t think the “Certification” he has put on his website is sufficient proof . Consider a) his mothers history of living in and out of the US b) his father was a foreign national c) the two different hospitals where he and his sister claim he was born have no records of his birth there d) his statement in Germany that he considers himself to be a “citizen of the world” e) his strange behavior in not just releasing the original birth certificate Given these facts it is reasonable to want better proof . Its a question of divided loyalties. I don’t think our American soldiers should be taking orders from a “citizen of the world”. The original certificate may contain information that indicates he is not a natural born citizen or it may contain information that he was not born in any Hawaiian hospital and that his actual place of birth is uncertain.
Barry Donovan (976755) — 12/7/2008 @ 8:51 pmNonresponsive, again. It’s clear you’re not capable of honest debate. You’re just pulling stuff out of your hindquarters.
Go back to the other thread and read my reasons for believing the digital image is a genuine scan of an actual document. Try to debunk it. Then tell me what I can know and what I can’t know.
Okay, now you’ve sailed off into Loony Land. The COLB lists Obama’s place of birth as Honolulu, Hawaii. Is it your position that the State of Hawaii would knowingly certify false information on the COLB?
Steverino (db5760) — 12/7/2008 @ 9:04 pmBarry: the birth certificate Obama has already produced, and which appears at the top of this thread, tells us everything we need to know to determine whether or not Obama is (1) a natural born citizen and (2) at least 35 years of age. That’s all the Constitution requires. Every other bit of information that appeared on the original birth certificate but not on the short-form birth certificate reproduced here is irrelevant.
Could there be any discrepancies between the two birth certificates? Sure, there could be, there’s just no evidence that there is. Were we to assume any such discrepancies exist, would that necessarily mean that the original birth certificate was right and the short-form certificate is wrong? Not only no, but hell no. From an evidentiary standpoint, both documents are equally probative. From an historical perspective, for all you know the original birth certificate could be rife with errors that were subsequently corrected by the courts, rendering the newer, computer-generated birth certificate far more reliable than the original birth certificate can ever be.
Steverino: you’ve done yeoman’s work in rebutting these nutcases. One small request: what say we all (and yes, I do mean “we,” as I’ve done it myself) stop referring to the short-form birth certificate as a “COLB” or as anything else other than a short-form “birth certificate.” Calling it anything but a birth certificate – the only name Hawaii law gives to such things – lends undue credence to the tinfoil hat enthusiasts who insist that short-form birth certificates aren’t really birth certificates, and therefore, per their goofy lexicon, Obama has never produced a “birth certificate.” Whether we’re arguing basic semantics or Hawaii law, the principle is the same: either the state has “certified” the information in question, or it hasn’t. If it has, then the resulting document is both a “certificate” and a “certification.” If it hasn’t, it’s neither.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/7/2008 @ 9:21 pmTo SteverinoI ” is it your position that the State of Hawaii would knowingly certify false information on the COLB?” No. That is not my position. You have to remember that it is a legal document. It was written by lawyers . If obama was not born in a hospital then the State of Hawaii is just certifying whatever his mother or grandmother told them.
Barry Donovan (976755) — 12/7/2008 @ 9:35 pmYes, and while we are implementing Xrlq’s plan, perhaps we should get a copy of the document in question, and scratch out the words “Certification of Live Birth” that are in bold, capital letters at the top and replace it with “short-form birth certificate” too.
That way all the “nutcases” will stop calling the COLB the COLB.
Pons Asinorum (cb0a34) — 12/7/2008 @ 9:52 pm112 — Xrlq, I can read, but I guess you can’t. I asked, “WHERE does she say that Obama was born in Honolulu?????”, meaning Dr. Fukino. I didn’t say, “where does it say.”
I am sure Dr. Fukino did not generate the COLB which has been posted on-line; clerks do that type of work, not the Director of Health. Next time you start cussing at someone, you better read their post a couple times more.
CalifGirlInMaine (48575f) — 12/7/2008 @ 10:08 pmCaliGirlinMaine, you are correct that Ms. Chiyome Fukino is not quoted as to establishing the President-elect’s date/location of birth.
However the opening paragraph in the article does explicitly state that she (director of Hawaii’s Department of Health) confirmed that President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii.
Pons Asinorum (cb0a34) — 12/7/2008 @ 10:11 pmThat should read Dr. Chiyome Fukino –my apologies.
Pons Asinorum (cb0a34) — 12/7/2008 @ 10:25 pm120. Pons Asinorum, the article says that, but I would like to read her exact words. It is too easy to “hear” what we want to hear, not what the person actually said. I am not aware of any other state that allows/allowed registration of births that did not occur in state. Generally it is assumed, then, that if one has a birth certificate from the state of X, that that person was born IN the state of X. I want to know with certainty that the article’s author was not making that type of assumption in the opening statement.
CalifGirlInMaine (48575f) — 12/7/2008 @ 10:43 pmYes, it is a legal document that states Obama was born in Honolulu. Do you have any evidence that says Obama was not born in Honolulu?
Steverino (db5760) — 12/7/2008 @ 10:48 pmRelated to my previous post 122, I just found out that Dr. Fukino’s statement is published on the Hawaii government web site:
The articles quotes the statement in full. She does NOT say that Obama was born in Hawaii, nor where he was born. The article opening statement (as mentioned in 122) is, apparently, the author’s interpretation of Dr. Fukino’s statement.
CalifGirlInMaine (48575f) — 12/7/2008 @ 11:08 pmoops, link didn’t come through.
http://healthuser.hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
CalifGirlInMaine (48575f) — 12/7/2008 @ 11:10 pmCaliGirl, I stand corrected — nice job!
Pons Asinorum (cb0a34) — 12/7/2008 @ 11:16 pmTo Steverino ” Yes, it is a legal document that states Obama was born in Honolulu. Do you have any evidence that says Obama was not born in Honolulu?”
No I do not have any definitive evidence that he was not born in Honolulu. I also don’t have any confidence that the short form is definitive evidence that he was born in Honolulu. Remember, even though the document states that he was born in Honolulu it does not claim to be prima facie evidence of that fact, only of fact that this person was born. That is a very vague statement If Obama released his original vault copy to public inspection and it stated that this person Barack Obama was born in Honolulu at the Kapiolani Medical Center which is what he has told people ,then I would consider that to be definitive evidence and I would accept that. President Ronald Reagan was known for the statement “Trust but Verifiy”. Obama should do the right thing and release the original. Thats the only document that would resolve this one way or the other
Barry Donovan (976755) — 12/7/2008 @ 11:57 pmL.N. Smithee:
Xrlq:
*BUZZ* WRONG!
My challenge to you was simple: Give an example of how accusations that Foster was somehow murdered by someone doing Clinton’s dirty work “stopped people from believing something damning about Clinton they should have believed.”
You are incorrect in suggesting that “the party line was … that it WAS a big deal but had never happened.” The notion that it was a “big deal” was never considered because the ONLY “party line” was complete and utter denial. This included attacks on the credibility and character of Monica Lewinsky in the same way that Paula Jones was smeared.
People eventually believed the truth about Slick and Monica because there was a very reliable source for that information: Audio tapes in which the relationship was discussed in graphic detail by Lewinsky herself.
Who was the person who recorded it all for posterity? Linda Tripp, of course. Tripp’s epitaph will be that she was the person who taped Monica, but there is one more detail about her tenure as a White House employee that you apparently have forgotten: Linda Tripp is also the last known person to see Vince Foster alive, and is far from certain that Foster killed himself.
Here’s Tripp on Larry King Live, February 16, 1999 (bold mine):
If believing that there was something suspicious about the death of Vince Foster disqualifies one from believability, then there is hardly anyone less believable than Linda Tripp. But guess what — even though Tripp’s public skepticism about the circumstances of Foster’s death gave aid and comfort to those “conspiratists” Tripp didn’t want to be allied with, it didn’t stop people from believing what she revealed about Lewinsky and Bill Clinton.
Nice try.
Juanita Broaddrick’s allegation of rape was indeed credible, but she injured her own case by refusing to press the case despite many requests for her to come forward in years previous. And besides, the whole Lewinsky revelation, Clinton’s impeachment, and the allegations by Broaddrick all occurred AFTER Clinton was re-elected.
You would think all that “voter fatigue over Clinton scandals, real and imagined” would be a bad thing for the GOP. But you would be wrong. George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in 2000.
Uh…you DO know John Kerry LOST, don’t you, X?
L.N. Smithee (d089f6) — 12/8/2008 @ 12:30 amI’ve read in a number of different places that Maya Soetoro (BO’s sister) has a COLB that looks like Obama’s. Does anyone have real evidence for this?
Secondly, I’ve also read that the COLB that Obama presents came from the State of Hawaii. Does anyone have real evidence for this?
Since I haven’t read all the posts on this subject, forgive me if this has already been discussed. Point me to the evidence.
Thank you
Colorado (4de946) — 12/8/2008 @ 12:30 amAlso, When I said “release the original” I meant that it should be examined by document experts and a copy posted on the internet. It would be better if he did this proactively instead of by court order after he was sworn in.
Barry Donovan (976755) — 12/8/2008 @ 12:30 amPons Asinorum
That would be one approach. Another equally silly one would be to get our hands on the original birth certificate and scratch out the words “Certificate of Live Birth” that are in bold, capital letters at the top and replace them with “birth certificate” rather than a phrase that means exactly the same thing as “certification of live birth” and could just as easily have been abbreviated “COLB.”
CalifGirlInMaine:
You’re right, she didn’t necessarily say he was born in Hawaii. She did say the original birth certificate is there, and certainly gave no reason to doubt that the birth certificate we’ve all seen (the “COLB”) is valid. To assume that the State of Hawaii would knowingly issue a certificate claiming Obama was born in Hawaii while possessing another certificate proving he wasn’t is about as conspiratorial as it gets. That doesn’t make the theory wrong, of course, but it certainly justifies Patterico’s use of the phrase “conspiracy theorists” to describe its advocates. For Obama not to have been born in Hawaii entails a lot of people in the know, all conspiring to deceive the rest of us about it.
Here’s one: California. My sister was born in Mexico City, and adopted at the age of six months. She has two birth certificates, one from Mexico, the other from California. In an eerie coincidence, both certificates say she was born in … you’ll never guess this one … Mexico City. Barring evidence to the contrary, I have to presume that that’s what her Hawaii birth certitficate (or, if you prefer, a “COLB”) would say if my parents had resided there instead of California at the time of the adoption.
Smithee: why am I not surprised that you explained away the examples I provided? I never said that the truth about Clinton/Lewinsky never came out. Of course it did, but by the time it did voters didn’t care anymore. Hillary’s denial bought the Clintons time, which was all it could do, and all she needed to accomplish, anyway. And on that level, it worked.
Yup, I am aware that John Kerry lost in 2004. I’m also aware that “swiftboat” remains a verb in many people’s vocabulary that implies that you are lying about them rather than merely stating accurate but politically inconvenient facts, as I believe the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were actually doing. And the Ted Sampleys of the world are largely to blame for this (and perhaps for the fact that the Democrats paid no attention at all to the SBVT during the primaries).
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/8/2008 @ 4:49 am#9 — Jay Curtis said:
“A short form BC was not good enough when I joined the military or when I got married or when I applied for a passport.”
I can’t vouch for the military when you applied. But just last December, I got a passport for my kid using the exact same high security birth certificate that Obama produced. So maybe when you got your passport, the rules were different, but they would accept that for a passport now.
And another thing: when Obama returned to the US in 1971 at age ten, he probably had a passport. Well if his birth certificate was good enough back then for him to get a US passport during the Nixon administration, doesn’t that prove something? I won’t even get into the newspaper announcement of his birth.
B-Rob (5a8ace) — 12/8/2008 @ 5:59 amThe certification has nothing on it that isn’t on the certificate. So, if his certification says he was born in Honolulu, so will the certificate.
His existence is prima facie evidence of the fact he was born. No one needs a certification to prove he was actually born. The “fact of birth” on the certification refers to the date, time, and place of birth, and the parents.
Steverino (db5760) — 12/8/2008 @ 6:23 amI’m wondering if there might not be a couple of amended birth certificates in the chain. From Barack Obama to Barry Soetoro and back to Barack Obama. Has anybody checked the Chancery files in Honolulu? Those are public documents, I’m pretty sure. There’s even a requirement that public notice of the name change must be given, in my state.
nk (5a0e72) — 12/8/2008 @ 6:36 amWhat’s the big fuss about having an illegal alien as President of the United States?
After all George Bush when talking about The Constitution said it best; “It’s just a God Damned piece of paper!”
Come on people, do you really thing The Constitution is going to defend you down the road?
It’s just a piece of paper.
beijingyank (113b6c) — 12/8/2008 @ 6:40 amTaken to its logical extreme, the “COLB only proves the fact that he was born, not where he was born” argument would lead to the conclusion that someone was born somewhere in the world, at some time. After all, if the parts stating the city, county and states can be wrong, so too can the name field, the date, and everything else.
Xrlq (e0ec4f) — 12/8/2008 @ 6:49 amXrlq, they certainly are taking it to the extreme, but they’re not using much logic.
Steverino (69d941) — 12/8/2008 @ 7:03 amI notice no one has bothered to answer my questions at #69.
It’s called the Socratic method, folks. You answer a series of questions to get you to a conclusion. You’re welcome to answer “no” to them and explain your answers. But none of the people clamoring for Obama’s birth certificate tried to answer any of the questions.
For all of you engaging in wild speculation over why Obama hasn’t released his birth certificate, tell us all why you have you refused to answer a series of simple questions.
Steverino (69d941) — 12/8/2008 @ 7:08 amI’ve been around for a long time. In fact, I remember FDR and listening to his fireside chats in fromt of the old console radio. For 50 years now I have been an active campaigner for or against this or that issue.
I’m not a nutzoid, but an honest, hard working American who has rallied round the President whether I Agreed with him or not. I even have a letter from Bill Clinton proudly framed on my living room wall even though I detested him personally.
The honest truth is that I am shocked that Barak Obama has been elected President, not on the basis of sound morals, ethics, truthfulness, or anything else I agree with.
However, I was also opposed to Jack Kennedy because I feared that he had divided loyalties to Rome and was pleasantly surprised at how well he governed the Country. I was truly broken hearted when he died, and we lost a great patriot and leader when he passed away.
I’ve been angered at “Tricky Dickie” and “The Peanut Farmer” for their antics as well.
Anyway, if he is legally elected I will grit my teeth and try to help keep this Country on an even keel with Obama in office. However, for lack of a $12 vault copy of his birth certificate, and releasing the paperwork on his Indonesian connection, his presidency is under a cloud from the git go. I am not convinced that he is even an American Citizen. I wish he would just humor us and all of this mess would just evaporate one way or another and we could all go on about the business of our lives.
If he doesn’t come forward though, there are millions of us who are not satisfied with the certification process for the requirements of the presidency. This will not go away, and may eventually see a class action suit on behalf of all Americans. Every single action Obama does is suspect till this one thing gets out of the way. I know that I won’t rest till it is resolved.
Robert Christopulos (ea2636) — 12/8/2008 @ 7:20 amI was about to ask if that would then invalidated what was done while he was in the Senate, and then I remembered: he rarely voted anyways…
🙂
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/8/2008 @ 7:40 am1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
The problem, Steve, is that prima facie evidence can still be challenged. If the opposing side were to, for example, show that no delivery rooms on the island have record of Obama’s mother giving birth there, they have grounds to cause the validity and authenticity of the document to be questioned by the court.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/8/2008 @ 7:42 am1. Is the COLB issued by the State of Hawaii? yes
2. Is the COLB prima facie evidence of the facts of Obama’s birth in any court proceeding? No. Especially if it has been deemed a forgery by qualified experts. Don’t give me the “Fact Check” crap, there is a small issue of conflict of interest there.
3. Does the COLB list the date of Obama’s birth? yes.
4. Does the COLB list the place of Obama’s birth?Not really, COLB was issued for thousands born out of the State.
I got one better than Socrates.
If it smells like a skunk. Looks like a skunk. Walks like a skunk, it’s a skunk.
Barry makes Ponzi look like a piker.
beijingyank (113b6c) — 12/8/2008 @ 7:44 ambeijingyank, your #2 and #4 are false.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/8/2008 @ 7:49 amOr at least are unproven at this time, which has the same effect as being false.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/8/2008 @ 7:57 amI’m aware of that. That’s part-and-parcel of prima facie. But absent any evidence in rebuttal, prima facie means your case is made.
So, where’s the rebuttal?
First, as far as I know, hospitals don’t release third party medical records without a court order. So, someone could claim the hospitals don’t have any record, but all it means is that the hospitals haven’t released the records. Is someone out there getting court orders for all of the hospitals in Honolulu that existed in 1961?
Second, just because someone wasn’t born in a delivery room doesn’t mean he wasn’t born in the city. So, I’m not sure how the assertion that no hospital has a record of it is proof of anything other than he wasn’t born in a hospital.
Steverino (69d941) — 12/8/2008 @ 7:59 amI would just add:
This is getting…well, ridiculous is the wrong word. Sullivan-esque? Seriously, this may be trollery…it sounds so similar to Sullivan’s word games regarding Trig Palin’s parentage.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 12/8/2008 @ 8:01 amWe keep seeing people claim that hospitals have confirmed no record of Obama’s birth, but that appears to be yet another case of invention by the conspiracy nuts based on nothing.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/8/2008 @ 8:01 am145, Steve, Obama and his family claim that he was born in a HI hospital, but they can’t agree on which one. So quit begging the question.
PCD (7fe637) — 12/8/2008 @ 8:02 amThe Supreme Court of the United States has just denied certiorari in Donofrio v. Wells.
Official Internet Data Office (1a2320) — 12/8/2008 @ 8:02 amAs for your #2, I’ve already given my views (in another thread) about why I believe the digital image to be a genuine image of an existing document, and not a fake. And I am not going to make an appeal to authority, but will simply state that as part of my career, I’m familiar with digital imagery and compression algorithms.
As for your #4, do any of those thousands of certifications you claim exist list a place of birth as somewhere other than where the person was born? Because Obama’s says he was born in Honolulu. Can you show any evidence that he was not born in Honolulu?
Steverino (69d941) — 12/8/2008 @ 8:05 amSteverino, its pretty clear that beijingyank is parroting something read off a conspiracy site and never actually looked at the copy of the document before spouting off.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/8/2008 @ 8:08 amI said, The Supreme Court of the United States has just denied certiorari in the Donofrio v. Wells case.
But there are still more cases.
Official Internet Data Office (1a2320) — 12/8/2008 @ 8:12 am131, Xrlq, you are right about adoptions, I didn’t think of that situation. I should have written more clearly and specifically what I had in mind — the registration of non-state births by the biological parents of the child, where adoption is not an issue.
As for the COLB posted on the internet, I don’t recall that Dr. Fukino has verified its authenticity, and I doubt she has since that would be a violation of the law against sharing the contents of birth certificates. It might be genuine, but I would like to know for sure. I don’t think it is asking too much that Obama deliver an official copy of his vault copy of birth certificate to an official someone, who can then verify it says what he claims it says. After all, next time I renew my driver’s license here in Maine, I will have to present my birth certificate. I think the Presidency is MUCH MORE important than my driver’s license.
Actually, though, the whole birth certificate issue has become a distraction. Obama’s eligibility for the Presidency as a natural-born citizen does not really hinge on where he was born — it depends on an admitted fact, that his father was a British subject at the time of Jr.’s birth, and therefore Jr. was also a British subject, becoming a Kenyan citizen when the country became independent in 1963. “Natural-born” status excludes dual nationality, and consequently Obama is not eligible for the Presidency, NO MATTER WHERE HE WAS BORN.
I have commented on the misunderstanding of Fukino’s statement because I am so tired of people saying that she said something she didn’t. By law she cannot say WHAT is on Obama’s birth certificate.
129, I have read the same about Maya Soetoro’s COLB, that it says she was born in Honolulu, and I have seen a copy on line that purports to be hers. However, I cannot find the site again and don’t have time to search.
CalifGirlInMaine (bb53ea) — 12/8/2008 @ 10:25 amI tend to think that Obama is a natural born citizen but there is that slice of doubt in my mind because I cannot fathom why he just doesn’t produce the actual Birth Certificate and put it to rest. Its not that hard. If he doesn’t have his own copy then its about $12 give or take to request it on his own and he’d have it in his hot little hand in about a week.
And yes, it does matter. A person in this country cannot even be granted medi-cal/medi-caid or many other services etc. without producing an acutal Birth Certificate. They won’t accept a COLB as proof in lieu of. So a regular citizen has to obtain their own copy of their BC if they don’t have one in order to obtain a basic service when needed but the person running for President does not? In what universe does that make sense?
I think this is a fruitless pursuit but I also think that the President Elect should be held to the same requirements as the citizens of our country and I want our constitution upheld, we let this slide and then what’s next? Next time even a COLB isn’t needed, just a driver’s license will do? Giving an inch becomes a mile. He needs to just produce it and put it to rest.
A Californian (570e32) — 12/8/2008 @ 10:31 am“Natural born” status does not exclude dual nationality. That’s an invention of the conspiracy theory crowd with no basis in law.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/8/2008 @ 10:51 amIn this universe. All the Constitution requires is that a President be at least 35 years old and a natural born citizen (the 14-year residency can’t be proved by any birth records, so I’m leaving this out). The Constitution does not specify how this is proven. So, if Obama can prove his age and citizenship by any means other than his birth certificate, that’s all the Constitution requires.
Steverino (69d941) — 12/8/2008 @ 11:01 amB-Rob: “I won’t even get into the newspaper announcement of his birth.”
Yes, I wonder that there’s been no discussion of this point on this thread. Is the copy of the Honolulu Advertiser announcement of Barack Obama’s Aug 4, 1961, birth that was published August 13, 1961, also a forgery?
Newspaper Birth Notice
Peccator Dubius (0a6237) — 12/8/2008 @ 11:16 amAccording to this video link in a post by Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker, one of Obama’s cabinet nominees seems to think that The One is an immigrant:
“New Mexico governor and Obama Secretary of Commerce-designate Bill Richardson has some ‘splainin’ to do. French television recorded him saying (in Spanish) that ‘Obama is an immigrant’ “
Official Internet Data Office (1a2320) — 12/8/2008 @ 11:19 am157, and just who can get a birth announcement placed in a paper?
I got one placed in the Green Bay Press-Gazette for my kids eventhough they were born in CT, Seoul, and Anaheim.
If I can do that, why not the globetrotting Obamas?
PCD (7fe637) — 12/8/2008 @ 11:29 am“…And another thing: when Obama returned to the US in 1971 at age ten, he probably had a passport. Well if his birth certificate was good enough back then for him to get a US passport during the Nixon administration, doesn’t that prove something? I won’t even get into the newspaper announcement of his birth…”
But, the question is: What nation issued that passport? And when?
Another Drew (e451ab) — 12/8/2008 @ 11:30 amIn my humble estimation, it is almost inconceivable that the President-elect is not legally qualified to be President.
My guess is that the political vetting methodologies for the Democratic/Republican parties would entail a review all official documents starting from the Birth Certificate of record – seems logical. Sort of like a checklist; no way they would have missed that (both supporters and opponents).
The Certification of Live Birth appears valid and legitimate. Therefore the date/location of birth is acceptable to me (I am not a lawyer or documents expert, but neither am I paranoid).
So that begs the question, what is the President-elect hiding, if anything? Just release the BC, satisfy tens of millions (my guess) of Americans, and get off to a good start (set the tone: transparency, honesty, integrity, that kind of stuff).
Guess that is not going to happen.
#131 Xrlq:
Or we could do something really clever like call the Certification of Live Birth, the Certification of Live Birth (COLB for short), and call the Birth Certificate, the Birth Certificate (maybe even BC for short?). That way we could leave all those big, bold letters at the top of each document as is 🙂
Pons Asinorum (5fa803) — 12/8/2008 @ 11:51 am“Guess that is not going to happen.”
There are just far too many blank areas in the resume/history.
Another Drew (e451ab) — 12/8/2008 @ 12:00 pmIf he opens one, he has to open all, and it would seem there must be material there that would not be of a positive nature, or why would it have been hidden in the first place?
#150, Steverino….I’m opposed to the lawsuit, but, for the sake of argument….
First, I don’t think I have to prove he was born anywhere other than Hawai’i, or for argument, in any American territory/state. However, if I were in a court of law, the judge would, based on some of the circumstantial evidence shown, require Mr. Obama to produce his birth certificate, and not accept the certificate of live birth.
Second, since he is not producing evidence to the contrary, it should not be upon the average citizen to prove that Mr. Obama was not born in an American state/territory, but, for Mr. Obama to prove “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that he (Mr. Obama) was a natural born citizen. The certificate of live birth does not meet the requirement under the existing rules of law.
reff (b996d9) — 12/8/2008 @ 12:08 pmReff, I don’t know where you get the “shadow of a doubt” requirement. It’s certainly not in the Constitution.
The COLB (or “short form birth certificate”, as Xrlq calls it) is enough to prove Obama’s citizenship by preponderance of evidence. It’s up to those who’d challenge his citizenship to come up with evidence to the contrary.
Jimmy Carter once said we’re all immigrants…I guess that means that nobody can be President. Come on, this is the lamest argument ever.
Steverino (69d941) — 12/8/2008 @ 12:16 pm“Shadow of a doubt” is my words, not a Constitutional point, and I didn’t try to make it so (or, if it appears I did, my mistake). Either way, the COLB would NOT prove this by a preponderance of evidence, since, on it’s own face, it only contains information that is factually given in another place, meaning that the information, even under the state’s issuance, could be forged/faked to the person or office issuing the COLB.
The birth certificate would be the ONLY acceptable proof in a court of law.
reff (b996d9) — 12/8/2008 @ 12:21 pmP.S…it’s the only one the government of the United States would accept when I applied for my passport.
They would not accept either the COLB, or a baptismal certificate, or even a non-certified copy of the birth certificate.
They wanted only the original. So, I had to produce one.
However, if I were in court, the court would not accept my passport as a proof of citizenship; the court would require my birth certificate, even though the country of origin that issued the passport issued the birth certificate that was required.
As a last point, Mr. Obama will not produce the birth certificate, and he has his reasons. The Supreme Court chose not to get involved for the obvious political reasons, and I don’t have any problem with that. Mr. Obama was legitimately elected president, and that should be the end of it.
reff (b996d9) — 12/8/2008 @ 12:25 pmJimmy Carter once said we’re all immigrants…I guess that means that nobody can be President. Come on, this is the lamest argument ever.
Yes, Steverino, I agree. By quoting Jimmy Carter here and in this way, you have made the lamest argument ever.
Offcial Internet Data Office (1a2320) — 12/8/2008 @ 12:26 pmOkay, now you’re saying that even though Hawaii has ruled that the COLB is prima facie evidence of the facts of birth in any court proceeding, that it really isn’t.
You can’t possibly be serious.
Steverino (69d941) — 12/8/2008 @ 12:28 pmYes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Now, I can only relate this to Louisiana, and to the rules of the US Government, but, yes, that’s what I’m saying.
All that should have had to happen in Hawai’i was that any testimony/evidence that disputes the facts of the birth would have shown the judge that he/she needed to see the birth certificate for their own proof.
If that did not happen, then, you are correct. If it did, and the judge then ruled differently, then he/she played the game by their own rules, which will make it harder for the next case or level of the judiciary.
reff (b996d9) — 12/8/2008 @ 12:39 pm[…] Air, Malkin, Patterico et al have been on a tear this week ridiculing the Obama birth certificate thing, so here’s […]
Question? » Freedom Folks (d89d4f) — 12/8/2008 @ 1:06 pmReff, Hawaii Revised Statutes hold that the COLB is prima facie evidence of all facts contained therein. Therefore, it is sufficient proof of Obama’s age and citizenship, unless there exists some evidence to rebut it.
So, you’re wrong about this.
Steverino (69d941) — 12/8/2008 @ 1:13 pmPCD #159 “… and just who can get a birth announcement placed in a paper? … why not the globetrotting Obamas?”
I’ll accept that as a possibility, but not a very likely one.
Just looking at the newspaper page, it’s headed “Health Bureau Statistics: Births, Marriages, Deaths,” and appears to be simply a list pulled from the official records filed at the time, not something generated from family submissions. Note that the list of Births comes before a list of “Marriage Applications,” which would also be a term used for a list pulled from government records, not personal announcements.
The Obama birth announcement also appeared in the Hawaii Star Bulletin, another local paper, at around the same time. According to its website, the Star-Bulletin still publishes each Sunday “Oahu vital statistics for marriage licenses and birth certificates filed with the state Department of Health’s Vital Statistics System.”
All the records are the same: parents, address, sex and date of birth. None of the birth records list any place of birth, which would also imply they are all local births pulled directly from public records at the time.
Occam’s razor: The simplest explanation is usually the best one.
A copy of the Hawaii Star Bulletin announcement is here:
Star Bulletin Birth Annoucement
Peccator Dubius (0a6237) — 12/8/2008 @ 2:35 pmXrlq wrote:
Because you know your answer was lame.
Puhleeeze. Other than admit the truth and admit that she (and the American people) were fools for believing his alleycatting days were over after Gennifer Flowers, what else was she supposed to do?
If what you suggested was reality, Clinton would have been in the clear as soon as it was suggested that the person with the goods to prove he was a perjurer (and had graduated from banging babes in his government employ to issuing the highest-possible security clearance to an intern so he could get some fellatio) was one of those nuts that didn’t want to accept Ken Starr’s official story that Foster went to Fort Marcy Park, put a gun in his mouth, and fired it.
Steverino wrote:
I have seen nothing suggesting Hawaii has “ruled” regarding Obama’s COLB. There has been no participation by any Hawaii official outside of a statement for the press — not a sworn statement for a judge — by Dr. Fukino. His COLB has not seen the inside of a courtroom. What has is the Obama camp’s idea that nobody demanding the 1961 BC has proven they have legal standing to compel its appearance.
L.N. Smithee (9c1fce) — 12/8/2008 @ 3:39 pmAnother Drew —
He has a US passport. Remember someone working for a Bush Administration contractor hacked in and viewed his records?
Hmm . . . let’s see . . . Nixon era passport, traveled to visit his mother in Paskistan during the 1980s (more GOPer administrations), and his passport is hacked under Bush II. You know what that means, don’t you?
It’s a GOP conspiracy to discredit the Dems by constantly approving passports and permitting international travel by a man destined to be president, which fact was so known by his maternal grandparents in 1961 that they got a birth announcement snuck into the local newspaper about a week after their grandson was born in Kenya . . and they would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn’t for those danr kids!
B-Rob (3963e2) — 12/8/2008 @ 3:43 pmreff —
You are simply wrong about what is needed to get a passport. But let’s say you are right. You know what that means? That Obama produced a US birth certificate and got his US passport because of that.
But, like I said, you don;t need one of the original, micrifiche printout with a raised stamp birth certificates to get a passport. I got one just last year for my daughter, which looked almost identical to what Obama released.
And looky here:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/79954.pdf
It appears you DON’T NEED A BIRTH CERTIFICATE AT ALL to get a US passport. Because the government recognises that (a) not everyone has a birth certificate because (b) not every birth was or is recorded.
NOW will you people just cut it out?
B-Rob (3963e2) — 12/8/2008 @ 3:57 pmYes it was, as of today. Apology accepted, kids.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 12/8/2008 @ 4:20 pmSince I don’t recall anyone here leveling a direct insult against anyone else, it does not appear that any apologies are required.
Another Drew (e451ab) — 12/8/2008 @ 4:41 pmThat being said, none will be offered, and therefore, your acceptance is an empty gesture, by an empty head.
Good God, Mr. Smithee, you are better than this. Hawaii Revised Statutes hold that the COLB (any COLB, not just Obama’s) is prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein.
All it means is that, in the absence of sufficient rebuttal, Obama has proven what he needs to by virtue of his COLB.
Steverino (db5760) — 12/8/2008 @ 4:41 pm[…] web sites, from Patterico’s to Michelle Malkin, and even to the National Review, have derided those who believe that this is an […]
The Obama Birth Certificate “Truthers” May Be Nuts, Or They May Be Constitutional Law Nerds… or Even Just Normal, Rational Americans at Haemet (9b0c50) — 12/8/2008 @ 4:47 pmSteverino wrote: Good God, Mr. Smithee, you are better than this. Hawaii Revised Statutes hold that the COLB (any COLB, not just Obama’s) is prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein.
All it means is that, in the absence of sufficient rebuttal, Obama has proven what he needs to by virtue of his COLB.
Go to the top of the page, click on the COLB image, and read the bottom. The COLB is pfe “in any court proceeding.”
As I have mentioned before, to my knowledge, the COLB has NOT BEEN PRESENTED IN A COURT PROCEEDING. From everything I have read, the Obama camp has not presented the COLB in court, but instead fought to keep it OUT by challenging the plaintiffs’ standing.
IOW — their case is, “We don’t HAVE to bring evidence, because nobody can prove they were ‘injured’ by Obama being on the ballot.” If Obama’s lawyers have actually presented the COLB in court, then a JUDGE can rule it is prima facie evidence. But I have yet to hear ANY judge accept, “I posted the evidence on a website. That should be good enough.”
Now, if you believe that is inaccurate, refute my statements.
L.N. Smithee (9c1fce) — 12/8/2008 @ 5:32 pmL.N. – You are spot on.
JD (059bab) — 12/8/2008 @ 5:38 pm#139 by Robert Christopulos
Barry Donovan (976755) — 12/8/2008 @ 5:41 pmGood post. What I like about your post is that it is spoken from the point of view of an average citizen and not a lawyer or politician. Will the courts hold the position that the American people have no standing or right to see his original birth certificate ?
Try reading Hawaii Revised Statutes:
I’ll put it in English for you: The Hawaii Department of Health may make up any form of birth certificate it wants to, and any of the forms it creates is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, inside or outside a court.
And don’t say there’s a difference between a certificate (lower-case “c”) and a certification: Hawaii Revised Statutes make no distinction between the two for these purposes.
Steverino (db5760) — 12/8/2008 @ 5:50 pmSteverino – And were the actual piece of paper presented as evidence in any of the pending court cases, then I would agree with you. Since even it has not been offered up by Baracky as evidence, your point is kind of moot. Now, why do you think that Baracky would not simply produce the original of either this document, or the birth certificate, and end all of this nonsense?
JD (059bab) — 12/8/2008 @ 5:55 pmSteverino wrote:
1. Then for what reason is the language “in any court proceeding” on the document? For nothing?
2. Are you saying that just stating that a COLB is on a website is the equivalent of presenting it in court?
L.N. Smithee (9c1fce) — 12/8/2008 @ 5:59 pmB-Rob, while I accept your link, I have to also accept what I had to do when I got my passport last March.
I had to produce a certified copy of my birth certificate, which I had to go to the state office and retrieve. They did not accept anything else at the U.S. Post Office where I went to get my passport.
As for the Hawai’ian statute, I accept what is there as well, except for the possibility that since the original document has not been produced, but only a digitized copy online.
So, while I clearly accept the Supreme Court’s decision, I still don’t accept the “facts” of the case. Mr. Obama should produce the birth certificate, and let the facts fall where they fall.
reff (556669) — 12/8/2008 @ 7:54 pmWhy doesn’t Obama present the COLB to the court and stop all the nonsense? The simplest answer is that he can’t. It would not stop anything – it would open up the whole case.
It would demonstrate two possibilities – l) the COLB is a fake. 2) The COLB is inadequate. Either would blow this case wide open.
Colorado (3c6daa) — 12/8/2008 @ 9:03 pm“Now, why do you think that Baracky would not simply produce the original of either this document, or the birth certificate, and end all of this nonsense?”
I know barack wasn’t listed as a party in the donofrio case, is he one in the Berg?
If there’s no standing, the court won’t have jurisdiction to take any evidence.
imdw (95ac63) — 12/8/2008 @ 9:18 pmSteve posted that ” Hawaii Revised Statutes hold that the COLB (any COLB, not just Obama’s) is prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein ”
” I’ll put it in English for you: The Hawaii Department of Health may make up any form of birth certificate it wants to, and any of the forms it creates is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, inside or outside a court.”
Does anyone know how recently these statutes were revised?
Given that Hawaii is 65% democratic does this mean we could soon have new and improved statutes about Hawaiian birth?
By Order of the Hawaiian Department of Health ……..From this day henceforth 1/1/2009 any notarized statement made by senator obama concerning the facts of his birth will be considered prima facie evidence of the facts of his birth by the State of Hawaii.
All this legal stuff is giving me a headache…
Unless a Hawaiian hospital birth is somehow confirmed the State of Hawaii is only certifying whatever information baracks mother or grandmother told them about where he was born.
Given the importance of the job he seeks is a 12 dollar birth certificate too much to ask?
Barry Donovan (976755) — 12/8/2008 @ 9:19 pm“The birth certificate would be the ONLY acceptable proof in a court of law.”
That could be forged or fake too. Want to bet it will be claimed to be so if its ever shown? Because all anyone round here will ever see will be a copy of it as a digital image.
imdw (95ac63) — 12/8/2008 @ 9:21 pm#190 To imdw The original would have to to be given to document experts and a copy posted on the internet.
Barry Donovan (976755) — 12/8/2008 @ 9:36 pmreff —
One of the things I love about the conspiracy theorists is the ability to create facts and law out of thin air. Like your statement about what the State Department requires to get a passport. Here’s a hint: if they accept a birth affidavit and they accepted my kid’s certificate (on high security paper printed off the computer as I waited there, mind you), you obviously did not need “an original birth certificate” to get a passport, like you said. You may have given them one, but you did not need one. So what you stated is simply false.
And like I said: there is no debate that Obama has a US passport; it was hacked last spring, remember? So if you were right and he needed a “birth certificate” to get one, then that would mean that at some point in time he submitted a “birth certificate” and not a “certificate of birth” . . . as if there is any friggin difference. You didn’t even bother to address that issue, of course. Guess because it blows at least one of your two theories.
But you also created a fact out of thin air: that Obama has a copy of his birth certificate. How do you know this? And don’t tell me that you read it in his book that was written 14 years ago. When has he or any agent of his said that he had one?
I know I don’t have a copy of my birth certificate and neither does my mom. And my dad and the doc who delivered me are both dead. So if I call the county of my birthplace and they sent me a “certificate of birth” on high security paper, by your “logic”, that would not be proof that I was born where my home county said I was born.
In the end, I am glad Obama does not take you folks seriously or try to appease you. He produced an authentic, state certified birth certificate (or “certificate of birth” if you care) and the state vouched for it. And look how far that got him in “answering the questions.”
So Obama’s “birth in Kenya” will go up there with George Bush knowing about 9/11, the Mossad really hijacking the planes, a missile hitting the Pentagon (probably fired by Ron Brown), the Clinton death list, Vince Foster’s murder, etc.
B-Rob (5a8ace) — 12/8/2008 @ 9:49 pm“#190 To imdw The original would have to to be given to document experts and a copy posted on the internet.”
So it can’t be that the original would be given to the “document experts” in HI and the copy posted on the Internet. That won’t work. Which “document experts” would work? Someone else from the HI government?
imdw (23c2b4) — 12/8/2008 @ 9:55 pmreff —
Another thing. You wrote:
“However, if I were in court, the court would not accept my passport as a proof of citizenship; the court would require my birth certificate, even though the country of origin that issued the passport issued the birth certificate that was required.”
You obviously know nothing about courts or the law. Your passport or any other government-vouched document would be the BEST INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE of your place of birth! There is a presumption that it is correct because it is independent and not controlled by the individual offering it. In fact, what the heck do you think a birth certificate is, except government vouching that a birth occurred?
And this is the other amazing thing: you reject the authenticated “certificate of birth” and instead want a copy of the “birth certificate” . . . not that any government office would care about the difference, but whatever. Now the birth certificate is an old government document and that is good evidence of a fact being proved. But you know what else is good evidence of a fact and is admissible in a court of law? A historic newspaper article stating that fact . . . you know, like the TWO HAWAII NEWSPAPERS PRINTING OBAMA’S BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENT!
B-Rob (5a8ace) — 12/8/2008 @ 10:01 pmB-Rob, did you really say that?
My birth announcement was printed in three news papers, the New Orleans States Item, the Times Picayune, and the Tampa Tribune. I was born in New Orleans. ONE of those papers is not in New Orleans, is it??? Think that any or all of them could be faked? Could incorrect information be given to any or all for the announcement, especially since the parent/guardian/whoever??? provides the information to the newspaper?
So, while I don’t have a problem understanding any of your points, that one gives me pause that anything you are saying is right….
However, for the sake of the discussion….
The COLB was not authenticated, it was a reproduction on-line.
The passport is not a proof of birth, but a proof that the government will allow you to travel.
I’m trying to find where I say Mr. Obama has a passport. I don’t think I did, but, since you think everything else I say is wrong, I may be wrong there too….especially the part where I had to go to a government office and get an “original” copy (under Louisiana law, that is what it is called) and bring that to get my passport. I guess I lied when I said that too, so, I’ll try again…
Your logic says that my passport would be an independent proof of my place of birth. Yet, the direct proof would not be better???
As for what Mr. Obama did nor did not do, I really don’t care a whit….I said that before, and still mean it….I do care, however, that the simplest means of ending this debate is not being provided…..he could put any and all of this insane debate to rest, but he chooses not to….
I don’t believe in conspiracies, but I do believe that leaders lead, and I don’t see leadership….
Thanks for the discussion….I really do take the time to read and study and research what you and others wrote to me here….
reff (556669) — 12/8/2008 @ 10:45 pm“We don’t HAVE to bring evidence, because nobody can prove they were ‘injured’ by Obama being on the ballot.”
This is an interesting concept.
Nobody was ‘injured’ dealing with Ponzi too…not until he was closed down did ‘injuries’ appear. Ponzi also refused to release information.
beijingyank (113b6c) — 12/9/2008 @ 1:30 amreff —
This is getting silly! You wrote: “My birth announcement was printed in three news papers, the New Orleans States Item, the Times Picayune, and the Tampa Tribune. I was born in New Orleans . . . Think that any or all of them could be faked? Could incorrect information be given to any or all for the announcement, especially since the parent/guardian/whoever??? provides the information to the newspaper?”
You did not inform me of anything that was actually false, did you? And you were born just like those three newspapers said, right? THAT is why newspaper articles are admissible proof of facts in courts of law. Sure they could be wrong, but they generally are not.
And if something false was printed, it is going to be printed in the one that the grandparents ran in Tampa, right? The only problem is that, from all appearances, the two announcements in Obama’s case were run independent of anyone calling in and providing info. The one actually mentions it is compiled from public records. And they are both in Hawaii. Where is the comparable birth announcement in a Kenyan newspaper, or the British record of his birth?
Another problem you cons have not yet explained: how an obviously broke foreign student and his 18 year old bride find the money in pre-deregulation 1961 to fly to Kenya (you know, where his other wife is) and I guess place a long distance call back to her parents that would be like “Hey, mom, I had the baby. Now make sure you run to the newspapers and tell the the baby was born so they run it in the papers as if he was born in the US!” Now beyond the fact that they is no evidence Ann Obama EVER went to Kenya, or that she even had a passport back then, or that Barack Sr. went to Kenya before 1965, not to mention that Obama was actually BORN there, you have it all nailed down!
B-Rob (5a8ace) — 12/9/2008 @ 5:26 amAnd reff —
“The COLB was not authenticated, it was a reproduction on-line.”
No, it was authenticated by the state of Hawaii. You can quibble with what they said, but they confirmed his birth.
“The passport is not a proof of birth, but a proof that the government will allow you to travel.”
It is proof that the government will allow you to travel under their auspices because you are a citizen of that country. And Obama’s passport says he is a US citizen. So he must have given them SOMETHING to prove that fact. If he was born in Kenya like the tin-foil hat people claim, he would not have a US birth certificate, would he?
“I’m trying to find where I say Mr. Obama has a passport.”
You did not say he had a passport; said that. You said he had a copy of his original microfiche printout, raised stamp birth certificate. That is what I challenged you to prove. The conspiracy theorists keep saying he has a copy, so want to know when he said that.
“especially the part where I had to go to a government office and get an “original” copy (under Louisiana law, that is what it is called) and bring that to get my passport. I guess I lied when I said that too, so, I’ll try again…”
Now you are playing the victim. Unseemely. My problem with what you said, falsely, is that one needs “an original birth certificate” to get a passport. I explained two ways why you were obviously wrong, and I explained why if you WERE correct, then Obama had essentially proved his birth.
B-Rob (5a8ace) — 12/9/2008 @ 5:34 amreff —
“I do care, however, that the simplest means of ending this debate is not being provided…..he could put any and all of this insane debate to rest, but he chooses not to….”
You are simply out to lunch if you think him releasing an old battered copy of his birth certificate (assuming he has one) from his file cabinets at home, or a pristine copy from the state of Hawaii, would solve the problem, you are wrong. The conspiracy theorists did not believe a depressed, anti-depressant taking, stressed and in over his head Vince Foster killed himself, so what makes you think Obama providing his birth certificate “so late in the game” would work?
B-Rob (5a8ace) — 12/9/2008 @ 5:37 am#199 Comment by B-Rob
“You are simply out to lunch if you think him releasing an old battered copy of his birth certificate (assuming he has one) from his file cabinets at home, or a pristine copy from the state of Hawaii, would solve the problem, you are wrong. The conspiracy theorists will……”
I do not agree. Document experts are very capable at what they do. They could determine if the document was genuine and not altered.
If it states that he was born in a hawaiian hospital then it will solve the problem, if it does not, then it will not solve the problem. It is one or the other.
A lot of people have doubts about this and the fake acorn votes and the foreign campaign contributions. That does not make them “conspiracy theorists”.
Barry Donovan (976755) — 12/9/2008 @ 2:44 pmBarry, you are missing the point. Once the conspiracy theory people get started, there is no evidence that will end their delusions. Hence, there are still 9/11 Truthers out there ( and isn’t it amusing that one of the Obama birth conspiracy nuts is a 9/11 Truther too …).
And yes, people who create “facts” that aren’t, and legal requirements that aren’t, are conspiracy theorists – at best.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/9/2008 @ 2:52 pmSPQR wrote:
Tarring all people who believe that there is such a thing as a conspiracy as “Truthers” is anti-intellectual and cowardly. It is like calling someone a “racist” without due cause, in a sense — it’s a way of outlawing legitimate conversation through false accusation.
At one point in your life, you’re going to look at what the government and/or the MSM presents to you as fact, and say, “This doesn’t add up.” When you inquire to the official authorities for answers and instead get non-answers or robotic Clintonian talking points (Remember “No Controlling Legal Authority” and “I’m not going to parse the statement”?) your own sense of logic should tell you not to take them at their word. Should you abandon the idea of finding out more because people call you names?
Certainly, our gracious host should have gone through the trouble of going to Hawaii’s Dept. of Health website before swallowing the Hawaii Business Journal report (linked above) stating the following:
The official statement of Dr. Fukino says no such thing. That, as has been noted in several previous posts, was improper conjecture on the reporter’s part. But for pointing that fact out, people who just want the issue to vanish without discussion point their fingers and say, “You’re a truther!” and gloss over their own misunderstandings of the various bones of contention.
While some accusers may be “nutcases,” their cause — getting Obama to release his original “vault” birth certificate — is not. There’s nothing I can do about the self-promoting instincts and sometimes sloppy fact-finding of some of “the conspiracy theory people.” But the reason why many of us have been reduced to reading Philip Berg and self-described “internet powerhouse Andy Martin” is because of the excellent job the MSM has done in killing honest and accurate discussion of a legitimate legal issue (while wasting gallons of ink on Palin’s wardrobe).
Leo Donofrio is NOT Larry Sinclair, a convicted felon who can’t prove his contention he shared cocaine with BHO and gave him a Lewinsky, and alleges Obama had a member of Rev. Wright’s choir murdered. People just assume that because there is a Constitutional requirement that the President be a natural born citizen that there is a mechanism by which that is confirmed — I certainly did, until I learned through the Donofrio suit that a Nicaraguan national was running for POTUS on ballots in five states! We’ve been paying plenty of attention to voter fraud — who knew there was candidate fraud as well until these suits?
I have been very careful not to suggest that Obama born out of the United States. My contention is that there is no reason to hide the truth if it is your friend. Obama is treating his 1961 BC as if it is a mortal enemy. And I don’t think it’s crazy to want to know why.
L.N. Smithee (9c1fce) — 12/9/2008 @ 4:09 pmL.N.Smithee, your comment has nothing to do with what I wrote, and you partially quote.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/9/2008 @ 4:13 pmSPQR wrote:
Huh?
Whatever, dude. At least you read it.
L.N. Smithee (9c1fce) — 12/9/2008 @ 4:23 pmBarry Donovan:
The State of Hawaii has already confirmed that it has the original birth certificate on file. Why on earth would a state “certify whatever information Barack’s mother or grandmother told them” if they had documentation in their possession showing it was not true?
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/9/2008 @ 5:27 pmIsn’t that an insult? Mmmmhmm. Apology for that accepted.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 12/9/2008 @ 5:28 pmEveryone seems to be missing the fact that Obama has not presented a birth certificate to a court that will verify the fact that he is a natural born citizen. Where has he presented a birth certificate? To the internet? That’s it? That’s all he has to do?
You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ll tell my bank I said on the internet that I’ve got a million dollars and I’ll start drawing on that money, if you don’t mind.
Colorado (b3e1eb) — 12/9/2008 @ 5:46 pmYes, and the accusation stands, unless and until you provide medical proof that your head is not empty as alleged.
Another Drew (dd7bc2) — 12/9/2008 @ 5:56 pmYour request for an apology from the group was about one specific issue, an issue that was argued in an intellectually honest manner by the usual suspects on this side of the aisle, and no insults were advanced, so no apologies need be proferred. Specifically, some thought that the Court would grant Cert, some thought not. Those are not positions that need to be apologized for.
Now, if you wish your adversaries to admit that they have been incorrect in their argument, that is something else.
But, you don’t apologize for being incorrect, you just admit it when you’re wrong and move on.
Apologies are for when you incorrectly wrong someone.
Or, didn’t you ever learn that?
AD- I have been asked to apologize on more than one occassion for alleging things that were never even disproven. Talk to your comrades before posting that crap in response to me.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 12/9/2008 @ 5:58 pmYour points aren’t disproven, since you never prove them in the first place.
Another Drew (dd7bc2) — 12/9/2008 @ 6:10 pmOn countless occassions you have been asked for links to back up your assertions and you have consistently failed to provide justification for you position.
Therefore, since your position is unsubstantiated, all your adversary needs do is to point out the inconsistency in your assertions (which your postings here provided ample ammunition), and call for you to show “where’s the beef”, which you cronically fail to do.
The problem is not ours, it is yours.
Cucking frybaby.
Icy Texan (b7d162) — 12/9/2008 @ 6:17 pm#205 Comment by Xriq
“The State of Hawaii has already confirmed that it has the original birth certificate on file. Why on earth would a state “certify whatever information Barack’s mother or grandmother told them” if they had documentation in their possession showing it was not true?”
Because if obama’s birth was not a hospital birth then the only information the state would have about where he was born would be whatever Barack’s mother or grandmother told them.
Barry Donovan (976755) — 12/9/2008 @ 6:18 pmSo you think Chiyome Fukino is lying when she says they have the original birth certificate on file as well as the COLB. And you base this conclusion on … remind me what, exactly?
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/9/2008 @ 6:28 pm#213 Comment by Xrlq
Barry Donovan (976755) — 12/9/2008 @ 6:39 pmSo you think Chiyome Fukino is lying when she says they have the original birth certificate on file as well as the COLB.
No I don’t think she is lying.I think she is telling the truth.
Another Drew. I provide links all of the time. On the occassions I do provide them they are systematically and unceremoniously ignored so that you can continue your ridiculous charade.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 12/9/2008 @ 6:40 pmBarry, first you accused the State of Hawaii of having “certified” something it didn’t know beyond taking the word of BHO’s mother and grandmother. Then you acknowledged Ms. Fukino was not lying when she said the state has the original birth certificate in its possession, and therefore has no reason to take anybody’s word as to where BHO was born. Both positions can’t be right. Which is it?
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/9/2008 @ 7:03 pmTMJ, actually when you provide links you are ceremoniously ridiculed as they usually don’t say what you claim, and often provide evidence that you didn’t read them.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/9/2008 @ 7:14 pmThat’s all right. I don’t read his links, but then I don’t read his posts, either.
Official Internet Data Office (a59c69) — 12/9/2008 @ 7:25 pmComment by Official Internet Data Office — 12/9/2008 @ 7:25 pm
I try not to, but it’s been a slow news day.
Another Drew (dd7bc2) — 12/9/2008 @ 7:27 pmYou’re all just a bunch of certificists.
nk (094d4d) — 12/9/2008 @ 7:40 pm#216 Comment by Xrlq
” Barry, first you accused the State of Hawaii of having “certified” something it didn’t know beyond taking the word of BHO’s mother and grandmother. Then you acknowledged Ms. Fukino was not lying when she said the state has the original birth certificate in its possession, and therefore has no reason to take anybody’s word as to where BHO was born. Both positions can’t be right. Which is it?”
I should have phrased that better. I don’t know if Ms Fukino is lying or telling the truth because I can’t read her mind. When she states that they have the original birth certificate on file as well as the COLB I think the information
she is giving the public about that is accurate. I also don’t think the state would put information on the short form that is directly contradicted by the original .
………That does not contradict what I posted earlier.
#189 “Unless a Hawaiian hospital birth is somehow confirmed the State of Hawaii is only certifying whatever information baracks mother or grandmother told them about where he was born”.
If the original certificate listed an at home birth and not a hospital birth then that information would be considered private and the state would not release that information So unless the the original is made publc by Mr obama or by court order we will never know for sure.
Barry Donovan (976755) — 12/9/2008 @ 8:41 pm[…] my take: Obama was born in the U.S. There is a legally valid birth certificate that is real and has been released to the media for inspection, coupled with a contemporaneous birth […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Maybe Palin Isn’t a Birther, But She Sure as Hell Was Pandering to Them (e4ab32) — 12/5/2009 @ 11:16 am