Birthmageddon: the Long Form Birth Certificate Released? (Update: Picture Added!); UPDATE BY PATTERICO: Is This Really the “Long Form”?? (Further Update: Yeah, Probably)
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: So the “long form” — which supposedly cannot possibly be obtained by the President, because Hawaii supposedly never ever ever ever releases it (at least according to those who have confidently told me this) — has been released. [UPDATE: But see my UPDATE x2. I don’t think it actually has been. At least, I’m not sure.]
And it is certified, which Hawaii supposedly cannot possibly ever ever ever do (according to the same people).
Looks like those of us who said the President had the ability to do this were right.
Now the question becomes: why didn’t the President do this long ago? In our most recent thread, we debated this. After all, he was being sued and spending campaign money to defend those lawsuits. Why not get the original evidence? Hawaii law allowed it. Was he hiding something? Or just arrogant?
I see nothing startling on the certificate, so I am going with the “arrogance” explanation.
Meanwhile, all those skeptics who said this absolutely could not possibly ever ever happen are invited to eat crow, openly, in the comments below.
UPDATE x2 BY PATTERICO: And you know what? Maybe they were right. Because I’m not sure this is the long form. This looks to be simply the original Certificate of Live Birth.
We were told the “long form” was called a “Record of Live Birth.” A document that was half handwritten:
The first is that the original so-called “long form” birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a “record of live birth” — absolutely exists, located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health. Fukimo said she has personally inspected it — twice. . . . .
Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files.
This document has signatures, but it is not “half handwritten.” And it is not called a “record of live birth.”
So until Ms. Fukino tells us that the document just released is what she saw, which she has been calling the “record of live birth” that is half handwritten, I don’t think this is it.
UPDATE x3 BY PATTERICO: Just to be extra clear: I am not a Birther nor a conspiracy theorist. I have long said that the evidence is overwhelming that Obama was born in Hawaii. If Ms. Fukino tells us that this is the document she saw, and says that the “half handwritten” description refers to the signatures, I will be satisfied. I would like someone to ask her where the “record of live birth” terminology came from — but I will be satisfied.
Someone should ask her.
UPDATE x4 BY PATTERICO: Below, Aaron has an image of a long form obtained by another Hawaiian citizen. It is called a “Certificate of Live Birth,” just like this. That tends to show this is the long form. Let’s get CNN to ask Fukino and put this to bed.
[You know, because the media is so good at asking basic follow up questions. –Aaron]
Aaron’s original post follows below the fold. He is updating as the story develops.
———————————
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
So there has been speculation now for years and now apparently the Obama administration has caved. He released the long birth certificate and you can read it here.
Interestingly after all the speculation there really isn’t anything there as far as I can see. Let me back up and explain where I am coming from. I am not a birther. I have been satisfied that he was born in the U.S. for a long time after looking into the subject at one point. But he did seem to be stonewalling and so that led people to offer various non-birther reasons why. So one set of theories was that there was something else embarrassing about it. I had even heard (and repeated) speculation that it would indicate he was a Muslim on the birth certificate, but it doesn’t say anything on the subject of religion. Another theory was that it indicate no father, or a different father than Barack Obama Sr… and that doesn’t appear to be the case. So what gives?
I’ll have more updates on this later. I have a few deeper thoughts on the subject. But I wanted to put the news and link out there and put it to you. So a few lingering questions…
Is this definitely the long form birth certificate? I am trusting media sources to even know what one looks like. I don’t mean to suggest that he wasn’t born in America—he was, in my opinion—but just is it really that long form? Especially because well… that form doesn’t look very long.
Do you see anything in this that explains why the Hell he didn’t release it sooner?
So sound off. (Like as if you needed my encouragement.)
Update (II): I am going to put these updates out of order because the jpg of the birth certificate has to go last, under the fold (because it is huge) and yet, I don’t want to put all the commentary after the certificate.
Professor Jacobson, who argued yesterday that the issue was starting to hurt the President, believes that this is not the long form, but instead a short form. [Update: Jacobson says in an update that I read too much into his comment. Fair enough, but I think Patrick has uncovered a contradictory description of the document, as compared to what we are looking at and that should be cleared up.] But he also points out that the document was released literally days after he was born. Which if true means that the birther story will not come close to dying after this. Indeed, if he is right, I think this half-release could backfire and increase speculation. Which is ironic, because I really do think he was born here.
I’ll repeat, I have no idea what the long form would look like, except that this form seems a little short to be called “long.” But then again that might be close enough for government work.
Also Robert Stacy McCain helpfully translates from White House spin: “It wasn’t healthy for his re-election prospects.”
Update (I): I imagine the websites having it will get a lot of traffic, so here’s a copy of the image from the White House Website below the fold (I suggest you open the image in a new window for proper viewing).
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: I have resized the image so it is readable, and placed it on the front page.
Update (III): RCP has video of Trump now demanding transcripts. Hey, we might finally get the vetting we didn’t have in 2008! Also CBS vouches for the authenticity of the document. Stop laughing.
Joking aside, CBS points out that the White House is claiming this is absolutely definitely the long form, so if it is not the long form, they own it. So I did a little googlesleuthing to see if I can see anyone else’s long form and well, I found this document over at World Net Daily.
Mind you, I don’t trust WND generally, but when they say something that supports Obama, that is clearly against interest and therefore I am inclined to believe them. So this is an apparently negative version of some random person’s long form certificate. Kind of looks the same doesn’t it?
On the other hand, they assert this is the short form:
Which is indeed shorter. But then again Patrick did have that contradictory description above. So bluntly, I just don’t know…
Still regardless, I believe he was born in the U.S. But if it is not the real long form, then all that speculation about what he might be hiding in the birth certificate becomes relevant again.
Update (IV): As for why this is being released now, this was reported only yesterday:
Still, in the USA TODAY poll, only 38% of Americans say Obama definitely was born in the USA, and 18% say he probably was. Fifteen percent say he probably was born in another country, and 9% say he definitely was born elsewhere.
Eh, you would probably put me in the “probably column” before today. So that is 56% who say he was probably or definitely born here. And 24% saying he was probably or definitely born elsewhere. And how many people felt that Obama should have just released the damn thing?
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Reserving judgement for now. Has Dan Rather vouched for its authenticity? If he has, then that will help me make up my mind.
elissa (267e6a) — 4/27/2011 @ 6:31 amDo you see anything in this that explains why the Hell he didn’t release it sooner?
Well, in just listening to Donald Trump on the radio, this wasn’t released sooner because he (Trump) hadn’t pushed him to do so. Trump, without an ounce of irony, shame or hesitation took full and complete credit for the President releasing it. Absolutely priceless!
Dana (4eca6e) — 4/27/2011 @ 6:36 amDana
I don’t like Donald, but I think he is mostly right.
although there was a poll yesterday that showed that most americans were harboring doubts which certainly didn’t help.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 6:40 amDo you see anything in this that explains why the Hell he didn’t release it sooner?
No. But as someone at Hot Air said, first time someone spent more than $1M to release a birth certificate.
Think anyone in the MSM will think to ask exactly why that is? Yeah, racist question, I know.
Anyway, glad he finally did this. Can we get the school transcripts now, Mr. President?
no one you know (325a59) — 4/27/2011 @ 6:45 amHere we go.
Perhaps being the one human being on the planet with the most evidence for his place of birth, he felt that it wasn’t necessary? I doubt that any commenters here can show 2 newspaper birth announcements, a COLB, 2 governors and 2 board of health directors attesting to their birth. Then again, people aren’t rational.
In any case, there it is. I stand corrected that Hawaii couldn’t release the original, because they obviously did.
I can’t wait to see how the birthers move the goalposts.
FYI – the sidebar still appears on top of this large photo on Safari / Mac.
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 6:51 amWell, if you had a friend who demanded to see your marriage certificate before he believed you were married to your wife, you might not feel the need to indulge him either.
Counterfactual (c9e09a) — 4/27/2011 @ 6:51 amI asked this in the other 666-comment thread, without satisfaction.
Which recent Presidential candidate willingly released their university transcripts? Other than John McCain joking about being nearly last in his class, I can’t find one. I saw a list, but can’t find the link.
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 6:52 amcarlitos
yeah, there is nothing to do about the sidebar issue. But in my browser if you open it in a new tab or window, you can see it without the clutter. Its the best i know how to do.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 6:55 amOn the transcipts, I remamber how much I enjoyed how the Left stopped singing the “Kerry is smarter” chorus when his and Bush’s transcripts saw the light of day.
jim2 (a9ab88) — 4/27/2011 @ 6:58 amDon’t give two damns, what Obama shows.
I could care less, if this guy was born on the planet Mars. He is not fit for the office, he needs to be retired.
JP (c4988c) — 4/27/2011 @ 6:59 amRight, but that was a year after the election, so it didn’t help much.
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:00 amthat is an awesome birth certificate see how it shimmers
happyfeet (760ba3) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:01 amThe pdf looks like the certificate was faxed to the White House and they, in their ham-fisted way, decided to add the cross-hatch pattern behind it. If the Hawaiian officials did this .. YIKES !!
As far as form and content (of the black portion), it looks right.
I’m now more convinced that Obama was born in Hawaii than I am that OJ did it.
On the other side of this … all those court cases costing how many millions of dollars. The man has no sense of the value of a dollar because it’s always somebody else’s dollar that he is spending.
Neo (03e5c2) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:04 amPersonally, I want to hear why out Commander in Chief refused and the entire chain of command refused to answer the question BEFORE it got to the point of court marshal for Lt. Col. Terry Lakin.
What kind of a man allows a subordinate to be placed on trial and sent to prison when he could have prevented even the question from being asked?
That question is for you, calitos.
Jay H Curtis (8f6541) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:05 amThat says it all. No amount of information is going to satisfy the birthers. They’ll just deny the evidence.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:08 am#6, the American people are not just “a friend” that is asking to see the documentation of our president’s birth. They are, basically, his employer.
Last year, United Heath Care sent out notices to all insured that dependents had to be documented. My spouse and I have been married for 23 years, but I had to send UHC a notarized copy of our marriage license. A friend of mine had to send notarized copies of the birth certificate of both his children to prove they were still age eligible.
So insurance companies can require proper documentation, but there are those here who think the American people have no right to ask for the same.
Now perhaps someone can answer a question for me: Dan Rather claimed he had documents that proved George W. Bush had gone AWOL. The left clammored for Bush to release his military records, which he did. Did President Bush give a press conference when those records were released? What was the purpose of Obama giving a presser for this event? Is he trying to do damage control?
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:08 amJay H Curtis – Because Lakin is a moron who bought into a conspiracy theory. He deserved what he got. Worse things have happened to better people. That’s what you get when you buy into conspiracy theories; you can ruin your life for a fantasy.
I see a couple of commenters already referring to “millions of dollars” lies. It was 3 court cases, tops.
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:08 amArrogant? Or just not wanting throw around his presidential weight on an inconsequential issue?
AJ (7fd600) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:10 amsome
i don’t think jacobson is a birther.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:12 amI’m very surprised he didn’t wait until sometime during the Republican primary campaign. Imagine the theater with a couple of birthers leading the Republicans in the polls, and then they release this.
And all the conspiracy theorists (retire05, milhouse, etc.) are welcome to eat crow regarding the reasons that he was “hiding” this document. 🙂
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:13 amThe Local Registrar looks to be someone named “U. Kelele”.
You can’t get more authentically Hawaiian than that!
Blue Ox (ff919a) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:13 amHEAVILY EDITED, RACIST!!!!!!!!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:14 am#15, you’re a liar. What Professor Jacobson said was “it looks to me like a 1961 version of the short form Certificate of Live Birth.”
You really should pull a carlitos and lie about what people say.
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:16 amI think anyone who claims the document released isn’t the “long form”, or that the issue is still unresolved falls into the “birther” category.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:17 amI don’t like being called a liar, especially when I haven’t lied.
My quote was taken from Aaron’s post. If you have an issue with that, take it up with Aaron.
Now, please apologize to me for wrongfully calling me a liar.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:18 amretire05, if, in the future, you plan to keep calling me a liar, I’d ask you to please paste quotes and links.
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:19 amNaturally the gullible folks who buy into the “Birthers are conspiracy theorists” meme will fail to get that photocopied documents CANNOT be verified.
That’s why the 2004 Bush records claimed as real(later determined as fake) were debunked in seconds as at best indeterminate by experts. Obama still has released zilch. He also has never released even the COLB. In both cases, independent experts have not examined the original. That is crucial to determining the validity and age of a document.
Now that Obama has made another pseudo release, he knows once the “Birthers” challenge it, they will look unreasonable, even though he in fact has released nothing, and it does NOT mean they are conspiracy theorists. I just wish Americans would learn to think.
Even Trump’s “release” would not be dis positive of his birth details without access to the original and examination, a photocopy does not provide that, as I said above…
Nope (f02e44) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:20 amcarlitos, you dishonest smuck; I never said that Obama was NOT born in Hawaii. If you were intellectually honest, which you are not, you would admit that I said on the last thread that I believed he WAS born in Hawaii but wondered why he would not release his actuall birth certificate.
No, dear carlitos, it was you who made a lot of claims that have now been proven false. Claims like Hawaii only issued ONE type of birth certificate, that Obama could not get a copy of the long form contained on microfilm, that Obama had to go by Hawaiian law and only accept the COLB, yada, yada, yada.
You need a putty knife to scrape all that egg off your face.
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:21 amFirst, didn’t he release the Certificate of Live Birth a while ago, and a crux to the birther argument was that that was different than a Birth Certificate in some way.
AMWJ (fc6fc2) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:21 amSecond, I’ve had a theory for a while that Obama’s holding out on completely releasing it until 2012 to embarass the Republicans, and to make moderates more likely to support him. If you think about it, it’s perfect for him: an issue that is Constitutionally valid, yet will have a very clear winner.
Third, is this valid under the new Arizonan Birth Certificate law?
In any case, there it is. I stand corrected that Hawaii couldn’t release the original, because they obviously did.
You seemed to think the idea there IS a long form, i.e. something that shows more information than what was released, was misinformation or maybe a fabrication.
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:21 amThis will please neither the birthers, or those invested in calling people birthers.
JD (b98cae) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:23 amI have resized the document and added my own comments to the post. I don’t think this is it. It doesn’t fit the description.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:23 amsome chump, instead of quoting Aaron, I quoted Professor Jacobson himself. You are free to go to his website and read his quotes for yourself. Or do you always deal in second hand information?
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:24 amMy view….
The birther issue helped the president because it forced his political opponents to either (a) sign on to the conspiracy (and look silly) or (b) deny the conspiracy (and lose some support).
I mean, Obama had no incentive to satisfy the howlings of the birthers — they weren’t going to vote for him, and anyone who might be persuaded by a birther was never going to be an Obama vote.
So Obama was happy to feed the sideshow (by doing nothing) as long as it remained a sideshow.
But it’s been occupying much of the news lately, and I think it’s been getting in the way of more important issues (Middle East, deficit, etc.). So Obama probably figured, enough is enough.
Ironically, this won’t end the birther issue. If you’re a birther who has been arguing for two years that Obama is a secret Kenyan, you’re too invested to just back off. I suspect many of them won’t. This is fuel to the fire, not water. But it might be enough to push the topic off to the fringes, where it belongs.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:24 amretire05 has a reading comprehension problem. Here’s what I said:
.
Again, feel free to post quotes and links with my lies.
Did you read the correspondence at Aaron’s link?
They made an EXCEPTION for the President. Frankly, I think it sets a bad precedent. They still only release the COLB, unless you’re president.
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:26 amKinda reminds me of when, years on and thousands of dead American boys and girls later, the Bush administration was left with absolutely no choice but to admit there were no WMD. Apologies? None. Zero, zilch, nada. Introspection about how and where things went wrong? Hardly, and certainly none within the wingnutosphere. Instead, you had years more of Cheney defiantly clinging to the baroque hallucination that Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda, and a gazillion wingnuts simply refusing to accept even the Bush administration’s admission that there were no WMD…
Big Median (2b1825) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:27 amFor wingnuts, the facts change nothing.
Look – bunnies!
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:28 amBig median is a lying liar what tells lies. BUNNIES! Too bad “jasonc” got banned for sock puppetry and proxies, because he was one of the ones assertion that everything had been released, and this could not ever be released.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:33 amYou called me a liar because of the statement I quoted. I was quoting Aaron at the time, NOT Jacobson. If you have a problem with that quote, then call Aarong a liar, NOT ME.
I didn’t lie, retire05. Now apologize for calling me one incorrectly. If you don’t apologize, then you have no honor.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:33 amcarlitos, had you bothered to click onto the link I provided where a blogger provided his Hawaiian birth certificate, you would have seen that he states clearly that he obtained the copy in 1998.
Since you seem to be so up on Hawaiian law, perhaps you can tell us when Hawaii stopped providing copies of the original birth record, as they seem to have now done on April 25, 2011 for Obama?
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:34 amPlease note my updates at the head of the post:
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: So the “long form” — which supposedly cannot possibly be obtained by the President, because Hawaii supposedly never ever ever ever releases it (at least according to those who have confidently told me this) — has been released. [UPDATE: But see my UPDATE x2. I don’t think it actually has been.]
And it is certified, which Hawaii supposedly cannot possibly ever ever ever do (according to the same people).
Looks like those of us who said the President had the ability to do this were right.
Now the question becomes: why didn’t the President do this long ago? In our most recent thread, we debated this. After all, he was being sued and spending campaign money to defend those lawsuits. Why not get the original evidence? Hawaii law allowed it. Was he hiding something? Or just arrogant?
I see nothing startling on the certificate, so I am going with the “arrogance” explanation.
Meanwhile, all those skeptics who said this absolutely could not possibly ever ever happen are invited to eat crow, openly, in the comments below.
UPDATE x2 BY PATTERICO: And you know what? Maybe they were right. Because I’m not sure this is the long form. This looks to be simply the original Certificate of Live Birth.
We were told the “long form” was called a “Record of Live Birth.” A document that was half handwritten:
This document has signatures, but it is not “half handwritten.” And it is not called a “record of live birth.”
So until Ms. Fukino tells us that the document just released is what she saw, which she has been calling the “record of live birth” that is half handwritten, I don’t think this is it.
UPDATE X3 BY PATTERICO: Just to be extra clear: I am not a Birther nor a conspiracy theorist. If Ms. Fukino tells us that this is the document she saw, and says that the “half handwritten” description refers to the signatures, I will be satisfied. I would like someone to ask her where the “record of live birth” terminology came from — but I will be satisfied.
Someone should ask her.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:35 amSome chump, I don’t apologize to chumps.
End of story. You should learn to quote people directly, now deal in second hand information. Your bad.
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:36 amthe Bush administration was left with absolutely no choice but to admit there were no WMD.
I missed that. You got a link?
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:36 amI don’t get why there would be another record how many records do you need to certify a birth? The only thing what it doesn’t have on it I was sorta expecting was a part about brothers and sisters where they ask how many other kids the mom had already. Which is supposed to be zero in this case because bumble is an only child.
happyfeet (760ba3) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:39 amThere is no link in this thread. In the other thread, you were linking conspiracy theorists and Conservapedia. By the way, it’s 2011.
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:39 amJust to be super clear I added some bolding and a new sentence.
I am not a Birther nor a conspiracy theorist. I have long said that the evidence is overwhelming that Obama was born in Hawaii.
This, because I know liars like Eric Boehlert will take my questioning whether this is the long form as Birtherism. So I want to make it EXTRA CLEAR that they are knowing liars if they take that stance.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:40 amListen, and get this clear: I didn’t lie. The “lie” that you speak of was committed by Aaron. If you have a problem with that, then call Aaron a liar.
I quoted Aaron and my comment was about what Aaron wrote. If what Aaron wrote was incorrect, then he made the mistake, and not me.
You have called me a liar, and you were wrong to do so. Now be a man: admit your mistake and apologize.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:40 amhttp://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#goalposts
Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection):
if your opponent successfully addresses some point, then say he must also address some further point. If you can make these points more and more difficult (or diverse) then eventually your opponent must fail. If nothing else, you will eventually find a subject that your opponent isn’t up on.
This is related to Argument By Question. Asking questions is easy: it’s answering them that’s hard.
If each new goal causes a new question, this may get to be Infinite Regression.
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:42 amI think the “Record of Live Birth” question that Patterico asks is worth answering, but let’s take a step back and look at this released document for what it is: unequivocal proof that Obama was born in the United States. The only way to refute this fact (now) is to claim that the document we are now all seeing is a forgery.
Anyone going to take the plunge?
Kman (5576bf) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:45 amcarlitos, I linked to the blogger who provided his own Hawaiian birth certificate, you know, the long form type that provides ALL the information about a person’s birth, including attending physician. Just because you chose not to check it out, well, that is your problem, not mine.
But since the blogger stated that he had obtained the copy in 1998, perhaps you would like to tell us when Hawaii changed the law so that getting a copy of the long form was no longer possible? After all, that was your claim. That it was not possible for Obama to get a copy of the long form. So back up your claim. Show us when Hawaii changed the law.
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:45 amSo now Patterico blames Obama for birtherism! However predictable, that’s some priceless self-parody there. ROTFL
Big Median (2b1825) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:46 amThus makes me suspect that the internals on their polling recently haven horrible. Obumble spoke of distractions, so given their proclivity to accuse others of doing exactly what they are doing, it makes me wonder what they are trying to distract from. Their illegal attempt to force out the CEO of Forest? Bernacke’s presser? Syria and Libya? New jobs numbers coming out?
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:46 amGee, are we fools or have we graduated to becoming idiot fools as well.
Stop and ask “why today?”. They usually dump stuff on Friday to get three days without Rush and Talk Radio.
<>
<>
Instead of Bernanke and the Obama war on gasoline and food, etc., they’ll have a free day, maybe running into the weekend of talking useless trash (which is what birtherism is at the moement).
Great move. Feel foolish yet?
cedarhill (a3c178) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:46 amwhat’s left unexplained is mostly just why the cowardly douchewhore took so damn long
happyfeet (760ba3) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:48 amWell he got two years out of this issue. 3 more issues and maybe we get him out of office. Do the math.
kansas (7b4374) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:48 amBig median is beyond parody, and a demonstrable liar.
Kmart is just his predictable mendoucheous self.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:48 am“If you’re a birther who has been arguing for two years that Obama is a secret Kenyan”
First, moron…using the term “Birther” is a pejorative which attempts to make it look like people who care about following constitutional law are “conspiracy theorists”, etc.
Obama not demonstrating eligibility does NOT mean there is a conspiracy or that “Birthers” (using the term here to describe the doubters reluctantly) are conspiracuy theorists.
Amazing how stupid Americans are, and how little people learn from history.
Obama has NOT “released” his COLB *OR* his BC, he’s had glitzy press conferences, submitted images/photocopies of alleged documents to biased groups like FactCheck.org, etc.
As we learned from the Bush 2004 national guard forgeries, you cannot verify the authenticity of originals without independent checking by experts of them, *not* pictures, photocopies, scans, etc.
Yet, folks who hated “Birthers” leap on a release minutes ago, when the same crowd argued Obama could not get anything other than a COLB by state law, etc. Guess not.
A fake “Kenyan” BC surfaced a few years back, and when in days it was debunked as a “punk the Birthers” scam, when anyone responsible in this movement said the document had not been examined enough to say one way or another, now accept this instantly and call anyone calling for examination first as…nuts.
Incredible!
Nope (f02e44) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:49 amSay, if it really is illegal in some way for Obama to release his Hawaiian birth certificate, then ISN’T THIS GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT!!!!!@!@@@!!!!!!!????????
Keep hope alive!
/sarc
Pious Agnostic (291f9a) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:49 amwhat’s left unexplained is mostly just why the cowardly douchewhore took so damn long
Comment by happyfeet
You birthers will never be happy. See, Jay Carney said that. (Sarc)
kansas (7b4374) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:49 amSome chump, Aaron provided a link to Professor Jacobson’s website. You were too lazy to read what the good professor said for yourself. Man up, admit you were wrong.
Or hold your breath until I apologize. Your choice.
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:50 amI’m not a birther kansas person not even a little mostly I wonder why bumble spends like a lottery-winning crack whore, which isn’t explained by this certificate
happyfeet (760ba3) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:51 amre: “Someone should ask [Fukino] – Just FYI, they will have to find her at home or at her new job, I think.
Fukino saw a document with several signatures and different fonts on it more than 2 years ago. She is now characterized (note – not even directly quoted, but paraphrased / characterized, not quoted) by Isikoff @ msnbc as seeing something “half-written, half typed” and that requires follow up? See my comment #47. This will never be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone.
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:52 amObama has performed a miracle by acquiring a document that just hours before were impossible to acquire. Maybe going to church last Sunday did something when he heard that comforting black liberation hate America sermon.
kansas (7b4374) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:52 amWas Fukino lying then or is the White House lying now?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:53 amGet a life.
D Pendragon (157472) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:53 amNo “Birther” of any intelligence (and putting up a few crazies who superficially agree with skeptics is NOT the same thing) ever argued that he/she knew Obama *was* a Kenyan.
They argued nobody knew without further investigation if he was or was not born here, etc.
Obama may still not be eligible due to other reasons aside from birth place anyway. That is a whole other debate, but needs to be noted.
Anyone who learns about propaganda in debate knows these tactics well. You put up false altered versions of opposition arguments that are incorrect and attribute them to the serious arguers, lump them together, and hope the ignorant will not notice.
Looks like it’s working!
Nope (f02e44) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:54 amI’m not a birther kansas person not even a little mostly I wonder why bumble spends like a lottery-winning crack whore, which isn’t explained by this certificate Comment by happyfeet
I was being sarcastic which was indicated by (sarc)Anyway, what’s wrong with being a “birther”? I am not a birther either. I just wanted to see a birth certificate. Now I want to see some transcripts and medical records. What am I now? A grader, a medicaler? THey’ll think of some Alinsky way to mock the valid request for information.
kansas (7b4374) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:54 am“Just FYI, they will have to find her at home or at her new job, I think.”
carlitos – Just FYI, CNN interviewed her about it this week.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:55 amIf bumble came over today with the Hawaiian officials I would say hi Hawaiian officials here have some tasty sun tea but no no no bumble you can’t have none cause you spend like a lottery-winning crack whore
happyfeet (760ba3) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:56 am“Long form” v. “Short Form” distinction.
I think the issue getting lost in the terminology is the key distinction between the two types of records.
The “long form” is a document created contemporaneous to the birth. Looking at the one just released, it looks to have been typed on a typewriter, and is signed and dated by the doctor and Obama’s mother, and is created at the hospital before being sent to the state health department. I am curious that it was signed and dated 3-4 days after the birth.
The “short form” is a computer generated document that is created using information about births stored in a state database. I can get one of those for my two kids born at the same hospital tomorrow by filling out a form and sending in $10. An employee in the Office of Vital Statistics then hits enter on the computer and the “Short Form” is spit out and mailed to me. That is the “Certificate of Live Birth” that the campaign has previously produced.
shipwreckedcrew (436eab) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:56 amBig Median – Why did Obama allow the “birther” phenomenon to continue instead of making a simple disclosure?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:57 amThis document appears to be a page out of a ledger – notice to the left the bend like when you copy a page out of a text book
EricPWJohnson (f872e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:57 amMy comment was based on what Aaron quoted, and it was that no amount of evidence would satisfy the birthers. In fact, I said absolutely nothing about Jacobson himself. (Go back and read for yourself if you don’t believe me.)
If Aaron’s paraphrase of Jacobson was wrong, then he is the liar, and not me.
I have not made an error here, but you have. You called me a liar when I didn’t lie. And you stubbornly refuse to admit your error and apologize for it. So you take pride in having no honor and refusing to admit your error.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:58 amComment by Big Median — 4/27/2011 @ 7:46 am
I forget exactly how much President Obama has spent in legal fees thus far to keep from releasing this until now. I know it’s over $1M.
Am not a birther and am really glad he finally released it so we can move on.
What I’m curious about is why he spent so much, and took so long, to do it, when others in similar positions (McCain, etc.) who were asked the same thing did it pretty much right away, at virtually no cost to themselves.
When you spend a lot of time, effort and money very pointedly not giving information that–let’s face it–is practically standard I-9 material (ie not terribly intrusive as these things go), people start to wonder why. It’s rather silly to blame people’s curiosity on his own behavior, which you have to admit looks secretive.
no one you know (325a59) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:58 amHi Mr. kansas I saw you were being sarcastic I just wanted to be clear for the record – I just can’t be bothered where Daddy Soros’ little munchkin was borned. For reals it’s not like I’m ever gonna visit this cowardly spunkmonkey’s presidential library and ooh and aah at all his stupid records.
happyfeet (760ba3) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:59 amOnce the polls started showing how badly the birth cert issue was hurting Obama he had to cave. He was no longer getting the traction from using it as a wedge issue to paint his detractors as kooks and morons. When the poll numbers started eating into the independents and even some dems at significant levels the issue had to finally be put to rest.
tgs (0efecf) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:01 amSome chump, I directly quoted Professor Jacobson. You quoted someone else instead of reading the good professor himself. Your moniker seems well suited to you.
Now, start holding your breath in 3…. 2…. 1.
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:03 amKman
> I think the “Record of Live Birth” question that Patterico asks is worth answering, but let’s take a step back and look at this released document for what it is: unequivocal proof that Obama was born in the United States. The only way to refute this fact (now) is to claim that the document we are now all seeing is a forgery.
Well, it would have to be a falsified document.
I mean putting on my creative paranoid hat, i could imagine two scenarios.
1) Dan Rather (or whomever) gets out his old forging typewriteer and make a fake document using an old hawaiian birth certificate form in 2011, or at least by 2010.
2) Obama was born in another country but his mother made sure he made it to America within four days of his birth and convinced the officials on the form claiming to see his birth to lie for him, in 1961.
I’m not saying either one is the case, but I could imagine birthers making either argument.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:03 am“Am not a birther and am really glad he finally released it so we can move on.”
I’m glad that the 2004 images of Bush’s records were “released” adequately, are not you?
The education system in America is really weak when people immediately call skeptics of this latest “release” as “birther nuts” and this PDF file a verified, “release” of his BC.
No wonder we are so screwed!
Nope (f02e44) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:06 amIt is not a coincidence that this happens the day after the USA Today/Gallup poll showed that 39% of ALL AMERICANS have doubts about whether he was born in the US.
The birther issue had begun to infect the body politic, and the refusal of the WH to put the matter to rest was starting to become as much the story as the nutters that were generally driving it.
They let it go on too long, and it was becoming more and more of a political liability to the WH, rather than simply tarring the GOP with the fringe’s excesses.
shipwreckedcrew (436eab) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:06 amcarlitos – Just FYI, CNN interviewed her about it this week.
Thanks daley, I know that. Problem is that she’s being interviewed about something that she saw 2 years ago, and she’s being indirectly quoted by Isikoff on “half hand-written” and now you’re wondering if she’s “lying” and Patterico and others are questioning whether this is the elusive “long form” or not.
Anyway, I have written Isikoff to see if he has a verbatim quote. If he tweets or blogs it, you can thank me. 🙂
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:06 amThe problem with being a birther is that it constitutes a damning confession that you don’t understand why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As a birther, you admit that you are unwilling to accept any burden of proof whatsoever and, rather, foist all such burdens onto others to DISPROVE your extraordinary claims.
Big Median (2b1825) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:10 amIf I assert that Patterico had a sex change and used to be Patricia, does it make any sense at all for me to then cite as my evidence the fact that Patterico refuses to provide a birth certificate proving he was born a man? Shouldn’t I have some proof before even making such a claim? Or, in sad birther parlance before I start “just asking the question?”
Epistemological decrepitude is a theme on this blog, in particular. For some reason, the regulars think they win arguments by simply asserting all proof burdens lie elsewhere, then repeating ad nauseum demands for such proof. No surprise at all that birther insanity, and Patterico’s pathetic fluffing of the issue, would find purchase here.
“I’m not saying either one is the case, but I could imagine birthers making either argument.”
Once again, stating the FACT that an original cannot be verified by photocopy makes the birthers the smart ones, not “kooks”, etc.
At this point, the argument by the “anti-birther” crowd is that they ARE alleging “conspiracy” by suggesting the above point about pictures not being sufficient, but that misses the point that they are right.
Conspiracy or not, Obama has not “released” either a COLB or a BC or long form, etc.
I hope all of you see why. Making arguments about “being paranoid” etc. changes this fact not one bit…
Nope (f02e44) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:12 amcarlitos,
CNN knows how to find Fukino. They have been talking to her.
Hey, the people who have their own long forms: what are they called? I have not seen all the comments or even all Aaronms updates so forgive me if the answer is above.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:12 amWhen compared to the new document, the “old” one we’ve all seen certainly would lead me to say the newer one is “half hand-written”.
With things like actual signatures and what looks like penciled-in item numbers on the sides of some fields (I clearly see 2’s, 9’s, a couple of 1’s), I would certainly call this legit.
It bears a certain resemblance to what my KS BC looks like (lots of typing, with a couple of signatures)…
But this won’t keep the committed from refusing to accept it.
Now about those college transcripts, Mr President…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:12 amJust to elaborate, looking above at the certificate, there are 25 boxes in that form which contain words. 5 of those boxes contain handwriting – 3 signatures and 2 dates. If I saw that 2 years ago, and got a call from Isikoff today, I might say “the thing was so old that half written by hand,” or something like that. Memory fallability and lazy indirect quoting by Isikoff is much more likely than Fukino lying in my humble opinion.
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:12 amBig median is arguing against what, exactly? Have you just made up an ideological opponent there? Or do you just like being intellectually dishonest and decrepit, and morally bankrupt?
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:13 amMr. Median what raised suspicions that bumble wasn’t an American is how he rapes her treasury so hard and basically jacks up her future to where she has to blow Chinese and Indians in back alleys just to cover her debts. He just doesn’t act like he’s a for reals American. So that’s probably why people got suspicious.
happyfeet (760ba3) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:14 am“foist all such burdens onto others to DISPROVE your extraordinary claims.”
You have this precisely reversed from reality. Obama, being a presidential candidate, has to demonstrate eligibility, not his critics who suggest (rightly) that what he’s provided is not enough to meet an acceptable level of scrutiny.
Nope (f02e44) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:14 amJust scrolled up. Says “certificate.” So that helps remove some suspicion.
I wish I could stay on top of this but gotta get to work.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:15 amThe ones who get theirs from Hawaii DOH in 2011 are apparently called “President Obama.” 🙂
(I ate my crow in comment #5 but just to make sure) :
PATTERICO WAS RIGHT. CARLITOS WAS WRONG.
Again, I sent Isikoff a note asking for a verbatim quote from Fukino.
(I was also right in comment 5 that goalposts would be moved.)
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:16 amYou have a hard time understanding things, don’t you?
Here’s what happened:
1. Aaron said something about Jacobson.
2. I quoted Aaron’s statement and made a comment about birthers in general
3. You called me a liar based on what I quoted, and said that Jacobson had said something else
(Let’s stop right here and realize that your accusation was a non sequitur, because I never claimed to be quoting Jacobson, nor did I say anything about Jacobson himself.)
4. I told you that I had not lied, and demanded that you apologize for the slur.
5. You said that you had quoted Jacobson directly, and I relied on a second-hand quote. Which is another non sequitur.
Get this straight: I never claimed to be quoting Jacobson. What Jacobson said is actually immaterial to my original comment. I said that no amount of evidence will satisfy the birthers.
Now, you called me a liar because what Aaron said about Jacobson was incorrect. How does that make me a liar?
Now, show where I lied. Come on: give us all the exact comment where I told a lie. If you can’t do that, then own up to your mistake and admit that you called me a liar in error.
Are you man enough to do that?
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:16 amRoy Edroso lies about my stance in 3…2…1…
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:18 am“But this won’t keep the committed from refusing to accept it.”
Because nobody smart would.
Not immediately. But after investigation, with qualified independent experts examining the original, not a photocopy, they probably could.
For the same reason they would not claim the “Kenyan” BC that surface (later determined to be a fake) would be “true” before the ORIGINAL could be hand examined.
For the same reason the 2004 Bush document was unclear at best based on scan or photocopy.
Getting it now?
Nope (f02e44) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:19 amAnyone want to wager what the wingnut reaction would be if Obama did make public his college “transcripts?”
Big Median (2b1825) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:19 amThe guy graduated magna cum laude! WTF. I can guess why that may really bother a bigot, but why would his proven academic success provoke any emotionally healthy person?
Carlitos – claiming that the goalposts would be moved by some who would never be convinced is not really going out on a limb. Those that are doing so are a distinct minority, no?
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:19 amI find Fukino credible. If she says this is what she saw I will be convinced.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:20 amCould you document this “proven academic success” for us, big MFM median? Because given your track record of outright lies, you will forgive us for not taking your word for it.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:21 amRACISTS!!!!!!!! Big MFM median is a one-trick pony.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:22 amJD – A distinct minority this morning? Yes. I hope this release effectively separates the conspiracists from the mainstream, and that future would-be Presidents can talk about the freaking economy instead of this.
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:22 am“I said that no amount of evidence will satisfy the birthers”
Total bunk, and again, a typical debate evasion tactic designed to make “Birthers” (kind of like calling a tea party person a tea bagger, BTW) look like paranoid conspiracy theorist kooks when all they want is for the law and the president to actually provide real verifiable EVIDENCE.
That does NOT mean photocopying it, pasting it in a PDF on the internet, and claiming you met a reasonable burden of proof on this document.
For the same reason if I were named in a paternity suit, then I show you a DNA test result showing I am not the guy, no court would just believe me. They would expect a *lab test* they did, not a sample I *claimed* came from me “proving” my innocence.
Got it?
Nope (f02e44) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:23 amI guess it’s too late to send Stanley Ann and Barack a baby card. But it would be very nice I think if Hallmark made a card for sending to the White House saying “Congratulations! I heard you found your birth certificate”. And then you could use some of the empty space inside to say anything else you might want to mention to the president.
elissa (267e6a) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:27 amSo, all of my guesses about why he wouldn’t release it were wrong. He didn’t release it just because he didn’t want to.
I wonder if MSNBC and CNN feel like stupid chumps for trying to explain why he couldn’t do this and/or it would take a big effort.
I wonder if Hawaii feels like chumps for having to answer so many questions about this.
At least now Republicans won’t be asked about it at every interview.
MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:28 amCorsi’s book comes out May 17, so I’d expect some new crazy before then.
Hey Nope, when the AP and Fact Check physically saw and handled the original COLB, was that good enough for you? Is that what you want Obama to do with this document, instead of a PDF?
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:28 amNope has got to be some kind on noR luaP supporter…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:29 amWell, reading the updates as they develop, and maybe this isn’t the long form they’re claiming it is. Sheesh.
If so (and am reluctant to arrive at that conclusion because this whole situation thanks to Obama is such a mess, but the truth is the truth, so we should make sure), that would at least explain why he “suddenly” decided to release “the long form” after spending so much to hide it until now.
Obama IS to blame IMO for all this speculation.
If he acted like he’s actually accountable instead of the emperor of the world ([paraphrasing] “Moi? actually produce what other people have readily produced?”) then people who believe he was born outside Hawaii (I don’t) or believe there is something else to hide on the long form (if this turns out not to be it) wouldn’t have had a thing to continue to talk about.
no one you know (325a59) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:30 amYou have to wonder why Metamucil Guy keeps using the word “bigot” so much—while making crude comments about a group of people he doesn’t like.
He’s kind of funny, actually, because he is seemingly unaware of what he is.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:30 amcarlitos, complaining about how the birthers will just move the goal posts is himself moving the goalposts. Carlitos, you were jumping up and down saying it was simply not legal for him to get a long form.
People showed you that the law said no such thing.
MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:30 amObama got a copy of the long form.
And you want to talk about goalpost moving.
Oh, and there was no such thing as a long form. There was that, too.
MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:31 amcarl
good point. i wonder what corsi is going to do?
write a quick update?
or what?
i mean his book has become obsolete this morning. perhaps he will claim this is a forgery or false document, or not the long form, but… he gotta say something to this. i wonder if he has a blog.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:33 amCap’n Ed is fawning all over bumble’s brilliance this morning it’s very odd plus he won’t give Mr. Trump credit for pushing this issue to a resolution, which is really not fair cause if Mr. Trump hadn’t made this an issue bumble would never have released his certificate thingy.
I think Cap’n Ed is just upset that the birther issue might could go away and Hot Air won’t be able to sneer at them birthers anymores. They have a bizarre zest for sneering at the birthers over there.
But it was never that big a deal.
happyfeet (760ba3) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:33 amCaritos,
still not getting I see.
Factcheck have discredited themselves based on years of left bias. AP? Please…
It’s important NOT to jump to *ANY* conclusions instantly. Even if FC.org were honest, they are not document experts with qualifications and they are not clearly neutral players.
Do you actually believe you can verify a document based on a photocopy? I hope not!
Nope (f02e44) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:34 amFOr the record, this is what a Birth Certificate looks like from Kansas (not mine)
http://www.birth-certificate.biz/images/birth_certificate1.gif
As for how hard it is to get a copy?
$26 bucks gets me a certified copy delivered to my house.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:35 am“Conspiracy theorists”?! He was hiding the document. How can you possibly have the face to deny it any more? He could have produced this 2.5 years ago, and yet he stubbornly refused. There had to be a reason for that, and since nobody’s telepathic we each had to guess. It seemed to me that the most likely reason was that there was something on it he didn’t want us to see; the second most likely reason was that he was just playing head games.
Well, now we know (assuming, of course, that the certificate is genuine, and that the reason for the delay wasn’t that it took this long to forge it) that there’s nothing embarrassing on it; so the answer seems to be option 2, head games. Or, as Tim McGuire (whom you will surely admit is no loon) put it, “Obama’s practice of managing his brand by hiding everything (leaving critics and skeptics unsure which haystack actually conceals a needle which may or may not exist.)”
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:36 amThe claim that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. is clearly extraordinary. Why do the people who make such an extraordinary claim insist they bear exactly zero burden of proof? And why do people like Patterico, who obviously knows better, not point that extremely embarrassing fact out to them?
Big Median (2b1825) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:37 amI asked this in the other 666-comment thread, without satisfaction.
Which recent Presidential candidate willingly released their university transcripts? Other than John McCain joking about being nearly last in his class, I can’t find one. I saw a list, but can’t find the link.
Comment by carlitos — 4/27/2011 @ 6:52 am
Bush released his. He may be the only one.
http://2004.georgewbush.org/bios/yale-transcript.asp
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:37 amPart of the problem is with the amount of time for Obama to obfuscate this. If he’d released this ages ago, “conspiracy theorists” would not be able to claim he could have used the office powers to bend matters his way, etc.
Quite sad.
If the document turns out to be true, if the attendant is found and verified, etc. then “Birthers” were still right, in that he should have released it ages ago and that *nobody* knew until he did. You cannot lump those with other equally out on a limb folks claiming they “knew” he was born in Kenya, without examining more detail…
Nope (f02e44) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:40 amOkay, this just cracked m up.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:41 amHilarious how JD says I’m arguing with a position no one takes then, minutes later, happyfeet, no one you know and milhouse take the position. I suppose JD will respond with more expletives. lmao
Big Median (2b1825) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:42 amBig MFM median is arguing against the voices in his head. Remember when I said above that this would not please actual birthers, nor those invested in calling people birthers? I give you big MFM median, Exhibit A.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:42 amAW:
Agreed.
I confess to a little schadenfreude about that. It’s been number one on Amazon for a few days. Burn!
Kman (5576bf) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:43 amI will let the actions of the birthers speak for themselves.
However, I will point out that Obama did release “real verifiable evidence” back in 2008, with the so-called “short form” birth certificate. That was a certificate stamped and validated by the State of Hawaii, and the birthers didn’t think it was enough evidence. This has led me to believe that there is a large group of people who will never be satisfied with whatever evidence is presented, it will never be enough for them.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:44 amBig MFM median lid again. Mil house and happyfeet absolutely did not claim what you asserted they did. Liar.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:44 amBig Median,
The folks claiming Obama was born in Kenya are no more wrong than the legions of reporters and others on sites like Redstate who claimed he was born in the USA.
Nobody knows without qualified unbiased experts examining the original. Not a PDF.
The same folks who attacked instant claimers of the now proven fake Kenyan BC that went around the net, now claim in seconds that another photocopy is geniune, BEFORE more examination has taken place.
Getting it now?
Nope (f02e44) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:44 am“carnival barker” is one of the left’s pet phrases for to describe Sarah Palin it’s interesting to see bumble use it
happyfeet (760ba3) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:45 amBig MFM median lied again. Milhouse and happyfeet absolutely did not claim what you asserted they did. Liar.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:45 amI don’t understand what Median person claims I claimed.
or whatever
happyfeet (760ba3) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:46 amDid Gerald A. actually link to the GW Bush parody site? Now that’s some pure comedy gold there. Nice one, Gerry
Big Median (2b1825) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:47 amAlso Big Median,
until *TODAY*
Obama had not even pseudo released (liek the COLB) a longer BC form. So the correct answer was “indeterminate” until more investigation.
Not, “he’s foreign born!” or “he *was* born in Hawaii,” etc> Not hard to understand at all…
Nope (f02e44) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:47 amIt isn’t about BIRTH but about ELIGIBILITY. The form shows his father was Kenyan, not American. Only a person with two American parents can be natural born and so able to be President. He is disqualified Constitutionally. Period.
Interesting (1fdc65) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:48 amNope, please tell us who would be qualified to authenticate this birth certificate to your satisfaction?
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:48 amNo, H. Feet, carnival barker refers to the short-fingered vulgarian, aka Donald Trump. But I suppose if your point is to play the victim card, there really is no need to even appear to get your facts straight…
Big Median (2b1825) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:49 amBzzzzzt. You lose.
And Nope won’t be satisfied until he physically gets to hold the certificate himself.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:51 amI asked this in the other 666-comment thread, without satisfaction.
Well, people answered you. Are you moving the goalposts?
I don’t think Obama will release his transcripts. He does not have to release his transcripts. Apparently, people are much less willing to leak his transcripts than they were to release other candidate’s transcripts. Probably because they were racist against the other candidates.
However, people will ask him to release his transcripts. It’s politics, where some people even think their opponent’s divorce records are important enough to release.
MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:51 amOptimist
Jay H Curtis (8f6541) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:51 amGot my numbers mixed up on the USA Today/Gallup Poll noted at #80.
As the update points out — and I think this is a bigger problem than the way I mis-described the poll — only 38% of Americans are convinced the President was born in the United States, and 19% think he probably was born in the US. That means 43% have doubts.
That is why this was released today. 43% with doubts is WAY ABOVE fringe levels, and the unanswered questions went on too long. Questionable if they can put the genie back in the bottle on this or not.
Am curious about the form they released. The use of the green cross-hatched computer paper seems out of place. That’s not something that would have existed back in 1961. So, this seems to not be a contemporaneous document, but something of a more modern production.
Here is my suspicion — I have seen it reported here in Hawaii that the records of the Dept. of Health Office of Vital Statistics (?) are not in great order. Hawaii is notorious for state buildings falling into disrepair, documents getting lost or damaged by mold/mildew/water damage, etc.
It is my PURE CONJECTURE AND SPECULATION that the original record may not exist anymore, and only a microfiche copy remains, like the one posted here for Susan Nordyke.
To recreate birth files for the lost records, at some point in the past Hawaii officials decided to digitize the microfiche records, and then reprint them onto the green computer paper, which was then bound up into volumes to replace the original birth records that were lost or damaged.
This would explain Abercrombie’s inexplicable statements about the long form birth certificate being unavailable. I’m not sure why else this record — supposedly created contemporaneous to the birth in 1961 — would appear on more modern green computer security paper.
shipwreckedcrew (436eab) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:51 amI don’t understand what Median person claims I claimed.
or whatever
Comment by happyfeet — 4/27/2011 @ 8:46 am
Yeah, me either. Maybe he could have “the black community” (his words) explain it to me. Whatever that is. (see Pigford morality thread)
no one you know (325a59) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:52 amDid Gerald A. actually link to the GW Bush parody site? Now that’s some pure comedy gold there. Nice one, Gerry
Just wanted to see if anyone’s paying attention.
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:54 am“I’ve got better stuff to do.”
Like talk about the loss of life and property because of the many tornados that have ripped through the different states this past week? To my knowledge, Obama has not said one word about the destruction.
Or maybe he wants to now move on to the fact that an IED was found, and disarmed, on a highway overpass in Brownsville, Texas? The same kind of IEDs that are being used in Iraq? Nah, Americans would not be interested in that, would they? Or that he cannot make up his mind which way to flop on Libya and Syria. Qdaffy has got to go, Baby Assad can stay, or maybe Qdaffy can stay and Baby Assad has to go? Who knows? It depends on the time of day.
And are we to think that since Obama has been in office for over two years, and the birth certificate issue has been raging the whole time, that it is only NOW that he has better things to do? Perhaps that explains why this nation is in such deep do-do.
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:54 amThere’s a simple explanation for this:
The image exists digitally (perhaps as a pdf), and was printed from a computer onto whatever paper stock Hawaii uses. The paper itself is modern, but the document the image was scanned from is not.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:55 amSaw this on another blog: zombie rotten mcdonald (hardly evil at all) wrote,
Fritz (ac48cc) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:57 amNo, H. Feet, carnival barker refers to the short-fingered vulgarian, aka Donald Trump. But I suppose if your point is to play the victim card, there really is no need to even appear to get your facts straight…
Comment by Big Median — 4/27/2011 @ 8:49 am
Big MFM median is beyond parody.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:57 amMore fundraisers. Oprah. Golf.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:59 amHi MayBee,
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:59 amPatterico linked 2 articles which indicated that Bush, Gore and Kerry did NOT willingly release their college transcripts. I don’t believe that Palin, Obama or Biden did either. My point is that acting like Obama is “hiding something” that everyone else “hides” seems to be a double standard. That’s what I meant by “without satisfaction.”
Jaysonc back to the proxies. Did I catch where you admitted you were wrong wrong wrong? You claimed that this could not be released, and that Barcky had released everything. My guess was wrong, but it was a guess. You asserted hints as fact which simply were not so. Again, Jason is another invested in calling people birthers.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:01 amjaysonc, apparently you lump Chrissy Matthews, with his tingling legs, into the perjorative of “birther” since Matthews said Obama should just release the damn thing.
Odd that all these years later, 50% of Democrats are still “truffers”.
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:01 amHowever, I will point out that Obama did release “real verifiable evidence” back in 2008, with the so-called “short form” birth certificate.
*Sigh*
He did not. He also did not provide real verifiable evidence. Unless you assert the Bush 2004 records were “true” instantly.
I checked back and *sigh* saw more comments like “Hey Nope, what would *YOU* be satified with”? etc.
Again, implying anyone with a high IQ is a “conspiracy theorist who will never be satisfied” etc.
You cannot verify document originals from photocopies. You cannot use unqualified biased folks like Factcheck to vouch for you. You have to have it looked at by a skeptic, who knows what to look for, who does it professionally,
Geez…
Nope (f02e44) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:05 amSome chump — that is my guess too. But I suspect the original has been lost, damaged, or destroyed somehow — which would not be unusual in Hawaii given the historical gross incompetence of state government workers.
I think the WH would have been better off releasing a microfiche copy with an explanation.
One thing I would also note about Hawaii – its a small place where land and building space is a premium, and as they say “They ain’t making anymore island”. Storing ever increasing volumes of paper records like birth certificates, marriage licenses, etc., just takes up physical space in state buildings that cold be put to better use.
At some point in the past there may have been a policy decision made to reduce storage needs by eliminating historical paper records in favor of digitizing the records themselves or their microfiche copies, and calling the digitized versions the official state records.
shipwreckedcrew (436eab) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:05 am“The guy graduated magna cum laude! WTF.”
Big Median – Didn’t something like 76% of his Harvard Law class graduate with honors? WTF?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:05 am“Obama couldn’t figure out that you can’t give in to these crazies.”
Love how you fail to analyze substance, something that happens constantly in this issue, with false lumping of “Birthers” with 9/11 truthers, etc.
Nope (f02e44) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:06 amSo without satisfaction = people not saying there is a double standard? You were answered.
But yes, everybody “hides” things. Obama is hiding things. And everybody tries to get their opponent’s information out in public. Obama himself has engaged in that, quite nastily.
So to me, acting like Obama is some special victim is a non-starter. And acting like people who ask for information about him are bad (or racist) is even more of a non-starter.
I just don’t get the instinct some people have to want to protect Obama. He would not offer the same protection to someone else. Look how he let his beloved MSNBC report idiocy.
MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:08 amLike say, the head of the Hawaii Department of Health? Geez.
MayBee, I’m not sure I understand your logic.
Patterico wrote –
I asked what other candidates did this. No one can name any. So that’s a double standard, which I don’t find “satisfying,” no.
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:13 amObama didn’t release his birth certificate until now because the birthers were looked at as the extreme fringe nut jobs of the Rep party and were easy to demonize as a result. There was more than one democratic ad that tried to portray the right as a bunch of nut bags. And they would always show the birthers as the poster children for this claim. This worked well for Obama, so they saw no reason to release the birth certificate because it would eliminate this group that was politically beneficial to Obama.
But now that The Donald has been gaining some traction and popularity as a result of the birther thing, it has become a political liability for Obama, so he releases his long form birth certificate.
Moral of the story: As usual, it’s all about Obama and what’s best for him. He could have put this thing to rest a long time ago, but chose not to because it was to his benefit politically. Only when he deems it not to be beneficial does he release his birth certificate.
Ed Bettencourt (b26ebb) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:14 amFrom Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communication director:
It looks very much like what I received from Cuyahoga County the last time I needed my birth certificate.
Fritz (ac48cc) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:15 amIt may well be that Hawaii has gone paperless: they just scanned the originals. It’s not unlike putting them onto microfiche, it just saves space.
That’s not incompetence at all.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:16 amBig Median – Why did Obama wait so long to release this document? Still waiting for your answer.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:17 amYes, he did. The Ceritifaction of Live Birth (also called the “short form” birth certificate) was released in October, 2008. That certificate was stamped and sealed by the State of Hawaii.
If you don’t consider it real or verifiable, then explain why a document bearing a state seal on it is not.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:18 am> He also did not provide real verifiable evidence
um, the short form was real. and this new one verifies it.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:19 amI asked what other candidates did this. No one can name any. So that’s a double standard, which I don’t find “satisfying,” no.
There seems to be a specific answer you want from Patterico. Ask him directly if that’s the only thing that will satisfy you.
MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:20 amCarlitos – I think every candidate should be asked to release their transcripts. And I think if I am a candidate that practices getting sealed information released on m opponents, it is kind of douchey to expect people to not request to see my transcripts. I want Mitch Daniels to release his transcripts. Barcky too.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:21 amMaybe Obama hired Sandy Berger to get it for him.
flannel (7353f9) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:22 amSomechump – if I understand them correctly, they claim that is an image of a document, not the physical document. You ain’t gonna make them happy.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:23 amOBAMA IS A FRUAD HE IS A LIAR AND CROOK THIS IS A SHAM WOW CRAP GOING ON.I DON’T BELEIVE IT BECUASE IT LOOKS LIKE A THE SAME CB OF LIVE BIRTH SO OBAMA HOW STUPID DO U THINK WE ARE ?? LOL HE IS HALARIOUS.WHY DID THIS IDIOT DPEND TONS OF MONEY TO KEEP IT COMING …….IT IS A LIE SORRY DON’T BELEIVE.
patriotlatina (1e8f2e) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:25 amAaron, check your email.
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:26 amwell, um….IP check on aisle 163?
no one you know (325a59) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:27 am163 sounds like Larry Reilly
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:28 amNyok
no obvious proxies and the like. just someone into conspiracy theories.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:30 amJD, I agree with douchey, especially considering what happened with Ryan’s divorce records in the Senate run. An honest media would ask both candidates at a debate to release their transcripts, I suppose. Still, I NEVER look at college grades when I hire an executive, so I don’t really see how it’s relevant.
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:31 amI think candidates should be made to produce their birth certificates, the one with the most complete information the state has on file. This should not be optional.
I think they should be asked to release their medical records, transcripts, and information about their military records. They should also be asked about their success or failures at previous jobs. They should also refrain from asking people from their past not to talk to the press.
If candidates don’t do those things, they should take whatever criticism that gets them.
I think divorce records should remain sealed. I don’t care if a politician is a good husband or a crappy one.
MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:32 amhere is a good remix of that pumped up kicks song
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:33 amCarlitos – Barcky is the mostest smartest President EVAH, the intellectual thoughtful thinker of deep thoughts. How better to show that than his grades?
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:34 amThe announcement today that Leon Panetta is leaving CIA is totally unrelated to the surprise production of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth, and any miscellaneous cadavers found in or around the CIA’s Documents Section (or at Fort Marcy Park), are to be processed as suicides only, by order of anonymous but highly placed White House officials. Now, can’t we all just move on?
PS: Congratulations to Sandy Burgler for expediting the release of Obama’s Certificate.
ropelight (49fc3d) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:34 amI think you are absolutely right, JD.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:35 amTo be specific– Obama had TWO opponents’ divorce records unsealed. First his Democratic primary opponent, then his Republican opponent.
He did never once complain about that being a distraction.
MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:35 amThe Bernacke presser is just a sideshow that should be ignored.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:36 am“If you don’t consider it real or verifiable, then explain why a document bearing a state seal on it is not.”
I give up.
Ironically, the very point made about “birthers” believing what they want, is true about the anti-birthers times 45,00000
I said, you cannot verify a document “released” as PDF. Just as I cannot upload online a typed and signed letter by Hitler and expect you to believe it’s real by looking at a PHOTOCOPY.
And no, the woman folks are using to prove their claims does not qualify here, nor were her statements clear on critical aspects of the BC.
Also, just days ago, liberal media, lawyers, etc. all stated Obama could not get this form of the document even if HE wanted to, due to laws in the state.
In shorts order, if authentic, he produced it.
What is an what’s not a fact is something you folks need to learn to dinstinguish, by learning to examine evidence critically and by understanding propaganda methods and tricks.
You have to have a functioning brain though!
Nope (f02e44) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:40 amHe was talking about golf.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:41 amNope appears to be a solipsist?
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:43 amStill, I NEVER look at college grades when I hire an executive, so I don’t really see how it’s relevant.
carlitos- that’s a good point, but there is so much about electing a politician that would never happen in hiring an executive. I mean, you would never ask the executive’s wife to make a speech about why her husband should have the job. You wouldn’t ask for a video about his life story. You wouldn’t ask him to bad-mouth the other job candidates.
MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:45 amYou would want to know about his previous job successes, and you would probably ask around to find out what people really think of him.
“It isn’t about BIRTH but about ELIGIBILITY. The form shows his father was Kenyan, not American. Only a person with two American parents can be natural born and so able to be President. He is disqualified Constitutionally. Period.”
– Interesting
Constitutional mega-fail. Try again.
Leviticus (ed6d31) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:45 amWhat sort of document are we supposed to be looking for, if not this one, again? I’m sure people have some ideas…
Leviticus (ed6d31) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:46 amTrue, JD, what’s he going to say, the price of food has gone down, it’s mission accomplished on the Malabar (I mean QE 2).
narciso (79ddc3) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:46 amMeanwhile, Single Issue Andy sees this news as a nail, and pulls out his hammer:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/04/hey-you-know-thats-a-great-point.html
M. Scott Eiland (43e415) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:47 amBig Comedian needs to work on his material.
Icy Texan (fb7f2c) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:49 amCarlitos – though on its face, there seems to be a parallel between hiring an Exec and electing a President, I suspect that yu actually hav to show some substance to become an Exec, as opposed to creating a Narrative to become President.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:49 am#130
Bingo — this is the only comment that has any meaning in this whole thread.
You win the “needle in the Haystack Award”, and thank you for maintaining focus throughout all of the floating shiny objects.
This PDF, if ever verified to be true(with the actual original), only solves one small part of the eligibility issue.
Oh yeah….and then there’s this;
“If Obama slams his long form Certificate of Live Birth on the table to ridicule a challenger, then he had it all along. Obama’s minions said he only had the short form, in fact this is the only thing he shows on his 2008 campaign website and touted by the media as the real deal, and now Hawaii is saying this is the only form they have.
The only glimpse we have had of this Certification of Live Birth is what Obama posted online, and short form Certifications are not always accepted as proof positive. Especially when the issuing authority has laws that create more questions. One such law is that Hawaii allows for the registration of a birth to be mailed in and does not require a doctors signature. Why is this important, because it opens a window for a birth to take place outside of the jurisdiction of the state of Hawaii, and allows a relative to file the registration saying the birth was at home. This is why the long form is required.
Because of the untrustworthiness of a short form the former Lt. Col. had doubts about the legitimacy of his CIC, but no doubts about his oath to support and defend the Constitution. The record will show former Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin had respectfully and quietly asked for proof and no one could provide it. It was only after he exhausted every avenue available to him through his chain of command, he made the decision that he could no longer trust the source of the orders he was receiving. The source of all military orders is the authority the Constitution invests in the office of the President.
Now, all of a sudden, Obama releases his long form to “destroy” Donald Trump. This will galvanized all current military personnel and veterans against Obama. It will become a rallying cry as loud as “Remember the Alamo.”
It is one thing to play politics with politicians, but it is another thing all together to play politics at the expense of the freedom of an innocent human being, and this is exactly what the American people will see Obama doing. They will see Obama saving his birth certificate as a “trump card,” in a dirty game of politics that pulled in and sacrificed an innocent man as its victim. They will know that Lakin was court-martialed only because Obama wanted to save his ‘trump card,” for the 2012 election. The American people are not stupid, they will understand that if Obama had released his long form Certificate of Live Birth, then Terry Lakin would be in Afghanistan taking care of his fellow soldiers.
Obama doesn’t have to worry about Birthers demanding forensic tests on the long form, if he releases it. No, the talking points will be, “you had, you didn’t release it so you could play politics and an innocent man went to prison so you could play your political games. Goodbye and good riddance.”
Obama cursed an innocent man, only trying to uphold his oath as an officer in the United States Army, and that curse will turn on Obama the moment he releases the long form Certificate of Live Birth.
This curse has the power to transform. Not only will Birthers transform, but anyone who ever wore the uniform of an American service man or woman will transform. Housewives, grandmothers, schoolchildren, rich and poor, anyone who has a shred of decency about justice will transform.
We will all transform into beasts with one purpose; to tear Obama’s audacity to hope for reelection to pieces. We will all become a Lakin Lycan.”
foreverskeptic (832a58) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:49 amhttp://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/lakins-lycan/#more-5977
What sort of document are we supposed to be looking for, if not this one, again? I’m sure people have some ideas…
Comment by Leviticus — 4/27/2011 @ 9:46 am
Very few people here are questioning this. Why focus on those that are?
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:50 amVery true. Sad, but true.
If you know yourself, but not your enemy, for every battle you win, you will also lose a battle. If you know neither your enemy nor yourself, surely you will lose every battle. (paraphrasing Sun Tzu)
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:52 amI love JD.
MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:57 amOkay, I’m going to type this slowly, because clearly you aren’t grasping something:
The Certification of Live Birth released by Obama in October, 2008, was an actual document. It was a piece of paper printed up by the Hawaii Department of Health, then stamped and sealed. It was paper, real, verifiable.
Then some people scanned it, and some scanned images of it appeared all over the Internet. But there was an actual piece of paper that had been scanned.
You are choosing to believe that this was all just a pdf, and I guess that’s your right. But Obama released a physical document in 2008, and the birthers would not accept it as sufficient evidence. Just as they are now not accepting Obama’s latest release as sufficient evidence.
I can’t stand Obama. He’s a terrible President, and his policies will be the ruination of our country and economy. But, for God’s sake, he was born in Hawaii, and that has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:58 amOkay, I am blushing.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:02 amholy distraction baman cause meanwhile bumble’s war on jobs is picking up
Obama likes this approach cause it will help further devastate American oil production and throw even more people out of work. And he wonders why people think he’s a goddamn foreigner.
It’s cause of how you shit on Americans, silly.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:04 amAgreed. I’m so tired of hearing people amend the constitution with weird theories about parents. We all have access to the constitution. Unless Obama is behind a truly huge and fragile fraud, he’s obviously a natural born citizen.
There has always been a very legitimate argument that we want to vet Obama, and I wish birthers would stick to that more general argument.
I don’t see how he’s going to benefit from finally releasing this document. People naturally are suspicious. They need to understand why Obama hid these records. The arguments offered, that he can’t release or that he is hiding something embarrassing, seem wrong.
What if there’s yet another form? Obama will say ‘nothing I provide will satisfy these people’, and many will agree. Also, it seems like most of the entries that could embarrass Obama are entered on this new form in ways that don’t embarrass him.
I think perhaps Obama’s detractors would feel better about this if there actually was something minor but embarrassing on this form. I would like an explanation for Obama’s hiding it.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:05 amLeviticus,
Long forms have blood types, birth weights, attending physician, feet prints, time of birth, time of admittance
this looks like a registry where notifications of birth (which is the Hospital long form record in some cases in some states) are sent to be recorded
Most dont have names when they are born this is to record officially parentage, name, etc –
All of this may not be pertinent to the state of Hawaii, at that time, and many other states
EricPWJohnson (f872e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:06 amI never really saw the point to any of this.
Say Obama was not natural born – sure, it’s a big constitutional issue. But does it even compare, I mean AT ALL, with the courts determining that the Federal Government can require me to eat broccoli?
The issue always seemed akin to the passengers questioning the credentials of the captain of the Titanic. Except we can see the iceberg. I think we would do better to concentrate on the big issues before it is too late.
And no, we can’t do both – media saturation and all. We need to choose our battles and avoid silly distractions. We need to do the heavy lifting of educating the public on limited government and spending, and avoid these seemingly easy PR temptations.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:06 amHAHAHA, Amph, that is beautiful.
And you’re right. Compared to other legal issues, this is nothing. Hell, we don’t even need to worry as much about the legal issues because the facts are overwhelming.
But to many, this isn’t about Obama’s eligibility. It’s just that those who want to talk about that tend to dominate the discussion. People respond to them, and they make the most noise. If I wanted to talk about some interesting aspect of the way the WTC fell, the discussion would be dominated by truthers.
People have a legitimate question as to why Obama has acted the way he has, or to vet him as much as possible. I think perhaps he’s more of an idiot than I thought, and was merely being stubborn in refusing to share any information about himself he could conceal. Some kind of arrogant anti-transparency. I don’t even think he expected to benefit politically from birthers… that was just his fanboys trying to work out a logical explanation for Obama acting like an idiot. He had nothing to hide, and should have respected the American people by releasing this. He is the president, for goodness sake.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:12 amSome Chump — I think the issue people had with the Certificate of Live Birth produced in 2008 was that it was not created contemporaneous in time with the event, i.e., it was not a document made on or about August 4, 1961. In that sense it is not a “birth certificate”, though it is considered a vital record by the State of Hawaii.
In my mind it was always sufficient evidence of the time and place of his birth because I could not subscribe to the theory that such an official record would be fabricated during the administration of a GOP governor in Hawaii.
But the skeptics wanted to see the contemporaneously created record of his birth. I think the document produced today should satisfy that claim, as I again don’t believe it can credibly be argued that this document is also a fabrication.
shipwreckedcrew (436eab) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:12 amNo, that’s not true. I have a “long form” birth certificate from the State of California, and doesn’t have my blood type or foot print on it, nor time of admittance. It’s been a while since I looked at it, but I’m pretty sure my birth weight isn’t on it, either.
Likewise my daughter’s long form certificate from Colorado.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:15 amI’ve seen a lot of photoshops in my time. You can detect whether the document is a photoshopped fraud by looking closely at the pixels.
gp Fark Meme Joke (72be5d) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:16 am#29
No.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:16 amThe problem is, that it really was a “birth certificate”: it was a certificate from Hawaii stating the facts of Obama’s birth. People didn’t want to believe that. My son has a similar “short form” birth certificate, and he has never gotten any grief from anyone about its validity, including getting a passport with it.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:17 am“You are choosing to believe that this was all just a pdf, and I guess that’s your right. But Obama released a physical document in 2008, and the birthers would not accept it as sufficient evidence. Just as they are now not accepting Obama’s latest release as sufficient evidence.”
Sorry, try again. It has nothing to do with what I want or believe, it’s the facts of the case pure and simple. The correct answer here is more investigation to determine if the image posted, from which accuracy *cannot* be determined, needs to be done.
It’s quite possible an original, real piece of paper was scanned in 2008 with the COLB. Unfortunately, this proves zilch. And it has nothing to do with conspiracy nuttism or not.
It has to do with understanding chains of evidence and real examination, which must be done by an expert, not a shill, who knows what to look for of the ORIGINAL to determine its authenticity.
Got it?
Nope (f02e44) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:18 amYou want to know why Obama didn’t kowtow to the birthers and give them what they want? I’ll tell you why (and it will bring a smile to your face).
Obama blew off the birthers for the same reason that many here say “you don’t speak to trolls.” Obama wasn’t going to give them a legitimacy which they didn’t deserve. (I know. Have at me. I opened the door….)
Kman (5576bf) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:20 amBTW, so, are you saying you KNOW personally from where you are now, in anytown USA, that the latest PDF file “release” is sufficient evidence?
If so, you’ve proved my point. The ONLY thing you, and probably 100% of the posters on this thread have “examined” is a PDF file IMAGE on the INTERNET, which you now accept as clear proof of a valid BC supplement to the COLB “released” in 2008.
Amazing!
See what I mean?
Nope (f02e44) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:21 amSo, you dispute my claim that originals cannot be verified from scans? So, in 2004 the Bush document was real, because you saw a photocopy?
Anyone here, anyone, I mean ANYONE who has seen the ORIGINAL please speak up that’s posting to this thread. Not ONE OF YOU has, but now the “birther issue is dead” etc.
This is state of education in America!
Nope (f02e44) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:23 amOK… but hasn’t that happened? Haven’t the state authorities already confirmed the chain of custody, the age, etc? Haven’t people actually had their hands on this piece of paper?
You haven’t… but so what? Do we need some crank from World Net Daily to get to hold this document?
You’re at the point where you’re insisting the lawful authority on chain of custody and authenticity, producing the original 1961 document, is still not “real examination” and apparently is a “shill”.
You’re being unreasonable. Nothing will convince you. Anyone who confirms this document will be called a shill. Even if they personally hand you this piece of paper, you will say it hasn’t been proven because you weren’t there in 1961.
Also, as to calling people shills, who the hell are you? I’ve never seen you here to discuss anything other than Obama’s birth certificate. Before you call someone a shill, don’t you have to establish that you’re not here specifically to argue one outcome, no matter the evidence?
Got it?
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:24 amFact is, the faith based loons are showing up on this issue, and it aint the “Birthers” its the folks who believe a PICTURE of a piece of paper instantly must be accepted as authentic, without real examination as would survive even Bush’s 2004 fiasco…
Nope (f02e44) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:25 amWell, ok, Obama didn’t want to give birthers legitimacy, but as usual it wasn’t him who had to do the work that resulted from his stubbornness.
MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:27 amThe employees of the State of Hawaii have said frequently that the requests for the certificate were causing a lot of headaches for them.
Some chump,
no most states and hospitals adopted in the late 60’s a unified birth record which a copy is sent to the registar of births, one to the parents and the hospital keeps one in your file.
EricPWJohnson (f872e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:27 amThis is a ridiculous comparison. The State of Hawaii claims to have pulled from their secure files an original document, and now you see a digitized image on a computer screen of that document.
CBS claimed that some weirdo scanned a document and faxed it in, without any original corroboration from any authorities.
How can you possibly say that someone who says the former is sufficient evidence must also be supporting the latter? You’re being irrational.
And now you’re questioning the education of anyone who disagrees with you. You’re using allcaps to scream that people in this thread have not personally held the document, but of course, if we had all handled it, you would say that shows the chain of custody was too broken and loose.
Sorry, the State of Hawaii is the authority on this matter, and always was. If you’re claiming the State of Hawaii is conspiring to shill for Obama, no one cares.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:28 amYou’re lying. That’s not what anyone has said. This ‘picture’ comes with the state’s verification that it is an accurate reproduction of something in their secure files.
We get it. You think it’s a forgery. You have no evidence of that, and claiming this is similar to the memo about Bush’s ‘AWOL’ Vietnam service calls into question your ability to reason at all. That memo was obviously produced on a computer from decades after the date on the memo, and it had no authority, such as the Texas National Guard, claiming it was authentic from their files.
That you continue to claim these are the same situations is pathetic.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:32 amI cannot find a reference to this outside of this comment.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:35 amWhy is the registered date for the second birth certificate 3 days after the Preisdent’s, yet the file number ends in 37 and his ends in 41.
dave (ae10d6) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:36 amDid they go backwards with the file numbers?
Dave- I know when I was in the hospital having my babies, the person in charge of birth certificates would make the rounds of the maternity ward at certain times of day, and if the mother was sleeping or something they would come back. They don’t make a huge effort to get the certificates filled out in order of birth.
MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:42 amAh Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
dave (ae10d6) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:43 amWow, Dave, that’s a pretty good eye you have.
I’m surprised the numbers/dates are that close together, though I guess the second certificate was picked because it should be very similar to Obama’s, based on the date.
Anyway, if you look in the lower left corner, the date issued block suggests the 10641 (Obama’s) was issued on August 8, and the 10637 was issued on August 11.
I wonder if they were submitted in the order of the number, and then filed on the order on the dates? these days, data can be filed away very quickly, but then perhaps they just didn’t get filed in order.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:44 amand lo unto Honolulu a child was borned
and then he grew up and spended and spended like a lottery-winning crack whore until America was brokedick and defeated and the price of gas rose to unprecedented highs and the quality of life sank to unprecedented lows
the end
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:45 amRe: #212
Icy Texan (fb7f2c) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:46 amEPWJ fail!
…and handed it to Lucy Ramirez, who passed it off at a livestock show…
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:47 amhappyfeet, that last comment of yours was the best one you’ve made in a looooooooooooooooooooooong time.
Icy Texan (fb7f2c) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:47 amJD
A group called AHIMA started it
Medicare also mandated basic information to be kept
But I’m not surprized at all at your not finding anything
Thats typical for you
EricPWJohnson (f872e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:50 amI see Maybee answered Dave before I did, but her explanation sounds perfectly reasonable.
It raises another point. The number meets up very well with the location and date of another birth certificate. So either they found someone born that day whose 10641 record they could erase without anyone noticing, or World Net Daily is in on the fraud. Or it’s legitimate.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:50 amObama blew off the birthers for the same reason that many here say “you don’t speak to trolls.” Obama wasn’t going to give them a legitimacy which they didn’t deserve.
Comment by Kman — 4/27/2011 @ 10:20 am
— Releasing the record that puts the issue to rest would somehow keep the issue alive? Do you ever read your posts aloud before hitting the send button?
Icy Texan (fb7f2c) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:53 amMy daughter was born in 1989 in Denver, CO. Her birth certificate does not contain her footprint, nor does it contain the time of my wife’s admission to the hospital, nor does it contain her blood type. The hospital gave us an unofficial certificate with her footprint on it, but that doesn’t bear the state’s seal.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:55 amObama has released his birth certificate, obtained from Hawaii. If you’re arguing that the image we see on dozens of news sites is somehow doctored or false, then, yes, you are nuts.
How could it prove “zilch”? If the document really existed and really was stamped and sealed by the State of Hawaii, how could it NOT prove the facts of Obama’s birth?
I’m just amazed at your insistence that the issue remains unproven.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:59 amIcy Texan is right. Obama can’t say he refused to put this information out there because it would just feed the trolls. I think Kman is just projecting how amazed he is that people still dignify his comments.
No, only a minority of Americans said they were sure he was born in this country. Obama was right to finally try to dignify this country with the best evidence he can get. Just as a matter of common sense and patriotism, it’s sad he waited this long and also sad it appears he had nothing to hide. It’s apparent he’s the least transparent president in modern memory.
Alvin T. Onaka, the doctor who certified the authenticity, seems very credible to me. He’s had quite a long an impressive career, and it really seems like the evidence is overwhelming that Obama was hiding his background just because he likes to hide things and is an idiot.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:00 amHoly cow, it took them a WHOLE YEAR to fake up a birth certificate and drop it in the files in Hawaii.
It’s just one sheet of paper, for Chrissake.
These guys are hopeless.
Dave Surls (ee4c90) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:01 am(As I just wrote to Bradley Fikes at FB:)
First the truthers, then the birthers. Next will come the brigades demanding Trump shave his head, a la the Shavers. 😉
qdpsteve (f1c59f) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:02 amWell, since a search for “unified birth record” on the AHIMA website turns up bupkis . . .
Icy Texan (fb7f2c) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:02 am“Releasing the record that puts the issue to rest would somehow keep the issue alive”
There are how many updates to this post? If it wasn’t put to rest with the release back during the campaign, it’s not put to rest today. Birthers won’t stop, addressing them won’t stop them either. Go look at a freerepublic.com thread on this.
daniel (62e777) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:04 amEpwj – rather than just being a jackass, maybe you could point out where this “unified birth record” is, as I cannot find it. You bolded it, and I simply googled your choice of terms. You assert thqt most states adopted it, yet a basic google search turns up no reference. A simple search at AHIMA’s website turns up no specific results for unified birth record ither. That you made something up signifies nothing about me.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:06 amI have a question: if John McCain had to seek a Senatorial resolution, determining that he was, in fact, a natural born citizen based on the fact that he was the child of TWO American citizens and that the base in Panama was, in fact, American territory at the time, why didn’t Obama have to go through the same thing considering that he was a person of dual citizery at the time of his birth?
Can a person who holds dual citizenship at birth be POTUS according to the U.S. Constitution?
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:06 am“Very few people here are questioning this. Why focus on those that are?”
– JD
Yeah, fair enough. I actually meant that more as a legitimate (i.e. non-rhetorical) question, as in “what would a long-form birth certificate have that this one didn’t?”. EPJW mentioned some things (blood type, footprints, etc.) but Some chump disagreed at 198. Anyway… yeah. Very few people are questioning the validity of this new document; you’re right. No reason for me to imply some widespread irrationality where none exists.
Leviticus (e87aad) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:08 amOh, there is plenty of irrationality.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:10 amOh, my goodness. TWO American parents doesn’t matter. Much to your chagrin, retire05, ONE American parent doesn’t matter. If you are naturally born in this country, you are a naturally born citizen of this country.
The same people arguing that Obama’s ONE foreign parent makes him a non-citizen are pissed off because ONE foreign parent can hop across the border and have a baby that’s a natural born citizen. Mega-disconnect.
Leviticus (e87aad) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:13 am“Oh, there is plenty of irrationality.”
– JD
Which particular vat of irrationality do you have in mind?
Leviticus (e87aad) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:14 amDaniel, sure, they will never put it completely to rest. But there will always be a fringe. It’s certainly the case that Obama’s treatment of this information made the issue more than a fringe one. Reasonable people who follow the evidence assumed he was hiding something. It’s just two groups, one who can’t be satisfied, and another who follows the evidence.
Is it proven that Mccain wouldn’t be a natural born citizen if he only had one American parent, or is it the case that he simply provided the strongest argument he had?
If he was a natural born citizen, 35 years of age, and if he’s lived outside the USA, he has to have returned and resided here for the last 14 years. This ‘dual citizenship’ issue is not a constitutional issue in any form. Was Obama born a US Citizen? You seem to agree he was, if you say he had dual citizenship. That concludes the issue.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:14 amI was not revering to you, if that is What you were asking. I meant the likes of kmart, big MFM media, epwj, etc ….
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:15 amReferring … Oops
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:16 amI wonder about the certificate numbers. According to the dates, the woman (negative) was born after o, her form was signed after his but her number is lower.
Curious?
Jim (844377) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:16 amIf you read the constitution, it’s apparent they actually saw a possibility of a man moving out of the USA for years, and yet they didn’t say anything about dual citizenship being an issue. All they said was he has to have resided in the USA for the last 14 years.
They said naturally born citizen. They didn’t say US Citizen and never a citizen of another country. They didn’t say ‘both parents must be American’ (which would have been a bizarre requirement). Leviticus is correct that you don’t even need to know who your parents are.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:18 amFor me, this became a non-issue years ago when they found the birth announcement in the archives of the Honolulu newspaper. In 1961, no one could have known that BHO would become president, and would have no need to fake his birth. Occam’s Razor: the simplest explanation is that he was born in Hawaii in 1961.
Loren (998d8f) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:19 amThat’s already answered by Maybee above. It is an interesting issue though. I guess a couple of people must have read about this at another website?
Anyway, the proximity of the numbers and the same hospital and time period are powerful evidence in favor of the document’s authenticity. World Net Daily’s negative shows that the Obama birth certificate’s number is right where you’d expect it to be. The conspiracy needed to fake that is practically impossible.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:21 am“Now the question becomes: why didn’t the President do this long ago?”
Isn’t it obvious? When we are talking about this non-issue, we aren’t talking about his miserable governance
Whenever the discussion turns to his birth certificate, he wins and we lose.
CalFed (9551d3) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:21 amNo, I understand. I don’t think it was unreasonable for people to ask Obama for his birth certificate, or to be suspicious when he refused – for the reasons you guys have given (i.e. potentially embarrassing information on the demanded document). At the same time, I don’t think it was unreasonable of Obama to refuse to release it, even if only because he felt something was being asked of him which hadn’t been asked of others.
Anyway, I think the general response here is the right one: Good. Finally. Was that so hard? Now we can move on, and deal with that travesty of a healthcare bill. That’s where I’m at, anyway.
Sorry for the “have you ever had a productive conversation” remark the other day, by the way. It wouldn’t have taken much consideration to realize that it was unfair, but apparently that consideration eluded me at the time.
Leviticus (e87aad) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:21 amI don’t believe that everybody has the right to see the official copy from the state, complete with seal. And I seriously doubt there are ANY original paper birth certificates anywhere in the US. I ordered my BC from VA a long time ago, and it was obviously a microfiche copy. The one I got for my children was not.
However, I do think that SOMEONE has the duty and authority to examine the certified, sealed copy of this document as part of the process of placing a name on the ballot (or at least, part of certifying the election, at least). So who, exactly, is that? I’m pretty sure that neither the AP nor PolitiFacts are qualified. Is it the Secretary of State of each state? Is it each elector in the Electoral Congress? Perhaps the teller(s) in the Electoral Congress?
And after having answered that question, the next question is “Did that person (or persons) inspect any birth certificate for Obama? If not, why not?”
prowlerguy (fac5d4) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:22 amDustin, the TWO parent argument is not mine. It is the argument that was presented by Lawrence Tribe. Now, why was McCain’s “natural” born status questioned if having TWO American citizen parents provide that McCain was “natural” born, although he was born on U.S. territory, and not on the continental U.S.
And let me rephrase the second question: can a person born with dual citizenship be considered a “natural” born U.S. citizen?
You seem to have more questions instead of the answers I was seeking.
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:22 am“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…”
That requirement is absolutely idiotic, and it always was.
Every single person that signed onto it when it was first written and ratified had to be grandfathered in, because not one of them was born a citizen of the United States. The whole idea is a piece of colossal nitwittery
I don’t obey or honor bad laws, and I don’t obey or honor stupid laws, and that law is stupid.
Obambi is a crappy president because he’s a crappy president (nice piece of tautological logic, if I do say so myself), and he’d be just as crappy whether his parents were born in Dubuque or in Uranus.
OTOH, constantly demanding “proof” of Obama’s exact spawning/hatching/whatever location does keep the Birther loons off the streets, so I guess the controversy does have some benfit to society.
Dave Surls (ee4c90) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:23 amNo need to apologize, I forgot all about it. I have hard edges.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:24 am#242: That is the least convincing “evidence” proffered, because his grandparents live there. If a notice of birth in a newspaper is proof, the I apparently was born in both Pensacola, FL and Surrey country, VA, because notices of my birth were printed in newspapers in both localities.
prowlerguy (fac5d4) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:24 ameven if only because he felt something was being asked of him which hadn’t been asked of others.
Actually, it was the Democrats who created this issue when they tried to create a problem for Sen. McCain because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone when his dad was stationed down there.
gahrie (325782) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:24 amThat requirement is absolutely idiotic, and it always was.
Actually, it made quite a bit of sense at the time. The worry was that some European royal family would send a few scions to America in an attempt at a take over.
gahrie (325782) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:26 amFirst, yes. That’s like asking if a person born with red hair can buy a Chevy.
Second, I don’t care where you first heard the argument. You have access to the US Constitution.
Does it say the president can’t be born a dual citizen? No.
Also, it says absolutely nothing about parents, so anything short of a constitutional amendment cannot place a parent type requirement on the office of the presidency.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say, but I am not the authority on the requirements to be US President. The US Constitution is the authority, and it says what the requirements are very clearly and plainly. We can’t just add in requirements about dual citizenship and parents. Obama was born a US Citizen. Game over.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:29 am#248:
Sorry, but that is not just a law, it is THE law, as in the Constitution. If you diagree, there are well understood and documented methods for changing it, but simply refusing to abide by it is not an option. Unless, of course, you are a liberal/progressive/socialist, and then disregard for the Constitution seems to a feature, not a bug.
prowlerguy (fac5d4) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:30 amFrankly, Retire, your comment that Obama had dual citizenship stipulates that one of the citizenships Obama was born with was US citizenship. So you already admit all the evidence I need. It is extremely absurd to claim that the laws of another country, which grant citizenship in all sorts of ways, constitute an amendment to the US Constitution. They mean absolutely nothing.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:31 amDoes anyone think it odd for one’s race being described as African? In Africa many races exist – Caucasian,Arab,Indian, Turk, Negro and Bushman, for example. Are all of these so listed in Hawaii?
Actually, the long form shows his father was not a citizen of the U.S., and Article II, Section i, limits the office of the President to be held by a “Natural Born Citizen or a Citizen of the U.S. at the time of adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of the President”.
Anthropolgy Student (769c95) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:32 amOnce again, I refer to a long comment held up in comment purgatory in the “Trig Trutherism” thread:
Two of those questions are: Why did you instruct your campaign’s attorneys to oppose release of the long form in court? How much did you spend in legal fees? Do you regret wasting all that money? What legal principle did you feel like you were protecting by concealing it?
Feel welcome to add your own.
L.N. Smithee (ed1a56) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:33 am“Actually, it made quite a bit of sense at the time.”
Sure it did. Even though not one single person who signed onto it was born a citizen of the United States.
The law is stupid. It always was.
“Sorry, but that is not just a law, it is THE law, as in the Constitution.”
Too bad. I don’t follow moronic laws no matter where they appear…except to avoid trouble. And, since I’m not likely to be arrested for refusing to take that piece of idiocy seriously, that’s exactly what I’m going to do.
Dave Surls (ee4c90) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:37 amYes, the constitution does not say anything about the father of a presidential candidate. It doesn’t matter what his parents’ citizenship was, and anyone who brings this up looks like a damn fool.
You just string those two sentences together, as though no one will notice there is a huge leap of logic that they are related. Obama was born a US Citizen. You have proof. Birthers can stop giving Obama cover now. Focus on his performance, not some asinine legal concept.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:37 amEvery time I take the census, I want to check the box for “human.”
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:41 am#258
Have you considered applying for a job in Holder’s DoJ, because you seem to have a perfect mindset for this administration and would fit right in.
I, personally, prefer that my President not be a recent immigrant, and since the Constitution is on my side, I hope you will forgive me if I petition my government to abide by it.
prowlerguy (fac5d4) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:45 amDustin, for starters, I never said that I thought Obama was not a citizen. I have asked about “natural” citizenship.
The Democrats argued that John McCain was not a “natural” citizen because he was born on U.S. territory, not on the mainland. Tribe argued that was wrong because McCain had TWO American citizen parents. It was Tribe’s argument that prompted my question.
According to your explaination of the U.S. Constitutional requirements to be president, John Ross was eligible to be president in the 19th century. Oh, wait, John Ross was not considered a “citizen”.
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:46 amI didn’t answer the census’s racial question, and they didn’t give me any trouble for it. I can only wish enough Americans refused to answer such questions that the racial statistics would be useless.
Then again, they probably just filled out the data for me. It’s quickly becoming a time where they can just cross reference other records very easily.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:46 amWell, you’re arguing your point in a way where you can just deny you’re saying anything at all.
So if you’re too cowardly to just spit out your argument, that’s a major indictment on your character. You ARE saying Obama was not a natural born citizen. You just want some deniability. That’s extremely unpatriotic.
Again, I do not care about your hero, Tribe. I care about the US Constitution. I can keep beating you over the head with it all day if you like. It is quite clear that if you’re born a US Citizen, you are eligible to be president.
Also, you need to stop putting words in my mouth. If someone wasn’t born a citizen, they aren’t eligible, so your claim I said otherwise is a lie, liar.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:50 amObama acted stupidly for three years.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:52 am“I, personally, prefer that my President not be a recent immigrant, and since the Constitution is on my side, I hope you will forgive me if I petition my government to abide by it.”
Go ahead. Do whatever you please. You won’t get any support from me though.
If the Founding Papas tell me that it’s o.k. for THEM to be president even though THEY weren’t born citizens, but, it’s not o.k. for Barack Obama to be president, my answer to them is real simple:
Blow me.
Dave Surls (ee4c90) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:52 amFor example, Martin Van Buren was born in New York, a state in the USA, which gave him citizenship.
Later, the constitution granted citizenship on anyone born in the USA, regardless of state laws.
Later, Hawaii became a US State.
Later, Obama was born in Hawaii, and therefore is a natural born citizen.
But retire thinks this has something to do with John Mccain, who was not born in a US State, and Larry Tribe’s discussion of John Mccain, which is not an article of the US Constitution.
Is someone who wasn’t born in the USA a natural born citizen if Us Laws grant citizenship to people based on who their parents are? Irrelevant. It’s interesting, but in this discussion, where it’s proven Obama was born in the USA, and thus according to the USA, he was born a citizen, it is a diversion.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:55 amHeh.
Check the Trig Trutherism thread, Pat, and my comment that was held up in moderation (no doubt due to the amount of links). With all mamafreakin’ due respect, I linked to the Nordyke twins’ birth certs (link removed to guarantee posting):
They’ve been on WND since June 2009 after they were published in the Honolulu Advertiser in response to Lou Dobbs’ rabble-rousing on the issue, which eventually led to he and CNN parting ways. Dobbs was falsely told in an internal CNN memo from the top dog that his staff had to back off questions about Obama’s long form because other CNN investigators had determined all physical copies of the long forms had been destroyed, making the short form the only documentation of his birth available. The Hawaii DOH (under the Lingle Administration) contradicted that account.
L.N. Smithee (ed1a56) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:56 amretire05, a person born in the United States, and not of a foreign state’s diplomats, is going to be held a “natural born citizen” and eligible to the Presidency – especially since the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification. Give up trying to claim that constitutional law is something different – its a fail. There was never a rational argument, that didn’t not rely on fabricating facts out of whole cloth, that Obama was ineligible.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:59 amWell, they just fought a revolution against the Empire to CREATE the country they were now citizens of. So I don’t see why you’d say ‘blow me’ to such men. They had to set laws establishing who can hold offices, but it’s not possible for a brand new republic to require every leader to be born a citizen.
It’s not unfair. It’s just dealing with a reality.
I agree with prowler that it’s great to require our President be born a citizen. There is plenty of leadership available to non birth citizens.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:00 pmDustin, let’s see; because I asked about “natural” birth citizenry for a person with ONE American citizen parent, and reference Lawrence Tribe, I am now (let me see if I get the list complete): cowardly; have a major character flaw; liar, oh, and unpatriotic.
I see that your pratice of hurling insults has not subsided in any way.
So, let’s see you answer this: if all that is Constitutionally required to be president was being born on American soil, was John Ross eligible to be president?
BTW, Tribe is NOT my hero. But don’t let that stop you from spinning that he is.
Now, asshole, I was not trying to put words in your mouth, I was simply asking a few questions that you seem unwilling to answer. Seems you resent anyone questioning you.
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:00 pmSPQR, is it your contention that all people born on American soil, except for the children of foreign state diplomat’s, were citizens at birth, especially since the enactment of the 14th Amendment?
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:03 pmObama was born a citizen. He’s eligible.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:03 pm#266
Wow! I really don’t know how to respond to such a logic-free set of beliefs. How, pray tell, could a person who had lived in the territory that became the US for their entire life and had several generations that had done the same be born in a political entity that didn’t exist? Or are you of the opinion that anyyone, regardless of citizenship or age can be elected President? Or do you just make up your own new rules totally from scratch?
Do you view all laws the same way? Do you get to pick and choose what laws you will obey? Do I? Because if you do , then you wouldn’t mind publishing your address here, so that anyone who feels the laws of personal property are “moronic” can see if you have the the courage of your convictions.
prowlerguy (fac5d4) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:03 pm“No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due…”
Won’t honor or obey that part of the Constitution either.
Don’t like it?
Put me in jail then.
Dave Surls (ee4c90) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:04 pmhttp://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
Amusingly, the hearsay evidence that Snopes had up for a good long time claimed that the obstetrician who delivered Obama was Rodney T. West. But the current certificate says “David A. Smil-something.”
As for me, I’m delighted to see this. I was worried that there would be a statement to the effect of ‘Delivered at home’ which was a common dodge in Hawaii and would have led to the postings in the newspapers.
Now, just like everyone has said, it should be verified in the completely standard fashion we verify all such documents – we cross-check it with the appropriate documents from Kapiolani birth log, we check the numbers and make sure they are in sequence, we look up the attending physician and make sure he was there at that time (the newspapers have already found his obituary notice).
All very standard stuff.
luagha (5cbe06) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:06 pmretire05 writes: “SPQR, is it your contention that all people born on American soil, except for the children of foreign state diplomat’s, were citizens at birth, especially since the enactment of the 14th Amendment?”
Yes. That’s pretty clear from the Supreme Court opinions. There is zero chance of the Supreme Court interpreting the Article II constitutional requirement of natural-born citizen to exclude someone born in the United States – with the likely exception of a child of foreign diplomats.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:08 pmlaugha, snopes is often quite wrong. It’s interesting watching their evidentiary standards get really loose or really tight, depending on what they want the truth to be.
Dave, sure, there are plenty of laws that are unjust and we should fight against. Hell, the entire American Revolution that led to the republic’s constitution was not lawful under the British government.
But the citizenship requirement is not so nitwitty or unfair. They recognized a value in loyalty to this country by being a born citizen. That’s a concept that nationalistic European countries have benefited from for a long time. It’s just a fact of life that they couldn’t have been born in the country they just invented. We couldn’t put everything on hold for 35 years while new citizens grew up.
You compare this to slavery?
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:10 pm#256 Anthropolgy Student: The long form doesn’t say anything about whether Barack Sr. was a U.S. citizen or not, or at least I don’t see anything on there about that. It says his name was Barack Hussein Obama, that his race was African, that he was 25 years old, that he was born in Kenya, East Africa, and that he was a student at a university. Now, granted, Barack Sr. was, in fact, not a U.S. citizen, but I don’t see what the long form says about that issue.
Joshua (9ede0e) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:12 pmRE: Unjust laws
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”
Hey, what about guys like me, who were born in Berkeley, California (and I’ve got the birth certificate to prove it!)?
While it’s true that my home town is surrounded by the United States, I think everyone will agree that it’s not REALLY part of the United States. It’s not really fair to deny me citizenship, just because I had the misfortune to be born in the Peoples’ Republic of Berkeley.
Shoot, I’m no Berkeleyite. I don’t even own a Che tee shirt.
Dave Surls (ee4c90) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:16 pmSPQR, so you are sticking to the line that the only people who were not natural born citizens, if they were born in the U.S., were the children of foreign state diplomats?
“There is zero chance of the Supreme Court interpreting the Article II constitutional requirement of natural born citizen to exclude someone born in the United States – with the likely exception of a child of foreign diplomats.
You sure you want to stick to that?
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:19 pm#274
So not only do think you are not bound by any law you don’t agree with, you don’t even have the intelligence to realize that the section of the Constitution you are so self-righeously objecting to has been amended, in the prescribed and legal processes set out in the Constitution itself?
You also never answered the question of whether or not this selective observance of the law was a right you reserve only for yourself, or is it a general principle that you would laud in others. Care to answer that, instead of making silly nonsense about Berkeley?
prowlerguy (fac5d4) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:24 pm“But the citizenship requirement is not so nitwitty or unfair.”
Yes it is.
It’s both abjectly stupid (which is why every single last guy who signed onto the Constitution grandfathered themselves in), and blatantly unfair.
Benedict Arnold can be president, but a guy born today, ten feet across the border, to Mexican parents, who moves to America when he’s one day old, goes on to join the army, wins three medals of honor fighting Godless commies (or whoever), and then holds every political office in the land, can never be president.
The law is stupid and unjust. It always was stupid and unjust, and it always will be stupid and unjust.
Dave Surls (ee4c90) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:25 pmI haven’t read all 280 comments, but, to respond to a perceived SPQR point, I suspect that a baby born in a Consulate or Embassy (and thus on “foreign soil” (admittedly enclosed by the US) probably isn’t legally a “natural-born citizen” … a legal technicality (and, no, I’m not of that oldest (legal) profession) …
[Of course, God was a Doctor – after all, did He not say to Moses “Take these Two Tablets, and call Me in the morning !” ?]
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:26 pmI’m guessing that nobody acutally knows who is authorized by statute to qualify a candidate for inclusion on the ballot for President, because if the answer is “Nobody”, then this entire discussion is moot, and we apparently are bound by the honor system for Presidential candidates.
prowlerguy (fac5d4) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:26 pmBenedict Arnold can not be (nor could have been) President, because he was no longer a citizen of the US at the time of its founding.
prowlerguy (fac5d4) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:30 pmWhat?
There was no United States before. It’s not stupid to create a special case for the beginning few decades of the country.
How is it unfair? You’re just asserting it is, over and over again, but it’s really not unfair at all.
You’re treated the same as anyone else is. Either were were born here, or you’re so old you couldn’t have been, because you’re older than the country.
That’s fair.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:36 pmYeah, and if this mythical, madeup hero of yours is only 30 when has accomplished all those things, he can’t be President, either.
So how is that DoJ job hunt going? I hear they are looking for new lawyers willing to ignore other yucky laws like those that require union votes to be secret, and that pesky “equal protection” nonsense in the 14th amendment (at least as far as white folk goes).
prowlerguy (fac5d4) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:36 pmAlas
that pun was so bad it was a war crime. 🙂
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:37 pm“So not only do think you are not bound by any law you don’t agree with…”
Only by the fear of the negative consequences that might come with breaking it.
“you don’t even have the intelligence to realize that the section of the Constitution you are so self-righeously objecting to has been amended, in the prescribed and legal processes set out in the Constitution itself?”
Indeed, I do, self-righteously object to that portion of the Constitution, especially as it was actually practiced in the period 1789-1861. And, I wasn’t aware that that particular portion of the Constitution had been amended. In what wise has it been ameeded?
“Care to answer that, instead of making silly nonsense about Berkeley?”
But, I enjoy being silly from time to time. Guess you’ll just have to adjust to it, since I intend to live life my way, not your way.
Dave Surls (ee4c90) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:39 pmSays who? Beside one congressman in the 1860s?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:53 pm“Benedict Arnold can not be (nor could have been) President, because he was no longer a citizen of the US at the time of its founding.”
I don’t know if he was or wasn’t, come to think of it. But, you can substitute another scumbag, if you wish.
Dave Surls (ee4c90) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:54 pmWhat was the pun?
narciso (79ddc3) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:56 pmHas anyone actually checked with the named hospital to see if they have actual records of the mother being there and giving birth? When my wife had our children, I walked to the registry and filed the birth myself. I told the registrar where my children were born, they really did not ask for any proof.
So I wonder if anyone has actually checked at the hospital. I wonder if we will now find that the records ‘dont exist’, have been lost, have been destroyed, or the hospital never kept them etc.
Mark Nadel (b8104d) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:57 pmWell, plenty of scumbags are eligible to be president, Dave. Obama is president. Clinton before him. Carter, too. Nixon is a bigger scumbag than those three combined.
And plenty of good people aren’t eligible, sure. Jesus. The Virgin Mary. Moses.
We can’t just have a rule barring scumbags without some way to determine who is and who isn’t. If you could come up with a reliable filter, I’d happily sign on.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:57 pm“There was no United States before.”
Yeah, that’s pretty much why they had to make an exception for themselves.
Can’t be a born citizen of the United States, if there ain’t no United States.
The way I look at it, if we can make an exception for them, then we can make an exception for other citizens who become citizens after they’re born. That’s what seems fair to me.
Dave Surls (ee4c90) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:00 pmI cannot figure out a metric that makes Nixon a bigger scumbag than Carter, Clinton, and Obama combined.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:01 pmThat EricPWJohnson, he’s like the wind.
Icy Texan (fb7f2c) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:02 pm“Well, plenty of scumbags are eligible to be president, Dave.”
No argument there.
Dave Surls (ee4c90) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:03 pmIcy – more like breaking wind.
JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:07 pmYou have to get the “X” on triple letter score. That does it.
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:14 pm“And plenty of good people aren’t eligible, sure. Jesus.”
Well, he’s dead, at least for now, so he probably wouldn’t be a very good president anyway. Can’t read a teleprompter while you’re dead.
However, let’s just say he wasn’t dead, he couldn’t ever be president (on account of he was born in Bethlehem, Israel, instead of Bethlehem, Pa.), but Charles Manson could (I think).
How fair, just and smart is that?
The rule is stupid.
Sorry, but I just can’t take it seriously, and I have no desire whatsoever to see it enforced.
And, even if I did, there’s no way to enforce it legally, because the law prescribes no penalty or remedy, if that law is broken.
Which is another reason why it’s a totally idiotic law.
Dave Surls (ee4c90) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:14 pmlength times width times height?
No, seriously, in my opinion, Nixon was worse than even the recent democrats. He was an O-6 in World War II, which is quite a good thing to have been.
Nixon ignored the blood telegram, ruined American health over his need to politically stabilize food prices (by changing what we eat). He greatly increased the price of entitlements, knowing the bill for his political needs would be paid later. He created so much nanny state. EPA, war on drugs, etc.
He committed federal crimes for which he was pardoned by his lackey. He refused to give information about those crimes to the federal courts, but later gave them to an interviewer (in a move similar in some ways to Obama’s release of his birth certificate). He is on tape inventing a false national security issue to cover his own ass. He repeatedly lied and was caught lying, and about very serious matters.
Clinton is a liar too. Carter a racist. Obama an opportunistic creep.
Nixon backed Reagan, and I think that may be why many think he was a mixed bag. Reagan wasn’t perfect, but his faults and mistakes can be traced to national interests, much unlike Nixon.
I also think there’s a sense that Nixon paid the political price for his scumbaggery in a way Carter, Clinton, and Obama will not. But I think Nixon’s triangulation and dishonesty was more fundamental, more damaging, and made the democrat presidencies much more likely.
They say only Nixon could go to China, but perhaps only Nixon could create a nanny state full of fat people who eat subsidized corn syrup in everything.
I guess I could go on for an hour on this, but the fact is that Nixon is a massive scumbag. So is Obama, clearly, just given his behavior on this one silly issue. How you rank them is your business.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:18 pmLike I said, the rule is not meant to filter in or out the scumbags.
So you’re being irrational. It’s meant to filter in and out people who are linked to this country. I guess Obama is an indicator it’s not perfect, since he’s eligible despite not really giving a rat’s ass about America in particular… certainly not over the interests of other nations.
My point is that there’s more to it than just ‘let’s find good people’. Whether we exclude Jesus and allow Manson is about making sure our CinC is looking out for the USA.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:20 pmIt’s still a fake. In 1961 nowhere on the planet was African a designation of RACE.
Only in latter day America where the general population are morons is African designated as a race. Back in 1961 people were educated to an extent that they KNEW Africa consisted of many races. And in America blacks were negroes. Even more so in Hawaii where racism is still a major factor of everyday life.
In 1961 in the race section Obama senior would have been classified as NEGRO to go along with Dunham’s classification of CAUCASIAN.
Just look at any birth certificate you can find from the 1960’s
The Mad One (51d8d0) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:24 pm“No, seriously, in my opinion, Nixon was worse than even the recent democrats.”
Fiddle-dee-dee. You’re daft, me lad.
He was one of our better modern presidents despite suffering from a bad case of way-too-liberalitis.
But, that’s not exactly on topic.
Dave Surls (ee4c90) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:24 pm“So you’re being irrational.”
Don’t be absurd. There’s nothing irrational about disliking a rule that will prevent Henry Kissinger from being president, but will allow a Bill Ayers or Jane Fonda to be president.
It’s the rule that’s irrational, not my wonderful self.
Dave Surls (ee4c90) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:32 pmBy all means, Dave, dislike the rule.
I say you’re irrational for questioning the rule with a metric that has nothing to do with the rule.
You might as well say there are plenty of horrible people who are older than 35, and plenty of good people who are younger than 35.
If you’re going to question the citizenship rule, you should look at what it’s intended to accomplish, and either say that’s not a worthy goal, or show how the rule is failing to accomplish that goal. Specifically, you could say that Obama shows no loyalty to the USA over other countries, so a rule meant to ensure that loyalty is not always working very well.
It is irrational to say that blue cars get bad gas mileage because your truck is blue and that prius is green.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:42 pm“We get it. You think it’s a forgery.”
Now we see why it’s impossible to have a rational conversation with “anti-birthers”.
Over and over, they assert garbage like “birthers think Obama was born in Kenya!” or the above brain dead comment.
I don’t know, and NEITHER do you AT THIS TIME. It’s a great start for Obama to come clean on what has been asked of him for ages now, but it’s not over yet.
Asserting a weak argument is your opposition’s one is an old red herring propaganda tactic, and it’s dishonest.
As I said previously, authenticating an original from a scan or photocopy is impossible. Period.
Case closed.
Nope (f02e44) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:45 pmFirst of all, who saw it besides his friends at Kos and the Annenberg Political Fact Check? (BTW I just learned that the Annenberg fortune was founded on organised crime.) Second, assuming it was genuine, what exactly did it prove? Just that a certificate existed with this information on it. What reason did that give us to believe that the information was true? Just because something is on a government document doesn’t mean it happened, you know.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:46 pm“Race of father – African” is curious, to say the least.
Icy Texan (fb7f2c) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:52 pm#180
Not mega-fail. John Bingham, the author of the 14th amendment, seems to have held this belief, so it’s not completely out of left field. But the weight of the evidence is definitely against it.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:56 pm“First of all, who saw it besides his friends at Kos and the Annenberg Political Fact Check? (BTW I just learned that the Annenberg fortune was founded on organised crime.) Second, assuming it was genuine, what exactly did it prove? Just that a certificate existed with this information on it. What reason did that give us to believe that the information was true? Just because something is on a government document doesn’t mean it happened, you know.”
– Milhouse
Then why don’t you put together a committee to assess the obviously doubtful veracity of every birth certificate of every candidate in the next election cycle? I mean, what reason do you have to believe that they were born in this country? Their so-called “birth certificates”?
How could Obama convince you that he was born in Hawaii? I mean, since his latest offering (which “proves” what you wanted him to prove) is probably forged and whatnot.
Leviticus (ed6d31) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:02 pmYou’re saying case closed… and yet you’re also saying you don’t know.
A man with a PHD and 40 years of hard work in medicine, and a great reputation, as personally certified this document. His signature is at the bottom of the document. The state of hawaii has certified the accuracy of this digital copy.
Someone held in their hands the original and has put their name on the line, saying your image is authentic.
So you’re wrong on the facts. Screaming at me in all caps means nothing. Telling me how stupid I am means nothing. You are asserting it is a forgery, only you are too cowardly to spit out your accusation.
The fact is that what you are looking at has been authenticated, and to scream about how you doubt the authentication is an accusation. “nope” can’t back up his accusation against my arguments, so he backs off into simply insulting me.
That’s unpatriotic. Admit you’re wrong, nope. This document has more verification than any document you could possibly lay your hands on.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:03 pm“John Bingham, the author of the 14th amendment, seems to have held this belief, so it’s not completely out of left field. But the weight of the evidence is definitely against it.”
– Milhouse
No. Mega-fail. John Bingham don’t run the bingo in these parts, as they say.
Leviticus (ed6d31) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:05 pm“How could Obama convince you that he was born in Hawaii?”
Videotapes of the birth!
Shot from at least three different camera angles!!!
Also affadavits from seven witnesses…signed in blood, of course.
Dave Surls (ee4c90) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:06 pmThat’s what’s known as the Genetic Fallacy. The fact is, a real document existed. Your burden is to disprove the validity of the document based on the document itself, not who took a picture of it.
What did it prove? That the State of Hawaii certified that the information on that document were factual. Seriously, if you’re going to assert that a genuine government-certified document is attesting to falsifications, then why should you believe any document produced by any government? This line of reasoning is not rational.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:07 pmHow do you know? Who saw it, besides his friends?
Questions about its authenticity were only the beginning. Assuming that it was authentic, what possible reason would anyone have to believe that the information on it was true, when he refused to release a copy of his actual birth certificate, i.e. the document he did release this morning?
Unlike the abstract “certification”, this document has enough detail that, if it proves authentic, it should resolve the question, and had he released it in the first place there would never have been all this fuss. Berg and Taitz and other Democrat nutcases might have tried to start something anyway, but few rational people would have paid them any attention. But without the actual certificate there was plenty of room for rational skepticism.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:10 pmWait a minute, are you seriously asserting that any purported fact contained on a government document is by definition true?! What magic is it that makes government documents impervious to falsehood? What kind of idiot actually believes something so obviously false?
The current document, if it proves authentic, is not believable just because it happens to have a government seal on it, but because it contains verifiable details that tend to indicate the information is true. For instance, the fact that the information seems to have come from the hospital, not from the grandparents. If the signatures match known samples of the three signers’ handwriting, and the attendant is shown to have worked at that hospital at that time, that will further bolster the case.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:17 pmSarah Palin was born in Russia. After all, she said she could see it from her house – probably because her house was in Russia. Her place-of-birth house, too – real bad news. Her parents were white – and get this: Russians are white. Coincidence? I think not. And her Idaho birth certificate is the most damning evidence of all – because HOW DO WE EVEN KNOW THAT IT’S REAL???!?!? Sure, she claims it’s “an official state document”, that it’s “validated by living state officials who confirm its authenticity”… but this conspiracy knows no bounds? HOW DO WE EVEN KNOW IDAHO’S A REAL STATE???!!?!?! Have you ever been there? I haven’t. The questions just keep piling up.
Leviticus (ed6d31) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:18 pmYou mean Tina Fay must have been born in Russia, for it was she who said that you could see Russia from “her” house.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:20 pmBleagh. Nasty drink.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:21 pmTina Fey is Trig’s mother.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:21 pm“You mean Tina Fay must have been born in Russia, for it was she who said that you could see Russia from “her” house.”
– AD-RtR/OS!
Bear with me – it’s in the spirit of parody. I know Palin didn’t actually say that.
Leviticus (ed6d31) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:22 pmIs it true that Tina had a drunken joust with Randy Andy?
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:22 pmHang on a sec. Was Bingham or was he not a rational person, literate in the law, and something of an expert on the constitution? How can any belief he held about the meaning of a constitutional clause, especially one on which no definitive ruling exists, be a “mega-fail”? I agree that it’s almost certainly wrong, but it’s not some sort of bizarre conspiracy theory like the idea that treaties outrank the constitution, or that Obama’s sojourn in Indonesia is relevant to his citizenship, or that gold fringe on a flag invalidates a court.
Their biographies are so well known and attested to that nobody even thought to ask for their birth certificates. They didn’t emerge out of nowhere with no background that anyone could verify.
Who said anything like that?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:25 pmNo I thought Anne Coulter was Trig’s mother?
DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:28 pm“Their biographies are so well known and attested to that nobody even thought to ask for their birth certificates. They didn’t emerge out of nowhere with no background that anyone could verify.”
– Milhouse
Because a conspiracy to fake a birth certificate is plausible, but a conspiracy to fake a life story is out of the question?
Leviticus (ed6d31) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:29 pmDoh
wonkette isn’t sure who the mother is, but asserts its the same father, either way.
ugh, just grossed myself out.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:31 pm“Hang on a sec. Was Bingham or was he not a rational person, literate in the law, and something of an expert on the constitution? How can any belief he held about the meaning of a constitutional clause, especially one on which no definitive ruling exists, be a “mega-fail”?
– Milhouse
So what? The Supreme Court is the final authority on constitutional interpretation, not legislative authors. Setting aside the difficulty of ascertaining and reconciling the intent of every legislator who signed the Fourteenth Amendment (a difficulty roundly discussed in the last textualist/intentionalist go-round), why should Bingham’s opinion as to the proper definition of “natural born citizen” matter one whit?
Leviticus (ed6d31) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:32 pmAnd the author of that glowing Harvard alumni magazine profile of Sullivan, didn’t find his obsession that surprising. Those that were confused
narciso (79ddc3) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:35 pmby Tina and I assume Julianne, in the future, how
does $5 gallon taste now
“Sarah Palin was born in Russia.”
Also, she attended college in Moscow.
She’s a Russki commie, no doubt about it in my mind.
Dave Surls (ee4c90) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:37 pmI defy anyone to prove otherwise to my satisfaction.
Leviticus (ed6d31) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:45 pmI seriously believe that a document marked “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceding”, stamped and sealed by the State of Hawaii, is factual.
Do you have any evidence that it’s not?
What kind of idiot believes something without evidence?
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:52 pmThe idea is that you do the proving. They don’t say anything and they don’t prove anything, and if you claim they denied something is accurate, they say they just asked a question.
The fact is that we’ve got so much evidence Obama was born in Hawaii at this point that it’s kinda ridiculous.
But that’s a good thing, because Obama handled this issue in such a slimeball fashion that we need a very high level of evidence. The COLB is enough to show Hawaii vouches for Obama… certainly that’s legally good enough, but I can understand why people want something from 1961 showing the details of Obama’s birth. It’s a shame that’s needed, but Obama’s a shameful man.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:56 pmHave they? Not that I’ve heard. And if they have, what qualifies them as document examiners? Would they recognise a forgery if they saw one? Are you completely ruling out the possibility of a forgery having been introduced into the records in the last two years? If so, why? It may not be the most likely thing to have happened, but it’s far from impossible.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:57 pmIt’s not whether or not Milhouse has heard.
Alvin Onaka is actually quite an impressive doctor, with expertise in documentation of birth. He’s had decades of experience dealing with a variety of medical issues, and I don’t see any evidence he’d throw away his name certifying this is a genuine record.
Do you?
I think we have one of the most reliably authenticated documents out there.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:00 pmI’m still waiting for some of the
prowlerguy (efdb32) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:01 pmmoronsprogressive folks here to tell me who actually authticated this document for the purposes of officially ascertaining the eligibility of candidates for President. I’m looking for someone who actually says “Yes, this candidate is qualified by law to assume the office.” and documents whatever facts are needed to do so.#211
“Nope” has never claimed the certificate released today is a forgery. All he’s done is point out, quite reasonably, that there has been no time to verify that it isn’t one, and that there’s no call for us to fall all over ourselves ruling that possibility out.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:04 pmI see no hint in the constitution that he cannot, nor can I think of any reason to believe that he cannot. Not even John Bingham made such a claim.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:13 pmI know their MO, Dustin, and that’s why I said in my very first comment on this thread that no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient to the birthers.
If they don’t trust one document, why should they trust another? Why, indeed, should they trust anything at all?
For my troubles, I’ve been called a liar by retire05, and been called an idiot by others who offer no evidence to counter anything I’ve said.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:20 pm#241
Dustin, you don’t seem to understand this claim, which is that the term “natural born citizen”, as it was understood in 1789, meant “born in the country to parents who were both citizens”. It’s not a bizarre theory; there is some support for it in the legal literature of the time and later. As prominent an expert as John Bingham, the framer of the 14th amendment, held it. It seems to be based originally on Grotius, who is indeed a formidable authority. But the evidence against it is much better, including Blackstone, who — at least when it comes to the US constitution — trumps Grotius.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:26 pmThen you’re a fool. Tim McGuire demolished this argument ages ago.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:28 pmDoes the paper President Snow Job just released show that he was a natural born citizen? His mama was not of legal age to confer US citizenship to him at birth. Daddy was a Kenyan. That makes President Snow Job a Kenyan.
President Snow Job has a bloody nose. He has been humiliated into being silent over all of the controversy over “nothing.” He doesn’t need to do anything to shame the Pubbies except to let them stink the place up with their useless gas about everything.
GS Patton (00eca7) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:38 pmMilhouse:
This is the Supreme Court, ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that English common law would continue to hold re: the definition of ‘natural born citizen’:
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born . III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
This is the Supreme Court ruling in Schneider v. Rusk that “the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.” (implying that any non-naturalized citizen is “natural born”)
We don’t have to make disputable appeals to Blackstone or Grotius when our own Supreme Court has addressed these issues.
Leviticus (ed6d31) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:50 pm“His mama was not of legal age to confer US citizenship to him at birth.”
– GS Patton
Oh sh*t, I’d better check and see if my mom conferred me her citizenship…
Have I been living a lie!!!??!?!
Leviticus (ed6d31) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:52 pmI have a question and I am sure everyone is going to call me a rasist for asking this. Here goes.
Mark Miller (4d13a8) — 4/27/2011 @ 4:35 pmI have no experience in judging if a document is real or not. BUT the dates by the Mother’s signatures look the same to me and I was wondering how that could be since they are two different people. Should the way that each mother wrote her date look different. Just asking.
It says abstract right on it.
That means short form.
Smarty (b78ca5) — 4/27/2011 @ 4:41 pmThey are different. The 8s are not written the same. And, for the record, one signature is from the mother, the other is from the doctor.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 4:54 pm#305
“We’re all Keynesians now” Nixon? Wage-and-price-freeze Nixon? EPA Nixon? “Affirmative action” Nixon? That’s whom you consider one of our better modern presidents? Who’s daft now? (I grant you there haven’t been a lot of decent modern presidents, and you didn’t say among how many better ones he was. But still.)
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 5:10 pmDustin wrote:
Really? What’s his expertise? First of all, he’s not a doctor, he’s a PhD. He seems to be a statistician, whose career has been spent in demography and epidemiology, not in document verification. (Nor, for that matter, in “dealing with a variety of medical issues”.) For that matter, he doesn’t say the document is authentic, and there is no indication that he made any attempt to authenticate it, let alone that he’s qualified to do so. All his signature says is that, whether it’s genuine or forged, this PDF is a copy of it. I’m certainly not saying the document is a forgery — how could I possibly know that? — but citing Onaka as an authority that it’s not is ridiculous.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 5:26 pmNo, it doesn’t. It says this is a true copy or an abstract. In this case it’s a copy.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 5:27 pmUm, yes. How many people does it take to forge a birth certificate and insert it into the state records? Given enough money and power, do you doubt it could have been done? Now tell me how one goes about faking all the evidence backing up the early histories of either Bush, or even of Clinton, Reagan, Ford, or Nixon.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 5:35 pmIt matters as much as that of any other genuine constitutional expert. In other words, you have no business calling it bizarre or a “mega-fail”. Bingham was no crackpot, even if he was very probably wrong on this point.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 5:37 pmThen you are seriously insane. And I mean that in all seriousness. If you can’t tell the difference between actual reality and legal fictions, if you think laws and regulations are capable of affecting the physical world around us, then you belong in a straitjacket. King Canute knew better.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 5:39 pmHere’s a f’rinstance: Suppose this document were thoroughly authenticated, but it had said Obama was born at home, and that the information was supplied by his grandparents. “Some chump” seems to believe that the mere fact that an authentic government document says so means it’s true, and therefore that this document would prove once and for all that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii and not in Kenya or Australia or anywhere else. But of course that’s nonsense; such a document, even if authentic, would prove nothing at all. We would be left wondering forever whether the facts it asserts are true.
In the current case, assuming once again that the document is authentic, I do believe it at least tends to prove the facts it asserts; not because it’s a government document, but because hospitals and attending physicians aren’t in the habit of filing false birth certificates for babies not actually born there. If the doctor can be tracked down and asked about it, so much the better. But at any rate we’re taking more than the mere word of the grandparents.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 5:56 pmDo you have any evidence at all that the document was not factual? If not, then you are the insane person, not I.
If that document were presented in court, it alone would be enough evidence of the facts it contained. That’s what prima facie means: barring any rebuttal, the case is proven. Since you have offered no rebuttal, then you have been proven wrong.
Since you don’t believe the Certification of Live Birth is factual, what then do you believe? Do you believe the “long form” birth certificate? If so, why? All of the information in the COLB is contained in the “long form”; if the COLB is not factual, then the long form could not possibly be factual.
You are at the stage where you are picking and choosing which documents you will believe, and which ones you will reject, simply because you think the government is lying. I submit that of the two of us, I am far more sane than you.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 5:56 pmAh, yes, government officials always lie when certifying facts, but doctors never do.
And I’m the crazy one? Fuck you, Milhouse, and the horse you rode in on.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/27/2011 @ 5:59 pmWow. “Some chump” really is insane. There’s just no way to respond to that, since he lives in his own world, responding to arguments that only exist in his own head.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 6:07 pmI like both you guys but there has been a breakdown in civility here. Let’s not worry about fault but can we please stop any insults.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/27/2011 @ 6:28 pmYou sure you want to stick to that?
Comment by retire05 — 4/27/2011 @ 12:19 pm
Yes, retire05, I am going to stick to that because that’s simply the only result that the Supreme Court would reach given the Fourteenth Amendment and its previous opinions on the matter.
Thinking otherwise is simply delusional.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/27/2011 @ 6:36 pmActually, he’s given a lot of talks on birth and death records, and he’s been doing so long before Obama was on the public radar. He’s spent years traveling to dozens of countries studying the issue.
When you say he’s not a doctor, but a PHD, I get a little worried you’re trying too hard to prove a point that doesn’t exist. He’s got an impressive resume, has worked hard to build his name, and is a scholar on the topic of birth records, Milhouse. He signed his name to the document saying it’s true.
You’re calling people insane, but let’s think about what you’re saying. The number lines up extremely well with the World Net Daily record of a birth in this hospital on this day. How? Is World Net Daily in on it? It’s contemporaneous with many other events, such as the birth announcement. The governor of the state, and other government members have personally given their word that this is accurate.
That number on the document: some baby got that on their birth certificate. If it’s a fake, someone out there could easily show it.
There are two signatures swearing that Obama was born in that hospital, left in 1961, in addition to Obama’s mother’s signature.
If that’s fake, someone could easily report that fact.
And the Doctor Onaka, president of the national association for public health statistics whom you claim is a ridiculously weak authority on a birth record, swears this is an accurate representation of what was in the files.
Why are all these people in on the conspiracy, Milhouse?
You are calling people insane for concluding these records are factual? You usually seem a lot more reasonable than this.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 6:50 pmNo, he didn’t. All he signed his name to is that the PDF is a true copy of the document.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 6:54 pmI guess I’m not getting how the current Governor of Hawaii is on record as saying that he couldn’t find the long-form document. But here it is?
Exactly how did that happen?
PC14 (4a4ed3) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:06 pmI’m not calling “people” insane, I’m calling one person insane: “some chump”, for addressing arguments nobody ever made, and for believing that the mere fact that a government document asserts something proves that it actually happened in the real world. Those are both symptoms of literal insanity.
The number being in the correct range doesn’t even tend to indicate it’s not a forgery; any competent forger would of course give it a plausible number. And who would know? At most the one person in the world who had the real certificate with that number, assuming the number wasn’t skipped or the person wasn’t dead or something.
All they’ve said is that the document exists, not that it’s authentic; how would they know if it weren’t? Are they document experts?
How do you know? You’re begging the question; if the document is authentic then those signatures were left in 1961; if it isn’t then they weren’t.
Which is a purely clerical function; he doesn’t need to be any kind of expert for that. But what he’s not an authority on is authenticating documents. No court in the world would allow him to testify as an expert witness on a document’s authenticity, and in fact he hasn’t even asserted that it is authentic. All he’s done is his normal registrar’s job in stamping a true copy and signing it.
What conspiracy? If the document were a forgery, who would have to be involved in that? Do you imagine Onaka would have any reason to know about it?
No, I’m calling one person insane for concluding that the mere fact that something is on a government document makes it factual. Anyone who makes such a claim is insane, because the world out there, the one that we sense with our eyes, ears, noses, tongues, and skin, doesn’t behave like that.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:07 pmHe isn’t.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:08 pmHeh. Egg on many, many faces. Anyone saying this form did not exist, or that it was impossible to produce, look foolish.
Milhouse, Some Chump is a person.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:08 pmMilhouse, with all due respect and seriousness: you are really making a spectacle of yourself.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:08 pmPatterico, you had no problem calling Newtons.bit out for exactly the same thing that “some chump” is doing now.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:09 pmSo’s Newtons.bit and every other troll we’ve ever had.
How so? I’m making a very reasonable argument, and so far nobody has addressed it. 1) We don’t know that this document is authentic, until some expert examines the original and confirms it; 2) Assuming that it is authentic we’re closer to knowing that the facts it asserts are true, but the question remains far from closed. 3) The mere fact (if it is one) that it is an authentic government document is neither here nor there.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:13 pm‘“We’re all Keynesians now” Nixon? Wage-and-price-freeze Nixon? EPA Nixon? “Affirmative action” Nixon? That’s whom you consider one of our better modern presidents?’
That’s what i like about you Milhouse, you always seem to understand what I’m saying.
Dave Surls (ee4c90) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:07 pmIn case people have got confused, let me lay it out in steps. There are several unrelated or not-very-related things to consider:
1. Is the document the president released authentic? I have no reason to believe it isn’t, but surely you will all concede that forgery is an existing art form, not science fiction, and that the president could easily engage the services of an expert forger, who would be capable of creating such a document and insinuating it into the Hawaii archives. So before accepting his word that it’s genuine, surely some due diligence is called for. If you were litigating a case and out of the blue your opponent offered a document that would vindicate his case, wouldn’t you owe it to your client to examine the possibility that it was forged? So why are you dismissing the possibility out of hand, without having had even a day to consider it, and without any expert weighing in on whether it appears authentic? This is the point “Nope” was making.
2. Let’s put that aside and assume that the document is authentic. Now we must ask whether the facts it asserts are true. That is not the same question at all. “Authentic” simply means it was created by the government in 1961; someone had to supply the information, though, and they may have lied. That’s what I’ve been getting at; it’s insane to imagine that anything stated by an authentic public document must be true. Instead we must look at where the information came from, and how trustworthy that source is.
3. Had the source been the grandparents, there’s no question that we could not have trusted it. Sure, it’s far more likely that Obama was born in Hawaii than that he wasn’t, and in that case there’d be no need to lie; but suppose he wasn’t born there after all, it would be easy for the grandparents to submit a false report and get away with it. Who was to know?
4. But now we’ve seen the document, and (assuming it’s authentic) the information came from the hospital, and the filing was signed by Dr David Sinclair. It’s possible that the grandparents persuaded him (perhaps by means of a bribe) to sign a false birth filing, but as I’ll explain that isn’t even necessary.
5. Let’s not imagine that Dr Sinclair personally filled in the details, and would have a clear memory of the birth if he were alive to be examined. I don’t think that’s likely at all. Here’s how I think birth filings such as this one were done: some clerical functionary at the hospital collected the information, prepared a stack of forms for each doctor, and handed them to the doctors to sign. The doctors probably never read through the stack, let alone paused to think back and see whether they could remember having delivered each particular child; they would routinely sign the whole stack and give it back to be filed. Supposing a doctor did notice one filing and realised that he hadn’t delivered that baby, the clerk who prepared it could easily cover up his/her mistake by claiming that it had drifted into the wrong stack and should have been given to some other doctor. Therefore, instead of suborning the doctor the grandparents could more easily have suborned this minor hospital functionary.
6. On the other hand, why would they bother? Supposing all the while that their new grandson was not born in Hawaii, and they were trying to create a false record for him, why would they involve unnecessary people in the scheme when they could just as easily file it themselves as a home birth and save themselves the risk and/or expense of running a conspiracy? Since they didn’t file it themselves, and neither Dr Sinclair nor his administrative assistant would seem to have had any reason to submit a false filing and potentially kill his reputation forever, we may assume with a reasonable degree of confidence that the filing was true, and that the facts are exactly as they appear to be, and Dr Sinclair really did deliver him in the hospital on the date described. This is far from certain, but it seems the likeliest scenario.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/28/2011 @ 12:21 amMilhouse, I don’t really get what you are on about, but I will try to
1) Of course a forgery could be made. The real trick is the inserting of the document into the governmental files. Why? Because any idiot can clearly see that this document, like the other authentic birth certificates seen at WND, have been archived on microfilm. You may not be old enough to actually have used a microfilm or microfiche machine, but the idea that a single document could be “added” to such an archive is silly on its face. They are either sheets or rolls of images, and to add a single image is a feat that would rival any spy thriller fiction. And in your madeup case, if the document presented in court were an authentic, official government document with the correct seal and correct signatures, you would get nowhere with your claim of forgery. Further, you would not be allowed to enter the storage area for those documents “just to see for yourself”.
2. Once you get to the point of acknowledging the authenticity of the document, the burden of proof is all on you, 100%, to show that there is any basis for such an accusation. I’ve not seen any scenario or evidence presented that supports such a thing. I haven’t even seen a plausible reason why, 50 years ago, someone would have sought such a falsified record for an infant.
3. Just because you assert that it would be “easy for the grandparents to submit a false report and get away with it” doesn’t mean it is true. Can you point to even one documented case of this occuring? Because if it was easy and there was a logical reason for people to do this, then many people would do it, right? So finding just one case should be a walk in the park.
4. Easy to slander a dead man, isn’t it.
5. On what are your claims here based? All I see are “Let’s not imagine“, “Here’s how I think” “The doctors probably never read” “could easily cover up ” “could more easily have suborned this minor hospital functionary”. No facts, no precedent, no actual cases, no statements from firsthand participants. Just your fantasy. But with more weasel wiggle room than a Clinton deposition.
6. Don’t go all soft on us now. You’ve staked your online persona to this narrative. You’ve been so outrageous in your vitriol that you’ve earned Paterico’s personal attention. You’ve called folks insane for not giving any credence to your wild accusations. Might as will stick it out to the end, don’t you think?
prowlerguy (fac5d4) — 4/28/2011 @ 5:49 amI’ll give you credit Milhouse. You’ve given as much thought to this fantasy scenario as anyone. Kudos for being thorough. 🙂
carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/28/2011 @ 6:32 amShut up, “prowlerguy”. I have no reason to prove anything; if you seriously deny that people lie all the time, then you’re as insane as “some chump”. It’s a universally acknowledged fact, at least among sane people, that people do lie, that you can’t just take random people’s word for anything important, without a reason to believe them. Ask Patterico how long he’d last at his job if he took to just assuming everyone was always telling the truth. As for my description of how Dr Sinclair’s signature could appear on a birth filing for a baby he hadn’t delivered, without requiring him to be in on a conspiracy, it’s once again common knowledge that this is how people do things. They sign what’s put before them, without checking every single item, because they trust that whatever’s in the pile is correct. It’s how Newt Gingrich got in trouble, for instance. And if you really haven’t seen a plausible reason why, if Obama wasn’t born in the USA, his grandparents would have wanted to create the impression that he was, then you’re either lying or haven’t been paying attention or given it the least thought.
Carlitos, the assumption that Obama wasn’t born where he claims he was is the whole point of the entire affair. There’s never been any good reason to make such an assumption, and it’s always been inherently unlikely, but he was the one contesting the presidency, so the burden’s on him to prove his eligibility. The vast majority of people present in the USA are USA citizens, but they don’t hand out passports to anyone who walks in the door, do they? If you want one you have to prove your citizenship. And if you want a job you have to prove you’re entitled to work, even though the overwhelming majority of adults present in the USA are so entitled. So the whole point of this entire affair has been Obama’s inexplicable refusal to rebut the admittedly weak case that he was not born in the USA. (The sheer unlikeliness of a Kenya birth prompted Tim McGuire to come up with a more likely hypothetical: a Canadian birth. There’s no evidence for that either, but at least it’s plausible.)
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/28/2011 @ 2:20 pmWell, that was quite a response there, milhouse. “Shut up”. That’s all you’ve got? “Shut up”?? Really.
Of course people lie. Could you point out where I said they don’t? Of course, people also have fantasies and make stuff up all the time, and if you seriously deny that people make stuff up all the time, then you’re as insane as you claim everybody else is. And perhaps there is your first hint of reality, milhouse. In your opinion, everyone else here is crazy, and only you are sane. There’s a much more reasonable explanation as to why you stand alone.
And you might want to ask Paterico how long he’d last at his job if he repeatedly made wild accusations without any foundation or evidence, and then pressed those accusations even when they were shown to be false. He’d not only be out of a job, but he could even be in a full-time residential retention program (in prison).
So, for the rest of your response you fall back on your little fantasy world of “imagine”, “could”, “I think”, and “probably”; only now you are attributing it all to “common knowledge”. Face it, you have actually no idea how birth certificates are issued in general, and you certainly have no idea how it was done in this particular hospital by this particular doctor. Even the largest hospital doesn’t have that many births in a day. In fact, using 2008 data, in the entire state of HI, there are only 53 births per day. Just because you wouldn’t do your job if you got a little bored, you really shouldn’t assume that everybody is as lazy and derelict in their job as you are and would get bored by having to sign maybe 5 sheets of paper.
I also note that you can’t point to an actual example of this allegedly “easy” feat of forging a birth certificate and placing it in the archives. Heck, you can’t even produce a single example of a fraudulent birth certificate. And yet you claim it was easy, profitable, and commonplace. So prove it.
And finally, sadly for you, I an neither lying nor have I not been paying attention. I have heard some rather implausible theories about why someone would do such a thing, but none that I find reasonable. Obviously, you and I find very different things reasonable. You, for instance, find it reasonable to believe (simultaneously) that 1) a forged document was created and inserted into a microfiche archive without detection, 2) Dr. Sinclair was bribed by Obama’s grandparents to falsifly the BC, and 3) several other people at the hospital were bribed by Obama’s grandparents to falsifly the BC, but Dr. Sinclair was a lazy dupe.
Stay classy, milhouse. Keep accusing dead men of fraud, calling everyone else crazy, and then telling them to “shut up” when you can’t formulate any more lies to shore up your pathetic fantasy.
prowlerguy (fac5d4) — 4/29/2011 @ 5:21 amhttp://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/the_obama_lie_that_drove_the_b.html
narciso (79ddc3) — 4/29/2011 @ 5:37 amProwlerguy, have I accused anybody of lying or fraud? Yes or no? I’m calling you out, exactly as Patterico called out that Newtons.bit douchebag. You are making things up and putting them in my mouth, and that indicates either dishonesty or insanity on your part.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 10:36 amNarciso, I just read the article you linked to, but have no idea what its point is. What conceivable difference does it make when Barack and Stanley broke up?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 11:06 amI am completely against those who say that all this could have been avoided had Obama released his certificate sooner because people like Donald Trump would have found something else in order to entertain the whole nation and gain support from those who are interested in such trivial issues as Obama’s birth certificate.
David (af7dc7) — 4/29/2011 @ 12:49 pmIs that the same lying David from the AGW threads that scurried away when called out on his nozzlery?
JD (306f5d) — 4/29/2011 @ 1:08 pmSeveral experts now have claimed the long form is a forgery. While some have relied on highly technical claims, this one is different.
“The forgery should be obvious, even to the non-expert”. He seems to have a point.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=321561
I have NOT paid much attention to the birth certificate brouhaha and I still think he was probably born here but I don’t see how you can ignore this.
Gerald A (9d78e8) — 7/13/2011 @ 7:35 pmIt’s not obvious to me. Blow anything up to a high enough resolution and you’re likely to get artifacts like this just at random. Analyze them enough and you can come up with fantastic explanations for them, but they’re far more likely to just be artifacts of the resolution.
And of course the hospital name is the same on both certificates; they were produced on the same typewriter!
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/13/2011 @ 7:48 pmIt’s somewhat subjective but to me the 4 just doesn’t look right in any resolution.
Gerald A (9d78e8) — 7/13/2011 @ 8:04 pmRemember that, unlike the Ra^th^ergate documents, these certificates were not produced in a word processor. They were printed, rubber stamped, and typed, with genuine 1961 technology. I’m not sure exactly how the numbers were applied to the forms, but you shouldn’t expect clean lines.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/13/2011 @ 8:25 pmI just did some Googling and came across this from 6/22. Joseph M. Newcomer, who analyzed the Rathergate forgery, points out something that looks off to a non-expert like me and apparently to an expert as well.
http://scam.com/showthread.php?p=1066117
“There is something deeply wrong here,” Newcomer told WND. “There are artifacts in the birth certificate document that are strongly suggestive of a forgery. The document screams out that something is wrong.”
Gerald A (9d78e8) — 7/13/2011 @ 8:46 pm