Those Birther Calls to Glenn Beck, Explained

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by daveweigel, WashIndependent. WashIndependent said: Those Birther Calls to Glenn Beck, Explained http://bit.ly/4HzpaL [...]

I love the smell of wingnuts self-destructing in the morning.

Their was a time that the wingnuts were just ignored. The idea has been dismissed by the left, right, and center.

The KNOCK OUT PUNCH sounds like something the ShamWow! guy would sell when he's not trolling for prostitutes to beat up.

Pastor Manning, still entertaining, still nutty.

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by daveweigel: Oh, of course: the birther calls were part of a national campaign by crazy people. Occam’s razor and all. http://bit.ly/4HzpaL...

[...] going after Glenn Beck because he doesn’t talk about Obama’s birth certificate enough. A birther group has been flooding Glenn Beck’s radio show with phone calls: Here’s the explanation and the mission, as posted on Dec. 21 on the forum of the anti-Obama [...]

[...] More information on Operation Flood It from the Washington Independent: [...]

It's off to the “FEMA camps” with the birfers then. Paranoid idiots.

Hey! Where's my check?

OK… So which hospital, exactly, was Mr. Obama born at? Because, as I understand it, none of the ones in Hawaii will officially make the claim. I thought it might be nice to post up a monument or plaque there to commemorate our President's official birthplace – you know… like ALL our other Presidents. Hmmm?

Troll much?

Huh?

So, Troll – Did you have an answer to my question?

The hospitals are forbidden by state law to verify that anyone was born there. But here's proof that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in…
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article…
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article…
http://snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
http://snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertifica…

You can copy and paste your delusional, erroneous bullshit all day long. It doesn't make you any less of a lying idiot.

MCRAE: OK I’m sorry. I, I thought she said she was present when he was
born. I was—
TRANSLATOR OGOMBE (sounding exasperated): No, no! The, the
woman was not present. She was uh not, a what–you see, she was here in
Kenya, and Obama was born in America. That is, that’s obvious.

You can easily find the actual transcript but since you're a lazy, lying sack of crap, never mind. Let Whirled Nut Daily lie to you some more.

What is Whirled Nut Daily hiding?
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2009/wndo…

Which hospital? Irrelevant but a consistent birfer tactic.

“. . . Mr. Abercrombie, who has represented Hawaii for nearly two decades in Congress, was a close friend of Mr. Obama’s parents, who were students at the University of Hawaii in 1961. The president’s father, Barack H. Obama Sr., was from Kenya, but Mr. Abercrombie said the suggestion that the Obama baby was born in Africa is an absurd impossibility.

“He was born in Kapiolani Hospital, right down the street from where I lived,” Mr. Abercrombie said. “They had no money. I can’t imagine how they would get to Kenya. It makes no sense at all. It’s an insult to his mother.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/us/politics/0…

Every President before Carter was NOT born in a hospital. But deranged bigots like yourself get squeamish around FACTS and RELEVANCY.

Dumbass.

STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai?i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.

So wait, if my sister mistakenly says I was born at a different hospital, then I lose my American citizenship?

I think the birthers are confusing US law with playground rules. See, Obama's sister didn't call no take-backs, and Obama responded with a writ of I'm-rubber-you're-glue.

Okay, let's go over this again, since birthers have the attention span of toddlers

Barack Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital, delivered by Dr. Rodney West at 7:24 on Aug. 4, 1961. However the hospital is immaterial since he has a genuine birth certificate on file as confirmed by the relevant Hawaiian authorities.

President Obama's grandmother never said he was born in Kenya. You should stop lying.

Using “hmmm” in a post marks the poster as, by definition, a douchebag. Guess the shoe fits.

Wow. Funny. There are many people who were spreading that nonsense over a year ago. You must think you are a genius or something. Please pay attention you might learn something.

Are you confused or something. The question was asked to you. Please stop supporting this silly conspiracy theory it making you seem bewildered.

Top radio hosts, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mark Levin and Lou Dobbs, have all said unequivocally and publicly that the Obama eligibility issue is legitimate and worthy. Still no Birth Certificate, except the Kenyan one, his father was a “transient alien” Brit married to the underage mother. He was adopted as Indonesian-Moslem Barry Soetoro, attended college as a Foreign Student, visited Pakistan on unknown visa, travelled a few times to Kenya as a young man(perhaps to renew his citizenship?). And he has already paid well-over a million dollars to cover this stuff up. Without the original BC he mentions “looking at” in 'Dreams of My Father' on page 26 and those college records he is a man without a country. Grandma Obama & Kenyan Ambassador both stated Obama was born in Kenya. Why would people like Alan Keyes, Dr. Michael Savage, Pat Boone, etc. make this stuff up? And if they did why wouldn't Obama have them charged with LIBEL? because he himself knows all too well they are right and that Obama is indeed an illegal-alien. The king is not wearing any clothes.

You can copy and paste your delusional, erroneous bullshit all day long. It doesn't make you any less of a lying idiot.

You guys regurgitate the same thing over and over again with out even understanding the issues.

When you don't like someone people sometimes lie about them. It make then feel more confident about themselves.

Nuttier than a pile of squirrel poop.

*holds up mirror*

*watches as mirror cracks under the weight of Red's handles, lies, and outright stupidity*

Beck said it is a conspiracy? Yes, this conspiracy, by the blind and covert supporters(covert as in Glenn Beck) of Obama: –
Obama admits he is born a British, with allegiance to Britain, as such he is not a US Constitution article 2 natural born citizen and is NOT eligible to be the president of United states. His place of birth is irrelevant.
It is as simple as that, but the blind and covert sheeple denies and/or covers up this plain and simple truth by blowing smoke and mirrors, and by name-calling when all else fails.
This from the Huffingtonpost sums it up:
“The only thing weirder than the Birthers are the anti-Birthers, who blame the Birthers for being conspiracy theorists yet actively feed the conspiracy by refusing to call for Obama to release his birth certificate.”
Granted the birth certificate is irrelevant, but why spend over a million $ to hide it if he has one? Is Obama playing a sick game or does he have to cover up his lies of his origin (where was he born? who was his real father ?) The most powerful man on earth playing a sick game?

And the 'right wing' media is playing along with the usurper!

This sick game has to stop! Only Obama and the media can stop it!

Only a person who can't think for themselves would believe that a person can't defend themselves. Yes, I can now see a lot of people based on your arguments showing up in court without lawyers. Don't bother defend yourself cases never go to the court of appeal or supreme court. It just never happens.

“Alice in Wonderland” is a better work of fiction.

Shut up and show your birth certificate.

Re: “Obama admits he is born a British, with allegiance to Britain, as such he is not a US Constitution article 2 natural born citizen and is NOT eligible to be the president of United states. His place of birth is irrelevant.”

You have it backwards. ONLY the place of birth is relevant. A foreign nation's law cannot take away the eligibility of a US-born child! In addition, the original meaning of Natural Born simply means “born in the country.” It stems from the common law and the laws in the American colonies before the Revolution. It does NOT stem from Vattel.

Re: “why spend over a million $ to hide it if he has one? “

There hasn't been a lawsuit against Obama that simply asked him to show his birth certificate. All the lawsuits before the election (which were about 3/4 of the cases) were about stopping the election. Most of the lawsuits after the election were about stopping the certification of the election or stopping the Inauguration.

The remaining cases ask for many things including his kindergarten records and his academic records and his housing records while he was at college. Since no one has a right to see those documents, which are protected by privacy laws, Obama is fighting to preserve the right of future presidents to keep such records secret. In any case, he has every right to fight lawsuits, and the lawsuits he is fighting are not primarily about his birth certificate.

He HAS shown his birth certificate. The document that he posted and showed to FactCheck and Polifact is the official birth certificate. No president has ever shown a birth certificate before.

Obama's Kenyan grandmother (step-grandmother actuall) DID NOT say that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii. Listen to the complete tape, until after the question “Whereabouts was he born?” http://www.obamacrimes.info/Telephone_Interview… There is also this transcript ((http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploa…).

The answer to the question “Whereabouts was he born?” was “America, Hawaii.”

Name? That's a good one Red.

Hawaiian authorities never confirmed that Obama's birth certificate (COLB) is genuine.

Sorry to hear that you didn't get the memo. Here is a copy for your reading pleasure.

http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

Add to the list of those confused about Obama's birthplace journalists who placed his birth in Indonesia and Kenya.

Obama could resolve the confusion at any time by authorizing DoH to release the original birth registration (which should indicate Kapiolani as birth hospital and Dr. West as attending physician).

However, you cannot release a document that does not exist.

As we both now honest journalists would touch this conspiracy theory. What many of those who subscribe to the birther conspiracy theory don't understand is journalists actually do research. They would also contact relevants agencies to determine the accuracy of the information that they gathers.

Thus their conclusion is that Obama is a natural-born citizen.

Yeah I think I'll just give-up on all this birfer-talk. You guys have worn me down. If indeed BHO was actually born on Oahu, as should be noted on the original BC, and if indeed the Constitutional requirement for NBC has been redefined by some precedant-setting court decision so the son of a transien-alien can be “natural-born”, and if the Obama never claimed any foreign citizenship or attended college as a Foreign Student then I'll just have to accept the ACORN-tainted election results, his several SSNs, false draft-registration, etc. and refer to him as “President” Obama, NEVER. Heck McCain wasn't an NBC either.

I got not only the memo but a background information about circumstances surrounding the issuing of the memo.

Nowhere in that statement she mentioned that Hawaii DoH issued the COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007.

The story is not that simple as you would like to believe. Dr. Fukino did not use the simple and straightforward language to say that the original birth certificate confirms that Obama was born in Hawaii.

If you want to understand her July 2009 press-release you need to read her first press release from October 2008 as well. it was written in such a language to deceive the public into thinking that she confirmed Obama's birth in Hawaii without explicitly saying it.

Then you should also keep in mind that her July press release was published just few hours after the Congress resolution (proclaiming that Obama was born in Hawaii).

The second press release was issued during intense email correspondence between Dr. Fukino and a US citizen who requested DoH to release Obama's amended birth certificate.

Dr. Fukino denied access to this document, implicitly confirming its existence. The proper response under the Hawaii law is to say explicitly if such document does not exist or deny access to it if the document exists and the person asking for it does not have a tangible interest to get it.

Subsequent requests to Dr. Fukino to release the information used in creating the public statement have been ignored.

According to Hawaii law 92F-12 section (15) she must release: Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public;

Which document did she use as a source of her claim that Obama was born in Hawaii and which document did she use to claim that Obama was “natural-born American citizen”?
She refuses to answer these questions.

Kinda' like Grandma Obama mistakenly saying BHO was born in Kenya. Or Michelle Obama saying her husband “was adopted”.

The document does exist and Attorney Orly Taitz offered it as evidence in court when she had the Burden of Proof. She allegedly paid a million dollars for that Kenyan BC and has two of them now including one with a footprint.

Why bother damage what seemed to be a genuine opening sentence? Well it is easy to read from the entire comment that none of it is genuine or truthful.

I was referring to the nonexistence of the birth certificate that would show Kapiolani as birth hospital and Dr. West as the attending physician.

On the link that was provided it says everything in a clear concise language. Something that isn't that complicated to understand.

It states that the State of Hawaii has the original birth certificate.

It states that Obama was born in Hawaii.

It states that Obama is a natural-born citizen.

She did it in less words than your conspiracy theory.

Let me explain something to you. When asking someone the same question for 8 months after they have answered your question, they are not refusing to answer those same questions. It is you who is refusing to listen.

Kinda' like you refusing to acknowledge that the State of Hawaii has answers all your questions about the validity of the “certification of live birth.”

A forged document isn't evidence.

The key question about the original birth certificate is this: was the original BC issued based on an affidavit from a relative or a hospital record?

What is your comment about amended birth certificate?

The second press release was issued during intense email correspondence between Dr. Fukino and a US citizen who requested DoH to release Obama's amended birth certificate.

Dr. Fukino denied access to this document, implicitly confirming its existence. The proper response under the Hawaii law is to say explicitly if such document does not exist or deny access to it if the document exists and the person asking for it does not have a tangible interest to get it.

If there was nothing to hide, Dr. Fukino would follow the law and explain the sources used for her press-release. So far no response from her. She is violating Hawaii law.

If everything you said was true, there would be no need for her to play games with the public. Read her first press release from October 2008 and come back to tell me whether she used a clear and concise language.

I will listen when DoH complies with Hawaii law or when Obama releases the original birth certificate.

Why was your time on this bazaar conspiracy theory. Do you honestly think your opinion on the legal validity of Obama's birth exists. I am sorry to inform you that it doesn't. All that you continue to present is conjecture. Why don't you just take legal action against the State of Hawaii. Oh, I forgot you have no legal standing.

See you haven't been listening the State of Hawaii has Obama's original birth certificate.

The only person hiding something are those subscribing to your conspiracy theory. You just can accept an election lost.

Shut up and show us your Taitz.

The only legal birth certificate was released in 2008, you idiot. Go pound sand.

Neither of the forgeries looked even vaguely like an actual Kenya birth certificate. As usual, wrong.

It was released over a year ago. Why don't you go volunteer at the USO? I'm sure they'd find your ravings about the President most amusing.

Yap yap barf barf yammer yammer yammer yada yada yada.

What are you talking about? Obama's long form birth certificate (the one that is supposed to be stored in DoH archive) has not been released.

A snake hiding its legs is an amateur compared to Obama's hiding of the original birth certificate.

Mrs. Obama never said her husband was adopted. You are quoting a fake interview. But that's the birthers all over. Just lie and lie and lie….

There is a law in Hawaii that requires DoH to share certain types of data with public. It does not require any standing – anybody can ask the question.

The willingness of DoH to ignore this law is telling me that their words and actions regarding Obama's birth certificate are not consistent.

You keep ignoring the key issue:
Was Obama's original birth certificate based on an affidavit from a relative?

By the way, can you understand what the Anthony is saying in his post below?

Have you retired from being a language policewoman on this site or is the privilege of being scrutinized reserved for those who oppose your opinion, LOL?

“The key question about the original birth certificate is this: was the original BC issued based on an affidavit from a relative or a hospital record?”

It's not a key question if it has nothing to do with proving he wasn't born in Hawaii, which is what I suspect your goal is. Even if your question were answered, we'd end up exactly where we are right now – with no evidence Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii.

If you want to demonstrate that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (which by your definition of NBC, is a pointless exercise for you, anyway), you should seek affirmative evidence that Obama was born elsewhere, not get caught up in questions with how Obama's Hawaiian birth was documented.

“Dr. Fukino denied access to this document, implicitly confirming its existence.”

And how is that verification of vital information? Under your tortured reasoning, if I ask for a particular document, and the agency representative says, “You can't see it,” I therefore have a right to see it because she has confirmed there is an “it” that I cannot see. Go ahead and try it – and don't get hurt by the slamming door on your way out.

“The proper response under the Hawaii law is to say explicitly if such document does not exist or deny access to it if the document exists and the person asking for it does not have a tangible interest to get it.”

But the DoH did deny access to the document. Your point is that by admitting there was a document to which a non-interested person does not have access, the DoH has therefore verified the existence of the document, and therefore the non-interested person now has a right to full verification and disclosure. That kind of twisted logic would negate the privacy of virtually any record kept by the state.

“If there was nothing to hide, Dr. Fukino would follow the law and explain the sources used for her press-release. So far no response from her. She is violating Hawaii law.”

The Hawaii Department of Health states on its website:

“State law prohibits the DOH for [sic] disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. Vital records disclosure laws protect all birth, death, marriage and divorce records held by the department and all amendments, changes, supporting records, and requests related to vital records.”

Therefore, the DoH and any of its representatives are fully within their right to refuse to confirm a COLB (which is a vital record) or any information on it. I'm sorry, but your demand for sources will never be fulfilled.

“Add to the list of those confused about Obama's birthplace journalists who placed his birth in Indonesia and Kenya.”

Which journalists have provided any specific information about his supposed Indonesian or Kenyan birth?

“Kinda' like Grandma Obama mistakenly saying BHO was born in Kenya.”

That's exactly true except for the problem that it's totally false. On the transcript, Sarah Obama was asked through an interpreter if she had been “present” when Obama was born. To an interpreter unfamiliar with the nuances of English, this could easily be understood to mean “were you here when Obama was born?” The interviewer must have recognized this potential ambiguity, so he asked the question in a more direct manner: Was Obama born in Mombasa? She said he was born in Hawaii.

Folks, it's not that hard.

“Or Michelle Obama saying her husband “was adopted”.”

Given Obama's striking physical resemblance to his mother and maternal grandfather, I highly doubt it.

“She allegedly paid a million dollars for that Kenyan BC”

If the document were truly legitimate, why would she have to pay anything more than a nominal fee for it?

“I was referring to the nonexistence of the birth certificate that would show Kapiolani as birth hospital and Dr. West as the attending physician.”

So if don't show you my driver's license or SSN, I suppose they don't “exist” either.

“A snake hiding its legs is an amateur compared to Obama's hiding of the original birth certificate.”

Cute. But it's hard to argue he's “hiding” anything of importance when he's provided a copy of an official Hawaii document stating the fact of his Hawaiian birth to an organization that would publish pictures of it on the internet – unless you've gone a wee bit off the reservation.

I don't think Obama should or will bend over backwards to cater to people for whom that isn't enough. He's learned the hard way that normal societal standards of proof and evidence do not apply to the birther movement.

This is the birther method:

PERSON: I am an attorney.
BIRTHER: How can I be sure?
PERSON: I just told you?
BIRTHER: But I need to verify that.
PERSON: Fair enough. Here's my bar number.
BIRTHER: But how do I know this is valid?
PERSON: You can look it up on the state bar website.
BIRTHER: But how do I know that the state bar has properly considered whether you qualify to be an attorney?
PERSON: Because I took the bar and I was told I passed it.
BIRTHER: But what if the bar merely “filed” your exam, but didn't “accept” it?
PERSON: How could I get a bar number if I hadn't become an attorney?
BIRTHER: Well, the state bar could have determined that your bar exam wasn't properly completed.
PERSON: But it was.
BIRTHER: I haven't seen you bar exam. How can I trust you?
PERSON: Fair enough. You can't. You'll just have to take my word for it.
BIRTHER: I can't.
PERSON: Too bad. Find another “attorney” then.

Yeah Red, Glen Beck: “covert Obama supporter”
You are so many steps beyond delusional that it is impossible to keep up…

Until the State of Hawaii can document PRECISELY how many angels can dance upon the head of a pin, I refuse to acknowledge their authority to authoritatively answer my question. Oh, and I will be the sole arbiter of exactly what will be considered a valid fulfillment of the term “document”. Oh and I reserve the right to change the parameters without notice concerning what that definition will be.

You could resolve the confusion at any time by signing off on the lobotomy which your family & friends(?) have been hectoring you about all these years…

[...] post: Those Birther Calls to Glenn Beck, Explained « The Washington … Tags: Birther, Birthers, calls, document, economy, Explained, Facebook, glenn beck, Hawaii, [...]

You are confused. The denial of access to AMENDED birth certificate does NOT look good for Obama.

According to Obama, his original birth certificate should have been based on record sent from Kapiolani hospital to DoH. Why would it need to be amended?

We have been told, after Dr.Fukino's first press-release in October 2008, that she confirmed Obama's birthplace based on the original birth certificate.

Something does not add up in the official story.

Read the Hawaii law 92F-12 section 15. Dr. Fukino cannot hide the sources used for issuing her press-release. It is a public information. She MUST say which document was used to determine Obama's birthplace).
She also must say what sources she used to declare him a “natural-born American citizen”. This phrase does not appear in the Constitution so it would be interesting to find out where it comes from.

Talking from experience? How is that lobotomy working out for you?

“Obama admits he is born a British, with allegiance to Britain, as such he is not a US Constitution article 2 natural born citizen and is NOT eligible to be the president of United states. His place of birth is irrelevant.”

Cite one case in the history of American jurisprudence that supports your theory. If for nothing else, cite some specific historical document that purportedly backs up your claim.

Or do you just get a kick out of making such a claim?

“If indeed BHO was actually born on Oahu, as should be noted on the original BC”

The COLB wouldn't say Obama was born on Oahu if the supporting documents did not.

“and if indeed the Constitutional requirement for NBC has been redefined by some precedant-setting court decision so the son of a transient-alien can be “natural-born”"

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693:

“Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child… “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

“and if the Obama never claimed any foreign citizenship or attended college as a Foreign Student which would be noted on his college records”

Why would a person born in the United States need to attend college in the United States as a foreign student? Even the lone school registration record of Obama's from Indonesia clearly states he was born in Honolulu.

“then I'll just have to accept the ACORN-tainted election results”

Obama received 9,522,083 more popular votes than John McCain in the 2008 election. Are you idiotic enough to suggest that was somehow faked by a bunch of poor folks standing in front of Wal-Mart?

You example is irrelevant for the topic being discussed.

Obama is the one who has to prove the eligibility for the office. COLB is a derived document. It could have been based on an affidavit from a relative.

We could find out if this was the case, if the DoH followed the law and released the administrative rules for assigning the status to a birth registration.

The law F92-12 section (1) makes this rule public information. The DoH is violating the law by not providing an answer to this question.

Kapiolani hospital was “chosen” by Obama in Jaunuary 2009 as his birthplace. This happened after the elections and six months after the first eligibility lawsuit. It is interesting that left wing “myth busting” web sites never mentioned it before that date.

Coupled with other pieces of information it is safe to assume that there is no record of his birth at the Kapiolani hospital.

Your example is faulty. You mention that a lawyer gave out a bar number that could be verified at the state bar website.

The proper analogy with Obama’s COLB saga follows:
Lawyer gave out a bar number (10641) to a prospective client but the state bar refused to confirm that this numer indeed belongs to the lawyer. In addition the list is not posted on the state bar web site.

The rest of the fictional dialog is moot. You will have to work on it.

“Top radio hosts, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mark Levin and Lou Dobbs, have all said unequivocally and publicly that the Obama eligibility issue is legitimate and worthy.”

These guys are partisan entertainers, not newsmen or lawyers. Why would I care any more about what they think than you do about whether Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Jon Stewart, Ed Schultz, or Chris Matthews think you're nuts?

“Still no Birth Certificate, except the Kenyan one,”

I suppose the COLB, issued by the State of Hawaii, which states “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding,” has less value than a purported Kenyan birth certificate of unknown origin. If that's what you're gullible enough to believe, I suppose you're beyond help.

“his father was a “transient alien” Brit married to the underage mother.”

Since Obama was born in Hawaii, it doesn't matter whether his father was a space alien on a mission from Mars, or his mother was twelve. He is a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth on U.S. soil, not subject to any exceptions associated with the term. See U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

“He was adopted as Indonesian-Moslem Barry Soetoro”

This legally could not affect his U.S. citizenship, since under extant federal law, he could not lose his U.S. citizenship unless he failed to resume permanent residence in the U.S. before age 25. His religion is of course of no relevance whatsoever.

“attended college as a Foreign Student”

The evidence for this claim, as best we can tell, comes from the black box between your ears.

“visited Pakistan on unknown visa”

Since Obama was a U.S. citizen in 1981, and U.S. citizens were not restricted from traveling to Pakistan that year, there is no reason to assume he was traveling on anything other than a U.S. visa. Was I actually there when he presented his visa to Pakistani authorities? No. But I'll get over it.

travelled a few times to Kenya as a young man(perhaps to renew his citizenship?)

One doesn't “renew” his or her citizenship. If Obama weren't a U.S. citizen, he wouldn't need to travel to Kenya to keep maintain his Kenyan citizenship in the first place.

“And he has already paid well-over a million dollars to cover this stuff up.”

Evidence, please.

“Grandma Obama & Kenyan Ambassador both stated Obama was born in Kenya.”

TRANSCRIPT:

MCRAE (investigator): Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.
OGOMBE (translating for Sarah Obama): No, he was born in America, not in Mombasa.
MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.
OGOMBE: Hawaii. Hawaii. Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there. The state of Hawaii.

And as for the Kenyan ambassador, where does he get his information from? WND?

“Why would people like Alan Keyes, Dr. Michael Savage, Pat Boone, etc. make this stuff up?”

Because they hate Obama and can't accept the fact that their side lost the election. Instead of accepting the outcome of our democratic system, they want to generate a phony “constitutional” controversy to claim that their attacks on our president's legitimacy are really the pinnacle of patriotic duty, rather than the extraconstitutional attack on a sitting president that they are.

“And if they did why wouldn't Obama have them charged with LIBEL?”

Because Obama has more important things to do that waste his time responding to every kooky theory out there.

Come to think of it, so do I…

Why didn't you quote the part of WKA where justice Gray lies about the change of Naturalization law in 1795?

He lied about the fact that early Congress replaced words “natural born citizen” with “citizen” (when defining status for foreign born children of US citizens). The early Congress made a distinction between the two phrases. We should do the same.

NBC is not the same as citizen at birth.

If you followed the discussion on this site you would have learned by now that the DoH index data, administrative rules and sources used by Dr. Fukino to prepare her press-release are in public domain.

“The denial of access to AMENDED birth certificate does NOT look good for Obama.”

How could denial of access not look good when it is required by Hawaii law?

Where is the evidence that Obama's original birth certificate was amended? And even if it were amended, the COLB clearly shows the State of Hawaii is satisfied that the records it has on file demonstrate that Obama was born on Oahu. So what's the controversy?

“Read the Hawaii law 92F-12 section 15.”

That provision requires disclosure of “[i]nformation collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public.”

That's fine and dandy, but it's perfectly clear that individual vital records do not constitute “[i]nformation collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public,” as is made painfully clear by the text of §338-18:

“To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.”

You may have your own version of reality, and that's fine for purposes of discussion on this board, but no court is going to look at the above language from the HRS and conclude that vital records are intended for general public consumption, or that any public official is obligated to take any action that would effectively disclose such information. If so, give me your name, and I'll go ask for your birth certificate, drivers license and SSN. You wouldn't mind, of course. It's all public information, right?

“She also must say what sources she used to declare him a “natural-born American citizen”. This phrase does not appear in the Constitution so it would be interesting to find out where it comes from.”

For sources used as a basis for asserting he's a natural born citizen, I'll take “Records Maintained by the State of Hawaii” for $500, Alex.

I cannot say she's told me what her definition of NBC is, but one can determine exactly what it is by process of elimination. It cannot be based on the supposed two citizen parent requirement, because no one contends that Obama Sr. was a U.S. citizen. It cannot be based on a birth outside the United States, because the COLB says “Oahu.” So, that leaves us with the popular “born on U.S. soil” definition as the sole remaining contender.

“Why didn't you quote the part of WKA where justice Gray lies about the change of Naturalization law in 1795?

He lied about the fact that early Congress replaced words “natural born citizen” with “citizen” (when defining status for foreign born children of US citizens).

You can call it a “lie” if you want. However, that would also mean the Court further “lied” by its failure to include numerous other changes in language between the corresponding provisions in the two statutes (and if you actually read them, there are many such changes).

While you ascribe some malfeasance to this omission by the Court, I view it in the context that the changes not mentioned were deemed not relevant to what the Court was talking about – which was the fact that “statutes have been passed at various times enacting that certain issue born abroad of English subjects or of American citizens, respectively, should inherit, to some extent at least, the rights of their parents.”

(And of course, if you believe the Court was lying to cover up some hidden natural born citizen definition, it is not clear why you keep pointing to other parts of the same ostensibly unreliable (and mendacious) decision which you believe state a two-citizen parent requirement for NBC.)

But since you bring up Congress' intent as expressed through the precise words of its legislation, let's take a close look at the original 1790 law:

“[A]ny alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof… And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens…”

If we are to give the exacting interpretation to each word in this statute – as you prefer to do – Congress has expressly stated that children born in the United States to citizens are merely “citizens,” and not “natural born citizens.” On the other hand, children born outside the United States to citizens are “natural born citizens,” not merely “citizens.”

Would you care to explain to me what theory of natural born citizenship Congress was articulating here? If you can't, perhaps you can understand why Congress revised the language in 1795. And then we can move past this ridiculous debate.

“Obama is the one who has to prove the eligibility for the office.”

Funny. That’s never been the operative rule before. Maybe it’s because President Obama has a funny sounding name, and has actually lived somewhere other than Podunk, U.S.A.

“COLB is a derived document. It could have been based on an affidavit from a relative.”

“We could find out if this was the case, if the DoH followed the law and released the administrative rules for assigning the status to a birth registration.”

You’re assuming a birth registration has multiple “statuses,” thereby warranting administrative rules. But if you’re wrong, then there’s nothing for the State of Hawaii to produce.

“Kapiolani hospital was “chosen” by Obama in Jaunuary 2009 as his birthplace.”

And what do you claim Obama said his specific birthplace was before that date?

“Coupled with other pieces of information it is safe to assume that there is no record of his birth at the Kapiolani hospital.”

Utter nonsense.

You must know that, since you have some insider information.

“AMENDED birth certificate???” So you got access to the original birth certificate your were able to determine the that COLB is a AMENDED birth certificate. Then why have you been consistently asking to see the original birth certificate?

How many pinheads can dance on the head of an elephant?

We did not see the original birth certificate. The image of the document posted on the web is based (allegedly) on the current version of Obama's vital records.

The amended birth certificate would indicate that something on the original one (the one that was supposed to be based on records from Kapiolani hospital) was not correct. The easiest way to determine whether Obama has told the truth about hs birthplace is to compare the original birth certificate with the current version.

What was amended is anybody's guess? Place of birth?

Since Obama will not shoot himself in the foot and release the original, a good place to start would be the release of administraive rules for printing the COLB. What is the meaning of the phrases “Filed by Registrar” and “Accepted by State Registrar” used on Hawaii COLBs. This is not a private and protected information.

It should have been released long time ago according to the 92F-12 section (1).

My understanding of the phrase (1790 law) quoted in your previous post:

The law is about naturalization process. It says nothing about the status of children born in the USA of citizen parents.

We could distinguish two cases:
a) Children (under 21) born abroad to non-citizen parents, currently residing in the USA. When parents got naturalized, children were automatically naturalized as well.

b) Children (under 21) born in the USA to non-citizen parents. When parents got naturalized, children were automatically naturalized as well.

The second case is very indicative – it strengthens the position of strict NBC definition to mean the USA born of citizen parents. Why? Because the 1790 law indicates that early Congress did not consider the USA born children of non-citizens to be citizens at birth. Therefore it implies that NBCs are children born in the USA of citizen parents. Legislation enacted so close to the adoption of the Constitution reflects the understanding of the NBC term at the time.

Besides, Oahu is an island. Birth certificates, like the President's, give the municipality of birth, not the geographical feature. Mine, for instance, says “Pittsburgh,” not “confluence of the Allegheny and Monogahela Rivers.”

Your interpretation, as usual, is wrong. The President is a natural born citizen no matter how many times you try to prove otherwise.

A birth certificate cannot be amended to show American birth when a child was born overseas, as you well know. Once again, you are wrong.

There was no confusion about the birthplace for any recent presidential candidate. Only in Obama’s case we have seen reports of birth in foreign contries and different Hawaii hospitals. That is the reason why it is up to Obama to clear things up. It is a trivial request if a person was born in the USA.

If his birth registration was done based on an affidavit by a relative it would indicate that the official story is a lie. It would warrant an official investigation into his eligibility.

The Hawaii cannot ignore the request to explain the use of status phrase(s). Even if the single phrase was used it is up to DoH to explain it. I told you multiple times that DoH had to explain the procedure to those who programmed the printing of the COLB using the database as a source.

I am not aware of a direct quote about birth hospital from Obama himself prior to the letter in January 2009. It took him six months to comment on the birth hospital (and claim Kapiolani) while a left wing “myth busting” web site reported Queen’s hospital during that time. It does not look good – this is not a behavior from a person that has nothing to hide.

I cannot think of a logical reason why a presidential candidate born in the USA would hesitate to release the original birth certificate, or to authorize the hospital to confim his birthplace.

“Therefore it implies that NBCs are children born in the USA of citizen parents.”

But then why would Congress also state in the very same legislation that children born outside the United States to citizens were “natural born citizens”?

“There was no confusion about the birthplace for any recent presidential candidate.”

That’s because no one wanted to know. Can you really say for certain with documentary proof exactly where George Walker Bush was born, or where William Jefferson Blythe was born? Probably not.

“If his birth registration was done based on an affidavit by a relative it would indicate that the official story is a lie. It would warrant an official investigation into his eligibility.”

Assuming that is what happens, what would the investigation turn up? That there is an affidavit that he was born in Hawaii. That is not proof he wasn’t born in Hawaii.

If people want to prove Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, there is nothing stopping them from doing that right now.

“The Hawaii cannot ignore the request to explain the use of status phrase(s). Even if the single phrase was used it is up to DoH to explain it. I told you multiple times that DoH had to explain the procedure to those who programmed the printing of the COLB using the database as a source.”

Then go ahead and ask them.

“I am not aware of a direct quote about birth hospital from Obama himself prior to the letter in January 2009.”

Perhaps that is because until then no one had made it an issue.

“I cannot think of a logical reason why a presidential candidate born in the USA would hesitate to release the original birth certificate, or to authorize the hospital to confim his birthplace.”

Here’s a logical reason – he provided a copy of the birth certificate that Hawaii provides upon request, and was naive enough to think an official Hawaii document would resolve the issue.

After that learning experience, he’s wisened up to the realization that issuing another document would not resolve the issue, and he’s not going to waste his credibility – or that of the State of Hawaii – on revisiting the issue.

For example, you yourself claim that Obama can’t be an NBC anyway because his father wasn’t a U.S. citizen. So the whole birth certificate issue is nothing but a sideshow for you anyway.

What was amended is anybody's guess: place of birth?

Well, if you think Obama amended his birth certificate to hide a foreign place of birth, you're going to have to do a lot of logical leaps to explain how the DoH issued Obama's birth announcements to two major Hawaii newspapers within two weeks of his birth.

The term NBC is only meaningful in eligibility for presidency. Perhaps Congress wanted to extend the eligibility for presidency to foreign born children of US citizens.

However, they cannot redefine a phrase that has a specific meaning. It would also imply that presidential eligibility requirement was modified without going through the proper process of changing the Constitution.

Only five years later they corrected the error and changed the language from “natural born citizen” to “citizen”. Again, the change indicates that early Congress made distinction between the two. So should we.

“Only five years later they corrected the error and changed the language from “natural born citizen” to “citizen”. Again, the change indicates that early Congress made distinction between the two. So should we.”

Why should we discount a congressional enactment written just three years after the Constitutional Convention? How could Congress know more about the Constitution years later than it did at the outset?

Is there something Congress knew in 1795 that it didn't know in 1790? Where's the evidence? Where's the court ruling? Where are the treatises? Where was the debate? Where was the correspondence?

In the absence of any of this, why Congress changed the wording in 1795 is speculation, and nothing more. We don't know if the distinction was substantive or stylistic.

In any event, I'll let your observation speak for both of us: “they cannot redefine a phrase that has a specific meaning.”

When you hit bottom let me know.

It states right on the birth certificate that it can't be amended, and DoH has stated they have seen the original vital records. Thus end of story. However, you like you birthers refuses to accept this.

Stop posting things you clearly don't understand and consult a law professor or legal historian.

I can’t think of a logical reason for someone to post the same discredited thing in slightly different form over and over again. You’re wrong, you know you’re wrong, and yet you persist. It makes no sense.

The reason I stated Oahu is because there has been speculation that he was not born in a hospital but at home with the help of a midwife. That might not have been in the city of Honolulu. But I believe Obama was born in Kenya.

“What is the real intention of this Kenyan, Indonesian communist usurper? Is it to provide security for us or to destroy our security? Judge for yourself.
Seeing targeted destruction of our economy, our security, dissipation of American jobs, massive corruption in the Government, Congress Department of Justice and Judiciary, it might be time to start rallies and protests using our second amendment right to bare arms and organise in militias.” per Attorney Orly Taitz

Almost as many as the number of pinheads that can be covered by Obama's ears.

The point I was making is simple – the same generation of legislators was involved in adopting the Constitution, Naturalization law implementation and subsequent change. We are not dealing with a misunderstanding between different generations. The same generation of legislators made a distinction between the two phrases in question.

It is a sane assumption that the CHANGE in law was substantive. Why would you change a law by not changing the substance? Can you quote another example where Congress did something similar to your assumption: changed law by using synonyms.

I hope you are not suggesting that people cannot learn new things and improve their understanding about a particular topic over the period of five years.

When quoting others it would be nice if you did it properly – in this case the second sentence that completes the paragraph is important.

I am not talking about forging the official document.

There is a legal way to submit changes to DoH and request an amendment.

He will keep on posting. He reuses the same argument over again.

Speculation or your belief has no bases in law. However, statements made by the Government of Hawaii or any of its agencies does.

A third time. What? Are you really Orly Taitz.

So now we have “”Rep. Nathan Deal’s Birtherism, Investigated.”, “Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) Joins the Birthers”, and this article.

“I hope you are not suggesting that people cannot learn new things and improve their understanding about a particular topic…”

The answer seems to be yes. There are people who sticking to an absurd birther conspiracy theory, even when presented with the facts.

What a weak attempt to deceive.

And there is no evidence that this was done to the President’s birth certificate.

You are wrong and continue to be wrong. The President was born in Hawaii and is natural born, and he will continue to serve as President at least until 2013, possibly until 2017.

The only “reports” of foreign birth for the President are either mistakes that were corrected, or from right wing smear sites. Neither is enough to overcome the fact that the state of Hawaii has repeatedly verified his birth on American soil, making him a natural born citizen.

Why don't you go talk to a Constitutional law scholar instead of spouting off about things you clearly don't understand?

That's certainly more than can be covered by the working cells in the cranium of adulteress and mascara-fetishist Orly Taitz. Tell me again why you support her discredited theories even though her own lover, who went to an actual law school instead of a diploma mill, said she's incompetent?

Red, old sport, you're describing the Bush Presidency. Unless you've found a time machine, it's 2010 and President Obama is in the White House…..

He was born in a hospital and delivered by a doctor, as you well know. In Honolulu, which is part of the United States.

Idiot.

What you keep posting is not a discussion. It is an ill-informed semi-literate attempting to show why 200+ years of American law and precedent should be discarded because of a rumor.

You could settle all your questions by talking to a law professor, but despite repeated suggestions, some of them giving you an actual name, you refuse. Not only are you ignorant, you seem to like it that way.

It would be sad if you weren’t so determined to overthrow the legally elected President because of an unsupported rumor and a legal theory that wouldn’t make it in a first year Constitutional law class.

“What is the real intention of this Kenyan, Indonesian communist usurper?”

Your remarks can't be parodied.

“But I believe Obama was born in Kenya.”

Good for you.

Red is a pathetic, lonely asshole desperate for attention and frightened of dying after wasting a human lifetime. It's common among birfers.

So, you've gone to pure ad hominem to feebly attempt to seem convincing?

FAIL.

There has been speculation?

Holy crap. You get more desperate and pathetic with every post.

You're an idiot, full of shit and you crave attention.

We know why.

“The same generation of legislators made a distinction between the two phrases in question.”

A distinction. But we do not know what sort of distinction. The record is silent on Congress' intent, either on creating the 1790 phraseology or the 1795 revision.

“It is a sane assumption that the CHANGE in law was substantive.”

I'll agree with you on that point. But it is by no means the only completely reasonable explanation. That is why it is of only marginal assistance in determining what NBC means.

“I hope you are not suggesting that people cannot learn new things and improve their understanding about a particular topic over the period of five years.”

Of course not. But there is no evidence of what exactly it was that Congress supposedly learned by 1795 that they were unaware of in 1790. Your speculation is as good as mine, but without further evidence it is just that – speculation.

The reason I suspect the change was not substantive is because courts throught the 18th and 19th centuries used “citizenship by birth,” “born a citizen,” “native citizen,” and “natural born citizen” interchangeably, sometimes within the same sentence. It is comparable to the present day phenomenon of people using “black” and “African-American.” For most purposes in American discourse, there is no substantive distinction between them, but sometimes one term is seen as more appropriate in one context than another. Sometimes they are used interchangeably as a way of making references less repetitive.

In that vein, it is completely reasonable that the drafter of the 1795 revision felt that the term “natural born citizen” was redundant of the fact that the foreign born citizen was by virtue of the legislation born a citizen.

But we'll never know for sure.

I have learned a lot about eligibility for POTUS and various claims about NBC definition in the past year.

At the time passes I am more convinced that Obama's birthplace story is false.

In addition, the reasons provided for definition of NBC as either “born in the USA” or “citizen at birth” are also less convincing then what I thought in the past.

I will change my opinion about Obama's birthplace when the original birth certificate is presented to the public and it is consistent with the official story.

For NBC definition, the SCOTUS is the place to resolve the issue.

When you hit bottom let us know.

Let me be honest. You have been harping about the same disillusioned fantasy for a long time. If you don't reply to a comment, I believe that you have just gone away or busy else where.

I in no way believe that any rebuttal to this bizarre birther conspiracy theory will change your mind. When and only when you admit the truth will I even consider your support of the birther conspiracy theory might have ended.

As a person who promised transparency and the change of tone in Washington, Obama could provide his original birth certificate (showing birth hospital and attending physician) to end the speculation about his birthplace and prove “birthers” wrong.

The mere fact that such document, trivial to obtain for any person born in the USA, is not presented to the public is very suspicious.

During his latest vacation in Hawaii we could read about different initiatives to rename, amongst others, a State park or a high school in his honor. Yet nobody mentioned even putting a plaque on the birth hospital.

“Nobody mentioned even putting a plaque on the birth hospital.” What do you expect he has only been president for less than one year. Man you exceptions for the president is very high.

“it might be time to start rallies and protests using our second amendment right to bare arms and organise in militias.”

Sedition.

What is obvious is that you haven't learned a damn thing about the Constitution that doesn't support your own prejudice and hatred of the President. You were wrong six months ago, you are wrong today, and you will continue to be wrong. Worst of all, you seem to revel in being wrong, and have not made the slightest effort to find out *why* you are wrong by speaking to a legal professional or Constitutional scholar.

I would pity you if you hadn't so willfully ignorant and so utterly obnoxious.

LOL.

Terrorists have more rights under Obama administration that US citizens asking the eligibility question.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/north…

When you are attempting to connect to unrelated topic it demonstrates that you have really nothing to say.

When you use reality to justify a pipe dream, you really have nothing to say.

When you pretend that your concerns are not being address after the answers have been given, you really have nothing to say.

When you believe that a defendant should have less rights that a person who has no legal standing, you really have nothing to say.

You have the right to remain silent. Please exercise it.

Thank you.

If you're so concerned about the plaque, put one up yourself.

Your “key question” has changed once again. Not worth my time.

As for Anthony, if his mistakes bother you so much, why do you not show us all how good your English is by critiquing his posts the way you do American law? I’m looking forward to seeing what you come up with since you are so much smarter and better educated and more perceptive than anyone else.

Your “defendant” is an alien terrorist. He should have been treated accordingly – he does not deserve the protection offered by the US Constitution.

That is the second time that you have done that. I know that you differentiate between sarcasm and an argument.

I have repeatly stated or argued that Barak H. Obama is a natural born citizen of America as proven by his “Certification of live Birth.”

I really don’t understand your comment. I have never criticized American law.

If you want to fight everyone so be.

I do not want to follow Obama's behavior when it comes to his birthplace issue, LOL!

Sorry, the US Constitution applies to everyone. That is what makes the Constitution so great. The point is that only the guilty should be punished. Remember an important America legal principle “Innocent until proven guilty,” of course that is in a court of law.

It would be a dangerous exercise while Odinga is in power as a Prime Minister.

Would a child born in the USA to foreigners have been considered a US citizen in 1790s?

Which courts should be used to try foreign terrorists: civil or military ones?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius

Pay special attention to the section: “Arrest and trial”.

It worked for Zacarias Moussaoui. It worked for the bombers in New York in 1993. It worked Timothy McVeigh and Eric Robert Rudolph. All were terrorists, all were caught, all were tried and convicted in civilian courts. Why wouldn't the civilian courts work this time? Or are you such a hypocrite that you only have faith in American law when it comes to overthrowing a legally elected President?

Of course it would have. They were called “immigrants,” you see….

*yawn*

Grasping at straws, aren't you?

Then why are you wasting your time repeating the same invalid arguments?

Sorry, but unlike your home country (wherever it is), America is a country of laws. American law has successfully dealt with terrorists for years, including non-Americans. That you think it can't shows that ultimately you have no faith in America, in which case you shouldn't live here.

And this case, which involved Nazi saboteurs and spies during a declared war, has nothing to do with the current case. Once again, you show nothing but your own ignorance of American law and tradition.

Oh, one more thing your superior legal analysis and tremendous grasp of American policy missed:

This case involved espionage during a time of war. It did not involve a stupid brainwashed rich kid trying and failing to blow up a plane. There is a huge difference between the two, and the fact that you can't see it once again shows your lack of familiarity with American law, custom, or language.

Give it up, NC. Bringing in irrelevant cases will not change the fact that you are wrong.

“Terrorists have more rights under Obama administration than US citizens asking the eligibility question.”

Perhaps when you can demonstrate where one person asking an eligibility question has been sued, put on trial, or put in jail for his statements, your claim would have one ounce of credibility. But of course, it's all about how it feels making such wild claims, not whether they have any basis in empirical reality.

“Your “defendant” is an alien terrorist.”

I think you misunderstand our legal system. He is an accused terrorist until he has been found guilty in a court of law, even if we believe the person is guilty as sin (as I do). The rule of law, not political correctness, will guide the disposition of this case.

My response to naturalizedcitizen:

“Would a child, born in the USA in 1790s to foreigners, have been considered a US citizen at birth?”

Yes. Read the Lynch v. Clarke case. It is replete with historical references which I need not bother repeating here. If you think the court was lying, do your own research and prove it wrong.

A foregn terrorist has the “right” to a civil trial and public defendant while US citizens have no standing in the eligibility issue.

The worst thing is the fact that he stopped talking after meeting his lawyer. That will make us all safer, right.

How many lawyers have a conscience?

You should be very quiet about Moussaoui.

The political correctness rules caused long delays in examining his laptop. We will never know what might have happened if the investigation had been prompt.

Rudolpf and McVeigh were lone wolfs. There was no foreign organization training them and sending them to USA to kill people. In their case there was no urgency to get valuable intelligence to fight the terrorist network.

It is very important to extract as much as possible valuable information from the Nigerian terrorist. Now thanks to Obama he is not talking to investigators any more.

I dunno, nc, I'd say Birfers and would-be terrorists who succeed in merely lighting their balls on fire are on an absolutely EVEN par—-when it comes to their right to be ridiculed on the internet or late-night tv.

You don't believe that urban myth about Moussaoui's laptop, do you?
If I were derelict in my investigative duties & dropped the ball regarding the examination of that laptop, I imagine I might be desperate enough to float that lame excuse about political correctness vs intel leg-work. we'll see how many people try that pathetic strategy when playing CYA with the recent Ft Hood shooting…

“A foregn terrorist has the “right” to a civil trial and public defendant while US citizens have no standing in the eligibility issue.”

What kind of equivalency is that? A person accused of a criminal act obviously has standing in court and the rights of any person accused of a crime.

A person claiming President Obama is not eligible to be president has not been accused of anything. Rather, such a person is himself attempting to get the courts involved in his perceived dispute. In the case of presidential eligibility, the courts have repeatedly held that the average person has not suffered the articulable harm necessary to have standing. It's not complicated.

“The worst thing is the fact that he stopped talking after meeting his lawyer. That will make us all safer, right.”

Our rights under the Constitution were not intended to be convenient to the state. They were meant to protect the rights of the accused. And right now, the alleged bomber is just that – alleged.

(I'm sure you remember what Benjamin Franklin said on the issue… I need not belabor it.)

If we went by your logic, the president should be able to do whatever he feels like, and judges should be able to mete out sentences because they have a hunch someone is probably or even likely guilty. That would be a more convenient and efficient system, but it would be alien to the American model as conceived by our founders.

Ironically, this is the same model that you otherwise claim strict fealty to by virtue of your insistence that the NBC rule be strictly applied (in accordance with your belief of what it means).

There is no much difference between the Nazi infiltrators and Al-Qaeda terrorists. Both were sent here to blow up things and kill people.

Why did we need WKA if that was the case?

I am talking about the acces to CIVIL courts in the USA.

Citizens cannot get justice to verify that the POTUS is a legitimate one, while an alien terrorist has the right to a civil trial.

Judging by the troup levels in Afghanistan in Iraq, this country is in war and we should behave accordingly when it comes to the treatment of terrorists caught in the act.

Inventing rights for foreign citizens will not make the USA a safer place to live. A foreign terrorist should be tried in a military court after extracting the valuable intellignce information. The same is true with the rest of the gang in Guantanamo Bay.

How much time it took to obtain a permission to search his laptop?

Because of anti-Chinese racism in the 19th century.

Why did the Wong Kim Ark have to go all the way to the Supreme Court to fight for his citizenship, 100 years after the period have been talking about?

Civil and criminal courts have different standards, as you would know if you had the slightest acquaintance with the American legal system outside of parroting discredited theories from a Moldovan adulteress.

LOL.

Ah ha ha, once again, WRONG. The Nazi saboteurs were enemy SPIES, recruited by the Obwehr, trained to pass as Americans, and in the direct pay of a foreign government with whom we were engaged in a declared war. As such they were subject to prosecution, internment, and execution as spies, which is exactly what happened.

NONE of this applies to the Christmas day bomber. He is a Yemeni national – and we are not at war with Yemen. He is not a paid member of a military or espionage organization – and is not subject to charge as a spy. Al-Quaeda is not a government, but a multi-national terrorist organization that is not subject to the rules of war. The attempted bomber did not engage in combat with anything but his own genitalia.

So despite you *thinking* that you've found a case on point, you haven't. That's why the Bush government didn't use this case as a precedent against the “enemy combatants,” nor has the Obama administration. It's not the same time of case, so they can't.

Next time, try talking to a law professor before inflicting your brilliant discoveries upon us. This only makes you look less and less competent, if that were possible.

Funny, but wasn't Moussaoui tried and convicted? And wasn't that in a CIVILIAN court instead of a military tribunal?

Isn't that interesting? And isn't it interesting that Timothy McVeigh and Eric Robert Rudolph, both of whom were connected to an extensive network of homegrown American terrorists like the good folk at Elohim City (visited by Timothy McVeigh shortly before he blew up women, children, and civilians in Oklahoma City) and the Army of God (who encouraged and cheered on Eric Robert Rudolph when he blew up a park, a dance club, and a medical clinic), were both tried and convicted in those self-same civilian courts for their respective crimes?

As for being “very quiet” about Moussaoui, why? I've committed no crime by bringing up his name, and I see no reason not to. Unlike you, old sport, I'm not afraid of my government or the man at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I am *very* afraid of right-wing lunatics who think that the rule of law that has served us for over two hundred years should be thrown out the window because of a dumb rich kid who decided to play terrorist.

Why don't you ask former President Bush? HE was the one who dismantled the Clinton-era intelligence protocols, one by one.

Once again, wrong. Why don't you try reading something besides Orly Taitz's used grocery lists and the occasional issue of the Weekly Standard?

“Why did we need WKA if that was the case?”

No one in the 1790s anticipated we would have scary, frightening and foreign Chinese people work in the United States and then settle down here. (After all, the Chinese spoke weird, ate weird, had bizarre-looking ponytails on men, didn't come from Western culture, and they weren't even God-fearing Christians!)

So during few decades of our country's existence, the Supreme Court never had to get involved on the question of whether a person born in the United States was a U.S. citizen – it was never before controversial. (You still have yet to show me any cases from early in U.S. history in which persons born in the U.S. were not citizens.)

When Congress, through the Chinese Exclusion Acts, and the executive branch, through its treatment of Wong Kim Ark, tried to rewrite longstanding citizenship concepts under English and American law, the Supreme Court got involved. And when it did so, it relied on the hard research of cases like Lynch v. Clarke.

Knew it. Thanks.

“Citizens cannot get justice to verify that the POTUS is a legitimate one, while an alien terrorist has the right to a civil trial.”

First, on a broad sense, you're simply restating the false equivalency I debunked above. Please reread it.

Furthermore, the alleged terrorist is in criminal proceedings in federal court, not civil. Civil trials involve parties seeking money from one another for some alleged wrong. Criminal trials involve allegations of criminal wrongdoing by the government against individuals. Please read up on how our court system works, and then get back to me.

“Judging by the troup levels in Afghanistan in Iraq, this country is in war and we should behave accordingly when it comes to the treatment of terrorists caught in the act.”

Treating a delusional thug like some glorious warrior elevates this sleazeball to a level he does not deserve.

“Inventing rights for foreign citizens will not make the USA a safer place to live.”

The U.S. constitution applies, and has applied, to all persons in the United States, foreign or citizen.

“A foreign terrorist should be tried in a military court after extracting the valuable intellignce information.”

Why the emphasis on “foreign”? Sounds like you think Hasan should get full constitutional rights for shooting up Fort Hood.

Once again, I'm forced to conclude the our dear friend NC is from a country where the accused has no rights, and where the government functions more according to the dictates of whomever is in charge than the rule of law. Sounds like somewhere in the old Soviet bloc…hm, I wonder if Moldova qualifies?

I was using the word civil as a synonym for non-military.

The problem with using the federal court for trying terrorists is simple: too much valuable information is disclosed to the public, which allows terrorists to change their behavior in the field making it more difficult to fight them. This has happened before in case of the first World Trade Center bombing.

The emphasis on “foreign” is simple – a person not residing in the USA caught in the terrorist act should have been treated the same as saboteurs sent by Nazis during the WW2.

Nazis were acting as agents of a foreign government.

Al-Qaeda thugs, in contrast, act in service to an ideology.

It's ridiculous and unworkable to strip a person of his constitutional rights because of the motivation for his criminal deed. By your logic, if it were proven that the Christmas bomber was simply depressed and wanted to kill himself (like the infamous 1987 crash of the PSA jet in San Luis Obispo), then he would be entitled to all of his constitutional rights, even though the impact of his deeds would have been exactly the same.

“Civil” and “civilian” do not mean the same thing in American law. Once again, the fact that you don't know English well enough to pick the nuances of the language has led you to make a fool of yourself.

Go back to Moldova, Orly or whatever your name is. You clearly don't have the first idea of what *this* country is about.

Showcase political trials like those being organized for KSM in NewYork are also part of the old Soviet bloc tactics.

The influence from old Obama's mentors?

The “dear leader” publicly said that KSM will be convicted. So much for being a Constitutional scholar who should know about the presumption of innocence before the trial.

They were using Clinton era protocols at the time. That was the problem with the early investigation in Moussaoui's case.

1. Is USA involved in war or not?
If we are, then any foreigner trained by Al-Qaeda is an enemy combatant who is not entitled to a federal (non-miltary) trial on US soil.

Should US soldiers be required to read Miranda rights to people they arrest in Afghanistan? After all, Federal courts may throw away the evidence that is not properly collected – it is an absurd policy to enforce in time of war.

How much evidence in case of Guantanamo Bay prisoners will be admissible in a Federal court?

2. After the initial investigation, when it is clear that the case is about terrorism, waterboarding experts should get involved. After the useful information is extracted, the case should be sent to a military court.

No, not quite! You see, unlike the “show trials,” Khalid Sheik Mohamed will be given a fair trial, with competent counsel, and will be allowed every chance to make a case for his innocence – just like Zacarias Moussaoui, who was allowed to defend himself with incoherent rants that only made him look more dangerous.

The President shouldn't have been so definite about Mohamed's guilt – but that does not in any way imply that this is a show trial, or that the verdict is pre-ordained. You see, in America, juries are stubborn creatures that can and frequently do bring back verdicts that seem to fly in the face of evidence. OJ Simpson is only one of many defendants who faced what was seemingly overwhelming evidence and still were found not guilty.

So you see, dear Orly or whatever your real name is, once again, you're wrong. President Obama is an elected leader who will serve his term and return to private life, not a Stalinesque dictator. Khalid Sheik Mohamed will get a fair trial and will be found either guilty or not guilty. America is not Russia or Moldova or any other former Soviet country where the Supreme Leader could have someone disappear. If you truly believe otherwise, you not only are a fool, you are a paranoid one at that, and desperately ill informed about the country you profess to be a citizen of.

How long it took for investigators to examine Moussaoui's laptop?

Keep on ranting, dear. You're only looking yourself look less American every minute.

Go read the 9/11 Commission Report. The Clinton-era protocols and intelligence committees were all abolished within weeks of Shrub taking office, and they were not replaced by anything. Blaming Clinton for the Bush administration's flaws is absurd.

Interesting, that NC's English deteriorates whenever s/he's challenged. Could it be because s/he knows that once again, s/he's about to make a total fool of herself in public?

How do you select a jury in New York that will not be biased against KSM?

The placement of the case in New York is a proof that this trial is about politics and not justice.

“I was using the word civil as a synonym for non-military.”

Then you mean “civilian,” not “civil.”

“The problem with using the federal court for trying terrorists is simple: too much valuable information is disclosed to the public, which allows terrorists to change their behavior in the field making it more difficult to fight them. This has happened before in case of the first World Trade Center bombing.”

Just because a terrorism case is tried in federal court does not mean the jury hears all evidence. The court can and has kept classified evidence or testimony under seal as it deems necessary.

There are also concerns of efficiency which actually work against military commissions. In fact, federal courts have tried (and obtained convictions) in hundreds of such cases, while Bush's military commissions have struggled to get moving on half a dozen cases over the better part of the last decade.

“The emphasis on “foreign” is simple – a person not residing in the USA caught in the terrorist act should have been treated the same as saboteurs sent by Nazis during the WW2.”

But your definition doesn't help us when other participants (or all participants) are U.S. citizens – as is often the case. So your system would only work under some circumstances, but could not represent a coherent or consistent way of addressing the problem.

“1. Is USA involved in war or not?”

This is an unprecedented battle against adherents of a violent ideology, many of whom carry out criminal acts through inspiration by, and not under the control of, any particular organization. I hestitate to liken it to any conflict we have ever fought.

“If we are, then any foreigner trained by Al-Qaeda is an enemy combatant who is not entitled to a federal (non-miltary) trial on US soil.”

But who is to make that determination? The federal court?

“Should US soldiers be required to read Miranda rights to people they arrest in Afghanistan?”

No, but that of course isn't U.S. territory, and U.S. law doesn't apply.

“After all, Federal courts may throw away the evidence that is not properly collected – it is an absurd policy to enforce in time of war.”

A person arrested in Afghanistan need not be brought to a federal court. The person may be arrested in Afghanistan, and tried there as an enemy combatant. The Supreme Court has never ruled that this cannot be done.

It is only when they are brought to Guantanamo Bay that they come within the effective jurisdiction of the United States, thus giving them certain constitutional rights.

“2. After the initial investigation, when it is clear that the case is about terrorism, waterboarding experts should get involved. After the useful information is extracted, the case should be sent to a military court.”

If it is not about terrorism, does the accused get his rights back? Who makes that determination?

As for waterboarding, not only does it violate the Geneva Conventions, to which we are a signatory, but it rarely leads to useful evidence. People will say whatever they think they need to say to not be tortured.

So waterboarding is not only illegal, it's bad policy in practice.

And of course, if the person is found not to be involved in terrorism as a result of the waterboarding, how is the deprivation of his rights to be handled?

“The “dear leader” publicly said that KSM will be convicted.”

I think Obama's assessment was a pretty fair take on the facts. I recognize Obama is trying to bend over backwards to soothe the nerves of people who mistakenly believe KSM is simply going to walk out of the court a free man, hail a taxi and head straight for the airport (since many “news” organizations and radio hosts have been more than happy to make such claims).

While politically Obama may have perceived the need to say that, it was completely foolish to say such a thing to a potential jury pool.

Having said that, I don't anticipate this will be a show trial, although KSM may want it that way. I think the judge, the prosecutors and the defense all realize the various issues at stake, and want to get it right.

The alternatives, of course, are to simply lock him up without charges, or to place him in front of a military commission. The first one is an affront to basic American legal principles, while the second validates his status in the eyes of his followers as a warrior, and not the criminal thug that he is.

“How do you select a jury in New York that will not be biased against KSM?”

That's going to be hard. But then non-biased jury pools are always difficult to assemble in highly publicized and politicized cases. That is not, however, and never has been, an excuse for abandoning the rule of law.

Maintaining our freedoms takes hard work. It doesn't simply mean blowing up bad guys on the battlefield. It also means adhering to the principles of the rule of law when it's politically expedient not to do so.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/01/10/red-flags-…
BECK….??? FOX….??? are in question as long as they continue to cover-up the truth about the giant elephant sitting smack dab in everybody's living room every day and night, along with the rest of the MSM. 98% of media and news in the US is sourced back to 5 major corporations, all of which have dominate ownership outside of the USA. Think about this the next time you rave about BECK or FOX, or any of the slime that work for/with the MSM and that call themselves loyal US citizens. No such thing. Who LIES? THEY LIE. Facts can't be disputed, crystal clear cover-up.
Question???
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/01/10/red-flags-…

Nop, I have a better one. Convict all the birthers as Orly has been convicted! Guilty of the crime of Treason!

http://crazyinternetpeople.blogspot.com/2010/01…

Mwahhhahahaha!

Guantanamo Bay is not the US soil. The combatants picked up in Iraq and Afghanistan have no rights to be treated as US citizens. US government should use military courts to prosecute them.

Obama gave them access to federal courts by transferring them to USA.

I mentioned the use of waterboarding after the initial investigation, once there is no question about terrorist activity. It should only be applied to those who refuse to cooperate.
KSM case is a good example of how it is supposed to be done.

I think you need to have your lithium upped.

They may have to change the venue to outside the city itself, but they will find find twelve people who either don't really know who Khalid Sheik Mohamed is, or don't care, or can put aside the pre-trial publicity to give him a fair trial. American jurors do this all the time, and by and large the system works. That's what makes American great: not fear, not hatred, and not prejudging someone without a trial. The rule of law.

You might want to keep that in mind. Seriously.

Guantanamo Bay is under US jurisdiction and is thus subject to American law. Several court decisions have ruled on this matter, despite everything the Bush administration did to the contrary.

Waterboarding is torture, pure and simple, and it does not work. That Americans ever used is revolting, and I am glad that the administration that thought torture was American is gone for good.

That *you* seem to find it acceptable is yet more proof that you do not understand what America is all about.

And yet more pointless cut and paste garbage.

Whether it was a state or an ideological group sposored terrorism it does not matter, the act was the same. It is the action that should be punished not an affiliation to a particular group.

The latest terrorist is a Nigerian born, UK indoctrinated and Yemeni trained.

Any foreigner planting bombs trying to destroy civilian targets in the USA should be treated the same way: no access to federal but military courts.

The problem is, Obama has a soft spot for terrorists. His political career was launched in professor Bill Ayers' home.

“Guantanamo Bay is not the US soil.”

Guantanamo Bay is under a perpetual lease by the United States. No other political entity has any real authority over the area. Cuba has nominal control only.

Even the Supreme Court recognized the obvious when it determined that Guantamo Bay is “under complete and total control” of the U.S. government.

“The combatants picked up in Iraq and Afghanistan have no rights to be treated as US citizens.”

The issue is not citizenship – it is whether the U.S. government's dealing with an individual is limited by the U.S. Constitution. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the answer is no. In the U.S. and Guantanamo Bay, the answer is yes. Whether the individual is a U.S. citizen is immaterial.

“Whether it was a state or an ideological group sposored terrorism it does not matter, the act was the same. It is the action that should be punished not an affiliation to a particular group.”

But that doesn’t make sense. First, the same exact act may be terrorism or not terrorism, depending on the motivation of the criminal. I have already pointed out an example of an individual bringing down an airplane because he was suicidal and had a deadly grievance against an individual, not because he had any political aims. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771.)
Furthermore, why should a U.S. citizen like Tim McVeigh be treated differently for a deadly act of terrorism on U.S. soil than a foreign person coming to the country for the same thing. Both persons would have acted against the United States on U.S. soil on behalf of a non-state entity or ideology, both sought to commit violence in support thereof. But in your eyes, one is entitled to use the federal court system, and the other is not. It’s not a particularly consistent system. And it glorifies the alien criminal as a warrior.

“The problem is, Obama has a soft spot for terrorists. His political career was launched in professor Bill Ayers’ home.”

Thank you for that very rational and credible analysis of Obama administration policy. I’m sure we all feel more enlightened.

“Whether it was a state or an ideological group sposored terrorism it does not matter, the act was the same. It is the action that should be punished not an affiliation to a particular group.”

But that doesn’t make sense. First, the same exact act may be terrorism or not terrorism, depending on the motivation of the criminal. I have already pointed out an example of an individual bringing down an airplane because he was suicidal and had a deadly grievance against an individual, not because he had any political aims. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771.)
Furthermore, why should a U.S. citizen like Tim McVeigh be treated differently for a deadly act of terrorism on U.S. soil than a foreign person coming to the country for the same thing. Both persons would have acted against the United States on U.S. soil on behalf of a non-state entity or ideology, both sought to commit violence in support thereof. But in your eyes, one is entitled to use the federal court system, and the other is not. It’s not a particularly consistent system. And it glorifies the alien criminal as a warrior.

“The problem is, Obama has a soft spot for terrorists. His political career was launched in professor Bill Ayers’ home.”

Thank you for that very rational and credible analysis of Obama administration policy. I’m sure we all feel more enlightened.

Once they start broadcasting reports from the KSM trial on Al Jazeera and other Middle Eastern networks, I will ask you about the wisdom to move the case to Federal Court. No matter what judge and prosecutors think, the defense will help him use the case as a platform to justify the attack. He has nothing to lose in the trial, what a perfect opportunity to speak to millions of fellow Muslims and try to indoctrinate as many as possible for his cause.

The best alternative is a swift military justice.

What he said.

What he said.

Seriously, I think that if any of the birthers on this site are Orly, it’s Naturalizedcitizen. S/he misuses English in a way that strongly suggests that English is her/his second language, freely admits that s/he is not a native citizen, and expresses a view of politics and leadership that is far closer to Communism than American democracy. Red strikes me as a common variety home-grown bigot, and a rather stupid one at that.

And the coverage on Al Jazeera will do exactly what their coverage of the Moussaoui trail did: nothing. Sorry, but once again, you're only proving that you're so familiar with non-democratic forms of law and government that you are incapable of conceiving that the American system works just fine.

“No matter what judge and prosecutors think, the defense will help him use the case as a platform to justify the attack.”

No defense is going to help him “justify” the attack. At best, they will argue he is insane, unfit to stand trial, or that there was some technical or procedural deficiency which should permit him some slack. There is no “necessity” defense available for terrorism, sorry.

Furthermore, such a trial is far more preferable to having him locked up without any access to justice, which may make him a sympathetic figure to those who would otherwise not support what he did. Not putting him on trial makes us look like a bunch of cowards, like he is so special that he can't be treated like a common criminal.

The guy isn't “special.” He is a criminal who deserves to rot away in prison for what he did.

KSM should be put through a military tribunal and if it is proven that he was responsible for organizing the 9/11 attack he should be executed. No need for him to rot in a prison.

He is not a common criminal as you try to describe him.

Janet Napolitano said the same thing when describing the system response to the latest terrorist attack: System WORKED, LOL!

What is the meaning of “is” in your world?

“He is not a common criminal as you try to describe him.”

He may have committed a crime that had an extraordinary political impact, but he's a criminal nonetheless.

One is a US citizen with his rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the other is a foreigner. Why should we elevate foreign terrorists to enjoy the protection of US Constitution?

The US government should use military courts to prosecute foreign terrorists and keep them away from US soil.

Bill Ayers founded a domestic terrorist organization. Is there any dispute about it?

We know you by the company you keep.

One is a US citizen with his rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the other is a foreigner. Why should we elevate foreign terrorists to enjoy the protection of US Constitution?

The US government should use military courts to prosecute foreign terrorists and keep them away from US soil.

Bill Ayers founded a domestic terrorist organization. Is there any dispute about it?

We know you by the company you keep.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/is

Y'know, for someone who rails at great (and inaccurate) length about the Constitution, you sure don't seem to understand what it actually means.

Once again, you show that you know nothing about how America actually operates. Non-citizens have long enjoyed exactly the same rights as citizens in our courts, including the right to a speedy trial, the right to counsel, and the right to remain silent.

That also means that civilians cannot and should not be subjected to military courts if an arrest takes place on American soil. You may not like this, but it’s the law, and given your long and deep study of the law and the Constitution, you should already know this.

As for guilt by association, we haven’t done that here since the McCarthy era. Why do you bring up such an anti-American concept?

Once again, you show that you know nothing about how America actually operates. Non-citizens have long enjoyed exactly the same rights as citizens in our courts, including the right to a speedy trial, the right to counsel, and the right to remain silent.

That also means that civilians cannot and should not be subjected to military courts if an arrest takes place on American soil. You may not like this, but it’s the law, and given your long and deep study of the law and the Constitution, you should already know this.

As for guilt by association, we haven’t done that here since the McCarthy era. Why do you bring up such an anti-American concept?

Oh yes – I’m still waiting to hear why I should be “very quiet” about Zacarias Moussaoui.

Nazis were criminals too, they did not get access to US Federal Courts.

Should US soldiers be trained on how to properly collect and preserve evidence in anticipation that some of the terrorists caught in the field will be brought in front of the Federal Court?

Should soldiers be worried of lawyers turning tables on them with accusations of profiling, racism, planting of evidence…

It is an absurd policy to give terrorists caught in foreign countries access to our civilian courts.

I see it as a political grandstanding by Obama, he is trying to please the left wingers by closing the Guantanamo prison.

The Nazis didn't get access to the federal court system because they were spies working for a government upon which we had declared war. Not even remotely close to a criminal working on his own or for a non-governmental agency.

You show yourself to be less and less American with every single post on this. Sickening.

Al-Qaeda is non-governmental
agency, LOL!!!

Priceless.

Glad that amused you. Too bad nothing you've said or done has done the same for me.

Also, FOAD.

And I’m still waiting. Guess there’s no answer.

LOL.

And I’m still waiting. Guess there’s no answer.

LOL.

Sorry, but the phrase “mascara fetishists” was already trademarked by Orly Taitz.

White House has confirmed that a member of Congress formally has requested that President Obama document information regarding his birth and, therefore, his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageI…

My favorite line from that howler of a piece in WorldNutDaily is this:

“The 'certification of live birth' posted online and widely touted as 'Obama's birth certificate' does not prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same 'short-form' document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii.”

It is true that children not born in Hawaii may obtain a COLB/”short-form” document from the State of Hawaii. But this passage goes further by clearly – and falsely – suggesting that a short-form document obtained by a person not born in Hawaii can state that the person was born in Hawaii.

WND frequently offers this suggestion as the foundation for its claim that Obama needs to release additional documentation of his birth. They are too clever – and cowardly – to come straight out and make a factual claim that a COLB can list a birthplace inconsistent with the corresponding vital records, because they know it has no basis in fact. So they're left making cutesy insinuations to their gullible readers, who are soon parted with their money in exchange for bumper stickers which make them look like idiots to everyone else on the road.

It's poetic justice.

P.S. I challenge anyone to demonstrate that what WND suggests is in fact true.

LOL, you managed to avoid commenting on the the main point: A member of Congress has officially questioned Obama's proof of eligibility.

A person born outside Hawaii, whose birth was reported by a relative as a Hawaii one, would have the COLB stating the birthplace as Hawaii.
Of course we “know” that such scenario did not happen since Obama said that he was born in the Kapiolani Hospital. He never lies.

So what is the big deal about showing the original document based on records from the Kapiolani?

“LOL, you managed to avoid commenting on the the main point: A member of Congress has officially questioned Obama's proof of eligibility.”

It's because I frankly don't care. Let him send silly letters to the President to cater to the eccentric concerns of his right-wing base. That's news in WNDLand but nowhere else.

If the congressman has a beef with the sufficiency of the documentation of President Obama's birth, why doesn't he just take it up with the state which issued the supposedly inadequate official document, instead of the person to whom it was issued? And if he's so sure there are critical “questions” to be answered, why doesn't he formally call for a congressional investigation? Why doesn't he seek to introduce articles of impeachment? I mean, if the very integrity of our Constitution is supposedly at stake, what is he waiting for?

Until he takes real action and puts his money where his mouth is – given the powers and platform he has stemming from his position in Congress – it's just a lot of empty posturing and blown kisses to his base and nothing more.

“A person born outside Hawaii, whose birth was reported by a relative as a Hawaii one, would have the COLB stating the birthplace as Hawaii.”

The problem is that WND clearly insinuates that the vital records kept by the State of Hawaii will demonstrate that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. You have dodged the question of where WND finds support for its logically-implied proposition that the COLB will state a place of birth inconsistent with the corresponding vital records on file with the State of Hawaii.

That's not surprising. I've never met any person contesting Obama's eligibility who has been willing to respond to my simple challenge – because there is ZERO factual support for WND's insinuation. And this insinuation is the very heart of WND's argument as to why Obama supposedly needs to release his original birth certificate.

By the way, what you're talking about is different altogether than the WND insinuation. You're talking about a scenario in which the vital records indicate Obama was born in Hawaii, although via an affidavit and not a birth certificate. The best you can offer under your scenario is that, “Well, the affidavit could be falsely misrepresenting the fact of Obama's birth.” Fine. But how would you know?

And this means what? It means that a member of Congress is an idiot. So what else is new?

What the President would produce, if he even bothered to respond to this silly request, is his legal birth certificate as issued by the State of Hawaii. That means what he already put on line in August of 2008.

LOL, to use your favorite (and overused) expression.

JohnC said: “(I'm sure you remember what Benjamin Franklin said on the issue… I need not belabor it.)”

Actually, JohnC, you WILL have to belabor it…….you're talking to nc, king of all birfers…..and the biggest idiot I've seen here on these boards in a while……

White House has confirmed that Obama is indeed the duly elected POTUS but, alas, that he is STILL black.

LOL, you managed to avoid commenting on the main point of this thread: Even Glenn Beck freely agrees that Birtherism is for NUTS, and suggests that LIBERALS are out to embarrass him and the GOP by pushing the loony conspiracy theory which you, nc, espouse.
So, is it true? Are you actually a liberal, out to make the right look like a bunch of trailerpark wingnuts?

Silly request?
If Congress memebers cannot request the verification of documents confirming the eligibility for POTUS, who can?

The COLB is a derivative document. The original is on file with the DoH. It contains trivial information if the offical story was true.

Obama can sign documents sending soldiers to war where some of them will die, yet he is being a coward by hiding behind Hawaii DoH and Dr.Fukino.

You are assuming two things:
1. COLB is an authentic document
2. Hawaii DoH would do something if they knew that a person is using an altered (forged) document.

“You are assuming two things”

I'm not assuming anything. The WND article (as have many before it) specifically states:

“The 'certification of live birth' posted online and widely touted as 'Obama's birth certificate' does not prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same 'short-form' document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii.”

WND notes that “the same” COLB is “easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii.” One must reasonably draw the conclusion that WND is not alleging the COLBs issued to foreign-born persons are fake as well. (At least I haven't yet read of any such allegation in WND.) Therefore, WND must be presuming here that the COLB is legitimate – and not a fake.

Having said that, WND is fully correct in stating that a COLB is “easily obtainable” for children born outside Hawaii.

But then WND takes a wild leap by claiming that, because of this fact, the COLB “does not prove” Obama was born in Hawaii.

The only way this argument makes any sense is if the State of Hawaii permits a COLB to state a place of birth inconsistent with what is represented by the source vital records. But WND has not shown any evidence of a law, regulation, custom, or practice permitting the State of Hawaii to simply make up facts about one's birth. And from the looks of it, you're wisely running away from any such assertion as well, even though that's pretty much the whole underpinning of WND's argument.

As for your hypothesis that the record of Obama's birth may consist of nothing but an affidavit, that obviously has nothing to do with whether the COLB is authentic or not.

And of course, you're not even suggesting that the affidavit would say he was born outside the U.S. (If you were suggesting it, you'd be succumbing to the WND fallacy above.)

You're just suggesting the affidavit might not necessarily accurately depict the place or circumstances of President Obama's birth. But if that's what this comes down to, then what vital records are we supposed to trust? And on what basis? Why should the “long-form” birth certificate be afforded any greater reliability? What if it's wrong?

“The COLB is a derivative document.”

But that's the whole point, isn't it? If it's derivative, what is the necessity to review the documents from which it is derived, if they will indicate the same facts?

The only reason why your inquiry would make any sense at all is if a derivative document can state facts not contained within the vital records from which it is derived. But you and everyone else have utterly failed to point to anything giving the State of Hawaii, or anyone acting on its behalf, the right to make up facts on a derivative document.

(And of course, if the COLB isn't clearly indicative of what the State of Hawaii has on file, the 1961 Honolulu newspaper birth announcements certainly are – unless you're willing to believe they are just forgeries.)

If Obama is “hiding” behind the State of Hawaii, he is doing so in plain sight.

It is much easier to forge a derivative document than source documents, which should have been stored in the DoH and Kapiolani Hospital archives (if the official story were true).

I told you many times that newspaper announcements are not proof of Hawaii birthplace. Birth registration via a false affidavit would have been reported the same way as a regular birth in a Hawaii hospital.

Unless you know the official definition of the “Filed by Registrar” phrase you cannot say anything about the quality of the data presented in the COLB.

It is a trivial request to verify Obamas original birth certificate. What is the big deal about it?
Obama promised transparency, was it just another lie?

The statment still stands – coward is hiding behind Dr. Fukino.

Proof of the President's birth in Honolulu was produced over a year ago. You already know this.

And every time you've spouted nonsense, you've been told that you're wrong.

Keep it up, NC. Every time you post you make yourself look more and more ridiculous.

LOL

“It is much easier to forge a derivative document than source documents, which should have been stored in the DoH and Kapiolani Hospital archives (if the official story were true).”

So who do accuse of forgery? The Hawaii DoH? If you believe they're capable of that, what's to stop them from forging any other document they produce? Are there any documents from Hawaii that we can trust to be legitimate? Or should we just write off the state as one big hotbed of fraud?

The Obama campaign? If the Obama campaign wanted to cover up Obama's supposed foreign birth, they could have simply ignored the birthers altogether. Why issue a fraudulent document that would no doubt be scrutinized by every self-appointed sleuth on the internet? What would Obama gain from that?

FactCheck.org? That organization's main claim to any value is that they are non-partisan and fact-oriented. They would have utterly zero to gain from joining a conspiracy of fraud, and everything to lose.

“I told you many times that newspaper announcements are not proof of Hawaii birthplace. Birth registration via a false affidavit would have been reported the same way as a regular birth in a Hawaii hospital.”

Since even the Obama-born-in-Kenya theorists claim Obama was born on August 4, 1961, we can at least start from there. That means between August 4th and August 13th, 1961, Stanley Dunham would had to have given birth in Mombasa, travel over primitive infrastructure to Nairobi, fly around the world in a primitive jet airliner to Hawaii, locate an attorney to fill out an affidavit, file it with the state, and have it run in the newspaper.

(Since the COLB shows that Obama's birth records were filed with the State on August 8th, Dunham would have had just four days to get from birth in Mobasa through the filing stage in Honolulu. And that assumes that the birth records were recorded as filed the same day that they were physically brought to the DoH.)

Is it technically possible this could have happened within that timeline? Yes – IF these actions were conceived and executed flawlessly and with military precision. Is that probable? No.

Nor does the Kenya theory offer any reasonable explanation why she went there in the first place, how her travels were paid for, why she returned to Hawaii if she intended to move to Washington several weeks later, why she went to Kenya while pregnant if she were so determined to give birth on U.S. soil, why she felt it was so critically important that Obama to be born on U.S. soil, or why she gave birth in Mombasa when Obama's family lived near Kisumu and the international airport was in Nairobi.

“Unless you know the official definition of the “Filed by Registrar” phrase you cannot say anything about the quality of the data presented in the COLB.”

I can say the COLB was issued, and the newspaper announcements were made, which together scream out the fact that the data was and still is deemed by the State of Hawaii to be more than sufficient to meet it standards, regardless of the terminology used.

(You have yet to provide any credible evidence from any jurisdiction in the U.S. that makes a substantive distinction between “filed by” and “accepted by” in the context of the sufficiency of a birth record.)

“It is a trivial request to verify Obamas original birth certificate. What is the big deal about it?”

On its face, the act of examining the original birth certificate is indeed trivial. But the stated need is what makes it bizarre – that an official state-issued COLB, which by your admission is DERIVATIVE, is insufficient evidence of the facts on the documents from which it is derived.

“Obama promised transparency, was it just another lie?”

Obama promised his administration would be transparent, not that he would be a pushover for every irrational demand claiming his officially-issued birth record is insufficient evidence of his birth.

I suppose Obama would be equally blameworthy if he refused to produce his driving test to demonstrate he was really eligible for his driver's license.

“The statment still stands – coward is hiding behind Dr. Fukino.”

And my position remains equally firm – Obama is completely within his right to ignore demands to see his vital records based on unrealistic and inexplicable hypotheses, tortured readings of the law, selectively applied logic, and a pervasive and self-destructive cynicism toward normal standards of proof upon which the everyday operation of society is based.

How do you know that COLB was issued to Obama (on June 6, 2007)?
Because Obama said so?

Is there a requirement that would force DoH officials to report (to whom?) suspicious documents posted on the web on their own, without being asked to do it by law enforcement agencies?

The false affidavit could have been filed by grandparents.

The reason for releasing the COLB image on the web: Obama has nothing better to offer as a proof of his birthplace but an image of an alleged official document.

The burden on explaning the “Filed by Registrar” phrase is on DoH (according to Hawaii law). A trivial explanation is hidden from public – would it unmask Obama's cover?

Factcheck.org is not an independent organization. If they were, they would have explained how they verified Obama's COLB.
I sent them specific questions about index data for number 10641 and “Filed By Registrar” phrase and never received an answer.

They never commented on these issues on their web site eiter. Their goal was to provide cover for Obama, not to conduct an independent investigation. They presented incorrect information about Obama's Kenyan citizenship…
It is a left wing operation masquerading behind a deceptive name.

Obama is not applying for driver's license. We are talking about the office of POTUS. Using an image posted on the web that even DoH would not stand behind is laughable as an acceptable proof.

Your level of paranoia is truly frightening.

How do you know that COLB was issued to Obama (on June 6, 2007)? Because Obama said so?

Yes, and in conjunction with FactCheck's review, coupled with their pictures, and what I know about Hawaii law and practice, that is sufficient for me. I simply do not find the forgery story the slightest bit plausible because there is no reason for any of the parties to participate in such a scheme for the reasons I outlined above. Obviously, you are free to have a different view of the world.

Furthermore, how would you EVER know if an official document were issued? If Obama produced an original birth certificate online, how would you know it was real? If WND examined it and claimed it to be real, how would you know WND wasn't bought off and paid to say that about a forgery?

The only way your level of skepticism could ever be satisfied is if someone physically handed the original document in question, and three experts, one on Hawaii law and practice, and the other a forensic expert, both conducted a review in your presence and declared the document to be legitimate. (Of course, they could have been paid off, too…)

“Is there a requirement that would force DoH officials to report (to whom?) suspicious documents posted on the web on their own, without being asked to do it by law enforcement agencies?”

No. The DoH is an administrative agency, not an investigative bureau. But of course, you could always report the “suspicious” COLB to the Hawaii Attorney General.

“The false affidavit could have been filed by grandparents.”

But it still would have had to have been done by August 8, 1961, the date upon which Obama's birth records were filed with the State of Hawaii. That implies that Stanley Dunham was obsessed with having her son's birth listed as on U.S. soil, and arranged to call her parents as soon as the baby was born in order to get her grandparents to file a false affidavit.

(It is at all sensical that her grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who was a hard-working and respected professional at the Bank of Hawaii, would agree to commit perjury in the first place. Of course, you've shown that, although you're not willing to believe any documents you've seen, you're nonetheless willing to believe anything that casts Obama or his extended family in a bad light. Your selective credibility is truly amazing.)

But of course, the problem, as always, is lack of articulable motivation. The only reason why it would be critical that Obama be born on U.S. soil is for purposes of becoming eligible to be president of the United States. Back in 1961, the concept that a mixed race child would become president was pretty far-fetched (when interracial marriage was still illegal in many states).

If Obama had been born in Kenya, because of the laws of the time, would not be a U.S. citizen at birth. Nonetheless, he could always be naturalized when he was brought back to the U.S. and have all the rights of a natural born citizen with the exception that he wouldn't be eligible for president.

“The reason for releasing the COLB image on the web: Obama has nothing better to offer as a proof of his birthplace but an image of an alleged official document.”

If I were a presidential candidate seeking to demonstrate my eligibility for the office of President of the United States, and the best I could do was produced a poorly forged document on the web, I doubt I would release anything at all.

When you engage in the sort of reasoning you're offering above, you show a great affinity for conspiracies, but a serious disconnect from reasonable and rational human behavior.

“The burden on explaning the “Filed by Registrar” phrase is on DoH (according to Hawaii law). A trivial explanation is hidden from public – would it unmask Obama's cover?”

And how exactly, would the difference between “filed by” and “accepted by” “unmask” Obama's “cover,” given that he has a COLB? You've never actually offered even a credible hypothesis backing such a claim.

<i>”Factcheck.org is not an independent organization. If they were, they would have explained how they verified Obama's COLB.”

What are you talking about? They explained that they examined the document, looked at the watermark, and determined it looked official. What, we now have to bring in forensic scientists to determine whether a document is plausibly official? Good lord, I'd better hire a forensic scientist to accompany me next time I pay cash for something, lest I am accused that my money is actually not real.

“I sent them specific questions about index data for number 10641 and “Filed By Registrar” phrase and never received an answer.”

If you're really determined to get an answer, you can visit their office like other serious investigator would.

“Their goal was to provide cover for Obama, not to conduct an independent investigation.”

Well I'm awful glad you've cleared that up for all of us.

“They presented incorrect information about Obama's Kenyan citizenship…”

And they corrected it when it was brought to their attention. What's your point?

“It is a left wing operation masquerading behind a deceptive name.”

I suppose the (baseless) act of accusing some group of having a political leaning is to you the equivalent of demonstrating that they have committed an act of fraud and/or forgery. Yeah, that's real convincing.

“Obama is not applying for driver's license.”

Nonetheless, a state-issued document is a state-issued document.

“Using an image posted on the web that even DoH would not stand behind is laughable as an acceptable proof.”

There you go again. The DoH wouldn't stand behind ANY document if it were physically shoved in their faces. They are not permitted to do so under Hawaii law, and you by now well understand (even if you conveniently pretend to be ignorant).

And this whole thing about the document being “posted on the web” is rather humorous. You will never physically inspect any document that ever comes out of this “controversy,” so why would you be willing to trust anything that ever comes out? It looks like you're going to be stuck in an evidentiary loop that will prevent you from giving credence to anything, leaving you forever in a state of denial and cynicism.

What is most ironic is NC's total compartmentalization of skepticism.

NC is highly skeptical that the State of Hawaii has issued a Certification of Live Birth stating Obama was born in Hawaii, and that the COLB accurate represents documents from which it was derived. NC is highly skeptical that the birth announcements in two Hawaii newspapers present reasonable evidence that Obama was actually born in Hawaii. NC is also skeptical that a Hawaiian official is being completely honest when making statements about Hawaii law or about Obama's birth documentation. NC is completely skeptical that a famous Supreme Court case like Wong Kim Ark could actually stand for the proposition that NBC means what it has meant since the early days of English law. Then there is the skepticism Obama's birth documents are legally sufficient, even though the State of Hawaii has issued a COLB based thereon.

On the other hand, he has absolutely no difficulty believing that a pregnant 18-year-old would fly across the world(using funds from an unknown source), then actively and aggressively conspire to conceal the foreign birth of her child by encouraging her parents to commit perjury on her behalf, when the foreign birth of the child was not a problem which could not be readily addressed when she returned home (and which obviously wasn't a concern in connection with the birth of her second child). Nor is NC skeptical of claims that Obama would be willing to jeopardize his political career by placing phony COLB documents on the web. Nor is there any skepticism of claims that the Founding Fathers completely revolutionized the meaning of NBC as it was understood and used by contemporary courts and legislatures without so much as a debate.

Truly astounding. More than anything else, these debates come down to what the average person is willing to believe.

Every day, we are asked to take things at face value – that facts really are as they are represented. When we are given cash. When we show or are shown a driver's license. When we offer our professional and educational credentials. When a person tells us their name. When a police officer shows his badge. The nutritional information on a box of corn flakes. The fact that when my light is green, the light for cross traffic is red.

In NC's world, all of this is suspect, none can be accepted as presented. If everyone were to take such an approach to everyday levels of proof, our society would grind to a halt.

Obama could authorize the DoH and Kapiolani to confirm his birth in Hawaii and publish it on their web pages.

The information about the meaning of the “Filed By Registrar” phrase should be readily available – it is a trivial piece of information (if the Obama's official birth story is true). The behavior of DoH when it comes to this simple question does not look good. It appears that they are covering for Obama.

factcheck.org: What did they examine? Have they compared Obama's document with another COLB issued by the state of Hawaii to make sure that seal look genuine? Have they verified any information shown in the document presented to them? The answer is NO.

Therefore, their goal was not to confirm whether the document was authentic but to provide cover for Obama avoiding the scrutiny by others who would ask for such verification. Obama campaign could say – “factcheck.org verified that this is a genuine document.

Basically we have Joe Miller's word that document appears to be authentic even though Joe Miller did not see how an official Hawaii COLB looks like prior to examining the Obama's document. It is laughable to accept his word as a proof.

The DoH would not stand behind the COLB because law prevents them: if they suspected that something was wrong with the document presented to the public, would they also be prevented by the law to say something about it?

I have said many times – let the DoH publishes their administrative rules on an official government web page. Let Obama do the same with his COLB. He could authorise the DoH to do such thing.

A single document – the original birth registration would be enough to prove Obama's birthplace. What is there to hide?

There is no need for any speculation. Let the job applicant present the evidence, not an image posted on a friendly web site. Let the DoH follows the law and explain administrative rules in place. How is this an unreasonable request or expectation?

Obama could authorize the Kapiolani to confirm his birth. Why is he reluctant to do such thing?
It is a trivial question. Anybody born in the USA could have provided the original document long time ago.

It is easier to ridicule others than answer a simple request for presenting the original birth certificate.

When trafic light turns green I still check both sides to make sure that nobody is running the red light.

Sometime things are not the same as they appear to be at first look.

You need to rework your examples to reflect Obama's COLB “proof”.

How about an officer directing you to check the image of his badge posted on the web site (not the police station web site but a private one). Would you comply with his orders if you suspected he was a fake cop?

Could I ask a police office to check my driver's licence and insurance by logging to my web page and examining the image posted there?

The money example: Have you ever had an experience that a clerk at the store checks the $100 bill presented to him. Why would he do that?

If Joe Miller never saw a genuine $100 bill, would he be able to recognize a fake one?

Do you check a receipt after a purchase or do you trust the store that everything is correct?

In your daily life you will be constantly verifying trivial things presented to you to make sure that they conform to expected standards.

The upshot of all your examples is the same: even if you don't trust something right off the bat, you still trust the results of your own brief efforts to verify. You don't conduct full-scale inquires and bring in experts.

If there were no reports of Obama's birth in foreign countries I would not even ask the question – I would assume that his claim of Hawaii birth is true.

The problem is very simple: Obama's behavior is not consistent with the claim of Hawaii birthplace. My personal efforts to judge his claim tell me that something does not ad up.

That is the reason for asking more detailed questions about verification of the official birth story.

nc, I asked you a pretty staight-forward question which you have refused to acknowledge:
Do you dispute Beck's characterization of you as a liberal out to embarrass him and the GOP?

My response to naturalizedcitizen:

“If there were no reports of Obama's birth in foreign countries I would not even ask the question – I would assume that his claim of Hawaii birth is true.”

That's just it – there are so many various contradictory reports. It's not like there's some particularly attractive alternative story that serves as a counterwight to the evidence of Obama's Hawaiian birth. Rather, it seems like every week, there's some brand new “revelation” that renders all the previous ones obsolete. Obama couldn't have been born multiple times in multiple places.

“The problem is very simple: Obama's behavior is not consistent with the claim of Hawaii birthplace. My personal efforts to judge his claim tell me that something does not ad up.”

Your judgment efforts have been less than compelling. You're also willing to believe that Obama's grandparents were willing to commit perjury on a document filed with the state. You're willing to believe that a major presidential candidate would produce a forged document rather than ignore his critics. You're willing to believe, without any particular justification offered, that Stanley Ann Dunham absolutely had to have Obama's birthplace officially listed as Hawaii, come hell or high water. You're willing to believe that a political organization like FactCheck.org, no matter how much you find its supposed political persuasion antithetical to yours, is willing to place high-quality photos of a known forgery on their website. You're willing to believe that a major Hawaiian state official is willing to violate laws or perjure herself to effectively defraud the public concerning President Obama. You're willing to believe that the Supreme Court would lie about NBC in terms of legislative history, and then in the same opinion, concede the “truth” – as you see it – about NBC.

Any one of these would be ridiculous in and of itself. Taken together, you evince a willingness to believe the incredible, and disregard the obvious and reasonable. Occam's Razor has no purchase on you.

I am an independent conservative, never called a TV or a radio talk show about this topic.
I have no idea whether Beck is right or wrong. One thing is certain – he was not talking about me.

Response to naturalizedcitizen:

“The information about the meaning of the “Filed By Registrar” phrase should be readily available – it is a trivial piece of information (if the Obama's official birth story is true). The behavior of DoH when it comes to this simple question does not look good. It appears that they are covering for Obama.”

I haven't bothered much with the whole “filed by” issue until now, but I will issue some thoughts…

Hawaii law uses the term “filed” in a sense which suggests a legitimate, accepted record.

For example, look at how the HRS sets forth the provisions for “compulsory registration of births”:

§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.

There is nothing in this provision that says that a “substantially completed and filed” birth record need any further processing to be considered registered. Furthermore, the fact that “substantially completed” precedes “filed” suggests that the record must be adequate before it even reaches the “filed” stage.

Then we have this provision:

§338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.

Notice it refers to agent that “prepare[s]” and “file[s]” the certificate. There is no suggestion that the agent must await for the certificate to be approved. In fact, this would be absurd, since the certificate itself was prepared by a representative of the DoH itself.

Then there's this provision:

§338-12 Evidentiary character of certificates. Certificates filed within thirty days after the time prescribed therefor shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Data pertaining to the father of a child is prima facie evidence if:

(2) The father and child relationship has been established under chapter 584.

It speaks of a certificate “filed” as “prima facie” evidence. No mention of approval of an intermediate step.

Then there's yet another provision:

§338-15 Late or altered certificates. A person born in the State may file or amend a certificate after the time prescribed, upon submitting proof as required by rules adopted by the department of health. Certificates registered after the time prescribed for filing by the rules of the department of health shall be registered subject to any evidentiary requirements that the department adopts by rule to substantiate the alleged facts of birth.

Here the statute uses the words “filed” and “registered” as synonymous, as in 338-5.

And another provision:

§338-16 Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates. (a) Birth certificates registered one year or more after the date of birth, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”.

Here the statute speaks of a certificates altered after being “filed” with the department of health – which presumes the original filed certificate was valid, otherwise there would be no record to alter.

Now, I've given you an abundant number of Hawaii statutes which clearly show that:

(a) There is no intermediate “approval” step mentioned or implied between filing and registration; and

(b) The statutes themselves use “filed” and “registered” as synonyms.

Now, where's your evidence to suggest that anything I have said is actually or plausibly incorrect?

Your selective paranoia is most illuminating.

Of course you won't answer this, since you never do:

Let's say that Barack Obama was named John Smith. Let's say his father was a light-skinned Englishman or German exchange student who later abandoned his wife and son, and that John Smith was raised by his grandparents, his mother, and a stepfather from France. Let's say he had exactly the same educational and employment background, the same political career, and the same political beliefs as he does now.

In short, John Smith is exactly the same as Barack Obama, only he's white and his stepfather is European. Would you still be pursuing his alleged foreign birth? And would you still hate him?

I do not believe that either McCain or Jindal are natural born citizens. I would be asking questions about their eligibility if they were in the position to become a POTUS.

I am not hellbent on removing Obama from office – I want him to prove the eligibility.

McCain WAS almost the President. Where were you then? And why aren't you spending your time preventing Bobby Jindal from even running?

I appreciate your effort to read through Hawaii laws and give your interpretation.

The problem I have is simple: it is your personal interpretation which may be or may not be correct.
This is one issue where there is no doubt that DoH has an obligation to provide an answer to a question from public. There should be no problem for them to say whether there is any difference between the phrases “Filed By registarar” and “Accepted by State Registrar”.

What is the reason for having COLBs with these two different phrases? According to your analysis only one phrase is sufficient.

You see, it is not one single issue that causes me to be suspicious of the official birth story. There are so many little details that just don't seem to be right for a person claiming birth in a USA hospital.

The SSA #, sealed college records, kindergarten records disappeared, DoH refuses to release public information, Dr. Fukino issues very deceptive first press-release in October 2008 just days before the elections, second press release timed perfectly to follow the Congress resolution proclaiming Obama Hawaii born, law violation or a “slip up” according to you by Dr. Fukino to declare Obama “natural-born American citizen”, index data for record number 10641 hidden from public, the use of ridicule to prevent people from asking simple questions, Kapiolani claimed in january 2009, left wing myth busting web site claiming Queen's hospital then switching to Kapiolani six months after the first eligibility lawsuit was filed,…

Whatever the reason for reports of birth in three foreign countries, Obama should know that this will raise suspicion. How do you counter it – by being transparent about the issue. I do not see any reason for him not to ask the DoH and Kapiolani hospital to release the original information, assuming that his birth story is true.
His behavior does not make much sense unless there is something to hide from public.

And every single post of yours “analyzing” the law, without exception is YOUR opinion. Not the law as it's actually written. Not the opinion of legal scholars who have devoted their lives and career to writing briefs and studying the background of citizenship in English-speaking countries. Not what Congress has written or the American legal code or the Constitution.

YOUR OPINION. And you have the unmitigated nerve to criticize JohnC?

And if I had to put my money on anything, it's that you should be institutionalized for severe paranoia.

Refreshing to hear you acknowledge what a fringe belief this Birfer project is. Thanks for the candor.

“The problem I have is simple: it is your personal interpretation which may or may not be correct.”

But if “filed' is used clearly in the statutes, it is not up to an agency to redefine it. It is a question of statutory construction only.

You can try to run away from this by saying it's just “my opinion,” but the fact is you haven't even attempted to show how that opinion is wrong.

And that's just it. If the statutes are so clear that there is no coherent argument against such an interpretation, it is highly unlikely the DoH would have anything in its files explaining what is obvious under state law.

“What is the reason for having COLBs with these two different phrases?”

It says “filed by” on Obama's COLB, and I have just given you a thorough analysis of how that term is used under Hawaii law. The result of that analysis is crystal clear: “filed” is the last stage in registration requirements under Hawaii law. The Hawaii statutory scheme does not indicate that a “filed” document is incomplete, unofficial, inadequate, or pending. It is the very embodiment of registration.

That is the only term that is relevant to Obama's COLB.

But as a bonus argument, let me just say that, whatever “accepted by” means – if it means anything different at all – it cannot be used to negate the clear statutory meaning of “filed” under Hawaii law.

I never pretended to be a legal scholar. Just a citizen with the desire to understand the issue at hand.

My position has always been that the SCOTUS should rule about the eligibility issue (meaning of the NBC phrase). If you are correct, than your side will prevail in court. The issue is not a clear cut one as you would like others to believe. There has never been a doubt that children born in the US or citizen parents are NBCs. There is a doubt whether children born to non-citizen parents are NBCs. There was no SCOTUS ruling on this issue. Therefore we need one.

I think it is the only fair approach in resolving the issue. Let the SCOTUS issue a ruling rather than endlessly argue about it on the web.

Obama supporters are scared of the possiblity that he is not eligible. If you were not, you would have welcommed the opportunity to close this issue by bringing it up to in front of the SCOTUS.

This issue is another proof that US Justice system is broken. It is selectively applied. What scenario do you need for SCOTUS to get involved? Minor party candidates cannot challenge the eligibility of major party candidates to be placed on the ballot. Courts drag their feet and “punt the ball” before the elections, then close the door after the elections claiming that nobody has standing to challenge the “president”.

Had the party affiliation been reversed and Obama was a GOP member, the situiation would have been 180 degrees opposite. You would be screaming for his removal and the media pressure would influence judges not to dismiss cases on technicalities.

“The SSA #, sealed college records, kindergarten records disappeared”

Ironically, the Indonesia school record that WND frequently points to as evidence that Obama was an Indonesian citizen also states unambiguously that Obama was born in “Honolulu” on August 4, 1961. There was no reason for Soetero to try to pretend Obama was a natural born citizen to the Indonesian authorities – so one is left to conclude that the representation is true.

“DoH refuses to release public information”

DoH can't release vital records to the public. Obama's vital records, contrary to your implication, are not “public information” under Hawaii law.

“Dr. Fukino issues very deceptive first press-release in October 2008 just days before the elections, second press release timed perfectly to follow the Congress resolution proclaiming Obama Hawaii born, law violation or a “slip up” according to you by Dr. Fukino to declare Obama “natural-born American citizen”"

There is nothing deceptive in Fukino's first press release. She says she has seen and verified that Obama's original birth certificate is on record according with state policies and procedures. What's hard to understand about that?

Furthermore, it runs exactly contrary to your claim that Hawaii only has an affidavit, and not a birth certificate, on file. (If Obama had a Kenyan birth certificate on file, Hawaii would never have accepted a subsequent affidavit stating he was born in Hawaii, now would it?)

As for the timing of the press releases, you're free to speculate it's part of some fraudulent public relations conspiracy. I'll leave you to your limitless imagination on that argument.

“index data for record number 10641 hidden from public”

Completely bogus assertion, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

“the use of ridicule to prevent people from asking simple questions”

It's a free country. You can ask what you think are simple questions. Those who respond to you are free to call out an absurdity when they see it.

By your argument, we should act in a politically correct manner whenever someone asks a question, no matter how bizarre. If you were to ask whether I had been born to a pack of wolves in a Siberian forest, I should politely respond: “No. But just to put your justified concerns to rest, I will contact my state's department of vital records to make them fully available to you.”

“left wing myth busting web site claiming Queen's hospital then switching to Kapiolani six months after the first eligibility lawsuit was filed…”

There's simply no evidence for it being “left wing.” And even a myth-busting site can get it wrong, especially when Obama's birth hospital had been misreported. What's important is that they have since gotten it right.

“His behavior does not make much sense unless there is something to hide from public.”

His behavior makes perfect sense if he has concluded that it doesn't make any sense to further feed or cater to ridiculous conspiracy theories. The only way these conspiracy theories work is, as you point out above, “left wing” websites, the Hawaii DoH, and lord knows who else are in on the snowjob. Perhaps that passes the smell test with you, but it doesn't with me.

“[FactCheck.org] cannot claim anything other than the fact that Obama campaign presented them a paper that resembles Hawaii COLB. No comparison with a genuine Hawaii COLB was made – nor did they verify any information listed in the COLB.”

As I've said countless times before, they cannot independently verify any information listed on the COLB because they are not an “interested party” under Hawaii law. You know that by now. Quit acting like you don't.

Now the allegation is that FactCheck was presented with “a paper that resembles Hawaii COLB”? It bears a raised seal, and contains Onaka's signature stamp. I suppose there are always going to be people like you who can dream up additional ways FactCheck could have attempted to ascertain whether the COLB was real – and that FactCheck's failure to do so represents an intentional, and nefarious, omission. Again, it comes down to your individual level of cynicism, and what you are willing to believe.

“If I had to put my money and bet on a particular scenario – it would be a birth registration using an affidavit from a relative.”

But as I pointed out, Fukino's statement categorically rules out the possibility that Obama's birth record consists of an affidavit alone.

“This scenario could explain all of the questions above and it would also allow wiggle room for Dr. Fukino to claim that she did not tell any lies.”

Your scenario is completely at odds with what she said in her original statement. Your scenario and her statement cannot both be right. Considering that she's seen Obama's birth certificate and you haven't, I'll take her word over your speculation.

You gave your interpretation, and you could be right. I am not interested in arguing about the meaning of the phrase. I want to hear the official version. There is no wiggle room for DoH to refuse the explanation of administrative rules to public. Let them explain the use of two different phrases printed on the Hawaii COLBs.

It should have been answered long time ago. The refusal to provide an answer causes a suspicion that they are up to something.

Show me another presidential candidates with so many holes in their birthplace story, can you?

The simple fact is that the whole debate could be resolved in less time that took you to prepare the previous post. Obama could authorize the DoH and Kapiolani Hospital to release the original birth registration information. That would be the end of the debate.

Who are the founders of “snopes.com” That will answer your question about my use of the term “left wing myth busting web site”. I find it interesting that it took SIX months after the first eligibility lawsuit was filed to report Kapiolani as Obama's birthplace. In the midst of the eligibility debate it seems so out of place to have the birth hospital “post dated” so late in the game. Would a rational human being, with nothing to hide, be sosecretive about a trivial fact as a birthplace hospital.

Factcheck.org claimed that Obama's COLB is a legitimate birth certificate. If they could not properly verify it – they should not have advertised it as a legitimate document.

As a minimum they should have compared it with another recent Hawaii COLB to make sure that the seal and stamp look the same. This would have been done by an INDEPENDENT myth busting organization.
In addition, why did they have to ridicule “birthers” on their web site? If you had good arguments on your side – let the facts speak for themselves.

The factcheck.org was used as a cover – media and many legislators could point out that Obama's birth certificate was confirmed by an independent organization – which in essence is a lie.

To understand the first presss-release by Dr. Fukino we need to be on the same page about some terms used in the debate.
What is your definition of the original birth certificate. Is it a document issued by DoH or a document generated by the birth hospital?

“I am not interested in arguing about the meaning of the phrase.”

If the meaning is unimportant, than I don't see the purpose of this discussion.

“The refusal to provide an answer causes a suspicion that they are up to something.”

But you can't even articulate a theory as to what they could possibly be up to.

“Show me another presidential candidate with so many holes in their birthplace story, can you?”

Only if you can show me another president for whom there has been so much interest in his birthplace to begin with.

“The simple fact is that the whole debate could be resolved in less time than took you to prepare the previous post. Obama could authorize the DoH and Kapiolani Hospital to release the original birth registration information. That would be the end of the debate.”

First, the whole debate wouldn't be resolved, because there's a whole cadre of birthers who are convinced his place of birth is irrelevant to the question of his eligibility. Second, if someone claimed to have received original Obama birth registration information, there would be a whole slew of stories claiming it was a fraud, or the person bearing it couldn't be trusted not to be part of a conspiracy. And then we'd be back here debating it all over again.

Having said that, we don't actually need any hospital or official to release birth information to demonstrate Obama was born in Hawaii. The COLB's statement of Obama's place of birth, the Hawaii laws which govern certifications and amendments, the statements from Hawaii officials, Hawaii law concerning the meaning of “file,” together make it unambiguously clear that Obama has a birth CERTIFICATE on file, and that it shows he was born in Hawaii.

Anything else produced is icing on the cake, but won't prove anything of substance that can't already be readily determined from the facts we have right now.

“Who are the founders of “snopes.com”? That will answer your question about my use of the term “left wing myth busting web site”.”

Political orientation, assuming there is one, is not the same thing as trustworthiness. If it were, then I assume you don't trust anything you read from WND, given that they are openly right-wing and anti-Obama in their viewpoint.

“I find it interesting that it took SIX months after the first eligibility lawsuit was filed to report Kapiolani as Obama's birthplace. In the midst of the eligibility debate it seems so out of place to have the birth hospital “post dated” so late in the game. Would a rational human being, with nothing to hide, be so secretive about a trivial fact as a birthplace hospital?

So now Snopes is hiding information, too? Man, what a tightly-knit conspiracy!

Regardless of the initial confusion in the media over Obama's hospital of birth (which, by the way, Snopes has noted), the fact remains: Hawaii has Obama's original birth certificate on file, and a COLB issued by state – derivative of such birth certificate – says he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

<i>”Factcheck.org claimed that Obama's COLB is a legitimate birth certificate. If they could not properly verify it – they should not have advertised it as a legitimate document.”

Under Hawaii law, vital information can only be officially verified to an interested party. If that is you definition of “proper” verification, no one in the media would ever be eligible to verify any information about Obama's birth. I think you've set the bar a bit too high.

“As a minimum they should have compared it with another recent Hawaii COLB to make sure that the seal and stamp look the same.”

If you feel so strongly about it, challenge them to obtain another and compare it with what they've already received. It's not like they don't have photos of Obama's COLB to compare it with.

“This would have been done by an INDEPENDENT myth busting organization.”

Oh, really? Like who, WND?

“If you had good arguments on your side – let the facts speak for themselves.”

As I've learned the hard way, they can't.

“What is your definition of the original birth certificate. Is it a document issued by DoH or a document generated by the birth hospital?”

Original birth certificate: The state-produced form provided to the hospital before Obama was born, used by the hospital to record the information of his birth, then returned to the DoH for filing/registration.

COLB: The derivative document issued or verified by the DoH upon demand from an interested party, which lists information found on the birth certificate filed/registered with the DoH.

I did not say that I am not intereseted in learning what the phrase means.

I said that I am not interested in ARGUING (with you) about the meaning of the phrase. I have my opinion, you have yours. The only one that matters is the one that should be provided by the DoH.

There is a law forcing them to respond – and they refuse to follow it.
I don't want to speculate about their motives because you will just use it to divert the debate as you have done many times.

It is sad that in a “free” society a government agency can ignore lawful requests for information and have cheerleaders (including yourself) supporting them.

Do you work for a government agency?

According to your interpretation of Hawaii law, no media outlet can verify authenticity of Obama's COLB. Why are they pretending that they have done such thing?
They could ask him to authorize the release of information, but they won't do it.

Could you refresh my memory about your claim regarding the index number 10641: why is it that DoH cannot issue index data when request is made using this number?
Obama made COLB public. If DoH came back and reported that index data for 10641 belongs to Obama they would not have revealed anything new.

However, if they reported that number belongs to another person? Could it be a reason for not complying with the UIPA request?

When a home birth is being reported by a relative, is it recorded as the original birth certificate (is the same form used or a different one).
Would DoH consider that such a person has the original birth certificate?

“I said that I am not interested in ARGUING (with you) about the meaning of the phrase. I have my opinion, you have yours. The only one that matters is the one that should be provided by the DoH.”

The problem is that the DoH is not a legal advisory body. They are not in the business of interpreting any provision of Hawaii law which strikes you as unsatisfyingly ambiguous. Perhaps you should contact an attorney who practices in the area.

“There is a law forcing them to respond – and they refuse to follow it.”

92F-12(1) obgligates the DoH to make available for public inspection “Rules of procedure, substantive rules of general applicability, statements of general policy, and interpretations of general applicability adopted by the agency.”

It is highly improbable that definitions of “filed by” or “accepted by” are even “rules of procedure” to begin with. Equally unlikely is that a rule of procedure exists to differentiate between words which do not appear to have any articulable substantive distinction. You yourself can't even offer one. (So it is unlikely that there exists a “rule of procedure” responsive to your inquiry. Failure to provide that which does not exist is not a violation of this law.)

Furthermore, the distinction between “filed” and “accepted,” if there is any, does not involve a rule, statement or interpretation of “general applicability,” nor does it reasonably constitute a “general policy.”

It seems rather unlikely that the DoH either has what you seek, or is required to disclose what it has.

“It is sad that in a “free” society a government agency can ignore lawful requests for information and have cheerleaders (including yourself) supporting them.”

You're assuming that the government has to respond to every request for information demanded of it. Under your view, if I demand that a government agency provide me with its policy concerning their use of yellow pencils versus red pencils, they would be violating the law and all reasonable standards of society if they told me to buzz off.

This isn't just speculation – it's why the very law you cite speaks of rules of “general applicability.” If the law were as broad as you claim it to be, it wouldn't use an important qualifier like “general.”

“Do you work for a government agency?”

I work in the private sector, wholly unaffiliated with any governmental body. But I do work with the law every day, and I know which kinds of legal interpretations pass the smell test, and which ones don't.

“According to your interpretation of Hawaii law, no media outlet can verify authenticity of Obama's COLB.”

No media outlet can have the DoH verify the authenticity of Obama's COLB. But that doesn't mean they're not capable of using common sense.

“Could you refresh my memory about your claim regarding the index number 10641: why is it that DoH cannot issue index data when request is made using this number?”

I don't know the answer to that question. But the DoH doesn't make it all that difficult to get some info regarding a particular index record. The DoH website says:

“To request index data, provide a first and last name of the individual, and the type of event. There is no cost for the first two requests; all subsequent requests require a prepayment of $7.50 per individual and event requested along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Only a money order, certified check, or cashier’s check (make money order and checks payable to the State Department of Health) will be accepted. Personal checks will not be accepted. All fees are non-refundable; if no data is found after a search is conducted, the fees are retained to cover the cost of the search. Requests for index data will be sent out within 2-3 weeks after receipt of payment.”

“Obama made COLB public.”

But that doesn't change the fact that you do not have a “direct and tangible” interest in Obama's vital records under Hawaii law. And that's what governs how the DoH can respond to any inquiry you make on it in connection with those vital records.

“When a home birth is being reported by a relative, is it recorded as the original birth certificate (is the same form used or a different one).”

I can't answer that, but I can assure you that's not the same thing as an affidavit.

It is amazing how you keep dancing around the issue.
The DoH does not have to issue an advisory law opinion – just tell the public what rule is used to print the phrase on COLB documents. They had to explain it to the programmer who wrote the print function.

Your example about questioning the government agency about the color of pencils used is ridiculous and you know it.

There is nothing unreasonable to ask an agency about rules they use when printing documents issued to citizens.

Excluding cooperation from Kapiolani, nobody can verify Obama's COLB without a help from DoH.

A request for index data using only a name is meaningless: index data for John Smith, anyone?
On the other hand, the registration number is a unique identifier (most likely used as a key in the database to distinguish diferent records). It is not part of the vital data itself – it is part of the index. It has no practical use outside the DoH (no value for any type of abuse).

It is hard to understand why DoH refused to release the index data when request was made using the registration number only.

Perhaps my use of word “affidavit” in the phrase “birth registration by affidavit” is not accurate.
I used it as a synonim for “home birth registration by a relative”. In essence we are relying on a relative to honestly fill in the form.

Would the DoH consider a home birth registration by a relative equivalent to a registration by a hospital. Would the same state-supplied form be used?

My understanding is that the “original birth certificate” is the state form used to register birth regardless of the source (hospital or a relative). If this is correct, the “original birth certificate” mentioned by Dr. Fukino in her first press release could be a home birth registration reported by a relative.

Obama mentions seeing his “Birth Certificate” on page 26 of 'Dreams of My Father'. Why won't he release THAT Birth Certificate? Unless it's from Kenya than I understand. Why not the college records unless he attended as a Foreign Student than I understand. On the face of the evidence that Obama Senior was a Kenyan-Brit/transient alien BHO cannot possibly meet the natural born citizen requirement of the Constitution. We need to put this imposter out on his ear ASAP.

Hi, Gunny! When are you going to stop posting multiple cut and pastes to different threads, and then approving of your own splendid wit? It's really boring.

Hi, Pot! Meet Kettle!

Why don't you take JohnC's advice and talk to a lawyer?

” never pretended to be a legal scholar.”

And every single argumentative, repetitious, poorly written post you've made proves it.

As for the party affiliations being reversed – total and utter bullshit. Then again, I'm not a paranoid lunatic from Eastern Europe who was raised to hate and mistrust my government.

Go back to wherever you came from. America doesn't need immigrants who do nothing but seek to undermine our institutions and government.

“Obama supporters are scared of the possiblity that he is not eligible.” – The only concern is whether the average citizen has the legal standing to demand to see the presidents records. The courts have ruled “NO.”

The fear is by those who refuse to accept the state of Hawaii's definition of natural-born citizen.

Another example of a tolerant leftist.

Where are the Code Pinks and Cindy Sheehans now? The US troops are still in the Iraq.
There is no daily body count in the media any more. If McCain were in the office, would they behave the same?

Do minor party candidates have the right to fair elections? Can then challenge the eligibility of major party candidates to be placed on the ballot? If the elections are rigged – there is no democracy.

Is Constitution selectively applied in each state?
Dr. Fukino is not a legal authority to determine what the definition of a “natural born citizen” is. This task should be left to the SCOTUS.

You did not understand the main point in my response:
The personal opinion about this topic is irrelevant – the only thing that counts is the procedure that DoH uses when printing COLB documents and their definition of these two phrases.

Are you one?

1. Who is an example of a tolerant leftist? I'm a registered Democrat, which is pretty damn mainstream considering that Democrats control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Also, I don't tolerate idiocy very well, which is why I've been countering the horseshit you call analysis for the last several months.

2. I don't know what planet you live on, but I've heard plenty about Americans (and Iraqis, and Pakistanis, and Afghans) being killed in the last year. The pace has slowed because we're finally getting out of Iraq, where we never should have been in the first place, but there are still too many dying. The difference is that now we have a timetable for withdrawal, which is more than Shrub would ever give us.

3. Cindy Sheehan gave up on politics after failing to be elected to office. Code Pink is now working in Gaza and Israeli.

4. If McCain had won, the demonstrations would have continued because the war would still be in full swing, if not escalating. You would know this if you read anything beside birther web sites and the liars at World Net Daily.

5. You're still wrong about the President, and you're still an idiot.

6. Haiti needs help. Why aren't you sending money or volunteering?

As usual, you didn't understand my point: everything you have written is based on your opinion. Unlike JohnC, however, it is obvious that you don't know what you're talking about or what you are reading.

Answer the question. Why won't you talk to an actual lawyer?

Don't be shy now, get the pink shirt out of the closet and protest Obama's escalation of war in Afghanistan!

You did ask:

- Andrew Jackson's birthplace has never been satisfactorily established, nor his birthdate. To this day no one knows if he was from North or South Carolina.

- Chester Arthur was rumored to have been born in Canada, not Vermont. Although the preponderance of the evidence suggests Vermont, it is not certain, which is why birthers revived the whole controversy a few months ago.

- Gerald Ford was adopted and did not formally change his name until adulthood. If you and your moronic brethren had been around when he was running for President, God only knows what you would have done with *that* information. Also, NO President was born in a hospital until Jimmy Carter, so by your lights they all should have been suspect since they were born at home and thus didn't have the hospital name, time of birth, footprint, etc., listed on their birth records.

Are you a lawyer?

If you're looking for one, you should call your local bar association or law school for a referral. I'm a historian with a very low tolerance for obstreperous birthers who can't tell the difference between asking legitimate questions and being obnoxious.

Why aren't you helping with Haitian relief?

“The DoH does not have to issue an advisory law opinion – just tell the public what rule is used to print the phrase on COLB documents.”

You're dancing around my entrie point. You're assuming such a rule actually exists, or that the disclosure law covers such a hypothetical rule.

“There is a doubt whether children born to non-citizen parents are NBCs.”

Wong Kim Ark may not expressly be an opinion on the issue of NBC – as you correctly point out, the Court has never ruled directly on the meaning of the phrase. Nonetheless, any Supreme Court examining the concept of NBC will necessarily refer to Wong Kim Ark – which has been a cornerstone of citizenship jurisprudence for over 110 years – as a critical component of its analysis.

The meaning of NBC as a child born in the United States – and not subject to narrow but long-accepted exclusions – is essential to the Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in Wong Kim Ark. As I have said before, if the NBC clause meant a child born to two U.S. citizens, the purpose of the court's reference to the concept in Wong Kim Ark – which concerns the citizenship of a child born in the U.S. to two non-citizens – is completely nonsensical and indecipherable. Moreover, it would have led to a decision opposite to that which the Court actually reached.

This isn't difficult.

“Dr. Fukino is not a legal authority to determine what the definition of a “natural born citizen” is.”

No one is relying on Fukino's interpretation of the Constitution. But her statements make clear as a factual matter that Obama's original long-form birth certificate is on file with the State of Hawaii. And, according to the COLB, that document indicates he was born in Hawaii.

Again, not difficult.

“Excluding cooperation from Kapiolani, nobody can verify Obama's COLB without a help from DoH.”

Kapiolani can't verify the COLB because it didn't issue it.

The DoH is legally precluded from getting into the business of verifying documents to parties lacking a “direct and tangible interest” in a given person's vital records.

“It is hard to understand why DoH refused to release the index data when request was made using the registration number only.”

Take it up with DoH.

“Perhaps my use of word “affidavit” in the phrase “birth registration by affidavit” is not accurate. I used it as a synonim for “home birth registration by a relative”. In essence we are relying on a relative to honestly fill in the form.”

And if this is the nature of the birth certificate, how do you prove it wrong? What exactly do you do with such information to demonstrate Obama wasn't born in Hawaii?

“Would the DoH consider a home birth registration by a relative equivalent to a registration by a hospital. Would the same state-supplied form be used?”

That goes well beyond the expertise of anyone on this board. But of course, the speculation regarding “equivalency” is moot, given that the State of Hawaii issued a COLB to Obama.

“My understanding is that the “original birth certificate” is the state form used to register birth regardless of the source (hospital or a relative). If this is correct, the “original birth certificate” mentioned by Dr. Fukino in her first press release could be a home birth registration reported by a relative.”

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But the State of Hawaii obviously considered it valid and substantially complete, otherwise it wouldn't have been filed/registered with the State (see HRS § 338-5), and served as the basis for issuing birth announcements and a COLB.

And as usual, no answer. Typical cowardly birther. Wonder what she's hiding? And why she's so afraid of asking a real, genuine lawyer about American citizenship law instead of spewing crap all over the ether?

And once again, no answer. I guess it's more fun to try to undermine the President than donate money to people who've literally lost everything.

There is nothing hypothetical about the requirement specification that had been given to programmers to print the COLB document.

The UIPA law is very clear about disclosure of administrative rules. It is also very clear that there is no standing issue – anybody can ask for the disclosure of such rule.

Your position on this issue is absurd.

One person one vote. That is democracy.

There is absolutely no relationship between a minor party candidate and a person citizenship. It really isn't that hard of a concept to understand.

It is each state that keeps the birth records of people born in that state. Or, is it you just didn't understand that.

Oh, well if you didn't then that is your tough luck. Ignorance is no excuses for spreading falsities.

PS. The SCOTUS will take a state's word over a person who is ignorant of the law.

Why don't you ask a lawyer you trust?

Oh, I did just look up Code Pink. The group was formed to protest the war in Iran.

Once again, wrong. You really don't believe in fact checking, do you?

“Your position on this issue is absurd.”

You're demanding that the State of Hawaii provide you with guidelines on how programmers print out a document, and you're calling my position absurd?

Are you saying that the only example that comes close to Obama was Chester Arthur? Could you educate the readers of this blog and tell them what he did with his family documents.

Obama claims to have been born in the Kapiolani Hospital. Let's see the proof!

I said what I said. If you are too stupid to figure it out, that's your problem.

It is not that difficult to understand what I ment. The Hawaii DoH has a rule describing the use of two phrases when printing COLB documents.

I used the programming example to prove it to you that such rule exists. You can continue to twist my words- it just shows that you have no argument to defend the DoH behavior.

Ether!?

“The Hawaii DoH has a rule describing the use of two phrases when printing COLB documents.”

Does it now? And since when is such a rule one of “general application” as provided by the HRS?

You did not understand my question.

Do minor party candidates have the right to run against eligibile candidates only?
If they suspected that a major party candidate was not eligible, should we leave it to Congress (dominated by two major parties) to ignore their request, or should the court intervene on their behalf?

This was the most difficult question for judge Carter to decide about when he dismissed the case few months ago.

You keep forgetting that Obama and Democrats do not want the SCOTUS to get involved in examining his eligibility.
It would be interesting to see whether Dr. Fukino would say the same thing in court as she said to the public.

Several Obama supporters on this blog mentioned that she had the authority to determine Obama's NBC status.

Was the original birth certificate based on a hospital record or registration by a relative? COLB document does not answer this question.

Dr. Fukino could have relied on a false birth registration. We have already discussed numerous little details that are not compatible with the official story about Obama's birthplace.

What are you talking about?

Code Pink was very active in anti-war protesting during Bush administration. Their protests were prominently shown in the news media.

If they wanted to be consistent protests should have continued and even escalated when Obama announced increase in troop levels in Afghanistan.

The protests and their coverage by the media have changed since the usurper's occupation of the White House.

You are arguing that the rule for printing a document issued to citizens is a secret that DoH does not have to explain.

What is the purpose of UIPA law – to create an illusion that government is transparent?

Go look it up since you're such a genius, pinhead.

Alas, too much exposure to you and your idiocy has left me unable to spell. I meant “Iraq,” not “Iran.”

Also, for the umpteenth time, America is a democracy. We do not have thrones TO usurp, you krillfucking trepanned lemur.

“You are arguing that the rule for printing a document issued to citizens is a secret that DoH does not have to explain.

What is the purpose of UIPA law – to create an illusion that government is transparent?”

I find it rather amusing that you think we live under some form of tyranny because the State of Hawaii hasn't issued some regulation explaining the painfully obvious to you – that a birth certificate on file is in fact registered. (This of course gives you the benefit of the doubt that you have actually approached the DoH with such a request, and you were in fact rebuffed.)

You have been presented with a mountain of statutory evidence concerning the effect of filing a vital record. Rather than have the courage to face the facts or at least address them with your own counterargument, you have run away from it all – dismissing it as my “opinion”… as if I wrote the statutes. It's cute, but hardly convincing of your contention – whatever in the world that may be.

Even more amusing is that all of this is predicated upon a document issued by the State of Hawaii conferring official status of the facts of Obama's birth in a court of law. Why on earth would the State of Hawaii issue a COLB for a person whose birth is not officially recognized by the state? You haven't even attempted to answer this question. I don't blame you. There is no viable answer, and you know it.

(Your usual resort at this point is to claim that the COLB may be a fake. Which is another dodge, because the entire “filed by” versus “accepted by” argument presumes the COLB is valid, but that there is somehow something “wrong” with the underlying document. If you think the COLB is a fake, who cares what's on it?)

You've decided to take the easy route by ignoring what's been presented to you and resting your argument on the assertion that the state needs to bend over backwards to cater to your proclaimed ignorance of the obvious. Its failure to do so (again, assuming you have actually made an effort to contact it in this regard) is somehow indicative of some evil, opaque conspiracy of silence that apparently is obscuring some deep, dark – yet inarticulable and unfathomable – secret about filed birth certificates that really aren't official, but are nonetheless used by the state to issue an official document intended to stand in the court of law for those unrecognized facts. (What this has to do with where Obama was born – which is the whole point of these debates – is anybody's guess.)

There have already been dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “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.”
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in excess of $1.7 million to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.
Among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records. We must put this madman monster out on his ear ASAP.

It is obvious that have no idea how electromagnetic waves spread thorough space.

Ether, LOL!

When did you go to school – 100 years ago?

When it comes to geography, despite the error you are doing better than Zero.

He claimed that he had visited 57 states during the campaign. He is the smart one and we are dummies, LOL!

The official COLB, as you call it, could have been issued based on the report of Hawaii birth by a relative. Nothing in the COLB indicates that Obama was born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims (since January 2009).

The “mountain of evidence” is a laughable claim. No information that could be used to verify the COLB has been issued to the public. The DoH would not even acknowledge that the COLB was issued to Obama on June 6, 2007. It is OK for Dr. Fukino to proclaim Obama as a “natural-born American citizen” (whatever that phrase means), yet she cannot confirm that COLB was issued to him, even after he published it on the web. This behavior is contrary to common sense.

What other document is out there corroborating the Hawaii birth story? Obama is hiding everything from public.

You claimed to be a historian. Tell us what Chester Arthur did with his family documents.

You claimed to be a historian. Tell us what Chester Arthur did with his family documents.

Stop repeating yourself, Gunny. This was all posted and rebutted months ago.

You're right, you know. We don't know anything about the President. The books, the newspaper articles, the photos – none of it matters. You're absolutely right, and you will be saluted by future generations for your selfless determination to your beloved home country.

Too bad that country isn't the United States, which has a legally elected President who isn't going anywhere. Go back to Moldova, you mascara-sucking cretin.

Has nothing to do with President Obama, as you well know. But since you’re showing yourself to be not only wrong but lazy to the point that you probably need a dozen Oompa-Loompas to haul your immobile carcass about your luxurious apartment, here:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/mss/eadxmlmss/eadpdfmss/2009/ms009139.pdf

This should be a place to start. Otherwise, FOAD.

It's an old term for cyberspace. You'd know that if you'd been on the Internet or its predecessors instead of changing Konstantin Chernenko's colostomy bag.

*yawns*

wrong again.

That was an old theoryhow EM aves travel through space.

*laughs and laughs*

I think they need to upgrade the curriculum at whatever technical school you attended, old sport. You've forgotten completely about Ethernet.

Here, since once again you clearly have no idea what you're talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet

Enjoy!

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
News Release
LINDA LINGLE
GOVERNOR
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CHIYOME LEINAALA FUKINO M.D.
DIRECTOR

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release: July 27, 2009 09-063
STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai?i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
###

“Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”

Ethernet and ether are two different things.

Ethernet is a computer network.

Ether was a mystical substance once believed to exist in the outer space (they could not explain the wave propagation in vacuum).

You got confused, as usual.

No, once again you proved that you don't read very well. I said that “ether” was formerly used as slang for cyberspace, at least where I live, and may still be in some places.

You really are wracking up an impressive list of errors, you know. You might want to consider that before continuing to split hairs, post errors, and generally make an ass of yourself.

This is the first post where you mentioned using “ether” as a slang.

What other slang words are you using: Hawaii as a local slang for Kenya, LOL?

“The official COLB, as you call it…”

I most certainly do, yes.

“…could have been issued based on the report of Hawaii birth by a relative.”

That's true. §338-5 provides that “a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.”

But, even of “one of the parents” substantially completed and filed Obama's birth certificate, what does that prove? That Obama was born out of Hawaii? Hardly. Could it have been a lie? Of course. Can we prove it? No.

So you're pursuing an argument which, even if you hit the jackpot, does not prove what you set out to demonstrate – that Obama was not born in Hawaii. Your claims make for amusing parlor discussion and hypothetical scenarios, but they don't resolve any NBC questions.

“Nothing in the COLB indicates that Obama was born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims (since January 2009).”

First, no COLB issued by the State of Hawaii contains such specific information. So Obama's COLB is no better or worse than anyone else's COLB.

Second, do you have solid evidence that Obama claimed he was born somewhere else?

“The “mountain of evidence” is a laughable claim.”

I have given you numerous statutes which make it plain that a “filed” certificate is, by statutory definition, one which is “substantially completed” – and that once a certificate is “filed” with the registrar, there is no further step necessary for a birth certificate to be statutorily registered. You can laugh all you want, and I'm sure that's a lot easier than addressing what has been set forth before you.

“No information that could be used to verify the COLB has been issued to the public.”

First, a COLB does not need to be verified. §338-13(a) implicitly requires that a certified copy of a birth certificate replicate “the contents of any certificate.” §338-13(b) states that “[c]opies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original.”

Second, as for non-official verification, I suppose the two 1961 Hawaii birth announcements are just extraneous evidence to you. How convenient.

“The DoH would not even acknowledge that the COLB was issued to Obama on June 6, 2007.”

For the millionth time, the DoH cannot legally do that which you note it hasn't done. See §338-18(a) (“it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health”).

“It is OK for Dr. Fukino to proclaim Obama as a “natural-born American citizen” (whatever that phrase means), yet she cannot confirm that COLB was issued to him, even after he published it on the web. This behavior is contrary to common sense.”

Perhaps it violates your concept of common sense, but of course Hawaiian officials are mandated to follow Hawaii law, and not the wishes or desires of a random person who finds fault with their actions.

“What other document is out there corroborating the Hawaii birth story?”

While that makes for an interesting question to ponder, no other document is logically necessary to demonstrate that Obama was born in Hawaii. Unless, of course, one were to assume that the COLB is a fraud, Hawaii officials are covering it up, Stanley Ann Dunham had a mysterious trip to Kenya while pregnant, and she just as mysteriously needed to have her son be listed as born back in the United States (through fraud and trickery if need be).

The “mountain of evidence” could be resting on a piece of paper submitted by a relative. This includes birth announcements, which were automatically sent from the DoH to newspapers.

Hawaii DoH officials used documents available to them for claim that Obama was born there, yet this could all be based on a false report submitted by a relative.

The DoH could legally confirm that COLB was issued to Obama without violating the law – Obama has already published this information (there is no privacy to be protected) and the public's right to know (whether a candidate for presidency was eligible to run) outweighs the non-exisitng concern for Obama's privacy.

When the debate about authenticity of COLB image started, there was a comment made on a different blog about a phone conversation between “Ron Polarik” and State Registrar Alvin Onaka. Polarik alleged that Onaka denied that DoH issued the COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007. We have not heard from Onaka since that time.
I am sure that many other people have read this story as well.

Could you also speculate about the motivation for Obama's behavior? Would a patriot and a Constiutional scholar leave any doubts about his birthplace? Why wouldn't he release the original birth certificate – one showing Kapiolani as his birthplace?

As usual, wrong:

“It's an old term for cyberspace. You'd know that if you'd been on the Internet or its predecessors instead of changing Konstantin Chernenko's colostomy bag.”

Those ESL lessons are becoming more and more necessary. You might also want to study rhetoric so you'd be able to understand “implication” and “nuance.”

Just a thought.

Old term = slang

LOL

We also urged people to eat shit and die on a regular basis if they were rude, obnoxious, socially maladjusted, believed ridiculous things, tried to interest us in baseless conspiracies, and generally were annoying, useless turds.

I still do. Bon appetit!

I feel sorry for you and few other posters who cannot express a single thought withot using a foul language.

Your parents did not teach you good manners?

“or should the court intervene on their behalf?”

Have you been sleeping for the past year. The courts have listened. They determined that the president is a natural born citizen, and that the minor candidate wasn’t harmed.

You are funny.

Looks like I hit a nerve on this one. Keep it up, Orly. Keep lying and ducking your fines and taking “donations” from gullible fools for legal briefs that would make a paralegal blush. Keep calling other people rude when you argue and split hairs and insult anyone who challenges you. Keep massacring the language. Keep annoying judges and accusing the government of conspiring against you.

Keep recreating your homeland in your paranoid little world. The rest of us will live in the United States, and wonder why you use your freedom in an inexplicable quest to undermine its institutions. I hope you eat hearty.

After all, there aren't all that many calories in mascara.

Foul language??? Where??? Where??? You must have hit a nerve. There is absolutely no foul language in the original post.

“The 'mountain of evidence' could be” … “could be.” That is speculation. It seems that you are looking for a hay stack on top of a needle. It you don't see it, it is because it doesn't exist.

That's why I think it really *is* Orly this time. I wonder if “cretin” sounds similar to a swear word in Russian, Moldovan, or Hebrew?

You have to ignore all the circumstential evidence pointing to a problem with the official “birth in the Kapiolani hospital” story.

There is no evience supporting the birth in the Kapiolani story – none. Keep in mind that Kapiolani hospital was mentioned for the first time in January 2009 (AFTER the inauguration ceremony). Prior to time, it was reported that he was born in the Queen's hospital.

Therefore the idea that his birth was registered by a relative cannot be discounted. Actually, it makes more sense then the official story when you examine Obama's behavior of hiding documents from the past that could shed some light on his birthplace.

LOL, you are still obsessed with the desire to communicate with Orly!

Of course you don't see it. The last word in ellid's post would be a compliment for you, LOL.

Wrong in every particular.

If the Maybelline fits, wear it.

“Mascara-sucking cretin” is insulting but it is neither blasphemous, scatological, or profane. It therefore does not meet the definition of “foul language” in English, as you'd know if you had bothered to look it up.

Anthony's right. I hit a nerve. Prove you aren't Orly Taitz or shut up, you vine-swinging loris.

“The “mountain of evidence” could be resting on a piece of paper submitted by a relative.”

That's not what I'm referring to. I am referring to the mountain of evidence that “filed” with the registrar is precisely what constitutes “registration” of one's birth. You have not offered a fragment of evidence that suggests the law provides otherwise.

“Hawaii DoH officials used documents available to them for claim that Obama was born there, yet this could all be based on a false report submitted by a relative.”

As usual, the main point of the discussion has whizzed right past you. This makes for interesting discussion, but it doesn't show that the documentation of Obama's birth isn't properly registered, nor does it suggest Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. The best you can offer is, sure, the documentation is official and says everything it's supposed to say – but reality nonetheless could have been different. Fine. Cut the speculation and prove it.

“The DoH could legally confirm that COLB was issued to Obama without violating the law – Obama has already published this information (there is no privacy to be protected) and the public's right to know (whether a candidate for presidency was eligible to run) outweighs the non-exisitng concern for Obama's privacy.”

The law is very clear, as I have shown again and again, that vital information cannot be “disclosed” to persons lacking a “direct and tangible” interest as specifically defined in the HRS. You claim there is some “public knowledge” or “public's right to know” exception (or balancing test) to the operation of this law, but you have to offer a single statute, regulation, or opinion that offers support to your claim.

“Polarik alleged that Onaka denied that DoH issued the COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007.”

Again, you're demonstrably wrong. Here is precisely what Polarik said:

“Then, I slipped in the the following question. I asked him if Janice Okubo had confirmed that his office produced a 2007 Certification of Live Birth, date-stamped June 6, 2007, with Obama's birth information on it, and he quickly replied:

“”Absolutely not. No one in our office confirmed it.”"

Note that the question was not “Did the DoH issue a COLB to Obama?” According to Polarik himself, the question was “Did Okubo confirm that the DoH had issued a COLB to Obama?”

“Could you also speculate about the motivation for Obama's behavior?”

Yes I can. Campaign rumors surface that he was an illegitimate child, or that he was born in Indonesia or Kenya, rather than the United States. Obama does what any reasonable person does – he asks for a copy of his birth certificate from the State of Hawaii. The state gives Obama what it gives anyone upon request – a COLB. The Obama campaign shows the COLB to FactCheck.org, which examines it and puts high-quality images of it on the web.

Rather the quelling any controversy, the COLB becomes the subject of increasingly incredible claims… There is no real COLB. The COLB is real, but it could legally indicate a Hawaiian birth even though documents on file state the person was born elsewhere. The COLB is real, but it doesn't necessarily prove that Obama's birth was properly registered with the state. The COLB is real, and Obama was born in Hawaii, but he's not an NBC anyway because his father was not a U.S. citizen. And so on…

Obama has evidently decided that people weaving such scenarios would only be egged on by a further response with additional documents, leading to more implausible and desperate scenarios parading around as legitimate speculation.

“Would a patriot and a Constiutional scholar leave any doubts about his birthplace?”

The answer to that question depends on what kind of doubts and who is doing the doubting.

“Why wouldn't he release the original birth certificate – one showing Kapiolani as his birthplace?”

See above.

“There is no evidence supporting the birth in the Kapiolani story – none.”.

That's true, if Maya Soetero's emphatic statement on the Diane Rehm show, Obama's statements, and the statement by Barbara Nelson are to be counted as worth nothing. Nelson states that she recalls having dinner with Rodney T. West, who practiced at Kapi'olani from 1953 through 1977, one night in 1961. Nelson recalls West saying, “Well, today, Stanley had a baby. Now that’s something to write home about.” (For what it's worth, that logically negates the possibility that Dunham had a baby outside Hawaii, unless she took a presitigious super-duper-duper-duper-sonic flight from Nairobi to Honolulu after a high-speed train trip from Mombasa – all just to proclaim to the world that her son was born in the United States so people like you would be fooled nearly a half century later. But of course you're clever enough to see through that smokescreen!!)

The only reason there is any controversy about the place of Obama's birth to begin with is the misquotation of Maya by a high school newspaper several years ago regarding Obama's birth hospital. Apparently, other newspaper writers used that as a source, and then other writers in turn used those other newspapers as sources. But President Obama has never stated he was born at Queen's. He has only stated he was born at Kapi’olani.

“Therefore the idea that his birth was registered by a relative cannot be discounted.”

It cannot be discounted to zero, of course, but the evidence indicates it is improbable.

“Keep in mind that Kapiolani hospital was mentioned for the first time in January 2009 (AFTER the inauguration ceremony). Prior to time, it was reported that he was born in the Queen's hospital.”

See above.

“Actually, it makes more sense then the official story when you examine Obama's behavior of hiding documents from the past that could shed some light on his birthplace.”

It only makes sense to someone who is desperately trying to believe that anything but the official story can be true.

Dr West?
“…In December of l956, after delivering at least 5,000 babies – and other things, he retired from the practice of medicine…”.

http://www.pearlharborstories.org/survivorpage….

It is hard to believe that Barbara Nelson can recall a conversation after 47 years. Furthermore, she came out with her story six months after the first eligibility lawsuit was filed. Where was she before?

The following blog has a lot of funny comments about credibility of Barbara Nelson's story:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2170432/…

When questioned about the authenticity of Obama's letter to Kapiolani in 2009 (where he claimed that he had been born there), WH press secretary would not do it.
The same question was sent to Kapiolani – they refused to comment, then promptly removed the letter from their web site. Why would they do that?
If the official story was true, neither WH nor Kapiolani behavior makes sense.

Original Birth certificate, trivial for a person born in the USA to obtain, would clear the fog surrounding Obama's birthplace – what is he hiding?

Mascara??? Mascara is something women wear on their face. How can that be an insult. If you are easily insulted by the word mascara, then you should stop wearing it.

Circumstantial evidence pointing to a problem? Where?

An actual birther certificate, and the state of Hawaii claiming that Obama was born in the state.

You seem more like you are grasping for straws.

Oh, I understand. The problem is with the birther position.

Anyone who would believe the ravings at the Free Republic is starting at a disadvantage.

Also, I can recall conversations from the early 1970s, almost forty years ago. It depends on memorable the conversation was. I can't recall conversations from 1961 because I was an infant, but 1971? Yes, actually, I do.

Give it up, NC. You're grasping at straws and splitting hairs. There is zero credible evidence that the President was born anywhere but Honolulu.

I am not saying that everything written at the freerepublic site is true, I just said that you can read interesting comments challenging the Nelson's story.

I am “sure” that you can recall an exact date for a conversation that took place in 1971 and provide details what other person said without any mistakes.

We are asked to believe that a doctor who retired from practice five years prior to the event performed a delivery at 7:24 pm, then had a late dinner with a college friend of his daughter (30 years younger than Dr. West) just in time to share an interesting thing that happened on August 4, 1961. If this was so memorable event that she could recall it after 47 years, why did she have to write the name on the napkin at the time, LOL?

Did Nelson have regular dinners with Dr. West (father of her college friend) or was it once- in- a-lifetime event?

Nobody from Dr. West family came forward to confirm that he delivered baby Obama. One would think that he would mention it to his family when Obama became a US Senator.

Go back to my post where foul language was mentioned.
Then goup and see the PRIOR post by ellied to check what the last word in that post was.

It was not a mascara.

“Dr. West?
“…In December of 1956, after delivering at least 5,000 babies – and other things, he retired from the practice of medicine…”"

That doesn't mean he was unaffiliated with the Kapi'olani Hospital, which he was through 1977.

“It is hard to believe that Barbara Nelson can recall a conversation after 47 years.”

If it were about who won the baseball game the night before, I would second your criticism.

But we tend to remember finding out about births and deaths concerning our friends. Or at least I do.

“The following blog has a lot of funny comments about credibility of Barbara Nelson's story”

All of which are premised on the fact that she couldn't possibly have remembered the birth of someone with as unusual a name a Barack Hussein Obama, or that Nelson claimed Dr. West delivered the baby, which Nelson never claimed.

“When questioned about the authenticity of Obama's letter to Kapiolani in 2009 (where he claimed that he had been born there), WH press secretary would not confirm it.”

It's not that he would not confirm it as he dissmissed it as a ludicrous question, which it is. As he noted, “Goodness gracious. I'm going to be, like, in year four describing where it is the president was born. I don't have the letter at my fingertips, obviously, and I don't know the name of the exact hospital.”

Gibbs then told the reporter to go look up Obama's birth certificate. When the reporter said it was not a birth certificate, Gibbs responded, sarcastically but correctly, the COLB is “[j]ust a document from the state of Hawaii denoting the fact that the president was indeed born in the state of Hawaii.”

The WND article on the subject then made its usual fallacious point that “under Hawaiian law at the time of the president's birth, such documents were available for babies not even born in Hawaii.” Which of course cleverly evades the question of whether such a document could legally state a place of birth other than what the source documents indicate. As we have seen, you can't answer this question, either.

“If the official story was true, neither WH nor Kapiolani behavior makes sense.”

It makes sense if both the WH and Kapiolani see the intense interest in every aspect of Obama's birth as so bizarre that they'd rather wash their hands of it.

“The Original Birth Certificate, trivial for a person born in the USA to obtain, would clear the fog surrounding Obama's birthplace – what is he hiding?”

You seem to have an active imagination. Why you don't you tell us what exactly you suspect he's “hiding”?

The word in question is “cretin.” It is a term for a child with mental and physical disabilities caused by a nutritional deficiencies in the mother. It is neither blasphemous, scatological, nor profane, and although it is most definitely insulting (which was my intent), calling it “foul language” shows once again that you simply aren't all that good at reading or understanding idiomatic English.

*shrugs* Then again, nothing you've posted to date is evidence that you *are* familiar with idiomatic English, so this is no surprise…

No, you can read lots of vile trash by racists and haters of the very worst type. Remember? The ones who said that Malia Obama, eleven years old, was ghetto trash and a whore because she wore shorts while on vacation? That you even go near that site says volumes about you.

You seem to have spent more time on that web site than I did.

I have never commented on Obama's children and I don't intend to.

The link I posted is related to Nelson's story and some questions about her story are very interseting.

Hair splitting, anyone?

What is he hiding? – a foreign birth registered as a Hawaii one by a relative lying on the birth registration form.

We would have to believe that Nelson can remember a conversation that happened 47 years in the past about something that was not important in her life!!!

A doctor who does not regularly see patients for five years, did it in this case and it just happens that after the delivery doctor had a dinner with a friend of his daughter who was about 30 years younger than him. Did they have a regular dinners together or was it just another coincidence to have one on August 4, 1961?

Sorry, it is hard to believe her story.

There is a story on the web about a Marine officer who claims to had a conversation with Obama in the summer of 1980. He claims that Obama told him about being born in Mombasa.

We should not be wasting time on speculations, and personal recollections of conversations that happened decades ago.

The original birth certificate would clerar things up. Unfortunately for Obama the official birthplace story is very suspicious.
Why would Kapiolani promptly remove Obama's letter from their web site after receiving questions about its authenticity. It does not make any sense.
Member of Congress from Hawaii (Abercrombie) publicly read this letter (there was even video on You Tube) and nobody is willing to confirm it!?

Oh no, you're not going to wriggle away from this. The Free Republic is notorious for posting lies, filth, and outright calls for insurrection. The mere fact that you can find something there “interesting” instead of appalling speaks volumes about you and your beliefs.

Disgusting.

So. You find it hard to believe that someone could remember a conversation about a woman with a man's name giving birth, but you have no trouble believing that a hugely pregnant teenager with no money would fly into a war zone to give birth.

*slow clap*

How odd that you say this. Aren't you the one who insists on precise definitions of every single word in the Hawaiian legal code?

Let us discuss this further. What do you think the definition of “foul language” is in American English? Please tell us why you think this so we can arrive at a true definition.

My response to naturalizedcitizen:

“What is he hiding? – a foreign birth registered as a Hawaii one by a relative lying on the birth registration form.”

But if all the documents appear valid, are in accordance with state law, and have been filed/registered by the State of Hawaii, the best you can do – as you implicilty concede – is to prove that the relative was lying.

How do you do that? By proving Obama was born outside of Hawaii.

Whatever your beefs are with the “official story,” the alternate stories floating around are nowhere near as factually compelling. And as I have pointed out before, they are to the very last completely unable to explain the means or motivations for the actions that they assert took place.

“We would have to believe that Nelson can remember a conversation that happened 47 years in the past about something that was not important in her life!!!”

I don't know how old you are, but from my experience it is amazing what conversations stick in the memory decades later.

“A doctor who does not regularly see patients for five years, did it in this case and it just happens that after the delivery doctor had a dinner with a friend of his daughter who was about 30 years younger than him. Did they have a regular dinners together or was it just another coincidence to have one on August 4, 1961?”

You're implying that Dr. West was out of the loop concerning events going on at Kapi'olani. There's no evidence to suggest that he couldn't have known what was going on at the hospital, even if he didn't personally deliver the baby.

As far as your theory that the dinner couldn't have taken place, I find this fascinating coming from a person who believes (or strongly suspects) that Mrs. Dunham traveled to Kenya with unspecified resources for an unspecified purpose, remained for months doing unspecified activities with her husband's family even though he was committing bigamy at the time, gave birth in Mombasa and then hurried to Hawaii to get her child registered as born in the country, even though this fact could only impact one right the child could possess – the right to serve as president of the United States.

“There is a story on the web about a Marine officer who claims to had a conversation with Obama in the summer of 1980. He claims that Obama told him about being born in Mombasa.”

Fascinating claim. Too bad that Obama was in Los Angeles, California, at the time attending Occidental College. During the summer of 1980, Obama roomed with Vinai Thummalapally. (Their acquaintance is not just hypothetical – Thummalapally was nominated by his old friend to become ambassador to Belize.)

http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/jun/12/obama…

“The original birth certificate would clerar things up.”

Why would another official document “clear things up” when the official document already out there is viewed with such suspicion?

“Unfortunately for Obama the official birthplace story is very suspicious.”

I'm hoping you will at least admit that the alternate theories are no less suspicious, even to you.

“Why would Kapiolani promptly remove Obama's letter from their web site after receiving questions about its authenticity. It does not make any sense.”

Frankly, I don't know why they did it. But if it were causing them to be inundated with ridiculous claims and demands, I have my hunch.

“Member of Congress from Hawaii (Abercrombie) publicly read this letter (there was even video on You Tube) and nobody is willing to confirm it!?”

Call them and ask whether it came from the White House.

“Go back to Moldova, you mascara-sucking cretin.”

“Go back” – a verbal phrase.
“Moldova” – a country.
“suck” – suck is a verb.
“cretin” – a stupid person or a term for a medical condition.

Oh I get it. Instead of taking time to read their comment, you just mentally replaced some letters for others letters.

So, it was your fault all along.

It is an issue similar to the definition of porn.
It is in the eye of beholder.

You know it when you see it or, in the case of words, hear it.

What is the purpose of using a foul language – to insult a person.

I do not care about the form used to do it – the substance is important. You can go ahead and continue splitting hairs about the definition of foul language.

Once again, as always, wrong. “Foul language” is profanity, scatology, or blasphemy. Mere insult isn't strong enough to qualify.

Besides, “mascara-sucking cretin” was mild. I could have called you a “Schiavoesque drooler,” a “molester of virgin goats,” a “spunk-drinking pole dancing victim of St. Vitus's Dance,” or a “father raping schizophrenic with a diaper fetish.” Note that I didn't, and count your blessings.

Also, you're still wrong about the President.

Have a nice day.

Do you feel better now?

If I have to be a virtual pinata so be it.

The last thing I want to do is to go into the gutter and have a shouting match with an angry woman.

Don't forget. It was war zone 10 thousand miles away from where she lived.

Only when you shut up and stop yammering about things you don't understand.

WND asked Gibbs about the Kapiolani letter and he would not confirm it.
Kapiolani Hospital refused to confirm its authenticity as well. You can rationalize it as much as you want but, for a person with an ounce of common sense, their behavior contradicts the official birthplace story.

If one had any doubt about Obama's character before the elections, countless lies and broken promises during the last 12 months should have taught you to be at least suspicious about his birthplace claims.

Nothing Obama or any of his apologists SAY about his birthplace will cause me to change my opinion. I will believe the official birthplace story when the original birth certificate is released.

In the meantime I'll have fun at his expense.
Obama, the “genius president”, using a teleprompter to address the 4th grade kids: http://theobamafile.com/_opinion/WhoSaysObamaSm…

Lies of Obama:

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/21/lies-of-obama/

* During the presidential campaign Obama criticized the presence of former lobbyists in the Bush administration and solemnly assured us that he would appoint no lobbyists to his administration; but once elected he proceeded to appoint even more lobbyists than his predecessors.

* Obama criticized the size of George Bush’s deficit and promised to stop deficit spending if elected; but he has already quadrupled the size of the deficit he objected to and recklessly continues new federal spending in the trillions.

* When campaigning Obama criticized bills before the congress that were too long for anyone to be able to read and promised to stop that; but the bills he has been backing throughout his first year are infinitely longer (2000+ pages) than the ones he criticized.

* Candidate Obama promised an end to the corruption of earmarks and pork, but in the bills he has supported this year there have been more and bigger earmarks than ever before.

* Candidate Obama criticized his opponent’s plan to tax employer paid healthcare benefits, and promised he would not tax them; but the bill he now backs will do just that.

LOL!

Wow. What an amazing way to debunk a genuine birth certificate, with utter nonsense and misinformation. Nothing has to do with the silly conspiracy theory that you subscribe to.

WND is a satirical site. I would have though that you would have known that.

What genuine birth certificate are you talking about? We have no idea what Dr. Fukino used as a source for her statement. As far as we know Obama's original birth certificate could have been filed by a relative. The COLB document presented to the public says nothing about it.

The official story mentions Kapiolani hospital but we are yet to see any document to prove it.

The lying usurper cannot show something that does not exist.

Hmmm. I wonder who is really lying.

You really think the State of Hawaii will allow a person who doesn't the correct authorization to access the vital records in the Department of Health.

Your suggestions about how Hawaii ensures the authenticity of their vital records are disillusioned at best and juvenile at worst.

Please reread Hawaii's status on who can access vital records.

Obama promised to use C-Span to broadcast the health care bill negotiations:

Select the second video (Obama's image):
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/06/press-cor…

Lied again?

More misinformation. I thought the negotiations was better the various represents of the Congress and the Senate in their respective houses. When you make something up, please make sure that it has some semblance of truth.

You do not understand what I am saying here.

The original birth certificate (from 1961) could have been filed by a relative. Dr. Fukino could be repeating a lie put on the paper by a relative who submitted a false birth registration.

Obama can authorize the DoH to release this document at any time.

We have seen the original birth certificate for John McCain, Obama's is still hidden from public.

Those are video clips of Obama telling lies during the presidential campaign in 2008.

Are you a US citizen? Did you vote for Obama?

Yes, I do. I makes absolutely no sense.There is absolutely no way a relative could have “filed” the birth certificate, since that is not how it works. The original birth certificate is filed by the registrar in Hawaii's department of health. That is how the process work. It is part of the process to ensure the integrity of the vital records. However, you looking for any reason to justify your disillusion just don't understand that.

How silly are you many of them were debunked during the presidential campaign. When a person engages in spreading misinformation, then unless what is writing is known to be absolute truth it must be discarded as more misinformation.

We all know that you weren't born as a US citizen.

We understand very well what you are saying, NC. Where we differ is that you are wrong about the President and refuse to admit it.

Go away. You are tiresome, argumentative, and willfully ignorant.

Has nothing to do with the President's eligibility for office.

Have fun in your nasty little world of conspiracies. You're missing out on so much, but it's your choice.

And George W. Bush lied to get us into a massively expensive and destructive war, stole an election, appointed liars and frauds to office, stood by while a major city drowned, supported a theocratic movement that wrecked government scientific research, suppressed reports he didn't like, stood by while a CIA agent was outed and her contacts were put at risk (possibly even killed), destroyed American prestige abroad, and wrecked the financial system. Sorry, but I'll take Obama over Shrub any day of the week.

Yes, and yes. Clearly you didn't, and clearly you loathe Obama, but your obsession with getting him out of office based on ridiculous rumors is disgusting.

WND should be glad GIbbs spoke to them at all. That site is nothing but lies and distortions.

And since you won't change your (erroneous) opinion, why are you wasting your time trying to change anyone else's mind? You're still wrong.

Obama lied so many times about other things. Why would eligibility be any different?

Are you a US citizen? Did you vote for Obama?

Hope and Change? LOL!

* Obama criticized the size of George Bush’s deficit and promised to stop deficit spending if elected; but he has already quadrupled the size of the deficit he objected to and recklessly continues new federal spending in the trillions.

* During the presidential campaign Obama criticized the presence of former lobbyists in the Bush administration and solemnly assured us that he would appoint no lobbyists to his administration; but once elected he proceeded to appoint even more lobbyists than his predecessors.

* When campaigning Obama criticized bills before the congress that were too long for anyone to be able to read and promised to stop that; but the bills he has been backing throughout his first year are infinitely longer (2000+ pages) than the ones he criticized.

* Candidate Obama promised an end to the corruption of earmarks and pork, but in the bills he has supported this year there have been more and bigger earmarks than ever before.

* Candidate Obama criticized his opponent’s plan to tax employer paid healthcare benefits, and promised he would not tax them; but the bill he now backs will do just that.

LOL.
The Hawaii law for registering births in 1961 was full of holes like Swiss cheese.

Why is Obama hiding the original birth certificate?

Of course you and your little birther friends have always told the truth at all times and have never once tried to edit or redact any tape recordings, support forged documents, suborn perjury, or outright lie in your attempts to remove the legally elected President from office…

Yes, seventh-generation. Yes, and I would vote for him again.

We have seen the original birth certificate for John McCain, Obama's is still hidden from public.

The coward-in-chief is hiding behind Dr. Fukino's skirt.

We have seen the original birth certificate for John McCain, Obama's is still hidden from public.

The coward-in-chief is hiding behind Dr. Fukino's skirt.

Documents have been submitted to courts under the penalty of perjury. If something is not true – let the authors be prosecuted for it.The trouble is, Obama does not want to get courts involved in examining the evidence about his birthplace.

How difficult is it to show the original birth certificate? LOL!

Gibb(el)s should ask for a raise. It is not easy to lie with a straight face, he ought to be paid more for his efforts to cover for Obama, LOL!

If I won't change your opinion you have a choice to ignore my posts.

Already shown, as you well know.

Already shown, as you well know.

Already shown, as you well know.

Already posted over a year ago, you dribbling gadfly.

Not relevant to questions of eligibility. Go shill for the Republicans somewhere else, like Chernobyl.

???????? ???????????? ??.

Why are you wasting your time posting here? You know you're wrong, and you know that you won't change anyone's mind.

This is the most sensible thing this boorish and uncultured poster has ever written.

You lied – the original birth certificate has not been shown to the public.

It has everything to do with exposing Obama's (lying)character. Do you think that a different Obama is claiming the Hawaii birth?

I am not willing to give a benefit of a doubt to a proven LIAR.

Where is the original birth certificate?

Time will tell who is wrong.

As a historian – aren't you at least curious to see the original birth certificate?

Opet si pila?

The image of a derivative document (COLB) has been posted on a friendly web site. The original birth certificate is safely hidden in the DoH archive.

I am just practicing the freedom of speech by pointing out the facts about Obama's eligibility issue and lies told in the past year indicating his true nature.

Think of E. European immigrants as antibodies that can detect presence of communist cells in the US society.

You could also think of me as of toothache. It has its purpose to tell you that something is wrong with your tooth. Without it you will not seek dentist's help and the consequences will be much worse.
Once you resolve the source of the problem the toothache will disappear.

Sure, a different (truth speaking) Obama claimed Hawaii birth.

*yawns and buffs nails*

You're still uncultured, and you're still a buffoon.

*chuckles gently*

I'll leave that to the actual Presidential historians who will write the President's biography and discuss his policies. Of course, they'll go by the legal birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii, which was published on-line over a year ago….

Your hatred has blinded to you to your own obsession. Go spit in the wind.

The legal birth certificate was released over a year ago. You know this.

ANTIBODIES?????

*laughs uncontrollably*

Don’t you mean white blood cells? And don’t you know what white blood cells become?

Why, they become PUS. And guess what happens to pus? It needs to be EXPELLED.

So it looks like NC/Orly/whatever has just said that Eastern European immigrants should be expelled from America because they’re nothing but pus! BWAHAHAHA!!!!!!

*catches breath*

And oh, yet more evidence that this is either Orly Taitz or someone very close to her:

DENTAL METAPHORS.

Previous post translation:
You've been drinking again?

The President claimed, accurately, to have been born in Honolulu. Unless and until someone PROVES otherwise, anything else is garbage.

*yawns and buffs nails*

Even if I had been, eventually a drunk sobers up. The same cannot be said for someone who is ignorant and enjoys it.

“The image of a derivative document (COLB) has been posted on a friendly web site. The original birth certificate is safely hidden in the DoH archive.”

First, conservatives claim that FactCheck is biased against them. Fine. But there are plenty of liberals who also say FactCheck is biased against them. So I’m not very receptive to the argument that FactCheck is pro-Obama or “friendly” to Obama without some supporting data.

Second, where’s the evidence indicating the pictures posted by FactCheck are in any way suspect?

The original birth certificate remains in the DoH files. And the DoH has issued an official document derived from those very files stating Obama was born in Hawaii.

You argue that Obama may not have been born in Hawaii. But none of these arguments has anything to do with proving or even suggesting he wasn’t born in Hawaii.

“Where is the original birth certificate?”

Asked and answered.

“The coward-in-chief is hiding behind Dr. Fukino's skirt.”

Alleged and refuted.

“The Hawaii law for registering births in 1961 was full of holes like Swiss cheese.”

Here is the unavoidable fact: None of those “holes” permitts a child to obtain a birth certificate stating a Hawaii birth if any facts or supporting documents stated or indicated otherwise. And you’ve never even attempted to argue otherwise.

The only thing you’re left with is that all the documentation is in order, but that it could still be wrong.

That’s not much to build a case on. So all you’re left with is insinuations and suspicions, but nothing more.

“The original birth certificate (from 1961) could have been filed by a relative. Dr. Fukino could be repeating a lie put on the paper by a relative who submitted a false birth registration.”

Pretending that such a scenario is in fact the case, if Obama authoritizes the release of this document, you're still left with a document which states he was born in Hawaii.

So then what do you do with it?

“We have no idea what Dr. Fukino used as a source for her statement.”

Oh, but we do. She said she'd seen his “birth certificate,” which according to the COLB – as a derivative document – can only show that he was born in Hawaii. You can claim it might be the result of a false statement, but merely alleging that is not the same thing as proving it.

“The lying usurper cannot show something that does not exist.”

Funny you should say that, considering that the underpinning for your argument is the possibility that, somehwere in the files of the DoH, sits an official document, filed by a relative, stating that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. So you're trying to demonstrate Obama wasn't born in Hawaii by alleging the existence of a particular document which would indicate that he was born in Hawaii.

“Kapiolani Hospital refused to confirm its authenticity as well.”

That's untrue. WND itself reported Keala Peters, director of marketing and communications for Hawaii Pacific Health, as saying:

“The original is something that we treasure, and we know that it came from Mr. Obama.”

“Nothing Obama or any of his apologists SAY about his birthplace will cause me to change my opinion.”

Logically reviewing the law and the evidence and arriving at the conclusion that there is no serious cause to doubt the “official story,” if you will, is not apologism, although perhaps the two are equivalent to you. Notice that I do not accuse you of having any particular set of political beliefs merely because of your line of questioning regarding Obama. I review the substance of your claims and address them with facts and evidence. Whether you're a libertarian devotee of the Austrian school of economics, a a tea-party or religious conservative, a member of the John Birch Society, or a Lyndon LaRouche or Philip Berg Democrat, is immaterial.

Furthermore, I am not “saying” anything about Obama's birthplace. I am pointing out that the evidence by which you dispute Obama's birth is thin, contradictory, pooly-reasoned, and at odds with history, the law and the facts.

“I will believe the official birthplace story when the original birth certificate is released.”

Although I'd like to believe that, your abject cynisicm regarding anything originating from Obama or the DoH leads me to doubt that.

Furthermore, that is only Stage One of your “usurper” claims, since you also subscribe to the erroneous belief that the U.S. Constitution requires that the President of the United States have both parents as U.S. citizens at the time of birth, regardless of where he/she was born. I have pointed out decision after decision, historical reference after historical reference, plus the proper historical and logical contexts of those decisions and references, and yet you're convinced that your assertion is the law of the land. So the birth certificate argument is really a red herring. I get that.

But it's amusing and fascinating observing how your mind thinks. That's why I still bother at all with any of this.

We know that she mentioned the original vital records (whatever she ment by it). If we give her the benefiit of a doubt and assume that her statement is based on the original birth certificate – it would still remain unknown whether the original was filed by a relative or the Kapiolani Hospital.

It always thought that Dr. Fukino's press-release statements were technically correct – she was very careful not to perjure herself. That is why the first press-release was written in pure “legalese” language and she refused to comment on any follow-up questions about the second one. She does not want to get tripped (contradict her pevious statements) by answering any questions.

You got a part of my post wrong: I am saying that Obama cannot show the original birth certificate indicating the birth in the Kapiolani Hospital. If he could, we would have seen it long time ago.

One way to get to the bottom of the issue is to have a Congressional investigation. Looking at the current shift of political winds (if the economy does not improve before November elections), there could be one after the next elections.

There isn't going to be a Congressional investigation in this or any other year, as you well know. Life is not a cheap airport paperback, and the President isn't going anywhere.

*rolls eyes*

Are you Orly Taitz?

Yep. You definitely are a commie. USA and another government put in every measure to ensure that every document they deal with is accurate and correct. Just because in the country you grew-up was plagued by corruption and bribes doesn’t mean America is or ever was.

Let me put something so you can understand. Honestly, I don't care but your nonsense is starting to get silly.

Just like marriages, deaths and divorcees every detail about a birth is check and verified to be accurate.

This is how it works in countries like America. People actually take pride in the work that they do. With sensitive things such births they are extra careful. Yes, this was the same now as it was in 1961.

We now that you grew up in a communist country, however the disillusion that you poses doesn't occur in America.

If you are an American citizen or have a green card, please return it. You have uttered words that are offensive to all Americans, even those who disagree with the presidents policies.

Interesting that NC didn't respond either to JohnC or Anthony. What's wrong, NC? Finally realizing that you're not going to win with anyone, ever?

Personally I'm with Anthony. If you so hate America that you're willing to lie and attempt to bring down her legally elected and duly sworn President, you need to go back to wherever you came from. Seriously. You advocate a hell of a lot more than merely disagreeing with the President, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

No.

I know – it is hidden in the DoH archive. Why would Obama choose to keep it a secret? There is no rational explanation for his behavior about this issue.

You are focused on individual trees, you fail to see the forest.

Prove it. Otherwise, shut up and stop whining about all the strange “coincidences,” like mangled English, invalid legal theories, dental references, and an Eastern European background.

Of course there is. First, there's no need for it since he's already produced his legal birth certificate. Second, the Hawaiian government no longer produces copies or offers original hospital certificates for inspection. Third, who cares except a bunch of makeup addicts?

That’s rich, coming from someone who parses every single syllable in the relevant Hawaiian law…and is always, always wrong.

“Just like marriages, deaths and divorcees every detail about a birth is check and verified to be accurate”

LOL.

Two “fine” examples of birth certificate fraud:
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/newsreleases06/pr200…

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

If everything is fine with Obama's birth certificate – why is the original hidden from US public?

Did you consider protests against Bush unpatriotic?

When did Hawaii government decide not to print long form certificates any more?

Did it happen beffore or after the Obama eligibility question was rasied?

You're certainly a lazy and deceitful piece of crap.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Prove it. You lie about everything.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Opet si pila?

You are smart enough to figure out the language, aren't you?
I assure you that this language is not spoken in Moldova, LOL!

And you could be a paranoid, incestuous pedophile.

So much is possible.

Idiot.

“We know that she mentioned the original vital records (whatever she ment by it).”

Again, factually incorrect. In her October 31, 2008 statement, Fukino said:

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

“I am saying that Obama cannot show the original birth certificate indicating the birth in the Kapiolani Hospital. If he could, we would have seen it long time ago.”

That is your reasoning, but obviously I don't share it. The fact that no additional birth records have been released does not indicate what is or isn't on those records.

“One way to get to the bottom of the issue is to have a Congressional investigation.”

Why don't those self-proclaimed doubters of Obama's birth certificate in Congress stand up and take action if they really believe there's anything to their suspicions?

“You are focused on individual trees, you fail to see the forest.”

The forest is this: You claim Obama may not have been born in Hawaii. But rather than obtaining documents showing the alternate location and circumstances of Obama’s birth, you demand to see an official document which you admit would at the very least state that Obama was born in Hawaii.

And you think I’m missing the point?

Liar. Moldova was part of the USSR for most of the 20th century.

2001 or thereabouts, when Barack Obama was an obscure Illinois state senator.

Protests against Bush are nothing like attempts to remove Obama via non-Constitutional means.

Agreed. There are too many coincidences at this point. Prove you aren't Orly or shut up.

Wrong!

I have no idea what you are talking about. You are answering a question that nobody asked.

The first sentence from my previous post is neither Moldovan nor Russian language.

As a historian you should know that USSR was not the only communist country in Eastern Europe.

Nobody is trying to remove Obama, we are only trying to verify his eligibility for the office.

What is non-Constitutional about the question whether a person is eligible for the office?

Did you consider protests against Bush unpatriotic (yes /no)?

Report of birth in Indonesia = tree.
Report of birth in Kenya = tree
Queen’s Hospital birth = tree

Claim of Kapiolani birth so late in the game = tree

All personal documents sealed from public = tree

SSN number normally issued for residents of CT = tree

DoH behavior = multiple trees

Campaigning for Raila Odinga (who expelled Jerome Corsi from country) = tree

Fighting for the DISMISSAL of eligibility lawsuits = tree

Posting a COLB image on the web and lying that the ORIGINAL birth certificate was presented to the public = tree

The first COLB posted on the web (Daily Kos) was an obvious forgery = tree

Lying about numerous campaign promises = tree(s)

Ridiculing people who ask a simple birthplace question = tree
…

My response to naturalizedcitizen:

“Report of birth in Indonesia = tree.”

What report?

“Report of birth in Kenya = tree”

What report?

“Queen's Hospital birth = tree”

Where is the source of the information that Obama was born at Queen's? A high school newspaper?

“Claim of Kapiolani birth so late in the game = tree”

When has any person from the Obama family or associated with this whole deal stated that Obama was born anywhere other than Kapi'olani?

“All personal documents sealed from public = tree”

If you're talking about the presidential executive order claim, that's a red herring, since the EO by definition doesn't encompass “personal documents.” If you're talking about Obama's birth documents, you're forgetting the COLB itself. If you're talking about Obama's school records, ironically his school record from Indonesia – which has been used to claim he was an Indonesian citizen – specifically states he was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961.

“SSN number normally issued for residents of CT = tree”

This is as bogus a claim as it gets. I also have access to personal data and social security lookups. I was able to find some 200 people with the surname of Obama in a database lookup. Of them, at least three were named “Barack Obama.” One is President of the United States. Another owns a realty company in Newton, NJ. Another has a New Mexico telephone number. It may very well be that Barrack (or Barack) Obama is an unusual name, but not a unique one as we had all been led to believe. Furthermore, one has to take account of the fact that most SSN or people searches on Lexis or Westlaw turn up artifacts which are not correct, either through misspellings or other incorrectly entered data.

I have yet to see any other private investigator replicate the results that Orly Taitz's investigator came up with.

“DoH behavior = multiple trees”

This is completely without merit. These folks are following Hawaii law as they have to do every day in connection with all the vital records they have on hand.

“Campaigning for Raila Odinga (who expelled Jerome Corsi from country) = tree”

Obama spoke with Odinga long before the birth certificate “issue” became a big deal in the birther subculture. Not relevant.

“Fighting for the DISMISSAL of eligibility lawsuits = tree”

What are U.S. government officials supposed to do? Default against elegibility claims? Are you at all connected with reality?

“Posting a COLB image on the web and lying that the ORIGINAL birth certificate was presented to the public = tree”

You're assuming that everyone else is as careful with their terminology as we are. For all intents and purposes, including legally, the COLB is the effective birth certificate, and someone who is holding the document provided directly by the State of Hawaii is holding the original.

“The first COLB posted on the web (Daily Kos) was an obvious forgery = tree”

Most birthers have based their claims on Polarik's analysis of online images of the COLB. Other forensic experts are not impressed with his analysis:

http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/arc…

http://koyaan.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/polariks…

http://xenon.arcticus.com/barack-obama-birth-ce…

“Lying about numerous campaign promises = tree(s)”

Irrelevant. This is an inappropriate attempt to inject the brass-knuckles world of electoral politics into a factual inquiry as to the circumstances of Obama's birth.

If a politician's failure to keep campaign promises is reason to conduct a full background investigation of a political figure, why was this not done for Bush 43 and all the presidents who came before him? Were they all angels who were true to their word? I think not.

“Ridiculing people who ask a simple birthplace question = tree”

Again. Irrelevant. The fact that people have strong opinions on the subject does not make the underlying facts stronger or weaker, unless you somehow believe that the people who are ridiculing you and others like you are knowing members of an organized plot to conceal a known truth inconsistent with public-proclaimed facts.

Please stop lying. It is most unattractive.

And the answer is yes, it was patriotic to protest Bush and his administration *because the protests were directed at his policies.* It is very unpatriotic to spread lies about the President, filth about his mother, and do as much as you can to “prove” that he is ineligible for office, which of course is intended to force him out without recourse to the much more difficult process of impeachment and conviction (which of course requires *actual evidence* of bribery, treason, or similar actions, none of which the President has done).

And nobody except you and your tribe of thumb-walking bush babies believes the lies you spread about the President.

Give it up. We're on to your stupid little games.

Right.

http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualin…

First two – lies that were debunked long ago.

Third – never claimed by the President.

Fourth – accurate.

Fifth – we have privacy laws here, unlike whichever nasty little hole you fled to avoid being ethnically cleansed.

Sixth – debunked.

Seventh – debunked.

Eighth – debunked.

Ninth – so stupid as to beggar the imagination.

Tenth – the image was accurate. The birther “experts” were either mistaken or lying.

Eleventh – wrong.

Twelfth – wrong.

Thirteenth – sorry we haven’t stroked your piddly little baby girl’s blouse sized ego enough, but you’ll have to get the roses and champagne from someone who believes in the lies you spout every single time you post.

And oh, fourteenth – try not to swallow your mascara wand next time, okay? Showing at the emergency room with acute Maybelline poisoning wastes the time and resources that could be better spent on relief for the people in Haiti, who actually are suffering and could use the time and energy you’re spending on this idiocy.

If I believed that Obama was not eligible for office it would be my patriotic duty to oppose the usurper.

It is up to the candidate to prove that he is eligible for the job.

You did not get my main point. You are still focused on individual issues related to the Obama's birthplace debate (“trees” in my metaphor).

Even if you could prove that all “trees” are without leaves, dead, their collection in one place where none are expected, would not be an ordinary situation.

Obama could end the birthplace story at any moment by authorizing the release of the original birth certificate.
I know, he has more important things to do, preparing for the next empty public speech. T(eleprompter)OTUS

Few comments on individual issues:

The point about Kapiolani is simple – I found it strange that neither his books nor anybody else mentions it before January 2009, after the inauguration and 5 months after the first eligibility lawsuit. People in Obama's camp knew that snopes.com reported the Queen's hospital. Given the noise about the eligibility issue it is odd that they did not mention Kapiolani as birth hospital much earlier than they did.

Personal documents sealed: I am not referring to the EO. The school records, college records – nothing is public. In the absence of the original birth certificat e it would be helpful to have other documents confirming his birthplace/citizenship.

The SSN comment is interesting. It is irrelevant whether anybody else can exactly duplicate report made by Susane Daniels. The important thing is whether the number reported is the one Obama used. According to her report since 1986 Obama used only one SSN at multiple addresses mostly in Chicago. If this was incorrect, I have no doubt that her work would have been criticized mercilessly.

Fighting for the dismissal of eligibility lawsuits: If Obama had a proper original birth certificate, why not send it to the court and then ask for the dismissal of lawsuit if he thought that lawsuit had no merit.

It is very suspicious when the first example of Obama's “birth certificate” surfaced as an image posted on a left wing web site. It looked like a trial balloon. Once comments were solicited, subsequent images were better giving the appearance of a work in progress.

Campaign promises broken: This fact indicates that Obama is just another lying politician. It illustrates his character. How can we trust that he told the truth about his birthplace?

Ridiculing birthers in the media is indicative of the tactic to shut down those asking the eligibility question. They knew that this would stop the majority of Congress members to get involved at all. Joe the Plumber was a prime example what would happen to anyone who dared to challenge Obama.

No, I understand your main point very well. You hate the President and will support any lie that undermines the legitimacy of his tenure.

Which he already has done to the satisfaction of his party, the Federal Election Commission, and the voters.

Also, for the umpteenth time, democracies do not have usurpers. Are you longing for the glory days of King Zog?

Nonsense from beginning to end.

Well stated but you're arguing with severely deranged, paranoid fuckwad with more spare time than common sense. A true embarrassment to everything the U.S. represents.

You truly are an idiot. Let's watch you change the subject repeatedly like a good, little, cowardly piece of crap.

“It is very suspicious . . .”

As if your deranged delusions matter. You're an insignificant fuckwad. But please continue. It will help ensure the re-election of the incumbent.

Dumbass.

No. It wouldn't. You, like all birfers, are a sick fuck who will never believe the obvious truth. I believe the Hawaii DOH. You are no one.

Teleprompter?

Like this one?

When words get in the way, Bush goes phonetic
Wed Sep 26, 2007
By Matt Spetalnick

NEW YORK (Reuters) – How do you keep a leader as verbally gaffe-prone as U.S. President George W. Bush from making even more slips of the tongue?

When Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, the White House inadvertently showed exactly how — with a phonetic pronunciation guide on the teleprompter to get him past troublesome names of countries and world leaders.

The White House was left scrambling to explain after a marked-up draft of Bush's speech popped up briefly on the U.N. Web site as he delivered his remarks, giving a rare glimpse of the special guidance he gets for major addresses.

It included phonetic spellings for French President Nicolas Sarkozy (sar-KO-zee), a friend, and Zimbabwe leader Robert Mugabe (moo-GAH-bee), a target of U.S. human rights criticism.

Pronunciations were also provided for Kyrgyzstan (KEYR-geez-stan), Mauritania (moor-EH-tain-ee-a) and the Zimbabwe capital Harare (hah-RAR-ray).

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the draft, labelled the 20th version and complete with typos and speechwriters' cellphone numbers, had been turned over in advance to help U.N. interpreters who must simultaneously translate leaders' speeches into several languages.

Bush's text also had to be loaded onto a teleprompter to appear on screens in front of the podium as he spoke.

“There was an error made,” Perino told reporters. “I don't know how the draft of the speech that was not final was posted but it was and it was taken back.”

Idiot.

Like you, irrelevant.

As usual, you're making shit up.

Because WND never lies?

You're an idiot.

WND's MANY LIES:
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2010/wndo…
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2009/wndb…

Every President since Reagan has used a teleprompter. Bush had to have words spelled phonetically because he's mentally challenged. McCain used a teleprompter to remind him of where he was.

And you're an idiot.

Countless lies?

Again, you're an idiot and a deceitful piece of shit at that.

Promise Kept 91
Compromise 33
Promise Broken 15
Stalled 87
In the Works 275
Not yet rated 2

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

You’re an idiot.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

You have no standing to dispute Dr. Fukino. You’re a paranoid, insignificant fuckwad with WAAAAAAAY more spare time than common sense. You can drool all you want. You’re still a lying piece of shit.

His personal tax information was leaked to the media. Why was it necessary to dig dirt on him – to discourage others from criticizing Obama?

Nice – divert the topic.
Bush was a portrayed as a dummy. Should Obama (a genius) be held to the same low standard as a dummy?

Obama chose to put the first image of COLB on a left wing web site. It is suspicious that they did not release it to all interested media.

It would have been much more credible if he released the document to a web site ideologically different from his own.

Do you remember how Bush allowed Woodward to participate in the meetings in the White House in post 9/11 world? He sent a message that nothing sinister was going on behind closed doors – he was willing to let the reporter (whose reporting ultimately sink Nixon's presidency) have unprecedented access to key players shaping the administration's policies.

Obama could have done the same with his birth certificate. He could have found a respected conservative media outlet and let them verify the document.

*rolls eyes*

Take your paranoia and go back to Sarajevo. Unless of course you're wanted for war crimes and are here because you'd be ethnically cleansed by your victims, that is.

Once again, wrong. News organizations finding and releasing *public information* about a celebrity, like income, employment history, and, yes, tax information, is not leaking anything. It's perfectly legal, and if Joe the Plumber had wanted the fact that his name is not Joe and he is not a plumber kept secret, he was perfectly free to keep his big mouth shut instead of claiming that he was planning to buy a business he could neither afford nor was legally authorized to run.

It also didn't hurt his career as a professional right wing idiot, which took off in 2009, well after the mainstream media revealed the less than glamorous truth about Mr. Wurzelbacher….

You're forgetting that unlike Bush, the current President can speak perfectly well if the teleprompter goes off. He also doesn't need to be given phonetic spellings of the names of foreign countries or leaders.

How does he pronounce names of states 51 through 57, LOL?

Irrelevant to questions of eligibility.

“The point about Kapiolani is simple – I found it strange that neither his books nor anybody else mentions it before January 2009, after the inauguration and 5 months after the first eligibility lawsuit. People in Obama's camp knew that snopes.com reported the Queen's hospital. Given the noise about the eligibility issue it is odd that they did not mention Kapiolani as birth hospital much earlier than they did.”

I highly doubt Obama ever had people working full-time to track every theory about his birth, or whether every site got Obama's birth hospital correct. With so many newspapers passing along the incorrect information that Obama was born at Queen's, it is completely reasonable that staffers assigned to research the issue thought he was born at Queen's.

The failure to correct the Queen's story early on is only indicative of some sinister plot if you are willing to believe there's some intricately choreographed conspiracy of misinformation afoot. And even then, it doesn't make any rational sense. Why would Obama or his campaign knowingly state that he was born in a hospital where he wasn't born, given the risk that Queen's could have contradicted the story publicly by stating he wasn't born there?

“Personal documents sealed: I am not referring to the EO. The school records, college records – nothing is public. In the absence of the original birth certificate it would be helpful to have other documents confirming his birthplace/citizenship.”

As I pointed out in my original post, that's not true. The very document that WND touted showing Obama's supposed Indonesian citizenship also stated unequivocally that he was born in Honolulu. Soetero had absolutely no reason to lie to Indonesian officials on this point, as they wouldn't have cared whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya.

“The SSN comment is interesting. It is irrelevant whether anybody else can exactly duplicate report made by Susan Daniels. The important thing is whether the number reported is the one Obama used. According to her report, since 1986 Obama used only one SSN at multiple addresses mostly in Chicago. If this was incorrect, I have no doubt that her work would have been criticized mercilessly.”

The problem, of course, is that people opposing the birther movement have not been as motivated to hire investigators to review supposed SSN records as have been the birthers themselves. The fact is, though, that when I ran a search, it gave me completely different results than Daniels.

“Fighting for the dismissal of eligibility lawsuits: If Obama had a proper original birth certificate, why not send it to the court and then ask for the dismissal of lawsuit if he thought that lawsuit had no merit.”

Because it provides after-the-fact justification to the tactic of using lawsuits to challenge the credibility of an official state-issued document like the COLB. The fact that people can't accept a state-issued document for the proposition for which it is created to represent should not be a reason for others who do accept it to bend over backward to cater to them.

“It is very suspicious when the first example of Obama's “birth certificate” surfaced as an image posted on a left wing web site. It looked like a trial balloon. Once comments were solicited, subsequent images were better giving the appearance of a work in progress.”

A work “in progress”? What is that supposed to mean?

“Campaign promises broken: This fact indicates that Obama is just another lying politician. It illustrates his character. How can we trust that he told the truth about his birthplace?”

I reiterate my response: George W. Bush was notoriously dishonest with his statements about WND in Iraq, and no one questioned whether he was born in New Haven, Connecticut, as claimed.

“Ridiculing birthers in the media is indicative of the tactic to shut down those asking the eligibility question.”

I'm not a big fan of the blanket ridicule myself, although I can't say I blame people for being dumbfounded by silly arguments that Obama produced a fraudulent COLB (which requires a massive conspiracy of silence), or that the COLB represents something other than what is actually listed on Obama's source vital records (which perverts what we commonly understand about birth certificates and requires official complicity in fraud).

It's a free country. People are free to call a spade a spade. If they think and argument is asinine, they'll speak their minds.

“They knew that this would stop the majority of Congress members to get involved at all.”

Now you're placing people with honest objections to birther conspiracy theories into those very conspiracies. That's rich.

“Joe the Plumber was a prime example what would happen to anyone who dared to challenge Obama.”

I'm sorry, but have we been inhabiting the same country over the past year? Are you really attempting to make the argument that critics of Obama have been passive or muted over the past year? We're talking about a political dialogue which has devolved to ignorant claims that Obama is a Nazi, a Maoist, a communist, a socialist, a Marxist, a Stalinist, a Muslim, a racist, a statist – sometimes all in the same breath. Obama has been accused of trying to kill old people and put Americans into concentration camps – occasionally by people who by virtue of their elected positions obviously know better. And you have the gall to suggest that people challenging Obama's birth have been afraid to “dare to challenge Obama”? You're really in denial, aren't you?

Absolutely brilliant, especially the last paragraph.

By the way, it's worth pointing out that good ol' Joe didn't fare so badly himself:

http://www.amazon.com/Joe-Plumber-Fighting-Amer…

“Even if you could prove that all “trees” are without leaves, dead, their collection in one place where none are expected, would not be an ordinary situation.”

If all the trees were without leaves and dead, we wouldn't have much of a forest, would we?

“Obama could end the birthplace story at any moment by authorizing the release of the original birth certificate.”

Lord how I wish it were so. But we know better than that. And that's precisely why no further documentation has been released.

“How does he pronounce names of states 51 through 57, LOL?”

Every politician has that urban legend that dogs him unfairly.

Bush Sr. was accused of not knowing what a supermarket scanner was, when in fact he had been shown an advanced piece of equipment at a technology show.

Gore was accused of saying he invented the internet, when he never said such a thing.

Bush Jr. was alleged to have said “strategery,” when he never used such a term.

Obama is accused of saying he had actually visited 57 states, when an actual transcript of what he said clearly shows he meant to say 47 states:

“'It is wonderful to be back in Oregon,' Obama said. 'Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.'”

(What the transcript doesn't tell you is that Obama hesitated between “fifty” and “seven.”)

So, let's see 50 states minus one of the continental states, minus Alaska and Hawaii gives us… wait for it… 47 states.

This isn't rocket science.

How did “trees” appear in the desert where none are supposed to be found?

The reason why the original document was not released is very simple – it would not confirm the official birthplace story.

The Obama camp's behavior makes no sense if the official story were true.

And your posts make no sense at all.

The document from the elementary school in Indonesia also says that Obama is an Indonesian citizen and a Muslim. Do you want to cherry-pick the information from this document?

“The fact is, though, that when I ran a search, it gave me completely different results than Daniels.”
Are you saying that she got the SSN wrong?

Work in Progress:
An example of a Hawaii COLB
http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/HawaiiBirth…

Obama's first attempt at COLB:
http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/ObamaBirthC…

Final version:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_ce…

Notice also difference in “Filed” vs. “Accepted” used on the same form version.

Why shouldn't JohnC cherry pick the information? You and the other birthers certainly have.

I'm also waiting to hear how the state can file a document that it hasn't accepted. Please enlighten us with your superior logic, intellect, and ethnic cleansing-honed English skills.

It is very difficult to see how his encounter with the President did anything but enrich Joe the Wannabe Plumber. Then again, I didn't spend much of the 90s dodging crazed bigots in Montengro/Bosnia/Yugoslavia/Upper Slobbovia/Lower Slobbovia/Lumbago/The Laxative Isles, so what do I know?

As one pundit put it a while ago, we could have videotape of the President being born on a Honolulu beach surrounded by hula dancers, Diamond Head in the background, with Don Ho strumming a ukelele and singing “Tiny Bubbles” to distract Ann Dunham during her contractions, and the birthers STILL wouldn't believe it. They are convinced that it's much more logical that a pregnant teenager would fly 10,000 miles to give birth in a war zone where she knew no one and had no relatives, even in-laws, and then smuggle her paperless newborn back into the United States in time to bribe a hospital into lying about this unknown infant, to the plain and simple truth that the President was born in Hawaii.

Tom Clancy and his ilk have much to answer for.

“The document from the elementary school in Indonesia also says that Obama is an Indonesian citizen and a Muslim. Do you want to cherry-pick the information from this document?”

I don't need to cherry-pick the document. The fact is Soetero's claim that Obama was an Indonesia citizen would have been much more straightforward if Obama had actually been born in Indonesia. Would you at least agree to that?

But Soetoro listed Obama as born in Hawaii. Had Obama been born in Kenya, it would have had the same effect as saying Obama had been born in the U.S. – because it was a location outside Indonesia – so there was no reason for Soetoro to fudge between them one way or another.

Whether Obama actually became an Indonesian citizen under Indonesian law is, of course, irrelevant to our discussion. By operation of applicable U.S. law, Obama's subsequent return to the U.S. as a permanent resident before age 25 obviates any impact this could have had on his ongoing status as a natural-born U.S. citizen.

As for the religion designation, that is curious, since it was for a Catholic school. On the other hand, we're not talking about a verifiable fact like birthplace, but a claim of faith made by the new stepfather of a young child – a child who had been raised by a single mother who at best was agnostic. So Soetero may well have viewed his own religious faith as a default for his young stepson.

“Are you saying that she got the SSN wrong?”

No. But the GIGO principle applies to many, if not most personal data searches. Data is frequently wrong, names are mixed up, information is incomplete. That's just the nature of such information repositories.

“Work in Progress”

All I see is one document that does not concern Obama, and two images of varying qualifty of Obama's COLB.

“Notice also difference in “Filed” vs. “Accepted” used on the same form version.”

We can squabble all day about what the difference between these terms means, but I have demonstrated, and you have been unable to refute, the fact that “filed” with the registrar is exactly the same thing as “registered.” You have not indicated the existence of any vital document review boards, or appellate review boards, or any statutory provision for the “filing” of incomplete and invalid vital documents. Nor have you explained why a document must be “substantially complete” under the law before it can be filed. If “filed” simply means putting the document in a drawer while awaiting review, why must it already be “substantially complete” before that can happen?

“How did 'trees' appear in the desert where none are supposed to be found?”

I'm not following the digression your forest analogy has taken.

“The reason why the original document was not released is very simple – it would not confirm the official birthplace story.”

I don't agree with your reasoning. Furthermore, if Kapi'olani really wasn't where Obama was born, why would a spokesperson state that the hospital was proud to have received a letter from the President of the United States that falsely stated he was born there?

And pretending that the “official story” is wrong, the best you can hope for is that the documents state that his birth took place under different circumstances, but still within the State of Hawaii. No one – not you, not WND – has ever provided a shred of support for the implicit contention that the COLB can state a birthplace other than that indicated on the original vital records or supporting documents.

“The Obama camp's behavior makes no sense if the official story were true.”

Your suspicions only make sense if a massive conspiracy of silence is afoot with regard to the facts of Obama's birth. That may pass muster with your view of the world, but it doesn't with mine. In this day and age, someone with a juicy story would strike it rich writing a book or “exposing” Obama.

What we really have here is a President who has lost interest in responding to the increasingly complex and fantastic web of conspiracy theories, and a community which readily confuses such lack of interest, combined with vigorous privacy laws, with a ominous conspiracy of silence.

We do not expect to see so many stories questioning the official birthplace story – it is not normal for a person born in the USA to have so many indicators that something is wrong with the official story. You cannot attribute all those stories to political opponents trying to derail his candidacy. The fact that he was so secretive about his bitrthplace (until January 2009) is very unusual. He never mentioned it in any of his books.
I did not expect to see so many questions about his birthplace – the same way I do not expect to see trees in the desert. The only way to have trees in the desert is to have a water source that supplies the oasis.

Nothing Obama presented so far discounts the possibiilty of a birth registration by a relative. There is no independent confirmation of his birthplace.

When did Obama show an interest in responding to any of the eligibility questions?
You cannot lose something you never had. He has been fighting for the dissmissal of eligibility lawsuits. It is a joke that he did not prove in the court (before the elections) that he was legally qualified to run.

Similar to Iraq's WMD story you do not have to have a massive consipracy theory to explain the issue. When vast majority of people base their opinion on a single document they could all be wrong if the information contained in the document is false.

…”why would a spokesperson state that the hospital was proud to have received a letter from the President of the United States that falsely stated he was born there”

Do you know for the fact that the spokesman for the Kapiolani hospital had access to the archive and could judge the contenet of the letter. It is very likely that response was a polite response based on the assumption that the letter was correct.

It is indicative that Obama did not authorize the hospital to release the information to the public. Why not?

Once again, wrong. The President repeatedly stated that he was born in Honolulu, and not one speck of credible evidence suggests otherwise.

The place of birth in the Indonesian document would be consistent with the birth registration by a relative. There would be no need to change it.It proves nothing.

The Indonesian citizenship and religion are more difficult to explain. Obama said that he was never a Muslim yet his half-sister confirmed that the (Soetoro) was very religious. Obama attended religios classes as a Muslim.

One of his statements during the campaign was that the Islamic call to prayer is the most beutiful sound on Earth and proceeded to recite it in Arabic.

The official story says that he was never a Muslim. It indicates that he was willing to say lies to get elected.

You said that only three Barack Obamas lived in the USA. How difficlut is it to distinguish between them when doing a research on SSN? The most important thing is not whether each report contains exactly the same information but whether they agree that the same SSN was used by BHO living in Chicago, IL. I have not seen any reports challenging the accuracy of the number reported by Susan Daniels. Since she is the only one who submitted her report to court under the penalty of perjury I'll take her word as truth.

The first COLB belonging to Patricia Decosta tells you that DoH issued two documents (same revision number) containing different status (Accepted vs. Filed) information. It is not likely that DoH uses these two phrases haphazardly. I do not care about your explanation because of the simple reason: it carries no legal weight. According to the law, the DoH must explain the use of these two phrases when asked about it. Their silence is another indicator that something is wrong with the official story.

The first COLB image for Obama was of very low quality – you could not see several features that you can see in the Decosta COLB. I will let you exaimne both images with your own eyes and draw your own conclusions. That is why I used the phrase “work in progress”.

The same person promised to have C-Span cameras broadcasting the health care reform debate….

You cannot explain why would DoH use two different phrases that have the same meaning on their COLB documents. How likely is that?

The burden of explanation is on DoH – they have to explain administrative rules when asked about it.

“You cannot explain why would DoH use two different phrases that have the same meaning on their COLB documents.”

I can't. But I'm not the DoH. Go ask them if you want an answer.

But I can say that Obama's COLB indicates that his birth was registered, because that's what “filed by” means. If you disagree with that, go ask any attorney worth their salt in Hawaii, and see if you can find someone who will tell you something different.

And you still can't explain how or why the State of Hawaii would issue a COLB to any person if that person's birth was not validly registered with the state. Your knee-jerk response is that you don't need to answer it – the DoH does. But that's a total (and convenient) evasion – you can't even conceive of an explanation for why a COLB would be issued to someone whose birth isn't registered with the state. If you can't think of one, why would you expect the DoH to have one?

“The burden of explanation is on DoH – they have to explain administrative rules when asked about it.”

The burden is on them only if (a) such a rule exists, and (b) it is of “general” application. Lacking that, they need only answer such a question at their discretion.

It is likely no such rule even exists. The very fact that different terms are used is indicative of the possibility that there is no rule at all governing such terminology use.

Having said that, I'll bet that you still haven't actually posed your question to the DoH.

“The same person promised to have C-Span cameras broadcasting the health care reform debate….”

So now the standard is this: If a politician makes campaign promises he cannot keep (which applies to any politician), or otherwise has been proven dishonest in some way, the most far-fetched allegations of fraud and conspiracy therefore bear the ring of truth.

Does this mean that because Reagan lied about Iran-Contra that people should take seriously an allegation that he was born in Canada, and not Tampico, Illinois?

Answer the question. The above is argumentative and nonresponsive.

Of course NC hasn't actually done that. It's much easier to nitpick, whine, complain, and switch to another line of attack that was discredited months ago.

“The place of birth in the Indonesian document would be consistent with the birth registration by a relative. There would be no need to change it. It proves nothing.”

You're treating Soetoro as if he were some detached public official. He was Obama's stepfather, for goodness sakes! Soetoro wouldn't have used a document as the basis for his information – he would have had personal knowledge of the truth. If Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, Soetoro would have known that.

So what I don't understand is why you think Soetoro would keep up the ruse in Indonesia. What's the motive? If Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, why pretend that he was while in Indonesia? It's not like Soetoro was claiming Obama was a U.S. citizen.

“The Indonesian citizenship and religion are more difficult to explain. Obama said that he was never a Muslim yet his half-sister confirmed that the (Soetoro) family was very religious. Obama attended religious classes as a Muslim, as confirmed by his teacher in that school.”

It isn't clear whether Obama actually became an Indonesian citizen, although I don't have any reason to believe that Soetoro lied when he filled out the document.

I've already said my point about the Obama's label as a “Muslim” at the time, and I don't see any reason to add to it.

“One of his statements during the campaign was that the Islamic call to prayer is the most beautiful sound on Earth and proceeded to recite it in Arabic.”

He was obviously surrounded by Islam for several years as a child, and it no doubt made an impression on him, as it would any child. It's only natural he'd be able to recite something he had heard frequently at that time.

“The official story says that he was never a Muslim. It indicates that he was willing to say lies to get elected.”

That's ridiculous. I've attended Catholic mass many times with my wife. I know the rituals well, and I know and love many of the prayers, and can recite them. But that doesn't mean I'm adherent of the Catholic faith.

“You said that only three Barack Obamas lived in the USA. How difficult is it to distinguish between them when doing a research on SSN? The most important thing is not whether each report contains exactly the same information but whether they agree that the same SSN was used by BHO living in Chicago, IL. I have not seen any reports challenging the accuracy of the number reported by Susan Daniels. Since she is the only one who submitted her report to the court under the penalty of perjury I'll take her word as truth.”

As I've said before, it's not that no one has been able to refute Daniels. It's that no one has seriously bothered to do so. I can tell you from first-hand experience, however, that a search for Obama's purported Connecticut SSN shows zero hits.

“The first COLB belonging to Patricia Decosta tells you that DoH issued two documents (same revision number) containing different status (Accepted vs. Filed) information. It is not likely that DoH uses these two phrases haphazardly. I do not care about your explanation because of the simple reason: it carries no legal weight. According to the law, the DoH must explain the use of these two phrases when asked about it. Their silence is another indicator that something is wrong with the official story.”

1. You have again avoided suggesting any reason why the “accepted by” versus “filed by” difference has any import or relevance to what we are discussing. Why should I care about your suspicions?

2. Don't take my analysis at face value, although I will say that my legal opinion is worth more than you think it is. As I've repeatedly said before, contact the DoH. ASK them. Contact local Hawaiian attorneys. ASK them.

“The first COLB image for Obama was of very low quality – you could not see several features that you can see in the Decosta COLB. That is why I used the phrase 'work in progress'.”

I doubt the Obama campaign was using the Decosta COLB as a reference point.

“I will let you exaimne both images with your own eyes and draw your own conclusions.”

Done. And done.

That's not totally fair. Reasonable people know that the plot of a novel, a TV show, or a movie is fiction. It's probably not Tom Clancy's fault that the birthers are unable to distinguish reality from fiction.

Wait, there's a respected conservative media outlet?

If one is a birther, seemingly yes. That it is irrelevant and makes no sense doesn't matter. An immigrant from Yugoslavia (or Moldova, or Montenegro, or the land of the knee-walking turkeys) knows ever so much more about American law and the English language than those of us who were born and bred here.

ALL HAIL NATURALIZEDCITIZEN, GREATEST OF INTELLECTS!!!!! ALL YIELD TO HIS POWER AND BIGOTRY!!!!! ALL EMULATE HER REVOLTING EXCUSE FOR LOGIC AND ANALYSIS!!!!!!

Thank you.

Very true. I stand corrected.

Maybe The National Review, although it's really gone downhill since William F. Buckley died. Fox is nothing more than propaganda and has been for years. The Weekly Standard and its ilk are toilet paper.

I don't have to be a lawyer to understand that it makes no sense for an agency to use two different phrases on the same document version, when printing COLBs, unless those two phrases have a different meaning. The fact that the same template reviosion is used indicates that the phrase is not part of the template – it comes from the database. Somebody had to explain it to programmers when the electronic record keeping system was implemented.

You don't have to bet – I have already said on this web site that I have not contacted DoH for a simple reason: people who were more familiar with laws than me have asked this question already – without any success of getting the information from DoH. It should have been sufficient for DoH to receive just one request for this information.

The DoH behavior is 180 degrees opposite from the spirit of the UIPA law.

For a long time the story about Bill Clinton having a “relationship” with an intern within the White House was ridiculed by the media: vast right wing conspiracy, LOL.

Would that scenario seemed to have originated from a Tom Clancy or Daniele Steel novel?

When there is an easy way to verify politician's words I'd like to do it rather than rely on their own words.

I understand that politicians sometimes promise things that cannot be accomplished, however the C-Span promise was a bold faced lie.

I am not familiar about the allegation that Reagan was born in Canada. If there were any doubts about his birthplace, the original birth certificate should have been examined.

Lying politicians are same everywhere. Unfortunately, I had been exposed to grandmaster liers, some of them were/are in Hague.

You should read what Richard Holbrooke and other negotiators from the West had to say about Balkan politicians to appreciate my “training”.

This has absolutely nothing to do with President Obama's documented birth in Hawaii. If you're angry at politicians, go protest, but trying to undermine a sitting President based on a ridiculous theory with no factual support is appalling.

Reagan was born in the United States, just like Obama. JohnC was using a theoretical event to point up how stupid the birther cause is. Once again, all you've succeeded in doing is showing that your English skills are substandard.

Actually, the “vast right wing conspiracy” Secretary Clinton referred to was the Arkansas Project, a concerted and well documented effort by Richard Mellon Scaife to force President Clinton out of office by accusing him of sexual harassment (Paula Jones' suit failed in court), land fraud (never proven), rape (a lie), malfeasance (a lie), and of being too liberal for a billionaire somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun (true). You would know this if you'd actually read the article in Vanity Fair where Secretary Clinton used the phrase for the first time.

Danielle Steele has a simple, almost juvenile prose style that is perfectly suited to adults learning English. I'm not surprised that you enjoy her.

You are a textbook example of an idee fixe.

Why do you assume that Lolo Soetoro knew anything else than the official story about Obama's birth?

Did you attend classes to study Bible in Latin language? Obama studied Koran in Arabic as a child.
His own words:
“…''I was a little Jakarta street kid,'' he said in a wide-ranging interview in his office (excerpts are on my blog, http://www.nytimes.com/ontheground). He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics — and more likely to be aware of their nationalism — if he once studied the Koran with them.

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ''one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.'”

It makes it easier to understand the remark in another interview when he mentioned “my Muslim faith”.

When you mention that search for SSN number does not return any hits – why should I believe you, an alias on the web, over a document submitted to the court under the penalty of perjury?

The first Obama COLB image posted on the web lacks several features easily seen on Decosta COLB. If Obama's image came from an official Hawaii DoH it should have shown those details the first time when it was posted on the web.

Why do you assume he's lying? Why do you assume Fukino and Okuba and Governor Lingle and his sister and his family and EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD IS LYING, and only Orly Taitz and her gallant band are telling the truth? Are you truly THAT paranoid?

The answer, of course, is that you really know that the President was born here, but you hate him so much that you refuse to admit it. WHY you hate him so much is still a mystery, but political hatred makes no sense. Richard Mellon Scaife nearly brought down the American government because he hated Bill and Hillary Clinton, so I suppose it's a mercy that no billionaire has (yet) decided that Barack Obama is SATAN and needs to be destroyed regardless of the cost to the office and the country.

Your lack of patriotism is revolting.

I missed this the first time…but you actually are comparing Barack Obama and the current government of the United States to lying, murdering genocides like Milosevic and Karadzic. The sheer audacity of this is breathtaking. How dare you call yourself a loyal American!

Go back to Bosnia. You have no business being here.

And oh yes – the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew, not Latin. Yet another stupid, easily checked inaccuracy in the Giant Pile of Mistakes you've mounted up over the last few months….

“I don't have to be a lawyer to understand that it makes no sense for an agency to use two different phrases on the same document version, when printing COLBs, unless those two phrases have a different meaning.”

You still haven't offered one single reason why this issue could have anything to do with the validity of Obama's vital information. If that is the essence of your inquiry, I will say that any comptent lawyer would instantly recognize that if the COLB has been issued, there is no reasonable argument that the birth in question has not been properly registered.

But to the extent you're fighting for the sake of transparency in government itself, that's a noble cause, and God speed to you.

“You don't have to bet – I have already said on this web site that I have not contacted DoH for a simple reason: people who were more familiar with laws than me have asked this question already – without any success of getting the information from DoH.”

Fine. Don't ask. But stop asking me then.

“The DoH behavior is 180 degrees opposite from the spirit of the UIPA law.”

I highly doubt that UIPA law even applies to the situation here. You're claiming it applies because you're making assumptions about the existence of certain rules that I doubt even exist, and assuming that any such rule, if it did exist, would be the sort of rule of “general application” that would be the subejct of the UIPA.

We simply disagree. But since you're the one not satisfied with the DoH's actions, the burden is on you to take the next step, not me.

“For a long time the story about Bill Clinton having a “relationship” with an intern within the White House was ridiculed by the media: vast right wing conspiracy, LOL.”

1. A politician having an extramarital affair.

2. A young pregnant college student mother travels across the world using unknown sources of funds so that she may live with her bigamist husband's family, then decides that documentation of her newborn son's birth on U.S. soil is of such overriding importance that she traveled in record time from the birthplace in Mombasa to Hawaii (again using undisclosed funds) in order to arrange to have her parents commit perjury on an official document and generate Hawaii newspaper announcements – only to travel just a few weeks later to Washington to relocate and start school. Never mind that U.S. birth could have been significant for only one purpose – eligibility for the presidency. Decades later, the child, now a major candidate for president, decides to forge an official state document and get an independent political organization to join in the conspiracy, all the while placing this forged document on the web for all to see. Meanwhile, the State of Hawaii and the Kapi'olani Hospital decide they will join in the conspiracy by hiding the known truth.

You're right, both of those scenarious are equally far-fetched.

“Why do you assume that Lolo Soetoro knew anything else than the official story about Obama's birth?”

Why do you assume he didn't?

“Did you attend classes to study Bible in Latin language? Obama studied Koran in Arabic as a child.”

Arabic bears much more religious significance in Islam than Latin does in Christianity. So it's no surprise that children studying the Koran are taught to read it in Arabic.

“Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ''one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.'”

That proves that he appreciated the culture he was exposed to. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

It demonstrates nothing about his faith, unless you believe that you can only appreciate and absorb those things which you personally agree with or adhere to. Your theories about Obama's religion say a lot more about your views of the world than they do Obama's.

“It makes it easier to understand the remark in another interview when he mentioned 'my Muslim faith'.”

Let's see if you have the intellectual honesty to quote what Obama said in full during that interview. You won't, because it disproves the point you're trying to make with your selective excerpt.

“When you mention that search for SSN number does not return any hits – why should I believe you, an alias on the web, over a document submitted to the court under the penalty of perjury?”

You don't have to believe a word I'm saying. But then again, no one's forcing you to have this discussion.

“The first Obama COLB image posted on the web lacks several features easily seen on Decosta COLB.”

And just what features did the FactCheck image have that the “first” image did not?

LOL,
I never said it – you are arguing with yourself.

The original birth certificate is HIDDEN from US public and Obama has been fighting for the DISMISSAL of eligibility lawsuits.

We have seen McCain's detailed birth certificate from Panama.

These are the facts that you cannot deny. A rational person born in the USA would not hide the original birth certificate in face of so many questions and eligibility lawsuits.

Catholic mass used to be conducted in Latin – in case you missed JohnC's reference to attending the Catholic mass many times.

So much for your reading or “pay attention to details” skills, LOL!

Where is the ORIGINAL birth certificate? How difficult is it to show this document to US citizens/voters?

You admitted that you don't know the difference between the two phrases.

Aren't you curious about it? It makes NO sense to use two different phrases if they had the same meaning.

The DoH refusal to explain it is very suspicious. This is one of the “trees” about Obama's birthplace that cannot be removed from the picture without the DoH explanation.

I have told you that the rule exists because it was implemented as a computer program – you can keep your head in the sand – what else to expect from an Obama apologist.

My response to naturalizedcitizen:

“You admitted that you don't know the difference between the two phrases.”

True.

“Aren't you curious about it?”

Sure I am. It's an interesting question, for what it's worth.

But there is no argument, suggestion, or contention of any kind from anyone that the answer to this question will in any way demonstrate, or tend to indicate, that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii.

Therefore my level of interest in this question is minimal at best. But if you find an answer, let me know.

“It makes NO sense to use two different phrases if they had the same meaning.”

If anything, it would be “accepted by” which would have the more suspect application, since that could be interpreted to mean “merely received” by the office. (Although I highly doubt that's what it means – considering that a birth certificate received but not “substantially completed” cannot be filed under the HRS, and therefore cannot be registered, and therefore cannot serve as the basis for a COLB.)

In contrast, “filed by” the registrar uses a term – “filed” – which can be found throughout the HRS in relation to vital records. And as I have pointed out, a record cannot be “filed” until it is “substantially complete.” That terminology parallels the filing of property deeds with the county, or articles of incorporation with the state. In each of these cases, there is no authority which reviews and fact-checks individual subsmissions. At most, the government representative receiving the document briefly examines it so as to make a prima facie determination that the document is “substantially complete.” That term has critical legal significance, because it is used to prevent the invalidation of a record because of a technical defect.

As I have also pointed out, there is no known statute or regulation which requires any further act beyond “filing” by the registrar as a precondition of a vital record being “registered.” Nor is there any reason to believe there is such an additional condition.

“The DoH refusal to explain it is very suspicious. This is one of the “trees” about Obama's birthplace that cannot be removed from the picture without the DoH explanation.”

What am I to be suspicious of? In the absence of an articulable theory as to why the absence of a proferred definition indicates the existence of evidence stating or suggesting that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, I can't say I share your concern.

“I have told you that the rule exists because it was implemented as a computer program”

If every government agency had to create a rule for every use for every computer program, we'd have rule books a mile thick. That's exactly why the UIPA refers to rules of a “general application.”

*smiles sweetly*

Sorry, old sport, but I was replying to YOU, not JohnC. YOU said, and I quote:

Did you attend classes to study Bible in Latin language?

I replied, accurately, that the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew, not Latin. The Catholic mass is not in the Bible, as you would know if had the slightest idea of what you were talking about it.

MASSIVE FAIL.

Why don't you ask the Hawaiian Department of Health if you can see it? I'm sure they'd be delighted to show it to an ethnic cleanser from another country who enjoys comparing the sitting President to war criminals.

And oh, in case you didn't know:

The Catholic Mass is still said in Latin under certain circumstances. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with either the Bible or the President, who was born in Hawaii and is still sitting in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue while you compare him to two war criminals.

A rational person born in the USA would accept a legal birth certificate with a state seal, especially after it was verified by the state in question and its officials. A Balkan immigrant who seems to have been near one too many landmines, not so much.

No, I’m arguing with someone who has the IQ of an amphioxus.

Next time when you decide to comment on a post, which is part of the discussion between other people, start reading the thread from the beginning to understand the conversation.

I am very well aware of the conversation, and that you once again said something ridiculous because you're too uneducated to know that asking JohnC if he'd studied the Bible in Latin was absurd. That hasn't changed, and neither has the fact that I was addressing a specific statement in a specific post that YOU wrote.

Then again, it's no surprise that you're attacking me instead of responding to the meat of what JohnC posted. Distraction seems to be one of your favorite tactics, along with twisting the words of the law until they are meaningless, repeating yourself endlessly despite being corrected, and outright lying.

Go back to the Balkans, you sociopathic howler monkey. America has enough bigots without importing them from a war zone.

Once, just ONCE, please explain why the idea of a pregnant teenager with no money flying 10,000 miles into a war zone to give birth no only hundreds of miles from her in-laws, but in a different country, makes more sense than the same teenager staying in Hawaii and giving birth there. Please tell me how such a seemingly ridiculous idea is so compelling, and why anyone would want to force a legally elected President from office because of it.

Ok, Hawaii birth – where is the proof.

A rational person born in the USA would not hide the original birth certificate in face of so many questions and eligibility lawsuits.

Strange comment. It is impossible to determine if you are suggesting that people were investigating Obama after the inauguration or before. Honestly, wouldn't have people uncovered anything before the inauguration or even the election.

The reason that those that push the birther conspiracy theory are shown that they are wrong, is because the are. To suggest that all is happening is the ridiculing of those who just want answers, is categorically dishonest.

You tried to present examples of examples of birth certificate fraud, but fail to realize that these are examples of how the system works. Also, to tried to push the idea of guilt by “I believe so.” The problem with those “birthers” is that they present example that undermine their position and they just don't realize it.

You are so boring and predictable.

The COLB is on his web site, and from what I understand always has. If the document was not authentic it would have been removed by a legal challenge by the State of Hawaii. Also, someone would have gone to jail.

It seems that someone should force you back on your medication.

Being stuck in your ridiculous consparicy theory you failed to read the words “ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATES THIS CERTIFICATE.”

It is you who has entered in cherry picking. However, thanks for the “example of a Hawaii COLB” It will drive other birthers nuts.

Lolo Soetoro was married to Obama's mother.

Your guys arguments always die on the first sentence.

It is funny to see people point out the obvious errors my made.

Why would you expect that the second husband knows all details about his wife's past?

How many non-Muslims study Koran in Arabic? I have no doubt that he was raised as a Muslim. He lied about it to improve chances of being elected.

The first COLB image did not have a visible seal and crease lines that would indicate a folded document.

What is your point?

Decosta COLB has been circulating around for a long time. If you think this is something new – you are way behind in understanding the history of eligibility issue.

You do not even understand that Decosta COLB is a problem for Obama.

In how is it a problem?

We have one birther is thinks that the use of “African” on the birth certificate is a problem. You think that the term “Filed” is a problem. However, you just didn't take time to read the difference on the birth certificate about the mother's and father's race. For the same race two different terms are used.

Has your conspiracy theory blinded you.

There is no problem with either birth certificate, just your silly birther conspiracy theory.

According to this logic there are even more different dates or names used on a COLB, LOL!

There is a difference between the birth registration form INPUT data (provided by the person registering birth) and the administrative phrase supplied by the DoH.

The first COLB image was posted on Daily Kos web page in June 2008.

No official seal could be seen in this image and creases that should have been seen (from folding the document by DoH) were missing.

At least my mind has been free of hard drugs which cannot be said for the “president”.

Wow. You have discovered that a document over time can show signs that it has been folded. That is really amazing. A logical person would assume that it would be the reverse that is impossible.

One image was taken by a digital camera as it is obvious, the other seems to have been scanned. This apparent, but you are more concerned with spreading misinformation.

You have a problem of understand the sequence in which evens can occur.

What are you babbling about.

Let me be more clear. The race of the mother and father are the same. However, two different terms had been used. One for the mother and another for the father. You are blind to your conspiracy theory that you missed this.

Interesting, that the person who posts the same tired arguments over and over and over for the last six months now accuses others of being “boring and predictable.”

If you're sick of being told that you're wrong, *stop posting*. You have no one to blame but the right wing loons who fed you this trash.

1. Of course second spouses know where and when their stepchildren were born. Why would think that they *wouldn't*?

2. A lot, actually. I studied at a seminary that offered a program to certify Muslim chaplains, and the Arabic and Qu'ranic courses (which required knowledge of Arabic) were extremely popular among the Christian and Jewish students. Secular universities and many liberal seminaries report the same thing.

3. You are grasping at straws. The birth certificate posted on line is perfectly valid and legal, and your refusal to accept it says more about your racism and hatred than it does about the President or his home state.

The Decosta document is not a problem, since the President was born in Hawaii and is thus natural born. Polarik has been extensively debunked.

Once again, wrong, and indicative of a profound lack of understanding of the nuances and complexity of the English language.

You know, there's this marvelous invention called the “large mailing envelope” that allows documents to be sent without being folded. How tragic, that it didn't reach Sarajevo before your little buddies on trial for war crimes blew the city and its inhabitants to hell.

Based solely on the quality and repetitious nature of the ridiculous junk you constantly post, you are lying.

You are not up to speed ellid.
This is not how DoH sends out COLBs. They FOLD them!!!

Why don’t you make a joke about Japanese destroying Perl Harbor?

You are a newbie on this topic, aren’t you?

The DoH folds COLBs before mailing them out!

The scan of such a document should show creases. It is missing in the first COLB image posted on Daily Kos and FightTheSmears.

Do you understand that the race is entered according to the input provided by parents?
Whatever parents said about their race, the DoH did not change. At least that was the explanation about the word “African”, which is normally not used to describe a race.

The “Filed by” or “Accepted” phrases are part of the administrative data shown on the COLB. These phrases are not entered by the applicants. A computer program prints them out based on the information in the database. You would have to believe that a computer program was designed to print two different phrases randomly on COLBs, which is a ridiculous point. They must have a different meaning. So far the DoH has refused to answer the question on meaning of these two phrases.

I am being nice and gentle here but it seems that the issue being discussed is little bit beyond your grasp.

1. Speculation. We don't know the truth about it.

2. I am “sure” that an elementary school kid was sent to the special class to study Koran in Arabic for the same reason an adult at the seminary chose to study it, LOL!

The kid was sent there because the (step)father was a Muslim and wanted him to be raised as a Muslim

3. I am just pointing out the simple fact that first COLB images did not have all features expected for official Hawaii COLB.

New on what Natz/Nuts? You have been spreading this nonsense for months, without producing anything original.

I strongly doubt that the document was folded by the Department of Health.

When something is scanned it is flat, thus making it hard to see any folds.

From looking at the photograph, the document wasn’t folded as it would have been by an issuing office. As stated above the issuing office wouldn’t have folded the document.

You are Natz.

Of course I understand how information is entered on the document. However, some of your fellow bithers seem to be confused on that issue.

However, you seem overly obsessed with the difference between “Filed” and “Accepted.”

Trying to argue on a phrase being randomly used seems that you just don't understand how ridiculous your position is.

You seem to be arguing backwards. Even though I believe that both birth certificates are genuine, all birth records are “FILED.”

Shhh… Don't let anyone know. I am being gentle to you.

First, you need to brush up on the rules of capitalization and the use of articles in English.

Second, you’re forgetting that the United States not one, not two, but FIFTY SEPARATE agencies that send out birth certificates, not all of which are called the Department of Health. Unless you were born in Hawaii (which by your own admission you were not) you have no idea whether they send out birth certificates folded or not. My birth certificate from Pennsylvania was originally mailed flat, and only got folded when I sent it to the State Department to get a passport.

Once again, you are only proving how little you know.

Which Department of Health are you talking about? You’ve never received a Hawaiian birth certificate because you weren’t born in Hawaii, so you don’t know how they’re mailed.

And if the copy the President originally posted wasn’t creased, so what? He could have done what I did, which is send for one with a flat mailing envelope or Fedex return envelope included.

You’re grasping at straws and you know it.

You have never once been either nice or gentle in these posts.

#2 – Unless you suddenly have acquired a Ouija Board, you don't have the slightest idea why Lolo Soetoro and Ann Dunham sent the future President to one school or another.

Also, you don't need to use quotation marks around “sure.” That you insert random quotation marks for no reason is yet another sign that your English is substandard. Unless you are directly quoting someone they aren't necessary.

Unresponsive and argumentative.

FAIL.

Where is “Perl Harbor”? It sounds like embroidery floss. Did you mean PEARL Harbor?

I should have mentioned Honolulu. It would have been a more appropriate comparison to the city of Sarajevo mentioned in your comment.

I read about Hawaii DoH practice of folding COLBs prior to mailing them.

I don’t care what other states do.

You still did not get it. I am not the one arguing about the random use of phrases on the document. Take these sentences from my previous post and ask ellid to explain its meaning to you:

” You would have to believe that a computer program was designed to print two different phrases RANDOMLY on COLBs, which is a ridiculous point. They must have a different meaning.”

The two phrases have a different meaning because:

1. The document template version is the same, indicating that the phrase is not part of the template.

2. If you believed that DoH used two different phrases having the SAME meaning, you would have to explain how computer program chooses to print either one of these two phrases.
The RANDOM process is the only one that would allow you to claim that there is no rule in place.

If you claimed that two phrases have the same meaning – you would implicitly claim that DoH prints them randomly on COLB documents.

This is opposite from my opinion. I think that two phrases do not have the same meaning.

Maya Soetoro said that they were a Muslim family. Was it good enough reason to send Barack to study Koran in Arabic?

Using the quotes meant to indicate a sarcastic use of that word. The LOL at the end of the sentence was a giveaway about the intended use of quotes.
The following sentence would not make any sense if you took the previous sentence literally without using quotes.

I read the discussion on the web after the first COLB was published. The practice by Hawaii DoH of folding documents before mailing them was mentioned before the improved COLB image surfaced on factcheck.org.

You need to think things through before answering the post. The image posted on the factcheck.org shows that document was folded. You cannot use the Fedex big envelope defense.

COLBs posted on the web seem like a work in progress – the first one had several problems – the public feedback was used to improve the subsequent version.

Does the computer program print these two phrases randomly on COLB documents? This is the only defense you could use – otherwise there must be a rule that was given to a programmer to implement.

Computer programs are tools used by the DoH to run the daily operations more efficiently then using the manual labor only. Programs only reflect the rules in place – no need to create additional rules for computers.

If you don’t like having the tragedy of your homeland mocked, then I respectfully suggest that you not exploit it by implicitly comparing the democratically elected President of the United States with a slavering maniac like Milosevic.

Please produce the source AND written proof that ALL Hawaiian birth certificates, regardless of how delivered, are folded.

Your last paragraph is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve read in quite some time.

Maya Soetoro-Ng was an infant when her brother attended school in Indonesia and scarcely can be counted a credible source for such a blanket statement.

If you are trying for irony, you are not succeeding. You also use LOL far too much, and at inappropriate times.

Finally, you seem oblivious to the absurdity of writing “The following sentence would not make any sense” in the last line of paragraph. It *seems* that you're referring to another post, but without further information the whole paragraph is ridiculous.

And none of this, NONE of it, negates the plain fact that the President was born in Hawaii.

*rolls eyes*

No, he gets it. He gets that you've come up with yet another ridiculous nit-picking excuse to continue believing that the President was not born in Hawaii.

It is very likely that Lolo Soetro raised Maya and Barack the same – as Muslims.

As a loyal Obama apologist you are more likely to succeed in getting a written response from DoH.

I mentioned folding because it was one of the points used to dismiss the authenticity of first COLB image posted on Daily Kos in June 2008.

Obama camp listened and the images posted on factcheck.org later on show a folded document.

It casts a shadow on the official birthplace story.

Do you have a copy of the template for producing the COLB. I didn't think so, so stop your nonsense. You birthers keep on changing your arguments.

What makes your arguments idiotic is that the example that you use in a feeble attempt to discredit the president is “accepted” about 2 weeks after the birth recorded on the document. However, in your asinine argument you missed that the president was “filed” 3 days after the birth recorded.

No. No. You missed that now didn't you. You also missed that the both documents state that they represent the “fact of birth.”

Before you morons what the long form. Now you have shifted your position.

An reasonable person could speculate why the difference.

PS. We all know that you guys refused to look at other birth certificates that had the phrase “Filed” just to push your childish conspiracy theory.

Wow. What an amazing argument. You would assume that with at the world religious have different “schools” that Islam would also.

We all know the president is a Christian. It is the individuals choice what religion the a they pick.

However, you seem more hung-up on Muslims because some seem it is acceptable to dehumanize them.

Your fraud is seem as what it is. A cheap political ploy.

What cast doubt. The state of Hawaii has reconfirmed that the president has been born in Hawaii. The only doubt that exist is that you inquire are honest. Actually, we know that you inquires are a desperate attempt to spread lies.

You have no access to the template. So stop spreading your lies.

We know that you have no inside information. So stop spreading your lies.

We know that you are more interesting in spreading information, and deceiving people who don't know better.

The simplist example of a template is a blank page that is 11×8.5 inches. You are a fraud.

By definition, template is a static, common part of the document.

Decosta COLB and Obama COLB show the same template number.

Therefore any information on these two documents that is different cannot be part of the template. Phrases
“Accetped by” and “Filed by” are not part of the document template.

The rest of your post is very confusing. I have no idea what you are trying to say “accepted”…2 weeks, “filed”… 3 days!?

Compare Descosta and Obama COLB. Any information that is different on these two documents is not part of the document template. Therefore phrases “Accepted by” and “Filed By” are not part of the template. Simple enough?

You are not very good in following the discussion.

The main point here is to illustrate a lie told by Obama when he said that he was never a Muslim.

He was raised as a Muslim.

We are not debating his religion – but a lie he told about it.

Take time to read the documents carefully and stop nit-picking over minor details.

Yes, it is very simple. However, you are attempting to use it to spread your conspiracy. Nothing really complicated, but we all know that the difference that you are using is an attempt to deceive people.

What makes you a fraud is that it is possible for a person to change their religious views.

Currently, Obama is a Christian.

You know absolutely nothing about how Obama was raised.

Please, stop pretending that you have some special inside information,
you are only making yourself look like a fool.

Obama's own words say a lot about his character:
http://www.breitbart.tv/16-lies-in-7-minutes-st…

Yes. However, you spreading lies about someone else tells a lot about your character. Before, your criticize others about their character take a deep look at yourself and ask yourself one simple question. Why are you engaging in spreading lies and misinformation about another person?

http://theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm

Scroll down to see the highway sign “Welcome to Kenya” – birthplace of Barack Obama.

I am only asking a question: Where is the ORIGINAL birth certificate to prove that Obama was born in the USA?

You are a fraud the State of Hawaii has stated that they have the original records. Your statement “Where is the ORIGINAL birth certificate,” is a clever deception for someone who is misinformed. When a birth has been recorded then and only then a birth certificate is issued. A birth certificate is issued by an agency who has the legal authority to engage in this activity. In this cause it is the Hawaii Department of Health. This allows people to get a copy of a birth certificate if needed. Your statement otherwise is a blatant lie and you should accept that fact.

Wow. You found another smear site. Congratulation. See, when you are disillusioned you will believe any nonsense that re-enforces your paranoia.

The President was primarily raised by his grandparents, who were associated with a Unitarian Universalist church. Wrong again.

Please explain how the Hawaiian Department of Health will know that you hate the President unless you tell them this. They have better things to do than keep track of a list of Internet handles.

Only in your excuse for a brain.

No, a template is a *pattern* for a document. You are thinking of a boilerplate. Once again, all you've done is show that you are not familiar with either American law or American English.

You’re a fine one to talk about lying.

Why don't you ask the Hawaiian Department of Health directly instead of whining to a bunch of people who frankly don't give a shit about your inability to read?

Sorry, but I don't pay attention to right wing propaganda disseminated by someone who hires snot-nosed punks to break into federal buildings.

And you think this is authentic and not Photoshopped why?

The LEGAL certificate was posted over a year ago. If you're so obsessed with knowing the President's length, weight, and footprint, why don't you hire Scott O'Keefe away from your bum-buddy Andrew Breitbart and sending him to Hawaii to steal the original?

Answer Anthony's question.

Here’s the actual passage about the President’s religious background from the article you cherry picked:

“The grandparents who helped raise Mr. Obama were nonpracticing Baptists and Methodists. His mother was an anthropologist who collected religious texts the way others picked up tribal masks, teaching her children the inspirational power of the common narratives and heroes. [note: the grandmother was associated later in life with a Unitarian Universalist congregation, where her memorial service was conducted]

“His mother’s tutelage took place mostly in Indonesia, in the household of Mr. Obama’s stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, a nominal Muslim who hung prayer beads over his bed but enjoyed bacon, which Islam forbids.

‘“My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim,” said Maya Soetoro-Ng, Mr. Obama’s younger half sister. But Mr. Obama attended a Catholic school and then a Muslim public school where the religious education was cursory. When he was 10, he returned to his birthplace of Hawaii to live with his grandparents and attended a preparatory school with a Christian affiliation but little religious instruction.”

You can shut up now.

“The grandparents who helped raise Mr. Obama were nonpracticing Baptists and Methodists. His mother was an anthropologist who collected religious texts the way others picked up tribal masks, teaching her children the inspirational power of the common narratives and heroes.

His mother’s tutelage took place mostly in Indonesia, in the household of Mr. Obama’s stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, a nominal Muslim who hung prayer beads over his bed but enjoyed bacon, which Islam forbids.

“My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim,” said Maya Soetoro-Ng, Mr. Obama’s younger half sister. But Mr. Obama attended a Catholic school and then a Muslim public school where the religious education was cursory. When he was 10, he returned to his birthplace of Hawaii to live with his grandparents and attended a preparatory school with a Christian affiliation but little religious instruction.”

“I am only asking a question: Where is the ORIGINAL birth certificate to prove that Obama was born in the USA?”

Asked and answered. Multiple times.

“Scroll down to see the highway sign 'Welcome to Kenya' – birthplace of Barack Obama.”

Now, let's compare that sign (which bears a striking resemblance to a U.S. freeway sign) with a sign actually found on the Kenyan border.

Photo:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_aF5uNAWp24U/SFE2qPBAT…

Source:

http://letsputthekettleon.blogspot.com/2008_06_…

Naturalizedcitizen, I think you've been punked.

“Why would you expect that the second husband knows all details about his wife’s past?”

No. But I think if her son had been born in Kenya, he probably would have known about that. Unless this was some deep dark secret that Ann for some reason kept to herself, and that young Barry himself didn’t divulge.

“How many non-Muslims study Koran in Arabic?”

In a Muslim country? Probably most of them.

“I have no doubt that he was raised as a Muslim.”

So why was he placed in a Catholic school? For shits and giggles?

“The first COLB image did not have a visible seal and crease lines that would indicate a folded document.”

How could you possibly see something like that on a poor-quality jpeg?

“Does the computer program print these two phrases randomly on COLB documents? This is the only defense you could use – otherwise there must be a rule that was given to a programmer to implement.”

Again, I don't know why the different phrases were used. But I doubt this is the sort of thing meant by UIPA when it refers to rules of “general applicability.”

As I've said before, if you think this is Some Big Deal, then you should contact the DoH and see what they say about it.

Lastly, you still have not pointed out any argument why this discussion has any relevance to whether Obama was born in Hawaii.

“It casts a shadow on the official birthplace story.”

How? You still haven't answered that.

*wipes a tear of joy from her eye*

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

Call it a template or a boilerplate the essence is the same. The phrases Accepted and Filed are not static part of the document therefore they are not part of either a template or boilerplate.

Why is the ORIGINAL hidden from US public? What is the big deal about it?

It should confirm what The Lyin' King is saying, LOL!!!

Why is the ORIGINAL hidden from US public? What is the big deal about it?

It should confirm what The Lyin' King is saying, LOL!!!

Templates and boilerplates are not the same thing, as you would know if you had the slightest idea of what you were talking about.

Also, you know very well it's not being “hidden” any more than any other birth certificate. Behave yourself.

*shakes head*

You poor confused little wingnut. You're so discombobulated by being PWNED by a badly faked sign that you're imitating good old Gunny/Gummy/Red/Asshole and posting the same nonsense over and over again. If you weren't such a liar I'd feel sorry for you.

And of course NC/Slobodan/Orly/whatever can't be bothered to reply to not one but TWO people calling him/her/it out on a forgery that wouldn't fool a twelve year old. Typical cowardly birther.

Answer Anthony's question.

No, they’re not.

boil?er?plate
-noun
1. plating of iron or steel for making the shells of boilers, covering the hulls of ships, etc.
2. Journalism.
a. syndicated or ready-to-print copy, used esp. by weekly newspapers.
b. trite, hackneyed writing.

3. the detailed standard wording of a contract, warranty, etc.
4. Informal. phrases or units of text used repeatedly, as in correspondence produced by a word-processing system.
5. frozen, crusty, hard-packed snow, often with icy patches.

tem?plate
–noun
1. a pattern, mold, or the like, usually consisting of a thin plate of wood or metal, serving as a gauge or guide in mechanical work.
2. anything that determines or serves as a pattern; a model: You can use my notes as a template for employee evaluations.
3. Building Trades. a horizontal piece, as of timber or stone, in a wall, to receive and distribute the pressure of a girder, beam, or the like.
4. Shipbuilding. either of two wedges in each of the temporary blocks forming the support for the keel of a ship while building.
5. Aerial Photogrammetry. any object having lines, slots, or straightedges to represent lines radiating from the center of a photograph, used for graphic triangulation.
6. Genetics. a strand of DNA or RNA that serves as a pattern for the synthesis of a complementary strand of nucleic acid or protein.
7. Computers.
a. a small sheet or strip of cardboard, plastic, or the like, that fits over a portion of the keyboard and provides ready reference to the keystroke commands of a particular software program.
b. an electronic file with a predesigned, customized format and structure, as for a fax, letter, or expense report, ready to be filled in.

8. Also called safe. a marble base for a toilet.

The question has been answered – I am just pointing out to inconsistencies in the official birth story.

Show me the original birth certificate and we'll close the issue.

Usurper-in-Chief's own words played back indicating a liar that he is. Truth hurts?

You have not answered Anthony's question, which was and I quote:

“Why are you engaging in spreading lies and misinformation about another person?”

Well, NC? Why won't you answer Anthony's question? And why won't you respond to me and JohnC debunking that forged “Welcome to Kenya” sign you posted? Are you really that much of a coward?

Sorry, but Breitbart is a liar and a propagandist. No one with a brain believes a word that he says, so why should I?

There is no reason for the DoH to refuse to answer the question on how these two phrases are used on their COLB's.

Given their track record of covering for Obama – there is something wrong with his COLB. We will find it – soon or a later. They won't be able to hide it from US public forever.

I just hope that there will be no “accident” (fire) which would destroy the DoH archive with precious originals.

How many times do I need to tell you that the same question has been asked in the past many times (by people who are more familiar with laws then me). The result was the same – DoH refused to provide an explanation.

You are lying. Answer Anthony's question or shut up. Why are you spreading lies and smears, like the “Kenyan border sign” above? A child could have seen through it, yet you posted it without verification and despite its numerous and obvious flaws. Why did you do this?

Who is “we”? You and your little imaginary friends?

And once again, you prefer to whine about the evil conspiracy instead of actually putting your beliefs on the line and asking someone at the Hawaiian Department of Health. You don't even need to mention the President, just that you're a new immigrant and you don't understand why Hawaii uses two different phrases.

Of course you won't because you're too afraid of the answer. I'll bet you left an entire village full of refugees in Bosnia or Serbia or wherever you're really from because you were too chicken to fight.

And how many times must the rest of us tell you that you are wrong about the President?

Put up or shut up. Either put your question to the Hawaiian Department of Health or stop whining about it.

The legal certificate has been shown. The only inconsistencies are in what's left of your cerebellum after a steady diet of lies and smears from idiots no decent American believes.

And oh, when it comes to “accident” (fire) [sic} destroying “precious originals” – this is not Nazi Germany, Honolulu is not Berlin, and their state office buildings are not the Reichstag. That's not how things work here in America.

You still have yet to explain exactly how any of this relates to where Obama was born.

“Usurper-in-Chief's own words played back indicating a liar that he is.”

The fact that you're trying to introduce politics into this discussion just goes to show you don't have the goods on your NBC claims.

“There is no reason for the DoH to refuse to answer the question on how these two phrases are used on their COLB's.”

You haven't asked the DoH. You say other people have done so, but I've only seen one letter to the DoH which can arguably be termed a request for the answer to your question. That letter, from the publisher of The Right Side of Life website, was such a rambling mess that I don't blame Okubo for passing.

Now, if you think the DoH has refused to answer something which it was legally obligated to answer, you can always get an attorney involved to formally invoke the UIPA.

“Given their track record of covering for Obama – there is something wrong with his COLB.”

You still have not explained (1) how exactly there could be something “wrong” with Obama's birth certificate such that the State of Hawaii can legally issue a COLB providing official support for the fact of Obama's birth; or (2) how “filed by” could have anything to do with this at all. Simply having a “hunch” or some undefined “suspicions” isn't going to convince anyone that you have an argument worth giving any credence to.

“I just hope that there will be no “accident” (fire) which would destroy the DoH archive with precious originals.”

So now the DoH conspiracy may include not just fraud, forgery, and violations of the UIPA, but also arson and destruction of property? Please…

And of course, Naturalizedcitizen, showing typical birther courage, doesn't reply when confronted with direct evidence that s/he has either posted a forgery, told an outright and blatant lie, or been asked a direct question that s/he finds uncomfortable.

What a coward.

Exactly.

Something JohnC and I both missed at first:

A structure similar to the Golden Gate Bridge in the background, near what appears to be a body of water surrounded by very American-looking vegetation.

Very exotic place, Kenya. Just like, say, San Francisco….

As stated before the original birth record is property of the State of Hawaii. A legal copy has been on display for almost 2 years, but you continue to engage in your childish deception. America does value the privacy of its citizens. I know it is hard for you to understand, but that is the rule.

“Why is the original hidden from the US public?” is just another one of your lies.

I am trying to illustrate a point that Obama is a liar. Would he lie about his birthplace? Of course he would, the man has no shame.

Here is your chance to earn a $100,000 by providing the proof of Obama's birthplace:

http://volubrjotr.com/2010/01/31/breaking-news-…

The State of Hawaii will not show the original birth records to someone who doesn't have a direct association to the person who the birth record belongs to. Even after the State of Hawaii has verified that they have seen the original birth records you continue on your childish conspiracy theory.

“Show me the original birth certificate and we'll close the issue.” Is just another one of your lies.

A birth certificate has been show and you refuse to accept it a genuine. Even after the State of Hawaii has taken 'ownership' of the presidents birth you refuse to accept it.

You are nothing but a pathetic liar.

You are fraud. “by people who are more familiar with laws than me” – just another one of your lies. Every case that have been brought forward has been dismissed. A judge has also ruled that he has confidence that America is one of the best nations in keeping accurate records.

It seems that you have been listening the the wrong people.

ellid and JohnC both seem to know more about those morons are talking with. So, I suggest that you listen to them, or a least accept the rulings of several federal court judges.

Golden Gate?! Where do you see the bridge?

I can assure you that the only flat land close to the GG Bridge is called Crissy Field and it does not look like the background of that picture.
http://www.parksconservancy.org/our-work/crissy/

As I stated before it is you who are liar. You enter into word play to change the facts in a feeble attempt to smear a person.

The State of Hawaii has claimed that it is the birth place of the president. Are you suggesting that Hawaii is lying about the fact that it has the original birth records?

Who knows, you could be right.
I was not able to find the source of that picture.

However, your analysis is not a foolproof one. There is a difference between a major highway border crossing and a little country road border crossing. It would be unrealistic to expect that all border crossing signs are maintained uniformly throughout a country.

We shall see – somebody will post a comment on the web about that picture that will ultimately reveal the source and its authenticity.

I have only pointed out inconsistencies in the official birthplace story.

Even if we accept everything Hawaii DoH said as truth, you could not dismiss the possibility that the original birth certificate was filed by a relative.

The only evidence that would support the official story is the original birth certificate if it was filed by the Kapiolani Hospital.

Guess what – the original birth certificate is hidden from US public.

It is not a lie – the original has not been presented to US citizens/voters. It is hidden in the DoH archive.

Obama can authorize its release at any moment.

A public official is not entitled to the right of privacy when it comes to the information about job eligibility. Public has the right to know whether a candidate is eligible for the office.

Can you dismiss the possibility that the original birth certificate was filed by a relative?

The DoH could be claiming that Obama was born in Hawaii based on a form submitted by a relative.

Obama has no reasons to hide the original if he was indeed born in Hawaii.

That web site is a treasure-trove of Obama related documents.

The do post a suspicious things on occasion (usually as a link to a story on another web site). We shall see if this is one of those things. Hopefully we will find out soon about the source and whether the picture is authentic or not.

I am not saying it will happen but I would not be surprised if it did.

Last summer, Joe Klein (CNN) said that the originals were discarded in 2001. Perhaps he is better informed that we thought.

You have no idea what I am talking about. This is not a discussion about eligibility lawsuits.

Last summer a US citizen sent an email to DoH asking for Obama’s amended birth certificate. After being posted on several blogs (together with responses from Hawaii DoH officials) an avalanche of various requests related to Obama’s COLB and other aspects of birthplace story was sent to the DoH as well. A large number of these emails was posted on the web.

At that time I learned about the UIPA law and the fact that there was no standing issue when requesting information from DoH.

The legalese language and deception from DoH officials was very strange. There would have been no need for such behavior if the official birthplace story were true.

There you go again with spreading your misinformation. There is no way a relative applied for a birth certificate for the president with out the Department of Health checking the validity of that information.

The you have a problem of trying to play games with English. To those who are unfamiliar with the facts, your statement my seem reasonable. However, upon closer inspection, your statements are just a weak deception.

The Department of Health would put all it efforts into verifying and validating that the application for a birth to be entering into the vital statistics is correct.

If a relative applied for the birth to be entered into the vital records, then the State of Hawaii Department of health would verify if that person is a relative and that a child was born. It is a double edged sword for your arguments making it entirely false.

Only and Only the state of Hawaii Department of Health supplies birth certificates. There was no birth certificate filed by the hospital or a relative.

You used the word “filed by” instead of the word “applied for” in order to spread your FUD.

Guess what – your cheap deception and word play is nothing more that a weak conspiracy theory.

It is a lie. You are attempting to make a cheap deception.

The original birth records are stored by the registrar of the Hawaii Department of Health. The Department of Health will reissue copies birth records in the form of birth certificates at any time it is needed to people with a direct relationship with the person who birth record is sought.

The deception that you are attempting to push is that if a person gets their birth certificate reissued they are trying to hide something. There are various reason that a person would want to have their birth certificate reissued. None of them notorious.

The only public official or politician in recent memory to have release their birth certificate to the public has been Obama.

In America everyone deserve privacy outside of their official capacity, unless it directly conflicts with their responsibilities.

No, you're dragging in irrelevant junk from smear sites.

I said it RESEMBLED THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, you illiterate baboon. It's in the background in the right of the image.

Just like you, to defend a forgery and reject the truth.

No, you've rejected the truth because you hate the President.

Your claim has been extensively debunked. Cut it out.

Debunked repeatedly and extensively.

It's a treasure-trove of worthless shit. That is probably why you enjoy it.

Your level of paranoia is truly impressive. Have you offered yourself for an outpatient study?

I know exactly what you’re talking about: you don’t believe the President was born in the United States, and you are willing to believe the most outrageous lies instead. You’re also willing to reward the country that gave you asylum after your own was wrecked by political partisanship and bigotry by trying to bring the same sort of divisiveness and bigotry here.

Still doesn’t answer Anthony’s question, though.

If the Department of Health did allow a relative to make the application for the birth of a child they would verify that the information is correct.

This includes verify that the person is actually a relative of the mother, that a child has in fact been born, and the details surrounding that birth.

No matter how you attempt to distort the facts, you still don't realize that the Department of Health verifies all births. Thus, you nonsense is nothing more than just an illogical pipe dream.

”Last summer a US citizen sent an email to DoH asking for Obama’s amended birth certificate.”

There is no amended birth certificate.

So your entire argument is based on what a US citizen believes. Someone who has absolutely no access to the Department of Health’s vital records.

America values the privacy of it citizens records. It is your problem if you can’t accept it.

I wish I could read Arabic. I'll bet the Arabic writing on that sign doesn't even say anything about Barack Obama. It probably says something like “Noodles and vegetables sold here.”

Wouldn't it be funny if the Governor of Hawaii claimed the money?

President Obama has already demonstrated his eligiblity to serve as President. Rational people know this. Why don't you?

I would LOVE it if either Gov. Lingle or Dr. Fukino attempted to claim it. I'd love it even more if this nutbar attempted to deny the claim on the grounds that they were part of the conspiracy, because then he'd be facing a big, fat defamation suit and a lot more than $100,000 (which he almost certainly doesn't have) in fees, fines, and damages.

It would be glorious.

“However, your analysis is not a foolproof one. There is a difference between a major highway border crossing and a little country road border crossing. It would be unrealistic to expect that all border crossing signs are maintained uniformly throughout a country.”

That's very true. But green is not by any means a commonly-used color for signs outside the United States. And the flashy cursive writing seems more fit for a Kansas truck stop than an entry into Kenya. Furthermore, Swahili, one of the official languages of Kenya, is generally written in Latin script, not Arabic.

“Can you dismiss the possibility that the original birth certificate was filed by a relative?”

Even if true, that does not support the claim that Obama was not born in Hawaii.

Or “In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate, be welcome unto Saudi Arabia.” It makes no sense at all to have such a sign at a border crossing.

And guess what they use to verify eligibility? A CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH ISSUED BY THE STATE WHERE THE CANDIDATE WAS BORN, which is exactly what President Obama produced.

Go find a tower and ring some bells. It would be of more use to society than spreading lies, rumors, and filth.

I just ran the phrases “Welcome to Kenya” and “birthplace of Barack Obama” through Google translate, first into Swahili (one of Kenya's two official languages), and then into Arabic. I also typed out “Welcome to Kenya” and “birthplace of Barack Obama” through an Arabic/English transliteration program.

Guess what? As we guessed, the non-English script is Arabic, not Swahili. It certainly doesn't say “Welcome to Kenya” (which is the same in either Swahili or English), or “Jina ya Barack Obama/birthplace of Barack Obama.”

However…one thing I *did* notice is that the characters directly under Barack Obama are very similar to his name…*only written left to right, like in English, instead of right to left, like in Arabic.* How much you want to bet this is gibberish written to look like Arabic, with the President's name included so that people who don't know that Arabic is written right to left are fooled?

Which document are you referring to: The JPEG image that does not show things normally seen in a genuine COLB (Daily Kos, fightthesmears) or the document image posted on factcheck.org (“verified” by Joe Miller)

There is no offical confirmation from DoH that they issued a COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007.

What is the big deal to authorize the release of the original document?

BECAUSE THE WORLD IS DOOMED IF IT'S REVEALED!!!!! BAWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! BARACK OBAMA IS OF SATAN!!!!!! THE SEVENTH SEAL WILL BE OPENED IF HIS TRUE PARENTAGE IS REVEALED AND GREAT CTHULHU WILL RETURN!!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!

IA YOG-SOTHOTH!!!!!!!! R'LYEH PTAGN!!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

How would they check that a relative told the truth about the place of birth?
If a relative claimed a house birth in Hawaii – how would DoH know if this was the truth or a lie?

That is why it is important to see the original birth certificate. If the official story were true it should have originated at the Kapiolani Hospital.

It's important only to people who are so paranoid they refuse to accept the facts.

Excellent research!

It just goes to show the “Welcome to Kenya” sign is a hoax – I highly doubt an official sign welcoming visitors to Kenya would lack a Swahili message.

Punking duly confirmed.

“Last summer, Joe Klein (CNN) said that the originals were discarded in 2001.”

I do recall a news story to that effect, which was confusing. But if true, that predates Obama’s move to the national stage of politics.

“If a relative claimed a house birth in Hawaii – how would DoH know if this was the truth or a lie?”

If a birth certificate filed by a relative were that suspect, the HRS would not permit such a document to be filed/registered with the state. Yet that is exactly what the HRS explicitly permits.

Yep. :)

You are answering a slightly different question.

How does the DoH know that a birth registration by a relative is not a scam? They have to rely on person being honest when reporting a birth.

If this were the truth – what would it say about you? You keep responding to my posts.

Why do you bother? You could ignore my posts and spend time doing something more productive.

Fighting for the dismissal of eligibility lawsuits on standing issue does not demonstrate his eligibility to serve.

Rational people know that you cannot trust words spoken by a proven liar. You need to verify whether he told the truth about his birthplace.

Why do I keep responding? Because

The fact that you are too uneducated to realize that Cthulhlu is a fictional character, and that the President is not the Antichrist, is either pathetic or bathetic. I'm not sure which. Either way, it says nothing good about you.

I don’t need to do a thing because, unlike you, I trust the State of Hawaii not to lie about a birth certificate, the newspapers in Honolulu not to lie about their morgues, and the political system of this country not to fall for an illogical story based on a rumor that would not pass muster as a paperback thriller.

It could say something that would make us fall over in laughter. However, as we all know it is just a cheap forgery. I honestly believe that all road signs in Kenya use only English.

That is what spreading misinformation is all about. You hope that someone doesn't have the curiosity to do research. And all it takes is about a couple of minutes.

What another lie. That is the date stamped on the back of the document. Actually, “JUN 6, 2007″ is stamped on the back.

With Hawaii's Department of Health through the governor's office issuing to press release claiming the validity of Obama's record one would have thought that would have been enough of an official confirmation that the records are authentic.

However, a second had to release by people who are more concerned about using the word “original” than accepting the facts.

See the reason that you should never lie, is that you have to tell another lie to cover the second. Then you have to tell another to cover the first again, or to make the second seem more plausible. And the pattern goes on. You just seem utterly confused by your web of lies.

You are an utter moron. In America only state level agencies responsible for keep records of births issue birth certificates. It is that simple not as complicated an issue as you feebly attempt to make it seem.

Hospitals don't issue birth certificates. Hospitals prove the appropriate government agency records pertaining to a birth of a child.

As I stated before the government agency verifies the authenticity of a child births and whether the child should be issued a government birth certificate.

Let me be more clear.

Only the Department of Health in Hawaii issues birth certificates for those eligible children born in Hawaii.

Unfortunately, the average birther is all too ready to accept the smears at face value. They are so blinded by hatred for the President that their ability to think clearly and rationally is gone, at least where he's concerned.

See what you just do realize that they will always be people who will challenge you on the misinformation and deceptions that you spread.

Are you that disillusioned that people wouldn’t realize this? Or, are you so obsessed with your conspiracy theory that you just don’t realize this?

They don't even check the various misrepresentations that they use for their lies.

Such as an article that explained how Obama Sr. came to American, and that he stayed Hawaii to finish his studies after Obama was born. They claim the article is proof that the president wasn't born in America.

So true. I have to wonder how the birthers can be simultaneously so paranoid and so gullible.
It seems to them absolutely insane that a young woman could give birth in the state and city where she, her husband, and her parents actually lived.
And yet they find it entirely plausible that this same 18-year-old pregnant peniless college student flew 10,000 miles to give birth near her husband's home country, but 1,000 miles away from where his family actually lived. And she did this, leaving no trace of evidence behind her to suggest that she ever left the US.
When the State of Hawaii confirms that President Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, they roll their eyes in disbelief. When crazy websites present photoshopped highway signs, they jump up as one and scream My God, it's true! This proves he was born in Kenya!”
If Orly Taitz told them the sky was made out cheese, they'd stand outside with crackers, waiting for it to fall.

You are stating the obvious. It was never an issue that DoH is the only authority to issue a birth certificate.

The original information for issuing the Obama birth certificate came to the DoH either from the Kapiolani hospital or from a relative. The COLB says nothing about where the the original data came from.

In case it was a birth registration by a relative, how would DoH check that a relative told the truth about the place of birth?
If a relative claimed a house birth in Hawaii – how would DoH know if this was the truth or a lie?

Are you saying that it is not possible that a peniless student leave her parents and move away thousands of miles away to Washington State just two weeks after giving birth, while leaving the husband behind?

According to the official story this is what happened.

Perhaps she was not a peniless student.

Why is it that “birthers” are asking to see the original birth certificate while Obama supporters are against it? It would end the speculation about his birthplace (providing that the official story is confirmed).

There is no official confirmation that DoH issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007.

The DoH has been asked repeatedly to do so and they refused.

You would have to believe Obama and trust that the document is authentic. I would rather have it verified than trust a proven liar.

There is no information available to the public that would negate the possibility that the original birth certificate is based on a statement from a relative. The DoH could be claiming that Obama was born in Hawaii based on a lie from a relative.

Until we see the original birth certificate this possibility cannot be discounted.

Obama's state-issued birth certificate constitutes prima facie evidence that he was born in the US. Unless you have some affirmative evidence that would disprove the validity of the state-issued document that President Obama has already shown, then you simply have no case, only useless speculation, and that won't cut it in any judicial or legislative forum in this nation.
We are a country of laws, not nutcases.

I was referring to the last sentence in your previous post. Go back reread it, then read my post again.

How do you know that the DoH issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007? The DoH would not confirm it. Basically we have to trust Obama that the COLB is authentic.

I know better than to blindly trust a proven liar.

Officials of the State of Hawaii have confirmed that they have a valid birth certificate on file for President Obama and that he was born in Hawaii. There is plenty of evidence that the presdent was born in Hawaii, and no evidence to suggest otherwise.
When all the evidence points one way and no evidence points the other way, it would be illogical and stupid to assume that the position with no supporting evidence is the correct one.
I'm sure you'll forgive me if I choose not to drive off the birther cliff.

It is a patriotic duty to make sure that only eligible candidates run for the POTUS.

The original birth certificate would answer questions about Obama’s birthplace. Why is he hiding it?

All of those could be based on a lie from a relative. We don’t know.

The original birth certificate would answer that question.

All you would learn is the President’s height, weight, and delivering doctor. If you’re so desperate to win Trivia Night at the Old Ethnic Cleansers’ Karaoke Bar, you really are to be pitied.

There is nothing patriot in what you are doing. At the least it is ungrateful, and at worst seditious.

You are disgusting.

It was confirmed by Dr. Fukino, as you well know.

Bullshit from beginning to end.

No, she took *extension* courses, as the unredacted transcript clearly shows. Those did not require her presence in Washington.

Give it up, NC. Every single one of your talking points has been debunked. You are wrong, and nothing has changed.

To quote my reply to you, below:

“Because you lie.”

“According to the official story this is what happened.

Perhaps she was not a peniless student.”

No one said she was penniless – that's a straw man argument. But she, like many people her age, didn't have access to unlimited amounts of money, certainly not the sort that would have enabled her to fly to Kenya (and, more importantly, fly back with no advance reservation).

“Why is it that “birthers” are asking to see the original birth certificate while Obama supporters are against it?”

Again, another straw man. I am not against the release of the original birth certificate. I am of the view, however, that its release is legally and logically unnecessary to confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii.

That, of course, assumes a normal understanding of “confirm” – that is the satisfaction of reasonable doubts as to the truth of a proposition. If you mean “confirm” to mean demonstrate beyond any possible doubt imaginable, then the release of the original birth certificate itself is not going to be sufficient to resolve such doubts, either. For example, you yourself say that, even if the birth certificate is facially correct and legally sufficient and states Obama was born in Hawaii, the certificate itself might include information which is not in fact correct, even though you don't offer any suggestion as to how that inaccuracy is to be demonstrated.

“hour ago
There is no official confirmation that DoH issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007.

The DoH has been asked repeatedly to do so and they refused.”

This is like an endless feedback loop. You act as if you had no idea why the DoH refuses to confirm Obama’s COLB, even though I have shown you – in the DoH’s own words – that they regard confirming a COLB as an unlawful disclosure of information in a vital record.

“You would have to believe Obama and trust that the document is authentic. I would rather have it verified than trust a proven liar.”

Looks like you’re bound to be disappointed, then.

“The DoH could be claiming that Obama was born in Hawaii based on a lie from a relative.”

I can just see the notes in the DoH’s files:

ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE – FILED BY RELATIVE. INFORMATION DETERMINED TO BE LIES. PLEASE ISSUE OFFICIAL COLB UPON REQUEST.

No wonder the DoH is covering it up! :)

Right. She was secretly a superrich Communist heiress participating in a plot to destroy all the is good and pure about Amurica, by secretly birthing a secret commie, biracial, ayrab baby overseas and then smuggling him into the country and planting fake documents with the state of Hawaii.
If all of this nonsense wasn't so funny, it would make my head hurt.

“I know better than to blindly trust a proven liar.”

Then why should we pay attention to YOU? You’ve been caught in numerous lies AND have passed along even more lies from other sites, like the “Kenyan border crossing sign” that I debunked in about five minutes.

“Here is your chance to earn a $100,000 by providing the proof of Obama's birthplace:

There's the catch… “to my satisfaction.” That's been the problem all along here. No matter how much evidence demonstrates that Obama was born in Hawaii, it's never “to the satisfaction” of birthers. In legal terms, this offer is known as an “illusory promise.”

Reminds me of the Mel Mermelstein case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Mermelstein,

The difference was, Mermelstein only asked that the respondent “prove” the existence of gassing in the Holocaust.

Mr. Hommel, on the other hand, will give money for proof “to my satisfaction.” A court probably wouldn't uphold the contract, unless it found that Mr. Hommel's personal satisfaction had an implicit reasonableness (i.e. objective) standard. (A court, however, is unlikely to determine a reasonableness standard is implicit in such a contract, given their lack of receptiveness to birther theories and arguments to begin with.)

In other words, Mr. Hommel's promise isn't worth more than the paper it's printed on (or the electricity powering the screen that transmits his promise to your eyes).

“They have to rely on person being honest when reporting a birth.”

But if the “honor system” were not deemed reliable, it wouldn't have been made a part of the HRS without caveats, if at all.

“What is the big deal to authorize the release of the original document?”

Let’s pretend that your unlikely theory hit the jackpot, and that the original birth certificate was indeed filed by a relative. What are we supposed to do with that?

There would be no hospital to verify if the facts stated on the birth certificate were true or to demonstrate that they were false. Anyone associated with the facts asserted by the documents – other than Obama himself – is by now deceased.

All we would be left with is a document stating that Obama was born in Hawaii, stating facts that can’t be further proven or disproven.

What then? How do you show Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii?

“What is the big deal to authorize the release of the original document?”

Let’s pretend that your unlikely theory hit the jackpot, and that the original birth certificate was indeed filed by a relative. What are we supposed to do with that?

There would be no hospital to verify if the facts stated on the birth certificate were true or to demonstrate that they were false. Anyone associated with the facts asserted by the documents – other than Obama himself – is by now deceased.

All we would be left with is a document stating that Obama was born in Hawaii, stating facts that can’t be further proven or disproven.

What then? How do you show Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii?

Where was she in the autumn of 1961? Is there any proof that Obama Sr. attanded classes in Hawaii during that time?

Their neighbors (address shown in the newspaper birth announcement) said in an interview that no black child ever lived there.

Either the address in the birth announcement is wrong or she was not in Hawaii during the fall 1961.

The baby sitter confirmed that she had started taking care of baby Barack in early 1962 in Washington State.

And this has what to do with the President's birth in Honolulu?

If the original birth certificate was based on a statement from a relative, it would indicate that the official story (Kapiolani Hospital) is a lie.

If that were the case, would you and other Obama supporters still insist that he was born in Hawaii and that no formal investigation should take place?

Put Obama under oath in front of the grand jury and ask him to testify about his birthplace. Do the same thing with his half sister Maya…..There are other inquiries that could be made – use your imagination.

If the original birth certificate was based on a statement from a relative, it would indicate that the official story (Kapiolani Hospital) is a lie.

If that were the case, would you and other Obama supporters still insist that he was born in Hawaii and that no formal investigation should take place?

Put Obama under oath in front of the grand jury and ask him to testify about his birthplace. Do the same thing with his half sister Maya…..There are other inquiries that could be made – use your imagination.

Very true. Obviously Mr. Hommel learned from the Mermelstein case that it's better to leave a loophole than risk being sued.

I am just stating the truth the DoH did refuse to confirm that they issued a COLB on that specific date to Obama. I could care less about their reasons. Why?

They used double standards: Dr. Fukino could issue a statement about Obama being a natural-born American citizen and then refuse to comment about it.

It does not make sense that she could confirm his Hawaii birth but she could not confirm that the document saying the same thing was issued by her office, WTF?

The image posted on the web means nothing until the document is either confirmed by the DoH or submitted to a court.

It is a sad for the Republic when the C(oward)iC is hiding his original birth certificate while signing orders to send troops to war.

I am just stating the truth the DoH did refuse to confirm that they issued a COLB on that specific date to Obama. I could care less about their reasons. Why?

They used double standards: Dr. Fukino could issue a statement about Obama being a natural-born American citizen and then refuse to comment about it.

It does not make sense that she could confirm his Hawaii birth but she could not confirm that the document saying the same thing was issued by her office, WTF?

The image posted on the web means nothing until the document is either confirmed by the DoH or submitted to a court.

It is a sad for the Republic when the C(oward)iC is hiding his original birth certificate while signing orders to send troops to war.

What is more likely: Somebody remembering exact words of a conversation that happened 47 years in the past or a person who spent the most part of their life in that house remembering that a black child did not live next door?

They had about 5 months to have an encounter with the baby Barack or his father.

Baby sitter is the first independent witness of baby Barack's whereabouts. We have no witnesses that could locate baby Barack in Hawaii during the fall 1961. Next door neighbors could not do it.

It seems to me that there is a nice loophole in the timeline to permit baby Barack spending some time outside the Hawaii during the fall 1961 – Kenya?

I'd take the woman *who wrote a letter describing a conversation she had just had* over a bunch of old people who didn't remember their neighbors from half a century earlier.

And again:

None of this, not one bit, has anything to do with the President being born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961. You are wrong, you continue to be wrong, and you will continue to be wrong until you cut it out and stop espousing theories that fail every test of evidence and logic.

LOL.

Is there a single witness that could testify that baby Barack was in Honolulu at any time between August 1961 until early 1962?

Was it patriotic to protest Bush? To compare him with Hitler?

Why is Obama hiding the original birth certificate?

Was it patriotic to protest Bush? To compare him with Hitler?

Why is Obama hiding the original birth certificate?

It seems that you are disillusioned by your argument. According to your disjoint logic in 2006 there were 4,265,555 Americans born without any state agency responsible for keep track of births knowing were the information came from.

Just like in 1961 they didn’t verify the information.

When you have something logical we are will to hear it. However, as you are blind by your hatred it will never be coming.

It seems that you are disillusioned by your argument. According to your disjoint logic in 2006 there were 4,265,555 Americans born without any state agency responsible for keep track of births knowing were the information came from.

Just like in 1961 they didn’t verify the information.

When you have something logical we are will to hear it. However, as you are blind by your hatred it will never be coming.

“Until we see the original birth certificate” …

You are a pathetic liar. It is the state of Hawaii who has the original birth records.

A certificate is a document issued by an agency to certify an specific event or qualification.

Only that agency under law or a statue can issue the certificate.

It seems to lack the intelligence to understand this simple concept.

“Until we see the original birth certificate” …

You are a pathetic liar. It is the state of Hawaii who has the original birth records.

A certificate is a document issued by an agency to certify an specific event or qualification.

Only that agency under law or a statue can issue the certificate.

It seems to lack the intelligence to understand this simple concept.

1. Yes. Bush lied to get America into war with Iraq, trashed the budget, deliberately attempted to mold the country in his own theocratic image, and wrecked the economy. If he wasn’t a fascist, he was damn close, and Cheney was even worse.

2. Asked and answered at least a hundred times. You are still wrong.

1. Yes. Bush lied to get America into war with Iraq, trashed the budget, deliberately attempted to mold the country in his own theocratic image, and wrecked the economy. If he wasn’t a fascist, he was damn close, and Cheney was even worse.

2. Asked and answered at least a hundred times. You are still wrong.

1. Yes. Bush lied to get America into war with Iraq, trashed the budget, deliberately attempted to mold the country in his own theocratic image, and wrecked the economy. If he wasn’t a fascist, he was damn close, and Cheney was even worse.

2. Asked and answered at least a hundred times. You are still wrong.

1. Yes. Bush lied to get America into war with Iraq, trashed the budget, deliberately attempted to mold the country in his own theocratic image, and wrecked the economy. If he wasn’t a fascist, he was damn close, and Cheney was even worse.

2. Asked and answered at least a hundred times. You are still wrong.

First, “LOL” doesn't mean what you think it does.

Second, not necessary any more than we need someone who can testify to George W. Bush being an infant in Connecticut. We have the LEGAL, CERTIFIED, VALID BIRTH CERTIFICATE proving that the President was born in Hawaii, plus two contemporary birth announcements in local papers, plus a contemporary letter relating an anecdote about the President's birth.

Third, you're still wrong.

His sister was not even born in 1961. Whatever she said would be legally irrelevant.

As for the rest of your paranoid little fantasy – dream on, NC. Dream on. Maybe it will comfort you when you have flashbacks to the bombs raining down on Sarajevo.

My response to naturalizedcitizen:

“If the original birth certificate was based on a statement from a relative, it would indicate that the official story (Kapiolani Hospital) is a lie.

If that were the case, would you and other Obama supporters still insist that he was born in Hawaii and that no formal investigation should take place?”

IF the official story turned out to be untrue, I think at least an informal investigation into the reasons for the deception would be in order. But if the official story was untrue only in terms of the location of Obama's Hawaii birth, and not in terms of the fact of his Hawaii birth, then I'd say no formal investigation is necessary.

The only reason to open a formal investigation into the circumstances of Obama's birth is if there is substantial reason to believe he is not an NBC, since that is the only reason why anybody cares about Obama's birth in the first place.

For those who believe Obama cannot be an NBC because his father was not a U.S. citizen, investigations into the matter can already be raised by members of Congress who are interested in the issue. Perhaps one of them could even initiate a quo warranto proceeding in D.C., or use their status as an elected member of Congress to seek standing in a lawsuit against Obama. Strangely, this hasn't happened.

For those who doubt that Obama was not born in Kapi'olani, investigations could already be launched into the matter. Congress could hold hearings and subpoena officials from Kapi'olani to testify. The officials could tell the story themselves. If they refused on grounds of privacy or confidentiality, Congress could then apply political pressure on Obama to provide the necessary authorization. It hasn't happened. Nor has any member of Congress seriously called for such an investigation.

For those who believe Obama may have been born outside the United States, they are free to investigate the issue right now and not wait for President Obama to resolve their doubts. Anything which could be provable in the wake of a release of Obama's original vital records is equally provable right now. For those who believe they have substantial, credible proof that Obama was born in some location other than the U.S., they are free to step forward and make that case. Members of Congress are also free to launch such an investigation at any time. It hasn't happened. Nor has any member of Congress seriously called for such an investigation.

My response to naturalizedcitizen:

“I am just stating the truth the DoH did refuse to confirm that they issued a COLB on that specific date to Obama. I could care less about their reasons. Why?”

Either you care or you don't care about their reasons. Which is it?

“They used double standards: Dr. Fukino could issue a statement about Obama being a natural-born American citizen and then refuse to comment about it.

It does not make sense that she could confirm his Hawaii birth but she could not confirm that the document saying the same thing was issued by her office, WTF?”

As I've said before, I think Fukino crossed the line in stating Obama was born in Hawaii, and of course she is not in a position to state with legal authority whether Obama is an NBC or not. (My view is that she stated NBC in terms of what it is believed to mean by most people: born in the United States. Therefore, by this thinking, Obama's NBC status would be self-evident by virtue of his Hawaiian birth. I don't agree that NBC simply means “born in the United States,” but I do recognize that's what the average layman understands it to mean.)

But the DoH was fully and indisputably acting within its rights and in accordance with Hawaii law when it refused to take an action which would effectively disclose information from a vital record to a non-interested person (i.e. confirming the COLB).

In any event, this is all much ado about nothing. The DoH has officially gone on record as stating that Obama's vital records are on file, and that they indicate a Hawaiian birth. The high-res COLB images which appear on FactCheck's site corroborate this fact. The 1961 birth announcements also corroborate this fact – the state would not have run them if Obama's birth wasn't registered or if he wasn't born in Hawaii.

You're attempting to infer suspicious activity not by some discernible flaw in the facts presented, but through the mere fact that Hawaii officials have not behaved in a way you think they should behave to resolve your doubts.

“The image posted on the web means nothing until the document is either confirmed by the DoH or submitted to a court.”

That's not going to happen.

Actually, being born in the United States is the definition of a natural born citizen.

“Actually, being born in the United States is the definition of a natural born citizen.”

We actually don't know that for sure. Wong Kim Ark based its analysis on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment, which meant it focused on citizenship as it related to birth within the country. However, several Supreme Court opinions have expressly equated NBC status with “citizenship by birth.” As we know, under federal law, many persons may be born U.S. citizens even though they were born outside the country. (Furthermore, even under English law, many foreign-born persons were natural born subjects by virtue of statute.)

“Actually, being born in the United States is the definition of a natural born citizen.”

I will agree, though, that being born in the United States is at least the predominant subset of persons falling within the NBC category.

An example of double speak by Obama:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obam…

And finally we learn the truth: NC doesn't give a damn about the President's eligibility. All s/he/it cares about is smears, lies, and politics.

Thanks for finally outing yourself. Have a nice day.

LOL.

I am trying to illustrate the language used by the usurper-in-chief and his minions. Now you know why we have to parse their words very carefully.

You are a liar, a fraud, and a provocateur. There is nothing funny about smearing a politician you don't like, you whoreson excuse for a human being.

Is it a smear when people point out the fact that words spoken by Obama in the past do not match his actions?

Why don't you comment on the substance of the article presented? Perhaps the truth about Obama's character hurts your feeeeeelings?

It has nothing to do with his eligibility, and you know it.

As for the article itself, if I want to read something of that quality and depth of research, I'll reread Clifford Irving's “autobiography” of Howard Hughes.

For those who claimed that Obama does not need phonetic spelling while reading from the teleprompter, watch the video clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlKIfzoC8D0&feat…

Hooray! Another irrelevant smear! Maybe that means NC has finally stopped pretending that the President is ineligible!

*jumps up and down and claps in delight*

Not so fast.

This is just a reminder about the about the phony image media created about the TOTUS.

Oh no you don't! That's TWICE in a row that you've posted something totally irrelevant to your beloved “Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii” meme. Make all the excuses you want, but if you're so desperate to smear the President that you're reduced to linking to slanted videos and sites that employ Grover Norquist, then you are DONE.

*sticks a fork in NC and does the Snoopy dance*

Nah nah nah nah
Nah nah nah nah
Hey hey
Good BYE!!!!!!!!!

I always listen to what politicians say, and try to determine if their policies are about things that are important to me. I have a full understanding that a politician will make broad promises or even though they may not be able to deliver some of those promises. I am never under the disillusion that every word that they say are golden.

Birther continue to hide behind slander and lies. They think that everyone will believe that their “concerns” are legitimate, even though they refuse the simple through. The president is a natural-born citizen of America.

Yes, you successfully called out a birther. No one will ever understand the disillusion of those who believe the twisted logic that birthers subscribe to.

Not so fast.

You continue distract from one simple fact. You can't accept that Obama is a natural-born citizen of America and was born in Hawaii. People in the west do understand about the image of our political leaders. They have various consultants that help them.

You are a fraud.

The AG in Hawaii refuses to agree.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/02/hi-attor…

One source on this story. 1 year and a half after the election. Can't you determine what is just misinformation, or are you so desperate to believe anything you read?

Sure, I have seen many things Obama has put forth…misinformation. I have common sense. Why does he pay millions of dollars to hide his college records? Why doesn't he put this to rest and produce the birth certificate? Go back to sleep.

Excellent example you have put forward. Yes, when the appeals court order you the pay the legal fees of the defendent 20.40 equals millions of dollars.

By you suggesting that the president has spent millions of dollars to defend his character say he has spend millions of dollars is misinformation.

What makes you a fraud is first you believe that if someone defends themselves then they are guilty. That is a strange logic.

Second, the president was the only presidential candidate in history to have his birth certificate available for public viewing. With people pushing their biases through the disguise of question your birth certificate why would you release anything that isn't required by the Constitution.

Why don't you make your birth certificate available to the public?

What are you hiding?

Speaking of teleprompters:

When words get in the way, Bush goes phonetic
Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:06am BST
By Matt Spetalnick

NEW YORK (Reuters) – How do you keep a leader as verbally gaffe-prone as U.S. President George W. Bush from making even more slips of the tongue?

When Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, the White House inadvertently showed exactly how — with a phonetic pronunciation guide on the teleprompter to get him past troublesome names of countries and world leaders.

The White House was left scrambling to explain after a marked-up draft of Bush's speech popped up briefly on the U.N. Web site as he delivered his remarks, giving a rare glimpse of the special guidance he gets for major addresses.

It included phonetic spellings for French President Nicolas Sarkozy (sar-KO-zee), a friend, and Zimbabwe leader Robert Mugabe (moo-GAH-bee), a target of U.S. human rights criticism.

Pronunciations were also provided for Kyrgyzstan (KEYR-geez-stan), Mauritania (moor-EH-tain-ee-a) and the Zimbabwe capital Harare (hah-RAR-ray).

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the draft, labelled the 20th version and complete with typos and speechwriters' cellphone numbers, had been turned over in advance to help U.N. interpreters who must simultaneously translate leaders' speeches into several languages.

Bush's text also had to be loaded onto a teleprompter to appear on screens in front of the podium as he spoke.

“There was an error made,” Perino told reporters. “I don't know how the draft of the speech that was not final was posted but it was and it was taken back.”

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN254035042007…

“Why does he pay millions of dollars to hide his college records?”

Where's your proof, drooling birfer?

Put up or STFU already.

I agree. He needs to put up or step down. He was born in Kenya and received financial aid as a foreign citizen. Prove me wrong. Show me the Birth certificate and his college records.

It is you who needs to put up or step down. The onus is on your to prove your position.

Using your logic. You are a drunk-out-of-work-bum. Is it true?

The lack of evidence is the proof. He has sealed his records. Why? You are the stupidest people I have ever seen post on any boards. Incredibly stupid.

You are funny. We have a hard time believing people who engage in lies and spreading misinformation.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=3255

Nah Nah Good bye you birther moron. You must have printed the page out, and are now sleeping with it.

Beck is dodging the issue. He and O'Reilly say that to birth announcements are good to go. Wrong.
Obama's father was a British subject. Jefferson says your father has to be a U.S citizen in order for you to be a “natural born citizen”. Our constitution says you have to be a NBS to hold the office of president.
Our judges, senators, congressmen and Glenn are scared. What are they scared of?
They know that if Obama is kicked out of office there will be violence.
I say preserve the constitution and let the cards fall where they may. No one should want violence but do we dump the constitution to avoid it?
People may say but if you can Obama you will be starting violence. That is like saying that if I protect my family and home I am the one starting the violence. No the ones that choose to harm my family and home started the violence.
There may come a time when violence can not be avoided. But to trash our constitution to avoid violence is a huge mistake on any one's part especially Glenn Beck.

Are you just interested in spreading rumor are you interested in the facts. It seems that you are more interested in the former. It isn't that of a complicated concept to understand. State government are responsible for keeping birth records for the federal government. Or, keeping the integrity of birth records are the state responsibility not the federal government.

The federal government does recognize dual citizenship. They also know that this can cause problems, but expect dual citizens to respect the laws of the jurisdiction that they live in. The reason that they recognize dual citizenship is the fact that a person can get citizenship for the place of birth and the nationality of their parents.

Chester B. Author's father was also a British subject, and also became president. There are some who say that president Author didn't become a natural-born citizen until after his father became a citizen. However, those people seem to forget that under this definition Obama is also natural-born. Chester B. Author isn't the only president whose parents weren't born in America.

It is hard to believe that the person expected to lead the country would have to ask there parents for their citizenship papers, so that they can prove that they are eligible. It is easier to argue that the 14 year residency rule was used to assert loyalty to America.

Yes, it is important to preserve the constitution. However, what you are say goes against the very nature of the constitution. You are to absorbed in your fears that you don't even realize this.

It will be a surprise if you ever have anything intelligent to say.

The only people threatening violence are the people on the crazy right. President Obama has never done anything to threaten you, your family, or anyone you know. Also it has been an accepted principle of American law for well over 100 years that anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen of the United States. You can quote mine the founding fathers all you want but you will never change that fact.

The only people threatening violence are the people on the crazy right. President Obama has never done anything to threaten you, your family, or anyone you know. Also it has been an accepted principle of American law for well over 100 years that anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen of the United States. You can quote mine the founding fathers all you want but you will never change that fact.

thank you for your sharing,i love christian louboutin shoes

100% Authentic quality gurrantee,3 days free shipping.

World cup soccer jerseys is coming, hot sell

soccer jerseys

recently.

we are the wholesale jersey company from china, mainly selling

nfl jerseys

,

mlb jerseys

, and

cheap soccer jerseys

.

all our jerseys are made in embroidered. and top good quality. nowdays, we have so many customers doing

wholesale nfl jerseys

,

wholesale soccer jerseys

,

wholesale mlb jerseys

from us, especialy for the orders in usa, uk, australia, canada, and another euro

countries.

wecome for retail orders and wholesale orders of

cheap nfl jerseys

,

cheap mlb jerseys

, 2010 new nfl jerseys hot sell.

2010 new nfl jerseys

we believe we are your best choice.
http://www.jerseylink.com

hey, do u want to have a straightening hair style?

why are u hestitate!!

come to our website to buy

cheap ghd

,

ghd hair straighteners

online.

we are special ghd website for

ghd purple

,

ghd straighteners

.

welcome for

wholesale ghd

orders online. yours satisfied is our honor.

cheap ghd

cheap ghd hair straighteners

here, get much discount ghd.

surprise so much.

please chlick here to our website.

http://www.hghdoctor.com

Are you just interested in spreading rumor are you interested in the facts. It seems that you are more interested in the former. It isn't that of a complicated concept to understand. State government are responsible for keeping birth records for the federal government. Or, keeping the integrity of birth records are the state responsibility not the federal government.