[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

What is the document in question?

Reading Comprehension = FAIL.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by DrTacoMD 

I can't speak for BadKosh, but I know for a fact that you aren't. I haven't seen you at the past several galactic communist leftist nazi space zombie meetings.

Or did you not know that we moved our meeting time? Yeah, it's at the conference center on Thursdays at 7 PM now.

As a Vorlon, I already know your thoughts.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Reading Comprehension = FAIL.

Not at all. I'm just trying to get you to explain it clearly, rather than spinning it. You keep saying that Hawaii keeps such documents, but you've never shown any evidence proving it.

Evidentiary Debate = FAIL

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Not at all. I'm just trying to get you to explain it clearly, rather than spinning it. You keep saying that Hawaii keeps such documents, but you've never shown any evidence proving it.

Evidentiary Debate = FAIL

An explanation from this thread on the two different documents in question:

To show how silly this obfuscation is, I decided to do a quick google search to see the difference between the official birth "certificate" (long form) and "certification"(short form). You can find a run-down at the link below. The guy whose site that is pretty much takes the same stance as I do, that while Obama may be a citizen there has to be a reason he's refusing to allow the release of the document in question.

Birth Certificate Lying Still [Updates] : NO QUARTER

The new question is whether or not the original birth certificate that the "birthers" have asked to be released still exists or ever existed at all. The "long form" in question that is the original documentation created at the time of birth, that the link above shows an example of.

In an e-mail, the Times reported, Klein wrote that CNN researchers determined that Obama's 1961 birth certificate no longer exists because Hawaiian officials had discarded paper documents in 2001 — a claim denied Monday by Hawaiian health officials.

In 2001, Hawaii's paper documents were reproduced in electronic format, but "any paper data prior to that still exists," Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said.

Okubo would not say where Obama's original birth certificate is but said, "We have backups for all of our backups."

Hawaii: Obama birth certificate is real - USATODAY.com

So now we know that despite attempts to misdirect and makes excuses:

A. Obama was issued a birth certificate containing more detailed information concerning the circumstances of his birth. This is the "long form" as it's often times referred to.

B. This more detailed document still exists.

C. Standard procedure for the state of Hawaii is to give a shorter, digital "certification of live birth" since 2001 as the "official" proof of birth

C. Obama has decided not to authorize the release to the public the "long form" which could either corroborate his citizenship claims further, or possibly hinder his claims if the document has information which can be shown to be inconsistent with verifiable evidence.

Again, the ball is in Obama's court. Legally, he doesn't have to do anything. Though, that doesn't mean he doesn't have an obligation to be transparent in regards to the issue and not a hypocritical and dishonest game player trying to hide potentially embarrassing or legally problematic details. My bet is that he continues with the dishonesty and hypocrisy.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again, while they don't do it as a matter of normal procedure, I guarantee you there IS a procedure to have it done. Otherwise, genealogists and other historians would likely have a sh#t fit over such a restrictive policy over public historical records.

Again. You "guarantee" yet you have yet to provide evidence.

The idea that the most powerful man in the world can't get a photo copy of his original birth certificate really is too much humor for me to bear.

As I stated initially. This entire controversy isn't about the "original birth certificate". It's about certain people who don't accept Obama's legitimacy as President. The birth certificate is just the pretext that they hide behind. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the real issue is. The "birther" crowd would not accept an "original birth certificate" even if it was presented. They'd swear on a stack of bibles that it was a forgery. And you know it.

OAW

[besson3c]

OAW: can I see your birth certificate?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Again. You "guarantee" yet you have yet to provide evidence.

Your argument, which you require "evidence" to prove against is again is as follows:

"The Most Powerful Man in The World has no power to get a state health services employee to go to their state archives and print out a document in storage which he likely already has a copy of anyways, and then release it to the public.

Yes, do go back to sleep! You likely aren't half as tired as your argument is though.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

An explanation from this thread on the two different documents in question:

The new question is whether or not the original birth certificate that the "birthers" have asked to be released still exists or ever existed at all. The "long form" in question that is the original documentation created at the time of birth, that the link above shows an example of.

ummm ... you wouldn't happen to have something from a site more reliable than Larry Johnson's website, would you?

So now we know that despite attempts to misdirect and makes excuses:

sooo ... CNN made an incorrect conclusion and Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo corrected them = attempts to misdirect and make excuses?

C. Standard procedure for the state of Hawaii is to give a shorter, digital "certification of live birth" since 2001 as the "official" proof of birth

If this so-called "short form" is the official form of proving that one was born in the US, why is it not good enough for the birthers?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

ummm ... you wouldn't happen to have something from a site more reliable than Larry Johnson's website, would you?

For what? That the original birth certificates issued by Hawaii had more information? If that's a sticking point, there are about 10 on the first page of a Google search that will get you a copy of an original Hawaii birth certificate. One even has someone that was born the day after Obama, I believe.

sooo ... CNN made an incorrect conclusion and Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo corrected them = attempts to misdirect and make excuses?

No. When they inferred that there was no other document on record originally, was misdirection. They had to admit that there was a "long form" on file after people started speculating that they'd been destroyed, even though they don't refer to it as a "long form" (semantical misdirection).

If this so-called "short form" is the official form of proving that one was born in the US, why is it not good enough for the birthers?

Because it's essentially something entered into a computer by a single person (and we know that people can make mistakes and/or be corrupted) in recent times, and there's a document with more verifiable information out there that could either corroborate or call into question the true nature of Obama's citizenship. This is the document Obama has chosen to hide. This is a document that could easily be released in the name of transparency. This is what Obama has refused to do, then pretend that he's done everything he can to clear up the matter instead of just providing the very minimum, unverifiable legal standard necessary.

[besson3c]

Here is my theory:

A big Obama supporter (probably Jeremiah Wright) created a time machine and travelled back in time to when Obama was born before anybody knew that he was going to be president, hired some Nazis and ACORN workers to create this fake birth certificate in the state of Hawaii. Then, he travelled back to time to the present day! Since digital records have timestamps, probably have many different backups, and there is no evidence that the Hawaii government computer systems were compromised, these records must not have been created in the present day.

It isn't hard to make a time machine anyway, all you need is some plutonium and lightening. Obama can easily obtain dangerous chemicals like plutonium from his terrorist buddies like William Ayers. In fact, William Ayers might have been Jeremiah Wright's time traveling partner for all we know, I wouldn't put it past him!

[Wiskedjak]

If it's so easy for the "short form" to be forged or mistakenly filled, why is it acceptable as proof of location of birth?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

If it's so easy for the "short form" to be forged or mistakenly filled, why is it acceptable as proof of location of birth?

What a stupid question. It's clearly part of the leftist conspiracy.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

What a stupid question. It's clearly part of the leftist conspiracy.

It must be lonely in your world were you have to answer your own questions.

Seriously though...there was a dispute about where he was born, which is important for legal reasons. Forgeries can and do occur, and Hawaii has on record a document which could be independently verified (where a simple digital copy with limited information can't).

There really isn't any credible reason I can think of, other than trying to hide something, as to why Obama would refuse to release a copy of his original birth certificate. Really, it would be quite easy to just nip all this in the bud...unless that would actually open up another can of worms (which is what I'm guessing).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There really isn't any credible reason I can think of, other than trying to hide something, as to why Obama would refuse to release a copy of his original birth certificate.

The reason I can think of is to not appease radicals.

(it's seems kinda funny that a "leftist" must remind a conservative about that ...)

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

My point wasn't whether or not he's a citizen, rather that he's chosen a route which is NOT transparent, and which makes it look like he's trying to hide something.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

It makes it look like he is trying to hide something only to those people who don't believe the statements from the government officials in Hawai'i.

To "regular folks" who accept the statements made by the Hawai'i Department of Health, the fact Obama has not released the "long form" birth certificate is inconsequential, and more important, irrelevant.

Just thought I would post this here again to remind folks that Obama "looks like he is trying to hide something" ONLY IF you don't accept the statements made by the government officials in Hawai'i. If you believe the statements made by the government officials in Hawai'i you can't also think Obama is hiding something; The two notions are mutually and logically exclusive.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Seriously though...there was a dispute about where he was born, which is important for legal reasons.

Yes, and that "dispute about where he was born" was resolved by government officials in Hawai'i. Unless you don't believe the government officials in Hawai'i and what they said about Obama's "short form" birth certificate.

Of course, if you don't believe the government officials in Hawai'i and what they said about Obama's "short form" birth certificate you couldn't believe what they say about Obama's "long form" birth certificate. (It's not logically possible to assert a group is un-trustworthy when answering one question but turn around and say the same group is completely trustworthy when answering another, related question.)

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Forgeries can and do occur, and Hawaii has on record a document which could be independently verified (where a simple digital copy with limited information can't).

Who would "independently verify" the long form birth certificate? Aren't the officials from the state of Hawai'i the only ones in a position to know if the "long form" birth certificate is valid? I mean, who else would know how the "long form" birth certificate is produced, and thus would be able to attest to its validity, then the government officials in Hawai'i? It's not like anyone outside of the state of Hawai'i government is in possession of the knowledge of how the state of Hawai'i produces their "long form" birth certificate. I assume they keep confidential this information (on how they produce their "long form" birth certificate) for the express purpose of preventing forgeries. If they don't keep confidential this information (on how they produce their "long form" birth certificate) then NO "long form" birth certificate released by the state of Hawai'i could ever be trusted.

So again, we are back at the matter of either trusting or not trusting the government officials in Hawai'i. And if you don't trust them when they release the Certificate of Live Birth then you can't trust them if/when they were to release the "long form" birth certificate.

[Wiskedjak]

yup, if the desired document were actually presented and it stated that Obama was born in the US, it's guaranteed that the birthers would claim it was a fake or another example of human error. And then they would proceed to fabricate another requirement to demand.

[andi*pandi]

Obama hasn't provided us with a youtube video of his health exam to prove he's healthy enough to be president. Therefore he must be sick, and Biden must take over. Why doesn't he just release the health exam video to appease the critics? It would be so easy for him, what is he hiding. No, his written health record is not enough since it could be forged. He must submit to a video exam.

Also, Obama hasn't provided us with his 3rd grade math homework to prove he passed third grade, he's clearly not educated, and not worthy to be president.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Yes, and that "dispute about where he was born" was resolved by government officials in Hawai'i. Unless you don't believe the government officials in Hawai'i and what they said about Obama's "short form" birth certificate.

Of course, if you don't believe the government officials in Hawai'i and what they said about Obama's "short form" birth certificate you couldn't believe what they say about Obama's "long form" birth certificate. (It's not logically possible to assert a group is un-trustworthy when answering one question but turn around and say the same group is completely trustworthy when answering another, related question.)

........

But of course, that's too much like right for the "birther" crowd. Simple logic and common sense seems to escape them.

OAW

[BadKosh]

it's probably hidden because Obamas dad was a Muslim, and therefore his son is listed as one.

[besson3c]

Or, my time machine theory...

BadK0sh = Abe 2.0?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

it's probably hidden because Obamas dad was a Muslim, and therefore his son is listed as one.

Even if that was the case, this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Obama's citizenship status or his legal eligibility to be POTUS. Besides, it's common knowledge that Obama's father was a Muslim. So what? A person's religion isn't what's on a piece of paper when they are a freaking infant. It's what they embrace and practice now. Obama was raised as a Christian and has been a practicing Christian his entire adult life. And even if he was a Muslim. So what?

OAW

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Just thought I would post this here again to remind folks that Obama "looks like he is trying to hide something" ONLY IF you don't accept the statements made by the government officials in Hawai'i.

No, not at all.

If you ask someone to release information that should help to clear up a controversy, information that should be non-controversial if the version of events you've given are accurate, and they refuse, that does look as though they are hiding something. As I've explained, it could have nothing to do with the "statements made by the government officials in Hawai'i."

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No, not at all.

If you ask someone to release information that should help to clear up a controversy

What controversy? If you're referring to his citizenship, that one was already taken care of. Anything else is irrelevant to his job as it stands.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Of course, if you don't believe the government officials in Hawai'i and what they said about Obama's "short form" birth certificate you couldn't believe what they say about Obama's "long form" birth certificate.

Some may, some may not.

Taking every reasonable step available to be transparent is what would enable a person in this situation to separate the people with reasonable requests to "trust but verify" and those who are truly kooks. Obama chooses not to take a reasonable, transparent approach. In fact, he apparently refuses to release most of the records he can block in regards to his life prior to becoming a politician. That's not what someone who has nothing to hide does.

Who would "independently verify" the long form birth certificate?

Let's say the Doctor listed as being present at the birth can be tracked down and asked to check either his memory, or records and he states for a fact that he never delivered Obama, or that he was not practicing in Hawaii at the time. This is something that I doubt that the person in charge of records today ever bothered to look into. That would be an example of something that can be independently verified. If all the information checks out, and there are no tell-tale signs of forgery, then Obama has done all he can to alleviate the controversy.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

it's probably hidden because Obamas dad was a Muslim, and therefore his son is listed as one.

Possibly. I really don't know what he's trying to hide.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Even if that was the case, this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Obama's citizenship status or his legal eligibility to be POTUS. Besides, it's common knowledge that Obama's father was a Muslim. So what? A person's religion isn't what's on a piece of paper when they are a freaking infant. It's what they embrace and practice now. Obama was raised as a Christian and has been a practicing Christian his entire adult life. And even if he was a Muslim. So what?

OAW

I agree, though apparently Obama and his handlers don't. They took great strides to ensure that the general public couldn't link him to Islam. Possibly even to the point of blocking access to public records.

We really don't know what it is that Obama choses to hide by refusing the release of his original long form birth record. While it's not illegal to try to hide the truth from the American people about your private life, it is dishonest and hypocritical when you promised the highest level of transparency.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Let's say the Doctor listed as being present at the birth can be tracked down and asked to check either his memory, or records and he states for a fact that he never delivered Obama, or that he was not practicing in Hawaii at the time. This is something that I doubt that the person in charge of records today ever bothered to look into.

Why should they? Why would the State of Hawaii have reason to doubt the previous record keeping of the State of Hawaii?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That would be an example of something that can be independently verified. If all the information checks out, and there are no tell-tale signs of forgery, then Obama has done all he can to alleviate the controversy.

That would go above and beyond what is required of him. There is nothing reasonable in the above request.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Even if that was the case, this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Obama's citizenship status or his legal eligibility to be POTUS. Besides, it's common knowledge that Obama's father was a Muslim. So what? A person's religion isn't what's on a piece of paper when they are a freaking infant. It's what they embrace and practice now. Obama was raised as a Christian and has been a practicing Christian his entire adult life. And even if he was a Muslim. So what?

OAW

It's the "so what" part that really turns me off, like the very notion of him being a Muslim would be a bad thing, and that being a Muslim is the same as being a radical terrorist despite the fact that there are millions upon millions of Muslims who live peaceful lives and have no desire whatsoever to bring about violence on anybody (as one could expect since there are up to 1.5 billion of them in the world).

[besson3c]

It's amusing to me that not accommodating unreasonable requests = must have something to hide.

I'm still waiting for OAW's birth certificate which I asked for before, I wonder what he is hiding?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Why should they? Why would the State of Hawaii have reason to doubt the previous record keeping of the State of Hawaii?

No one said that they should. There are those who do doubt the record keeping in question though. The believe that Obama's grandmother was telling the truth when she first claimed that Obama was born in Kenya and she was there for his birth.

No one's asking for the State of Hawaii to further investigate. People are just asking to be able to verify the information on record for themselves. Obama has refused this.

That would go above and beyond what is required of him. There is nothing reasonable in the above request.

"Transparency" requires you to go beyond just what's legally required, if requested.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No one said that they should.

Then why bring it up? It's just more idle speculation.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

"Transparency" requires you to go beyond just what's legally required, if requested.

It doesn't mean bending over backward for every nutjob with an ax to grind.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's amusing to me that not accommodating unreasonable requests = must have something to hide.

How is asking someone to release a historically and legally significant document, when there's nothing to hide, "unreasonable"? A document it would probably take someone a half hour to produce?

You have a valid argument that it's not legally required, but not really that asking for it is "unreasonable" given the fact that both his parents aren't citizens and his grandmother had claimed his birth was outside the US (later retracted after it became an issue), and the circumstances surrounding the birth of a President of the United States is historically significant enough to be of public interest to more than those who have doubts about the official statements made concerning his birth.

I'm still waiting for OAW's birth certificate which I asked for before, I wonder what he is hiding?

Is OAW an elected public official?

Has someone claimed to have been present at his birth outside the US?

Has his citizenship status been challenged?

Is OAW a historically important public figure?

If not, I'm pretty sure we are dealing with a lame "apples to oranges" attempt to derail the thread. I can't say that's something I don't expect from you though.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Then why bring it up? It's just more idle speculation.

It's "idle speculation" that Obama's father wasn't a citizen and his grandmother at one time claimed he was not born on US soil? I'm pretty sure that isn't "speculation". Given those two facts, it's not unreasonable to ask for more information if it's available. The fact that Obama refuses to give that information doesn't really look very good, IMO.

It doesn't mean bending over backward for every nutjob with an ax to grind.

The problem with that argument is that no one is asking him to bend over backwards. It would probably take a single phone call, and a government employee less than a half hour to accomplish what's been requested, at which time Obama can honestly say he's done everything in his power to be transparent and put the matter behind him. Instead, he's chosen to stonewall and refuse the release of the document.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's "idle speculation" that Obama's father wasn't a citizen and his grandmother at one time claimed he was not born on US soil?

No your "Why didn't Hawaii verify its own documents 30+ years after the fact" is idle speculation.

Next thing you know, they'll ask for a blood test to prove Obama is actually related to the people he claims he's related to.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

No your "Why didn't Hawaii verify its own documents 30+ years after the fact" is idle speculation.

I didn't ask for Hawaii to do that, nor did I question why they didn't. I simply said that OTHERS WOULD like to do that, and Obama is refusing to allow that to be done for some reason.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How is asking someone to release a historically and legally significant document, when there's nothing to hide, "unreasonable"? A document it would probably take someone a half hour to produce?

There are many answers to this question already in this thread. This thread is stuck in a loop. It is loopy.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I didn't ask for Hawaii to do that, nor did I question why they didn't. I simply said that OTHERS WOULD like to do that, and Obama is refusing to allow that to be done for some reason.

To which I reply, why bring it up?

You keep claiming you believe what Obama has shown, but at the same time you keep spit-balling ridiculous hoops that "people" supposedly would like to see him jump through.

You think there might be something unfavorable about Obama on the birth certificate of his that may or may not exist. Amazingly, I understand that.

Coming up with ways that questions not being asked by anyone here could answered? Pointless and counterproductive.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Even if that was the case, this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Obama's citizenship status or his legal eligibility to be POTUS. Besides, it's common knowledge that Obama's father was a Muslim. So what? A person's religion isn't what's on a piece of paper when they are a freaking infant. It's what they embrace and practice now. Obama was raised as a Christian and has been a practicing Christian his entire adult life. And even if he was a Muslim. So what?

OAW

It was to quiet the critics of him during the campaign. How soon they forget the past.

[besson3c]

BadKosh: can we see your birth certificate?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Or, my time machine theory...

BadK0sh = Abe 2.0?

No. Abe could formulate some pretty solid arguments out of wild speculation. More like Abe 0.5

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Let's say the Doctor listed as being present at the birth can be tracked down and asked to check either his memory, or records and he states for a fact that he never delivered Obama, or that he was not practicing in Hawaii at the time. This is something that I doubt that the person in charge of records today ever bothered to look into. That would be an example of something that can be independently verified. If all the information checks out, and there are no tell-tale signs of forgery, then Obama has done all he can to alleviate the controversy.

Do all Presidents need to go through this level of verification to validate *their* birth certificates? Or, just the ones that the radicals don't like?

Are Presidential candidates required to submit their "long form" certificates in order to be qualified?

If not, then you're saying that you don't trust the US electoral system.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No one said that they should. There are those who do doubt the record keeping in question though.

And, those people will doubt *anything* that says Obama was born on American soil.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Do all Presidents need to go through this level of verification to validate *their* birth certificates? Or, just the ones that the radicals don't like?

Are Presidential candidates required to submit their "long form" certificates in order to be qualified?

Of course not. Only the black ones that actually win.

OAW

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No, not at all.

If you ask someone to release information that should help to clear up a controversy, SNIP

Again, this matter is a controversy ONLY to those folks who don't believe the statements made, and documents produced, by the state of Hawai'i. Any controvery surrounding Obama's birth was resolved by the government officials in the state of Hawai'i.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman, in reply to my question about methods of verification 

Let's say the Doctor listed as being present at the birth can be tracked down and asked to check either his memory, or records and he states for a fact that he never delivered Obama, or that he was not practicing in Hawaii at the time. This is something that I doubt that the person in charge of records today ever bothered to look into.

The "person in charge of records today" has NO reason to perform this level of confirmation, though. Do they?

For the "person in charge of records today" to perform this level of confirmation they would have to assume that there was fraud committed by the hospital that sent the original birth record to the state. Is it likely a hospital would willingly falsify a birth record it sent to its state bureau of records? Is it likely a hospital would willingly lie about a child being born within its walls and fabricate a date/time of birth and a doctor's name for a falsified birth record?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

For the "person in charge of records today" to perform this level of confirmation they would have to assume that there was fraud committed by the hospital that sent the original birth record to the state. Is it likely a hospital would willingly falsify a birth record it sent to its state bureau of records? Is it likely a hospital would willingly lie about a child being born within its walls and fabricate a date/time of birth and a doctor's name for a falsified birth record?

It's incredibly likely ... if they were a bunch of leftists conspiring to prop that child up to the Presidency in 50 years.

Otherwise, like I've said a few times here, if there's one birth certificate from Hawaii of questionable legitimacy, then *all* of the birth certificates from Hawaii must be investigated just as closely to ensure that they weren't also fraudulent or mistakenly filled out. Hawaii could be filled with illegals.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Why should they? Why would the State of Hawaii have reason to doubt the previous record keeping of the State of Hawaii?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No one said that they should. There are those who do doubt the record keeping in question though. The believe that Obama's grandmother was telling the truth when she first claimed that Obama was born in Kenya and she was there for his birth.

Well, those folks have to accept that they are wrong to have continued doubts after the state of Hawai'i gave them no more reason to have doubts.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No one's asking for the State of Hawaii to further investigate. People are just asking to be able to verify the information on record for themselves.

Again, there is NO REASON for any other person to verify this information UNLESS those persons doubt the statements made, and documents produced, by the state of Hawai'i. And if those persons do doubt the statements made, and documents produced, by the state of Hawai'i, the problem is with them. NOT Obama. NOT the state of Hawai'i. NOT anyone but themselves.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How is asking someone to release a historically and legally significant document, when there's nothing to hide, "unreasonable"?

Except Obama's "long form" birth certificate is "historically and legally significant" ONLY to those folks who don't believe the statements made, and documents produced, by the state of Hawai'i. For "regular folks" like you and me, the only "historically and legally significant document" was produced by the state of Hawai'i.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's "idle speculation" that Obama's father wasn't a citizen and his grandmother at one time claimed he was not born on US soil? I'm pretty sure that isn't "speculation". Given those two facts, it's not unreasonable to ask for more information if it's available.

This is where you are wrong. It is unreasonable to ask Obama to release more documents after his official records were released by the state of Hawai'i and attested to their accuracy and correctness by the state of Hawai'i. Any requests for information regarding Obama's birth after this occurred are completely and totally unreasonable. People have to accept that the records produced by the state of Hawai'i are accurate and correct. If they choose not to accept this then the problem is theirs. Not Obama's. NOT the state of Hawai'i. NOT anyone but those who refuse to accept the information provided by the state of Hawai'i.