[Laminar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Your mother dresses you funny.

Attacking the messenger fallacy! Ha HA! You're no match for my brains.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The bottom line is as follows. If anyone would like to refute any of these points, feel free.

1. Based on the laws and policies of the State of Hawaii at the time, it was not difficult for people who did not qualify for "natural born citizen" status to get a COLB from the State of Hawaii.

2. Obama's citizenship has been challenged. Lots of circumstantial, though potentially bogus evidence suggests he may have been born outside the United States.

Actually, not only Obama's citizenship has been challenged. With your first allegation, you've challenged the citizenship of *everyone* born in Hawaii at the time. Probably best to investigate all of their citizenship claims lest they be secret illegal aliens.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Let's delve into why your argument falls down ...

...at which point you quote other people and go off on a tangent totally ignoring my actual argument.

That's some rebuttal, right there!

So even if the Obama campaign released the long-form birth certificate what's to stop the goalposts from being moved again?

Because there really is no room left in the stadium at that point. Obama would have released all information to clear up the matter, and would be acting transparently. He refuses to do so. The reason why there was questions regarding his COLB was because there were several sources who swore he was born in Kenya, including his grandmother (though there is debate that she did not understand what she was saying). Obama could easily have gotten a COLB and not be an eligible citizen. However, if he were actually born in Hawaii, then there would be a document submitted by the hospital that would either have to be forged (far fetched) or given based on his birth there. This isn't rocket science.

Again ... I'm going to have to ask you to cogitate on the difference between possibility and probability. As you stated there are two possibilities here with regard to the long-form birth certificate ...

1. It differs from the COLB - if this were the case, you can best believe that at this stage in the game some Hawaiian government official would have leaked it to the press and made his or herself a nice chunk of change by now. That would be the scandal of the century. At a minimum it would have showed up on WikiLeaks or something! But that hasn't happened.

It doesn't have to differ from the COLB. There could be information consistent with the COLB, but inconsistent with Obama's "official" birth story. It's possible that this could lead to embarrassing revelations. This was my first theory, back when I thought that the only way to get a COLB was to have a hospital first submit a "long form" birth certificate. Otherwsie, there would be no reason not to just have the thing released.

2. It doesn't exist - if this were the case, it's irrelevant. In the state of Hawaii a COLB is prima facie evidence of the fact of Hawaiian birth for all legal purposes.

Back to the "married siblings" defense, I see. This has already been gone over and you've yet to be able to explain how getting status you actually aren't eligible for protects you from later revocation of that status.

So given all that even if ... and that's a big if .... the COLB was obtained by so-called "dishonest manipulation" then that is water under the freaking bridge at this point. My sincere suggestion would be to build a bridge and get over it.

'

Engaging in fraud and continuing to cover it up is "water under the freaking bridge?"

The jury rests.....

Again, I'm not saying that Obama isn't a citizen. I suspect that he may not be, but that is based on his refusal to put the matter to rest and simply take 2 minutes and request that all pertinent information be released. The "evidence" he has so far supplied would be easy for even a non-citizen to produce who was born in Hawaii at the time. There is however one document that wouldn't have been easy to either forge or gotten via means other than being born in one of the two hospitals in the area - and that document Obama does not want to ask the release of. Only someone very naive would think that there isn't something that he does not want known, given the circumstances.

I'm reminded of back when the Bush/Reserves controversy came up. Bush was accused of being AWOL at one point. He wasn't transparent and did not request transparency in this matter. It made him look guilty. He may have been guilty of what he was accused of. It hurt his credibility. Finally he allowed the release of all the information when it was clear that more damage was being done to him due to his lack of transparency, then the fact that the records showed that while completed his duties as ordered, he probably got better treatment than others, and might not have been the best soldier.

Of course, the anti-Bush people was so sure there was "fire" here, that they did forge documents to prove their case. There's been no evidence of this sort of stuff on the part of those who take issue with the evidence Obama has provided thus far, and not being transparent is just dragging this out. Of course, if there is non "long form," it's in his best interest to take the slings and arrows instead of the sure to come lawsuits and court cases. Either way, the guy isn't doing "the right thing" here and a reasonably honest person can't blame the "crazies" for dragging this out.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Attacking the messenger fallacy! Ha HA! You're no match for my brains.

Actually, it was a personal attack fallacy! Same as you gave.

No match indeed!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Actually, not only Obama's citizenship been challenged. With your first allegation, you've challenged the citizenship of *everyone* born in Hawaii at the time. Probably best to investigate all of their citizenship claims lest they be secret illegal aliens.

Only the citizens born in a manner that did not allow for a hospital to submit a birth certificate. I'm betting a lot of non-citizens took advantage of this loophole to get services illegally.

I think however that we can limit the investigation to just those who may want to hold the most important office in the world. Tracking down the Hawaiian dogcatcher who was born in Calcutta probably won't be a very good return on our investigative investment.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Only the citizens born in a manner that did not allow for a hospital to submit a birth certificate. I'm betting a lot of non-citizens took advantage of this loophole to get services illegally.

I think however that we can limit the investigation to just those who may want to hold the most important office in the world. Tracking down the Hawaiian dogcatcher who was born in Calcutta probably won't be a very good return on our investigative investment.

Huh. I didn't picture you as someone who'd be ok with illegal aliens getting away with taking advantage of loopholes to gain citizenship.

You never know when that Hawaiian dogcatcher might want to run for President.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

3. Obama can answer the challenge by authorizing the release of his "long form" birth certificate - the same document that the state and other agencies require for various vetting processes.

4. Obama refuses to do so.

You talk as if Obama has the long form birth certificate hiding under his mattress. How does he have the power to "authorize the release" of this information? Surely you can cite the clause in the Constitution that gives the President the power to snoop in a state's medical records?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

My first statement had nothing to do with being born in an "outlying possesion." It was pertaining to different laws which in essence do not entitle you to automatic citizenship just because one of your parents are a citizen (more below).

No one is suggesting that if Obama was not born in Hawaii, that he was born on a U.S. Military base, diplomatic facility, or any other "outlying possesion." It was about being born in another country where there are no additional qualifiers, as there was with McCain. I believe that military bases are considered "outlying possesions" of the United States



Just being a US citizen wasn't enough according to federal law. For Obama to be legally considered a US citizen at the time, if he were born outside the US (and not part of an "outlying possesion"), and he only had one parent who was a citizen, that parent would have to have resided in the United States for at least 5 years after their 16th Birthday. Obama's mother misses that criteria by about 3 years.

If Obama was not born in the US, then he would not legally be a natural born citizen under federal law given the circumstances. That's the case regardless of whether or not he took advantage of loopholes in the vetting process to procure a COLB even though he was not actually eligible.

So, we get back to whether or not he has a "long form" birth certificate on file. If he does, it will list the hospital he was born, the birth doctor and an address. This should clear up a lot of confusion if he was indeed born in the US and is actuallly a legally natural born citizen.

However, if there was never a "long form" birth certificate submitted by the hospital, and instead there is a manually entered record of birth given at the health department then Obama was most likely not born in the State of Hawaii.

This all can be cleared up in a matter of minutes. Obama chooses to keep this from being transparent. This speaks volumes.

I missed the part about his mother's age. This obviously makes 1401(g) moot in this matter.

On the other hand, his mother was a student at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa when she married Obama Sr. (in February 1961, three months pregnant), and she traveled to Washington state in September 1961 from Hawaii... I don't see a lot of evidence that she could have traveled to Africa, had a baby, and then returned to Hawaii for her trip to Washington... Hey, I have an idea: How about we start a "show me her passport" movement?! Yeah, let's find proof that Ann Dunham traveled to Africa between February 1961 and August 1961 and didn't return until after August 4... Wouldn't that show what the "birthers" are talking about is true? Unfortunately, there are plenty of eye witnesses that place her in Hawaii for that entire period, but that doesn't seem to have dampened the "birthers'" enthusiasm for their "cause."

I didn't vote for the guy, but all this "let's see where the doctor signed the birth certificate" talk is really silly. Theorizing about the whys and wherefores of how paperwork was handled in Hawaiian hospitals and state offices in 1961, and why a modern version of a birth certificate with certain arbitrary features (not required by the Constitution) is important, seems to me to be a real waste of time. The courts have decided that Mr. Obama was qualified to run, and he won the election. Challenges to his qualifications have been made in court, and they have failed. It's over in a purely legal sense because nobody has been able to provide any evidence that Mr. Obama was NOT born in Hawaii.

Are YOU (that's a big, broad, general "you," by the way) willing to have your own "long form" birth certificate made public? Can you actually get one? I don't think I can get mine from 1959; the county birth registration version was good enough for enlisting in the military, getting married, getting a passport, getting a rather high security clearance, and probably a few other things I'm missing. That was a "certified copy," by the way, which is the kind of certificate that the State of Hawaii has made public on behalf of Mr. Obama.. The whole "birther" thing just makes me scratch my head...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

You talk as if Obama has the long form birth certificate hiding under his mattress. How does he have the power to "authorize the release" of this information? Surely you can cite the clause in the Constitution that gives the President the power to snoop in a state's medical records?

This is a document that anyone born in Hawaii can request and get. Do a quick Google search. Many people who were born in Hawaii shortly before and after Obama have requested official copies of the long form "birth certificate' and have received them and posted copies of them on the web. It costs a little more than the COLB, and I believe there is a short wait to get it.

However, I don't believe that they will or can give them to third parties without permission. That's why Hawaii won't release a copy of the document. Obama just has to make the request himself and the information would be available.

So, he virtually is sitting on it under his mattress. I'm guessing it would take about 5 mintues for him to make an official call and get the document faxed to him - assuming it exists at all.

[Dork.]

Except how can we possibly believe that any document Obama himself supplies is real? Requesting the document and releasing it, as you suggest, will satisfy no one. If anything, it will keep this silly idea in people's heads instead of settling it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

On the other hand, his mother was a student at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa when she married Obama Sr. (in February 1961, three months pregnant), and she traveled to Washington state in September 1961 from Hawaii...

How do we know where she traveled to Washington state from??

Are their witnesses, or verifiable evidence that places her in Hawaii on the day of Obama's birth or shortly before or after?

I didn't vote for the guy, but all this "let's see where the doctor signed the birth certificate" talk is really silly. Theorizing about the whys and wherefores of how paperwork was handled in Hawaiian hospitals and state offices in 1961, and why a modern version of a birth certificate with certain arbitrary features (not required by the Constitution) is important, seems to me to be a real waste of time.

A monumental waste of time is all the effort Obama and his administration have used in dismissing and engaging critics instead of just doing the transparent and easy thing and offer the release of the requested information.

The courts have decided that Mr. Obama was qualified to run, and he won the election.

Again, the "married siblings" defense.

Are YOU (that's a big, broad, general "you," by the way) willing to have your own "long form" birth certificate made public?

If I'm seeking public office and there are questions about me being eligible for the office due to my citizenship status, sure. Public officials have to provide all kinds of private information if they want the general public to entrust them with power.

Really, I'd have no reason not to have my "long form" birth certificate made public. There's really no information on there that I'm trying to hide. I'd be glad to play "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours" in this regard if Obama is game.

Can you actually get one? I don't think I can get mine from 1959;

I got one about 5 years ago when I traveled to Canada, because the laws seemed sort of vague on whether or not they'd accept COLB's.

Also, there's a bunch of people on the net who where born shortly before and after Obama who have requested and received their birth certificates from the state of Hawaii and have posted them online.

That was a "certified copy," by the way, which is the kind of certificate that the State of Hawaii has made public on behalf of Mr. Obama.. The whole "birther" thing just makes me scratch my head...

The State of Hawaii didn't make it public, I don't believe. In fact, I don't think they will either confirm or deny the one that's been shown as coming from them. I don't doubt that it is genuine, but the whole "I'm not going to release my birth certificate (or just about any other documentation of Obama's early life) and I'll just take the slings and arrows" bit makes me scratch my head. Obama could make it mostly go away if he would just choose to be transparent - as he promised pre-election.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Except how can we possibly believe that any document Obama himself supplies is real? Requesting the document and releasing it, as you suggest, will satisfy no one. If anything, it will keep this silly idea in people's heads instead of settling it.

He can request the state release the document to the public, and they can verify it's authenticity. This is the FREAKING PRESIDENT for cripes sakes. He can probably make a phone call and have it sent by helicopter within hours.

At that point, he's been as transparent as possible and can honestly say he's done everything in his power to quiet the controversy. Right now he hasn't. He chooses not to request the release of the document. I explained the only real, rational explanations I can think of why he would do that and neither would be very helpful to him in the end. One more than the other.

We do know that what he and his people gave as "evidence" was easily obtained by people born outside the US and isn't real concrete proof he was born in the US. He has the power to release something that unless forged (unlikely) would show he was born in a hospital in Hawaii. He refuses. That speaks volumes. Right now he's stuck in the Bush/Reserve damage control mode - even having to hear insults about his lack of transparency during outbursts in Congress. Really, at what point would a little simple transparency not be the "Presidential" thing to do, so that sane sceptics (like myself) won't have an issue with his hiding things?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

He can request the state release the document to the public, and they can verify it's authenticity. This is the FREAKING PRESIDENT for cripes sakes. He can probably make a phone call and have it sent by helicopter within hours.

He doesn't have the power to compel the state to do squat, and the state cannot release the information in the manner you want, even if asked. He is the FREAKING PRESIDENT, whose powers are limited by laws and the Constitution.

[Big Mac]

You need a long form birth certificate in California (and I assume all other states nowadays) to get a measly driver license, but apparently you don't need one to satisfy the requirements of the highest office in the land. Makes perfect nonsense!

[Dork.]

Really? I had never heard of the Long Form birth certificate until the Birther movement came along.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

He doesn't have the power to compel the state to do squat, and the state cannot release the information in the manner you want, even if asked. He is the FREAKING PRESIDENT, whose powers are limited by laws and the Constitution.

All he really has to do is go here:

Hawai‘i State Department of Health

He doesn't have to "compel" them to do it. They'll do it for anyone.

I'm guessing though that the State of Hawaii would be extra cooperative if the President of the United States gave them permission to release the information publicly. In fact, the website I posted above says that they will release the information to third parties with signed consent. Not just the President either!

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

All he really has to do is go here:

Hawai‘i State Department of Health

He doesn't have to "compel" them to do it. They'll do it for anyone.

I'm guessing though that the State of Hawaii would be extra cooperative if the President of the United States gave them permission to release the information publicly. In fact, the website I posted above says that they will release the information to third parties with signed consent. Not just the President either!

Nowhere on that form does it indicate that you can get the "long form" certificate. You will probably get the same certificate that Obama has already produced.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How do we know where she traveled to Washington state from??

Witness reports-the friends she visited in Washington say that's where she came from.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Are their witnesses, or verifiable evidence that places her in Hawaii on the day of Obama's birth or shortly before or after?

There are copious eye witness reports of her being in Honolulu on the day of his birth, many of which have been published over and over again.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A monumental waste of time is all the effort Obama and his administration have used in dismissing and engaging critics instead of just doing the transparent and easy thing and offer the release of the requested information.

Your concerns are being aimed at the wrong target. The courts are the ones who are charged with deciding this-build a real case and challenge the last ruling that said Obama is a natural born citizen.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again, the "married siblings" defense.

Not at all. The Constitution and federal law place the responsibility for determining eligibility for the office of President in the hands of the Federal Election Commission, and that body's certification has been challenged unsuccessfully more than once. The Constitution is the authority here, and if we're really interested in whether the man is qualified for office, the Constitution (and Constitutional processes) are what we must follow.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If I'm seeking public office and there are questions about me being eligible for the office due to my citizenship status, sure. Public officials have to provide all kinds of private information if they want the general public to entrust them with power.

VALID questions about eligibility for office are posed by the FEC. The FEC's decisions are subject to review by the courts. I personally believe that several of our Chief Executives were on the far side of loony, but my personal concerns are not the issue. Formal qualification for the office in question is handled by the FEC.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Really, I'd have no reason not to have my "long form" birth certificate made public. There's really no information on there that I'm trying to hide. I'd be glad to play "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours" in this regard if Obama is game.

Would your mom be cool with releasing her date of birth and middle name? What about your dad? I have no reason to hide those items from the casual inquirer, but from a security and identity protection standpoint there is a LOT of information on a birth certificate that I would not want published.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I got one about 5 years ago when I traveled to Canada, because the laws seemed sort of vague on whether or not they'd accept COLB's.

I think you got something other than what I'm talking about. How is a reproduction or "certified copy" of a complete certificate functionally not the same thing as what is pictured above in this thread? What's the difference, and if it's validated by the appropriate state officeholder, what's wrong with the one pictured above? I was talking about a real, signed by the doctor "long form" certificate. You know, footprints and everything? My mom had it put up somewhere, but I have no clue where it may be now. Wouldn't that be the "perfect proof" everyone is asking for?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The State of Hawaii didn't make it public, I don't believe. In fact, I don't think they will either confirm or deny the one that's been shown as coming from them. I don't doubt that it is genuine, but the whole "I'm not going to release my birth certificate (or just about any other documentation of Obama's early life) and I'll just take the slings and arrows" bit makes me scratch my head. Obama could make it mostly go away if he would just choose to be transparent - as he promised pre-election.

The State of Hawaii has provided a document attesting to the birth of one Barack Hussein Obama (Jr.) on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, HI, and it has become public. A number of sites have made a lot of digital hay out of trying to tear apart the process the State Registar of Births (or whatever that office is called) used to provide the COLB, and others have scans of what seems to be a more involved version-including some really reaching stuff involving looking at individual pixels of the scans...completely ignoring the fact that unless the scan was done full size at high resolution, and the resulting lossless file is handled perfectly by the viewing software, such "forensic" activities are pointless... Transparency is not an issue here. A bunch of people asking questions on the order of "Is the president circumcised?" is the issue.

According to Constitutional processes, Mr. Obama was qualified to run for president, and he soundly defeated Mr. McCain. From a logical, scientific standpoint, which is more likely: That scores of people who had absolutely no idea that a particular child of mixed race might run for president would have stated falsely that this particular individual was indeed born right there in Honolulu, including a variety of officials with no relationship to the person of interest? Or that maybe there's just nothing to this whole question but a bunch of people suffering from sour grapes?

Inconsistencies in various people's interviews are quite interesting-but absolutely not proof. Much has been made about verbal inconsistencies in Madelyn Dunham's statements about where Obama was born. What were his grandmother's health issues when she was interviewed? She was 86 at the time of her death, and the elderly tend to have a variety of cognitive issues, unrelated to dementia. During the campaign she was in the process of dieing from cancer, which could also have caused some cognitive problems. She could have easily been disqualified as a witness in any legal proceeding for either of those points.

Let's be real-is there solid evidence against Mr. Obama having been born where he says? Our legal processes are based on proving that wrongdoing has occurred, not that it might have occurred. Lacking such evidence, I have to contend that this is still just an issue of sour grapes. I long ago promised to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I really see this issue as a threat to the Constitutional processes that vet potential candidates for federal office, and thus the Constitution itself.

Sure, the office of President of the United States is pretty darn important, but would there be this much fuss if the candidate in question had been born in Seattle or New York (with different local and state processes in place), or (here's the kicker) if he had been born to two parents who were both white? I really do not think so.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Nowhere on that form does it indicate that you can get the "long form" certificate. You will probably get the same certificate that Obama has already produced.

Confirmed: Hawaii Department of Health Can Issue a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth AKA Long-Form Birth Certificate; Obama Got $10.00!? | Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records

$10 and written notice from Obama is all that would be needed for Hawaii to show what has been requested.

If it's a matter of the $10, I'd be glad to float Barry the cash!

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Really? I had never heard of the Long Form birth certificate until the Birther movement came along.

Really and truly. My mother only had my short style birth certificate handy and that was insufficient for the DMV. We had to go obtain the full one. My brother had to do the same when he wanted to get a passport. There is officially less security to become the POTUS than there is to drive or travel outside the country.

Glenn, regarding your points, I reject the notion that Congress does not have a role in ensuring compliance with the Constitution. And in fact you're wrong on that account insofar as Congress demanded proof of McCain's natural born citizenship; Senator Obama was one who signed on to that demand. Why was it proper for Congress to look into McCain's eligibility but improper for it to look into Obama's eligibility?

[screener]

What a waste of time reading this thread was.

It did confirm my opinion of some the posters here, including the mods.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Witness reports-the friends she visited in Washington say that's where she came from.

She did come from Hawaii. That's where she lived.

I'm guessing had she visited Kenya and had a child, and they wanted to make sure it was a citizen and applied for a Hawaii COLB, she wouldn't be announcing this fact to everyone. That wouldn't make much sense.

There are copious eye witness reports of her being in Honolulu on the day of his birth, many of which have been published over and over again.

THIS would be the only evidence/argument that I can think of that has true merit (other than the production of an actual birth certificate). Any variation on the "married sibling defense" (which is what I'm calling it) that tries to assert that just because at some point some official government agencies/courts have ruled that to their knowledge, Obama was eligible based on the information he provided, doesn't really wash intellectually for the reasons I've already given, and that's pretty much the only shot at a real argument otherwise I've seen here. I don't even count the silly "goalposts" types of arguments because there is one singular action Obama could take and could have taken years ago that he refuses to do.

As far as "copious eye witness reports," I've actually not seen any. I've seen testimony where people say that they know she was in Hawaii, or that they remember seeing her around that time, but I'd not seen any reports that state that someone not related to her was with Mrs. Obama the day of, the day before, or even the the days immediately surrounding the birth with any specificity. Even the Governor of Hawaii who was friends with Obama's parents doesn't specify when he last saw her before delivering.

If there are credible witnesses who can specify when they saw her which would establish her whereabouts, that would be more compelling than anything I've heard thus far. I personally haven't seen any. Could you find me any cites?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by screener 

What a waste of time reading this thread was.

It did confirm my opinion of some the posters here, including the mods.

What a waste of time posting to a thread.

This confirms for me my opinion of some of the posters here as well.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If I'm seeking public office and there are questions about me being eligible for the office due to my citizenship status, sure. Public officials have to provide all kinds of private information if they want the general public to entrust them with power.

So, if you're seeking public office, you'll address every question about your eligibility from every conspiracy theorist?

[Dork.]

I took a few minutes last night to take a look at our family's vital records, because I was curious after reading this thread. (We were all born in New York State, and all certificates are official with raised seals). It turns out that I have what looks like my own "long form" certificate, as well as my children's. This is the certificate that gives all the vital information, including place of birth, weight, mother and father's name, etc. I can state definitively that my children's birth certificates are the ones that we originally received from the county health department after birth, and my parents have told me that mine is as well.

We do not have my wife's "long form" certificate, however: given my in-laws' organizational skills, I imagine the original copy is lost to history. The certificate in our possession comes from the State, not the country, and she requested it herself when she was old enough to, before we got married. It only states her birth date and county, and the fact that a full birth record exists in that county. That birth document was sufficient for everything my wife has ever had to do since she got it: get a drivers license, passport, get married, go to and from Canada back when passports weren't required for the trip, and whatever else we've had to produce it for that I'm forgetting about.

I still can't understand why New York's short birth certificate can be good for all these things, while short certificates from Hawaii wouldn't. Is it because the Obama certificate that I see on the Internet does not directly state that the original certificate is on file? But that's besides the point: Obama's short certificate states he was born in Honolulu, the relevant officials in Hawaii have verified that the documentation exists, and that should be the end of the story, no matter what the Internet thinks. The other information given on the long form (birth weight, address of birth, etc.) has no bearing on the issue.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, if you're seeking public office, you'll address every question about your eligibility from every conspiracy theorist?

How about just the ones concerning your eligibility that could be cleared up in about 5 minutes and a 10 spot?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I still can't understand why New York's short birth certificate can be good for all these things, while short certificates from Hawaii wouldn't. Is it because the Obama certificate that I see on the Internet does not directly state that the original certificate is on file? But that's besides the point: Obama's short certificate states he was born in Honolulu, the relevant officials in Hawaii have verified that the documentation exists, and that should be the end of the story, no matter what the Internet thinks.

It's already been established that you could have been born on Mars, had a relative that lived in Hawaii, and still have gotten a Hawaiian "Certificate of Live Birth." The law and policy was lax back in the sixties and all that was really required was some kind of record given by the person reporting to the health department, that the address they've given had been their residence the past year.

[Dork.]

That's still not proof that Obama was born in Kenya (or Mars, for that matter). All that is is proof that the birthers can, by definition, never be satisfied, because "the law and policy was lax back in the sixties", so ANY Hawaiian birth record from that period is suspect!

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Actually, it was a personal attack fallacy! Same as you gave.

No match indeed!

But what you're missing is that only one of us is taking this garbage seriously.

[osiris]

The birthers are so cute, they think the President isn't really the President.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

But what you're missing is that only one of us is taking this garbage seriously.

Oh no, it's very clear that some of you could not follow the request given at the top of the thread.

I'm not sure why you waste your time though. Seems kind of dumb to me.

[Lint Police]

even i believe he is a citizen and i think he is a progressive, socialist, evil bastard.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

That's still not proof that Obama was born in Kenya (or Mars, for that matter).

I didn't say it was.

However, if Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims, he should have a hospital supplied birth certificate on record. This is a document Obama could produce with a phone call and $10 if it exists, and he wasn't actually born someplace other than Hawaii and had his birth manually registered at the Health Department. He chooses not to do so.

All that is is proof that the birthers can, by definition, never be satisfied, because "the law and policy was lax back in the sixties", so ANY Hawaiian birth record from that period is suspect!

Any Hawaiian birth record that relied on anything other than hospital provided birth certificates ARE suspect due to the way they could be manipulated. I have no doubt that a lot of people who got COLB's in Hawaii who were not really eligible for citizenship. There is a way to check to see if Obama's claims are true though - take the 5 minutes and $10 to release the birth certificate that should exist if what Obama has said about his birth is true.

Either the document will likely coroborate his claims if it exists, or it does not exist because what he claimed is not true. This is pretty simple and does not involve a standard that can not be satisfied.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Oh no, it's very clear that some of you could not follow the request given at the top of the thread.

I'm not sure why you waste your time though. Seems kind of dumb to me.

Attacking the messenger fallacy!!1

[Chongo]

The most floated rumor is that Obama Sr. is not listed as the father and Frank Marshall Davis is listed as his father.

[screener]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As far as "copious eye witness reports," I've actually not seen any. I've seen testimony where people say that they know she was in Hawaii, or that they remember seeing her around that time, but I'd not seen any reports that state that someone not related to her was with Mrs. Obama the day of, the day before, or even the the days immediately surrounding the birth with any specificity. Even the Governor of Hawaii who was friends with Obama's parents doesn't specify when he last saw her before delivering.

Did your source intentionally leave this out of it's story?

Governor Neil Abercrombie,

'It's a matter of principle with me,' the 72-year-old said. 'I knew his mum and dad. I was here when he was born. Anybody who wants to ask a question honestly could have had their answer already.'

Hawaii governor says Obama's birth record 'exists' but can't produce it | Mail Online

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There is a way to check to see if Obama's claims are true though - take the 5 minutes and $10 to release the birth certificate that should exist if what Obama has said about his birth is true.

Either the document will likely coroborate his claims if it exists, or it does not exist because what he claimed is not true. This is pretty simple and does not involve a standard that can not be satisfied.

There are other situations:

- Obama's birth was really a home birth or has some other extenuating circumstance that meant he was not technically born in the hospital, so there would be no hospital record. Not likely, since Obama has said he was told he was born in a hospital, but he could have been told mistaken information.

- There is some embarrassing information (like Chongo suggests) that has no relevance to the issue, but Obama would rather keep private. (I don't think there is any doubt now that he is Barack Obama Sr.'s son, but it would be embarrassing if there was doubt when he was born. In this instance, the original certificate may even have a different name on it.)

- The original document was destroyed years ago in an unrelated situation, so there is no "original" document to release, and of course any hint that the original would be destroyed would amplify the birther movement tenfold.

Furthermore, even if the document is released and meets all of your expectations, someone will find some reason to dismiss it, and then we're back where we all started.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The most floated rumor is that Obama Sr. is not listed as the father and Frank Marshall Davis is listed as his father.

There was no father. Obama was immaculately conceived. Duh.

[Chongo]

The Midi-chlorians did it.

[osiris]

Could've been mitosis too.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by screener 

Did your source intentionally leave this out of it's story?

Governor Neil Abercrombie,

Hawaii governor says Obama's birth record 'exists' but can't produce it | Mail Online

No. He said he was "here" as in Hawaii, when he was born. He never claimed that he was THERE at the birth. Big Difference, and the language he chose to use isn't what one would normally say if they were actually present at the event in question.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

There are other situations:

- Obama's birth was really a home birth or has some other extenuating circumstance that meant he was not technically born in the hospital, so there would be no hospital record. Not likely, since Obama has said he was told he was born in a hospital, but he could have been told mistaken information.

So he either lied or was lied to by his Mom. Not exactly the picture of honesty he's want to project. I'd already conceded that maybe there was just embarrassing info he was trying to hide.

- There is some embarrassing information (like Chongo suggests) that has no relevance to the issue, but Obama would rather keep private. (I don't think there is any doubt now that he is Barack Obama Sr.'s son, but it would be embarrassing if there was doubt when he was born. In this instance, the original certificate may even have a different name on it.

Possibly. Again, he's hiding something.

- The original document was destroyed years ago in an unrelated situation, so there is no "original" document to release, and of course any hint that the original would be destroyed would amplify the birther movement tenfold.

..and it's highly unlikely that his birth certificate alone would have just "disappeared" and certificates issued just shortly before and after are readily available (people have posted them on the net). I'd judge such an odd coincidence on about the same level as forgery. Possible, but not really in any way probable. The best explanation for why there would be no certificate is that the story he's given revolving around his place of birth is false.

Furthermore, even if the document is released and meets all of your expectations, someone will find some reason to dismiss it, and then we're back where we all started.

I'm sure there would be. For instance, there are people who still claim the moon landing was faked, even though NASA and all the government agencies have been pretty transparent and have done everything they can to make sure people know the facts. At the point Obama actually takes all reasonable steps to support the release of any information relative to the facts involving his birth, his "birther" critics will then join the ranks of the space exploration deniers. Until then, it's Obama dodging transparency for some reason that seems to defy logic.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

there are people who still claim the moon landing was faked, even though NASA and all the government agencies have been pretty transparent and have done everything they can to make sure people know the facts. At the point Obama actually takes all reasonable steps to support the release of any information relative to the facts involving his birth, his "birther" critics will then join the ranks of the space exploration deniers. Until then, it's Obama dodging transparency for some reason that seems to defy logic.

So, you're comparing the birthers to the nutters who believe the moon landing was faked despite every effort made by NASA to convince them otherwise? It hasn't worked for NASA, why should anyone think it would work for Obama to bend over backwards in an attempt to appease a minority of people who would never vote for him anyways?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I took a few minutes last night to take a look at our family's vital records, because I was curious after reading this thread. (We were all born in New York State, and all certificates are official with raised seals). It turns out that I have what looks like my own "long form" certificate, as well as my children's. This is the certificate that gives all the vital information, including place of birth, weight, mother and father's name, etc. I can state definitively that my children's birth certificates are the ones that we originally received from the county health department after birth, and my parents have told me that mine is as well.

We do not have my wife's "long form" certificate, however: given my in-laws' organizational skills, I imagine the original copy is lost to history. The certificate in our possession comes from the State, not the country, and she requested it herself when she was old enough to, before we got married. It only states her birth date and county, and the fact that a full birth record exists in that county. That birth document was sufficient for everything my wife has ever had to do since she got it: get a drivers license, passport, get married, go to and from Canada back when passports weren't required for the trip, and whatever else we've had to produce it for that I'm forgetting about.

I still can't understand why New York's short birth certificate can be good for all these things, while short certificates from Hawaii wouldn't. Is it because the Obama certificate that I see on the Internet does not directly state that the original certificate is on file? But that's besides the point: Obama's short certificate states he was born in Honolulu, the relevant officials in Hawaii have verified that the documentation exists, and that should be the end of the story, no matter what the Internet thinks. The other information given on the long form (birth weight, address of birth, etc.) has no bearing on the issue.

How do we know that you aren't from Arkansas?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

So basically this all boils down to some people demanding to see Obama's 'long form'.

[screener]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No. He said he was "here" as in Hawaii, when he was born. He never claimed that he was THERE at the birth. Big Difference, and the language he chose to use isn't what one would normally say if they were actually present at the event in question.

Yeah. the weasly twisting what he said to suit your belief, you birther.

Jesus H Christ is that pathetic.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by screener 

Yeah. the weasly twisting what he said to suit your belief, you birther.

Jesus H Christ is that pathetic.

I never claim it was "weasly." I just pointed out that what he said would not mean that he witnessed Obama's mother in Hawaii right before his birth, which is true. I pointed this out as it was inferred I'd failed to provide information that was contrary to my claims, which it wasn't.

What is pathetic is the unbelievable attempts at making the most reasonable explanation of the facts into some kind of nutty conspiracy. The man said he was "here" when Obama was born. WHAT ELSE would that mean, given that anyone speaking proper English who was claiming that they were with Obama's parents at the time of his birth would have said he was "there?"

Is English your first language?

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, you're comparing the birthers to the nutters who believe the moon landing was faked despite every effort made by NASA to convince them otherwise? It hasn't worked for NASA, why should anyone think it would work for Obama to bend over backwards in an attempt to appease a minority of people who would never vote for him anyways?

Because there are people who would be convinced with the production of a birth certificate, and not just evidence that could be supplied by someone born outside the US in the early 1960's. Especially given the abject refusal to take the simple steps that would be required to do so.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Because there are people who would be convinced with the production of a birth certificate, and not just evidence that could be supplied by someone born outside the US in the early 1960's. Especially given the abject refusal to take the simple steps that would be required to do so.

This would convince you that Obama is a natural born citizen?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

This would convince you that Obama is a natural born citizen?

Yes, because the alternatives if he has a valid "Birth Certificate" on record is that he was born at a hospital in Hawaii, or someone forged the document on file. While the latter is possible, it is a lot more far fetched.

Before it was discovered that you could get a COLB so easily, I was pretty convinced. I was assuming there was something embarrassing on his "birth certificate", due to the fact that there is a lot of info on that document than on a COLB. Now that it has been outlined how easy it was for non-US Citizen's to get a COLB, I'm not so sure given his reluctance to request release the document.

Like I said, I'm not married to the idea that he IS NOT a citizen and really have no dog in that hunt so I'm really not a "birther." Maybe you could call me a "certificater?"

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Yes,

And, then you'd vote for him?