The Birther Conspiracy Thread (4 Viewers)

[Balance]

That certificate of live birth as proof is hilarious. What it isn't is a birth certificate.What I don't understand, if there is no basis for any of this, is why Obama simply won't release his birth certificate and allow access to his college records.He does that and any controversy is over, period, and all conspiracy theorists have egg all over their face. Instead, he invests a million dollars a year every year in paying a law firm to ensure that no one has any access to any of these records. He's intentionally giving credibility to the argument.That looks like smoke to me. Is there fire?Oh, and to those who say they don't care - the Constitution still means something in this country. You can't invoke it when it favors you and ignore it when it's inconvenient. The Constitution is very direct and clear on this issue.

So you are saying you really believe there is a chance Obama is not a US born citizen?I just want to be clear here.

 

[P Boy]

That certificate of live birth as proof is hilarious. What it isn't is a birth certificate.What I don't understand, if there is no basis for any of this, is why Obama simply won't release his birth certificate and allow access to his college records.He does that and any controversy is over, period, and all conspiracy theorists have egg all over their face. Instead, he invests a million dollars a year every year in paying a law firm to ensure that no one has any access to any of these records. He's intentionally giving credibility to the argument.That looks like smoke to me. Is there fire?Oh, and to those who say they don't care - the Constitution still means something in this country. You can't invoke it when it favors you and ignore it when it's inconvenient. The Constitution is very direct and clear on this issue.

So you are saying you really believe there is a chance Obama is not a US born citizen?I just want to be clear here.

I don't know the truth. All relevant important data is not present.I believe that Obama is giving legitimacy to those who contend that he is ineligible to be President. End the controversy. Simple to do. I have my authentic birth certificate at home. It was easy to acquire.If it's not true, let's move on - quickly. If it is true, let's enforce the Constitution.

 

[Steve Tasker]

The problem is that no matter what happens at this point, some "birthers" will still continue to believe that Obama isn't an American. The government can release the long-form birth certificate, and people will still claim that it's forged or point to the "destruction" accounts.

Looks like I was right...

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I honestly hope this never ends.

 

[Sam Quentin]

The problem is that no matter what happens at this point, some "birthers" will still continue to believe that Obama isn't an American. The government can release the long-form birth certificate, and people will still claim that it's forged or point to the "destruction" accounts.

Looks like I was right...

He hasn't released the long-form BC, and probably never will. If people bring up the legitimacy question, he can point to ####ino statement from a few days ago, and that one will probably legally stand.At this point the long-form BC queries are a fishing trip to see why they have spent so much time and money resisting just releasing it. I have to admit, I'm curious.

 

[Running with scissors]

I have to admit, I'm curious.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Loki theory gaining traction.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I honestly think it's worth a million dollars a year to make some Conservatives look like complete idiots. I'd wait until right after the 2012 election and then produce it.

 

[Sam Quentin]

I have to admit, I'm curious.

:X

:X :X

:X :X :X



Merry Christmas!

 

[Running with scissors]

I honestly think it's worth a million dollars a year to make some Conservatives look like complete idiots. I'd wait until right after the 2012 election and then produce it.

 

[Sam Quentin]

I honestly think it's worth a million dollars a year to make some Conservatives look like complete idiots. I'd wait until right after the 2012 election and then produce it.

yes, because all of those conspiracy theories about Florida, Ohio, Diebold, Haliburton, Rove etc really hurt the Democrats in 2006 and 2008...

 

[Running with scissors]

I honestly think it's worth a million dollars a year to make some Conservatives look like complete idiots. I'd wait until right after the 2012 election and then produce it.

yes, because all of those conspiracy theories about Florida, Ohio, Diebold, Haliburton, Rove etc really hurt the Democrats in 2006 and 2008...

Oh yeah... NOW you're the voice of reason.

 

[tommyboy]

the left had the "Truthers" and the 9/11 conspiracy, now the right has the "Birthers" and the obama citizen conspiracy.

I think this was disproved about 8 months ago, conclusively, with much egg on my own face at the time. when confronted with overwhelming facts, the obvious thing is to change your mind, not create an even bigger conspiracy.

 

[Sam Quentin]

I honestly think it's worth a million dollars a year to make some Conservatives look like complete idiots. I'd wait until right after the 2012 election and then produce it.

yes, because all of those conspiracy theories about Florida, Ohio, Diebold, Haliburton, Rove etc really hurt the Democrats in 2006 and 2008...

Oh yeah... NOW you're the voice of reason.

please post a comment where I haven't been the voice of reason

 

[flufhed]

That certificate of live birth as proof is hilarious. What it isn't is a birth certificate.What I don't understand, if there is no basis for any of this, is why Obama simply won't release his birth certificate and allow access to his college records.He does that and any controversy is over, period, and all conspiracy theorists have egg all over their face. Instead, he invests a million dollars a year every year in paying a law firm to ensure that no one has any access to any of these records. He's intentionally giving credibility to the argument.That looks like smoke to me. Is there fire?Oh, and to those who say they don't care - the Constitution still means something in this country. You can't invoke it when it favors you and ignore it when it's inconvenient. The Constitution is very direct and clear on this issue.

Please let this not be schtick

 

[flufhed]

when confronted with overwhelming facts, the obvious thing is to change your mind, not create an even bigger conspiracy.

Man, if ever a wise and insightful statement was ever made about these sorts of things, this is it.

 

[P Boy]

Please let this not be schtick

yeah So you explain to me why he won't produce a legitimate birth certificate and put a stop to all of this. It's a simple and reasonable request.And please do not refer to the certificate of live birth. That is not a birth certificate.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Please let this not be schtick

yeah So you explain to me why he won't produce a legitimate birth certificate and put a stop to all of this. It's a simple and reasonable request.And please do not refer to the certificate of live birth. That is not a birth certificate.

 

[Statorama]

the left had the "Truthers" and the 9/11 conspiracy, now the right has the "Birthers" and the obama citizen conspiracy.I think this was disproved about 8 months ago, conclusively, with much egg on my own face at the time. when confronted with overwhelming facts, the obvious thing is to change your mind, not create an even bigger conspiracy.

We'll never get this thread to 14 pages with that kind of attitude.

 

[toshiba]

Obama does not need to do anything and he can make fringe republicans look more looney. Why would he expend an effort to stop this?

 

[Sam Quentin]

That certificate of live birth as proof is hilarious. What it isn't is a birth certificate.

From everything I've read on this topic, the National Review (quoted above) is correct on this point.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And please do not refer to the certificate of live birth. That is not a birth certificate.

Except that it is. That's what you get from the state when you request a birth certificate. The National Review article is one of many sources pointing this out:
The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his "real" birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.

If one applies for a United States passport, the passport office will demand a birth certificate. It defines this as an official document bearing "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The Hawaiian birth certificate President Obama has produced--the document is formally known as a "certificate of live birth"--bears that information. It has been inspected by reporters, and several state officials have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical to that on the president's birth certificate--which is precisely what one expects, of course, since the state records are used to generate those documents when they are requested. In other words, what President Obama has produced is the "real" birth certificate of myth and lore. The director of Hawaii's health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama's birth certificate is identical to that in the state's records, the so-called vault copy.

 

[Gigantomachia]

And please do not refer to the certificate of live birth. That is not a birth certificate.

Except that it is. That's what you get from the state when you request a birth certificate. The National Review article is one of many sources pointing this out:
The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his "real" birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.

If one applies for a United States passport, the passport office will demand a birth certificate. It defines this as an official document bearing "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The Hawaiian birth certificate President Obama has produced--the document is formally known as a "certificate of live birth"--bears that information. It has been inspected by reporters, and several state officials have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical to that on the president's birth certificate--which is precisely what one expects, of course, since the state records are used to generate those documents when they are requested. In other words, what President Obama has produced is the "real" birth certificate of myth and lore. The director of Hawaii's health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama's birth certificate is identical to that in the state's records, the so-called vault copy. Given that fact, we are loath even to engage the fanciful notion that President Obama was born elsewhere, contrary to the information on his birth certificate, but we note for the record that his mother was a native of Kansas, whose residents have been citizens of the United States for a very long time, and whose children are citizens of the United States as well.

You're wasting your time Trembs.There is no reasoning with the likes of P

 

[Woogie Lee]

 

[Running with scissors]

And please do not refer to the certificate of live birth. That is not a birth certificate.

Except that it is. That's what you get from the state when you request a birth certificate. The National Review article is one of many sources pointing this out:
The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his "real" birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.

If one applies for a United States passport, the passport office will demand a birth certificate. It defines this as an official document bearing "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The Hawaiian birth certificate President Obama has produced--the document is formally known as a "certificate of live birth"--bears that information. It has been inspected by reporters, and several state officials have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical to that on the president's birth certificate--which is precisely what one expects, of course, since the state records are used to generate those documents when they are requested. In other words, what President Obama has produced is the "real" birth certificate of myth and lore. The director of Hawaii's health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama's birth certificate is identical to that in the state's records, the so-called vault copy.

Buncha communists.

 

[P Boy]

And please do not refer to the certificate of live birth. That is not a birth certificate.

Except that it is. That's what you get from the state when you request a birth certificate. The National Review article is one of many sources pointing this out:
The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his "real" birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.

If one applies for a United States passport, the passport office will demand a birth certificate. It defines this as an official document bearing "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The Hawaiian birth certificate President Obama has produced--the document is formally known as a "certificate of live birth"--bears that information. It has been inspected by reporters, and several state officials have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical to that on the president's birth certificate--which is precisely what one expects, of course, since the state records are used to generate those documents when they are requested. In other words, what President Obama has produced is the "real" birth certificate of myth and lore. The director of Hawaii's health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama's birth certificate is identical to that in the state's records, the so-called vault copy.

From your source, the National Review, in regard to the material you posted:link

CERTIFICATE AND CERTIFICATION

So, end of story, right? Well, no. The relevance of information related to the birth of our 44th president is not limited to his eligibility to be our 44th president. On this issue, NRO’s editorial has come in for some blistering criticism. The editorial argues:

The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his “real” birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.

On reflection, I think this was an ill-considered assertion. (I should add that I saw a draft of the editorial before its publication, was invited to comment, and lodged no objection to this part.) The folly is made starkly clear in the photos that accompany this angry (at NRO) post from Dave Jeffers, who runs a blog called “Salt and Light.”

To summarize: What Obama has made available is a Hawaiian “certification of live birth” (emphasis added), not a birth certificate (or what the state calls a “certificate of live birth”). The certification form provides a short, very general attestation of a few facts about the person’s birth: name and sex of the newborn; date and time of birth; city or town of birth, along with the name of the Hawaiian island and the county; the mother’s maiden name and race; the father’s name and race; and the date the certification was filed. This certification is not the same thing as the certificate, which is what I believe we were referring to in the editorial as “the state records that are used to generate birth certificates [sic] when they are requested.”

To the contrary, “the state records” are the certificate. They are used to generate the more limited birth certifications on request. As the Jeffers post shows, these state records are far more detailed. They include, for example, the name of the hospital, institution, or street address where the birth occurred; the full name, age, birthplace, race, and occupation of each parent; the mother’s residential address (and whether that address is within the city or town of birth); the signature of at least one parent (or “informant”) attesting to the accuracy of the information provided; the identity and signature of an attending physician (or other “attendant”) who certifies the occurrence of a live birth at the time and place specified; and the identity and signature of the local registrar who filed the birth record.

Plainly, this is different (additional) information from what is included in the certification. Yet, our editorial says that “several state officials have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical to that on the president’s birth certificate [by which we clearly meant ‘certification’],” and that the “director of Hawaii’s health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama’s birth certificate [i.e., certification] is identical to that in the state’s records, the so-called vault copy.”

That misses the point. The information in the certification may be identical as far as it goes to what’s in the complete state records, but there are evidently many more details in the state records than are set forth in the certification. Contrary to the editors’ description, those who want to see the full state record — the certificate or the so-called “vault copy” — are not on a wild-goose chase for a “secondary document cloaked in darkness.” That confuses their motives (which vary) with what they’ve actually requested (which is entirely reasonable). Regardless of why people may want to see the vault copy, what’s been requested is a primary document that is materially more detailed than what Obama has thus far provided.

Now, let’s address motives for a moment. Are some of those demanding the full state records engaged in a futile quest to prove Obama is not a U.S. citizen? Are they on what the editors call “the hunt for a magic bullet that will make all the unpleasant complications of [Obama’s] election and presidency disappear”? Sure they are. But not everyone who wants to see the full state records falls into that category. I, for one, have very different reasons for being curious.

 

[timschochet]

Hawaii was stolen by the United States and greedy sugar planters from it's rightful owners, Queen Liliokalani and her family. It was illegal, according to United States treaty and international law for Hawaii to become a state in the first place. Barack Obama was not really born on legitimate American soil.

 

[P Boy]

You're wasting your time Trembs.There is no reasoning with the likes of P

Yeah, because P doesn't check one source that verifies his own opinion (especially an opinion piece like Trembley posted) like you do. He digs a little bit and tries to verify with multiple sources to establish some corroboration.Hey, if he's a citizen, that's great and it would save our country a lot of embarrassment. But show the real genuine document, with all the attending information. Not what has been shown to date and is sadly lacking in a significant amount of what would be on an official record.And any citizen of this country asking him to do so is not an unreasonable request. I'm not quite sure why anyone would think it is.

 

[Gigantomachia]

And please do not refer to the certificate of live birth. That is not a birth certificate.

Except that it is. That's what you get from the state when you request a birth certificate. The National Review article is one of many sources pointing this out:
The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his "real" birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.

If one applies for a United States passport, the passport office will demand a birth certificate. It defines this as an official document bearing "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The Hawaiian birth certificate President Obama has produced--the document is formally known as a "certificate of live birth"--bears that information. It has been inspected by reporters, and several state officials have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical to that on the president's birth certificate--which is precisely what one expects, of course, since the state records are used to generate those documents when they are requested. In other words, what President Obama has produced is the "real" birth certificate of myth and lore. The director of Hawaii's health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama's birth certificate is identical to that in the state's records, the so-called vault copy.

From your source, the National Review, in regard to the material you posted:link

CERTIFICATE AND CERTIFICATION

So, end of story, right? Well, no. The relevance of information related to the birth of our 44th president is not limited to his eligibility to be our 44th president. On this issue, NRO’s editorial has come in for some blistering criticism. The editorial argues:

The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his “real” birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.

On reflection, I think this was an ill-considered assertion. (I should add that I saw a draft of the editorial before its publication, was invited to comment, and lodged no objection to this part.) The folly is made starkly clear in the photos that accompany this angry (at NRO) post from Dave Jeffers, who runs a blog called “Salt and Light.”

To summarize: What Obama has made available is a Hawaiian “certification of live birth” (emphasis added), not a birth certificate (or what the state calls a “certificate of live birth”). The certification form provides a short, very general attestation of a few facts about the person’s birth: name and sex of the newborn; date and time of birth; city or town of birth, along with the name of the Hawaiian island and the county; the mother’s maiden name and race; the father’s name and race; and the date the certification was filed. This certification is not the same thing as the certificate, which is what I believe we were referring to in the editorial as “the state records that are used to generate birth certificates [sic] when they are requested.”

To the contrary, “the state records” are the certificate. They are used to generate the more limited birth certifications on request. As the Jeffers post shows, these state records are far more detailed. They include, for example, the name of the hospital, institution, or street address where the birth occurred; the full name, age, birthplace, race, and occupation of each parent; the mother’s residential address (and whether that address is within the city or town of birth); the signature of at least one parent (or “informant”) attesting to the accuracy of the information provided; the identity and signature of an attending physician (or other “attendant”) who certifies the occurrence of a live birth at the time and place specified; and the identity and signature of the local registrar who filed the birth record.

Plainly, this is different (additional) information from what is included in the certification. Yet, our editorial says that “several state officials have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical to that on the president’s birth certificate [by which we clearly meant ‘certification’],” and that the “director of Hawaii’s health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama’s birth certificate [i.e., certification] is identical to that in the state’s records, the so-called vault copy.”

That misses the point. The information in the certification may be identical as far as it goes to what’s in the complete state records, but there are evidently many more details in the state records than are set forth in the certification. Contrary to the editors’ description, those who want to see the full state record — the certificate or the so-called “vault copy” — are not on a wild-goose chase for a “secondary document cloaked in darkness.” That confuses their motives (which vary) with what they’ve actually requested (which is entirely reasonable). Regardless of why people may want to see the vault copy, what’s been requested is a primary document that is materially more detailed than what Obama has thus far provided.

Now, let’s address motives for a moment. Are some of those demanding the full state records engaged in a futile quest to prove Obama is not a U.S. citizen? Are they on what the editors call “the hunt for a magic bullet that will make all the unpleasant complications of [Obama’s] election and presidency disappear”? Sure they are. But not everyone who wants to see the full state records falls into that category. I, for one, have very different reasons for being curious.

And you give me crap for my sources.

 

[Gigantomachia]

You're wasting your time Trembs.There is no reasoning with the likes of P

Yeah, because P doesn't check one source that verifies his own opinion (especially an opinion piece like Trembley posted) like you do. He digs a little bit and tries to verify with multiple sources to establish some corroboration.Hey, if he's a citizen, that's great and it would save our country a lot of embarrassment. But show the real genuine document, with all the attending information. Not what has been shown to date and is sadly lacking in a significant amount of what would be on an official record.And any citizen of this country asking him to do so is not an unreasonable request. I'm not quite sure why anyone would think it is.

Dear god.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And please do not refer to the certificate of live birth. That is not a birth certificate.

Except that it is. That's what you get from the state when you request a birth certificate. The National Review article is one of many sources pointing this out:
The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his "real" birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.

If one applies for a United States passport, the passport office will demand a birth certificate. It defines this as an official document bearing "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The Hawaiian birth certificate President Obama has produced--the document is formally known as a "certificate of live birth"--bears that information. It has been inspected by reporters, and several state officials have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical to that on the president's birth certificate--which is precisely what one expects, of course, since the state records are used to generate those documents when they are requested. In other words, what President Obama has produced is the "real" birth certificate of myth and lore. The director of Hawaii's health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama's birth certificate is identical to that in the state's records, the so-called vault copy.

From your source, the National Review, in regard to the material you posted:link

CERTIFICATE AND CERTIFICATION

So, end of story, right? Well, no. The relevance of information related to the birth of our 44th president is not limited to his eligibility to be our 44th president. On this issue, NRO’s editorial has come in for some blistering criticism. The editorial argues:

The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his “real” birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.

On reflection, I think this was an ill-considered assertion. (I should add that I saw a draft of the editorial before its publication, was invited to comment, and lodged no objection to this part.) The folly is made starkly clear in the photos that accompany this angry (at NRO) post from Dave Jeffers, who runs a blog called “Salt and Light.”

To summarize: What Obama has made available is a Hawaiian “certification of live birth” (emphasis added), not a birth certificate (or what the state calls a “certificate of live birth”). The certification form provides a short, very general attestation of a few facts about the person’s birth: name and sex of the newborn; date and time of birth; city or town of birth, along with the name of the Hawaiian island and the county; the mother’s maiden name and race; the father’s name and race; and the date the certification was filed. This certification is not the same thing as the certificate, which is what I believe we were referring to in the editorial as “the state records that are used to generate birth certificates [sic] when they are requested.”

To the contrary, “the state records” are the certificate. They are used to generate the more limited birth certifications on request. As the Jeffers post shows, these state records are far more detailed. They include, for example, the name of the hospital, institution, or street address where the birth occurred; the full name, age, birthplace, race, and occupation of each parent; the mother’s residential address (and whether that address is within the city or town of birth); the signature of at least one parent (or “informant”) attesting to the accuracy of the information provided; the identity and signature of an attending physician (or other “attendant”) who certifies the occurrence of a live birth at the time and place specified; and the identity and signature of the local registrar who filed the birth record.

Plainly, this is different (additional) information from what is included in the certification. Yet, our editorial says that “several state officials have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical to that on the president’s birth certificate [by which we clearly meant ‘certification’],” and that the “director of Hawaii’s health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama’s birth certificate [i.e., certification] is identical to that in the state’s records, the so-called vault copy.”

That misses the point. The information in the certification may be identical as far as it goes to what’s in the complete state records, but there are evidently many more details in the state records than are set forth in the certification. Contrary to the editors’ description, those who want to see the full state record — the certificate or the so-called “vault copy” — are not on a wild-goose chase for a “secondary document cloaked in darkness.” That confuses their motives (which vary) with what they’ve actually requested (which is entirely reasonable). Regardless of why people may want to see the vault copy, what’s been requested is a primary document that is materially more detailed than what Obama has thus far provided.

Now, let’s address motives for a moment. Are some of those demanding the full state records engaged in a futile quest to prove Obama is not a U.S. citizen? Are they on what the editors call “the hunt for a magic bullet that will make all the unpleasant complications of [Obama’s] election and presidency disappear”? Sure they are. But not everyone who wants to see the full state records falls into that category. I, for one, have very different reasons for being curious.

So the birthers are no longer satisfied with the birth certificate (i.e., the document satisfying all legal requests for a birth certificate, as when a passport is applied for). Now they want to see the state records.Fine. Go ask the state. Obama doesn't have the state records. He's just got a birth certificate. As would any other citizen.

 

[P Boy]

So the birthers are no longer satisfied with the birth certificate. Now they want to see the state records.Fine. Go ask the state. Obama doesn't have the state records. He's just got a birth certificate. As would any other citizen.

Well, that's a great response. Again, quite clearly and for some reason which I can't fathom that you keep denying - the document that you are so adamant about is not a birth certificate. So all Obama needs to do is request that the State of Hawaii release the official birth certificate instead of the certification that they have so far.Again - I don't quite understand why that would be an unreasonable request. What's the big freakin' deal?

 

[P Boy]

And you give me crap for my sources.

I used the same freakin' source that Maurile used and that you trumpet as your "proof" - except that his was based on an opinion piece.And I'd point out how you dropped trou and embarrassed yourself on a thread today with what you used as a "credible source".

 

[Jackstraw]

We know his mom was a citizen right? It wouldn't matter if he was born on the moon he's still a citizen.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Obama does not need to do anything and he can make fringe republicans look more looney. Why would he expend an effort to stop this?

If he's lucky it will overshadow his horrible taste in beer.

 

[timschochet]

P-Boy, do you believe that Obama should be tried for impersonating an American citizen, or should we simply deport him as an illegal alien?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Here's my question:

What is the official process for this? What did they do with W and Clinton and HW, etc. Do they just ask for a copy of the Birth Certificate from the Presidential nominee? That seems weak. I mean, they could produce a fake one. So I would guess that they would instead ask the candidate when and where they were born and then have them sign a form giving whomever the authority to ask for their birth certificate. Right? Why would we just take one from a Candidate without talking to the state?

 

[Gigantomachia]

And you give me crap for my sources.

I used the same freakin' source that Maurile used and that you trumpet as your "proof" - except that his was based on an opinion piece.And I'd point out how you dropped trou and embarrassed yourself on a thread today with what you used as a "credible source".

Ok big boy.

 

[Gigantomachia]

We know his mom was a citizen right? It wouldn't matter if he was born on the moon he's still a citizen.

Shhhhh, we don't want facts getting in the way of P's rant.

 

[P Boy]

P-Boy, do you believe that Obama should be tried for impersonating an American citizen, or should we simply deport him as an illegal alien?

I don't know if he is a natural born citizen or not. I haven't seen sufficient proof either way to convince me. I do know that the Constitution requires of a President that they be a natural born citizen of the United States.Answer me this: Why did the hospital he was born in change in the past month or so?He was originally supposedly born at Queen's Medical Center, but recently his official place of birth changed to Kapi'olani Medical Center. How does that happen?

 

[P Boy]

And you give me crap for my sources.

I used the same freakin' source that Maurile used and that you trumpet as your "proof" - except that his was based on an opinion piece.And I'd point out how you dropped trou and embarrassed yourself on a thread today with what you used as a "credible source".

Ok big boy.

About what I expected as a rebuttal.

 

[Parrothead]

P-Boy, do you believe that Obama should be tried for impersonating an American citizen, or should we simply deport him as an illegal alien?

I prefer the term exile.. much sexier

 

[Sam Quentin]

Here's my question:What is the official process for this? What did they do with W and Clinton and HW, etc. Do they just ask for a copy of the Birth Certificate from the Presidential nominee? That seems weak. I mean, they could produce a fake one. So I would guess that they would instead ask the candidate when and where they were born and then have them sign a form giving whomever the authority to ask for their birth certificate. Right? Why would we just take one from a Candidate without talking to the state?

Actually, i believe they just sign a document attesting to the fact that they meet all of requirements.When they first questioned O, he posted an image file of the Certification on the DailyKos website and then his own.When some people claimed it was forged, some people from another website and Chris mathews got a paper copy and they declared that it looked real and unforged to them, (experts that they are).When they went back to the state of Hawaii, Hawaii only said that they have a document on file, which is useless since one doesn't have to be born in Hawaii to have a document on file.Then CNN claimed to have confirmed with Hawaii state officials that the orginal was destroyed.Finally, last week, the state of Hawaii said the original hasn't been destroyed, but they stated publicly that the answer to the critical question was that the original document says he was born in the US.and millions of dollars, lots name-calling and one legalized deserter later, that's where we are.

 

[Woogie Lee]

Here's my question:

What is the official process for this? What did they do with W and Clinton and HW, etc. Do they just ask for a copy of the Birth Certificate from the Presidential nominee? That seems weak. I mean, they could produce a fake one. So I would guess that they would instead ask the candidate when and where they were born and then have them sign a form giving whomever the authority to ask for their birth certificate. Right? Why would we just take one from a Candidate without talking to the state?

Actually, i believe they just sign a document attesting to the fact that they meet all of requirements.When they first questioned O, he posted an image file of the Certification on the DailyKos website and then his own.

When some people claimed it was forged, some people from another website and Chris mathews got a paper copy and they declared that it looked real and unforged to them, (experts that they are).

When they went back to the state of Hawaii, Hawaii only said that they have a document on file, which is useless since one doesn't have to be born in Hawaii to have a document on file.

Then CNN claimed to have confirmed with Hawaii state officials that the orginal was destroyed.

Finally, last week, the state of Hawaii said the original hasn't been destroyed, but they stated publicly that the answer to the critical question was that the original document says he was born in the US.

and millions of dollars, lots name-calling and one legalized deserter later, that's where we are.

"We" as in the country or "we" as in you crazy birthers?

 

[Sam Quentin]

We know his mom was a citizen right? It wouldn't matter if he was born on the moon he's still a citizen.

It would make him a citizen, but, I believe most Constitutional scholars believe it wouldn't make him "natural born."

 

[Sam Quentin]

Here's my question:

What is the official process for this? What did they do with W and Clinton and HW, etc. Do they just ask for a copy of the Birth Certificate from the Presidential nominee? That seems weak. I mean, they could produce a fake one. So I would guess that they would instead ask the candidate when and where they were born and then have them sign a form giving whomever the authority to ask for their birth certificate. Right? Why would we just take one from a Candidate without talking to the state?

Actually, i believe they just sign a document attesting to the fact that they meet all of requirements.When they first questioned O, he posted an image file of the Certification on the DailyKos website and then his own.

When some people claimed it was forged, some people from another website and Chris mathews got a paper copy and they declared that it looked real and unforged to them, (experts that they are).

When they went back to the state of Hawaii, Hawaii only said that they have a document on file, which is useless since one doesn't have to be born in Hawaii to have a document on file.

Then CNN claimed to have confirmed with Hawaii state officials that the orginal was destroyed.

Finally, last week, the state of Hawaii said the original hasn't been destroyed, but they stated publicly that the answer to the critical question was that the original document says he was born in the US.

and millions of dollars, lots name-calling and one legalized deserter later, that's where we are.

"We" as in the country or "we" as in you crazy birthers?

We as a countryIt's just a summarization of the history of events

Feel free to add something constructive anytime

 

[Gigantomachia]

And you give me crap for my sources.

I used the same freakin' source that Maurile used and that you trumpet as your "proof" - except that his was based on an opinion piece.And I'd point out how you dropped trou and embarrassed yourself on a thread today with what you used as a "credible source".

Ok big boy.

About what I expected as a rebuttal.

You reap what you sow.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Here's my question:What is the official process for this? What did they do with W and Clinton and HW, etc. Do they just ask for a copy of the Birth Certificate from the Presidential nominee? That seems weak. I mean, they could produce a fake one. So I would guess that they would instead ask the candidate when and where they were born and then have them sign a form giving whomever the authority to ask for their birth certificate. Right? Why would we just take one from a Candidate without talking to the state?

Actually, i believe they just sign a document attesting to the fact that they meet all of requirements.When they first questioned O, he posted an image file of the Certification on the DailyKos website and then his own.When some people claimed it was forged, some people from another website and Chris mathews got a paper copy and they declared that it looked real and unforged to them, (experts that they are).When they went back to the state of Hawaii, Hawaii only said that they have a document on file, which is useless since one doesn't have to be born in Hawaii to have a document on file.Then CNN claimed to have confirmed with Hawaii state officials that the orginal was destroyed.Finally, last week, the state of Hawaii said the original hasn't been destroyed, but they stated publicly that the answer to the critical question was that the original document says he was born in the US.and millions of dollars, lots name-calling and one legalized deserter later, that's where we are.

Thanks. Frankly, that seems like a dumb process. I would make everyone on the ballot for President sign a statement releasing their Birth Certificate and just have someone contact the state/hospital to see it themselves and verify.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Here's my question:What is the official process for this? What did they do with W and Clinton and HW, etc. Do they just ask for a copy of the Birth Certificate from the Presidential nominee? That seems weak. I mean, they could produce a fake one. So I would guess that they would instead ask the candidate when and where they were born and then have them sign a form giving whomever the authority to ask for their birth certificate. Right? Why would we just take one from a Candidate without talking to the state?

Actually, i believe they just sign a document attesting to the fact that they meet all of requirements.When they first questioned O, he posted an image file of the Certification on the DailyKos website and then his own.When some people claimed it was forged, some people from another website and Chris mathews got a paper copy and they declared that it looked real and unforged to them, (experts that they are).When they went back to the state of Hawaii, Hawaii only said that they have a document on file, which is useless since one doesn't have to be born in Hawaii to have a document on file.Then CNN claimed to have confirmed with Hawaii state officials that the orginal was destroyed.Finally, last week, the state of Hawaii said the original hasn't been destroyed, but they stated publicly that the answer to the critical question was that the original document says he was born in the US.and millions of dollars, lots name-calling and one legalized deserter later, that's where we are.

Thanks. Frankly, that seems like a dumb process. I would make everyone on the ballot for President sign a statement releasing their Birth Certificate and just have someone contact the state/hospital to see it themselves and verify.

I agree, but anybody proposing that right now is being called a lunatic.

 

[P Boy]

I agree, but anybody proposing that right now is being called a lunatic birther.

Fixed.You have to attack properly.