The Birther Conspiracy Thread (3 Viewers)

[timschochet]

Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate Uncovered!

The Kenyan birth certificate was posted on the previous page, but it's just as amusing the 2nd time around.

 

[TommyGilmore]

There was no Republic of Kenya then. Kenya was a colony.

Fakers get

 

[B-Deep]

P-Boy, my GB cyp may need you to verify his birth certificate, tia

 

[Parrothead]

some blog:

He was born in 1961. There was no Republic of Kenya then. Kenya was a colony.

It did not become independent until he was 2 years old. THE LINK.

Does that mean he was born in Hawai’i? Not necessarily. The Hawai’i certificate does not list a hospital:

The Kenya certificate is a fake. The Hawai’i certificate is suspicious.

There is only one Vulcan-clad logical conclusion: Barack Obama was never born.

Wait! If he was never born....

Then who is the guy pretending to be him in the White House?

Jim Morrison

 

[Leroy Hoard]

some blog:

He was born in 1961. There was no Republic of Kenya then. Kenya was a colony.

It did not become independent until he was 2 years old. THE LINK.

Does that mean he was born in Hawai’i? Not necessarily. The Hawai’i certificate does not list a hospital:

The Kenya certificate is a fake. The Hawai’i certificate is suspicious.

There is only one Vulcan-clad logical conclusion: Barack Obama was never born.

Wait! If he was never born....

Then who is the guy pretending to be him in the White House?

Jim Morrison

It has to be either him or Elvis.

 

[CBusAlex]

Birthers crack the case!!

In fact the IPTC markup data of the document reveals it to be a fake

NOTICE: This image is a work of parody and political commentary. It is not a genuine government document. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. A certified copy of his birth record is freely available online. If you thought this was Obama’s real birth certificate, a “smoking gun” proving he’s not a natural-born citizen, then congratulations. You are an idiot. I made this from scratch. It is completely fake, and no document from Kenya or the United Kingdom resembles it.Obama’s president, and will be for the next 3 1/2 to 7 1/2 years. Get used to it.

 

[Gigantomachia]

There was no Republic of Kenya then. Kenya was a colony.

Fakers get

Classic.Yep, no racism in this country.

 

[CBusAlex]

A majority of Republicans are not sure if Obama was born in the USA? This is really bad for the Republicans. I mean really bad. The GOP looks ignorant here.

This can't possibly be true, can it?

Check out the poll linked in post #354. 28% of Republicans say he wasn't born in the USA.

30% of Republicans are not sure.

That's 54%.

If we isolate just the states below the Mason-Dixon line, apparently 70% of all whites living there either believe he was born in Kenya or are unsure about it.

I'd chalk this up to the vast majority of Americans being simply uninformed about politics. Your average person hears something in passing about Obama being born in Kenya, and people with Republican leanings will accept it without any further investigation, while people with Democratic leanings will dismiss it without any further investigation. Even if some conclusive, indisputable proof comes out to settle the matter either way, those numbers probably wouldn't change more than 10 or 15 percent.

 

[Balance]

A majority of Republicans are not sure if Obama was born in the USA? This is really bad for the Republicans. I mean really bad. The GOP looks ignorant here.

This can't possibly be true, can it?

Check out the poll linked in post #354. 28% of Republicans say he wasn't born in the USA.

30% of Republicans are not sure.

That's 54%.

If we isolate just the states below the Mason-Dixon line, apparently 70% of all whites living there either believe he was born in Kenya or are unsure about it.

I'd chalk this up to the vast majority of Americans being simply uninformed about politics. Your average person hears something in passing about Obama being born in Kenya, and people with Republican leanings will accept it without any further investigation, while people with Democratic leanings will dismiss it without any further investigation. Even if some conclusive, indisputable proof comes out to settle the matter either way, those numbers probably wouldn't change more than 10 or 15 percent.

If you chalk those numbers up to anything other than racism you'd be, at best, mostly wrong.

 

[Orange Crush]

Even if some conclusive, indisputable proof comes out to settle the matter

 

[bigbottom]

Why hasn't Obama come out and debunked the Antichrist claim?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Why hasn't Obama come out and debunked the Antichrist claim?

That just PROVES that there may be something he's hiding.

 

[CBusAlex]

Even if some conclusive, indisputable proof comes out to settle the matter

Well, obviously the current proof is by definition disputable, because people still dispute it. I'm talking about some hypothetical evidence (which likely does not exist in reality) so solid that even the wingiest of nuts would have to agree.

 

[ElGatoLoco]

Why hasn't Obama come out and debunked the Antichrist claim?

That just PROVES that there may be something he's hiding.

Hiding? How could he hide it? The evidence is so obvious. Link

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

Why hasn't Obama come out and debunked the Antichrist claim?

mildly humorous, but failing in logic, as one cannot prove that one is not the antichrist as easily as one could authorize the state to release the long-form birth certificate.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

Obama DID authorize Hawaii to release the record ... to the campaign. The document being presented is as official as it gets from the state of Hawaii. That's because Hawaii discarded all of their original paper birth certificates and other documentation when it went to electronic records in 2001.

Numerous reporters have looked at, held, and attested to the certification of birth. Additionally, the Hawaii Director of Health has certified and attested to President Obama being born in his state.

Wrong this is misinformation from CNNhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-0...ma-hawaii_N.htm

"We have not destroyed any vital statistics records that we have."

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

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

I can imagine the howls if Faux News had made such eggregious error in their reporting...We have a public unsworn statement from ####ino, and visual verification of the electronic form by some reporters. Would that stand up in court? maybe the lawyers in the crowd can weigh in....

 

[bigbottom]

Why hasn't Obama come out and debunked the Antichrist claim?

mildly humorous, but failing in logic, as one cannot prove that one is not the antichrist as easily as one could authorize the state to release the long-form birth certificate.

C'mon, man, he hasn't even denied it.

 

[P Boy]

Obama DID authorize Hawaii to release the record ... to the campaign. The document being presented is as official as it gets from the state of Hawaii. That's because Hawaii discarded all of their original paper birth certificates and other documentation when it went to electronic records in 2001.

Numerous reporters have looked at, held, and attested to the certification of birth. Additionally, the Hawaii Director of Health has certified and attested to President Obama being born in his state.

Wrong this is misinformation from CNNhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-0...ma-hawaii_N.htm

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

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

I can imagine the howls if Faux News had made such eggregious error in their reporting...We have a public unsworn statement from ####ino, and visual verification of the electronic form by some reporters. Would that stand up in court? maybe the lawyers in the crowd can weigh in....

I love how P tries to ignore the facts, as well as avoiding responding to posts such as yours.

Oh and pboy

Oops - you're on the wrong side yet again. Don't you get tired of constantly following me around this forum and trying to show me up only to find you pants constantly around your ankles?I think I'll switch over to ignore for you - you just can't be taken seriously on anything, and your relentless infatuation with me is quite frankly disturbing.

 

[bigbottom]

Obama DID authorize Hawaii to release the record ... to the campaign. The document being presented is as official as it gets from the state of Hawaii. That's because Hawaii discarded all of their original paper birth certificates and other documentation when it went to electronic records in 2001.

Numerous reporters have looked at, held, and attested to the certification of birth. Additionally, the Hawaii Director of Health has certified and attested to President Obama being born in his state.

Wrong this is misinformation from CNNhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-0...ma-hawaii_N.htm

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

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

I can imagine the howls if Faux News had made such eggregious error in their reporting...We have a public unsworn statement from ####ino, and visual verification of the electronic form by some reporters. Would that stand up in court? maybe the lawyers in the crowd can weigh in....

Of course it would.

 

[P Boy]

Of course it would.

Over an authentic document? Seriously?

 

[Orange Crush]

Of course it would.

Over an authentic document? Seriously?

Yep. The Federal Rules of Evidence allows any document from a governmental agency, such as the Hawaii Department of Health, issued by the agency and affixed with the seal of the agency, to be submitted as evidence in a court of law without any additional evidence of authenticity.

Rule 902. Self-authenticationExtrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following:(1) Domestic public documents under seal. A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any State, district, Commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof, and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution.(2) Domestic public documents not under seal. A document purporting to bear the signature in the official capacity of an officer or employee of any entity included in paragraph (1) hereof, having no seal, if a public officer having a seal and having official duties in the district or political subdivision of the officer or employee certifies under seal that the signer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine....(4) Certified copies of public records. A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification, by certificate complying with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this rule or complying with any Act of Congress or rule prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority.

ETA: And I take exception to your descriptive "authentic" - as the certification of birth that the Obama campaign has presented is an "authentic" record provided by the state of Hawaii. I think a more accurate term for what you meant to say is "original."

 

[P Boy]

ETA: And I take exception to your descriptive "authentic" - as the certification of birth that the Obama campaign has presented is an "authentic" record provided by the state of Hawaii. I think a more accurate term for what you meant to say is "original."

Take all the exceptions you want. What has been presented is not a birth certificate. That is undeniable. And before we go into the slamming/name calling nonsense yet again, let's not lose track of the fact that I have already stated that I believe Obama WAS born in Hawaii. I think there is an alternative theory as to why he will not release his birth certificate, though again I can offer no proof of it.And if the original document exists, it has always been my understanding that it supercedes any other documentation when presentation of evidence is made before a court. And again, I'm not a lawyer, so I very easily could be wrong, but what you posted as the law dos not establish precedence between existing documents.

 

[bigbottom]

Of course it would.

Over an authentic document? Seriously?

Provided that the electronic record is properly authenticated by a public official when it is introduced (typically as a certified copy), it is an authentic document.

 

[Major]

Tonight's New Rules re: Birthers

That's all around good comedy.

"I'll show you Obama's birth certificate when you show me Sarah Palin's high school diploma! "

 

[Gigantomachia]

ETA: And I take exception to your descriptive "authentic" - as the certification of birth that the Obama campaign has presented is an "authentic" record provided by the state of Hawaii. I think a more accurate term for what you meant to say is "original."

Take all the exceptions you want. What has been presented is not a birth certificate. That is undeniable. And before we go into the slamming/name calling nonsense yet again, let's not lose track of the fact that I have already stated that I believe Obama WAS born in Hawaii. I think there is an alternative theory as to why he will not release his birth certificate, though again I can offer no proof of it.

Alternative theory Yea, give 'em enough rope and they will hang themselves.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Of course it would.

Over an authentic document? Seriously?

Yep. The Federal Rules of Evidence allows any document from a governmental agency, such as the Hawaii Department of Health, issued by the agency and affixed with the seal of the agency, to be submitted as evidence in a court of law without any additional evidence of authenticity.

Rule 902. Self-authenticationExtrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following:(1) Domestic public documents under seal. A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any State, district, Commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof, and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution.(2) Domestic public documents not under seal. A document purporting to bear the signature in the official capacity of an officer or employee of any entity included in paragraph (1) hereof, having no seal, if a public officer having a seal and having official duties in the district or political subdivision of the officer or employee certifies under seal that the signer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine....(4) Certified copies of public records. A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification, by certificate complying with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this rule or complying with any Act of Congress or rule prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority.

ETA: And I take exception to your descriptive "authentic" - as the certification of birth that the Obama campaign has presented is an "authentic" record provided by the state of Hawaii. I think a more accurate term for what you meant to say is "original."

Damn

 

[bigbottom]

ETA: And I take exception to your descriptive "authentic" - as the certification of birth that the Obama campaign has presented is an "authentic" record provided by the state of Hawaii. I think a more accurate term for what you meant to say is "original."

Take all the exceptions you want. What has been presented is not a birth certificate. That is undeniable. And before we go into the slamming/name calling nonsense yet again, let's not lose track of the fact that I have already stated that I believe Obama WAS born in Hawaii. I think there is an alternative theory as to why he will not release his birth certificate, though again I can offer no proof of it.

I thought your question was whether the electronic record (provided it is certified by a public official) would stand up in court as demonstrating Obama's birth in the State of Hawaii. It would.

 

[P Boy]

I thought your question was whether the electronic record (provided it is certified by a public official) would stand up in court as demonstrating Obama's birth in the State of Hawaii. It would.

It wasn't my question originally, but it would make sense that an electronic copy would be admissible - I know electronic communications are. What is the standing if both an electronic copy and the original document exist? Doesn't an original document have standing over all copies?

 

[Orange Crush]

I thought your question was whether the electronic record (provided it is certified by a public official) would stand up in court as demonstrating Obama's birth in the State of Hawaii. It would.

It wasn't my question originally, but it would make sense that an electronic copy would be admissible - I know electronic communications are. What is the standing if both an electronic copy and the original document exist? Doesn't an original document have standing over all copies?

A reporter or some other layperson could not take the stand and present testimony that they saw, touched, and/or read an authentic government document, so long as the document itself could be presented. However, for government records, the certified copy created by the government and either affixed with a seal or authenticated by a government official in court is "as good as" the original to a court of law.

 

[Gigantomachia]

I thought your question was whether the electronic record (provided it is certified by a public official) would stand up in court as demonstrating Obama's birth in the State of Hawaii. It would.

It wasn't my question originally, but it would make sense that an electronic copy would be admissible - I know electronic communications are. What is the standing if both an electronic copy and the original document exist? Doesn't an original document have standing over all copies?

They are essential the same thing. What difference would it make?

 

[bigbottom]

I thought your question was whether the electronic record (provided it is certified by a public official) would stand up in court as demonstrating Obama's birth in the State of Hawaii. It would.

It wasn't my question originally, but it would make sense that an electronic copy would be admissible - I know electronic communications are. What is the standing if both an electronic copy and the original document exist? Doesn't an original document have standing over all copies?

I guess some argument could be made regarding the "original document" rule, that a party seeking to prove the contents of a document must produce the original document unless the original is unavailable. I doubt such an argument would work in this instance, however, as I believe the electronic record is an independent public record, not a copy of the original long form birth certificate. As an independent public record, my best guess is that it would be admissible over any "original document" objection. Plus, I'm not sure that an "original document" objection would even be proper in the case of certified public records.If both the long form birth certificate and the certified electronic record were introduced, and there were contradictions, my guess is that the original long form birth certificate would be given greater deference. But your question didn't deal with both being introduced in court, but rather whether introducing the certified electronic record would be sufficient to demonstrate a person's birthplace. I'm confident it would in the absence of contradictory evidence.

 

[P Boy]

A reporter or some other layperson could not take the stand and present testimony that they saw, touched, and/or read an authentic government document, so long as the document itself could be presented. However, for government records, the certified copy created by the government and either affixed with a seal or authenticated by a government official in court is "as good as" the original to a court of law.

I guess some argument could be made regarding the "original document" rule, that a party seeking to prove the contents of a document must produce the original document unless the original is unavailable. I doubt such an argument would work in this instance, however, as I believe the electronic record is an independent public record, not a copy of the original long form birth certificate. As an independent public record, my best guess is that it would be admissible over any "original document" objection. Plus, I'm not sure that an "original document" objection would even be proper in the case of certified public records.If both the long form birth certificate and the certified electronic record were introduced, and there were contradictions, my guess is that the original long form birth certificate would be given greater deference. But your question didn't deal with both being introduced in court, but rather whether introducing the certified electronic record would be sufficient to demonstrate a person's birthplace. I'm confident it would in the absence of contradictory evidence.

Thanks, guys!

 

[P Boy]

Another question to OC & bb - quite possibly a hypothetical:

If the case does get to court and the electronic copy of what is currently available on the internet is provided as "proof" of citizenship, could a litigant compel the State of Hawaii to produce the original copy of the long form, which it states that it has in its records?

 

[bigbottom]

Another question to OC & bb - quite possibly a hypothetical:If the case does get to court and the electronic copy of what is currently available on the internet is provided as "proof" of citizenship, could a litigant compel the State of Hawaii to produce the original copy of the long form, which it states that it has in its records?

Maybe. My guess is that the State of Hawaii would refuse to produce the long form original based upon its policy (state law?) of not releasing original birth certificates to third parties. The litigant would then likely file a motion with the federal court asking the court to compel the State of Hawaii to produce the document. Whether the judge would grant such a motion is within the judge's discretion. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that the judge wouldn't issue such an order absent credible evidence that the duly certified electronic copy was fake or falsified in some manner.

 

[Orange Crush]

Another question to OC & bb - quite possibly a hypothetical:If the case does get to court and the electronic copy of what is currently available on the internet is provided as "proof" of citizenship, could a litigant compel the State of Hawaii to produce the original copy of the long form, which it states that it has in its records?

I think very persuasive doubt would have to placed on the electronic copy as to its authenticity before a judge would demand the state of Hawaii present the original. An argument of "why don't they produce the original? what are they hiding?" will be dismissed out of hand.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

Another question to OC & bb - quite possibly a hypothetical:If the case does get to court and the electronic copy of what is currently available on the internet is provided as "proof" of citizenship, could a litigant compel the State of Hawaii to produce the original copy of the long form, which it states that it has in its records?

What if the plaintiff is claiming that the document provided by the defense is a forgery?Would the court request a new copy from the state? Would they ask that the state certify the document provided by the defense?The plaintiff's case seems to rest on proving that the document posted on the website and sent to a few reporters is a forgery. Would they be entitled to conduct forensics tests on the document or would an Official reproduction of the document provided by the state override that?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Why hasn't Obama come out and debunked the Antichrist claim?

It's undebunkable.

 

[B-Deep]

Why hasn't Obama come out and debunked the Antichrist claim?

It's undebunkable.

Hmmmin my Dynasty Deity draft I have Jesus ranked above Loki, though below Zeus, simply because if Zeus has proven one thing it is that he could pull more quality tang (heavenly, earthly, and otherly) than any other all powerful god like being.

 

[bigbottom]

Another question to OC & bb - quite possibly a hypothetical:If the case does get to court and the electronic copy of what is currently available on the internet is provided as "proof" of citizenship, could a litigant compel the State of Hawaii to produce the original copy of the long form, which it states that it has in its records?

What if the plaintiff is claiming that the document provided by the defense is a forgery?Would the court request a new copy from the state? Would they ask that the state certify the document provided by the defense?The plaintiff's case seems to rest on proving that the document posted on the website and sent to a few reporters is a forgery. Would they be entitled to conduct forensics tests on the document or would an Official reproduction of the document provided by the state override that?

I'm guessing that a copy of the record certified by the appropriate public official would be sufficient.

 

[P Boy]

Hmmmin my Dynasty Deity draft I have Jesus ranked above Loki, though below Zeus, simply because if Zeus has proven one thing it is that he could pull more quality tang (heavenly, earthly, and otherly) than any other all powerful god like being.

You know, I'm not a religious guy, but the blatant disrespect for others' beliefs can be appalling here...

 

[bigbottom]

Hmmmin my Dynasty Deity draft I have Jesus ranked above Loki, though below Zeus, simply because if Zeus has proven one thing it is that he could pull more quality tang (heavenly, earthly, and otherly) than any other all powerful god like being.

You know, I'm not a religious guy, but the blatant disrespect for others' beliefs can be appalling here...

As a polytheist of the Greek persuasion, I agree 100%. Zeus is far more than a womanizer.

 

[B-Deep]

Hmmmin my Dynasty Deity draft I have Jesus ranked above Loki, though below Zeus, simply because if Zeus has proven one thing it is that he could pull more quality tang (heavenly, earthly, and otherly) than any other all powerful god like being.

You know, I'm not a religious guy, but the blatant disrespect for others' beliefs can be appalling here...

i apologize to any ancient Greeks who I may have offended, however, I would also say to them that the king of their gods was one horny *******

 

[B-Deep]

in my defense, wikipedia lists 42 beings Zeus is believed to have fathered a child with.

 

[David Dodds]

It's becoming increasingly more obvious to me that Obama's clear and decisive leadership that has led an unprecedented Stock Market rally must mean he has a time machine. How else can he continue to push all the right buttons here?

http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.htm...Submit1=Refresh

Has any President positively impacted the Stock Markets as much as Obama has in his short span as President?

 

[Orange Crush]

It's becoming increasingly more obvious to me that Obama's clear and decisive leadership that has led an unprecedented Stock Market rally must mean he has a time machine. How else can he continue to push all the right buttons here?

http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.htm...Submit1=Refresh

Has any President positively impacted the Stock Markets as much as Obama has in his short span as President?

Don't try to re-hijack this thread. This thread has already been successfully hijacked by a discussion of hormonally-gifted deities.

 

[pantagrapher]

Oh Jeebus

 

[Twilight]

Oh Jeebus

Wow

 

[timschochet]

Oh Jeebus

I tried to watch that, but I had to stop halfway through because her voice is so incredibly annoying. Like Arianna Huffington on speed.

 

[Chuckles]

After a look at the OP and the thread about internet trends i think you should start making videos instead of writing textbooks for us to read tim.

 

[timschochet]

After a look at the OP and the thread about internet trends i think you should start making videos instead of writing textbooks for us to read tim.

Whatever you say. The OP was just an article on this subject I pasted. Don't bother reading it if you don't want to.