Main Menu

Common Sense

I’m not talking about a famous American Revolutionary pamphlet written by the honorary French citizen Thomas Paine, but about some things I think should be self evident, or evident after a moments’ thought. [A few commenters here had the same idea and have written about it.]

Common sense:

Common sense says that a 18-year-old student who is very pregnant has her baby in the town where she and her parents live, rather than making an arduous multi-day trip to Africa, where her husband’s parents are angry over her marriage and where her husband’s other wife (that he hasn’t told her about) lives. If that student is Stanley Ann Obama, then her son Barack Obama was born in Honolulu.

Common sense says that if citizen parents were required of US Presidents, then someone in the press, someone in the judiciary, some state election official, some member of the electoral college, some member of congress, some constitutional scholar or some political opponent would have said something during the 2008 election of Barack Obama–someone who wrote about his parentage in a best-selling autobiography and posted the information on his campaign web site.

Common sense says that aΒ  correspondence school lawyer who never before tried a case of any significance is wrong if told so by multiple federal district and appeals courts.

Common sense says that if it is a crime to forge a birth certificate, then the state whose certificate was forged would prosecute the forger rather than make official statements backing up information on this supposed forgery.

Common sense says that Barack Obama is the rightful president of the United States.

238 Responses to Common Sense

  1. avatar
    ObamaRelease YourRecords May 22, 2010 at 1:09 am #

    Common sense tells you if someone is fighting the release of ALL past records they’re hiding something big…

    and don’t give us that crap that he is not fighting the release… it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out…

    Even the media have been denied access, by Obama and his handlers, for numerous Obama records… That is a FACT!

  2. avatar
    misha May 22, 2010 at 1:40 am #

    Common sense?! hahahahahahahehehehehehehahahahahaha [gasp]

  3. avatar
    richCares May 22, 2010 at 1:46 am #

    in lieu of common sense, they worship “paypal”, they think that pushing paypal will enable them to get Obama.
    also I secomd misha’s “hahahahahahahehehehehehehahahahahaha [gasp]”

  4. avatar
    Lupin May 22, 2010 at 2:00 am #

    As I have mentioned in the past, there has been several serious studies that have found that, in matters of belief, contrary evidence only reinforces the belief, not undermine it.

  5. avatar
    Zixi of Ix May 22, 2010 at 2:53 am #

    From all of the news reports, websites, and posts about, for and by birthers, I’ve come to the conclusion that most hard-core birthers actively reject common sense in favor of whichever version of reality will assure them that Barrack Obama is not president. The common thread that binds most birthers together seems to be racism.

    Some seem barely capable of hiding their disgust that a black man is the leader of the United States and spout garbage about getting him out of “Our House”; posting pictures of Obama as a witch doctor, etc.

    Others are more sophisticated, sensing that obvious racism isn’t kosher, and try to stick to comments about how Obama couldn’t have gained admission to Columbia or Harvard without being an affirmative action student (or a CIA operative); or couldn’t have paid for it without help from Saudi Princes or drug dealing. They think he didn’t write his own books, didn’t take his own bar exams, and was only president of the Harvard Law Review because he is black.

    They need to completely ignore the fact that people pay for college with student loans and grants, that many presidents have written books prior to taking office, and that politically aware students are apt to get themselves elected to prestigious posts in school as a way to stretch their political muscles.

    Here’s the thing, though: racism is corrosive. Racism prevents people from seeing things clearly, and prevents the application of common sense. Racism isn’t logical and people who are consumed by it aren’t logical as a result.

    They need to believe that Obama was born in Kenya or was a CIA operative, or that he killed his grandmother to keep her from revealing his “real” birth certificate. They happily give money to shysters, listen to liars, supporting anyone who is willing to confirm their world-view that there is no way in heck Obama is president.

    Many, perhaps most birthers seem to be willing to do, pay or believe nearly anything rather than face the fact that Obama is president.

    Labeling someone a racist shouldn’t be something we do at the drop of the hat, but when birthers go so far out of the way to believe nearly anything, we have to ask ourselves if there are any other possible reasons. In most cases, I would argue that there are not.

  6. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 22, 2010 at 3:14 am #

    It’s not a matter of “common sense” — its a matter of cognitive dissonance.

    The birthers are people who simply can’t accept the reality of a black man in the White House. I don’t think its an accident that so many of them are quite old — they grew up in a time when the idea of a black man doing anything other than shining their shoes was inconceivable. In there world view there never was any possibility that war hero John McCain (one of them) could lose to some young black guy with an arabic-sounding name.

    So their idea of “common sense” is that impossible things can’t happen, and to this day they believe that it is totally impossible that an African-American family could be occupying the White House.

  7. avatar
    Lupin May 22, 2010 at 4:08 am #

    As I predicted several months ago (it was an easy thing to do) the movement aiming to strip non-white children born on US soil of their citizenship status is gaining steam.

    Russell Peace, the man behind the recent Arizona measure, is now planning a bill that would deny US citizenship to children born on US soil from illegal aliens (the so-called anchor babies):

    http://politicalreformer.com/2010/05/22/arizona-state-senator-to-challenge-14th-amendment-to-the-u-s-constitution-an-historical-pespective/?preview=true&preview_id=1247&preview_nonce=d6f027ad1a

    I have argued here in the past the notion that Mario Apuzzo’s obviously doomed efforts should be understood within the larger framework of such a movement, which is likely bankrolling him.

    I have also provided evidence (links) showing that the ideological foundation of this movement can be found in the founding precepts of the KKK.

    That the birther agenda is only one arm (even if many people in it are undoubtedly deluded or ignorant about it) of a vast racist agenda amongst a rabid minority of bigoted Americans can no longer be disputed.

  8. avatar
    Saint James May 22, 2010 at 4:16 am #

    misha: Common sense?! hahahahahahahehehehehehehahahahahaha [gasp]

    Sentido comon? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

  9. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 6:08 am #

    Doc C.,

    An interesting tactic – I doubt that it will work on hard-core birthers (although I’m curious as to how they would answer the questions that you’ve raised), but it should put doubts in the minds of anyone who hasn’t drank the birther kool-aid.

    On a related topic, a friend and I were talking the other day about what makes otherwise reasonable people become hard-core conspiracy theorists. I don’t have an answer to that question, but it seems like there has to be some sort of psychological reason to accept the conspiracy. The first birthers that I am aware of were PUMAs – people who were mad at President Obama because he had stolen the nomination that they believed that Hillary Clinton had earned. They couldn’t just jump on the McCain bandwagon since there was very little difference between Clinton and Obama in terms of policies, so the idea that he was somehow illegitimate provided the fig leaf they needed to oppose him. Then you get people who don’t like him because he’s black that don’t want to think of themselves as racist and people that think that he’s a leftist radical muslim communist that’s out to destroy America and want to save the country by removing him by any means possible who see the birther movement as the best chance of doing that.

    There may be other reasons that I haven’t thought of – to anyone posting here that believes that President Obama isn’t eligible, I would be curious to know why you still believe that in light of Doc C’s ‘Common Sense’.

  10. avatar
    Scientist May 22, 2010 at 7:20 am #

    Doc-I couldn’t have said it better myself. This is the heart and soul of the matter. The twists and turns into which the birthers must contort themselves to make their cases, leaves no doubt as to its “merits”.

    In the words of William of Occam, “Where multiple solutions are possible, the simplest one is the most likely to be correct”.

  11. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 7:53 am #

    ObamaRelease YourRecords said: “Common sense tells you if someone is fighting the release of ALL past records they’re hiding something big…and don’t give us that crap that he is not fighting the release… it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out…Even the media have been denied access, by Obama and his handlers, for numerous Obama records… That is a FACT!”

    .
    .
    Can you cite any evidence whatsoever that President Obama has blocked access to any of his records? (rather than just not releasing records) Can you give an example of other presidential candidates releasing records that President Obama hasn’t? If you want to show that something is a ‘FACT’ then you need evidence, so do you have any or were you just making a statement that you cannot back up?

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 22, 2010 at 8:00 am #

    Slartibartfast: it seems like there has to be some sort of psychological reason to accept the conspiracy. The first birthers that I am aware of were PUMAs – people who were mad at President Obama because he had stolen the nomination that they believed that Hillary Clinton had earned.

    My view is that the PUMAs were in denial. I think this is an important reason for the Obama conspiracy theories. Those on the far right also have the illusion that their views are the mainstream American view and this fact creates a cognitive dissonance that can be rationalized by the theory that Obama has fooled everyone but them.

  13. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 8:09 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    My view is that the PUMAs were in denial. I think this is an important reason for the Obama conspiracy theories. Those on the far right have the illusion that their views are the mainstream American view and this fact creates a cognitive dissonance that can be rationalized by the theory that Obama has fooled everyone but them.

    Doc C,

    I think the PUMAs are an interesting case because they presumably aren’t on the far right and needed some sort of cover in order to oppose President Obama since his views on most issues were so similar to Secretary Clinton’s. I think the whole ‘we’re the only ones who know the truth (or are willing to fight for the truth, the Constitution, or whatever) meme is a fairly common thread through all conspiracy theories.

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 22, 2010 at 8:20 am #

    ObamaRelease YourRecords: Common sense tells you if someone is fighting the release of ALL past records they’re hiding something big…

    and don’t give us that crap that he is not fighting the release… it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out…

    Even the media have been denied access, by Obama and his handlers, for numerous Obama records… That is a FACT!

    You may not want to hear it, and you may think it is crap, but the fact is that all this “fighting” to keep records hidden is a myth, pure and simple. Common sense says that if this were happening, you could show when and where it was happening. Real events have a place and a time. Rumored events, of course, do not have to be reality based.

  15. avatar
    DaveH May 22, 2010 at 8:51 am #

    ObamaRelease YourRecords: Common sense tells you if someone is fighting the release of ALL past records they’re hiding something big…and don’t give us that crap that he is not fighting the release… it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out…Even the media have been denied access, by Obama and his handlers, for numerous Obama records… That is a FACT!

    Nice to see you here. I thought of you as I read the misinformation at your website. It was truly entertaining. I am wondering though. Do you feel it is correct to get your readers that believe in your misinformation to donate money to causes that have no purpose? Why ask people to send money to Lakin’s defense when you know that he’ll be court martialed and the money will go into the pockets of the people propogating the lies?

    As far as your facts, I’m sure you honestly believe in them. That is why you came here to post your post with everything being misinformation. But that’s alright. You’re a birther and you have had your mind made up from a long time ago even though all of your ‘facts’ had been debunked. Maybe if you’d losen that ole tin foil hat to where your brain would get a bit more circulation and step out of that bomb bunker you’ve been hiding in, your eyes will be opened. Until then, have a nice Barack Obama Day!

  16. avatar
    katahdin May 22, 2010 at 8:54 am #

    I agree that common sense shows that President Obama was born in Hawaii, but you seem to passed along one birther myth. President Obama’s mother was not 17 years old when he was born, she was 18, nearly 19 in fact. I think the birthers like to misstate her age both because of their “couldn’t pass on her citizenship” talking point, and because they like to portray the president’s father as a predatory black man despoiling underage white virgins.

  17. avatar
    Va Highlander May 22, 2010 at 9:58 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Those on the far right also have the illusion that their views are the mainstream
    American view and this fact creates a cognitive dissonance that can be rationalized by the theory that Obama has fooled everyone but them.

    I think that states it rather nicely. It’s difficult to imagine a conspiracist that does not want to think themselves superior to the majority. And the more inferior the conspiracist is—or at some level perceives themselves to be—in the eyes of the greater world, the more desperate is his or her need to feel that only they and and an elect few know what’s really going on.

    In most cases, I suspect racism generally is just a special case of this need to feel superior.

  18. avatar
    Scott Brown May 22, 2010 at 10:29 am #

    ObamaRelease YourRecords:
    Common sense tells you if someone is fighting the release of ALL past records they’re hiding something big…

    I would have to agree with this; although, I don’t believe Obama is obligated to release anything to the public….common sense tells you that he is hiding something. I don’t think common sense tells you whether it is something BIG or something little. My instincts tells me it is something insignificant, something that had he just come clean would have hurt him a little, but not a lot.

    But, common sense only works one way for those that believe Obama is guilty of nothing. Common sense tells us that he has been less than honest about many things, but I’m sure those that support him don’t see it that way.

  19. avatar
    Sef May 22, 2010 at 10:42 am #

    Scott Brown:
    I would have to agree with this; although, I don’t believe Obama is obligated to release anything to the public….common sense tells you that he is hiding something.I don’t think common sense tells you whether it is something BIG or something little.My instincts tells me it is something insignificant, something that had he just come clean would have hurt him a little, but not a lot.But, common sense only works one way for those that believe Obama is guilty of nothing.Common sense tells us that he has been less than honest about many things, but I’m sure those that support him don’t see it that way.

    I doubt Obama even allocates a microsecond per day to thinking about birthers or what they might want. He has more important things to worry about like restoring our nation from its Slough of Despond that the shrub created & protecting you & yours from enemies foreign & domestic. Remember during the campaign when he brushed off his shoulder? He probably thinks the same of this.

  20. avatar
    DaveH May 22, 2010 at 10:49 am #

    Sef: I doubt Obama even allocates a microsecond per day to thinking about birthers or what they might want.

    Oh, come on Sef. I’m sure Obama isn’t able to sleep at night what with thinking about all the birfers out there gathering their evidence against him and working the ‘good fight’ to remove him from office and send him back to Kenya. Obama IS ‘sweating bullets’ and he will continue to sweat them until 2016.

  21. avatar
    northland10 May 22, 2010 at 11:09 am #

    Scott Brown: ObamaRelease YourRecords:
    Common sense tells you if someone is fighting the release of ALL past records they’re hiding something big

    Scott Brown: My instincts tells me it is something insignificant, something that had he just come clean would have hurt him a little, but not a lot.

    Though he is not blocking as the privacy laws do that, releasing records, even ones without any wrong doing would not help anyway. The “birthers” would just use whatever they find in constructing yet a new conspiracy.

    From his kindergarten records: Barry Obama would regularly bring cookies in to share with the Class.
    Response: Even early in life he is showing is Marxist personality traits in redistributing wealth to everybody. This shows who he really is and his plan to destroy America (with Sugar Doodles).

    More from his kindergarten work: Here is a drawing by young Barry of his home which received a gold star from the teacher and his mother put on the refrigerator.
    Response: See the size of the house, windows, sun, people., etc. It shows the same evil character traits found in Hitler, Stalin and Mao-Tse Tung. Right here is the evidence of his true nature and evil intent for us real Americans. Despotism in Crayon!!

    And the obvious response…. See, he is named Barry!!!

  22. avatar
    Va Highlander May 22, 2010 at 11:15 am #

    I don’t think that common sense has anything to do with birtherism. One might as well expect blood from a turnip.

    The fact that some conspiracy theory defies all logic and reason is not a bug in the eyes of its adherents; it’s a feature and the esoteric exclusivity of believing in such things is a big part of the appeal.

    A birther knows—for a fact—that it takes more than just common sense to explain how the Scary Black Man got into the White House. Armed with such uncommon sense, the birther feels empowered by his ability to explain the otherwise—at least to his mind—unexplainable.

    The beating heart of birtherism is emotional, not intellectual. Any and all appeals to sense and reason will inevitably fail.

  23. avatar
    Lupin May 22, 2010 at 11:44 am #

    I’m sure Obama is hiding “something”. We ALL are hiding “something”. Not to mention that his current job requires him to hide a lot of “somethings”.

    I’m not even sure that it is possible, philosophically, to know everything about anyone. Human nature is not something that fits easily in little boxes.

    But that doesn’t make Obama any less the President.

    And as pointed out ad nauseam, people who feel uncomfortable about him have a simple recourse: vote for his opponent.

    Birtherism is not only delusional on its merits; it is impractical in its remedies.

  24. avatar
    yguy May 22, 2010 at 11:44 am #

    Expelliarmus: It’s not a matter of “common sense” — its a matter of cognitive dissonance.The birthers are people who simply can’t accept the reality of a black man in the White House.I don’t think its an accident that so many of them are quite old — they grew up in a time when the idea of a black man doing anything other than shining their shoes was inconceivable.

    Where the hell were all these people when Clarence Thomas was being confirmed?

  25. avatar
    yguy May 22, 2010 at 11:57 am #

    “Common sense says that if it is a crime to forge a birth certificate, then the state whose certificate was forged would prosecute the forger rather than make official statements backing up information on this supposed forgery.”

    Common sense says holding an office of public trust does not of itself make the office holder trustworthy.

  26. avatar
    Mike May 22, 2010 at 12:07 pm #

    yguy:
    Where the hell were all these people when Clarence Thomas was being confirmed?

    Clarence Thomas was President? Wow, guess I missed that one. You’re leaving out the Democrat factor to boot – modern Republicans are encouraged by the party leadership to view anything done by a Democrat as illegitimate and in fact to view Democrats per se in elected office as some kind of affront to the Republicans’ right to be in power. Not to mention that they could hold their noses at Thomas – the man is and was manifestly unqualified to be on SCOTUS but he could also be counted on as a reliable right-wing vote.

  27. avatar
    euphgeek May 22, 2010 at 12:11 pm #

    yguy:
    Where the hell were all these people when Clarence Thomas was being confirmed?

    They were ganging up on Anita Hill, remember? They’re fine with a black man being a leader as long as he’s conservative and doesn’t make a fool of himself like Michael Steele. But you get a black man who’s a Democrat and you get ten times (at least!) the Clinton Derangement Syndrome from the 90s.

  28. avatar
    Scott Brown May 22, 2010 at 12:33 pm #

    katahdin:
    I agree that common sense shows that President Obama was born in Hawaii, but you seem to passed along one birther myth. President Obama’s mother was not 17 years old when he was born, she was 18, nearly 19 in fact. I think the birthers like to misstate her age both because of their “couldn’t pass on her citizenship” talking point, and because they like to portray the president’s father as a predatory black man despoiling underage white virgins.

    Common sense seems to have flown out the window with that comment. What does the father being black have to do with his mothers age?

    If you want to debunk the birthers via his mothers age, do so. That is legit and the FACTS speak for themselves, but when you want to throw racial issues in with an unrelated issue – common sense ceases to exist and you’ve negated your whole argument.

    Why do Obama supporters insist that anyone that opposes him is a racist? Are YOU not the racist by calling him black 100% of the time even though he is only 50% black? And aren’t YOU being pretty presumptuous to think that ALL that oppose him are NOT black? The racist card just doesn’t hold water – especially since the president is 50% white and 50% black. If I’m white and oppose him, since he is 50% white, am I only 50% of a racist? What if I’m black and oppose him? What if I’m Latino and oppose him?

  29. avatar
    Scott Brown May 22, 2010 at 12:38 pm #

    euphgeek: They were ganging up on Anita Hill, remember?They’re fine with a black man being a leader as long as he’s conservative and doesn’t make a fool of himself like Michael Steele.But you get a black man who’s a Democrat and you get ten times (at least!) the Clinton Derangement Syndrome from the 90s.

    So are you saying Republican’s support white politicians even if they make a fool of themselves? You are so desperate to paint Republicans in a such a bad light that you cease to make sense. I don’t care what color their skin is, and I really don’t care what party they represent, as long as they are honest, have morals and ethics. Let’s understand however that we are ALL human and we make mistakes – but yes, let’s hope that they don’t make a fool of themselves.

    Most of you are so wrapped up in this racial argument (which makes no sense), you’ve left common sense out of the argument.

  30. avatar
    Scott Brown May 22, 2010 at 12:43 pm #

    Expelliarmus:
    they grew up in a time when the idea of a black man doing anything other than shining their shoes was inconceivable.In there world view there never was any possibility that war hero John McCain (one of them) could lose to some young black guy with an arabic-sounding name.
    So their idea of “common sense” is that impossible things can’t happen, and to this day they believe that it is totally impossible that an African-American family could be occupying the White House.

    What is your hang up about black people? I was born the same year that Obama was, and best I can remember, a white guy shined my grandfather’s shoes. It must just be YOUR memory of a black man shinning shoes – it certainly isn’t mine. My own father never had is shoes shined by anyone – he couldn’t afford it.

    And I don’t see McCain as anything but a corrupt politician who not only did not qualify to be POTUS, but didn’t deserve the honor of winning.

    You need to get a handle on your stereotypes.

  31. avatar
    richCares May 22, 2010 at 12:57 pm #

    scott brown says: You need to get a handle on your stereotypes.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  32. avatar
    Greg May 22, 2010 at 1:04 pm #

    Birthers need to understand something about the law. It is slow. It is expensive. The cheapest way to win a lawsuit is to get it dismissed.

    It would simply not make sense to roll over and let these suits proceed.

    Oh, and none of the suits would go away if Obama released his long form certificate.

    Berg’s suit also claims that obama renounced his citizenship. Taitz, Apuzzo, etc all think that regardless of what is shown, Obama is STILL ineligible.

    Berg actually told us what documents he wants, and it’s the world. Every document “related to” Obama held by the DNC, for example.

    So, why fight the lawsuits? Not getting the case dismissed is astronomically more expensive than otherwise. No single document would satisfy all the birthers. Lawsuits have a way of spiraling out of control (a lawsuit against Clinton – filegate – was finally dismissed this year with no wrongdoing found. That’s 18 years of paying thousand-dollar-an-hour lawyers to defend what was a groundless suit.). Everyone of these suits are objectively frivolous with no chance of survival. Finally, there is not a single birther who, if convinced of Obama’s eligibility, will vote for him in 2012.

    The birthers who think Obama is hiding something have an out-of-proportion assessment of their own importance and are uninformed about the legal system.

  33. avatar
    Scientist May 22, 2010 at 1:10 pm #

    Scott Brown: But, common sense only works one way for those that believe Obama is guilty of nothing.

    Since “presumed innocent unless proven guilty” is a core value in this country, everyone is morally obligated to believe Obama guilty of nothing until someone provides actual evidence as to what specific offenses he is guilty of.

  34. avatar
    NbC May 22, 2010 at 1:13 pm #

    yguy: Common sense says holding an office of public trust does not of itself make the office holder trustworthy.

    But when supported by independent data, such statements become more and more relevant. And of course, in court such a statement when backed with a certified document like the COLB is indeed by common sense sufficient to prove citizenship status.
    Common sense dictates that the words and actions of an office holder are far more trustworthy than the assertions by someone who refuses to support them with any logic, reason or fact.
    Self-evidently so.

  35. avatar
    NbC May 22, 2010 at 1:14 pm #

    Scientist: Since “presumed innocent unless proven guilty” is a core value in this country, everyone is morally obligated to believe Obama guilty of nothing until someone provides actual evidence as to what specific offenses he is guilty of.

    Common sense says that Constitutional requirements are most quickly forgotten by those claiming to protect it.
    Something to do with scoundrels and refuge, if I recall correctly.

  36. avatar
    Scientist May 22, 2010 at 1:26 pm #

    yguy: Common sense says holding an office of public trust does not of itself make the office holder trustworthy.

    Common sense doesn’t require that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii because he says so. It does require me to believe he was born there because his parents and maternal grandparents lived there and no good reason has ever been proposed for why his mother would go to Kenya to have her baby, since both she and the baby’s father spent the next several years living in the US. The logical premise is supported by documents and not contradicted by any evidence. Under those circumstances, I think William of Occam would have to vote for a Hawaiian birth.

    Hey, if Mario can pretend he knows the innermost thoughts of the Founding Fathers, why can’t I be privy to those of Occam?

  37. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 1:44 pm #

    Scott Brown: Why do Obama supporters insist that anyone that opposes him is a racist? Are YOU not the racist by calling him black 100% of the time even though he is only 50% black? And aren’t YOU being pretty presumptuous to think that ALL that oppose him are NOT black? The racist card just doesn’t hold water – especially since the president is 50% white and 50% black. If I’m white and oppose him, since he is 50% white, am I only 50% of a racist? What if I’m black and oppose him? What if I’m Latino and oppose him?

    I always find the ‘50% white’ argument to be disingenuous at best. It is a simple fact of our nation’s history that any african-american with a skin tone dark enough that they can’t pass for caucasian has been considered black. Jim Crow laws didn’t apply only to those with a certain percentage of non-caucasian ancestry. In the south of the 50’s President Obama wouldn’t have been able to ride half the way in the front of the bus, take half a drink from the ‘whites only’ fountain or eat half his meal at the lunch counter. He’s african-american by the conventions that have been in place for the entire history of our country. Deal with it.

  38. avatar
    NbC May 22, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

    Scott Brown: But, common sense only works one way for those that believe Obama is guilty of nothing. Common sense tells us that he has been less than honest about many things, but I’m sure those that support him don’t see it that way.

    Common sense dictates that even though Obama may be guilty of something, we should not paint him with a broad brush.
    Scott, you are knocking down a strawman of your own.
    I understand..
    Your name sake is showing a bit more common sense πŸ™‚

  39. avatar
    NbC May 22, 2010 at 1:52 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I always find the β€˜50% white’ argument to be disingenuous at best. It is a simple fact of our nation’s history that any african-american with a skin tone dark enough that they can’t pass for caucasian has been considered black

    Indeed, a good point. And Scott Brown is still promoting his strawman that anyone opposing President Obama must be a racist.
    I guess arguing the issues has become too complex.

  40. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 1:56 pm #

    Scott Brown:
    So are you saying Republican’s support white politicians even if they make a fool of themselves?You are so desperate to paint Republicans in a such a bad light that you cease to make sense.I don’t care what color their skin is, and I really don’t care what party they represent, as long as they are honest, have morals and ethics.Let’s understand however that we are ALL human and we make mistakes – but yes, let’s hope that they don’t make a fool of themselves.Most of you are so wrapped up in this racial argument (which makes no sense), you’ve left common sense out of the argument.

    I have noticed that Republican politicians seem much less likely to resign as the result of sex scandals than Democratic politicians: Eliot Spitzer – got caught with hookers and resigned, Eric Massa – got caught tickling staffers and resigned, Mark Sanford, John Ensign, and David Vitter all preached ‘family values’ and got caught with their pants down waving their hypocrisy around for all to see and are still in office…

    So what does this say about the morals and ethics of Democrats vs. Republicans?

  41. avatar
    yguy May 22, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    Scientist:
    Since “presumed innocent unless proven guilty” is a core value in this country, everyone is morally obligated to believe Obama guilty of nothing until someone provides actual evidence as to what specific offenses he is guilty of.

    Obama is not a criminal defendant; and even if he were and I were on the jury, my moral obligation would be to presume nothing at all, not innocence.

  42. avatar
    NbC May 22, 2010 at 2:06 pm #

    Slartibartfast: So what does this say about the morals and ethics of Democrats vs. Republicans?

    The larger issue to me is that many of these republicans run on a marriage/abstinence platform which makes their actions somewhat ironic.

    I could not care less about with whom my congress person spends the nights but when they run on a platform that they violate through their own behavior then they deserve anything coming their way.

  43. avatar
    NbC May 22, 2010 at 2:08 pm #

    yguy: Obama is not a criminal defendant; and even if he were and I were on the jury, my moral obligation would be to presume nothing at all, not innocence.

    So until a person proves his innocence your position is what?

  44. avatar
    NbC May 22, 2010 at 2:10 pm #

    yguy: Obama is not a criminal defendant; and even if he were and I were on the jury, my moral obligation would be to presume nothing at all, not innocence.

    So now add to this that the President has shown prima facie legal evidence that he was born on US soil and add to this the fact that officials have confirmed his location of birth. What would your moral obligation lead you to do now?
    And why would we accept that this is your ‘moral obligation’, a concept as vague as common sense?

  45. avatar
    yguy May 22, 2010 at 2:10 pm #

    Scientist:

    …I think William of Occam would have to vote for a Hawaiian birth.

    How do you think he would account for Obama publishing an abstract of his BC but refusing to publish the original?

  46. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 2:11 pm #

    Scott Brown:
    So are you saying Republican’s support white politicians even if they make a fool of themselves?You are so desperate to paint Republicans in a such a bad light that you cease to make sense.I don’t care what color their skin is, and I really don’t care what party they represent, as long as they are honest, have morals and ethics.Let’s understand however that we are ALL human and we make mistakes – but yes, let’s hope that they don’t make a fool of themselves.Most of you are so wrapped up in this racial argument (which makes no sense), you’ve left common sense out of the argument.

    I identified 3 different classes of birthers above (PUMAs, people who object to a black man in the Whitehouse and people who think President Obama is bent of destroying the country and think that the eligibility issue is the most promising avenue to remove him) only one of which is necessarily racist. I would guess you would fall into the latter category (if you don’t think that you fall into any of these categories, please explain why you continue to beat this dead horse in light of all of the facts and laws saying that the president is a natural born citizen and has proven it to any reasonable standard which he’s been asked to satisfy so far (and the only thing remaining is for him to provide a certified copy of his COLB when asked by a court of competent jurisdiction or compelled to by a state law requiring proof of eligibility to get on the 2012 ballot).

  47. avatar
    NbC May 22, 2010 at 2:17 pm #

    yguy: How do you think he would account for Obama publishing an abstract of his BC but refusing to publish the original?

    He would observe that the abstract contains all the relevant information to determine his eligibility status and observe that the original cannot easily be produced as the State in question no longer provides this service.
    He would observe that by any common sense, it is clear that the President is indeed a natural born citizen.
    Certainly the lack of evidence to the contrary makes this a clear and shut case to most people who take it to be self-evident. Others may rely on their version of ‘common sense’ to continue to move the goal posts in the hope that they can find something embarrassing while also allowing them to reject that our President was duly elected.

    I have no problem accepting that some people object to Obama’s policies. I find it harder to accept that they reject common sense when it comes to certain details but I can accept that some will never be satisfied.
    What I found problematic with your position is that is seems to be lacking in logic, reason and fact. Or at least consistency.
    just my personal opinion of course, based on what you have so far presented and how you have responded to questions.

  48. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 2:18 pm #

    yguy:
    How do you think [William of Ockham] would account for Obama publishing an abstract of his BC but refusing to publish the original?

    Ockham’s razor states that the simplest explanation is usually correct (more or less). In this case, the simplest explanation is that President Obama published a document that has all of the pertinent information on it and has since moved on to other things. The term ‘refusing’ suggests that he has actively turned down requests which assumes that he is paying any attention at all to the birthers – and you know what they say about assumptions…

  49. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 2:20 pm #

    yguy:
    Obama is not a criminal defendant; and even if he were and I were on the jury, my moral obligation would be to presume nothing at all, not innocence.

    That is a patently un-American sentiment. Don’t you respect the values enshrined in our Constitution?

  50. avatar
    NbC May 22, 2010 at 2:20 pm #

    To me there are those who argue that the President could never be a natural born because of his father’s citizenship. There is little or no support for such a position.
    Others have relied on rumors that President Obama was born on foreign soil, which would likely make him ineligible for the presidency. Again, the evidence points strongly to birth on US soil and thus natural born status.
    Finally, there is the suggestion that a duly elected president, if later found to be ineligible can somehow be removed through a legal process. Such ignores in my opinion our Constitution as well as legislative intents.

  51. avatar
    Scientist May 22, 2010 at 2:23 pm #

    yguy: How do you think he would account for Obama publishing an abstract of his BC but refusing to publish the original?

    What “original”? The only BCs I, my wife and our children have show the same informations as his, nothing more. My wife’s even dates back to when she was child; ir’s typed rather than computer-generated, yet still has no more information.

    And I don’t think Occam judged people on where they were born or who their parents were.

  52. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 2:27 pm #

    NbC:
    The larger issue to me is that many of these republicans run on a marriage/abstinence platform which makes their actions somewhat ironic.I could not care less about with whom my congress person spends the nights but when they run on a platform that they violate through their own behavior then they deserve anything coming their way.

    I would say hypocritical rather than ironic. The Republicans are masters of hypocrisy – while Democrats occasionally display a bit of hypocrisy here and there, they tend to be ashamed of it when they get their noses rubbed in it. Republicans, on the other hand, seem to proudly ignore massive hypocrisies in their core beliefs with no shame whatsoever. Many Republican politicians are hard pressed to make a single statement that is free of hypocrisy.

  53. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 2:31 pm #

    Greg: Birthers need to understand something about the law. It is slow. It is expensive. The cheapest way to win a lawsuit is to get it dismissed.

    You’re right. This is a point that the birthers need to avoid at all costs since it destroys their arguments about President Obama’s actions being unreasonable.

  54. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett May 22, 2010 at 2:33 pm #

    Scott Brown:
    Are YOU not the racist by calling him black 100% of the time even though he is only 50% black? And aren’t YOU being pretty presumptuous to think that ALL that oppose him are NOT black? The racist card just doesn’t hold water – especially since the president is 50% white and 50% black. If I’m white and oppose him, since he is 50% white, am I only 50% of a racist?

    This whole section is almost entirely made of fail.

    I think someone here already explained that, if you have a black parent or grandparent, you are, in the eyes of American society, black. And if you call yourself black, under those circumstances of ancestry, that is your right, unless you want to try and “pass” as white.

    And, more important to the failagraph above, you are ALSO black in the eyes of racists, who love to go on about “miscegenation.” As I said to you before, Barack Obama would doubtless have been denied service at Woolworths lunch counters in the South in the 60’s, so if he wants to call himself black, I have no trouble with that.

    If you oppose someone because of their race, you are a racist. it does not matter if they’re 50% black or you’re 50% white. It does not matter if you are black and THEY are white, or if they’re Latino, Indian, Inuit, or whatever. Racism is racism, regardless of its originator or its target. I’m shocked that I have to explain that.

    Now, out of all that fail is one good point. It IS a mistake to assume that all Birthers are operating out of racist motives. You do have people who are arguing from a Constitutional concern. You also have people who are themselves Black, and are – we hope – not prejudiced against him because he is Black, unless they’re really messed up in the head. (Of course, given Mannings rants, who could say?)

  55. avatar
    richCares May 22, 2010 at 2:35 pm #

    I’m curious, why is it that racists always try to claim they are not racists then try to make arguments that they are not against Obama’s race(the 50% black). That, as we all know, is a classic racist method of hiding their racism. It’s just “Common Sense”. They think it means they are only 50% racist. Even Andy Martin claims he is not racist, he just hates Jews.

  56. avatar
    NbC May 22, 2010 at 2:36 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I would say hypocritical rather than ironic.

    So would I but I was struggling to find the correct word… Thanks.

  57. avatar
    NbC May 22, 2010 at 2:37 pm #

    Slartibartfast: You’re right. This is a point that the birthers need to avoid at all costs since it destroys their arguments about President Obama’s actions being unreasonable.

    Manning was arguing that all lawsuits had been dismissed on standing and none addressed the merits. He is wrong: Ankeny v Daniels found, in its dicta, that the President is indeed a natural born citizen.
    So the merits were addressed but probably not as hoped…

  58. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 2:51 pm #

    NbC:
    Manning was arguing that all lawsuits had been dismissed on standing and none addressed the merits. He is wrong: Ankeny v Daniels found, in its dicta, that the President is indeed a natural born citizen.
    So the merits were addressed but probably not as hoped…

    Another point the birthers need to avoid at all costs (generally by pointing out that it wasn’t a federal court, from what I’ve seen). Under no circumstances can any birther admit that any court of competent jurisdiction that heard the case on its merits (as if standing wasn’t a merit of a legal case…) would come to the same conclusion as Ankeny. It must be extremely difficult to keep all of their rationalizations straight…

  59. avatar
    euphgeek May 22, 2010 at 2:54 pm #

    Scott Brown:
    So are you saying Republican’s support white politicians even if they make a fool of themselves?You are so desperate to paint Republicans in a such a bad light that you cease to make sense.I don’t care what color their skin is, and I really don’t care what party they represent, as long as they are honest, have morals and ethics.Let’s understand however that we are ALL human and we make mistakes – but yes, let’s hope that they don’t make a fool of themselves.Most of you are so wrapped up in this racial argument (which makes no sense), you’ve left common sense out of the argument.

    Yes, Scott, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Look at George W. Bush who the right defended for eight years no matter how foolish he looked. Look at people like John Ensign, David Vitter, Mark Sanford, Rand and Ron Paul and many other white men who looked and still look foolish, yet the Republicans still support them. And we on the left would be glad to stop using the “racial argument” if people on the right would stop being so overtly racist towards the president. And if you think that we’ve been calling simple disagreement racist, then you haven’t been paying attention to the tea party activists and other right wingers and their repeated racist comments highlighted here, here, here, here and here with a lot more listed here.

  60. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 3:07 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett: Now, out of all that fail is one good point. It IS a mistake to assume that all Birthers are operating out of racist motives. You do have people who are arguing from a Constitutional concern.

    In light of the facts, I don’t think that Constitutional concern is a legitimate motivation of the birthers – an honest look at the law and the Constitution says that President Obama has been properly vetted by the process laid out in the Constitution. One can argue in good faith that better means of verification of the qualifications are necessary or desirable, but not that President Obama is illegitimate.

  61. avatar
    yguy May 22, 2010 at 3:12 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    That is a patently un-American sentiment.Don’t you respect the values enshrined in our Constitution?

    Yes. Unlike you, however, I have some idea of what they are; and one of them is definitely not a literal presumption of innocence, especially in the case of employees of the people like the President.

    Scientist:
    What “original”?

    The one that was produced within a few days of his birth, obviously.

  62. avatar
    euphgeek May 22, 2010 at 3:20 pm #

    yguy:
    Yes. Unlike you, however, I have some idea of what they are; and one of them is definitely not a literal presumption of innocence, especially in the case of employees of the people like the President.

    Then you should be able to presume him innocent in the face of a complete lack of evidence that Obama was born anywhere else other than Hawaii and a mountain of evidence that he was born in Hawaii.

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 22, 2010 at 3:31 pm #

    Slartibartfast: In light of the facts, I don’t think that Constitutional concern is a legitimate motivation of the birthers – an honest look at the law and the Constitution says that President Obama has been properly vetted by the process laid out in the Constitution.

    Consider someone with no knowledge of the issue who is directed to a web site like that of Mario Apuzzo, a lawyer who stitches together bits of history and innuendo to make what on the surface sounds like a strong argument from authority. How are they to know that it’s fake?

  64. avatar
    NbC May 22, 2010 at 3:34 pm #

    yguy: Yes. Unlike you, however, I have some idea of what they are; and one of them is definitely not a literal presumption of innocence, especially in the case of employees of the people like the President.

    Funny how this somewhat ad hoc ‘reasoning’ has surfaced with President Obama while when Bush ‘stole’ the elections, most liberals were quick to realize that further opposing the eligibility of the President was not the best for our Country nor our Constitution.
    I see no reason why the President should be treated differently from other natural born citizens or citizens of our country. We are neither above the law nor does the law hold us to higher standards when it comes to establishing our citizenship status.
    In fact, common sense would dictate that once duly elected, the President should not have to prove his innocence to the satisfaction of a few.

  65. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 22, 2010 at 3:39 pm #

    yguy: How do you think he would account for Obama publishing an abstract of his BC but refusing to publish the original?

    Common sense would say that if someone needed a birth certificate, that they would fill out the appropriate form from the state of their birth, enclose the requisite fee, and use what they received from the state, not wondering whether some rumor monger would want to know irrelevant information that it might not contain.

    Do you see anywhere on that Hawaiian birth certificate application where you can check off “please give me just an abstract and hide some stuff”?

  66. avatar
    NbC May 22, 2010 at 3:40 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Consider someone with no knowledge of the issue who is directed to a web site like that of Mario Apuzzo, a lawyer who stitches together bits of history and innuendo to make what on the surface sounds like a strong argument from authority. How are they to know that it’s fake?

    Good point. Typically one would hope that people look at a variety of evidences and sources for one’s information. Personally that is how I get my ‘facts’. Sadly enough a large proportion of the US population seems rather comforted by watching only resources which support their viewpoints rather than be intellectually curious.

    And as such we abandon a good chunk of our liberty to others who make us believe their interpretation of the ‘facts’ and we become willing tools.

    Intellectual curiosity is a lost art to many in our Country. We have seen it all the way up to our former President. What impresses me about Obama is that he seems so different from many of his predecessors. And I can see what that can be scary to some who have come to expect little from our Presidents.

  67. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 22, 2010 at 3:44 pm #

    Scientist: Common sense doesn’t require that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii because he says so. It does require me to believe he was born there because his parents and maternal grandparents lived there

    I don’t care where his parents lived — common sense tells me:

    a) He was born at the time and place reflected on the COLB he posted online and made available to Factcheck.org, since that is the standard form currently used by Hawaii to verify a birth.

    b) No politician in their right mind would post and disseminate an official document that was altered in any way, as discovery of fraud or forgery would clearly doom their candidacy. So Obama’s campaign would not have posted the COLB unless they knew it to be genuine. (They were under no legal obligation to post or release the document)

    c).If the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health confirms publicly that their records show someone was born in their state, and claims to have personally viewed the records — that is a true statement. Again, there is no reason to lie about that — if there was any doubt, the Hawaii officials could simply have refused comment.

    d) If Obama had not in fact been born in Hawaii and had posted a fraudulent document online, officials in Hawaii would have taken immediate action and reported the matter to their state attorney general’s office as soon as they were provided with a copy of the document. They would not not ignore clear fraud, even if privacy laws prevented them from commenting publicly.

    e) If Obama had not in fact been born in Hawaii, there would not be a contemporaneous birth announcement in the two Hawaii newspapers of record.

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 22, 2010 at 3:45 pm #

    yguy: I were on the jury, my moral obligation would be to presume nothing at all, not innocence.

    And so will be my presumption about your impartiality.

  69. avatar
    yguy May 22, 2010 at 3:48 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    The Republicans are masters of hypocrisy …

    Only those encumbered with principles can be hypocrites – which leaves out people like Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

  70. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 3:49 pm #

    yguy said:

    Obama is not a criminal defendant; and even if he were and I were on the jury, my moral obligation would be to presume nothing at all, not innocence.

    Slartibartfast replied:

    That is a patently un-American sentiment. Don’t you respect the values enshrined in our Constitution?

    To which yguy responded:

    Yes. Unlike you, however, I have some idea of what they are; and one of them is definitely not a literal presumption of innocence, especially in the case of employees of the people like the President.

    Your original statement declared that you would not presume President Obama innocent were he a criminal defendant and you a member of the jury – this is the exact situation where presumption of innocence is required in our legal system. And with regard to the Constitution, Wikipedia says:

    Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States and In re Winship.

    The 5th Amendment says:

    o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    The 6th Amendment says:

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence [sic].

    And Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says:

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    I’ll let you look up ‘Coffin v. United States’ – 156 US 432 (1895) where you can read about the presumption of innocence and ‘In re Winship’ – 397 US 358 (1970) where you can learn about the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In the scenario YOU presented you were expressing a clearly un-American view that goes against the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. And I am fascinated by your mind-reading powers that allow you to determine that you know more about the values enshrined in the Constitution than I do (especially while you’re [expletive deleted] all over it).

  71. avatar
    NbC May 22, 2010 at 3:56 pm #

    yguy: The Republicans are masters of hypocrisy …

    Only those encumbered with principles can be hypocrites – which leaves out people like Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

    You mean that republicans pretend to have principles and thus become hypocrites when they are exposed?
    As to Obama, I am not sure why you consider him to be lacking principles. He seems to have a genuine interest in opinions, willing to listen and change his position based on new facts or arguments. He is a powerful visionary for our youth and the future of our country and is able to present his viewpoints in a clear and compelling manner.
    While his insistence on bipartisanship may have initially slowed him down, his continued successes to get important legislation passed is commendable.

    I’d rather have someone who is willing to amend his principles based on changing circumstances than those who pretend to hold to principles while at the same time violating them.

    Hypocrisy is the opposite of having principles, it’s pretending to having principles in public while violating them in private. Where actions disagree with the words spoken.

  72. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 22, 2010 at 3:56 pm #

    Scott Brown: Are YOU not the racist by calling him black 100% of the time even though he is only 50% black?

    This is just one more example of cognitive dissonance — the birthers can’t wrap their heads around the idea of an African-American in the White House, so they suddenly have come up with the idea that he is not really black given his mother’s white race.

    Almost all “black” people in America have white ancestry. Michelle Obama is a descendant of a white slave owner.

  73. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 22, 2010 at 3:57 pm #

    yguy: Common sense says holding an office of public trust does not of itself make the office holder trustworthy.

    Common sense says that those officially tasked with enforcing the law try to do their jobs, particularly when their boss is of the opposite political party than the person who breaks the law, and failure to do their job would result in a public scandal of massive proportions should it ever be exposed, which it inevitably would.

  74. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 3:58 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Consider someone with no knowledge of the issue who is directed to a web site like that of Mario Apuzzo, a lawyer who stitches together bits of history and innuendo to make what on the surface sounds like a strong argument from authority. How are they to know that it’s fake?

    Having recently gone a couple of rounds with Mr. Apuzzo on his website (in which he insured himself the last word by simply not posting my response after making a new post to address my comment) your point is well taken as is nbc’s point about intellectual curiosity.

  75. avatar
    NbC May 22, 2010 at 3:59 pm #

    yguy: Only those encumbered with principles can be hypocrites – which leaves out people like Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

    Of course, you forget that those with principles need not be hypocrites. Of course we all have potential to be hypocrites, it’s our actions that betray us.
    Nor is it self evident that having principles is necessary a positive position and nor have you established what are principles and what are not.

    Pretending to be in favor of the family and abstinence while fooling around with your secretary hardly seems to be based on ‘principles’.

  76. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 22, 2010 at 4:01 pm #

    Sef: I doubt Obama even allocates a microsecond per day to thinking about birthers or what they might want.

    Here I must take exception, based on the evidence of Obama cracking jokes on the subject, such as were made at the recent White Hose Correspondents Association dinner.

  77. avatar
    richCares May 22, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    “Pretending to be in favor of the family and abstinence while fooling around with your secretary hardly seems to be based on principles’.”
    ..
    Actually, making an abstinence video while fooling around with your aid is the epitome of hypocrisy. (rapid hypocrisy)

  78. avatar
    yguy May 22, 2010 at 4:13 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Do you see anywhere on that Hawaiian birth certificate application where you can check off “please give me just an abstract and hide some stuff”?

    Doesn’t matter. If, on the pretext of putting to rest any reasonable doubt, he published the COLB, common sense would dictate that requests that the same be done for the original would lead him to expend the similarly trivial effort necessary to satisfy them.

  79. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 22, 2010 at 4:21 pm #

    katahdin: I agree that common sense shows that President Obama was born in Hawaii, but you seem to passed along one birther myth. President Obama’s mother was not 17 years old when he was born, she was 18…

    Thank you for the correction. I have updated my article. Obama’s mother was 6823 days (18.68 years) old when the President was born.

  80. avatar
    Dave May 22, 2010 at 4:23 pm #

    Scott Brown: Why do Obama supporters insist that anyone that opposes him is a racist?

    Wow. Don’t you think that’s a bit of a generalization?

    And in unrelated news, I think we should recognize Senator Scott Brown’s contribution to the Senate passing the President’s bill for regulation of the finance industry.

  81. avatar
    Sef May 22, 2010 at 4:29 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Apu

    The fact that Apuzzo gives any credence on his website to Manning’s recent farce says more than enough about his legal acumen.

  82. avatar
    Sef May 22, 2010 at 4:38 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Here I must take exception, based on the evidence of Obama cracking jokes on the subject, such as were made at the recent White Hose Correspondents Association dinner.

    This only proves that the speechwriter devoted some time to it, not Obama.

  83. avatar
    Tomtech May 22, 2010 at 4:44 pm #

    yguy:

    The one that was produced within a few days of his birth, obviously.

    I’m sure the birthers would accept a folded and faded 50 year old piece of paper with baby footprints which cannot be further authenticated even though it stated it was not an official document, but a souvenir.

    When a birth is filed there is no requirement that a copy of the original long form be issued to the parents and if it was it would be marked as a copy and the birthers wouldn’t accept it.

    I just looked at the birth certificates I have from three children born just over 2 years apart in the same state. The third is only a short form we obtained for a SS application. The second was a certified copy of the long form and that child was born in the same hospital 14 months before the third. The first is also a long form, but it was issued in a different county from the second and is formatted drastically different from the first. if any of my children became President and I submitted their birth certificates as proof of birth in the country of birth there are plenty of differences and incongruities on those forms issued in the early ’80’s for conspiracy theorists.

    Even if Hawaii went into their vault and pulled the originals, which are quarantined as health hazards, I’m sure the birthers would complain that there is no way to confirm the baby who was registered in 1961 is the same person as the adult serving as President.

    Birthers would demand DNA tests and wouldn’t believe the results.

  84. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 22, 2010 at 4:49 pm #

    Scott Brown: Why do Obama supporters insist that anyone that opposes him is a racist?

    I have never said this.

  85. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 22, 2010 at 4:57 pm #

    yguy: If, on the pretext of putting to rest any reasonable doubt, he published the COLB, common sense would dictate that requests that the same be done for the original would lead him to expend the similarly trivial effort necessary to satisfy them.

    What “reasonable doubt”? The whole premise of the article you comment on is that there is no reasonable doubt. Common sense would tell you that if the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health signs a statement and posts it on the agency web site saying that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, then all the documentation in the possession of the Department of health says that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and these “doubts” that you propound are not reasonable. You yourself have a big sack of unreasonable doubts in reserve to pull out if the hospital certificate were published (and no doubt a whole group of new ones about that document itself).

    What you are actually implying is that the President should publish a document to satisfy “unreasonable doubts.” Think how ridiculous an approach that is; unreasonable doubts can never be satisfied. And that is the key to understanding why Obama does nothing beyond making jokes when the subject comes up.

  86. avatar
    yguy May 22, 2010 at 5:02 pm #

    Slartibartfast: yguy said:
    Slartibartfast replied:
    To which yguy responded:
    Your original statement declared that you would not presume President Obama innocent were he a criminal defendant and you a member of the jury – this is the exact situation where presumption of innocence is required in our legal system.And with regard to the Constitution, Wikipedia says:

    I couldn’t care less what Wikipedia says about any constitutional matter.

    I’ll let you look up Coffin v. United States’

    To Hell with that. If anything in there provides justification for the claim that an actual presumption of innocence is required of any juror under the Constitution, you can damn well spot cite it.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Common sense says that those officially tasked with enforcing the law try to do their jobs [conscientiously],

    No, common sense says they should do that, and that assumptions are not valid just because they’re hidden.

    particularly when their boss is of the opposite political party than the person who breaks the law, and failure to do their job would result in a public scandal of massive proportions should it ever be exposed, which it inevitably would.

    Another unwarranted assumption. A political coverup isn’t like paint flaking off a house. It remains intact as long as the effective majority is complacent.

  87. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 5:04 pm #

    Scott Brown: Why do Obama supporters insist that anyone that opposes him is a racist?

    There is a difference between opposing President Obama by questioning his policies and voting against him (which everyone has the right to do) and questioning his eligibility (which is the result of ignorance be it willful or unknowing). And while some of the people here have said or implied that all of the birthers are racists, I think that most of the people here (myself included as my previous comments on this thread indicate) would only say that SOME birthers are racists – a statement that I doubt anyone would disagree with.

  88. avatar
    G May 22, 2010 at 5:11 pm #

    NbC:
    Of course, you forget that those with principles need not be hypocrites. Of course we all have potential to be hypocrites, it’s our actions that betray us.
    Nor is it self evident that having principles is necessary a positive position and nor have you established what are principles and what are not.Pretending to be in favor of the family and abstinence while fooling around with your secretary hardly seems to be based on principles’.

    I would go further and say that principles aren’t required for one to be a hypocrite. If you even think about that statement, hypocrisy by its very nature isn’t a principled position, so even making a statement requiring principles for hypocrisy to occur is illogical.

    No, all one needs is to make statements or take positions that contradict themselves or take actions in direct conflict with their previous positions / statements to be a hypocrite. Hypocrisy as a result demonstrates a lack of principles in force.

  89. avatar
    G May 22, 2010 at 5:24 pm #

    yguy – You seem to just endlessly argue for the sake of argument. You’ve contributed endless posts with nothing of value or as evidence to the issues at hand under discussion here. All your posts come across as nothing more than grumpy opinions and sticking your fingers in your ears whenever you don’t like the answers you get.

    Do you have any actual points or do you just like to whine for the sake of whining?

  90. avatar
    d May 22, 2010 at 5:28 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett: Are YOU not the racist by calling him black 100% of the time even though he is only 50% black? And aren’t YOU being pretty presumptuous to think that ALL that oppose him are NOT black? The racist card just doesn’t hold water – especially since the president is 50% white and 50% black. If I’m white and oppose him, since he is 50% white, am I only 50% of a racist?
    This whole section is almost entirely made of fail.
    I think someone here already explained that, if you have a black parent or grandparent, you are, in the eyes of American society, black. And if you call yourself black, under those circumstances of ancestry, that is your right, unless you want to try and “pass” as white.
    And, more important to the failagraph above, you are ALSO black in the eyes of racists, who love to go on about “miscegenation.” As I said to you before, Barack Obama would doubtless have been denied service at Woolworths lunch counters in the South in the 60’s, so if he wants to call himself black, I have no trouble with that.
    If you oppose someone because of their race, you are a racist. it does not matter if they’re 50% black or you’re 50% white. It does not matter if you are black and THEY are white, or if they’re Latino, Indian, Inuit, or whatever. Racism is racism, regardless of its originator or its target. I’m shocked that I have to explain that.

    This is exactly and totally correct. And let’s be honest about one other thing–anyone who’s carrying on about what any African-American’s exact percentages are is simply announcing for all top see that they have nontrivial racial issues wound up in thier thought processes. It’s self-indicting twaddle.

  91. avatar
    yguy May 22, 2010 at 5:30 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    What “reasonable doubt”? The whole premise of the article you comment on is that there is no reasonable doubt.

    Then it’s based on a false premise. Nice going.

    Common sense would tell you that if the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health signs a statement and posts it on the agency web site saying that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, then all the documentation in the possession of the Department of health says that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and these “doubts” that you propound are not reasonable.

    No, common sense tells you that’s the case if she’s telling the truth, which we don’t know to be the case.

    You yourself have a big sack of unreasonable doubts in reserve to pull out if the hospital certificate were published (and no doubt a whole group of new ones about that document itself).

    No, I do not. I won’t immediately accept it at face value if it’s ever posted, but that’s not because of any objections I have “in reserve”.

  92. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 5:34 pm #

    yguy posted:

    I couldn’t care less what Wikipedia says about any constitutional matter.

    And apparently you don’t care enough about the Constitution to read the 3 sections I quoted in which the presumption of innocence is generally thought to rest. I find Wikipedia to be a good starting point – you are free to question anything found there, but if you do so with no citation of your own to back it up, I think your objection holds little weight.

    I said:

    I’ll let you look up Coffin v. United States’

    yguy replied:

    To Hell with that. If anything in there provides justification for the claim that an actual presumption of innocence is required of any juror under the Constitution, you can damn well spot cite it.

    You’re getting awfully testy – are you having problems defending your ignorant and irrational positions? From Coffin v. US:

    The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law. … Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf, let us consider what is ‘reasonable doubt.’ It is, of necessity, the condition of mind produced by the proof resulting from the evidence in the cause. It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself, whereas the presumption of innocence is one of the instruments of proof, going to bring about the proof from which reasonable doubt arises; thus one is a cause, the other an effect. To say that the one is the equivalent of the other is therefore to say that legal evidence can be excluded from the jury, and that such exclusion may be cured by instructing them correctly in regard to the method by which they are required to reach their conclusion upon the proof actually before them; in other words, that the exclusion of an important element of proof can be justified by correctly instructing as to the proof admitted. The evolution of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and its resultant, the doctrine of reasonable doubt, make more apparent the correctness of these views, and indicate the necessity of enforcing the one in order that the other may continue to exist.

    You can consider that proof that the Supreme court thought the sentiment you expressed is un-American and inconsistent with the values enshrined in the Constitution.

    yguy said:

    Another unwarranted assumption. A political coverup isn’t like paint flaking off a house. It remains intact as long as the effective majority is complacent.

    A conspiracy requires that no one involved turns whistleblower or that if they do, no one is paying attention. Since the birthers are certainly paying attention and would clearly seize on any real whistleblower immediately (given how quick they are to hold up fakes like Lucas Smith) we are left with the conclusion that either a massive conspiracy was executed with no evidence left behind and no one involved speaking out (which is mind-bogglingly improbable) or that there was no conspiracy at all.

  93. avatar
    euphgeek May 22, 2010 at 6:03 pm #

    yguy:
    Then it’s based on a false premise. Nice going.

    Then can you name a single reasonable doubt? And remember, just because you think it’s reasonable doesn’t mean it actually is.

    No, common sense tells you that’s the case if she’s telling the truth, which we don’t know to be the case.

    Okay, so you think it’s possible that Dr. Fukino was not telling the truth when she issued the statement that she had seen the vital records that said that President Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen. What motivation would she have for not telling the truth? Why would she do such a thing? Especially since if she got caught she would be facing some serious legal consequences. Plus, the fact that Governor Lingle was stumping for John McCain at the time.

    No, I do not. I won’t immediately accept it at face value if it’s ever posted, but that’s not because of any objections I have “in reserve”.

    But you do immediately accept at face value the doubts about President Obama’s citizenship, do you not? If you didn’t you would surely see that the doubts are unfounded.

  94. avatar
    Bovril May 22, 2010 at 6:16 pm #

    Yguy

    Since your intellectual dishonesty as well as moral prejudices seem to preclued anything other than spoon fed cites, please feel free to read the below.

    The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of criminal law, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant’s innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

    In practice the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the government prove the charges against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. This due process requirement, a fundamental tenet of criminal law, is contained in statutes and judicial opinions. The requirement that a person suspected of a crime be presumed innocent also is mandated in statutes and court opinions. The two principles go together, but they can be separated.

    The Supreme Court has ruled that, under some circumstances, a court should issue jury instructions on the presumption of innocence in addition to instructions on the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (Taylor v. Kentucky). A presumption of innocence instruction may be required if the jury is in danger of convicting the defendant on the basis of extraneous considerations rather than the facts of the case.

    The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.

    Aside from the related requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence is largely symbolic. The reality is that no defendant would face trial unless somebody — the crime victim, the prosecutor, a police officer — believed that the defendant was guilty of a crime. After the government has presented enough evidence to constitute probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed a crime, the accused need not be treated as if he or she was innocent of a crime, and the defendant may be jailed with the approval of the court.

    Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence — a presumption of guilt — as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.

    =============================================

    Not enough, still having “issues”

    In criminal law, Blackstone’s formulation (also known as Blackstone’s ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle: “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”, expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

    =============================================

    Some more

    Other commentators have echoed the principle; Benjamin Franklin stated it as, “it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer”.[

    ===============================================

    Lord Hale (1678) says: “In some cases presumptive evidence goes far to prove a person guilty, though there be no express proof of the fact to be committed by him, but then it must be very warily pressed, for it is better five guilty persons should escape unpunished than one innocent person should die.” 2 Hale P.C. 290. He further observes: “And thus the reasons stand on both sides, and though these seem to be stronger than the former, yet in a case of this moment it is safest to hold that in practice, which hath least doubt and danger, quod dubitas, ne faceris.” 1 Hale P.C. 24

    I believe the best descriptions for your acknowledged ethical franework would be liable to get Dr C to ban me.

  95. avatar
    yguy May 22, 2010 at 6:25 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    And apparently you don’t care enough about the Constitution to read the 3 sections I quoted

    How in hell can a juror be impartial if he presumes the defendant to be innocent?

    You can consider that proof that the Supreme court thought the sentiment you expressed is un-American and inconsistent with the values enshrined in the Constitution.

    Seeing there is not a single reference to any constitutional provision in that quote, coming to such a conclusion would require more credulity than I would have after a lobotomy.

    …we are left with the conclusion that either a massive conspiracy was executed…

    It doesn’t require a large number of conspirators, just a large number of people willing to step over the corpse in the middle of the living room.

  96. avatar
    G May 22, 2010 at 6:41 pm #

    yguy:
    How in hell can a juror be impartial if he presumes the defendant to be innocent?
    Seeing there is not a single reference to any constitutional provision in that quote, coming to such a conclusion would require more credulity than I would have after a lobotomy.
    It doesn’t require a large number of conspirators, just a large number of people willing to step over the corpse in the middle of the living room.

    But the corpse would be “evidence”, something for which you have yet to provide *any* at all to support your positions.

    Read Bovril’s detailed response to you above, which explains how presumption of innocence works in explicit detail.

    It continuously sounds like you have difficulty understanding basic concepts of law and how one is supposed to have evidence to support their positions or to come up with conclusions.

    I think it is fairly clear from your own statements that you have a mindset of “guilty until proven innocent” and draw all of your examples out of rushing to judgment based on nothing but your “gut feelings”.

    In other words, you are driven by personal prejudices and preconceived conclusions instead of being able to reach a conclusion via normal logic processes.

    It must be difficult and frustrating for you that the world and our laws don’t work in that manner and most people don’t think like you do.

  97. avatar
    yguy May 22, 2010 at 6:48 pm #

    euphgeek:
    Then can you name a single reasonable doubt?

    Yes, his refusal to release the original.

    And remember, just because you think it’s reasonable doesn’t mean it actually is.

    Damn it’s tough to slip anything by you people.

    Okay, so you think it’s possible that Dr. Fukino was not telling the truth when she issued the statement that she had seen the vital records that said that President Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen.

    I don’t think it, I know it, since the possibility hasn’t been eradicated by proof to the contrary.

    What motivation would she have for not telling the truth?

    It doesn’t matter, since the question of interest is whether in fact Obama was born in HI, not why she might be lying.

  98. avatar
    charo May 22, 2010 at 6:50 pm #

    Here is just one rebuttal to the extraordinary number of rebuttals that could be made to the above comments where at my last check, two “birthers” responded. Someone above gave five links to prove that tea partiers are racists. (If need be, I’ll find it above, but I think the person will recognize the discussion).

    Let’s take one individual -Mark Williams- and call him head of the whole tea party movement (FYI- I am not a tea partier in that I have not attended a rally or donated to any organization), whether or not that is the case. See below:

    http://notpexpress.wordpress.com/statements/california-tea-party-patriots/

    Doc, here is another rebuttal, some of it from a previous thread. There was a “frenzy” to release the COLB in 2008, resulting in the blackout of the certificate number because no one would answer the phone at the DoH to clarify whether publicly identifying the certificate number would be improper,. You say the nature of politics dictates immediate action from a campaign to dispel a rumor. The campaign had the COLB for over a year for “official business” but never thought to inquire about the certificate number? A campaign may certainly need to act before the end of the day when a story is just breaking. The “rumors” about President Obama’s name (if that was the reason for releasing the COLB) had been brewing for some time.

    It was a strange response.

    “The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: “[We] couldn’t get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information,…”

    As for the COLB being released in 2007, you said that it was possibly to show proof of citizenship, age. I wonder why there has been no evidence of that occurring? If that did occur, that would mean that the COLB was released already so what is the big deal? Also, you read somewhere that the COLB from 2007 was one of several to have on hand just in case they were needed. The only reason that a campaign would need the COLB would be for the election. A research question (for me if I can get the time) would be how many Secretaries of State have exercised discretion and requested a COLB/birth certificate? In past history, it is said that Eldridge Cleaver was found to not be of proper age so the assumption was that his birth certificate must have been requested. He wrote an autobiography from prison prior to campaigning and it may be that his age was well-known without the certificate.

    I don’t think Obama showed a COLB to any official. The evidence APPEARS to show he got one in 2007 but in a “frenzy” one day in 2008, the campaign just had to release a copy without waiting for clarification of the blacking out of the certificate number. Had to do it right then. What was the news cycle that day, that hour?

    This is just strange to me Doc. As I have said several times, it is strange to me that the DoH released a public statement about private matters, but would not confirm whether or not a COLB was released in 2007 in a request made under the law in effect at the time. Who would have complained? The request made by Phil from TRSoL was made BEFORE the final statement of the DoH stating that President Obama was born in Honolulu so the argument Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right fails. The request for whether or not records exist to confirm a request for a COLB was made and denied BEFORE Governor Lingle’s statement, which was in direct violation of the law. A response confirming that a request was made for the COLB COULD reasonably (IMO) be argued to NOT be a violation; OTOH, making a public statement about the place of birth is clearly a violation.

    There are several court cases, in none of which the defense actually discusses the COLB that would be admitted as self-authenticating, barring any proof of fraud.

    Strange behavior. I don’t know what it means.

    p.s. Were you aware that The P&E (which I don’t regularly read,) publicly dropped the issue of fake birth announcements in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star when a trusted commenter found copies at the public library and e-mailed Charlton? Most people can be convinced, whether you believe it or not.

    I don’t plan on getting involved in a knock down/drag out affair here. This is just a small rebuttal.

  99. avatar
    yguy May 22, 2010 at 6:52 pm #

    Bovril: I believe the best descriptions for your acknowledged ethical franework would be liable to get Dr C to ban me.

    I have no problem empathizing, trust me. πŸ™‚

  100. avatar
    nbC May 22, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

    yguy: Another unwarranted assumption. A political coverup isn’t like paint flaking off a house. It remains intact as long as the effective majority is complacent.

    This has nothing to do with political coverup or anything else other than your unwillingness to accept prima facie legal evidence.
    Simple as that.
    You can whine, complain, object, insist and petition but that does not mean that your claims should be taken seriously. Certainly it makes common sense that until you can show some problems, President Obama’s birth right citizenship clearly is in the United States and thus he is by any reasonable standards a natural born citizen.
    If you disagree, then it is up to you to make an effort to overcome the evidence. Do not expect others to take seriously your ‘concerns’ which appear to be less borne out of a Constitutional consideration but more out of a political one.

    So far your ‘arguments’ are all over the map of possibilities but you forget that since something is possible it is therefor probable.

    Again, you fail to overcome the common sense and reasonable standard which applies to all US citizens, that US citizenship is established through the certificate of live birth, in case of Hawaii, the COLB, which is prima facie legal evidence. Furthermore, the evidence is supported by the officials who by law are tasked with this.
    Your ‘argument’ is that you are not satisfied. Why should anyone care? A reasonable person may very well consider your position as lacking in reason, logic and fact and thus reject your appeal to ever moving goalposts.

    The Constitution is clear, the law is clear and the facts are clear.

  101. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 7:01 pm #

    yguy:
    How in hell can a juror be impartial if he presumes the defendant to be innocent?

    The juror must assume the defendant to be innocent until the prosecution proves that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence. I sincerely hope that you are never asked to sit on a jury if you don’t understand the basics of how our legal system works.

    yguy said:

    Seeing there is not a single reference to any constitutional provision in that quote, coming to such a conclusion would require more credulity than I would have after a lobotomy.

    You don’t think that a statement by the Supreme court has relevance as to how the Constitution is interpreted? Your credibility on Constitutional issues is getting lower by the minute (and it was never very high to begin with). As for your credulity, you seem to have no problem swallowing birther propaganda with no justification…

    yguy said:

    It doesn’t require a large number of conspirators, just a large number of people willing to step over the corpse in the middle of the living room.

    As G pointed out above, all you’ve got is an imaginary corpse.

  102. avatar
    nbC May 22, 2010 at 7:04 pm #

    charo: There was a “frenzy” to release the COLB in 2008, resulting in the blackout of the certificate number because no one would answer the phone at the DoH to clarify whether publicly identifying the certificate number would be improper,. You say the nature of politics dictates immediate action from a campaign to dispel a rumor. The campaign had the COLB for over a year for “official business” but never thought to inquire about the certificate number?

    Nothing unusual about that. I doubt that the documents were collected to be shared with the public and thus any concerns about what data should and should not be masked did not become an issue until some started to doubt President Obama’s citizenship. Since the masking of the certificate number did no change the fact that the COLB showed President Obama to be natural born.
    Speculations about the details is failing to see that what was released addressed the concern. And yes, anyone familiar with politics and the news cycle would understand that the sooner an issue is addressed, the better.

    This is just strange to me Doc. As I have said several times, it is strange to me that the DoH released a public statement about private matters, but would not confirm whether or not a COLB was released in 2007 in a request made under the law in effect at the time. Who would have complained?

    The fact that noone would complain does not mean that an agency can therefor violate its rules and policies and set dangerous precedent. Initially the DOH did validate the COLB but then backed down after realizing that this may have gone beyond what they are allowed to do under Hawaiian law.

    The DOH’s statements about the existence of a birth certificate and that the birth certificate showed Obama born in Hawaii are well within what is permissible under Hawaiian law as it is based on publicly available index data.

    A response confirming that a request was made for the COLB COULD reasonably (IMO) be argued to NOT be a violation; OTOH, making a public statement about the place of birth is clearly a violation.

    Not under Hawaiian law which allows the release of index data. The fact that President Obama was born in Hawaii is not in violation of such laws. But perhaps you can make a more comprehensive argument as to why you believe it to be clearly a violation.

    There are several court cases, in none of which the defense actually discusses the COLB that would be admitted as self-authenticating, barring any proof of fraud.

    Strange behavior. I don’t know what it means.

    It means that the defense was comfortable with the idea that the case would not even reach discovery because of lack of standing and other Constitutional constraints. Why submit evidence when there is not even a case? That just does not make any sense.

    Perhaps you can explain why you consider this strange behavior?

  103. avatar
    nbC May 22, 2010 at 7:14 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Seeing there is not a single reference to any constitutional provision in that quote, coming to such a conclusion would require more credulity than I would have after a lobotomy.

    And yet you yourself refuse to provide any supporting logic and reason as a foundation for your arguments. Some may conclude that common sense may lead to an inevitable conclusion here.

    That it was not spelled out in the Constitution does not mean that it cannot be a fundamental right, since the Constitution is clear that it does not spell out ‘common sense’, self-evident rights πŸ™‚

    You are right that the Constitution does not spell out the right however that hardly means that such a right cannot be inferred from the Constitution.

    Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States and In re Winship.

    Coffin v US 156 U.S. 432 (1895)

    The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.

    It is stated as unquestioned in the text-books, and has been referred to as a matter of course in the decisions of this court and in the courts of the several States. See Taylor on Evidence, vol. 1, c. 5, 126, 127; Wills on Circumstantial Evidence, c. 5, 91; Best on Presumptions, part 2, c. 1, 63, 64; c. 3, 31-58; Greenleaf on Evidence, part 5, §§ 29, &c.; 11 Criminal Law Magazine, 3; Wharton on Evidence, § 1244; Phillips on Evidence, Cowen & Hill’s Notes, vol. 2, p. 289; Lilienthal v. United States, 97 U.S. 237; Hopt v. Utah, 120 U.S. 430; Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Cush. 295, 320; State v. Bartlett, 43 N.H. 224; Alexander v. People, 96 Illinois, 96; People v. Fairchild, 48 Michigan, 31; People v. Millard, 53 Michigan, 63; Commonwealth v. Whittaker, 131 Mass. 224; Blake v. State, 3 Tex. App. 581; Wharton v. State, 73 Alabama, 366; State v. Tibbetts, 35 Maine, 81; Moorer v. State, 44 Alabama, 15.

    Similarly In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)

    It’s based on the common sense observation that it is better to let 10 guilty people remain free than have 1 innocent person be locked up.

  104. avatar
    nbC May 22, 2010 at 7:16 pm #

    Slartibartfast: yguy said:

    It doesn’t require a large number of conspirators, just a large number of people willing to step over the corpse in the middle of the living room.

    As G pointed out above, all you’ve got is an imaginary corpse.

    But common sense dictates that an imaginary corpse may be a real corpse and thus we should not allow reason and logic to interfere here. And for goodness sakes, let’s not allow facts to confuse the matter even further. The mere fact that you admit that there is a corpse is sufficient to convict…

  105. avatar
    charo May 22, 2010 at 7:20 pm #

    1. Why did it take a year to figure out the certificate number could be private?

    2. The news was brewing for some time; no one answered the call right away so there was a big “rush”?

    3. “And yes, anyone familiar with politics and the news cycle would understand that the sooner an issue is addressed, the better.”

    So why wasn’t it addressed sooner rather than later?

    4. “The fact that noone would complain does not mean that an agency can therefor violate its rules and policies and set dangerous precedent.” Governor LIngle did not quote the index data. If your reasoning is true, why couldn’t there be a confirmation that the COLB was requested? What violation is that?

    5. If the electronic COLB is the Factcheck COLB is the actual COLB, then stating that the COLB was requested in 2007 is just as permissible as publicily stating the place of birth from private records- use your own reasoning as to why it is permissible to say that the COLB was requested.

    6. There is no question that the defense could win without discussing the COLB; it DID win. The defense could just have confidently discussed the COLB and won, couldn’t it? Why not walk the COLB over to the defense table and say “Have at it!”

    Remember, Charlton dropped the fake newspaper story. MInds can be convinced. I have e-mailed the P&E about another way to prove the status of Michelle Obama’s law license. I am waiting to see if I get a response. If I don’t, I’ll tell you what I thought should be requested and see what you think.

  106. avatar
    nbC May 22, 2010 at 7:26 pm #

    yguy: Slartibartfast:
    And apparently you don’t care enough about the Constitution to read the 3 sections I quoted

    How in hell can a juror be impartial if he presumes the defendant to be innocent?

    Through common sense? The concept of impartiality has little to do with the presumption that unless proven guilty, the accused should be acquitted. This means that without any evidence, there is a presumption of innocence. After all, the jury has only three options: a hung jury, guilty or innocent. A juror thus has to work from a basic presumption that due process requires that the government makes a compelling case and until so, the accused will have to be presumed to be not guilty.

    Impartial means that judgments are based on logic and reason and in a matter consistent with similar cases.
    I can see why some may conflate the two concepts but logically speaking they are distinct.

    Impartiality refers to the fact that biases towards the accused cannot lead to a different verdict than in similar cases. It has little to do with the presumption of innocence which lies at the foundation of our law, in such a fundamental manner that it seems impossible or at least a violation of common sense, to deny something so self-evident

  107. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 7:26 pm #

    nbC:
    But common sense dictates that an imaginary corpse may be a real corpse and thus we should not allow reason and logic to interfere here. And for goodness sakes, let’s not allow facts to confuse the matter even further. The mere fact that you admit that there is a corpse is sufficient to convict…

    Sorry, my bad for using logic and reason. I would like to note, however, that in your previous post it appears that you have attributed tripe spewed by yguy (that I was quoting) to me.

  108. avatar
    yguy May 22, 2010 at 7:31 pm #

    Slartibartfast:

    The juror must assume the defendant to be innocent until the prosecution proves that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence.

    Utterly nonresponsive. Perhaps you’d care to try again:

    How in hell can a juror be impartial if he presumes the defendant to be innocent?

    ***

    You don’t think that a statement by the Supreme court has relevance as to how the Constitution is interpreted?

    Sure it does, if the statement purports to address that. The quote you provided does not.

    Your credibility on Constitutional issues is getting lower by the minute (and it was never very high to begin with).

    I don’t suppose Lincoln’s credibility on Constitutional issues was anything to rave about as far as Justice Taney was concerned either.

  109. avatar
    nbC May 22, 2010 at 7:37 pm #

    charo: 1. Why did it take a year to figure out the certificate number could be private?

    It didn’t. You are confusing two separate events. 1. Any and all relevant documents were collected by the campaign. 2. It became necessary to counter rumors through the release of a document which should be handled with sufficient care as the document can be used for fraud.

    2. The news was brewing for some time; no one answered the call right away so there was a big “rush”?

    Hard to tell without more data. I can think of several reasons as to why. For instance, few may have realized that there was a Birth Certificate available and when it was found out, the decision was made to release it. To be on the safe side, the number was blanked out, just like logic dictates that one blank out a social security number or other irrelevant personal data.

    3. “And yes, anyone familiar with politics and the news cycle would understand that the sooner an issue is addressed, the better.”

    So why wasn’t it addressed sooner rather than later?

    It wasn’t?

    4. “The fact that noone would complain does not mean that an agency can therefor violate its rules and policies and set dangerous precedent.” Governor LIngle did not quote the index data. If your reasoning is true, why couldn’t there be a confirmation that the COLB was requested? What violation is that?

    Governor Lingle cited little more than that the birth certificate was in the possession of the State of Hawaii, something that was based on index data. Her recent comment about the hospital may have been an unfortunate release of data that should have remained private but that’s hardly a reason to allow more data to be leaked?
    Hawaiian law is clear what data can and cannot be made public.

    5. If the electronic COLB is the Factchec COLB is the actual COLB, then stating that the COLB was requested in 2007 is just as permissible as publicily stating the place of birth from private records- use your own reasoning as to why it is permissible to say that the COLB was requested.

    The place of birth is public record, the hospital of birth is not. Are you suggestion that two wrongs make a right? If we accept your claim that Lingle released private information, that hardly means that other private data should also be released.

    6. There is no question that the defense could win without discussing the COLB; it DID win. The defense could just have confidently discussed the COLB and won, couldn’t it? Why not walk the COLB over to the defense table and say “Have at it!”

    Common sense. Why allow the other side access to data that they have no right to and which is of no relevance to the issue of standing. Surely you should realize that in law, you never volunteer information. By submitting the COLB as evidence, the defense would have opened up a whole line of arguments. Why waste money and effort when there exists a far more straightforward manner: lack of standing.

    Remember, Charlton dropped the fake newspaper story. MInds can be convinced. I have e-mailed the P&E about another way to prove the status of Michelle Obama’s law license. I am waiting to see if I get a response. If I don’t, I’ll tell you what I thought should be requested and see what you think.

    Minds can be forced to make minor adjustments. I also believe that the word mind is perhaps not the most accurate terminology here.

  110. avatar
    nbC May 22, 2010 at 7:38 pm #

    yguy: Utterly nonresponsive. Perhaps you’d care to try again:

    Somewhat ironic would you not agree?…

  111. avatar
    nbC May 22, 2010 at 7:40 pm #

    yguy: Your credibility on Constitutional issues is getting lower by the minute (and it was never very high to begin with).

    I don’t suppose Lincoln’s credibility on Constitutional issues was anything to rave about as far as Justice Taney was concerned either.

    I do not believe that Lincoln’s credibility has any relevance to your credibility on these issues.
    It stands or falls on it own. So far it seems to have a hard time getting of the ground. May I suggest that you provide a foundation for your claims?

  112. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 7:48 pm #

    charo: 1.Why did it take a year to figure out the certificate number could be private?

    It didn’t. They did not obtain the document in the rush to publish it, they obtained it earlier for other purposes (presumably to establish his eligibility to be on the ballot) and rushed to publish it in response to allegations (it is just common sense that you want as few news cycles as possible to pass between an allegation and its refutation).

    2.The news was brewing for some time; no one answered the call right away so there was a big “rush”?

    See above.

    3.“And yes, anyone familiar with politics and the news cycle would understand that the sooner an issue is addressed, the better.”So why wasn’t it addressed sooner rather than later?

    When did the allegations appear in the national media and when was the COLB posted?

    4.“The fact that noone would complain does not mean that an agency can therefor violate its rules and policies and set dangerous precedent.”Governor LIngle did not quote the index data.If your reasoning is true, why couldn’t there be a confirmation that the COLB was requested?What violation is that?

    I would guess that it would be a violation of HIPPA regulations.

    5.If the electronic COLB is the Factcheck COLB is the actual COLB, then stating that the COLB was requested in 2007 is just as permissible as publicily stating the place of birth from private records- use your own reasoning as to why it is permissible to say that the COLB was requested.

    These are privacy regulations that are VERY serious to anyone with access to official records, especially senior members of a state’s record-keeping agency. If you think that they could have said something, then find the statute that says so. In the absence of that, I would presume that the Hawaii DOH officials would err on the side of caution.

    6.There is no question that the defense could win without discussing the COLB; it DID win.The defense could just have confidently discussed the COLB and won, couldn’t it? Why not walk the COLB over to the defense table and say “Have at it!”Remember, Charlton dropped the fake newspaper story.MInds can be convinced.I have e-mailed the P&E about another way to prove the status of Michelle Obama’s law license.I am waiting to see if I get a response.If I don’t, I’ll tell you what I thought should be requested and see what you think.

    Why should a lawyer introduce something that will just muddy their argument? (and expose their next line of defense) The best outcome was for the cases to be dismissed on standing issues. If the courts had ruled that the cases had standing, then I’m sure that the COLB would be introduced into evidence, but until then it seems reasonable to hold it in reserve (it’s called an ace in the hole).

  113. avatar
    nbC May 22, 2010 at 8:00 pm #

    The document was released on June 13, 2008

    As reported by Amy Hollyfield of PolitiFact,

    “On June 13, 2008, Obama’s campaign finally released a copy, while launching a fact-check Web site of its own, Fightthesmears.com. The site is a direct response to allegations about Obama that won’t go away: He’s Muslim. He took the oath of office on a Koran. He refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance. PolitiFact has researched all of these accusations and none of them are true.

    When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.

    ‘It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,’ spokesman Janice Okubo told us.”

    When was fightthesmears launched? The site name was acquired on June 1 2008.

  114. avatar
    charo May 22, 2010 at 8:03 pm #

    [My numbers don’t correspond]

    1. I am not trying to relate the two events but am only discussing that the Obama campaign had a COLB for over a year. You state that this would be done as a matter of course. The COLB would only be needed BY THE CAMPAIGN for election purposes. There is no evidence that any other presidential candidate was asked for a birth certificate/COLB. Are you stating that President Obama presented a COLB to an election official or not?

    2. So why wasn’t it addressed sooner rather than later?

    It wasn’t?

    No. The issue had been festering.

    3. Her recent comment about the hospital may have been an unfortunate release of data that should have remained private but that’s hardly a reason to allow more data to be leaked?
    Hawaiian law is clear what data can and cannot be made public.

    What clear law is there that whether a birth certificate was requested or not is private?
    That was requested FIRST., before the “unfortunate” release of the hospital name. It was pretty convenient that actual PROOF is rejected based on an interpretation of the law, but an outright disclosure of hospital name in clear violation of the law is let out of the bag?

    That is what you are not seeing NBC. I am not saying that two wrongs make a right. Please think about what I am saying. It is convenient that what was leaked can’t be proven (and was a BIG point of contention for many “birthers”) but what was reasonably asked for that would PROVE the COLB was requested is interpreted as private?

    4. “By submitting the COLB as evidence, the defense would have opened up a whole line of arguments. Why waste money and effort when there exists a far more straightforward manner: lack of standing.”

    It would have gotten rid of ALL issues concerning place of birth! That would have been much more efficient! COLB’s are self-authenticating, barring proof of fraud.

    6. “I also believe that the word mind is perhaps not the most accurate terminology here.”

    I guess no response is required.

  115. avatar
    charo May 22, 2010 at 8:06 pm #

    Look, if I say I have to go because I have to, someone here lays on the insults. But I have to go…

  116. avatar
    nbC May 22, 2010 at 8:08 pm #

    charo: 1. I am not trying to relate the two events but am only discussing that the Obama campaign had a COLB for over a year. You state that this would be done as a matter of course. The COLB would only be needed BY THE CAMPAIGN for election purposes. There is no evidence that any other presidential candidate was asked for a birth certificate/COLB. Are you stating that President Obama presented a COLB to an election official or not?

    No, what I am saying is that the campaign collected any and all relevant records.

    It would have gotten rid of ALL issues concerning place of birth! That would have been much more efficient! COLB’s are self-authenticating, barring proof of fraud.

    No it would not, since now the plaintiffs could have argued for additional discovery and a jury trial to decide the issue. Providing the birth certificate would only have opened up the flood gates.

    What clear law is there that whether a birth certificate was requested or not is private?
    That was requested FIRST., before the “unfortunate” release of the hospital name. It was pretty convenient that actual PROOF is rejected based on an interpretation of the law, but an outright disclosure of hospital name in clear violation of the law is let out of the bag?

    Your point? That a mistake was made, or perhaps it was done on purpose? I am not sure what ‘proof’ you are referring to here.

    That is what you are not seeing NBC. I am not saying that two wrongs make a right. Please think about what I am saying. It is convenient that what was leaked can’t be proven (and was a BIG point of contention for many “birthers”) but what was reasonably asked for that would PROVE the COLB was requested is interpreted as private?

    Life’s a b*tch I guess. Of course, why would you have believed the DOH on one issue and seem to be reluctant to believe it on another issue.

    Again I fail to see any logic here other than that you claim it’s so unfair. Tough…

  117. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 8:08 pm #

    yguy posted:
    .
    [Me]: The juror must assume the defendant to be innocent until the prosecution proves that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence.
    .
    [yguy]: Utterly nonresponsive. Perhaps you’d care to try again:

    How in hell can a juror be impartial if he presumes the defendant to be innocent?

    As nbC explained above, by not letting bias toward the accused interfere with rational consideration of the evidence presented which is distinct from starting from a presumption of innocence – you’re getting two different things confused and wrongly accusing me of being non-responsive due to your own lack of understanding (i.e. your ignorance is showing). And, like nbC, I find your comments ironic as well…

    [Me]: You don’t think that a statement by the Supreme court has relevance as to how the Constitution is interpreted?
    .
    [yguy]: Sure it does, if the statement purports to address that. The quote you provided does not.

    The statement I quoted is the Supreme Court talking about the presumption of innocence as being a basic value of our legal system (which is established by the Constitution, by the way). That certainly seems relevant to this discussion to me.

  118. avatar
    Bovril May 22, 2010 at 8:10 pm #

    Yguy,

    Care to refute a single of the cites on presumption of innocence I had to spoon feed you?

    I notice you tend to skip right past answering when you get rebuttals

    Waiting……

  119. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 8:14 pm #

    charo: What clear law is there that whether a birth certificate was requested or not is private?
    That was requested FIRST., before the “unfortunate” release of the hospital name. It was pretty convenient that actual PROOF is rejected based on an interpretation of the law, but an outright disclosure of hospital name in clear violation of the law is let out of the bag?

    You should note that is was the governor that let out the name of the hospital – not an official of the DOH. I wouldn’t expect the governor to be as well-versed with privacy regulations as the people who’s job it is to deal with the records… Would you?

  120. avatar
    nbC May 22, 2010 at 8:15 pm #

    Furthermore I find your position somewhat confusing. The veracity of the COLB can be verified by the seal and signature and the security paper.
    More importantly than the question if the DOH released a DOH is the question: Was Obama born in Hawaii and the answer is yes. The missing piece was: was he born in a hospital. We know know that answer as well.

    But somehow when the facts appear to be against them, some people object?

    I find that hard to swallow though I can appreciate the sentiments.

  121. avatar
    nbC May 22, 2010 at 8:16 pm #

    Bovril: Yguy,Care to refute a single of the cites on presumption of innocence I had to spoon feed you?I notice you tend to skip right past answering when you get rebuttalsWaiting……

    Perhaps he believes that he has no duty to present evidence for his position. The mere fact that he holds a position is sufficient evidence of the validity of said position

  122. avatar
    nbC May 22, 2010 at 8:17 pm #

    charo: Look, if I say I have to go because I have to, someone here lays on the insults. But I have to go…

    Why the need to announce that you have to go?…

  123. avatar
    nbC May 22, 2010 at 8:18 pm #

    Slartibartfast: As nbC explained above, by not letting bias toward the accused interfere with rational consideration of the evidence presented which is distinct from starting from a presumption of innocence –

    Is that what I said. I am so proud of myself sometimes πŸ™‚ But you manage to say it in one beautiful sentence….

  124. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 8:27 pm #

    nbC:
    Is that what I said[?] I am so proud of myself sometimes But you manage to say it in one beautiful sentence….

    While I was writing my thesis, my advisor pounded the need for concision, accuracy and an incredibly anal attention to nuance into my head – I guess some of it stuck… πŸ˜‰

  125. avatar
    Rickey May 22, 2010 at 8:51 pm #

    charo:So why wasn’t it addressed sooner rather than later?

    Simple. The Obama campaign never ordered the COLB with the intention of making it public. It was ordered because the campaign anticipated that it might be necessary to show it to election officials. Since it was never going to be made public, initially there was no concern about the certificate number (whether the campaign ever was asked to show it to any election officials is unknown and irrelevant).

    From there, common sense tells us that it went something like this. In 2008, when rumors that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.A. began to go viral, someone in the Obama campaign decided that it would be a good idea to post a copy of the COLB on Obama’s website. A campaign worker likely was instructed to get the the scan posted by a certain date and time. Whoever was in charge of scanning the document looked at it and had concerns that the certificate number might be information which should not be made public. Calls to Hawaii to get clarification on this were unsuccessful (no surprise to anyone who has tried calling a government agency for information – I recently spent 70 minutes on hold with the New York State Insurance Department trying to speak with a live person about an insurance license issue). Facing a deadline, the person responsible for posting the COLB decided that the prudent thing would be to redact the certificate number.

    Occam’s Razor at work. What other reason would the campaign have had to redact the certificare number? What could they possibly have been trying to hide? And if they were trying to hide something, why did they let Fact Check examine and photograph the unredacted COLB?

    .I have e-mailed the P&E about another way to prove the status of Michelle Obama’s law license.I am waiting to see if I get a response.

    What does Michelle Obama’s law license have to do with Obama’s eligibility?

  126. avatar
    Whatever4 May 22, 2010 at 8:54 pm #

    ObamaRelease YourRecords: Common sense tells you if someone is fighting the release of ALL past records they’re hiding something big…and don’t give us that crap that he is not fighting the release… it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out…

    Coming late to the party, but… Obama released the COLB, and within a month the first eligibility lawsuit was filed. There hasn’t been a week since without some lawsuit being on some docket. Releasing any information with pending cases out there looks like you are bowing to the pressure generated by the suits. In Obama’s case, I believe he isn’t hiding anything, he’s trying to preserve the dignity of the Office of President by not addressing the pending lawsuits outside the courts involved. That plus no documents would sway anyone anyway.

  127. avatar
    NbC May 22, 2010 at 8:57 pm #

    Rickey: .I have e-mailed the P&E about another way to prove the status of Michelle Obama’s law license.I am waiting to see if I get a response.

    What does Michelle Obama’s law license have to do with Obama’s eligibility?

    Just other attempts to smear the President, his family and so on.

  128. avatar
    yguy May 22, 2010 at 8:57 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    As nbC explained above, by not letting bias toward the accused interfere with rational consideration of the evidence presented which is distinct from starting from a presumption of innocence –

    IOW, a juror need not presume innocence to be impartial. Have I got that about right?

    The statement I quoted is the Supreme Court talking about the presumption of innocence as being a basic value of our legal system (which is established by the Constitution, by the way).

    Actually, “presumption of innocence” was a legal doctrine long before the Constitution was a gleam in Madison’s eye.

    Bovril: Yguy,Care to refute a single of the cites on presumption of innocence I had to spoon feed you?

    To refute it I’d have to trouble myself to read that WoT, which I’m not much inclined to do, considering the proximate source. Apologies for any inconvenience.

  129. avatar
    Sef May 22, 2010 at 8:59 pm #

    Rickey: What does Michelle Obama’s law license have to do with Obama’s eligibility?

    Look, look at the shiny object over there!

  130. avatar
    Bovril May 22, 2010 at 9:09 pm #

    yguy: To refute it I’d have to trouble myself to read that WoT, which I’m not much inclined to do, considering the proximate source. Apologies for any inconvenience.

    Skip, skip, skip

    Can’t answer so tries to deflect, very sad but wholly predictable.

  131. avatar
    Bovril May 22, 2010 at 9:13 pm #

    Ooooh, Yguy is trying his fun on CAAFlog…..not getting much traction is it fella?

  132. avatar
    Whatever4 May 22, 2010 at 9:21 pm #

    charo: There was a “frenzy” to release the COLB in 2008, resulting in the blackout of the certificate number because no one would answer the phone at the DoH to clarify whether publicly identifying the certificate number would be improper,. You say the nature of politics dictates immediate action from a campaign to dispel a rumor. The campaign had the COLB for over a year for “official business” but never thought to inquire about the certificate number? A campaign may certainly need to act before the end of the day when a story is just breaking. The “rumors” about President Obama’s name (if that was the reason for releasing the COLB) had been brewing for some time.

    The frenzy was because of a June 9, 2008 article in National Review Online. By June 12th, the Fight the Smears site had the COLB posted. (I think Daily Kos had it before then, according to rumors.) Two and a half days — that’s a frenzy alright. Concerns about the number only arose when the campaign decided to answer the rumors delineated in the article by posting online for the entire world to see. If they had merely shown reporters at a press conference, I doubt anyone would have thought they needed to redact anything.

  133. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 9:21 pm #

    yguy posted:
    .
    [Me]: As nbC explained above, by not letting bias toward the accused interfere with rational consideration of the evidence presented which is distinct from starting from a presumption of innocence –
    .
    [yguy]: IOW, a juror need not presume innocence to be impartial. Have I got that about right?

    A juror is required to presume innocence AND be impartial in our legal system – not just one or the other.

    [Me]: The statement I quoted is the Supreme Court talking about the presumption of innocence as being a basic value of our legal system (which [was] established by the Constitution, by the way).
    .
    [yguy]: Actually, “presumption of innocence” was a legal doctrine long before the Constitution was a gleam in Madison’s eye.

    Our legal system was established by the Constitution, not the doctrine of ‘presumption of innocence’. Apparently you have difficulties understanding the written word – that may explain your misconceptions about the Constitution. Some English classes could be helpful to correct that.

    [Bovril]: Yguy,Care to refute a single of the cites on presumption of innocence I had to spoon feed you?
    .
    [yguy]: To refute it I’d have to trouble myself to read that WoT, which I’m not much inclined to do, considering the proximate source. Apologies for any inconvenience.

    Again with the irony. Everything that I’ve seen you post on this site is a worthless waste of time – no legitimate arguments, no sources to back up your claims, no rebuttals to anyone debunking the ignorant propaganda you spew. I would take it as a kindness if you just stopped posting until you’ve got something intelligent to say.

  134. avatar
    charo May 22, 2010 at 9:35 pm #

    “Why the need to announce that you have to go?…”

    To continue the topic at another time.

    “The frenzy was because of a June 9, 2008 article in National Review Online.”

    The article itself references reporters asking for the certificate since April. So when the NRO asks, it becomes a frenzy?

    “What does Michelle Obama’s law license have to do with Obama’s eligibility? ”

    Doc C doesn’t mind, I don’t think. And the answer could easily confirm without a doubt that she- and the President- are indeed on inactive status.

    More to say, but… I have pressing matters again…

  135. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 9:48 pm #

    charo: “What does Michelle Obama’s law license have to do with Obama’s eligibility? ”
    .
    Doc C doesn’t mind, I don’t think. And the answer could easily confirm without a doubt that she- and the President- are indeed on inactive status.

    I don’t think anyone minds if you want to stray from the topic from time to time – we’re just curious as to the relevance. As far as I know, both the president and first lady are not current members of any bar association – a completely normal thing for any lawyer not actively practicing law. What I (and I think others) want to know is what possible significance is there in Michelle Obama’s inactive status?

  136. avatar
    yguy May 22, 2010 at 10:03 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    A juror is required to presume innocence AND be impartial in our legal system – not just one or the other.

    IOW, he or she must adopt mutually exclusive attitudes simultaneously. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Everything that I’ve seen you post on this site is a worthless waste of time

    Then I assume you won’t be directing any more of your drivel my way. TIA. 8)

  137. avatar
    Sef May 22, 2010 at 10:12 pm #

    Slartibartfast: As far as I know, both the president and first lady are not current members of any bar association

    The Illinois Bar website lists the Obamas as honorary members. (Enter Obama as a search topic at their site)

  138. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 22, 2010 at 10:26 pm #

    yguy posted:
    [Me]: A juror is required to presume innocence AND be impartial in our legal system – not just one or the other.
    .
    [yguy]: IOW, he or she must adopt mutually exclusive attitudes simultaneously. Thanks for clearing that up.

    No, a juror is required to do two distinct things:

    a) Start by assuming the innocence of the accused

    AND

    b) Weigh the evidence presented without bias toward or against the defendant

    Let’s say you were on trial for posting ignorant, unsupported propaganda on another blog and I was on the jury. In order to faithfully uphold my Constitutional duty, I would have to start out by assuming you were innocent and not hold the fact that I am aware that you have repeatedly posted ignorant, unsupported propaganda here against you and make a judgement based solely on the evidence provided by the prosecution and the defense. Is that so hard to understand? Basically every member of every jury in every court since this country was founded hasn’t had a problem with this – why do you?

    [Me]: Everything that I’ve seen you post on this site is a worthless waste of time
    .
    [yguy]: Then I assume you won’t be directing any more of your drivel my way. TIA.

    That doesn’t meant that I think your ignorant propaganda should go unanswered – if I don’t respond to you, that just means that I think that others are doing an acceptable job of showing you for what you are.
    .
    Sef,

    Thanks for the info.

  139. avatar
    Scientist May 22, 2010 at 10:45 pm #

    yguy: What “original”?
    The one that was produced within a few days of his birth, obviously.

    1. He may not have it.
    2. He may have it but not be able to locate it easily.
    3. It is no more valid under the law than one printed today.

    If I lose my driver’s license, I can go to DMV and get a replacement for a small fee., The replacement is just as valid as the one I lost. If the state changed the format since I got my last license it might have more or less information. That is totally immaterial. The only thing that matters is that DMV records have me down as a licensed driver without any suspensions (i.e., Apuzzo’s clients need not apply).

    The birther’s arguments are laughable, their chances of prevailing in court are less than my chances of winning $300,000,000 in Powerball and their political impact is nil, because none of them would vote for Obama under any circumstances.

  140. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 22, 2010 at 11:16 pm #

    Sef:
    The Illinois Bar website lists the Obamas as honorary members. (Enter Obama as a search topic at their site)

    You’re at the wrong site — the Illinois State Bar is a voluntary association and membership status, honorary or otherwise, has nothing to do with the ability to practice law.

    You want to go to the Attorney Registration and Discipline Site — http://www.iardc.org — and do a search there.

    Here is what it says concerning Barack Obama:

    Full Licensed Name: Barack Hussein Obama
    Full Former name(s): None
    Date of Admission as Lawyer
    by Illinois Supreme Court: December 17, 1991
    Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law
    Malpractice Insurance:
    (Current as of date of registration;
    consult attorney for further information) No malpractice report required as attorney is retired.
    Public Record of Discipline
    and Pending Proceedings: None

    See: https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=840339780

    And here is what it says concerning Michelle:

    Full Licensed Name: Michelle Obama
    Full Former name(s): Michelle Lavaughn Robinson
    Date of Admission as Lawyer
    by Illinois Supreme Court: May 12, 1989
    Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law
    Malpractice Insurance:
    (Current as of date of registration;
    consult attorney for further information) No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.
    Public Record of Discipline
    and Pending Proceedings: None

    https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=111681044

  141. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 22, 2010 at 11:25 pm #

    yguy: IOW, he or she must adopt mutually exclusive attitudes simultaneously. Thanks for clearing that up.

    It’s not mutually exclusive — the “presumption” is overcome by evidence sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    So if the prosecution failed to produce any evidence at all, the judge would direct a verdict of acquittal. Presumed innocent + no evidence of guilt = innocent.

    If the prosecution produced some evidence, but not enough to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury would have to acquit. Presumed innocent + not enough evidence of guilt = innocent

    If the prosecution produced a whole lot of evidence, clearly enough to convince the jury, but then the defense came forward and produced evidence that created a doubt in the jury’s mind about the validity or impact of the prosecution’s evidence, the jury would have to acquit. Presumed innocent + substantial evidence of guilt + reasonable doubt = innocent

    Only if the prosecution produces sufficient evidence AND the jury does not have any (reasonable) doubt, can the jury convict: Presumed innocent + substantial evidence of guilt + no reasonable doubt = guilty

  142. avatar
    Mary Brown May 23, 2010 at 12:09 am #

    My common sense tells me that the Governor of Hawaii sent Dr. Fukino to check the original birth certificate information. She said she heard about the accusations when she was campaigning for Senator McCain. I assume other folks involved in the McCain organization were interested as well. If I had been one of them I would have been interested. When Governor Lingle (Hawaii) received the correct information the issue was no longer a viable one for Senator McCain. So folks, common sense tells me this is a dead issue. And if I were the President I would give nothing to people who questioned my birth, especially if I knew they were wrong. Let them continue on and expand their fantastic tale. It makes them and all opponents look foolish. So, as I have said before, please continue, and make life a little easier for the President.

  143. avatar
    G May 23, 2010 at 12:11 am #

    charo: I don’t think Obama showed a COLB to any official. The evidence APPEARS to show he got one in 2007 but in a “frenzy” one day in 2008, the campaign just had to release a copy without waiting for clarification of the blacking out of the certificate number. Had to do it right then. What was the news cycle that day, that hour?

    Charo, I just wanted to give you a simple response and likely explanation, since you seem very vexed by the whole idea of why would somebody get a BC in 2007 & then release a copy in 2008 issue, so here goes.

    Let’s think this through logically. If you decided to run as a candidate for office, you would probably want to be organized and have all of your possible documentation that you know you need or might need ready when you start out, right?

    Very simple, logical concept. Makes perfect, normal sense.

    Ok. So we’ve established the first key concept – why a candidate for office would request an official copy of his birth certificate. Let’s look at the next key issue to see if 2007 is “odd timing”.

    Nope. He started his campaign for president in early 2007, so that is exactly the year I’d expect to see on his BC, if he requested a new copy at the beginning of his campaign.

    All that remains now is your finding 2008 for release & the whole “blacked out” number an issue.

    It’s not at all “odd” and makes perfect sense when you think about it:

    In early 2008, the rumors started swirling that his middle name was Mohamed and silly nonsense like that. His BC is the best proof that Mohamed is not part of his name, so his campaign quickly grabbed that document, which they already had handy, scanned it in their computer to upload it to the internet for public viewing, and out of caution for fear of revealing private info, blocked out the certificate # before posting it.

    That’s it. Simple as that. Nothing unusual or odd about that at all.

    I’ve had to scan & email certain personal docs on a number of occasions. When I do, I black out every single thing I can that I think the receiver doesn’t need to know. I’d rather err on the side of caution to protect MY private info any day.

    Anyways, they found out that the certificate # was not that big of a deal, so you can now see it easily & the pictures on factcheck.org, where they are physically handling the actual paper document clearly shows the certificate #. They also take a close up of that number & post that there too, in case you had trouble reading it.

    So, the certificate issue is a complete non-issue and its been completely discussed & revealed a long time ago.

    Finally, some of the Secretaries of State & other party & campaign individuals involved could have asked to see the original or requested a copy of his BC. There is no evidence that indicates that they didn’t.

    The only reason you know about his BC, is because his campaign *chose* to scan & post it to a public area of the internet and advertise doing so, for everyone to see. No other candidate has done that before and you’ve never seen any other public official’s BC, so this is no different.

    Just as when you go to the license bureau and have to show your ID to get your license or a passport, you show that document only to the individuals involved in the transaction. They don’t post your BC to the internet for all of us to see and they don’t broadcast that you showed it to them.

    So, please, think this through logically and you’ll see that there is no “mystery” or anything odd here. You are trying to get worked up about a non-issue and trying to find something suspicious in something very simple and mundane.

  144. avatar
    G May 23, 2010 at 12:21 am #

    yguy: I don’t think it, I know it, since the possibility hasn’t been eradicated by proof to the contrary.

    What motivation would she have for not telling the truth?

    Oh humor us, where is your “proof”. Once again, you use concrete terms improperly as cover for your personal prejudices and preconceptions, as you have nothing at all to actually back up your statements.

    Therefore, [your assertions are unfounded.]

  145. avatar
    richCares May 23, 2010 at 12:24 am #

    Common Sense tells you that the birther isue is over, it is now merely a waste of time for the die hard birthers. Birthers live for that “OMG” moment that will remove Obama, as each OMG moment fizzles someone finds another paypal incentive . The latest is the Terry Lakin case, OMG! All excited are they, they think the Lakin case will give them “discovery”. Discovery to a birther means proof that Obama is not eligilble. If actually allowed, discovery would most likely not be liked by the birthers as the truth will not be to their liking. When Lakin goes down, the paypal sites will have to find another OMG moment to fool the suckers. (or resurrect an old one)

  146. avatar
    G May 23, 2010 at 12:30 am #

    charo: 1. Why did it take a year to figure out the certificate number could be private?

    Charo, the COLB was posted online in late spring of 2008. Factcheck.org showed the certificate # when they did their physical investigation and wrote their article just a matter of weeks later.

    So, the info has been out here in the public domain since late summer of 2008, so I don’t know where you are coming up with “take a year” story or why you are all of a sudden bringing up a long resolved and settled issue from almost 2 years ago up now.

    Birthers tend to just recycle the same long debunked stuff over and over again, hoping that folks won’t notice. I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren’t paying attention to all of this back in 2008 & therefore just picked up on this on some birther blog that’s trying to re-trot out their long dead horses onto new unsuspecting victims.

  147. avatar
    richCares May 23, 2010 at 12:32 am #

    as the BC certificate number has been shown, why is the blcked out copy still an issue.

  148. avatar
    G May 23, 2010 at 12:41 am #

    charo: 2. So why wasn’t it addressed sooner rather than later?

    It wasn’t?

    No. The issue had been festering.

    The issue is only festering in the minds of “birthers” and a few gullible people that are falling for some of their surface arguments.

    There is no need nor legal requirement to satisfy “inquiring minds” regardless. There is a reason the term “busybody” is a negative statement about nosy, gossipy people and that MYOB is a common and justifiable response to such.

    Therefore, birthers & others who just can’t stand this president for whatever their reasons are can fester all they want and stomp their feet all they want and it doesn’t matter. You are free to ask question but you are not entitled to getting the response you want or even any response at all.

    So, you and the birthers can fester all you want, but our government and this world doesn’t revolve around you or satisfying your needs, sorry

    Your recourse will be to cast your vote as you choose in 2012. It’s that simple.

  149. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 23, 2010 at 12:42 am #

    @ charo:

    The debunking of the Michelle Obama disbarment myth was discussed here in January of 2009.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/michelle-obama-disbarred/

  150. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 23, 2010 at 12:47 am #

    Bovril: Ooooh, Yguy is trying his fun on CAAFlog…..not getting much traction is it fella?

    It wouldn’t take much to see that coming.

    Hey, maybe Apuzzo should go post on the ScotusBlog!

  151. avatar
    euphgeek May 23, 2010 at 12:47 am #

    yguy:
    Yes, his refusal to release the original.

    That’s not a reasonable doubt. Why should he have to release the original when the state certified copy is enough for anybody else?

    Damn it’s tough to slip anything by you people.

    Are you actually admitting to an attempt at being dishonest by trying to slip something by us?

    I don’t think it, I know it, since the possibility hasn’t been eradicated by proof to the contrary.

    I assume that by that you mean that you want to see the original birth certificate to verify whether a Hawaiian official is lying? Why do you have such a high standard of proof for this president when I can virtually guarantee that you never asked to even see the state certified copy of any other president’s birth certificate?

    It doesn’t matter, since the question of interest is whether in fact Obama was born in HI, not why she might be lying.

    Of course it matters. There has to be a motivation for someone to lie. Otherwise all you have is conjecture based in absolutely nothing which, coincidentally, is a completely accurate description of birtherism. It makes birthers no different from 9/11 truthers, moon landing hoaxers, flat-earthers, Holocaust deniers and JFK assassination conspiracists.

    That said, however, I welcome your efforts to keep the Republican base chasing their tail on this issue until after the 2012 election. If the Republican candidate denounces birtherism, the base will call him a RINO and stay home. If we get a Republican candidate who is a birther, the independents will vote overwhelmingly for Obama. Either way, Obama’s re-election will make the Reagan landslide of 1984 look as close as the 2000 election.

  152. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 23, 2010 at 12:48 am #

    nbC:
    Why the need to announce that you have to go?…

    I think she needs a hall pass.

  153. avatar
    G May 23, 2010 at 12:56 am #

    charo: That is what you are not seeing NBC. I am not saying that two wrongs make a right. Please think about what I am saying. It is convenient that what was leaked can’t be proven (and was a BIG point of contention for many “birthers”) but what was reasonably asked for that would PROVE the COLB was requested is interpreted as private?

    It only appears “convenient” because you have bought into the birther’s spinning this argument as such. Another and simpler way to look at it is that the birthers are going to scramble to nitpick and parse any statements or slight mistakes made in every way possible to twist them to try to make something look “suspicious” or create an argument, because they have nothing else. It is mere making mountains out of molehills & creating distracting straw-man arguments.

    charo: 4. “By submitting the COLB as evidence, the defense would have opened up a whole line of arguments. Why waste money and effort when there exists a far more straightforward manner: lack of standing.”

    It would have gotten rid of ALL issues concerning place of birth! That would have been much more efficient! COLB’s are self-authenticating, barring proof of fraud.

    Look Charo, I understand what you are saying on this, I really do.

    However, that is not how the law works and that is the part I think you just are not familiar with enough to fully understand why and accept that you are making an unrealistic request here.

    This isn’t some show on L&O or Judge Judy, these are real courts with real judges & when necessary, real defense lawyers. Please read some of the other explicit answers others have already given on this which explains why.

    Quite simply, all of these cases were dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction or standing (and sometimes even clearly stated that they were frivolous in nature).

    Evidence does NOT get introduced at the stages that these cases ended. That happens later, but none of these cases made it that far. Therefore, no proper lawyer in their right mind would take such steps to, as someone else put it, “muddy the waters” and introduce evidence before anything like that is supposed to happen.

    So please try to be realistic here. And also patient – there is always a chance in 2012, when the next campaign get’s going, that a legitimate standing situation could come up and the COLB is presented as a result.

    You claim that might satisfy you when that happens. I highly doubt that any true birther will be satisfied, however. It is quite clear with all their other arguments that they will just deny this as well and continue to move the goal posts endlessly.

  154. avatar
    NbC May 23, 2010 at 1:20 am #

    yguy: IOW, a juror need not presume innocence to be impartial. Have I got that about right?

    The two are largely unrelated as I attempted to explain to you

    To refute it I’d have to trouble myself to read that WoT, which I’m not much inclined to do, considering the proximate source. Apologies for any inconvenience.

    Par for the course. Again you refrain from doing the intellectual legwork that is needed. That’s too bad.

  155. avatar
    Arthur May 23, 2010 at 1:42 am #

    Very early in this thread, Lupin referred to “several serious studies that have found that, in matters of belief, contrary evidence only reinforces the belief, not undermine it.” Below, I’ve included links that explore why we believe false information. This should be intriguing reading for anyone interested in understanding the mindset of birthers or other groups of delusional citizens.

    A Newsweek article that examines the general question of why people believe false information.
    http://www.newsweek.com/id/213625

    A scholarly report on inferred justification
    http://sociology.buffalo.edu/documents/hoffmansocinquiryarticle_000.pdf

  156. avatar
    NbC May 23, 2010 at 1:51 am #

    Bovril: Ooooh, Yguy is trying his fun on CAAFlog…..not getting much traction is it fella?

    Of course not, the CAAFlog has some well qualified contributors. Yguy, whose approach seems to be limited to making assertions followed by a reluctance to provide any logic or reason as a foundation. The CAAFlog knows their facts well enough…

    I think I’ll drop by and enjoy…

  157. avatar
    NbC May 23, 2010 at 1:55 am #

    Hilarious

    Not if what he wants hidden is that he is foreign born, it isn’t.

    A COLB which shows him born on US soil and yet yguy somehow has the belief that the president may be foreign born.

    Please let the facts not disturb you too much Yguy but the COLB clearly shows President Obama born on US soil, as confirmed by DOH officials.

  158. avatar
    G May 23, 2010 at 1:59 am #

    Thanks for the links, Arthur!

  159. avatar
    NbC May 23, 2010 at 2:10 am #

    charo: The article itself references reporters asking for the certificate since April. So when the NRO asks, it becomes a frenzy?

    As I and others have provided you with various possibilities, I see nothing in your ‘arguments’ that raises anything but a minor ‘mystery’.

    What relevance, if any, do you think the blanking of the number has? I honestly see no relevance to the simple fact that the COLB shows president Obama born on US soil, a fact confirmed by the DOH of Hawaii.

    What more do you want?

    Perhaps I am missing something here but your ‘arguments’ amount to nothing of any substance.

  160. avatar
    NbC May 23, 2010 at 2:37 am #

    A Newsweek article that examines the general question of why people believe false information.
    http://www.newsweek.com/id/213625A scholarly report on inferred justification
    http://sociology.buffalo.edu/documents/hoffmansocinquiryarticle_000.pdf

    Excellent find on cognitive dissonance and our need to reconcile the ‘facts’ with our beliefs rather than let the facts lead us to the truth.

  161. avatar
    Lupin May 23, 2010 at 3:47 am #

    As far as I’m concerned, one may very well oppose President Obama (more accurately: his policies) and of course not be a racist.

    However, I do believe that those known as “birthers”, in other words those who question his legitimacy because of birthplace or parentage are indeed motivated by a racist agenda, even if they are not fully aware of it.

    As pointed out many times before, no other white president has been subjected to such ludicrous witch hunt before, and appealing to the constitution fail when no one is able to demonstrate any interest in defending the constitution before a black man was elected.

    I asked Mario Apuzzo several times to point to any article, even a blog post, he might have written about the constitution, even as ludicrous as attacking the notion of income tax, prior to Obama’s candidacy. He could not show any.

    One does not become a champion of the constitution the very day a black man declares his candidacy and avoid being called a racist.

  162. avatar
    charo May 23, 2010 at 5:13 am #

    What I (and I think others) want to know is what possible significance is there in Michelle Obama’s inactive status?

    – I mentioned the P&E and the fact that that the fake newspaper announcements was dropped because according to Charlton, one of his trusted commenters found the announcements in a public library. I recently saw something over there about the law license issue. I am not a trusted commenter, but I thought if I pointed out another direction, it could finalize the whole issue. The fact that someone is not a member of a bar association does not prove anything about whether the license was revoked or not. I am not saying the license was revoked at all. If the P&E would drop one issue, this one could be another that could be resolved, at least by one of the main opponents.

    So, rather than keep my thoughts a mystery, I will just tell you what I suggested (by e-mail and I don’t know who receives it). Attorneys on inactive status still have to pay an annual fee according to Illinois Supreme Court Rules, since at least 2006 (I don’t know of that was when the rule was first promulgated but at was in effect then). It doesn’t seem private information, whether fees have been paid. Obviously if someone pays inactive fees, the person is on inactive status. If it is private information, then those who don’t accept what has already been disclosed will probably still continue not to accept it.

    I understand how the whole standing argument. I said before that I am not speaking as part of his legal team. I am not even talking about the long form, but just a verification that the COLB was indeed released by the DoH. If it were part of court records, the whole issue of alleged fraud would be gone. If it were gone, this site would have a lot less to talk about.

    I have said over and over again that there is no way to defend oneself here from charges of racism. No matter what one says, even if one were to reveal private information to show otherwise, well then it is an unconscious motive.

    Speaking of private information, my hall pass was needed to give my daughter a bath. Now she has had a nightmare and wants me to take her back to bed.

    G you mentioned that others used to come here at the beginning of this site who don’t anymore and surmised that they may have just been satisfied with their questions.

    I think they just don’t want to come here.

    I bring up my “hall pass situation” (which is now worsening) because of the swarming that happens here. A person leaves, appearing defeated and crushed, when that person simply has a life.

    I need my hall pass, sir…

  163. avatar
    Arthur May 23, 2010 at 5:32 am #

    Lupin:

    You wrote, “As far as I’m concerned, one may very well oppose President Obama (more accurately: his policies) and of course not be a racist.” Yes, I agree. I trust, for example, that David Brooks of the New York Times opposes Obama for reasons of policy and not race.

    To understand why someone might hold inordinately hostile feelings for Obama, I’m drawn to the notion of a “compass of motives.” Just as we have North, North-west, or North by North-west, so we have, “Racist,” Racist-sore loser,” Racist/Racist-Sore Loser.” Let’s imagine four cardinal points for a birther compass. Here’s a start: Racist, Sore Loser, Conspiracy Advocate, Conservative. I welcome other possibilities.

    Some times, of course, a compass needle acts erratically, spinning like a dervish . . . and so we have Orly Taitz.

  164. avatar
    Lupin May 23, 2010 at 6:10 am #

    Arthur:

    What I find unique is the questioning of Obama’s legitimacy, even his citizenship, indicating that, on a conscious or subconscious level, birthers regard him as unAmerican — not “one of us” (quoting YES PRIME MINISTER).

    Even the opponents of Clinton sought “only” to impeach him. With Obama, the rejection runs far deeper.

    Since, as I said, no other president was challenged in that way, what other factor but the color of his skin can justify such absolute refusal, especially when confronted with the preponderance of evidence that shows that their faith is wrong.

  165. avatar
    Lupin May 23, 2010 at 6:15 am #

    charo: I have said over and over again that there is no way to defend oneself here from charges of racism.

    Yes, there is. Delineate your area of concern, and show us that it was applied equally to white people before Obama’s candidacy.

    Unlike St Paul on the road to Tarsus you don’t wake up one morning a constitutional scholar when a black man has just been elected.

    I will say that there certainly must be birthers who are grifters, using this “cause” purely to bilk other people out of money, and in their heart probably don’t care at all about Obama’s race, but they have to play to the peanut gallery paying their fees.

    If you’re knowingly acting as the sock puppet of racists, are you yourself a racist? Not necessarily. But when you lie with dogs…

  166. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 23, 2010 at 7:29 am #

    Arthur: A Newsweek article that examines the general question of why people believe false information.
    http://www.newsweek.com/id/213625

    A scholarly report on inferred justification
    http://sociology.buffalo.edu/documents/hoffmansocinquiryarticle_000.pdf

    Thanks for those very instructive articles, and the research study they point to: http://sociology.buffalo.edu/documents/hoffmansocinquiryarticle_000.pdf:

    The process of substantive counterarguing is especially consequential, as the cognitive exercise of generating counterarguments often has the ironic effect of solidifying and strengthening the original opinion leading to entrenched, polarized attitudes (Kunda 1990; Lodge and Taber 2000; Sunstein 2000; Lodge and Taber 2000). This confirmation bias means that people value evidence that confirms their previously held beliefs more highly than evidence that contradicts them, regardless of the source (DiMaggio 1997; Nickerson 1998, Wason 1968).

    Knowing somewhat more of the reasons behind the false beliefs that form the heart of what this web site tries to correct, “motivated reasoning” doesn’t lead me to a strategy for correcting it. This business is not harmless because in a democracy, false beliefs far more than ignorance, lead to false choices. The only consolation is that the vast majority of those who hold false beliefs about President Obama would probably make the same motivated decisions either way. But the concern is that they are more motivated and energized because of their false beliefs.

  167. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 23, 2010 at 8:01 am #

    I am certainly glad that I wrote this article on common sense because it highlights just how far from common sense the whole Obama conspiracy theory business is. As we plod towards our second year at this web site, it has become abundantly clear that people who hold conspiracy theories tend to be immune to rational opposing arguments. This is because they value information that agrees with them more than information that opposes them, no matter the credibility of the source. In this case, we have crank blogs cranking out plenty of non-credible information for them to take comfort in.

    In the long run, I fear that this web site, while it will provide plenty of highly credible argument fodder for those opposing the conspiracy theories, will in the long run be little more than a newspaper whose headline remains: “look how silly they are.”

  168. avatar
    Scientist May 23, 2010 at 8:04 am #

    If we’re going to really talk common sense, then my common sense tells me that the 2-term governors of 2 large states shouldn’t be barred from running for President when the 1/2 term governor of one of the smallest states is not (assuming that her parents didn’t nip across the border to take advantage of excellent socialized obstetrical care in Canada).

    The common sense rationale for the NBC clause lies somewhere between exceedingly weak and non-existant.

  169. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 23, 2010 at 8:14 am #

    charo: – I mentioned the P&E and the fact that that the fake newspaper announcements was dropped because according to Charlton, one of his trusted commenters found the announcements in a public library.

    The Post & Email is one of the least trustworthy web sites I have ever seen. I can’t begin to get my mind around what “trusted commenter” would mean there.

  170. avatar
    charo May 23, 2010 at 8:41 am #

    Not trusted to you, but trusted to Charlton, enough to get him to change his mind. I also wanted to state this earlier, but got distracted.

    I say this for the point only, because you made the thread. (I don’t even know when it was claimed that she made the trip.)

    “Common sense says that a 18-year-old student who is very pregnant has her baby in the town where she and her parents live, rather than making an arduous multi-day trip to Africa,…”

    If there is anyone with the kind of spirit to make that choice, it would be a person like Stanley Ann. Most everything she did was out of the norm when you think about it. Living in Indonesia would not be a venture that many would chose.

    I came here for the challenge of debate. It takes away from what a should be doing, which is not trolling websites, maintaining my own website, responding all day at a website,… . What did I even suggest researching something? I simply don’t have that much of a desire to take up my time. I put my ideas out there for anyone who might want to do it.

    1. Whether Secretaries of States have exercised discretion in requiring COLB/birth certificates

    2. Whether the radio station interviewed Mueller (I called at the wrong time and haven’t been able to call at the time when the radio director is available

    3. Get documentation to show that the Obamas paid fees for inactive status

    I think there was something else.

    “Yes, there is. Delineate your area of concern, and show us that it was applied equally to white people before Obama’s candidacy.”

    It must have been if he got his COLB in 2007 to show people he was eligible.

    I am a troll, so don’t feed me…

  171. avatar
    Scientist May 23, 2010 at 9:32 am #

    charo: If there is anyone with the kind of spirit to make that choice, it would be a person like Stanley Ann.

    But that’s not all that had to happen. After she had her child in Kenya she had to somehow be an expert on citizenship law and “know’ that she couldn’t confer US citizenship on him due to her age. Yet, this is a matter on which even experts are uncertain as to how courts would have applied the statute in place at the time.

    Then, soemhow realizing that she couldn’t get a US passport for her baby, she had to convince her mother, by letter or overseas telephone to fraudulently claim a Hawaiian birth. Her mother, let it be noted was a bank employee whose career would have been over at even a hint of fraud. Furthermore, said fraud was totally unnecessary, since Ms Dunham had every right to bring her child to the US, regardless of the child’s citizenship (just as thousands of Americans who adopt foreign children do every year), and said child could have lived here happily as a lawful permanent resident and become a citizen when they reached adulthood.

    So you have a series of highly improbable events. In statistics, if you have 3 events with a 1% probability (p=0.01), then the odds of all 3 occurring are not 1%, they are 0.0001% (p=0.000001). And that is pretty unlikely to say the least.

  172. avatar
    yguy May 23, 2010 at 11:11 am #

    Scientist:
    1. He may not have it.

    The DoH allegedly does, unless the dog ate it some time after 10/31/08.

    2. He may have it but not be able to locate it easily.

    He can have the DoH do that for him.

    3. It is no more valid under the law than one printed today.

    It most certainly is. If the two were produced in open court and there were any discrepancy between them, it doesn’t take a moment’s thought to know which should be considered to be correct.

    Expelliarmus:
    [The are] not mutually exclusive —

    Yes, they are. If weren’t, it would be just as possible to presume guilt while being impartial.

    euphgeek:
    Why should he have to release the original when the state certified copy is enough for anybody else?

    Wrong question. What you should be asking is why he won’t release the original if it confirms everything on the COLB.

    Are you actually admitting to an attempt at being dishonest by trying to slip something by us?

    Yer a riot, dude. πŸ™‚

    I assume that by that you mean that you want to see the original birth certificate to verify whether a Hawaiian official is lying?

    What I mean is precisely what I said, neither more nor less.

    Why do you have such a high standard of proof for this president when I can virtually guarantee that you never asked to even see the state certified copy of any other president’s birth certificate?

    Because no other President has produced an abstract on the pretext of removing all reasonable doubt, and because he is a Mighty Mississippi of lies.

    Of course it matters.

    No it doesn’t. If the original is published and it verifies the COLB the question is moot. It’s only if the COLB is shown to be defective that the question becomes relevant.

  173. avatar
    Lupin May 23, 2010 at 11:49 am #

    charo [I wrote:]: “Yes, there is. Delineate your area of concern, and show us that it was applied equally to white people before Obama’s candidacy.”

    [charo replied:]It must have been if he got his COLB in 2007 to show people he was eligible.

    Facts, please. Provide data about white politicians similarly challenged.

  174. avatar
    misha May 23, 2010 at 12:16 pm #

    Rand Paul and Derek Black can become president, too.

    Are they more acceptable?

  175. avatar
    Sef May 23, 2010 at 12:26 pm #

    misha: Rand Paul and Derek Blackcan become president, too.Are they more acceptable?

    Are you attempting to conflate acceptable & eligible?

  176. avatar
    charo May 23, 2010 at 12:39 pm #

    Rand Paul is most famous for his defense of Jim Crow. When asked by Rachel Maddow if a private business had the right to refuse service to black people, Rand Paul replied “yes.”

    From the Rachel Maddow Show May 21

    CHRIS HAYES, WASHINGTON D.C. EDITOR THE NATION: And finally, when I watched Rachel`s interview with Rand Paul this week, I thought the reason she kept going with it for so long was because he wouldn`t answer the question. Is the government right to ban private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race?

    And then this morning “The New York Times” reported that Paul had answered, really, really clearly. Quote, “Asked by Ms. Maddow if a private business had the right to refuse to serve black people, Mr. Paul replied, ‘Yes.'”

    Huh? He did? Were the “Times” reporters watching the same interview I was or maybe just reading the transcript where it does say, “Maddow: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don`t serve black people? Paul: Yes, I`m not in favor of any discrimination of any form”.

    You don`t remember it that either? Yes that`s because it didn`t happen that way except in the most mechanical sense.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Do you think that the private business has the right to say we don`t serve black people —

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m not in, I`m not in — yes, I`m not in favor of any discrimination of any form.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    HAYES: Yes, that is not Rand Paul saying yes, as in yes, private businesses have the right to say they don`t serve black people, that`s Rand Paul saying, “Yes, despite the fact that we`re talking over each other and there`s a delay in the transmission, I can hear you”.

    The transcript`s technically right and totally misleading if you haven`t done your homework and watched the segment before summarising. This stuff`s important. It`s worth another step to make sure we`re all having the right discussion of the original discussion.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/05/22/rachel-maddow-show-busts-new-york-times-misquoting-rand-paul#ixzz0olsBGu5A

    I don’t know much about Rand Paul. I think when you make a controversial statement, you need to be ready to explain yourself. I did find this:

    “In 1995, Rand founded the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic, an organization that provides eye exams and surgery to needy families and individuals. Rand is a former president and 17 year member of Lions Clubs International, which is dedicated to preserving sight by providing eyeglasses and surgery to the less fortunate around the world.”

    I am not defending him or opposing him either. This is just what I recently discovered. He’ll have to answer for himself many times over now.

  177. avatar
    misha May 23, 2010 at 12:40 pm #

    Sef: Are you attempting to conflate acceptable & eligible?

    That’s what birthers do.

  178. avatar
    Va Highlander May 23, 2010 at 1:16 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:In the long run, I fear that this web site, while it will provide
    plenty of highly credible argument fodder for those opposing the
    conspiracy theories, will in the long run be little more than a
    newspaper whose headline remains: “look how silly they are.”

    That is not such a bad thing. Laughter is great medicine and has the power to drive away all sorts of evil influences.

  179. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 23, 2010 at 1:19 pm #

    charo: I don’t know much about Rand Paul. I think when you make a controversial statement, you need to be ready to explain yourself.

    Well there’s your opportunity to get in on the ground floor with the Rand Paul Conspiracy Theories blog. Whatever that “yes” meant on the Maddow show, Rand Paul has when asked refused to say that the government can tell a private company whether they can discriminate on the basis or race or not.

    This is the kind of thing you have to accept if you buy the Libertarian package.

  180. avatar
    euphgeek May 23, 2010 at 1:24 pm #

    yguy:
    Wrong question. What you should be asking is why he won’t release the original if it confirms everything on the COLB.

    Why should I be asking that when there is no reason to believe there is any discrepancy between the two, besides racism and sore loserism?

    What I mean is precisely what I said, neither more nor less.

    Okay, so name any other proof you would accept that Fukino was not lying.

    Because no other President has produced an abstract on the pretext of removing all reasonable doubt, and because he is a Mighty Mississippi of lies.

    How has Obama been a “Mighty Mississippi of lies?” Show me the lies he has told and then show that the number of lies he’s told is greater than any other president whose original birth certificate you did not demand that he produce. And then once you do that, show why the state of Hawaii, the Bush administration and the Hillary Clinton and John McCain campaigns were willing to be complicit in this supposed “lie.”

    No it doesn’t. If the original is published and it verifies the COLB the question is moot. It’s only if the COLB is shown to be defective that the question becomes relevant.

    You can keep saying that, but you have no evidence nor legitimate reason to suspect that the COLB would be different from the original. If you could give a motive for Fukino lying then you could perhaps show a legitimate reason for suspicion.

  181. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett May 23, 2010 at 1:32 pm #

    charo: .I bring up my “hall pass situation” (which is now worsening) because of the swarming that happens here.A person leaves, appearing defeated and crushed, when that person simply has a life.

    I think we all understand that everyone here has a life (well, maybe not everyone)

    But that comment is revealing. Are you here to discuss things, ask questions, and get answers, or are you here to “win”?

  182. avatar
    rigs May 23, 2010 at 1:32 pm #

    *sigh*

    I find yguy and his stuff here, too.

    Yeah, yguy, it’s _that_ rigs.

    Anyway. You folks should find yguy entertaining, due to his great determination.

  183. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 23, 2010 at 1:38 pm #

    rigs:
    Anyway. You folks should find yguy entertaining, due to his great determination.

    Prolific, but hardly entertaining.

  184. avatar
    Bovril May 23, 2010 at 1:56 pm #

    Hi Rigs, welcome to the madhouse……

    Where else is Good Ole Yguy spouting…..I just saw the CAAFLOG one by chance.

  185. avatar
    Arthur May 23, 2010 at 2:10 pm #

    Dr. C.:

    You wrote, “In the long run, I fear that this web site, while it will provide plenty of highly credible argument fodder for those opposing the conspiracy theories, will in the long run be little more than a newspaper whose headline remains: ‘look how silly they are.'”

    Unfortunately, I’ve reached the same conclusion. While I’ve learned a great deal about about American history and the Constitution as I read the many fine articles and posts available here, I’m disappointed that this carefully researched evidence has failed to satisfy the irrational anger and malicious subterfuge of birthers. I’m saddened, too, that the intellectual principles at the heart of our democracy, especially the Enlightenment idea that reason gives human beings their best chance to obtain objective truth about the world, is rejected in favor of a bellicose ignorance and self-satisfied chauvinism.

  186. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 23, 2010 at 2:16 pm #

    charo: Attorneys on inactive status still have to pay an annual fee according to Illinois Supreme Court Rules, since at least 2006 (I don’t know of that was when the rule was first promulgated but at was in effect then). It doesn’t seem private information, whether fees have been paid.

    I don’t understand what you are getting at. The records show that she is on Voluntarily inactive status. If there is a fee that needs to be paid to maintain that status, then the record itself demonstrates payment of the fee. If she failed to pay the fee, the record would be changed, probably to show some sort of “suspended” status. If she simply didn’t want to pay the fee ever again, then she could simple retire – as her husband did.

    So what’s the point of your comment? The record itself establishes payment of the fee — which appears to be $105 annually for inactive lawyers and $289 for active lawyers who have practiced more than 3 years — and nothing for retired lawyers — so the status itself tells us what fees, if any, have been paid. (See Rule 756, Illinois Supreme Court Rules)

    And the difference of status simply may reflect future plans. An inactive lawyer can later petition to reactivate their status — so perhaps Michelle thinks she might want to practice law sometime in the future when she no longer is First Lady, or at least hold that possibility open.

  187. avatar
    misha May 23, 2010 at 2:23 pm #

    “he is a Mighty Mississippi of lies”

    Like WMDs in Iraq, Iraq has re-constitued its nuclear bomb attempts, Saddam Hussein was involved in the planning of 9/11, and Iraq had bioweapons labs hidden in trailers?

    All lies from Bush and his coterie. Is Bush claiming God told me to invade Iraq a lie, or merely a hallucination?

  188. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny May 23, 2010 at 3:59 pm #

    yguy: How do you think he would account for Obama publishing an abstract of his BC but refusing to publish the original?

    No, it is not an abstract of the birth certificate, it is the birth certificate. That is why it will be legal evidence in any (imaginary) court case on the merits. Whatever that birther from Arizona may try out to devalue the 14th Amendment.

  189. avatar
    Sef May 23, 2010 at 4:13 pm #

    yguy:
    How do you think he would account for Obama publishing an abstract of his BC but refusing to publish the original?

    Why do you think that there ever was any requirement that Candidate/President Obama publish ANY information about his birth? He provided the information to the people that mattered. YOU are not one of those!

  190. avatar
    Sef May 23, 2010 at 4:28 pm #

    Sef:
    Why do you think that there ever was any requirement that Candidate/President Obama publish ANY information about his birth?He provided the information to the people that mattered.YOU are not one of those!

    I am not one who matters either, but I do know someone who does: one of the Electors. Next time I have a chance to chat with him I’ll ask him for his opinion of all this.

  191. avatar
    nbC May 23, 2010 at 4:50 pm #

    yguy: It most certainly is. If the two were produced in open court and there were any discrepancy between them, it doesn’t take a moment’s thought to know which should be considered to be correct.

    Of course, but there is no good reason to believe there to be discrepancies between them. As such, the lack of standing combined with a failure to overcome prima facie evidence doom your position to one of irrelevance.

  192. avatar
    yguy May 23, 2010 at 4:55 pm #

    euphgeek:

    Okay, so name any other proof you would accept that Fukino was not lying.

    You might as well ask what proof I would accept that you own the car you drive other than the title.

    How has Obama been a “Mighty Mississippi of lies?”

    That would be a whole other website.

    Paul Pieniezny:
    No, it is not an abstract of the birth certificate, it is the birth certificate.

    Then what is the document Fukino said was on record in 2008? Chopped liver?

    Sef:
    Why do you think that there ever was any requirement that Candidate/President Obama publish ANY information about his birth?

    Who said there was a requirement?

    He provided the information to the people that mattered.YOU are not one of those!

    Yes, I am. So is every American citizen, seeing all of them collectively are his boss.

  193. avatar
    nbC May 23, 2010 at 5:04 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: yguy: How do you think he would account for Obama publishing an abstract of his BC but refusing to publish the original?

    What makes you say that he refuses to publish the original? There is no evidence of such. We know that the President presented the COLB which shows him born on US soil and is sufficient and prima facie legal evidence. The State of Hawaii has stated that this is the only document they make available to the public and that the document is sufficient to establish President Obama’s birth on US soil. The document is self authenticating due to meeting the requirements of the FRE, and is prima facie legal evidence, meaning that only if it can be shown that there exists a discrepancy that we may allow Hawaiian officials to testify as to the accuracy of the document.
    That YGuy somehow believes that President Obama should present him with the document or that President Obama can request such a document is irrelevant. From a common sense as well as legal perspective, and from a Constitutional perspective, the document shows President Obama to be born on US soil. Of course, since Congress has found him to have qualified, even finding out that the President lacked in eligibility would be lacking a legal remedy. Such is the Constitution of our Country.

    Regardless, the simple fact that YGuy lacks in a foundation of logic and reason as to why the original would somehow be more relevant than the certified copy which is legally speaking the same when it comes to the data presented on it, shows that there is nothing more than a “well it is possible that”. While anything is possible, the plausibility that the COLB somehow would show President Obama born on US soil while the original would not when this fact is supported by the Department of Health of Hawaii which has stated that President Obama is natural born citizen, indicates that the probability or likelihood of YGuy’s possibility renders it quite unlikely and thus common sense dictates that given the known evidence, and given the legal status of said evidence, President Obama, by any legal and logical standard is born on US soil and thus a natural born citizen. Combined with his age and presence requirement, this indicates that the President was indeed eligible and that Congress, who by our Constitution and rules and procedures is tasked with establishing if the President has qualified has done so correctly.

    YGuy may complain that “it is possible” but forgets the explain why it is also “probable”. Under the laws of Quantum physics it is possible that all the molecules in a room end up in a single corner of the room, causing the occupants of the room to suffocate. By the laws of physics, I can tunnel myself across the grand canyon. Of course, while strictly possible, it is also quite improbable.
    Understanding that while Yguy may believe that it is possible that the President is not eligible, he has failed to show that it is a probable scenario. In fact, given the known facts, the scenario appears to be quite improbable.
    Common sense my friend, pure common sense.

  194. avatar
    Scientist May 23, 2010 at 7:09 pm #

    yguy: It most certainly is. If the two were produced in open court and there were any discrepancy between them, it doesn’t take a moment’s thought to know which should be considered to be correct.

    I would absolutely go with the latest version. Just as I favor astronomy papers of the last several hundred years that claim a helicentric solar system rather than a geocentric one or biology papers that treat infectious diseases as caused by microorganisms rather than as caused by vapors of undefined origin. I suppose you look for a physician who still uses leeches, but I prefer state-of-the-art treatment myself.

  195. avatar
    charo May 23, 2010 at 7:52 pm #

    Maggots and leeches: Good medicine

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-07-07-leeches-maggots_x.htm

  196. avatar
    Scientist May 23, 2010 at 7:53 pm #

    Regarding Rand Paul, I have no idea if he is a racist. What I do know about the Libertarian agenda is that while we watch one of the greatest envirionmental disasters in history unfold before our eyes, they want to eliminate most regulation of companies. Instead of tightening the standards they say do away with them. According to them, we will manage these companies through private lawsuits. WHAT?? So some fisherman will take on BP and if he wins some lawyer will hit the jackpot and the courts will be even more over-burdened than they are now. And even unlimited financial damages won’t fix the mess in the Gulf.

    Did government regulators let us down? Absolutely, under Bush, Obama and everybody else. But if there is a crime wave in your town you don’t eliminate the cops, you try to make them do a better job. The answer is not eliminating regulations but making the regulations and their enforcement better.

  197. avatar
    Bob Ross May 23, 2010 at 8:02 pm #

    Scientist: Regarding Rand Paul, I have no idea if he is a racist.What I do know about the Libertarian agenda is that while we watch one of the greatest envirionmental disasters in history unfold before our eyes, they want to eliminate most regulation of companies.Instead of tightening the standards they say do away with them.According to them, we will manage these companies through private lawsuits.WHAT??So some fisherman will take on BP and if he wins some lawyer will hit the jackpot and the courts will be even more over-burdened than they are now.And even unlimited financial damages won’t fix the mess in the Gulf.Did government regulators let us down?Absolutely, under Bush, Obama and everybody else.But if there is a crime wave in your town you don’t eliminate the cops, you try to make them do a better job.The answer is not eliminating regulations but making the regulations and their enforcement better.

    That’s the funny thing about it Scientist. Look at the medicare industry, the big talking point is Tort reform. Do away with the ability for people to sue for malpractice. If we remove regulation chances are they will want us to remove liability as well.

  198. avatar
    charo May 23, 2010 at 8:24 pm #

    Looking briefly at the history of Title II of The Civil Rights Act (and the the only provision that Paul appears to reject), one of the concerns was that when minorities were traveling across the country, they were denied access to accommodations. Is it Paul’s position that the market will correct any discrimination? (who is going to stay at a notoriously racist hotel)? The government should not impose on the individual’s right to have a racist business?

    IMO, the problem with being pure anything, in this case libertarian, you don’t bend in your position which can permit something that is abhorrent on its face.

  199. avatar
    yguy May 23, 2010 at 8:51 pm #

    Scientist:
    I would absolutely go with the latest version.Just as I favor astronomy papers of the last several hundred years that claim a helicentric solar system rather than a geocentric one or biology papers that treat infectious diseases as caused by microorganisms rather than as caused by vapors of undefined origin.I suppose you look for a physician who still uses leeches, but I prefer state-of-the-art treatment myself.

    All I can say is if this question ever comes before a judge, I hope to God the attorney arguing against discovery of the original uses this argument, if only for the comic relief. πŸ™‚

  200. avatar
    Scientist May 23, 2010 at 9:03 pm #

    yguy: All I can say is if this question ever comes before a judge,

    You don’t have to worry about that.

  201. avatar
    northland10 May 23, 2010 at 10:09 pm #

    charo: one of the concerns was that when minorities were traveling across the country, they were denied access to accommodations

    I am reminded of reading of an Army officer having to drive straight through to get to Benning or other similar base. He could not easily stop for a hotel, food or even gas and a restroom due to his race. It is good to see we have gotten better because the Army eventually made him Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (not to mention a stint as NSA for Reagan and Secretary of State during Bush 2). Yes, this would be Colin Powell.

    Powell, though disappointed with Goldwater’s objections to the Civil Rights Act, did mention in his autobiography that the objection had nothing to do with race but strictly on constitutional reasons. However, he did say it gave unintended encouragement to the segregationists.

  202. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 23, 2010 at 10:28 pm #

    charo: Is it Paul’s position that the market will correct any discrimination? (who is going to stay at a notoriously racist hotel)? The government should not impose on the individual’s right to have a racist business?

    Assuming that to be Paul’s position, then we know historically that businesses thrived all over the country be excluding people based on race or religion.

    My problem is that when I watched the Maddow interview, I couldn’t figure out what Rand Paul’s position is — he seemed to waffle and be afraid to articulate his stand, admittedly in a hostile forum. (But then again, no one forced him to appear on Maddow).

    I also disagree with the idea of simply branding someone a “racist” because they have some principled objection to a law — its just that, again, Paul really needs to do a better job of articulating the principal. If he’s an absolutist with his Libertarian stance — well, the reason that Libertarian candidates rarely get more than a small fraction of the vote is that most American’s don’t agree with that — any more than they would agree with the platform of a Socialist or Communist candidate. I think the vast majority of voters want to see some appropriate balance between government regulation and individual freedom, and the point of disagreement politically is where that balance should be — with often contradictory outcomes depending on political leanings. (For example, someone might want to see less regulation or government involvement in health care in general, but more regulation and government involvement when it comes to regulating abortions.)

  203. avatar
    nbC May 23, 2010 at 10:29 pm #

    Scientist: yguy: All I can say is if this question ever comes before a judge,

    That’s indeed a big if… So far I believe the count is 0-67, not counting the failed appeals.

  204. avatar
    Bob Ross May 23, 2010 at 11:22 pm #

    yguy:
    All I can say is if this question ever comes before a judge, I hope to God the attorney arguing against discovery of the original uses this argument, if only for the comic relief.

    I’d like to see the judge who when showed Prima Facie evidence says show me more prima facie evidence.

    How about the judge who allows the lawyer to argue on mere hearsay and speculations instead of on hard evidence?

  205. avatar
    richCares May 23, 2010 at 11:31 pm #

    “raveling across the country, they were denied access to accommodations ”
    .
    a sad historical note:
    black drivers enroute to the south from Chicago always picked up the white teen hitch hiker. I hitch hiked to Kentucky and Tennessee and was picked up both times by a black driver.
    .
    Why? To get food and gas!
    ,

  206. avatar
    euphgeek May 23, 2010 at 11:32 pm #

    yguy:
    You might as well ask what proof I would accept that you own the car you drive other than the title.

    So my question, “…you want to see the original birth certificate to verify whether a Hawaiian official is lying?” was correct and you couldn’t just say so.

    That would be a whole other website.

    Okay, so let’s assume for the sake of argument that at the very least, every other sentence out of Barack Obama’s mouth is a lie. I’ll even go one step further and assume that you are right and he lied about being born in Hawaii and produced a forged birth certificate. Why did the Bush administration, the state of Hawaii, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, both the Democratic and Republican parties and Fox News back him up in this lie? In other words, we’re not just talking about the dishonesty of one man, but of the entire U.S. government (and the Kenyan government or wherever you think he was really born) and Obama’s worst political enemies who certainly did not want him to become president. If you were thinking logically, you would ask yourself these questions and recognize that what you are suggesting flies in the face of logic and reason.

  207. avatar
    SFJeff May 24, 2010 at 12:02 am #

    I was sorting through documents today, and came across the copy of my BC I used to get my passport.

    No hospital name, no doctors name. Not much more than my name, the names of my parents and the authenticating signatures.

    Thats about it.

  208. avatar
    misha May 24, 2010 at 1:03 am #

    SFJeff: I was sorting through documents today, and came across the copy of my BC I used to get my passport. No hospital name, no doctors name. Not much more than my name, the names of my parents and the authenticating signatures. Thats about it.

    That’s exactly what mine looks like, which I used for my passport.

  209. avatar
    misha May 24, 2010 at 1:08 am #

    richCares: “raveling across the country, they were denied access to accommodations ”.a sad historical note:black drivers enroute to the south from Chicago always picked up the white teen hitch hiker. I hitch hiked to Kentucky and Tennessee and was picked up both times by a black driver..Why? To get food and gas!,

    Several years ago, the Washington Post had an article about a book published in the ’30s, titled The Negro Travelers Guide To North America. It was simply a compendium of businesses that would sell and provide lodging to black people.

    I tried to find a link; so far, nothing.

  210. avatar
    G May 24, 2010 at 2:37 am #

    charo: IMO, the problem with being pure anything, in this case libertarian, you don’t bend in your position which can permit something that is abhorrent on its face.

    Excellent point, Charo! That is the problem with ideology over pragmatic realism & practicality. A lot of these ideas sound great in a general sense or on the surface and I have no problem with people having broad philosophical views.

    But as your statement well points out, such purity (in any ideology) doesn’t cover all situations equally and often requires exceptions and modifications when put to actual practical application. Those that can’t bend to reason and practicality when needed don’t serve our country well as politicians.

    Sort of reminds me of some of the college professors I had, who were good people, but only knew theory and had no inclination of how those theories actually worked in “real world” situations.

    I think that is also why there is not a single country on earth that functions on any “pure” ideological model…or at least when they try, they don’t last that long.

  211. avatar
    Mike May 24, 2010 at 3:04 am #

    Except that Rand Paul is by no means a pure libertarian; I disagree with labelling him a libertarian at all. Maybe a Libertarian, as in inclined to the party which has co-opted the name, but he is by no stretch a libertarian – he’s simply pandering to his electorate. The man is fine with Medicare payments for doctors, abortion restrictions and so on – he holds positions that any real libertarian would recoil in horror from. And I’m not playing No True Scotsman here, either – I’m not a libertarian, at least not a right-libertarian, but a syndicalist in my politics – but there has to be some uniting beliefs, and Paul strays too far from those to claim the label.

    Effectively speaking, the man is a teabagger operating under the false flag raised to take advantage of the misguided respect some Americans have for libertarians. He’s a Republican, through and through, as much as his dad ever was, and with as little honesty about his real positions.

  212. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 24, 2010 at 3:18 am #

    Mike: Except that Rand Paul is by no means a pure libertarian; I disagree with labelling him a libertarian at all.Maybe a Libertarian, as in inclined to the party which has co-opted the name, but he is by no stretch a libertarian – he’s simply pandering to his electorate.The man is fine with Medicare payments for doctors, abortion restrictions and so on – he holds positions that any real libertarian would recoil in horror from.And I’m not playing No True Scotsman here, either – I’m not a libertarian, at least not a right-libertarian, but a syndicalist in my politics – but there has to be some uniting beliefs, and Paul strays too far from those to claim the label.Effectively speaking, the man is a teabagger operating under the false flag raised to take advantage of the misguided respect some Americans have for libertarians.He’s a Republican, through and through, as much as his dad ever was, and with as little honesty about his real positions.

    I disagree, the problem with Rand Paul is not that he isn’t being true to Libertarianism, it’s that he is. The position he was dancing around on Rachel’s show was the Libertarian position – that government doesn’t have the right to tell business what to do. He clearly didn’t want to get pinned down on an unpopular position that he believes in.

  213. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 24, 2010 at 3:48 am #

    yguy posted:
    .
    [Quoting Sef]: “He provided the information to the people that mattered.YOU are not one of those!”
    .
    [yguy]: “Yes, I am. So is every American citizen, seeing all of them collectively are his boss.”

    Once again, you don’t understand our form of government – this isn’t a democracy, it’s a republic. We don’t make decisions, we elect people to make decisions for us. In the case of President Obama, the Constitutionally and legally mandated procedures were followed every step of the way – the president was certified as eligible to be on the ballot of each state (generally by a member of the DNC) – I would guess that this is why the campaign had a copy of the COLB in the first place.

    A case could be made (in any state) that the certifying authority had committed fraud (this would be a case against Speaker Pelosi or the state Democratic party chair depending on who signed the document) and if the case was brought by someone with standing, it would be dismissed once a certified copy of the COLB was presented (given the lack of evidence to call into question its prima facie validity). This case would have to be made before the election. After the election but before the Electoral College voted, my guess would be that any elector could ask to see proof of eligibility (as Sef suggested) – which would be satisfied by their being shown the COLB. Finally, Congress has the right to question anything they want about the validity of the election upon submission of a written request to Dick the war criminal by one Representative and one Senator before the Congress certifies the election. If this had happened, I think it very clear that, once again, a certified copy of the COLB would suffice to satisfy the Congress as a whole that the president was eligible. All of those hurdles where cleared correctly according to the Constitution and relevant state laws. Doc C or any of the other esteemed posters here can correct me if I misstated anything, but that is my understanding of the law. Nowhere in that process does it say that some onionhead with no more standing than any US citizen has the right to demand to see an original document to confirm that a self-authenticating document is correct.

    If I’m wrong on that please give me a citation of law that says so – otherwise you’re implicitly admitting that every argument you’ve made here has no validity whatsoever. (Don’t worry, we’re all aware of that already.)

  214. avatar
    Mike May 24, 2010 at 8:02 am #

    Slartibartfast: I disagree, the problem with Rand Paul is not that he isn’t being true to Libertarianism, it’s that he is. The position he was dancing around on Rachel’s show was the Libertarian position – that government doesn’t have the right to tell business what to do. He clearly didn’t want to get pinned down on an unpopular position that he believes in.

    I would tend to disagree – he may in some respects be being true to the spirit of the Libertarian Party, but his views are definitely inconsistent with those of right libertarianism, especially in his opposition to abortion, love of Medicare and so on.

  215. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 24, 2010 at 8:28 am #

    Mike:
    I would tend to disagree – he may in some respects be being true to the spirit of the Libertarian Party, but his views are definitely inconsistent with those of right libertarianism, especially in his opposition to abortion, love of Medicare and so on.

    In the context of the question that he was avoiding in Dr. Maddow’s interview, the Libertarian position is clearly that government has no right to tell a private business what to do. It seemed to me that Dr. Paul believed in the Libertarian position on this issue but realized saying that government had no right to tell a private business who they could and could not serve was a very unpopular (and potentially damaging) political position and did his best dance around the issue.

  216. avatar
    yguy May 24, 2010 at 12:52 pm #

    euphgeek:
    So my question, “…you want to see the original birth certificate to verify whether a Hawaiian official is lying?” was correct

    Nope.

    Why did the Bush administration, the state of Hawaii, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, both the Democratic and Republican parties and Fox News back him up in this lie?

    Fear of Rodney King riots x 1000 would be my guess.

  217. avatar
    Black Lion May 24, 2010 at 2:21 pm #

    10 fictitious Tea Party beliefs

    The numbers of things that the American Right — embodied in its wildly popular new “grassroots” Tea Party movement – believes but that are provably untrue is actually a pretty long list. But we’ve put together the Top 10, listed by importance in their increasingly Planet Bizarro-like worldview:

    1. The birth-certificate conspiracy. Reality: Not even official birth certificates from Hawaii, newspaper clippings from 1961, and the testimony of state officials will convince the true-blue Tea Partiers. Which is why WorldNetDaily’s Joseph Farah lectured the National Tea Party Convention for an hour about the “truth” of the birth-certificate story.

    2. Death panels. Reality: PolitiFact named Sarah Palin’s Facebook invention its “Lie of the Year,” and the belief was thoroughly exposed as a falsehood by every news network (even Fox). Yet Palin still insists that the panels exist somewhere in the health-care reform bill that was signed into law, its actual language notwithstanding.

    3. Obama is a Muslim/Socialist/Fascist. Glenn Beck’s fantasy of the week — one week Obama was a Socialist, the next he was a Communist, then a Fascist. Then it was on to Marxism and Maoism — was avidly adopted by sign-bearing fans at Tea Party gatherings, who sometimes shared Beck’s confusion by just calling Obama All of the Above. Reality: Give us a break. Obama’s self-evident cautious centrism, embodied by his health-care reform package stripped of a public option, as well as his more recent embrace of a limited offshore drilling program, has infuriated liberals in his party — but it hasn’t stopped Tea Partiers from denouncing the president as a radical anyway.

    4. Obama is going to take away our guns. Well, the NRA managed to scare a whole lot of people into buying up every gun and piece of ammunition in sight the first year or so after Obama’s election. And at least five police officers died because the suspects they were arresting feared Obama was going to take away their guns. But Obama not only has adhered to his promise not to address gun-control issues, there hasn’t been even a breath of it from his administration. Which, of course, just makes the paranoids that much more paranoid: It’s proof that he’s really up to something.

    5. Obama is raising our taxes. Reality: Obama lowered taxes for 95 percent of working Americans in his first year in office. But, you know, he’s a liberal Democrat – and for true-blue right-wing folks, that ALWAYS means a tax hike.

    6. Fascism is a left-wing phenomenon. We can thank Jonah Goldberg — with a big assist from Beck — for the popularity of this one, even though Goldberg’s thesis has been demolished and angrily dismissed by academic historians. It’s especially come in handy for Tea Partiers with Obama-as-Hitler signs, who are not impressed by those pointy-headed professorial types anyway.

    7. Global warming is a hoax. So Sean Hannity assures us, citing the Climategate brouhaha — which was itself shown largely to be a hoax of its own. Meanwhile, the world’s ocean levels keep rising, and glaciers and the polar ice cap keep receding — regardless of the endless words thrown up denying that they are.

    8. Some 16,000 new IRS agents will enforce the new health care reform act by throwing you in jail. Reality: The IRS is actually only increasing its spending in the coming budget year as it normally would — but some Republican operatives decided to figure out how many positions its increased budget would buy, and came up with 16,000, a figure that then became gospel on Newt Gingrich’s lips. According to the same mythmakers, this nonexistent new army of health care police was going to start throwing people in jail if they failed to buy health insurance — though in fact, the only penalties contemplated for such failures are fines and taxes.

    9. Two million people were at the 9/12 March on Washington. At the culmination of a monthlong promotion (highlighted by a national Tea Party Express bus tour) by Beck and Fox News, about 70,000 people gathered on the National Mall on September 12 to protest. Beck cited an erroneous early report that over a million had shown up. Later that grew to be two million, the figure now commonly cited by Tea Party leaders as evidence of their tremendous numerical force.

    10. The Tea Parties are a non-partisan, broad grassroots movement. Sure, if by non-partisan you mean rabidly paleo-conservative, to the point of even dismissing Republicans, and by grassroots you mean fake populism organized and whipped up by the most popular cable-news network on television, with a heaping helping of corporate financing.
    Tea Party folks and their defenders also want to believe that they’re just ordinary Americans who want to be serious about helping their country. But it’s pretty hard to fit that description when you embrace plain old nuttiness.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-bookworm/2010/05/10_fictious_tea_party_beliefs.html

  218. avatar
    Mike May 24, 2010 at 2:51 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    In the context of the question that he was avoiding in Dr. Maddow’s interview, the Libertarian position is clearly that government has no right to tell a private business what to do.It seemed to me that Dr. Paul believed in the Libertarian position on this issue but realized saying that government had no right to tell a private business who they could and could not serve was a very unpopular (and potentially damaging) political position and did his best dance around the issue.

    I think you and I are quibbling over trifles, if I’m honest – which is fun, don’t get me wrong…

  219. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 24, 2010 at 3:30 pm #

    Mike:
    I think you and I are quibbling over trifles, if I’m honest – which is fun, don’t get me wrong…

    Agreed. I’m not saying that Dr. Paul is a 100% pure ideological Libertarian on all issues – just that he seemed to be trying to avoid being pinned down to the Libertarian position on this issue. If he didn’t believe in it, he could have easily answered Dr. Maddow’s question by saying he thought that title II of the civil rights act was correct (although if he did that he would be contradicting an earlier statement so that could be seen as pandering, it would hardly be a controversial stand).

    I think that Charo nailed it when she said that any pure ideological position sooner or later runs into problems in practical applications. In my opinion this is because ultimately they are based on some kind of absolutist assumption that is just not true in reality. If I were a Democratic strategist, I would be doing my best to tie Republicans to the belief that government doesn’t have the right to regulate private business – not only does that paint them as agreeing with the ‘pure’ Libertarian view here and tie them to Wall Street and BP (not exactly politically healthy right now), but it has the added advantage of being accurate.

  220. avatar
    misha May 24, 2010 at 5:22 pm #

    yguy: Nope.Fear of Rodney King riots x 1000 would be my guess.

    Clinical paranoia.

  221. avatar
    euphgeek May 24, 2010 at 6:00 pm #

    yguy:
    Nope.

    So why don’t you either tell me what proof would satisfy you that Dr. Fukino was not lying or admit that you will never believe she was not lying?

    Fear of Rodney King riots x 1000 would be my guess.

    So you’re actually arguing that the Bush administration, who could not foresee that they would find no WMDs in Iraq, was able to predict the future to be able to see that there would be “Rodney King riots x 1000” if Barack Obama was not elected? Not only that, but that Bush, Mr. “Bring-them-on,” could actually be intimidated like that?

    But let’s assume that it’s true and you’re completely correct. That would mean that there was an entire conspiracy from the very top to the lowest levels of government to illegally install Barack Obama as President of the United States. And let’s further ignore for a moment how incredibly hard it would be to keep a conspiracy like that silent. Do you really think that they couldn’t produce a genuine-looking birth certificate that would fool any document expert if they absolutely had to? After all, they’d have to prevent those “Rodney King riots x 1000.” If this is the extent of the conspiracy, there would be no way that Obama would ever be removed from office before his two terms were up.

  222. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 24, 2010 at 6:06 pm #

    yguy: euphgeek:
    So my question, “…you want to see the original birth certificate to verify whether a Hawaiian official is lying?” was correct

    Nope.

    Why did the Bush administration, the state of Hawaii, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, both the Democratic and Republican parties and Fox News back him up in this lie?

    Fear of Rodney King riots x 1000 would be my guess.

    One hardly knows what to say. It appears that yguy is willing to expand the conspiracy to enormous size to explain the facts while keeping Obama ineligible. If he’s willing to remake the world in the conspiracy’s image, there’s not much common ground for discussion.

  223. avatar
    SFJeff May 24, 2010 at 6:09 pm #

    “Fear of Rodney King riots x 1000 would be my guess.”

    I just love this rationale- everybody is scared to scared to point out that President Obama was ineligible, yet Newt Gingrich roams the airways comparing Obama to Hitler and Chairman Mao. Somehow Newt is able to overcome his fear of riots enough to slander the President, but is toooooooooo scared to say he was never eligible in the first place.

    And Michael Steele? Sure Michael Steele was so scared of being called a racist his comment about Obama being elected was “congradulations”

  224. avatar
    nbc May 24, 2010 at 6:13 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: One hardly knows what to say. It appears that yguy is willing to expand the conspiracy to enormous size to explain the facts while keeping Obama ineligible. If he’s willing to remake the world in the conspiracy’s image, there’s not much common ground for discussion.

    Newsweek

    “We refer to this as ‘inferred justification,'” says Hoffman. Inferred justification is a sort of backward chain of reasoning. You start with something you believe strongly (the invasion of Iraq was the right move) and work backward to find support for it (Saddam was behind 9/11). “For these voters,” says Hoffman, “the sheer fact that we were engaged in war led to a post-hoc search for a justification for that war.”

  225. avatar
    G May 24, 2010 at 7:04 pm #

    misha: yguy: Nope.Fear of Rodney King riots x 1000 would be my guess.

    misha’s response: Clinical paranoia.

    And clear race-based paranoia as well.

    yguy demonstrates through his words [deleted]

  226. avatar
    G May 24, 2010 at 7:07 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: One hardly knows what to say. It appears that yguy is willing to expand the conspiracy to enormous size to explain the facts while keeping Obama ineligible. If he’s willing to remake the world in the conspiracy’s image, there’s not much common ground for discussion.

    That has been clearly evident for quite some time now.

  227. avatar
    yguy May 24, 2010 at 7:54 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    It appears that yguy is willing to expand the conspiracy

    There is no conspiracy implied in that hypothesis, however attractive the idea may be to you.

  228. avatar
    Scientist May 24, 2010 at 8:11 pm #

    yguy: Fear of Rodney King riots x 1000 would be my guess.

    Absolutely absurd. Hillary Clinton was extremely popular in the black community and got plenty of black votes in the primaries, especially in the large states. Had Obama been denied a place on the ballot based on verifiable evidence put forward at a proper time by someone with proper standing, most black people would have been perfectly content to have her as President.

    The problem is you guys have no evidence at all (verifiable or otherwise).

  229. avatar
    nbc May 24, 2010 at 8:18 pm #

    yguy: There is no conspiracy implied in that hypothesis, however attractive the idea may be to you.

    Fascinating…

  230. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 24, 2010 at 8:37 pm #

    yguy:
    There is no conspiracy implied in that hypothesis, however attractive the idea may be to you.

    So all 535 members of Congress, all 50 state secretaries of state, the entire mainstream news media, Democratic and Republican opposition candidates and the Governor of Hawaii all kept quiet about Obama’s eligibility individually and independently, each secretly fearing race riots if anyone said anything? Whatever. We still have no common ground for discussion.

  231. avatar
    SFJeff May 24, 2010 at 8:40 pm #

    No conspiracy- I think the only alternative scenario that would support Yguy’s conclusion would be sudden and complete mass hysteria.

  232. avatar
    euphgeek May 24, 2010 at 9:33 pm #

    yguy:
    There is no conspiracy implied in that hypothesis, however attractive the idea may be to you.

    Your hypothesis is the very definition of conspiracy. You said yourself that you think that the Bush administration, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, the state of Hawaii and the Democratic and Republican parties backed up what you believe is Obama’s lie about where he was born because they feared “Rodney King riots x 1000.” How else would you describe people conspiring to deceive the entire population of the U.S.?

  233. avatar
    misha May 24, 2010 at 9:34 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: So all 535 members of Congress, all 50 state secretaries of state, the entire mainstream news media, Democratic and Republican opposition candidates and the Governor of Hawaii all kept quiet about Obama’s eligibility individually and independently, each secretly fearing race riots if anyone said anything? Whatever. We still have no common ground for discussion.

    Nixon couldn’t keep Watergate secret, and Agnew couldn’t keep his bribe taking secret – but Obama is keeping “the real” birth story a secret??

    Someone owes me a new keyboard.

  234. avatar
    Dave May 24, 2010 at 9:57 pm #

    yguy:
    Fear of Rodney King riots x 1000 would be my guess.

    Let me see if I have this right: the reason Michelle Bachman won’t call for a Congressional investigation into the President’s eligibility is because the black folks, who in her district are about 1% of the population, will riot?

    And how about Steve King? Does he live in fear that the 0.7% of his district who are black will burn the place down if he questions the President’s eligibility?

  235. avatar
    Bob Ross May 24, 2010 at 10:13 pm #

    yguy:
    Nope.
    Fear of Rodney King riots x 1000 would be my guess.

    And there you have it another Chocolate Hamster moment

  236. avatar
    northland10 May 25, 2010 at 6:55 am #

    The one true constant of the modern American Government is that it leaks like a sieve. The true protection against tyranny. So, if Obama is able to preside over a conspiracy of thousands from all different levels, maybe he is the greatest and strongest President ever. It would be an accomplishment of biblical proportions. Is this why the birthers like to refer to him has a messiah?

    Nixon would be sooooooo envious.

  237. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 25, 2010 at 7:22 am #

    northland10: The one true constant of the modern American Government is that it leaks like a sieve. The true protection against tyranny. So, if Obama is able to preside over a conspiracy of thousands from all different levels, maybe he is the greatest and strongest President ever. It would be an accomplishment of biblical proportions. Is this why the birthers like to refer to him has a messiah?

    It’s interesting to note that a recent article was published claiming exactly that: Entire US Government Said Knows Obama Ineligible For Office. This appears to come from a site where volunteers become “reporters”. It’s a news organization without journalists, and generally trash from what I’ve seen.

  238. avatar
    Scientist May 25, 2010 at 7:30 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It’s interesting to note that a recent article was published claiming exactly that: Entire US Government Said Knows Obama Ineligible For Office.

    I love the part about how Michelle somehow knows where her husband was born 49 years ago. As we have seen from recent headlines, the political wives often have no clue where their husband was last night, let alone 49 years ago.