Main Menu

Hawaii governor names Obama birth hospital

In a confusing remark to a radio interviewer, Hawaii Republican Governor Lingle stated that the Hawaii department of health director had confirmed Obama’s birth at the Kapi’olani hospital in Honolulu.

The health director did not actually name the hospital in her official statements. My guess is that Lingle got the name of the hospital when she attended the centennial celebration of Kapi’olani back in January where a letter from Obama was read stating that he was born there. It is also “common knowledge” in Hawaii that this is the hospital where Obama was born, according to the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper. I think Lingle just confused what the health director said with what she knew from other sources.

The following is excerpted from the Lingle interview:

240 Responses to Hawaii governor names Obama birth hospital

  1. avatar
    Scott Brown May 6, 2010 at 6:48 pm #

    My guess is her comment was either purposefully misleading or truly a slip of the tongue.

    Especially since the letter you refer to was neither confirmed or denied as authentic by Robert Gibbs (to the best of my knowledge).

    If I were the administrator of either hospital in Hawaii, I would be jumping up and down to know which one gets to put the Birth Marker of a US President out in front….odd that no one in Hawaii seems to be pushing that issue.

  2. avatar
    G May 6, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

    Well, considering that you are a well known liar, your guess is meaningless here. You have no credibility as you’ve proven that you are nothing but a lying insincere concern troll. Go crawl back under your bridge.

  3. avatar
    richCares May 6, 2010 at 7:01 pm #

    Did you lose the rock you crawlwd out from under? Go find it.

  4. avatar
    SFJeff May 6, 2010 at 7:13 pm #

    “My guess is her comment was either purposefully misleading”

    Why would the Governor be purposely misleading?

    “or truly a slip of the tongue.”

    Birthers don’t believe in slips of the tongue- anything ever said by anyone in any context is always true- see Michelle Obama’s Kenya remark- oh wait that only applies to slips of the tongue that appear to damage President Obama.

  5. avatar
    nbc May 6, 2010 at 7:19 pm #

    If I were the administrator of either hospital in Hawaii, I would be jumping up and down to know which one gets to put the Birth Marker of a US President out in front….odd that no one in Hawaii seems to be pushing that issue.

    You do have heard of the privacy laws?

    Fool

  6. avatar
    Scientist May 6, 2010 at 7:21 pm #

    If I were the administrator of either hospital in Hawaii, I would be jumping up and down to know which one gets to put the Birth Marker of a US President out in front….odd that no one in Hawaii seems to be pushing that issue.

    Yale-New Haven Hospital, where George W Bush was supposedly born, has no marker. The house where Bill Clinton lived is on the National Register of Historic Places http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_Birthplace. I don’t know whether the hospital has a plaque. Only you guys are obsessed with this sort of stuff; regular folks, not so much.

  7. avatar
    misha May 6, 2010 at 7:53 pm #

    Sort of on topic: Lincoln is revered by Jews. Lincoln is among the few world leaders to ever overturn an order expelling Jews.

    Lincoln opened the military chaplaincy to Jews during the Civil War and revoked the 1862 order of Ulysses S. Grant, expelling Jews from territories of the conquered South.

  8. avatar
    John May 6, 2010 at 8:00 pm #

    Its interesting you mentioned the letter. The letter was posted on the Hospital website for some time. When some started to get curious and ask questions about it, the letter was pulled off the website and the White House denied the existance of it.

  9. avatar
    sarina May 6, 2010 at 8:01 pm #

    Scott Brown

    “The letter he referred to” was read ALOUD at the Kapiolani Hospital Centennial Dinner by Hawaii Congressman Neil Abercrombie, many dignitaries, (including Linda Lingle) were present. The letter was published on the hospital website, on that letter Obama confirmed the Kapiolani as “the place of my birth” Here is the video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EKRpPtdpFQ

    Geeshhh!!

  10. avatar
    SFJeff May 6, 2010 at 8:05 pm #

    I want to repeat this:

    Birther logic:
    A Kenyan ambassador calls Obama a Kenyan native on a radio show- proof Obama is from Kenya!

    Michelle Obama calls Kenya President Obama’s home country- proof Obama is from Kenya!

    A Kenyan politician says President Obama is from Kenya- proof Obama is from Kenya!

    The Republican Governor of Hawaii says Obama was born in Hawaii- She is clearly trying to mislead us! Its all part of the coverup! Has she seen the original documents? She is afraid of being called a racist! We can’t trust her!

    The Health Director of Hawaii says Obama was born in Hawaii- She didn’t say she looked at the original! She is covering up! She is being paid off by Obama! This is all part of the Chicago Machine! We can’t trust her!

    Because in the birther bizarro world, clear direct statements by authorities in the United States are suspect while any inference by any foreign person is GODS OWN TRUTH!

  11. avatar
    sarina May 6, 2010 at 8:30 pm #

    Scott Brown:

    You and the rest of the birthers don’t believe that Obama was born in Hawaii even with OVERWHELMING evidence he was born there, but you believe in what a well known criminal forger posts like Lucas Smith’s, a Kenyan bc not authenticated with a footprint on it!

  12. avatar
    misha May 6, 2010 at 8:35 pm #

    “When some started to get curious and ask questions about it, the letter was pulled off the website and the White House denied the existance of it.”

    Proof and links, please.

    The moon is made of green cheese. Here’s proof.
    .

  13. avatar
    John May 6, 2010 at 8:37 pm #

    I think Lingle is receiving secondhand information. And even if Fukino told Lingle Obama was born a Kapoloni, what right did Fukino have to devulge private information to the governor. So far, no firsthand eyewitness has come forward about the account of Obama’s birth at Kapoloni. That is troubling. And it is a complete mystery why Kapoloni has not taken credit for Obama’s birth even though privacy has essentially waived and even if not there has no been effort by Obama to give Kapoloni permission. Finally, investigations of Kapoloni have revealed no existance of any documentation that Obama was there.

  14. avatar
    Scientist May 6, 2010 at 8:41 pm #

    What’s troubling, John, is that you are apparently off your meds yet again.

  15. avatar
    richCares May 6, 2010 at 8:43 pm #

    john
    Congressman Neil Abercrombie is currently running for Governor of Hawaii as a Democrat, why don’t you publicize that he lied about the Obama letter, also tell all those Hawaiians that Republican Gov Linda Lingle is lying. The honest people of Hawaii would appreciate your brilliant claims. I am from Hawaii and I think you are great (a great idiot). You would really go over in Hawaii!

  16. avatar
    sarina May 6, 2010 at 8:44 pm #

    John, you’re right. No existance of Obama being born at the “Kapoloni”, but there is EVIDENCE that he was born at the “Kapiolani” Medical Center.

  17. avatar
    misha May 6, 2010 at 8:51 pm #

    John: I found Obama’s Kenya birth certificate. Really.

    Trust me on this.

  18. avatar
    richCares May 6, 2010 at 8:51 pm #

    yah, john is off his meds!

  19. avatar
    John May 6, 2010 at 9:11 pm #

    I am not sure what records Hawaii claim they have on Obama but his been found by investigators who went to Kenya, that Obama has birth records there which have been classified as top secret. Perhaps that may have something to do with fact that Odinga is Obama’s cousin.

  20. avatar
    SFJeff May 6, 2010 at 9:11 pm #

    Really John? Really?
    “I think Lingle is receiving secondhand information.”
    Well I am glad that you can read- thats exactly what Lingle said.

    “And even if Fukino told Lingle Obama was born a Kapoloni,”

    Stop and think about that statement John- because if Fukino did say it, it is evidence that President Obama was born in Hawaii- as far as eligibility we can stop right here

    “what right did Fukino have to devulge private information to the governor.”

    Don’t know, don’t care, irrelevant. If a citizen of Hawaii is concerned they are welcome to take legal action against the governor.

    “So far, no firsthand eyewitness has come forward about the account of Obama’s birth at Kapoloni. That is troubling.”

    Other than my mother- who I am lucky enough to still have alive- there is not a person alive who witnessed my birth- and I think my mother was on drugs. Exactly what witnesses do you expect to pop up almost 50 years later and say- yeah I remember that baby being born? Just pure idiocy.

    “And it is a complete mystery why Kapoloni has not taken credit for Obama’s birth even though privacy has essentially waived”

    No, it hasn’t. The hospital cannot release that information- and again why do you care?

    “and even if not there has no been effort by Obama to give Kapoloni permission.”

    Again- why do you care? Why does it matter? Why would Obama care?

    “Finally, investigations of Kapoloni have revealed no existance of any documentation that Obama was there”

    John- amuse me- give the citation of those investigations beyond someone calling the hospital and them refusing to comment.

    Copy of Birth Certificate- Fukino confirming Obama born in Hawaii- two contemporary birth announcements= more evidence than we have for any other President that he was born in the United States.

    Personally that Bush fella always seemed kinda latin to me- you know he speaks Spanish? Therefore he was probably born in Mexico….

  21. avatar
    richCares May 6, 2010 at 9:12 pm #

    Again, yah, john is off his meds!

  22. avatar
    Scientist May 6, 2010 at 9:13 pm #

    Got thorazine?

  23. avatar
    nbc May 6, 2010 at 9:14 pm #

    I see you’d rather prefer myths than facts.

    Figures.

    Romans 1:22

  24. avatar
    SFJeff May 6, 2010 at 9:15 pm #

    I have a secret film of Obama being born on a beach in Hawaii, while Don Ho sings “Tiny Bubbles”, and its signed by Jack Lord. But I am being blackmailed by a certain Alaskan politician to prevent me from publishing it.

    Oh god, she is coming for me now….

  25. avatar
    racosta May 6, 2010 at 9:19 pm #

    john, Kenya has no restrictions on obtaining birth records, anybody can send in the fee and obtain a copy, so dear birther request Obama’s records. (or STFU)

    the logistics of a pregnant woman leaving Hawai and having birth in Kenya with in a 10 day period is greater than winning 25 powerbals at the same time. where do idiots like john come from. does hate damage their intellect that much?

  26. avatar
    G May 6, 2010 at 9:20 pm #

    Wow. John, you’ll just believe any stupid thing you read on a hack website, just because it supports your pathetic gullible prejudices, eh?

  27. avatar
    misha May 6, 2010 at 9:27 pm #

    “the logistics of a pregnant woman leaving Hawai and having birth in Kenya”

    I have shown it is physically impossible.
    .

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 6, 2010 at 9:27 pm #

    How do investigators get “top secret” information? Sounds very suspicious to me.

  29. avatar
    nemocapn May 6, 2010 at 9:29 pm #

    Neil Abercrombie also attended the University of Hawaii with Obama’s parents. He knew Barack when Barack was a baby.

  30. avatar
    richCares May 6, 2010 at 9:32 pm #

    “Odinga is Obama’s cousin”
    unbelievable, no sense arguing with john, some one so stupid they fall for Odinaga crap, what a complete idiot, just go away john. Truth is beyond his comprehension, he is a paypall stooge, that’s all.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 6, 2010 at 9:40 pm #

    My opinion is that the governor had an error in remembering, conflating what the director of health said with what is common knowledge in Hawaii.

    So this is both unimportant as evidence and not damning against Lingle or Fukino.

  32. avatar
    John May 6, 2010 at 9:42 pm #

    Lingle has been caught in BIG lie and it now appears there was collusion between Lingle and Fukino and that Lingle is apparently breaking Hawaii privacy record laws. Finally, Lingle’s remarks taint the credibility of Fukino’s October 2008 Public Statement.

    The only to get the bottom of this if for Obama to release his vault copy BC for public inspection.

  33. avatar
    nemocapn May 6, 2010 at 9:50 pm #

    Ha! Ha! Misha Trotsky says: “Normally, the story would have ended there, because his father would have hit him, and his village wife would have killed him, for showing up with a pregnant white wife. Well, I guess they all got along. As I said, crazier things have happened.” Good one.

    I really don’t get birther logic. Supposedly, American citizenship was so important to Ann Dunham that she schemed to get it for Barack; and yet, she didn’t think of the simplest method to obtain it–give birth in the United States.

  34. avatar
    sarina May 6, 2010 at 10:07 pm #

    Yes John, Linda a REPUBLICAN is lying, covering for a Democrat! Birthers are amusing and very smart creatures! Great imagination!

  35. avatar
    misha May 6, 2010 at 10:14 pm #

    Hey, John: I got your vault copy right here.
    .

  36. avatar
    nemocapn May 6, 2010 at 10:16 pm #

    And maybe Dick Cheney certified Barack Obama’s electoral votes because of the fact that he’s Barack’s cousin.

    And maybe Sarah Palin didn’t bring up the birth certificate issue on the campaign trail because of the fact that she’s Barack’s cousin.

    And maybe Scott Brown voted for the jobs because of the fact that he’s Barack’s cousin.

  37. avatar
    richCares May 6, 2010 at 10:16 pm #

    Poor john, get a life. This issue is over, only idiots like you believe it.

  38. avatar
    nemocapn May 6, 2010 at 10:22 pm #

    Ah, but when you’re a birther and a Republican doesn’t agree with your theories, they’re a RINO so their opinion doesn’t count.

  39. avatar
    Greg May 6, 2010 at 10:33 pm #

    If Lingle violated privacy laws, the remedy isn’t for you to violate Obama’s privacy MORE!

    “Hi, this is CostCo, we’re calling you to tell you that we had a break-in and your social security numbers were stolen. We’ve decided the only way to make this right is to publish your credit card and bank account numbers.”

    What world do you live in, John, where this makes sense?

  40. avatar
    Greg May 6, 2010 at 10:38 pm #

    the White House denied the existance of it.

    Funny, you’d think if the White House denied the existence of the letter, WND would be ALL OVER IT! Instead, they write:

    the White House has refused to say if the message is real and if its text originated with the president.

    Here’s a clue, John. This sentence:

    “We won’t get into that letter.”

    is different than this one:

    “That letter didn’t come from us.”

    Reading is fundamental, John.

    Is anyone else put in mind of Mark Twain’s dictum that the difference between the right word and the “nearly right” word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug?

  41. avatar
    Greg May 6, 2010 at 10:44 pm #

    no firsthand eyewitness has come forward about the account of Obama’s birth at Kapoloni. That is troubling.

    Not really, no.

    He was born almost 50 years ago! It is so phenomenally difficult to get people to be able to remember things that far back that for crimes we don’t even try except for things like murder. For civil actions, it’s more like 7 years. Documents older than 20 years are presumed to be authentic, since it’s assumed that no one would be around to vouch for their authenticity.

    You’re surprised that no one can come forward and give you chapter and verse about one birth out of thousands 50 years ago? I’m surprised that with reasoning like that that you are still able to tie your shoes in the morning! Do you have a chart to assist you?

  42. avatar
    nBC May 6, 2010 at 10:49 pm #

    Reading is a fundamental short coming of many birthers.

    Fools

  43. avatar
    richCares May 6, 2010 at 10:52 pm #

    Greg,
    Birthers are immune to logic. reason and facts, they are driven by hate so no way to reach or reason with them. john has repeatedly been shown that his beliefs are irrational and not based on evidence yet he continually repeats garbage. It is really sad that john goes through life with so much hate, Just pity him.

  44. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 10:52 pm #

    Ever hear of adverse possession? Essentially a party trespasses on property and after a certain period of time goes by and other conditions are met, the trespasser acquires the property. That is at least one scenario where the law was broken and a waiver occurred by inaction.

    An objection by President Obama would certainly be interesting at this point.

  45. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 10:53 pm #

    I guess I should have stated preliminarily ANOTHER BIRFER ON THE PREMISES-

  46. avatar
    Greg May 6, 2010 at 11:03 pm #

    Well, if Obama doesn’t object to the violation for another 20 years, then we can talk about adverse possession. HRS 657-31.5 et. seq.

    And releasing the hospital name would be more like a prescriptive easement (adverse possession of the “path” you’ve been taking across the property). After 20 years, you’d be entitled to an official confirmation of the hospital name. Not everything else in the file.

  47. avatar
    Greg May 6, 2010 at 11:12 pm #

    The better analogy is to attorney-client privilege or work product protection. Giving out the information waives the privilege or protection. HOWEVER, privilege has to be contrasted to confidential information held by an attorney. An attorney accidentally or purposefully divulging confidential information does not waive the confidentiality, allowing the attorney to divulge the rest of the client confidences. It opens the attorney up to malpractice claims.

    If this is a violation of Obama’s right of privacy, he would have a cause of action against Hawaii. If he failed to exercise that option within a prescribed period of time, he would lose that cause of action. It’s called a statute of limitations.

    The law doesn’t like people who rest on their rights. It punishes property owners with adverse possession. It punishes those who have causes of action by having those actions die. You don’t get carte blanche to violate those rights MORE!

    “Hey, John, this is BigCo. We maimed you with our negligently designed product 15 years ago last Thursday. The statute of limitations has now run on that, and since you never filed suit, that means we get to maim you as much as we want now. We’ll stop by tomorrow with our maiming machine. Wear comfortable clothes!”

  48. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 11:15 pm #

    I have a hard time believing that you thought I was equating the specifics of adverse possession with the waiver of privacy. Your example is not on point? What information released could be so harmful to President Obama as in your example? There is a thing called redaction of sensitive material. Show what Fukino and Lingle have already disclosed.

  49. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 11:15 pm #

    I meant Your example IS on point??? (as in it’s not)

  50. avatar
    richCares May 6, 2010 at 11:21 pm #

    “We’ll stop by tomorrow with our maiming machine.”

    I want one of those! Please send my mfr address.

  51. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 11:24 pm #

    If a birfer made that joke, ole Janet would move that person closer up on the Homeland Security list …

  52. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 11:35 pm #

    Was that necessary?

  53. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 11:37 pm #

    Exactly- just trying to be agreeable.

  54. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 11:43 pm #

    While I’m at it, I’ll continue with this scenario that I have alluded to and one that may evoke a reply or two.

    Obama Sr. is not the father named on the birth certificate?

    “Barack saw his mother, who was very young and very single when she had him,…”

    http://blog.showmeprogress.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1297

    Obama Sr. found out he wasn’t the father and split? (or he always knew?) He took responsibility in name only for whatever reason? (Marriage to an American provided benefit of some sort- had no intent to stay married?) Was the marriage over in reality before the baby was even born? He never was a father to his son; I think we can all agree with that. (He would have made sure his son had the traditional spelling of his name if he were the father-we don’t all agree on that).

    When questions of Candidate Obama’s citizenship commenced after the McCain matter, there was tension in the campaign. What to do about the birth certificate? That Obama Sr. is not the father would have been a HUGE distraction. The Clinton campaign would work behind the scenes to make THAT the story- what ELSE is there? Let’s just generate a certificate. Who will know? This will all just go away once we release it. Let’s do it online. It will show transparency but not allow anyone to really know the truth.

    The statements of Lingle, Fukino don’t conflict with that scenario. They can’t, however, confirm that a COLB was requested because it wasn’t.

    Just brainstorming… kind of an impossible feat in birferville-

  55. avatar
    Bob Ross May 6, 2010 at 11:57 pm #

    Yes it was necessary fake Scott Brown has been lying since she first came here. Making up stories and when called out on it refuses to answer.

  56. avatar
    Greg May 7, 2010 at 12:00 am #

    I have a hard time believing that you thought I was equating the specifics of adverse possession with the waiver of privacy.

    You catch on quick! I was pointing to the specifics of adverse possession to demonstrate the absurdity of analogizing to it.

    Adverse possession is specific to property law and I can think of no other example where failure to object to the offense makes the offense righteous.

    If this weren’t the President, if this were Joe Blow, and the Governor said, “Joe Blow was born in Hospital X,” would you think that it would be perfectly fine for you to now see the birth certificate?

    Show what Fukino and Lingle have already disclosed.

    You’d be satisfied with a long form with everything on it redacted except what appeared on the COLB and, now, the hospital name? But, you won’t be satisfied with the Governor of Hawaii saying it? You won’t be satisfied with the Director of the Department of Health saying it?

    What if you were allowed to see the COLB and the director swore under oath that Obama was born in this hospital?

    The director has said, explicitly, that Obama was born in Hawaii. What fact do you think the long form will reveal that will, on its own, deny Obama eligibility?

    Which hospital in Hawaii has magical, citizenship denying powers?
    Which doctor has the anti-Midas touch – every baby he delivers becomes an alien?

    Whether the COLB is a forgery or not, Hawaii has stated in no uncertain terms that its records show Obama born in Hawaii. Whether the birth was registered by a midwife, grandma, or Satan, for Hawaii’s purposes, the records are sufficient to prove to their satisfaction that Obama was born there.

    So, it doesn’t matter what the long form says, you’re in the same boat. You have to prove, to a degree sufficient to overcome the credibility of the State of Hawaii, that Obama was not born in Hawaii. Proving the COLB is a forgery doesn’t prove he wasn’t born here.

    What proves that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii? Proving that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii!

    If you think there’s something funny about Obama’s birth, go out and prove that he was born somewhere else!

  57. avatar
    Bob Ross May 7, 2010 at 12:02 am #

    Hahahaha nativeborncitizen isn’t a birther site and isn’t on your side John. They report what birthers say read the title: Birther Ignorance. Then read the sentence below the video: ”
    ← Great moments in Birthism – SanctionQuest II of III
    Huffington Post – Meet the Dualers β†’
    Birther ignorance – Two Hawaiian official lying about Obama

    “The alternative and more likely interpretation is just too much at odds with some people’s foolish hopes…

    Angry old men”

  58. avatar
    nbC May 7, 2010 at 12:15 am #

    Is poor John confused by my site? How exciting

  59. avatar
    misha May 7, 2010 at 12:21 am #

    “go out and prove that he was born somewhere else!”

    I can prove McCain is a space alien.

    Really.

  60. avatar
    Greg May 7, 2010 at 12:22 am #

    It’s because of brain-storming like this that it makes perfect sense to keep the birth certificate secret even if, especially if, it doesn’t reveal anything damaging at all!

    The more birthers spin wildly out into la-la land (his dad isn’t really his dad, he didn’t really write his autobiography, my name’s Orly Taitz) the more discredited they become and the more discredited becomes anyone who doesn’t forcefully shout them down.

    Remember the woman who said that she was robbed and her attackers carved a “B” on her face because of her political beliefs (McCain supporter) – but the B was backwards? Remember the backlash from people shouting “terrorist” at McCain/Palin rallies? At one point, McCain wrested the microphone from a woman who started her question with “Obama’s an Arab…”

    The Orly Taitz’s of the world have proven that no amount of information would satisfy them short of a complete dump of every document owned by any individual, organization, entity or government in the world that mentioned, in any way, Obama. (And since they want him to prove multiple negatives even if they had all this information, they’d simply claim that the paperwork proving that he’d renounced his U.S. citizenship had been destroyed.)

    So, let’s simplify the equation:

    Benefits to withholding info: Birthers and Republicans look like loonies!
    Benefits to releasing info: A tiny fraction of birthers would be satisfied.

    Negatives to withholding: A tiny fraction of Obama supporters might be turned off.
    Negatives to releasing info: The majority of birthers will not be satisfied and will simply retreat to the next fall-back in the line of arguments (two citizen parents, anyone? Indonesian adoption? Fake travel ban? Whatever Pastor Manning’s smoking?)

    The way I figure it, there are almost negligible positives to releasing the information, almost negligible negatives to withholding it. Weigh that against the facts that withholding the information causes birthers to spiral into new and kookier theories and will never truly be satisfied with any information, and I think it’s a slam-dunk conclusion.

    Stand back and watch the birthers foam at the mouth!

  61. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 12:36 am #

    What I have written is gleaned from the comments I have been making all along here. You can go back and check on the previous thread. The only new aspect is the quote from Michelle Obama.

  62. avatar
    Greg May 7, 2010 at 12:38 am #

    McCain has two more legs than no person.
    No person has three legs.
    Therefore, McCain has five legs.
    Since no person has five legs, McCain must be an alien!

  63. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 12:41 am #

    I should say that the scenario is the result of the previous points made on the other thread.

    I have spent way too much time here tonight. I know I will hear an Amen to that.

  64. avatar
    richCares May 7, 2010 at 12:46 am #

    birthers fall for some really stupid theories, but charo is different, he is actually applying for a job at “The Onion”, and is building a resume.

  65. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 12:48 am #

    charo, you would have to understand the history of Scott Brown’s actions & posts here to realize why she has earned such animosity from us.

    Personally, I don’t enjoy having to lash back at Scott Brown, but feel compelled to do so because she has been so intentionally deceitful for so long and trying to duck responsibility and just pop back in again and again as if pretending her prior lies never happened.

    If she had ever been honest or even come clean when caught, she would not have earned the extreme animosity she gets every time she posts.

    By her actions, it certainly appears that “Scott Brown” fits the true definition of “internet troll” – someone who’s intent is not to add to a discussion, but only to stir up trouble and spread misinformation for the purpose of trying to wreck a site thread.

  66. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 1:02 am #

    I think charo is a she not a he. charo is different from 99% of the birthers that have come here, as I have to give her credit for providing fairly polite conversation and at least presenting her own views instead of being limited to only being able to reguritate the same tired birther talking points over & over.

    I will agree that her points seem to focus on coming up with speculative theories about the birth father, so in some ways, it is closer to Sven’s fiction, but not nearly to the extent of “so out there” like Sven gets.

  67. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 1:08 am #

    lol

    and I am a “she”

  68. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 1:09 am #

    She is in the room- I replied on the other thread- goodnight all

  69. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 1:10 am #

    to the onion

  70. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 1:13 am #

    charo,

    Let me just ask a direct question – what do any of your speculative scenarios on aspects of the birth father change about being an NBC, which is the qualification for president?

    What on the “long form” would make any difference in terms of eligibility?

    The “short form” already says Honolulu, HI. The “short form” only contains less fields of info from what the “long form” has. Any info it does present is the SAME on both. The DOH has verified HI as his birthplace. The newspaper articles found on his birth also say the same.

    So, every bit of info provided to date ALL says the same thing – HI. Nothing available disputes or contradicts the state of HI as his birthplace and that is all that is needed to confirm the simplest and most basic way to be born NBC, as HI is clearly a state of the USA.

    What you keep advocating for, requesting and speculating would not change that in the least. Any additional such “details” are mere trivia at best and while I can understand that you might be someone who enjoys or appreciates trivia or wants to know more details about his background, such details would have NO impact whatsoever on his eligibility or ability to be president.

    Furthermore, the desire to know more is fine.

    Just please understand that desire does not equate to the right to have such info on others, which is protected by standard privacy laws which exist to protect all of us.

  71. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 1:16 am #

    Thanks for clarifying, charo.

    Have a goodnight and thanks for the polite conversation!

  72. avatar
    nemocapn May 7, 2010 at 1:48 am #

    Guess what! You CAN get a look at his long form birth certificate. Mark this date on your calendar: Aug. 4, 2036. Under Hawaiian law records 75 years old or older are public. Just 26 more years to go, and your dreams will come true.

    I shouldn’t be helping you out on this, but have you been to the Hawaiian Department of Health web site? They say that you can obtain a vital record if you’re “a person having a common ancestor with the registrant (e.g., a sibling, grandparent, aunt/uncle, or cousin).” It doesn’t say “first cousin,” so you could try testing the limits of what they mean by cousin. Since Sarah Palin is Obama’s 10th cousin, maybe she can request Obama’s birth certificate–unless (gasp) she’s in on the conspiracy! If she is, you can ask his 8th cousin Dick Cheney or his 10th cousin Senator Scott Brown next.

  73. avatar
    Zixi of Ix May 7, 2010 at 2:37 am #

    If I were the administrator of either hospital in Hawaii, I would be jumping up and down to know which one gets to put the Birth Marker of a US President out in front…odd that no one in Hawaii seems to be pushing that issue.

    In your mind, is there some specialness attached to having your doors open when a woman comes in to give birth? I’ve chosen to give birth to my children in well-staffed modern hospitals with low mortality rates. I never though about picking the ones where famous people were born.

    If it makes you feel any better, I was getting stitches as a little kid at Long Beach Memorial Hospital the day Richard Nixon came in. It was the day Ford pardoned him, and Nixon had a bad case of phlebitis. He almost died, but LBMH saved him.

    It didn’t warrant one of your elusive plaques, though.

  74. avatar
    Zixi of Ix May 7, 2010 at 3:25 am #

    Would one of those investigators be Lucas Smith?

    If so, can you explain why it is “safe” for him to loudly proclaim to have Obama’s “real” BC, but providing any proof that he ever actually went to Kenya is dangerous?

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

    John starts:

    “I think….”

    Stop right there. No, you don’t. My dog has more brain cells than you do.

  76. avatar
    Scientist May 7, 2010 at 7:03 am #

    “Generate a certificate”? And all the officials of the Hawaiian state government (Republicans) would not only keep quiet about it, but go out and actively vouch for it. charo, you may be more “polite” than the average birther, but that’s absolutely preposterous. And if there was a conspiracy that immense that the entire government was involved, then they have long since had all the original records modified by top operatives whose work would be untraceable. Simply foolish.

    I’m not convinced that releasing the COLB was necessary or even smart politically. By the time it was released, Obama had already clinched the Democratic nomination. Given Bush’s unpopularity, whoever the Dems nominated was favored. And then what happened in September? Oh, yes, the entire world financial system and economy collapsed. Makes where a candidate was born and who his parents were seem pretty small potatoes, doesn’t it?

    As far as whether Obama Sr. is the President’s biological father, short of DNA testing, there is no way to know. The birth records will not have the answer. It’s the mother who says who the father is and that’s what goes on the birth records. That’s the last word unless paternity is contested, which it was not in the President’s case. And there is nothing to “cover up” there. Many years ago, an illegitimate birth might have been at least a minor issue for a presidential candidate. Today, when half the babies are born to unmarried mothers, it is a complete non-issue. I can confidently say that of the 69,000,000 who voted for Obama, fewer than 100 would have changed their vote based on who his biological Dad was.

    And any father other than Obama, Sr. would destroy the last feeble argument the birthers have-the 2 citizen parent “theory” (which is not even on life support anyway). Besides the fact that the “theory” is legally do-do (a technical legal term) they already have the problem that the Obama-Dunham marriage may have been legally null and void. Now, add in that Obama Sr. is not the father and watch the structure (a rickety shack at best) collapse. Because if some other random male is the father and 98% of the men in Hawaii are US citizens, then there is a 98% chance that the President is then the child of 2 US citizens. Now tell Leo and Mario to put that in their pipes and smoke it.

  77. avatar
    US Citizen May 7, 2010 at 7:37 am #

    Perhaps the birthers should all move to Arizona. There, they may soon have a need for experienced cherry pickers.

  78. avatar
    US Citizen May 7, 2010 at 8:06 am #

    John, all of us here support freedom of speech and enjoy comedy, therefore we urge you to continue on the path you’ve embarked on. But enough time has passed that I can now confide that George Soros provided us over $150 Million specifically earmarked for bribing republican governors and senators.
    Lingle only requested a scant $100K. Senator brown was a bit more greedy at $250K. But the point is, we’ve already set up the framework for bribing all republican lawmakers in the same way we did the electors when they took their bribes as planned. Come November, we expect to have more than 85% of the GOP payed off, so you might as well sit back and watch the show.
    This plan started even before we published those 1961 birth announcements.
    There’s just nothing you can do about it now.
    You’ll have 8 years of Obama, like it or not.
    It’s all been taken care of and the plan has worked perfectly every step of the way.
    In fact we over-budgeted to such a degree, we’re pretty sure we can coerce the rest of the conservatives on the supreme court via some offers they can’t refuse either.

  79. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 8:49 am #

    I’m on it… cause we’re all brothers and sisters on this planet right?

  80. avatar
    Greg May 7, 2010 at 9:43 am #

    My wife trained at one of the nation’s most prestigious hospitals in the country. People would fly from far-off nations to be treated there. There were no plaques. They displayed the jeweled boxes given them by the royal family treated there, but it was a gift from the royal family.

    Much more prominent were the displays highlighting the Nobel-winners who had worked there.

    Later, when she was interviewing potential residents, one of the candidates came in with a “history.” He had been reprimanded by his medical school for “peeking” at President Clinton’s medical records. His med school was on the computer system with the hospital Clinton got his heart surgery at. He had opened the file, realized how stupid it was, and closed it, without looking. Classmates of his who had actually looked at the file were suspended or expelled.

    He didn’t get into her residency.

    Hospitals take privacy seriously.

  81. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 9:59 am #

    To anyone who asked asked me a question, I will respond as soon as practicable.

    Now that I have surely impressed you with my brilliant commentary, I would like to carry on with this:

    The only court that addressed the NBC issue as regards the presidency head on is the Court of Appeals of Indiana in the Ankeny decision, which is binding in the great State of Indiana. The discussion of the NBC has been endless in this regard and likely continues as we speak.

    Here is my thought because I know you are completely taken with my sharp insights. If the definition of a NBC has been firmly decided for a long time, has any current Supreme Court Justice referred to the settled law in a speech, article, publication outside of a court opinion? It would be like discussing the right of women to vote, it is that settled? isn’t it?

    I know that Justices don’t have to talk about issues, but this is such an important one because of the changing demographics of our society. Does anyone have a reference outside of published Court opinion that a current Justice (even J. Souter who just retired) has referred to the well-settled law?

    In all seriousness, I don’t know if my question was very artfully phrased. I hope the gist of it is reasonably clear.

    I will try to check in later and answer questions directed to me, assuming I see them.

  82. avatar
    Scientist May 7, 2010 at 10:06 am #

    I think the Justices spoke loud and clear on January 20, 2009. It is simply not credible to pretend that they would have attended the Inauguration of someone they considered ineligible, nor that the Chief Justice would have administered the oath (twice, actually). Don’t be fooled by imitations as they say on TV, this IS settled law.

  83. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 10:27 am #

    Did they have any cases before them that would have alerted them to the issues at that time?

  84. avatar
    Scientist May 7, 2010 at 10:41 am #

    Yes, one of Donofrio’s cases had made it to them in December 08. They turned it down without comment as they do in the vast majority of cases they receive which don’t, in their opinion, present issues worth hearing arguments on.

    Just as serious scientists don’t waste their time pondering whether the Sun orbits the Earth, serious legal scholars and judges have more worthwhile things to do than ponder who the President is. That is decided once every 4 years. Then you move on until the next election. Is that really so difficult???

  85. avatar
    Greg May 7, 2010 at 10:42 am #

    In Plyler v. Doe (1982), we had the entire court agree that the equal protection clause of the Constitution applied to legal and illegal aliens alike because they were all “subject to the jurisdiction,” of the United States. The birther distinction between the domiciled in Wong and Obama Sr. is thus dead as a door-nail.

    Scalia has stated his view of “natural born,” within the oral argument of Nguyen v. INS. The oral arguments there had a brief discussion of the meaning of natural born, and Ginsburg made clear that she thought the phrase was broad enough to encompass the children born abroad to US citizens, like her grandson.

    Justice Stevens pointed out the absurdity of strict interpretation of the clause pretty neatly:

    Of course the interesting thing about that provision, it requires that he be natural born at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

    That’s what it literally says.

    As I’ve written before at least 6 of the 9 current justices have relied on Wong Kim Ark in decisions.

    Finally, it was clear to the Chief Justice and Justice Harlan, as they wrote in their dissent, that Justice Gray had made Wong Kim Ark eligible for the Presidency (a result they found troubling when put alongside Gray’s dicta that those born abroad to citizens were not natural born citizens).

  86. avatar
    Lupin May 7, 2010 at 10:47 am #

    You mean the Hollow Earth or Counter-Earth? πŸ™‚

  87. avatar
    Vince Treacy May 7, 2010 at 10:52 am #

    The state’s highest court declined to take Ankeny. So it is now eligible for review by the US Supreme Court.

    Why have not the birthers banded together to take this to a higher court?

    The Court could take it without regard to Article III standing, which applies only to federal courts.

    Why not?

  88. avatar
    Scientist May 7, 2010 at 10:55 am #

    They know it would be denied without oral arguments and that would turn off the PayPal tap and the ego strokes they get from the adoring fans. This way they can claim they would win if only…

  89. avatar
    richCares May 7, 2010 at 11:05 am #

    though this thread was about Gov Lingle, charo avoided that topic, Gov, Lingle, a Republican, campaigned for McCain and vouched for Obama’s Hawaian birth, yet, according to birthers, she lied about Obama. What is charo’s view on that. Hating Obama appears to be a serious illness.

  90. avatar
    Whatever4 May 7, 2010 at 11:05 am #

    In the oral arguments of Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, Justice Scalia talks about jus soli.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/supreme-court-justice-scalia-believes-natural-born-citizenship-is-jus-soli/

    In Miller v. Albright, at least 5 justices mentioned Wong approvingly. See Greg’s comment, about halfway down, at this link: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/08/the-long-form-reconstructed/

  91. avatar
    Mary Brown May 7, 2010 at 11:58 am #

    They can’t release the info Scott or Scotta. The governor is a Republican and I assume she wanted to check it out for herself. I would. She has the authority to do so. Why did she add the hospital? That information was most likely included after the certificate had been viewed. Believe me, if this Governor found out that the President was not born in Hawaii we would know. She was campaigning for Senator McCain and she did the prudent thing. She checked the records to be sure. It is over, Scott or Scotta.

  92. avatar
    nbc May 7, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    Yes, it seems beyond reasonable doubt that the Justices understand the jus soli foundation of United States citizenship.
    From the early days to the present day…

    Poor birthers. The facts are not too kind to them

  93. avatar
    Black Lion May 7, 2010 at 12:09 pm #

    Rich, you should see how the freepers are going ballistic in regards to Gov. Lingle’s statement. Which leads me to the following observation. When so called Kenyan officials make statements that somehow Obama was a son of the soil or a Kenyan born individual, the birthers believe them without demanding any proof. The say that these statements are proof that Obama was born in Kenya and is a foriegner and a usurper. Yet when Governor Lingle or Dr. Fukino, both who are HI elected officials and Republicans, state that President Obama was born in HI, then they must be lying, part of some conspiracy, just verifying incorrect inofrmation, or a myriad of other conspiracy theories which tend to doubt their word. It is really amazing. So Gov. Lingle or Dr. Fukino make a statement, we need some additional proof. But some unknown Kenyan official makes a statement, it is the gospel. Hypocrisy anyone?

  94. avatar
    Black Lion May 7, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

    Or maybe the justices read Madison….

    ““It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

    James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)

  95. avatar
    Black Lion May 7, 2010 at 12:13 pm #

    Link to FR….

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2507745/posts

  96. avatar
    Mary Brown May 7, 2010 at 12:14 pm #

    As governor, she has the right to see that. Just like the President has the right to see information the rest of us cannot. After all, if President Obama had claimed to be born in Hawaii and was not, he lied. She did the prudent thing, she checked it out. She went to the person who headed the department and asked for the information. She got it. John, the governor, is a Republican, and a loyal one. This is over. The sad thing is that you people have contributed to the belief that the whole Republican Party is populated with racists and conspiracy theorists. John, this is over.

  97. avatar
    misha May 7, 2010 at 12:24 pm #

    “The sad thing is that you people have contributed to the belief that the whole Republican Party is populated with racists and conspiracy theorists.”

    No, just between 30-48%.

  98. avatar
    Mary Brown May 7, 2010 at 12:29 pm #

    The requirements for the Presidency do not include the name of the father. Yet I don’t understand why his father would have visited him when he was 10 if this child were not his. He would not have been welcomed as member of his father’s family if he were not. Remember he visited before he ever thought of running for President. This nonsense is becoming a plus for the President. He has behaved like an adult telling the truth. Sometimes silence is best. I would refer you to the silence of Jesus at Herod’s palace. When you are dealing with people with some of Herod’s moral qualities silence is best. Remember Herod asked for a miracle. Jesus refused. He was silent. Birthers are like Herod in that they are interested in their own entertainment and gratification. Like, Herod, not proof will ever satisfy them.

  99. avatar
    Mary Brown May 7, 2010 at 12:34 pm #

    Let’s see if they are willing to take your advice.

  100. avatar
    Bob Ross May 7, 2010 at 1:05 pm #

    It appears so. It looks like he thinks you support his position. Great site though NBC. I found yours before I came here.

  101. avatar
    richCares May 7, 2010 at 1:06 pm #

    some time ago I logged on to Freeper, then my email started filling up with viagra, cialis, etc ads, so many that I had to change my email. I will never log on to any birther site again.

  102. avatar
    nbC May 7, 2010 at 1:27 pm #

    Thanks…
    This shows how little research these poor birthers do as long as they can find something that on the surface appears to be supporting their ignorance.

    I guess John never read the commentary I added to the video.
    Sarcasm is often wasted on those who hold to foolish opinions.

  103. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 2:13 pm #

    I think that any “birther” who treads water here will ultimately drown in the animosity. But one enters at one’s own risk.

  104. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 2:37 pm #

    “Generate a certificate”? And all the officials of the Hawaiian state government (Republicans) would not only keep quiet about it, but go out and actively vouch for it.

    <<< They have not vouched for the COLB released electronically. The scenario that I put forth focused on the identity of the father and I never once claimed that the father's identity had anything to do with the birthplace of Obama. When I said generate a COLB, I didn't mean the DoH fabricated one but an individual, such as the one who came up with fake Obama birth certificate from an Australian one.

    ". It’s the mother who says who the father is and that’s what goes on the birth records."

    Exactly.

    "I can confidently say that of the 69,000,000 who voted for Obama, fewer than 100 would have changed their vote based on who his biological Dad was."

    You are leaving out the idea that Candidate Obama presented his life story with Obama Sr. as his father. I completely agree that most people don't care if a child is born illegitimately. That is not the point. I stated my reasons for my question about the parentage:

    1) different spelling of father and son's name

    -the article itself and the introduction to Obama Sr. prior to the article has the spelling as Barak.

    -Obama Sr.'s signature, well, I gave my take on it

    These have been addressed already.

    2) Obama Sr. had no role in the life of his "son." The visit at age 10 is not evidence of a father-son relationship. He was married to the mom and this one visit could be nothing more than a visit with his ex-wife's son.

    3) Relating to number 2), Michelle Obama said that President Obama's mother was "very single" when she had him. Assuming she wasn't speaking literally, she certainly meant something.

    4) There is no verification that the Obama campaign requested the COLB that was released. The information that Fukino and Lingle have vouched for does not conflict with the theory.

    5) I have said all of this before. You and others have said what you had to say. There is nothing further to advance here, at least for me.

    "Now tell Leo and Mario to put that in their pipes and smoke it."

    They are not on my speed dial.

  105. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 2:41 pm #

    Not necessarily.

    It depends on the reputation that “birther” builds on here with their actions.

    If a healthy dialog is demonstrated with honest replies back & forth and responsiveness to direct questions, you should be just fine, even if your viewpoints differ.

    However, most birthers don’t actually come here for dialog. It quickly becomes apparent that they have a troll based agenda and they often fuel hostility that gets directed back at them.

  106. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 2:53 pm #

    I’ll take Counter-Earth & the 1970’s costume-tripping Adam Warlock! Of course, we’d have to somehow get it back from the Beyonders first. πŸ˜‰

  107. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 2:55 pm #

    “What on the “long form” would make any difference in terms of eligibility?”

    Please read my response to Scientist above. Additionally, I said release the long form when I saw that Gov. Lingle officially released the name of the hospital. I can’t believe that you see anything wrong with confirming what has already been released. When I have had to show my identification for various occasions throughout my life, often the other party knew it was just a formality. I had to show my driver’s license to get cough syrup at the store!

    Many people in the 6th category that you seem to now recognize will be satisfied. It would do nothing to hurt President Obama. This business about “he has other things to worry about” is ridiculous. It would take none of his time. He has people working for him and really, how many HOURS do you think this would take? I have always seen that as a bogus argument.

    There are more average people than you think who fall into that “other” category.

    I have always had a questioning mind. I have accomplished quite a bit in my life, but I know now that I should have pursued a journalism degree. I don’t think my questions are completely unwarranted. You do, obviously.

    Not that this is your style, but you (the general you) can’t bully people accepting what you want them to accept. This is where the charge of racism comes in loud and clear here, and again, I am not accusing you of making that charge to me. I want every candidate to prove who they are from now on. This should have always been done.

    What do you think President Bush would be accused of if he made a make fuss about presenting his birth certificate now? McCain isn’t all that comfortable with the birth certificate issue because he fought it first. He should show his also.

  108. avatar
    nbc May 7, 2010 at 2:56 pm #

    Charo: They have not vouched for the COLB released electronically.

    Well, yes and no. Initially the response was that it was real, however then the officials may have remembered that they cannot make such revelations under privacy laws.

    So far we know that most of the data released on the COLB has been confirmed independently. And the icing on the cake is that the certificate number is close to births around the same time the Hawaiian hospital.

    Logic and reason.

    There is no reason to believe that the COLB that was released was somehow forged as it had all the requisite parts, including the raised seal and the signature, making the document a prima facie legal document that would be accepted under the Federal Rules of Evidence as ‘self authenticating’.
    That the DOH has certified the relevant information only strengthens its value.

  109. avatar
    Scientist May 7, 2010 at 3:00 pm #

    When I said generate a COLB, I didn’t mean the DoH fabricated one but an individual, such as the one who came up with fake Obama birth certificate from an Australian one.

    If someone generated a state document for fraudulent intent (as opposed to as a satire) state officials would have a duty to investigate and prosecute. If a COLB had not been requested, Hawaiian officials would know that the one shown in the image was false. Since they not only did not call it a fraud, but verified the information contained in it, you have your answer. A COLB was requested and the image shown conforms with what Hawaii issued. Simple, really, if you are willing to use the old noodle.

  110. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 3:01 pm #

    Scientist, I believe you are educated enough to know that the Justices never talk about the cases and why they didn’t take them.

    “Is that really so difficult???”

    I am, after all, a birther in your eyes. Wasn’t that a silly question?

  111. avatar
    nbc May 7, 2010 at 3:01 pm #

    Please read my response to Scientist above. Additionally, I said release the long form when I saw that Gov. Lingle officially released the name of the hospital. I can’t believe that you see anything wrong with confirming what has already been released.

    Other than that by State Law they cannot release the document. Even if they accidentally revealed data that should have remained protected by privacy laws.

    Born on US soil, born in Kapi’olani Hospital. No wonder the birthers are moving towards the dualers position which has no foundation in US law but is the last line of defense left before they have to accept the facts that Obama was by all reasonable and legal evidence a natural born citizen.

  112. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

    I asked for information outside of case law- specifically, comments, quotes from the Justices to demonstrate that this is indeed, settled law.

  113. avatar
    nbc May 7, 2010 at 3:03 pm #

    I have always had a questioning mind. I have accomplished quite a bit in my life, but I know now that I should have pursued a journalism degree. I don’t think my questions are completely unwarranted. You do, obviously.

    Your questions are good but irrelevant unless you can do some of the work to answer them. Recently I have noticed how so called ‘reporters’ do nothing more than ask ‘questions’ without presenting much of the facts. WND and P&E come to mind as examples of what I consider to be a somewhat cowardly form of ‘reporting’.

  114. avatar
    Black Lion May 7, 2010 at 3:03 pm #

    Charo says…

    3) Relating to number 2), Michelle Obama said that President Obama’s mother was “very single” when she had him. Assuming she wasn’t speaking literally, she certainly meant something.

    And the Governor and Director of Health have stated that President Obama was BORN in Hawaii….Secondly there is a documented divorce decree from the state of HI between Barack Obama (note the spelling) and Stanley Ann Dunham. So no matter what Michelle Obama may have said (and she was not there so her statement is hearsay) the factual evidence shows that there was a marriage and his father spelled his name Barack.

    4) There is no verification that the Obama campaign requested the COLB that was released. The information that Fukino and Lingle have vouched for does not conflict with the theory.

    And what does this matter? Again you are focused on irrelevant information. It doesn’t matter whether or not they confirm that the campaign requested a copy of the COLB. What matters is that the only person in a position to see and comment on the COLB stated that she viewed the records and President Obama was BORN IN HAWAII. The governor of HI confirmed that the President was born there. So focusing on some imaginary lack of comment on a reciept (sounds like Phil from tROSL) fails to address the evidence from the state officials….

    5) I have said all of this before. You and others have said what you had to say. There is nothing further to advance here, at least for me.

    Your first legitimate statement. You can choose to focus on an unsourced document from some website alleging that the so called paper was written by the President’s father and he spelled his name Barak. Or you could note the legally admissible evidence from the state of HI, the COLB and the divorce papers which spelled his name Barack. I would imagine that if it was spelled wrong he would have mentioned it. In addition if he really didn’t spell is name Barack, why hasn’t any of the President’s Kenyan relatives mentioned it? You would think that one of them would have stated that the name Barack was spelled wrong. But they haven’t. All of your so called evidence is based on your opinion of the spelling and one so called paper. That is paper thin. No matter why you state that there is nothing further to advance. Because you really don’t have much to support your contention.

  115. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 3:04 pm #

    I think (well, if birther is allowed to have thoughts attributed to them) that the underlying issue of the case concerned the application of a statute that was a really weak argument. The Court could throw the case out based strictly on the statutory argument and never get to the NBC issue.

  116. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 3:06 pm #

    I can’t believe someone gave a thumbs up. At least try a more creative insult. You can better!

    I think I have answered your question in a reply either to Scientist or G.

  117. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 3:07 pm #

    You can DO better- see that’s why I am a birther- duh

  118. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 3:08 pm #

    I asked for public comments, not case law, if this was directed at me.

  119. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 3:12 pm #

    Then there is no worry- I wish it would have been attached to one of the Motions to Dismiss in the lawsuits.

  120. avatar
    Black Lion May 7, 2010 at 3:12 pm #

    Agreed…those sites use terms like “it has been said” or “some have speculated” to advance wild theories with no basis in fact at all. Those sites are nothing other than hate filled yellow journalism….

  121. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 3:16 pm #

    Scientist,

    You are speculating that they would pursue fraud charges if they knew they didn’t release the COLB. If it wasn’t done immediately, then they would be hard-pressed to state why it wasn’t done right off the bat.

    Politics you know. Have I been elevated to actually having a noodle to use? Naah, just wishful thinking on my part.

  122. avatar
    Black Lion May 7, 2010 at 3:16 pm #

    Because in the eyes of the court thers is no NBC issue. Only the birthers think there is some sort of issue. Real legal scholars have realized that this issue was decided in 1898 in the Wong ruling and there is no need to revisit the issue. However more important is that there is the need to follow the rule of law. And in that case the Plaintiff needs to show standing, and that will never happen. The essential issue is that the so called birther attorney’s are not real lawyers, so they misread the law and think that their belief is the law, when it is not…

  123. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 3:17 pm #

    “I would imagine that if it was spelled wrong he would have mentioned it.”

    -Key word- Imagine.

    “You would think that one of them would have stated that the name Barack was spelled wrong.”

    No, I wouldn’t think- oh, wait a minute. Can those words be used against me in a court of law?

    I don’t know if they saw the divorce papers.

  124. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 3:18 pm #

    “No wonder the birthers are moving towards the dualers position”

    Broad brush alert!

  125. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 3:19 pm #

    Fair enough! That at least is an understandable and reasonable position, which differs you from most true “birthers”, who would just become angry if a judge actually ruled the COLB was legit and would retreat to all their tired old fallback excuses that suddenly the COLB doesn’t matter.

    For the true “birthers”, it is fairly evident that no amount of proof will satisfy their personal need to delegitimize Obama.

  126. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 3:22 pm #

    Real legal scholars have realized that this issue was decided in 1898

    Quite a long time for some kind of statements from any Justices (outside of case law) discussing this issue because of the demographics today, proposed legislation, and immigration. Why is there no public comment about this settled law?

  127. avatar
    Black Lion May 7, 2010 at 3:23 pm #

    Meaning what? You may do it politely, but you are basically playing the “concern troll” game. Which you are here to “just ask questions”, and when you get your answer, you seem to find fault with the answer. The most obvious example of this is the entire “Barack vs Barak” name spelling nonsense….Even after your so called evidence was mostly eviserated, your response was that you will basically believe what you feel anwyay….Which is OK because you are entitled to your own beliefs. But then don’t pretend to equate Kenyan officals statements or a expression by Michelle to mean that the President was born in Kenya or his mother was unmarried. Especially with the mountain of evidences that shows otherwise…

  128. avatar
    Greg May 7, 2010 at 3:26 pm #

    -the article itself and the introduction to Obama Sr. prior to the article has the spelling as Barak.

    Contrasted with another, independently published article by the Government of Kenya which spelled it Barack.

    He worked for the Government of Kenya, charo, don’t you think he’d spend more time making sure that his employer got his name right on his paychecks than a journal printing an article in which he isn’t even the principal author?

    There’s more proof that Barack Sr. is Obama’s dad than there is that William Jefferson Blythe, Sr. was Bill Clinton’s dad.

    1. We’ve never seen Bill Clinton’s birth certificate.
    2. Bill was born at home.
    3. No witnesses have come forward to testify what happened on that fateful day.
    4. William Sr. died 3 months before Bill was born. How convenient! Clinton death-count starts early. How much of a father could he have been if he got himself killed in a car-crash before Bill was born!
    5. William Sr. was married three times before he married Bill’s mom. She, allegedly, never knew about those three previous marriages. Likely story. His last marriage overlapped his marriage to Bill’s mom. The divorce was not finalized until April 13, 1944. His marriage to Bill’s mom was on September 3, 1943.
    6. Bill changed his name from Blythe to Clinton.
    7. No one has ever seen the legal name change document. Bill claims in his autobiography that he used the name Clinton for almost 10 years before getting it formally changed. That sounds like fraud to me.

    When I put on my birther hat, I see a mother who found out that she’d gotten pregnant by another man (Blythe was a traveling salesman, away from the house a lot) and when she told Blythe, she learned of his previous marriages. She then learned that her marriage was a sham. She arranged to have her “husband” run off the road. He survived the crash, but drowned in a drainage ditch after the “accident.”

    So, who knows who Bill’s dad really is. He could have been a foreigner. Bill did claim to be the first black president. His dad could even have been an ambassador!

  129. avatar
    Black Lion May 7, 2010 at 3:28 pm #

    Meaning what exactly? There are no comments because it is settled law. Just like Brown v. Board of Ed or Roe v. Wade. Should we have public comments on those rulings also? The SCOTUS ruling is binding unless the Court somehow felt that it is necessary to revisit the issue. In this case they haven’t felt the need. And the only people with issues are the politicans and the so called birthers. Which is why the child of illegal immigrants are natural born citizens of the US. You may not like the law but it is the law.

  130. avatar
    Greg May 7, 2010 at 3:30 pm #

    Sorry, Obama Sr. was the only author on his paper. I was confused by the author biographies at the front.

  131. avatar
    Greg May 7, 2010 at 3:35 pm #

    You can’t please all of the people all of the time.

    Would you be pleased to see his long form? Maybe. Would you vote for him if you saw his long form? Probably not.

    Is there a voter out there who would be happy if Obama released a statement saying that furryism is a totally normal paraphilia? Probably.

    Obama has a lot of staffers, yes, but they’re also busy people. When the White House staffers get around to dealing with birthers or furries, I’ll know that they’ve finished work on everything else and that there is finally world peace!

  132. avatar
    Black Lion May 7, 2010 at 3:36 pm #

    Is that your answer? The family has seen his name spelled Barack for years. Both the President and his father has had that spelling addressed to them and at NO TIME has anyone of them ever said that the name was spelled wrong.

    You are right I did imagine. Why? Because not one piece of paper from the US, the COLB, the HI Vital Records, the divorce decree, and the newspaper article spelled it anyway but Barack. At any time Sr. would have seen that spelling and if it was wrong would have mentioned it to someone. That fact that he didn’t is PROOF that he did not have an issue with how his name was spelled.

    You assume a great deal to believe that you somehow know more that he did, his family does, and the state of HI does regarding how the name Barack is supposed to be spelled. You might want to move on to something else because this issue is like beating a dead horse. Not only don’t you have any evidence that it was misspelled, you don’t have anything admissible which shows any kind of an alternative spelling. Too bad. Nice try though…

  133. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 3:39 pm #

    .Even after your so called evidence was mostly eviserated,

    I would disagree with that.

    “But then don’t pretend to equate Kenyan officals statements or a expression by Michelle to mean that the President was born in Kenya or his mother was unmarried.”

    Where did I say that Michelle Obama’s statement meant that he was born in Kenya? See, you read somewhere else that Michelle Obama made a statement that others (probably from another website) were trying to use to show that Obama was born in Kenya. I never mentioned that statement here (except in this sentence).

    You are the one not participating in honest debate when you attribute something to me that I did not say.

    Don’t count on me to respond any more to you.

  134. avatar
    Black Lion May 7, 2010 at 3:46 pm #

    It is your choice whether or not you respond. I could care less. Your quote regarding Michelle was about you believing that the President’s mother was a “single when she became pregnant”. I pointed out to you that there is an offical marriage and divorce on file with the state of HI, so it really didn’t matter what Michelle said because she wasn’t there and the evidence shows that the President’s parents were married. An offical marriage license and divorce decree is basically eviserating your so called Michelle quote from having any sort of evidentary value here at all. I am sure you won’t agree but you also believe somehow that on unsourced paper from Africa is somehow more probative in value as evidence than offical documents from the state of HI. So I rest my case.

  135. avatar
    Greg May 7, 2010 at 3:49 pm #

    So, you want a comment outside of case law and outside of oral argument showing that an issue is well-settled law?

    A. Judges don’t generally comment on legal issues for fear that they might come up in court one day.
    B. Supreme Court judges, especially, keep their opinions to themselves as much as they can.
    C. One wouldn’t expect a non-controversial issue to come up in conversation that often.

    “Well, Joe, it’s entirely settled that the world is round, so let’s get lunch!”

    I have scoured the legal journals and haven’t found a single source suggesting that someone born after the 14th Amendment was written to alien parents could be anything but a natural born citizen. I’ve seen several articles say, in effect, “obviously those born here, even to alien parents are eligible for the Presidency.”

    There has been a bona fide legal debate about whether those born abroad to U.S. citizens are eligible. I could see a Supreme Court justice, possibly, opining about that debate. The fact that they haven’t opined about the settled law suggests that it is settled law!

  136. avatar
    Scientist May 7, 2010 at 3:49 pm #

    Why is there no public comment about this settled law?

    For the same reason that astronomers don’t give seminars on the fact that the Sun rises in the East.

    The fact is they swore Obama in. There would seem to be only 2 possibilities:

    1. They thought he was eligible, Leo Donofrio’s opinions, notwithstanding.
    2. They thought he was ineligible, but don’t care.

    I would say the odds favor #1 by 100:1, but if it was #2 then you need to consider that perhaps the entire question is unimportant. Or, that the justices are idiots, in which case, why do you care what they have to say?

  137. avatar
    nbc May 7, 2010 at 3:56 pm #

    Charo: Quite a long time for some kind of statements from any Justices (outside of case law) discussing this issue because of the demographics today, proposed legislation, and immigration. Why is there no public comment about this settled law?

    Over time the Courts have continued to refer to Wong Kim Ark and indicated that indeed Jus Soli, or birth on US soil is what guides citizenship in the United States. Scholars have done so as well.

    Some recent legislation has revived the attempts to use a statute to repeal part of an amendment whose purpose and intent was clear.

    Do you think that the average joe schmoe has any understanding of US law, settled or not? And those who attempt to ‘learn’ take notice of websites that are hardly meant to educate.

  138. avatar
    nbc May 7, 2010 at 3:59 pm #

    A valid observation as it allows you to avoide dealing with the issues.
    That’s too bad but sometimes it is easier to point out that someone is perhaps using too broad a brush.
    But the observation is nevertheless valid, birthers are moving more and more to the born to 2 citizens argument now that the Kenya born or lost citizenship arguments have been rebutted.
    I can however understand why you would not be interested in defending the somewhat foolish position of the dualers.

  139. avatar
    nbc May 7, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    You are speculating that they would pursue fraud charges if they knew they didn’t release the COLB. If it wasn’t done immediately, then they would be hard-pressed to state why it wasn’t done right off the bat.

    We can of course all speculate but then again, there is no reason to believe that they did not release the COLB which had all the required features: security paper, signature and raised seal and which contained data that has been mostly confirmed through other sources.

    Furthermore, while the DOH spokesperson initially mentioned that the COLB was real, she subsequently backpedaled, realizing that her comments may have been in violation of HI privacy law.

  140. avatar
    Scientist May 7, 2010 at 4:05 pm #

    Why is it hard for you to believe that someone whose parents (mother if you want to believe that the father is in doubt) lived in Hawaii was born in Hawaii. I looked in our local paper at the birth announcements; of a couple of hundred every one of the mothers lived locally. Everyone in my family and friends gave birth in the area they lived in. That includes immigrants who have tied to various places overseas. So the odds are >99% (probably >99.9%) that Barack Obama was born where his mother lived (Honolulu). Every pharmaceutical on the market has been shown safe and effective at only 95%. So, from a statistical standpoint, I can say with confidence that even if he never released a birth certificate, Barack Obama was born where his mother lived-Honolulu.

  141. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 4:12 pm #

    Over time the Courts have continued to refer to Wong Kim Ark and indicated that indeed Jus Soli, or birth on US soil is what guides citizenship in the United States. Scholars have done so as well.

    – I am asking for public comments by Supreme Court Justices, particularly the recent Justices.

  142. avatar
    SFJeff May 7, 2010 at 4:13 pm #

    “I had to show my driver’s license to get cough syrup at the store!”

    What if the store clerk suddenly told you that your driver’s license was [not] sufficient? What [if] he said you needed to prove your driver’s license was not forged? Or that you didn’t obtain it fraudulently? Or that you needed to provide your long form of your BC in order to get cough syrup?

    What if a random person on the street stopped you and demanded you show him your driver’s license?

    Because that’s what you are asking. The President has already provided the document that would be accepted in any court proceedings, even though he was not legally obliged to provide it.

    The President provided the certified copy of his BC, and Birthers called it a fraud. He probably realizes it would waste even more time trying to persuade people who are already convinced he is a Kenyan native that he isn’t. He has no obligation, and is clearly ignoring the Birthers- as he should.

    “I want every candidate to prove who they are from now on. ”

    I have no real objection to a comprehensive requirement like that- heck you could even ask all candidates to voluntarily provide the evidence- but who would be the judge of whether the evidence is sufficient? Frankly a certified copy of a birth certificate is sufficient for everything else now, but apparently that is not sufficient for establishing that a Presidential candidate was born in the United States. But in theory I have no objection going forward. I do object to this retroactive demand- because at face value it does appear to have a racial motivation or ethnic motivation.

    “What do you think President Bush would be accused of if he made a make fuss about presenting his birth certificate now?”

    If some left wingnuts had demanded President Bush’s birth certificate I think they would have been laughed off any podium they had been on. In my opinion? Bush wouldn’t have deigned to even acknowledge if a Dennis Kusinovich had demanded to see his BC.

  143. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    “The fact is they swore Obama in. There would seem to be only 2 possibilities:”

    Or three- it wasn’t their job to intervene- or four- they had no viable case to act upon and could not stop the swearing in (individually, they have their own positions which may or may not be unified)

  144. avatar
    Scientist May 7, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    They swore Obama in. That was in public in front of 2 million people in the flesh and at least a billion on TV. Are you so obtuse that you don’t know how to interpret that???

    Let me help you- THEY THINK HE’S ELIGIBLE

  145. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 4:18 pm #

    “The fact that they haven’t opined about the settled law suggests that it is settled law!”

    I completely disagree because of the importance of the NBC issue today.

    At this point, I am scanning and not being thorough in my response. Since I am the lone wolf here, I am fending off questions all over the place. I simply can’t keep up with the pace now.

  146. avatar
    Scientist May 7, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    The Constitution does not require a President to be sworn in by the Chief justice, not for any Justices to attend. They could have stayed away. If they attended and participated in putting in place someone they considered is not rightfully in office, then why would you attach any value to theur opinions?

    You make no sense whatsoever. Are you taking your meds???

  147. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 4:21 pm #

    What do you think President Bush would be accused of if he made a make fuss about presenting his birth certificate now?

    Key word NOW.

  148. avatar
    Scientist May 7, 2010 at 4:21 pm #

    I completely disagree because of the importance of the NBC issue today.

    It’s actually quite unimportant. Of the top 50 issues facing the world, it ranks #6,879.

  149. avatar
    SFJeff May 7, 2010 at 4:22 pm #

    “Or three- it wasn’t their job to intervene- or four- they had no viable case to act upon and could not stop the swearing in (individually, they have their own positions which may or may not be unified)”

    Lets not forget #4- all of the Supreme Court Justices are in the employment of the same foreign power that planted Obama as our President.

    #5- President Obama used mind control to prevent the Justices from revealing their objections
    #6- The Supreme Court justices all secretly hate the NBC clause, and have conspired to silently ignore the violation of the Constitution
    #7- Fluoride in our water…nuff said.

  150. avatar
    SFJeff May 7, 2010 at 4:25 pm #

    Well it would be different now that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney don’t sit in the room with him. I suspect Barbara would tell him that he wouldn’t be pandering to the whacko left if he displayed his BC in the Presidential Library.

    On the other hand, if I sent him a letter asking for a copy of his BC, I doubt I would get anything more than a polite form letter thanking me for my interest.

  151. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 4:32 pm #

    It is your choice whether or not you respond. I could care less. Your quote regarding Michelle was about you believing that the President’s mother was a “single when she became pregnant”. I pointed out to you that there is an offical marriage and divorce on file with the state of HI, so it really didn’t matter what Michelle said because she wasn’t there and the evidence shows that the President’s parents were married. An offical marriage license and divorce decree is basically eviserating your so called Michelle quote from having any sort of evidentary value here at all. I am sure you won’t agree but you also believe somehow that on unsourced paper from Africa is somehow more probative in value as evidence than offical documents from the state of HI. So I rest my case.

    – I never said she was a single mom when she got pregnant. I quoted HER stating that she was very single when she HAD him. I never said there was NO marriage but that it was a marriage in name only and that it was over by the birth. I was the one who initially pointed out that the divorce caption used the spelling Barack, but that was in conflict with other evidence. I am sure his family living in KENYA had copied of the divorce papers- right. Maybe the incorrect spelling on the divorce papers was inconsequential to Obama Sr.

    I am glad you are not on my side anyways because you would butcher everything up. Maybe a ploy to get me to talk to you? I think if others noticed your errors, there wouldn’t be any correction anyways.

    So, a disclaimer: Any time Black Lion quotes me, check to see that he is correct if you really want an honest debate.

  152. avatar
    Black Lion May 7, 2010 at 4:32 pm #

    Charo says…

    “I completely disagree because of the importance of the NBC issue today.”

    And it is your right to disagree….But unfortunately you disagreeing means nothing. The SCOTUS has ruled on what they consider a NBC to be. And for over 100 years everyone was happy with that. But in 2008 all of a sudden a very small minority wants to redefine the term NBC. But there is no legitimate legal scholar which agrees with them. So they allign themselves with cranks, poker players, and online school nugjobs pretending to be legal experts to somehow get a court to revisit an issue which has been determined for years. You would think that the lack of legal scholars that even agree with them would be a tip off that maybe they are wrong. But in their delusional mind all then can see is conspiracies and judges paid off by George Soros and ACORN. The bottom line whether you want to believe it or not is that someone born in the US is a NBC with 2 minor exceptions. No number of whining is going to change that.

  153. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 4:35 pm #

    Well said, SFJeff. I agree with all of what you’ve said in your responses on this.

  154. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 4:37 pm #

    That doesn’t respond to what I have said at all.

    I really can’t adequately respond to so many comments at once so, I’ll just have to go.

    Disclaimer- just because I didn’t respond doesn’t mean I agree. Maybe I do, maybe I don’t, or maybe I agree in part.

    I don’t think you guys really want anyone here but yourselves.

    I’ll have to file a discrimination suit- class action-I must hire Orly Taitz- that’s what all birthers do- I have her picture in my house and tithe to her pay pal button….

  155. avatar
    Scientist May 7, 2010 at 4:41 pm #

    By the way, the notion that we have to “know more about presidential candidates” is preposterous. US election campaigns last much longer than campaigns in other countries and cost much more. It would be hard to say the end result is any better. We know entirely too much about recent Presidents-their sex life, worthless relatives, celebrity pals, astrological consultations. I want to know what they are going to do for the country. Period. End of story.

  156. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 4:44 pm #

    charo,

    I have seen a pattern now of where you are not necessarily playing fair.

    We are all human and prone to make mistakes here and there. An honest person will admit a mistake when pointed out, correct it and move forward.

    You yourself have pointed out how, with all the comments and threads on here, it can become a challenge to follow and respond to every point someone was making. Please acknowledge that we all share this challenge.

    It is not fair for you to completely dismiss a whole person and all of their arguments just because they made a mistake in attributing a point within their conversation.

    You did the right first step of pointing out that there was a mistake. Now let the person respond to that. Sometimes, there will be a dialog of disagreement and further info to clarify. That is a proper process of dialog.

    You are being unfair to completely dismiss someone without giving them sufficient chance to clarify and correct when necessary.

    Please give others the same benefit of the doubt that you want to reserve for yourself.

  157. avatar
    Black Lion May 7, 2010 at 4:45 pm #

    Charo says…

    “I never said she was a single mom when she got pregnant. I quoted HER stating that she was very single when she HAD him.”

    And I never said that you said otherwise. You never clarified what you were intending to mean with quoting Michelle’s statement. Saying that she was single when she had him to most would imply that you were attempting to portray her as being single.

    I never said there was NO marriage but that it was a marriage in name only and that it was over by the birth.

    Which is meaningless for anything other than to slander the mother of the President. What was your point? To say that his dad was not there for his birth so that was why the certificate was misspelled, which means that somehow there was some sort of irregularities going on? You need to make your point more clear.

    “I was the one who initially pointed out that the divorce caption used the spelling Barack, but that was in conflict with other evidence.”

    And I pointed out to you that the spelling in the divorce decree was consistent with all of the other known and attributed documentation to Barack Sr, and the spelling was consistent. Again so what was your point?

    I am sure his family living in KENYA had copied of the divorce papers- right. Maybe the incorrect spelling on the divorce papers was inconsequential to Obama Sr.

    Or more likely that it was spelled correctly. What I can’t understand is your insistence on still pushing this wrong spelling issue. You have no proof that it was spelled incorrectly. All of the legal documentation from HI spelled it Barack. Abercrombie, who knew Barack Sr. at HI spelled it Barack. So continuing to push a discredit point is interesting to say the least.

    “I am glad you are not on my side anyways because you would butcher everything up. Maybe a ploy to get me to talk to you? I think if others noticed your errors, there wouldn’t be any correction anyways.”

    Sides? Are we in first grade. I am on no side but the law and what makes sense. I have also been posting her a lot longer than you have and have had no issues. I could care less if you talk to me or not or if you take your ball and go running home to Mommy. I did not misquote you at all. You were not very clear with your point. I just when with your commentary. If you didn’t like it then so what. Deal with it.

  158. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 4:45 pm #

    I’ll have to file a discrimination suit- class action-I must hire Orly Taitz- that’s what all birthers do- I have her picture in my house and tithe to her pay pal button….

    Now that was funny!

  159. avatar
    nemocapn May 7, 2010 at 4:45 pm #

    Yes, we share a common humanity. “Common ancestor” is pretty vague. I guess you could claim Adam as your common ancestor with Obama.

    I wish you’d have Palin try first, though. It could provide hours of entertainment no matter what happens. At the very least, it could force Hawaii to tighten up their definition of “a person having a common ancestor with the registrant.” If they don’t want anyone beyond a first cousin to have access to the records until the 75 years are up, the law should explicitly state it. That would be a good thing.

    If Palin can get the records according to the laws of the state of Hawaii, good for her. She’ll just end up with the same kind of certificate Obama has already provided.

  160. avatar
    Black Lion May 7, 2010 at 4:48 pm #

    G, if you saw the point I never claimed that Michelle said he was born in Kenya. I attributed the birth comment correctly. I however made an assumption regarding her comments that she was attempting to imply that the President’s mother was not married. If that was not the case then I did make the wrong assumption and I will accept that. However I would like to point out that she never exactly made a point in regards to Michelles statement regarding what exactly it was supposed to mean. Maybe Charo should make her point a bit more clear. Just a suggestion.

  161. avatar
    Black Lion May 7, 2010 at 4:50 pm #

    Correction. I never claimed that Charo said that Michelle had stated he was born in Kenya. I did say she used the single mom quote.

  162. avatar
    Greg May 7, 2010 at 4:52 pm #

    In 2008, the University of Michigan Law School got together a bunch of scholars to debate the issue of McCain’s eligibility.

    Nobody even hinted that Obama could be ineligible.

    Just because an issue seems important to you doesn’t make it a real issue of debate in the legal community.

    There is a real debate about whether the foreign-born children of U.S. citizens are natural born. By contrast, Jill Pryor’s 1988 article pretty much sums up the state of the argument:

    It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.

    There is a real debate about whether the U.S.-born-children of illegal aliens become citizens at all.

    As far as I can tell, in the century since Wong Kim Ark has been decided, there has been a single “scholar” who suggested that a person born (before the 14th Amendment was written) to alien parents might become a citizen but not a natural born citizen. No one has made a similar argument about those born after the 14th Amendment.

    The first issue has been discussed in oral argument before the Supreme Court. The second issue has been briefed in amicus briefs to the Supreme Court.

    In their discussion of the first, it seems clear that there is no disagreement about the jus soli meaning of NBC. Despite breathless briefs about the second issue (that terrorists born to guest workers being able to claim all the rights of an American citizen) the court didn’t spare the issue a word. They simply operated on the conclusion that someone born here was an American citizen.

    There is also a small issue about whether those born in Puerto Rico are eligible. Justice Thomas made a joke about that a couple of weeks ago. His joke was that they were evading the issue.

    Recently, I published a list of a few dozen of the articles I’d read about the issue. I can confidently say that whether the definition of NBC contains those born here to an alien father is not one of great importance to the legal community.

  163. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 4:58 pm #

    G asked Charo “What on the “long form” would make any difference in terms of eligibility?” to which you said, “Please read my response to Scientist above. Additionally, I said release the long form when I saw that Gov. Lingle officially released the name of the hospital.”

    Charo, are you referring to this response you gave Scientist?

    Scientist,
    You are speculating that they would pursue fraud charges if they knew they didn’t release the COLB. If it wasn’t done immediately, then they would be hard-pressed to state why it wasn’t done right off the bat.
    Politics you know. Have I been elevated to actually having a noodle to use? Naah, just wishful thinking on my part.

    If so, I think your answer is about possible fraud, which still doesn’t answer the question I actually asked, so, let me restate the key follow-up parts of my question that you left out:

    The “short form” already says Honolulu, HI. The “short form” only contains less fields of info from what the “long form” has. Any info it does present is the SAME on both. The DOH has verified HI as his birthplace. The newspaper articles found on his birth also say the same.

    So, every bit of info provided to date ALL says the same thing – HI. Nothing available disputes or contradicts the state of HI as his birthplace and that is all that is needed to confirm the simplest and most basic way to be born NBC, as HI is clearly a state of the USA.

    So again, my point is that the COLB already says Honolulu, HI. The COLB is an abstract taken directly from any “long form”. Therefore the “long form” would ASLO have to say Honolulu, HI. All other corroborating evidence from the newspaper birth announcements, the DOH and the GOP Governor of HI *also* say born in HI.

    Again, nothing changes “born in HI”. The issue here is presidential eligibility. HI is a state in the USA. Born in HI is NBC.

    So I will ask again, what difference would any additional info from a “long form” make in respect to presidential eligibility, as “born in Honolulu, HI” would NOT change at all.

    Anything else is just trivia details irrelevant to presidential eligibility.

  164. avatar
    Scientist May 7, 2010 at 5:18 pm #

    And the birther’s hope that there will be something “embarassing” on the long form (like that Obama Sr. is not the father) is completely silly. Since the COLB shows him as the father, the long form will as well. Only DNA testing could prove differently.

  165. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 5:38 pm #

    I can’t believe that you see anything wrong with confirming what has already been released.

    Well, this is simply a difference of how you & I view the matter.

    From my standpoint, he HAS confirmed what has already been released well beyond the point of what is necessary or reasonable.

    First of all, he never had to provide the PUBLIC with the COLB in the first place. No other president has ever done so. That was a step beyond that he himself took on his own.

    Second, after he announced such, his campaign posted the actual physical document in his campaign HQ with an open invitation & challenge for anyone who wasn’t satisfied to come directly there & inspect it for themselves. So that document was available there the whole time until the office was closed when the election was over. In that time, only a few small papers & places like factcheck.org bothered to take him up on his offer. Apparently, all actual news & poltical organizations had any further reason to question it, particularly after they say the full report and physical pictures from factcheck.org, so that alone speaks volumes that in a reasonable world, the folks that have always been following these issues were fully satisfied. Trust me, the news cycle thrives on controversy & salacious stories. Had there been any doubt or possible “story” there, they would have been all over it in a media frenzy. The man wasn’t president then, just a candidate and as past history has shown, any small drama of dirt about a candidates past or goofs will be played up endlessly for their sheer ratings value.

    I find it particularly telling that all the major “birther” players were already getting active before the election results came in, yet NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM would bother to go and see the document themselves. I think that says a lot about how much they would rather push their agenda rather than actually face the truth.

    WND even looked into the issue and initially released an article in August of 2008 that there was no controversy or problem with the document. However, as soon as the “birther” movement started to take off, they suddenly reversed course and started to market & sell products & stuff to take advantage of the issue and tried to deny that they ever published that prior article. Hmmm…. Seems a little convenient to me that at first they have no problems and then they hop onto a bandwagon when $$$ is involved.

    Robert Gibbs, who was his campaign spokesman before becoming the WH Press Secretary took these questions from the press on a number of occasions and backed up the document. Did he eventually stop answering the question? Yes, but only because as he said, he’s already answered the same question a number of times and there is no more to add.

    As his press has stated, WHICH the DOH has repeatedly backed up, the COLB document they provided is the ONLY form that HI provides anymore when you request a BC.

    The DOH, the Governor of HI have repeatedly backed this up. Their own DOH website has a whole FAQ on this & has backed this up endlessly. Any independent research has come to the same conclusion. The GOP HI Governor just restated this again.

    HIPPA & other privacy laws prevent any further details from being released. These laws apply to ALL citizens, including the president’s info.

    The document that factcheck.org physically inspected & photographed has ALL the certifications & seals required of such an official document. It is prima facie evidence, which means that it has to be accepted at “face value” and is backed by the full faith & credit clause, which means that all states & organizations have to accept that COLB document.

    The document clearly states the place of birth: HONOLULU, HI. All officials in HI have backed this up with their statements. No “long form” would say anything different in those regards, as all info on the COLB comes from what is on a “long form”.

    Therefore, from my perspective, this has been confirmed numerous times to the full legal extent that privacy laws allow such information to be released and confirmed.

    The only people that aren’t happy are the ones that WISH it weren’t true and keep wanting to ask the same question over and over again, hoping that somehow the answer might come back differently.

    From my perspective, its nothing short of exasperating and extremely insulting that Obama is treated to a different standard than anyone else and that people would rather take rumors and innuendo coming from agenda-driven players & websites over official government documents & departments. It doesn’t make any sense at all.

    The law in the USA has always been quite clear: innocent until proven guilty. In order to even bring a case or make charges, the BURDEN is on the ACCUSER to provide EVIDENCE sufficient to challenge.

    To date, there is no such evidence. All there is endless speculative scenarios that don’t amount to a hill of beans because they have nothing solid to back them up that contradicts in any way shape or form what has already been provided.

    Until then, it comes off as nothing but mean-spirited gossip by those who want to hate & discredit someone because they don’t like his views, his person or worse.

    Finally, I have yet to encounter a “birther” who actually voted for Obama. So aspersions being cast entirely by people who didn’t want him elected and would likely never vote for him anyways is highly suspicious to me.

  166. avatar
    nbc May 7, 2010 at 5:45 pm #

    Oh come on…

    Dr C has some relevant quotes on this topic on this site.

    I explained Scalia’s position that citizenship in the US is jus soli.

    I’d venture to say that most justices appreciate the jus soli concept.

    Ginsberg

    Scalia

    Where does SCOTUS stand

  167. avatar
    nbc May 7, 2010 at 5:47 pm #

    I completely disagree because of the importance of the NBC issue today.

    Why is NBC so important right now?
    And the Court over time has been quite clear and consistent. Why do you expect the court to disagree with well established precedent?

    That’s how our legal system works. Precedent

  168. avatar
    nemocapn May 7, 2010 at 5:49 pm #

    Why, Charo, would Obama not release his long form birth certificate?

    1) According to the state of Hawaii, they no longer provide a long form birth certificate to anyone. In their state, COLBs are legal birth certificates that meet all requirements in federal law to obtain documents like passports. It’s not Obama’s fault if the Dept. of Health won’t provide him with one.

    2) Even if he could get one, he’s met the legal burden of proof to prove that he was born in Honolulu, HI. It may not be proof enough for some people. There are things about his birth certificate that make you suspicious, but the law doesn’t dismiss proof that is legally sufficient just because someone is suspicious. At that point, the burden of proof is on the accuser to refute his evidence. Internet rumors aren’t proof.

    3) He’s a lawyer. Any good lawyer will try to avoid discovery even if there’s nothing to hide. Discovery is an expensive and time-consuming process, especially if the opposing party tries to obtain privileged information which is what many birther lawyers are trying to do. You want to prevent a fishing expedition and provide only what you are legally required by law to produce. In this case, he’s legally required to provide nothing. You may think from an ethical standpoint he should provide the long form as part of his promise of transparency, but he’s not legally required to do so.

    4) I suspect that Obama fully expects that in 2012 one or more states will demand to see his birth certificate or other proof of natural born citizenship. It could become a campaign issue, and if it does, he’ll address it then. Until then, why bother? It makes Republicans look silly which can only help in upcoming elections.

  169. avatar
    Randy May 7, 2010 at 5:53 pm #

    That was funny.

  170. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 6:01 pm #

    Many people in the 6th category that you seem to now recognize will be satisfied. It would do nothing to hurt President Obama.

    Well, I don’t consider the 6th category to be “True Birthers”, but folks who are influenced by suddenly thinking of these issues for the very first time in their lives and taking the sound-bites from the “true birthers” at “face value” as there are some reasonable arguments to initially make, until you actually go deeper under the hood and scratch beyond the surface.

    I don’t fault those like you for seeing some “surface logic” in some of the birther arguments, as long as you don’t get sucked into discounting facts which contradict or explain away the birther arguments when you dig deeper. If you start with a predetermined conclusion and discount anything that contradicts it, then you are not being honest with yourself. It is okay for you to ask questions and want to know why. Just as long as you realize that the answers you may find may not be the ones you were looking for and can accept that.

    Look, the laws have to be followed and respected. Right now, all the cases are frivolous and do not have standing, which is a key part of our laws. The courts can’t address the issue of the COLB without proper standing or jurisdiction or to violate existing privacy law. To do so violates the entire principal of our system of laws in the first place.

    That is just the first thing you need to understand and accept. Part of your frustration is that you are looking for answers that I hate to tell you, but you are just not entitled to by law. That is just reality.

    That being said, I think the nature of the issue will change in 2012, when he is running for reelection as a candidate, which I’m sure will open the door to some legitimate standing birther-generated challenges that will result in the courts ruling on the COLB itself.

    So, you just need to be patient and follow the law and process and I’m pretty confident you will get your wish in 2012 to have this answer addressed then at its proper time. If you are truly concerned with the validity of the document, that specific issue should be put to bed during that election cycle.

    My question to you is, if the judges then rule that the COLB is the proper legit, legal document and is perfectly acceptable as proof that he was born in HI, will you be satisfied?

  171. avatar
    Bob Weber May 7, 2010 at 6:10 pm #

    SCOTUS Justices are perfectly free to comment on a denial of writ cert. Doesn’t happen very often, but occasionally a justice will write a dissent from a denial and state his reasons why the case should have been taken up.

  172. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 6:17 pm #

    This business about “he has other things to worry about” is ridiculous. It would take none of his time. He has people working for him and really, how many HOURS do you think this would take? I have always seen that as a bogus argument.

    There are more average people than you think who fall into that “other” category.
    I have always had a questioning mind. I have accomplished quite a bit in my life, but I know now that I should have pursued a journalism degree. I don’t think my questions are completely unwarranted. You do, obviously.

    What are you expecting him to do? Mail you a birth certificate personally? He has already posted the document online for all to see, what more do you want?

    HI stopped releasing the “long form” well over a decade ago, when they computerized their records. You can go to the DOH website and read for yourself where they have clearly addressed this issue. If Obama requests another BC from them, they will provide the EXACT SAME document to him that he posted online already. Contact the DOH yourself if you don’t believe us.

    Birthers keep claiming he can just get a “long form”, but that is not what HI provides or uses anymore and it wouldn’t say anything different than the OFFICIAL form that they use and release for all certification purposes. If you were born in HI and need a drivers license and ask for a copy of your HI BC, you will get the COLB. If you need a passport and were born in HI and request a copy of your BC, you will get the COLB. If you need a security clearance and were born in HI and request a copy of your BC, you will get the COLB. This is the ONLY acceptable document for such proof that HI provides anyone anymore.

    All this crazy talk about hospital places or birth footprints on any other form – well, guess what – that “long form” document would NOT be an acceptable format document to acquire and use anymore to get a DL, Passport, etc. My wife spent 13 years of her life as an Asst. Manager at several Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Although each state’s BC documents look different, they had to be familiar with each one and all of the territories & all of the immigration documents too, as you get people from everywhere relocating or requesting driver’s licenses. In all of those cases, for proper documentation, she can ONLY accept a proper official document from whatever state that was. For HI, she has verified to me that would be the COLB that looks just like what Obama has presented. Hospital birth records that people get sometimes are NOT official accepted documents, so any stuff with footprints, etc. would not be acceptable valid documentation, even though such documents exist.

    Don’t believe me? Go ahead and contact the DOH yourself. If you really care about this issue, why don’t you ask & call them directly and they will explain this to you.

    So, I don’t understand what you asking him to provide that would be a valid document that he hasn’t already provided before. I realize that you’ve bought into the birther argument about a “long form” certificate and on the surface, it sounds like a legitimate argument.

    However, if you actually spend the time to look into it, you will find that the “long form” argument is nothing but a “red herring” put out there by the birthers to make it seem like there is some other document he should be providing, when in reality, there isn’t.

  173. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 6:33 pm #

    Not that this is your style, but you (the general you) can’t bully people accepting what you want them to accept. This is where the charge of racism comes in loud and clear here, and again, I am not accusing you of making that charge to me. I want every candidate to prove who they are from now on. This should have always been done.
    What do you think President Bush would be accused of if he made a make fuss about presenting his birth certificate now? McCain isn’t all that comfortable with the birth certificate issue because he fought it first. He should show his also.

    I’m not trying to “bully” you into anything. You ask a question and I explain my position on things and why I feel the way I do about an issue. I then ask you to explain your positions further on specific things and we go back & forth from there.

    That is how a civilized conversation works. You don’t have to agree with me and I don’t have to agree with you in the end. We can agree to disagree if that is how things end up and that is OK. Hopefully, we will still learn something of value about each other in the process and why someone feels or thinks the way they do and what they base it on. I may think some of your positions are silly or unfounded. That is my right. You may think I’m making light of issues you consider to be extremely significant. That is your right. That doesn’t take away from it being a reasoned and civilized discussion. We live in a country of over 300 Million people. You have to accept that others are going to have different views, values and opinions from what you do and this is their country too.

    Again with the mention of racism. Where is that coming from and why do you feel you are being attacked on that?

    Look, when I stated my reasons for birthers, I listed racism as only one of the “Big Five” drivers there. Just because you yourself might not be racist, don’t try to pretend that some of the birthers out there aren’t driven by obvious racism and that it isn’t one of the factors at play here is some of their motivations. To think there is none of that going on out there would be extremely naΓ―ve. The only people we have accused of being racists are those whos words or actions were quite clearly racist. And believe me, there has been quite a lot of that from other birthers we’ve dealt with.

    Finally, hey, I think that’s great that you would like to know more about all of your future presidential candidates. I’m not attacking you for that. I just want you to understand that is not how it has worked before now, nor do any of our existing laws require that. In fact, many good existing privacy laws protect and prevent some of that release, and there are good reasons for such – these are the same things that strive to protect you from identity theft.

    If you would like those laws to change, there is nothing wrong with your advocating for fair & reasonable release of information laws in the future. All I am asking is that now that you are aware that nobody has been asked this stuff before and that current laws don’t have any need or use for it, that you understand that.

    And finally, I completely disagree that if asked today, either Bush or McCain would provide their BCs or feel compelled to at all. I think that is just wishful thinking on your part, and they would more than likely vigorously fight such a release to protect their own privacy rights, as they are fully entitled to do so.

  174. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 6:41 pm #

    When I have had to show my identification for various occasions throughout my life, often the other party knew it was just a formality. I had to show my driver’s license to get cough syrup at the store!

    And why would you think that Obama hasn’t done the same in these situations at every point in his life too? The man spent most of his adult life here. He has owned cars, gone to college, held public offices, owned property, held security clearances, had a passport and has children. I’m sure he’s been sick too.

    Just like you, he would have had to provide all such ID at every proper point in time for every single one of those situations. Have you traveled out of the US and gotten your passport?

    Or even more importantly, have you ever had to get even a basic security clearance and go through the extensive background checks and requirements for such?

    He held an extremely high-level clearance to be on the Senate’s national security sub committee, so I guarantee you, he has had to show such proper documentation many, many, many different times in his life, long before he ever began running for president and that he has had to be vetted and show such documentation to an extent way beyond what you have ever experienced.

    So let that sink in for a minute.

    If there had every been any problems along the way or his documents claimed anything other than born in Honolulu, HI, there would be an EXTREMELY long paper trail record on him for any rival candidate or crack reporter or whistle-blower to find early on and report on.

    That is why when you go beyond what seems like a reasonable question on the surface and dig deeper into the true IMPLICATIONS of where that would lead, the whole birther argument falls apart upon further contemplation.

    I’m sure you haven’t thought about it in that way before.

  175. avatar
    nemocapn May 7, 2010 at 6:50 pm #

    Charo says:
    Since I am the lone wolf here, I am fending off questions all over the place. I simply can’t keep up with the pace now.

    You’re a lone wolf? Better make sure Sarah Palin doesn’t find out. πŸ™‚

  176. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 6:55 pm #

    Not that this is your style, but you (the general you) can’t bully people accepting what you want them to accept. (Charo)

    I’m not trying to “bully” you into anything.-

    G,

    I don’t know what’s going on here. I specifically said that you were not bullying me. I used the maxim “you can’t bully people…” and stated that I was referring to the general “you.”

    This has become too difficult for me to manage. If I had the time, I could stay here most of the day and discuss the issues. In my case, if I’m here, I am neglecting something else. I hope that if someone new comes aboard, you will treat them the same as you treated me. No one else here will.

  177. avatar
    SFJeff May 7, 2010 at 7:03 pm #

    G- excellant recap- can I just quote you from now on?

  178. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 7:14 pm #

    G,

    This is different than missing a comment.

    “I never said she was a single mom when she got pregnant. I quoted HER stating that she was very single when she HAD him.”

    And I never said that you said otherwise. (Black Lion)

    Black Lion says:
    May 7, 2010 at 3:46 pm Black Lion(Quote)

    It is your choice whether or not you respond. I could care less. Your quote regarding Michelle was about you believing that the President’s mother was a “single when she became pregnant”.

    “But then don’t pretend to equate Kenyan officals statements or a expression by Michelle to mean that the President was born in Kenya”

    This was debunked above.

    “You never clarified what you were intending to mean with quoting Michelle’s statement.”

    This something he may have missed because of the nature of nesting, and it was at the beginning of the thread.

    There are numerous comments that I am just seeing now. My not responding to them (or not having the time to do so) is not the same as stating that others said things that they simply did not say.

    Tough crowd.

    (and Black Lion, I took the information from The Right Side of Life about a receipt for the request for a COLB and said so. I didn’t hide that fact. I am not going to bother to find where you made an insinuation about that above. You know you said it.)

  179. avatar
    SFJeff May 7, 2010 at 7:32 pm #

    Frankly I lost track of the who said what and who didn’t say what a few posts back.

  180. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 7, 2010 at 8:55 pm #

    The birthers are hoping Obama was born at home, thereby increasing the likelihood of fraud.

  181. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 7, 2010 at 9:09 pm #

    charo: Since I am the lone wolf here, I am fending off questions all over the place. I simply can’t keep up with the pace now.

    Probably the best approach (for the “lone wolf”) is not to reply to everything, avoid the “tit for tat” rebuttal and ignore someone misquoting you. Take on the goal of expressing yourself as best you can, rather than defending yourself. This is something I learned somewhat participating in some pretty strictly moderated discussion groups on Usenet.

    More often than not, you will see me quote enough of a snippet to identify where it came from and then write a mini essay that doesn’t rely on text from the previous comment to understand. You will build a reputation with literate, thoughtful and well-supported comments rather than by winning points. A comment that stands on its own is of much more value in the long run than one tightly integrated in a conversation.

  182. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 7, 2010 at 9:15 pm #

    charo: I am asking for public comments by Supreme Court Justices, particularly the recent Justices.

    Ginsburg
    Scalia

  183. avatar
    Black Lion May 7, 2010 at 9:26 pm #

    OK let me get this straight. You said the following….“I never said she was a single mom when she got pregnant. I quoted HER stating that she was very single when she HAD him.”

    So what is the difference between single when she had him and single when she got pregnant? The implication was that Obama’s mother was single when she had him. Correct me if I’m wrong. Again what was your point regarding the comment? That somehow because Michelle said something about a time that she would know nothing about, that means that is proof that the President’s father was not involved? I am still confused about where you were going with that commentary. The bottom line is that what I paraphrased was not much different than what you said. And my response remains the same. Michelle was not there and whether or not Obama Sr. was involved in his life has nothing to do with the spelling of his name. After 2 days of commentary you still have no proof that Obama Sr ever spelled his name Barak.

    And I knew you took the misinformation about the reciept of the COLB from Phil at tROSL because that was his standard response on why he did not believe in the COLB. All I said was that was where you cribbed that crap about the reciept. The bottom line is that he was wrong then and his theory is wrong now.

  184. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 10:04 pm #

    Probably the best approach (for the “lone wolf”) … advice from Doctor C.

    Your reply was helpful and really good advice for anyone on any site. I appreciate it. I spent a good bit of time the past couple of days here. I need a break. I don’t know how you website owners manage a life.

  185. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 7, 2010 at 10:18 pm #

    charo: I don’t know how you website owners manage a life.

    We have a life?

  186. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 10:59 pm #

    LOL! Sure SFJeff, anytime! Thanks for the compliment!

    Besides, it would only be fair, since I wish to just requote you half the time too! πŸ™‚

  187. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 11:01 pm #

    SFJeff, you should also requote nemocapn’s response here too. I think his points and the way he stated it is just as good as mine.

    Well said nemocapn! I know you are a recent addition here and I just wanted to officially say welcome and I hope you continue to stick around!

  188. avatar
    Whatever4 May 7, 2010 at 11:02 pm #

    Sounds like a Guest editorial to me. Excellent recap!

  189. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 11:11 pm #

    Justice Ginsburg: …My grandson was born in Paris of U.S. citizen parents. I had never considered him a naturalized citizen of the United States….

    Justice Ginsburg: There is a debate over whether my grandson is a natural born citizen. I think he is.

    – I did see that before, but thanks for answering the question. She seemed to be personally concerned over her grandson.

    Justice Ginsburg: Before you do that, Mr. Kneedler, you did say something.

    I keep worrying about this grandson of mine.

    Justice Breyer also indicated his daughter was born overseas:

    Justice Breyer: The problem with those things is usually, is insofar as you get a lesser degree of, for example, procedural protections, in certain instances there are conflicts about what the facts are, and insofar, if it is ever true that a person who is involved in naturalization gets less than full judicial review, would that same be true of, say, my daughter or millions of others, say, servicemen’s children who are born abroad and who the children of servicemen and women who are abroad and not born in the United States?

    I take issue with the idea that the transcript (which is in essence part of the court proceedings) shows the issue has been definitively decided. It certainly seems pretty settled as to how Ginsberg and probably J. Breyer would rule if given the case. This transcript actually supports that there is a debate versus settled law. We certainly have insight here, but never was it said that the issue has been well settled for years.

    Scalia’s response I found confusing because of his “Well, maybe.”

    Mr. Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.

    Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.

  190. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 11:14 pm #

    charo –

    Thanks as always for responding and I hope you return. Yes, I realize that being on here can often be more time consuming than anticipated (as my wife always reminds me!) πŸ˜‰

    Of course, focus on the real stuff in your life first and if you get the chance, I for one welcome you back. It is refreshing to have an actual dialogue with someone with a sort of “birther” perspective.

    Please be patient with some of the others. You are new here and haven’t been through the exasperation and other types of birthers that we have, which have been nothing like you at all – so patience has been worn thin on here and scathing skepticism at an all time high.

    None of that is your fault, I realize and I apologize if you unfortunately bear some of the brunt of what has come before.

    I can guarantee though that if you continue to have an open and honest conversation as well as display your good sense of humor, that you will win over tolerance and patience from even some of the stronger skeptics.

    Please understand that many of us started out on this issue when the BC first arose and we had our own questions and did lots of digging into issues of NBC and stuff to find out how things work and what was true or not.

    Had we found any actual problems or issues with Obama’s eligibility, his documents, or the legal process, rest assured that we would have moved to pointing those out or wanting them addressed or clarified.

    However, to date (almost 2 years later), not a single shred of serious concern has turned out to be valid or credible. In the early days of the site, there seemed to be a few other posters like you who had healthy skepticism and legitimate desire to dig deeper and get to the truth.

    But we don’t see those types appear here anymore. I guess the others of that type have either long satisfied any of their answers or become part of the regulars on this site.

    All we seem to still get are just the troll types of birthers, who might start out sounding innocent (concern trolling), but very quickly resort to long debunked myths, misinformation, hostile statements and outright lies. It is easy for us to become harshly jaded and severely skeptical after what we’ve mostly experienced.

  191. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 11:24 pm #

    I can’t vouch for the legitimacy of this transcript, but if it is accurate, what say you about vetting?

    On a radio show called the Mike Trivisonno Show, the question to the FBI director was “How did Obama get this far, he must have had background checks as he is a U.S. Senator?”

    Mueller explains: Here is the transcript:

    Quote:
    Caller – Do they perform background checks on candidates and fellows who are in Congress and the Senate and perhaps potential presidential candidates?.

    FBI – The short answer is no, no we don’t, but they’re given top secret clearances because they’re members of Congress, or Senators, or even higher ranking officials.

    Host – Time out. There are no background checks from the FBI on the people that lead the country, the United States of America?.

    FBI – Let me emphasize, elected officials. This is a democracy, the people have elected an official to represent them in Washington, and we do not routinely run background checks on those people.

    Host – Even people running for president of the United States of America?.

    FBI – That’s correct.

    Host – That’s a little weird

    FBI – Well, its part of democracy, its part of what the American people want, they want to be able to vote for somebody to represent them in Washington and they don’t want us to get in the way of that and we have no predilection to get in the way of that.

    Host – Yeah, but what if they’re voting for a bad person and they don’t know that person is bad, do you follow me?. I’m saying, if the guy’s got a background and maybe he’s involved with some people that he shouldn’t be involved with, shouldn’t we know that as voters?.

    FBI – Well, I think you’d agree that the American political process is about as rigorous as you’ll ever see and if there’s dirt back there, probably the opponent is gonna get it out probably before anyone else will.

    Host – Now I know why you’re the head of the FBI, they’re good, aren’t they?.”

  192. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 11:25 pm #

    Black Lion –

    Just wanted to reassure you that I did see your point. But I saw where charo was coming from too. And I saw how both of you appear to have misinterpreted the intent or words of what the other was saying.

    That happens all the time. Which is why, as both I & you just pointed out, it is important to continue the dialog to clarify things.

    Another area that is super easy to misinterpret on the internet is the tone & intent of someone’s words. Without visual & verbal queues to go by, it is easy to mistake one’s printed statements in the wrong context. Often, intent might appear more menacing than what was meant. Often, humor can really be missed or even misconstrued. (Which is why emoticons are so helpful).

    I know I’m as guilty as anyone of making these mistakes and I just hope others are willing to give me the chance to clarify or correct and allow me that benefit as well.

    Thanks for listening.

  193. avatar
    nemocapn May 7, 2010 at 11:49 pm #

    Thanks for the official welcome.

  194. avatar
    charo May 8, 2010 at 12:12 am #

    “First of all, he never had to provide the PUBLIC with the COLB in the first place. No other president has ever done so.That was a step beyond that he himself took on his own.”

    Actually, his campaign provided the COLB. And, you are leaving out the context of why the campaign provided it.

    “So that document was available there the whole time until the office was closed when the election was over. In that time, only a few small papers & places like factcheck.org bothered to take him up on his offer. ..”

    What were the few small papers?

    “Trust me, the news cycle thrives on controversy & salacious stories. Had there been any doubt or possible “story” there, they would have been all over it in a media frenzy.”

    I don’t think we’ll ever see eye to eye on that one.

    “The man wasn’t president then, just a candidate”

    Now this is really out of character for you to say something so naive; that’s my job!

    Reaction to 2004 Democratic speech:

    Obama’s speech instantly catapulted him to a national stage, both as a star within the Democratic party and someone that pundits openly predicted might one day become president.

    Immediately after the speech MSNBC host Chris Matthews admitted, “I have to tell you, a little chill in my legs right now. That is an amazing moment in history right there. It is surely an amazing moment. A keynoter like I have never heard.”[27] He added later in the night, “…I have seen the first black president there. And the reason I say that is because I think the immigrant experience combined with the African background, combined with the incredible education, combined with his beautiful speech, not every politician gets help with the speech, but that speech was a piece of work.”[29] Commenting the next day, Pat Buchanan, while complimentary towards Obama, was more critical of what he called a centrist speech: “He is hiding what he truly believes. What does Obama believe about this war?”[30] On PBS, columnist David Brooks responded positively, “This is why you go to conventions, to watch a speech like this,” while Mark Shields said, “A star is born.”[26]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Democratic_National_Convention_keynote_address

    This is getting too lengthy for one reply. It’s late, and I’ll have to come back to it another time.

  195. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 8, 2010 at 12:30 am #

    charo: I can’t vouch for the legitimacy of this transcript, but if it is accurate, what say you about vetting?

    While I don’t believe anything without some background (and a name of this FBI director and a date of the show would be useful), I am not surprised by what the “FBI” said. However, I am also confident that there is more that the “FBI” did not say. While the FBI may not vet elected officials to obtain security clearances, I am pretty sure that they vet them informally. J. Edgar Hoover is dead, but his name is still on the building.

    It’s equally fair for me be skeptical about that transcript as it is for you to be skeptical about claims that politicians require FBI background checks to serve on sensitive congressional committees.

  196. avatar
    nemocapn May 8, 2010 at 12:32 am #

    Apparently my suggestion has already been tried by an enterprising birther according to the Honolulu Advertiser:

    “When Okubo told one writer they did not have a right to Obama’s birth certificate because they were not related to the president the person wrote back saying they, indeed, had a common ancestor.

    “‘They said they have a tangible right to his birth certificate because they’re descended from Adam,’ Okubo said, referring to the biblical figure. ‘We told them they need to provide some type of legal documentation.'”

  197. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 8, 2010 at 12:35 am #

    charo: [quoting Scalia] Well, maybe

    You have to understand what “By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices” means before you can understand what “well, maybe” means. The important part is where Scalia says “Jus soli”.

  198. avatar
    nbC May 8, 2010 at 12:44 am #

    But Doc, let’s ignore the obvious and see if there is anything that Scalia said that we can use to distract…

    Scalia was clear: Jus Soli. No ifs or buts.
    Charo… What’s the problem…You wanted to know, now you regret?
    What happened to being interested in the facts?

  199. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 8, 2010 at 1:14 am #

    I’d have to look it up, but I remember the regulations (not the law) say that the common ancestor has to be either one or two back. It’s on the web site here somewhere. http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/elig_vrcc.html

  200. avatar
    G May 8, 2010 at 1:16 am #

    I can’t vouch for the legitimacy of this transcript, but if it is accurate, what say you about vetting?

    Well, that is definitely an interesting tidbit about FBI vetting of polticians, if it is true. As you said, the legitimacy of the transcript is not something you can vouch for, and you did not provide any links, so I tried to do some independent digging on this story, and here is what I found:

    This story, like many birther stories and also many urban legends on the internet gets quickly passed around from site to site and via email, usually in similar forms. I have extensively looked and every source for this story is an anti-Obama, birther, or worse (Stormfront) hate site. Not one single other type of media source seems to have any mention of this, which makes me very suspicious.

    NONE of the references I found provide any actual link to audio or an actual verifiable original “transcript”. Often, they link back to one of two primary resources for this story: Stormfront (yuck-white supremacy group) or Citizen Wells (rabid extreme crazy birther).

    In digging deeper, it does appear that this story originated on Citizen Well’s website, and here is the original story I found:

    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/philip-j-berg-lawsuit-obamacrimescom-colb-update-comments-insights-fbi-response-special-agent-in-charge-background-checks-elected-officials-american-political-process-berg-website-comments/

    It starts off with:

    Political candidates are not checked by the FBI.

    This is a conversation between the Special Agent-in-Charge: C. Frank Figliuzzi of the Cleveland FBI and Mike Trivisonno on the Mike Trivisonno Show, WTAM 1100, 7/02/08, Hr. 2.

    From Citizen Wells

    “Obama should have proven earlier
    written by Citizen Wells, September 19, 2008
    Obama, an educated Lawyer, should have been proactive early
    and established his credentials. He is obviously hiding something.”

    “written by Berg’s Assistant, September 19, 2008

    Now this I find to be particularly interesting and I must say, even more skeptical than before. Berg’s assistants have a long history of being caught making up very detailed fictional stories, especially in the early days of the birther movement. This does not bode well for the credibility of this story. The transcript listed is exactly as you provided, with the additional “source info about “Mike Trivisonno Show, WTAM 1100, 7/02/08, Hr. 2”

    Now, just so you know, I am very familiar with Mike Trivisonno, as he is from the Cleveland, OH area, as am I.

    Anyways, any available audio & radio clips are available on his website at either of these 2 locations (older ones go to the archives):

    http://www.wtam.com/pages/triv/ondemand.html

    http://www.wtam.com/pages/triv/trivarchive.html
    What is the MOST suspicious about this story is the writer gives it the “air of credibility” by providing the name of an actual show and names the agent involved and even the date & time of the program! I’ve seen other fake stories before where someone provides enough detail that it looks “real” and most people don’t actually bother to go to the actual links to check out what is there, so they just believe what they are told at face value. This appears to be such a case.

    I encourage you to go to the WTAM links I provided and check it out for yourself.

    You will find that there are NO transcripts or audio files at all from 2008! Some key older shows were transcribed and archived that go back to 2006, so it is not a matter of them suddenly going missing. More than likely, no transcripts or audio from the supposed date were ever made or kept.

    Therefore, my conclusion on the veracity of this Mike Trivisonno Show story = HIGHLY DUBIOUS AT BEST.

    Anyways, although I cannot verify if FBI background checks are required for politicians, I could find information that supports that political are usually vetted via this type of process, however, such requests might be initiated by political parties or other institutions, not necessarily at the FBI’s behest:

    http://society.ezineseeker.com/politician-to-undergo-background-checks-for-white-house-appointment-140a025d1f.html

    Today, background search is not just a tool for ordinary employee but as well as to big politicians and celebrities aiming for a position in the government. As background search can give one an idea of the possibilities of fraud and other similar problems that might be done by the nominee, public service competence can be secured and that better administration is well assured.

    The FBI’s security clearance process, however it is applied is listed here:

    http://www.fbi.gov/clearance/securityclearance.htm

    Furthermore, I found AN actual federal government directive document that establishes the requirement for such checks, which interestingly enough, was put in place by GHWB in 1991:

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/nsd63.html

    NATIONAL SECURITY DIRECTIVE 63

    This Directive issued by President Bush in 1991 established common, government-wide standards for background investigations governing access to Top Secret and Sensitive Compartmented Information.

    I think you will all find particularly interesting, their description of what is specified in it in these 2 sections:

    Birth

    Independent certification of date and place of birth received directly from appropriate registration authority.

    Citizenship

    Subject must be a U.S. citizen. Independent verification of citizenship received directly from appropriate registration authority. For foreign-born immediate family members, verification of citizenship or legal status is also required.

  201. avatar
    G May 8, 2010 at 1:24 am #

    Dr C –

    Please check out my comment, which is in moderation, in which I researched this issue fairly extensively.

    I think it ended up in moderation because I included a number of source links and quotes to back up my findings and research.

    It is a bit lengthy, but I think something everyone will find interesting on this.

    In summary, I had 2 major findings on this issue:

    1. The authenticity of the source “Mike Trivisonno Show is HIGHLY SUSPECT AT BEST – very likely this is completely made up.

    2. The requirements for security clearance and process of vetting of fed govt officials, to the best of what I could find so far.

  202. avatar
    G May 8, 2010 at 3:27 am #

    Actually, his campaign provided the COLB. And, you are leaving out the context of why the campaign provided it.

    Well, if you want to get technical, HE had to request it in order for his campaign to have it. Yes, his campaign then provided it. He is ultimately in charge & responsible for his campaign, you know.

    In terms of context – if I remember correctly, there was a rumor being generated (ultimately by Mark Penn of HRC’s campaign) that his middle name was Mohamed and insinuations that he was a Muslim. They initially released it to try to dispel those rumors.

    I’m not sure I get your point on these trivial details, which again, do not in any way take away nor change the point I was making – NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS EVER DONE SO.

    It seems you are just trying to be snippy with me on this, because you want to change the subject from the point I was making.

    So what exactly is your point about sniping that I left out the context of his release? Were you insinuating that I was somehow intentionally “leaving out critical info”? Because I wasn’t and I have no problems providing you with what info or context that I can.

    Well, as you can see, I’ve corrected that now, so I hope you are satisfied. I still fail to see how that in any way changes or diminishes that NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS EVER RELEASED THEIR COLB. Even if in response to a rumor out there, it was still a voluntary act.

    I sure hope that I’m misreading your intent here (and maybe you are just a fan of trivial details), but it sure seems like you are trying to intentionally be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative on this and I hope you will return to a more constructive tone of dialog.

  203. avatar
    G May 8, 2010 at 3:36 am #

    Charo asks:

    What were the few small papers?

    Well, on this question, I’m failing to find the sources.

    I can’t recall the names of them offhand, as it was the summer of 2008 when all this was being reported. I’ve been trying to type in different search criteria onto Bing & Google to find them, but there have been so many articles (especially from the birther sites) that pop up when I try to do a search that I’ve gone as far as 20 pages deep on some searches and still haven’t come across them.

    If anyone else out there remembers them or can find links to them, I’d appreciate it, but I’m giving up for now.

    Sorry I can’t locate them, charo. I take full responsibility for mentioning it but not being able to then back it up with source material. My bad.

    G says: “Trust me, the news cycle thrives on controversy & salacious stories. Had there been any doubt or possible “story” there, they would have been all over it in a media frenzy.”

    Charo responds: I don’t think we’ll ever see eye to eye on that one.

    Well, since speculating on what topic media would or wouldn’t report on is a matter of opinion, I think it is perfectly fine that we agree to disagree on this one.

    However, if you dispute the very premise that media thrives on controversy & salacious stories, then I really suggest you closely examine how headlines are titled and what drives the news cycle stories. – attention grabbing scandals always lead and last longer in the news cycle over “good news” stories.

    G said “Had there been any doubt or possible “story” there, they would have been all over it in a media frenzy. The man wasn’t president then, just a candidate and as past history has shown, any small drama of dirt about a candidates past or goofs will be played up endlessly for their sheer ratings value.”

    To which charo responds: “Now this is really out of character for you to say something so naive; that’s my job!
    Reaction to 2004 Democratic speech:…”

    Um, I fail to see what is so “naΓ―ve” about the statement, or what your quoting from the speech of 2004 or TV commentator’s opinions & reactions has anything to do with what I said.

    Maybe you didn’t understand what I was trying to get at, as you seem to have completely missed my points, so I’ll try to restate it in a better and more detailed way and provide more context:

    1. MAIN PREMISE: The time to vet candidates qualifications for office are BEFORE they get elected to that office and there was PLENTY of time for Obama to be vetted before he was elected.

    2. Therefore, vetting SHOULD occur before or during their actual campaign to run for that office.

    3. Once they’ve been elected, it’s a little late, don’t you think?

    4. It is typical for parties to vet their candidates prior to approving them to run on the party platform.

    5. It is also typical for opposition parties to do their own vetting and background digging on candidates. The opposition often aggressively tries to dig up any “dirt” they can use against their opponent.

    6. Media often does its own background research into candidates, especially in national elections.

    7. The 2008 presidential election was the longest and most covered presidential election in history –pretty much 2 years of coverage on candidates running for that office.

    8. Barack Obama officially began his presidential campaign in February 2007. As the election wasn’t until November, 2008, there was plenty of time and plenty of coverage on him and his background prior to his being elected.

    9. You are correct that he rose to prominent attention on the national stage with his memorable keynote speech at the Democratic Convention of 2004. Many articles were written about him and his background in national publications from that point on and he was frequently shown and discussed on national TV as well. If anything, all you have done is SUPPORT my point out that he is not some “unknown” and that there has been plenty of time for people to look into and question his background long before he even began his run for president.

    10. In fact, even before that, he had been prominent in IL state politics as a 3-term state senator from 1997-2004.

    11. He had made national news headlines even before his political career took off, as he was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, which was all the way back in 1990, I think.

    12. Most importantly, his entire background and story of his father and his birth was covered in his autobiographies, which were both prize winning best sellers. His first, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance”, was first published back in JULY of 1995!!!

    So, in conclusion, by any reasonable standard, Obama and the story of his parentage, birth and background has openly been in significant circulation in the US public domain for the past 15-20 years, depending on how you look at it and way before he took up any career in government politics.

    He has held prominent state & federal government positions, which he had to compete in contested elections, since he was first elected to the IL senate in the fall of 1996.

    Therefore, there has been plenty of time & opportunity for anyone to question or investigate his background prior to his election to president.

  204. avatar
    charo May 8, 2010 at 7:44 am #

    You ignored thew substance of what I said. Justice Ginsberg said there was a “debate.” She said what she “thinks.”

    Ignoring that J. Scalia said “well, maybe” doesn’t mean that he didn’t say it. I am not denying your statement. That is why I said I was confused. And neither blew off the topic as “we” settled for years and years.

    There is no need to cop a tude.

  205. avatar
    charo May 8, 2010 at 7:46 am #

    And neither blew off the topic as “we” settled for years and years.

    huh? well settled.

    I must be off my meds again. Why don’t I put you in charge of reminding me?

  206. avatar
    charo May 8, 2010 at 7:48 am #

    you ignored “the” not thew

    Double up on the meds

  207. avatar
    Scientist May 8, 2010 at 7:51 am #

    The “debate” is over those born overseas to US citizens, NOT those born in the US. The doctor really did prescribe those meds for a reason. Maybe reading glasses too?

  208. avatar
    charo May 8, 2010 at 8:00 am #

    It was late and I forgot to put the link and as it turns out, I am glad I didn’t. I was googling and came across the transcript without paying any attention as to where it came from. I just now looked up the history from the search and found it was to a very offensive site. I am sure I would have noticed it if I cut and pasted the link but nonetheless, yikes!

    So, the transcript is very suspect, although I would like to know for certain if the interview actually occurred.

  209. avatar
    charo May 8, 2010 at 8:48 am #

    There should be a way to contact the radio station. The website’s TRIVmail was shut down, but there is an email address. I’ll see what I can find out, but it is sports day here at Charo’s home.

    Ciao…

  210. avatar
    charo May 8, 2010 at 9:08 am #

    G,

    I am starting here because the other reply section is getting bogged down. I only have time for few comments, and I am gone for the day.

    I briefly saw your reply from last night that accused me of sniping. I was just following the same protocol as you and everyone else; take apart the comment and challenge what you disagree with. I didn’t do it disrespectfully. If you are going to get angry about challenges, then why are we even bothering? For instance, I believe you said (and please forgive me if I am misstating you) that the COLB was released to quell rumors that Obama was a Muslim? Maybe I read that wrong because I don’t see how the COLB would be relevant.

    Also, I asked for the names of the newspapers. I had never seen that before. I am not denying it occurred, but I would be interested to see what organizations they were and their comments.

    If you find that kind of thing offensive, then why am I here?

    I guess I shouldn’t be.

  211. avatar
    Mike May 8, 2010 at 11:09 am #

    Hehehe. I love that comeback.

  212. avatar
    Black Lion May 8, 2010 at 2:38 pm #

    Actually the COLB was released because the rumor was that Obama’s middle name was Mohammed and not Hussein….

  213. avatar
    charo May 8, 2010 at 7:07 pm #

    “I had to show my driver’s license to get cough syrup at the store!” (charo)

    SFJeff says:
    May 7, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    What if the store clerk suddenly told you that your driver’s license was [not] sufficient? What [if] he said you needed to prove your driver’s license was not forged? Or that you didn’t obtain it fraudulently? Or that you needed to provide your long form of your BC in order to get cough syrup?

    – I suppose if I took a laptop and presented a copy of my license online with a couple of still pictures showing two people handling it and further stated that it is also available 500 miles away for review and my proof was rejected, I would have been spittin’ mad because I needed that cough syrup! Do you think I should have coughed in the cashier’s direction until he/she approved? πŸ™‚

    Really, it is obvious Charo can’t be given a copy of the COLB, unless someone wants to pay for Charo’s plane fare (first class of course) to Washington.

    Pay Pal: Charo (check with ACORN for possible tax deduction ideas)

  214. avatar
    Scientist May 8, 2010 at 7:20 pm #

    Supposing you wanted to show your driver’s license to 300 million people? How would you do it other than by an electronic image? At 44 cents/stamp, mailing hard copies would cost $140,000,000 + copying expenses and even then it would only be a photocopy. No, you would post it on line and arrange some method whereby those who were interested could see the original, just like Obama.

    You’re really reaching here. Try harder…

  215. avatar
    charo May 8, 2010 at 9:07 pm #

    I was answering his scenario. The COLB could have been attached to any of the Motions to Dismiss.

  216. avatar
    Scientist May 8, 2010 at 9:28 pm #

    That would be a very poor legal strategy, since the motions were on the grounds of standing and lack of justiciability. Attaching the COLB would negate the respondent’s arguments.

    If you want someone to be nice and helpful and provide you with all kinds of stuff they aren’t obligated to, then don’t sue them.

    You keep pretending that Obama owes something to birther lawyers and their foolish plaintiffs. He doesn’t. Putting the COLB on line was the only way to get it in front of the voters. If you want my opinion (you probably don’t) the birther issue had zero impact on the election. He had already beaten Hillary before he showed the COLB and whoever won the Democratic nomination was a strong favorite to win because of Bush’s unpopularity. Lehman Bros. cinched the deal. No votes were changed either way by putting the COLB on line. I think the polls support me.

  217. avatar
    Randy May 8, 2010 at 10:19 pm #

    I think that any “birther” who treads water here will ultimately drown in the animosity. But one enters at one’s own risk.

    Sven, JTX and Mario come to mind, Only Sven seems to enjoy swimming here. Faux Scott Brown and John throw bombs to muddy the waters. Hang in there Charo, right now you are my favorite birther

  218. avatar
    Randy May 8, 2010 at 10:31 pm #

    While I’m at it, I’ll continue with this scenario that I have alluded to and one that may evoke a reply or two.

    Obama Sr. is not the father named on the birth certificate?

    You and Sven will get along great.

  219. avatar
    nemocapn May 8, 2010 at 10:37 pm #

    You’re my favorite birther, too, charo. You crack jokes. You actually do your own research. You actually contribute to the debate instead of throwing out the words “ignorant libtard.”

    I also mean no animosity by the term “birther.” I use it simply because I can’t come up with a better succinct word to describe a person who questions Obama’s eligibility.

    From what I understand, I’m an anti-birther.

  220. avatar
    charo May 8, 2010 at 11:21 pm #

    “He had already beaten Hillary before he showed the COLB and whoever won the Democratic nomination was a strong favorite to win because of Bush’s unpopularity. Lehman Bros. cinched the deal.”

    – I wouldn’t disagree with the above. I would disagree that eligibility is irrelevant. I don’t know that mainstream America was even aware of the issue prior to the election. But I don’t want to open a new line of attack on me. I am not saying this to garner any sympathy from strangers but my father died April 1, and debating (which is something I like to do, not just about this topic) was a good distraction from the grief that has been hitting me hard.

    I say WAS a good distraction, because I am only human and really, I think I have probably had enough of it. Going to a website taking an opposing position from the majority was a new experience for me, and beneficial. But all good things must come to an end, to be trite.

  221. avatar
    G May 9, 2010 at 12:09 am #

    charo,

    I enjoy conversing with you. Thank you for clarifying that you were not sniping. As mentioned before, sometimes intent is hard to tell on written forums, and it is easy for any of us to take someones words the wrong way.

    I’m sorry if I misjudged your intent and I do appreciate your detailed questions.

    As you can see, I’ve given you very detailed responses as best I could to everything you’ve asked.

    When you come back and re look, you will see that I already explained about the newspapers – I searched but could not find the references any more. I’ve asked if others have any links or remember them, but I’ve got nothing further to give you on that.

    On the COLB question, you were the one who asked about what motivated the campaign’s release. As I mentioned, it was in response to HRC campaign generated rumors that insinuated that his middle name was really Mohamed So he released his BC to show that his middle name was not Mohamed and confirm that it was in fact, Hussein.

    Hey, sounds silly to me too. But as a result, he became the only candidate to ever provide a birth certificate.

    Looking forward to our next chat.

    Don’t forget to please answer the key question I’ve asked you several times:

    Since the COLB clearly lists the place of birth as Honolulu, HI, what difference would a “long form” make in terms of eligibility, since all fields on a “short form” come from the “long form” and therefore it would still say Honolulu, HI?

  222. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 9, 2010 at 12:10 am #

    charo: The COLB could have been attached to any of the Motions to Dismiss.

    In these motions to dismiss, the courts assumed that the allegations in the complaint were true. If the court is going to assume the complaint is true, then no amount of refuting evidence makes any difference, and attaching a COLB would be a waste of time.

  223. avatar
    G May 9, 2010 at 12:18 am #

    I am not saying this to garner any sympathy from strangers but my father died April 1, and debating (which is something I like to do, not just about this topic) was a good distraction from the grief that has been hitting me hard.

    Charo, I know we are strangers, but please allow me to extend my heartfelt sympathies to you and the rest of your family on the loss of your father.

    I understand how personal it is to open up and share such information and I do appreciate you being willing to share a little bit about yourself, even though we have different views on things.

    I realize this has just been a distraction for you and that is okay and there is nothing wrong with that. I hope it helped to pass the time, even though as you would say, its not necessarily “friendly territory” for you.

    You are always welcome back, but if we don’t hear from you and you’ve returned to other things in your life, I want to wish you all the best and blessings to you and your family.

  224. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 9, 2010 at 4:28 am #

    Reply to:

    . I would disagree that eligibility is irrelevant.

    First of all, I want to offer my condolences on the loss of your father.

    Responding to the above — I agree that the issue of a candidate’s eligibility is entirely relevant — before the election, and in the case of the President, up to the time the electoral college vote is certified by Congress.

    However, in Obama’s case, there was no “issue” after he released his COLB publicly and made it available to media for inspection. The COLB clearly documents his Hawaiian birth; it is the official document produced by the state for that purpose; and the accuracy of its underlying information has been confirmed in public statements by the agency in Hawaii in charge of maintaining those records.

    Everything else is speculative and, for the most part, wholly irrational fiction invented by people who dislike for Obama is great enough that they are willing to lie or are prone to confabulation. So the *issue* died long before the election — not because Obama had more votes than Hillary, but because Obama clearly had proper documentation to prove his Hawaiian birth.

  225. avatar
    Scientist May 9, 2010 at 6:00 am #

    Let me add my condolences as well. I know from my own experience that loved ones remain in our hearts always. Nevertheless, life demands that however much we mourn them we have to move on. It is so with other things as well. Elections don’t crown kings. They elect people to office with limited powers for limited terms. Whether you love or hate the person, before you know it their term will be up.

    Winning the most votes is just as much a Constitutional requirement for the Presidency as being a natural born citizen. Many (I among them) believed that Bush didn’t win Florida in 2000 and that the Supreme Court made a purely partisan decision. Nevertheless we moved on. The birthers need to do the same. That’s what the courts have said. Common sense says so as well.

    Best wishes to you and your family.

  226. avatar
    charo May 9, 2010 at 1:26 pm #

    Thanks to all for your kind words.

    As some final words of my own, this debate is to me, theoretical for the most part. The election is over, but I think you are kidding yourself if you think all voters were aware of the whole eligibility issue at that time. Future elections are yet to come with that issue now firmly in the spotlight. That statement is not limited to President Obama but any candidate. The diversity of our society will cause this issue to be confronted regarding eligibility.

    You say this is well-settled. I think the Supreme Court (in some future case unrelated to Obama) will make a crystal clear statement regarding the NBC and the Presidency, one way or the other. The only court to tackle the issue directly was the Court of Appeals of Indiana. Will the Supreme Court come down the same way? It seems that J. Ginsberg would, likely some others.

    G, I thought I answered your question about the long form, but maybe it wasn’t obvious. I think because Governor Lingle made a statement about the hospital, she should back it up because of of the public’s right to freedom of information when privacy is waived. There was discussion on that somewhere, and of course, disagreement with me. [Gov. Lingle was very hesitant about signing the new legislation because of the public’s right to information.] Maybe Lingle mixed up her facts as Doctor C says, and that she was thinking about the letter rather than the birth certficate, but that isn’t what is of record now.

    As for attaching the COLB, I didn’t speak as part of his legal team. A judge could have dismissed the motion anyways and if not, and a door was opened by releasing the COLB, so what? A judge could rule as you already believe he/she would. The COLB would be part of a public record.

    If I find out anything about the validity of that interview concerning FBI vetting, I’ll be sure to pass it on. But for now, I’ll be signing off.

  227. avatar
    charo May 9, 2010 at 1:29 pm #

    Goodbye worthy opponents πŸ™‚

  228. avatar
    G May 9, 2010 at 6:59 pm #

    Thanks charo for all your conversation!

    I read your two last posts here today and I’m satisfied with your answers and I don’t mind your positions. Thanks again for your clarifications. I think you present yourself well and I appreciate your time spent here.

    All the best and warm blessings to you and your family and if you happen to be a mother, than I wish you a Happy Mother’s Day as well!

  229. avatar
    G May 9, 2010 at 7:00 pm #

    Correction:

    My apologies Charo, you already told us about your daughter with the beautiful name, so OF COURSE you are a mother! Silly me!

    So, wishing you an official Happy Mother’s Day!!!!

  230. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 9, 2010 at 11:21 pm #

    charo: I think you are kidding yourself if you think all voters were aware of the whole eligibility issue at that time

    I agree. I think it is a fair statement to say that most voters were not aware of the “whole eligibility issue”. I think most reasonably well-informed voters knew that Barack Obama was fathered by a Kenyan man, but as for the whole gamut of claims about Barack Obama, no. However, looking at polling numbers that have been published, I conclude that by in large the only people who buy into this Obama ineligibility stuff wouldn’t ever have voted for Obama anyway.

    I think the promoters of Obama conspiracies are kidding themselves if they think they will make any significant difference in the next election. Swing voters will be deciding on Obama’s job performance. And, by the way, I predict we will have another court decision that says Obama is eligible before the next election.

  231. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 9, 2010 at 11:23 pm #

    charo: because Governor Lingle made a statement about the hospital, she should back it

    Are you honestly saying that the word of the Governor of Hawaii isn’t good enough for you? It’s OK for you ask me to back things up, but Governor Lingle? I think you starting to show symptoms of fanaticism.

  232. avatar
    charo May 10, 2010 at 12:25 pm #

    Dagnabbit, Doc, I didn’t want to get drawn back into the mix here, but I can’t resist.

    “Starting” to show signs of fanaticism? I thought I was there and back a few times! Governor Lingle is covered not matter what she says because she didn’t see the information herself. She did break the law by disclosing the information relayed to her.

    Here is where I am coming from. A question was presented to the DoH whether or not there was a receipt for the transaction showing that a request was made for a COLB. I don’t see HOW that would have anything to do with disclosing what is actually on the COLB that would violate the privacy of the individual. Okay, but that was the decision. Twice though, the DoH DIRECTLY revealed information that was supposed to be private. It appears they’ll verify any information that concerns the eligibility of President Obama, EXCEPT that he actually requested a COLB. That is one of my main concerns: the validity of the COLB.

    Well, you say, Fukino verified the pertinent information on the COLB. She did that ILLEGALLY, but she decided not to answer an innocuous question about whether there was a receipt for the transaction?

    That makes the whole matter of the COLB suspect. My speculation was reasonable: a different father was listed on the actual birth certificate and that would have been a distraction at the time of his campaign. I had a few pieces of evidence to back up this claim because it made sense: no one wanted to embarrass him, and the two public statements made would not conflict with the birth certificate.

    I don’t like the game playing. I also made explained my thoughts about the dual citizenship issue, and not because I suddenly had to come up with something else to get rid of the President. I think it is an issue that needs finality, even if you think it is already resolved. It’s my right to be a fanatic in this regard, if so believing is fanatical.

    Besides having just lost my father, I am also handling his estate and taking care of my family so I’ll contribute when I can. I like the challenge and the distraction, but I have to be responsible as well.

  233. avatar
    Scientist May 10, 2010 at 1:03 pm #

    charo-You seem intelligent, so I don’t know why you are having such trouble with simple concepts. Everything about someone’s personal records is private and confidential. Supposing I had your real name and I phoned the IRS and said, “I just want to know if she filed a tax return for 2008. I don’t want to know anything that was on it, just whether she filed.” Do you think they would tell me? Of course not and you would be hopping mad and rightly so if they did. Because even the fact that you filed or didn’t is private and I have no right to know.

    Now suppose an idiotic IRS clerk made a mistake and confirmed that you filed. Does that mean I can now get a copy of your return? Certainly not.

    So, I am not an expert in the laws of Hawaii (I don’t think you are either), so I can’t say whether Gov Lingle had a right to say what she said or not. But even if she divulged something she shouldn’t have, that doesn’t mean she can divulge anything else.

  234. avatar
    BatGuano May 10, 2010 at 1:14 pm #

    My speculation was reasonable: a different father was listed on the actual birth certificate ……

    unless that person was a diplomat or a japanese soldier that’s been hiding out since WWII it wouldn’t change obama’s NBC status no matter who that person was.

  235. avatar
    nbC May 10, 2010 at 2:09 pm #

    Well, you say, Fukino verified the pertinent information on the COLB. She did that ILLEGALLY, but she decided not to answer an innocuous question about whether there was a receipt for the transaction?

    There is no evidence that the verification was done illegally. Why do you think it was?

    Governor Lingle is covered not matter what she says because she didn’t see the information herself. She did break the law by disclosing the information relayed to her.

    That’s too bad if she did in fact ‘break the law’ by confirming the location of Obama’s birth.

  236. avatar
    charo May 10, 2010 at 2:24 pm #

    My question remains, why pick and chose the divulging? That is the reason for my “conspiracy” mindedness. Transaction receipt? No way no how. But, here is other information I ain’t supposed to tell.

    I do appreciate your position.

  237. avatar
    SFJeff May 10, 2010 at 2:32 pm #

    Charo,

    You seem to keep missing the point, at least from my point of view.
    First of all we have the BC that was published online and verified by Politifact. Sure you can deny it all you want, but on the very face of it, if the President were to produce this same document to a court, it would be accepted. But lets move on.
    Fukino has said that she has looked at the original documents and has verified that Obama was born in Hawaii. This is pretty much nail in coffin.

    But think beyond this- Fukino has also commented about the online COB and has seen the original documents. In order for your theory to work, you have to assume that Fukino has deliberately allowed President Obama to publish an incorrect BC.

    I certainly don’t know the privacy laws of Hawaii, but I would take a bet that in her official capacity, she could state President Obama’s published BC was incorrect or fraudualent- such as the people who speculate that he may have made the document uphimself- she could certainly state “that document does not reflect the information Hawaii has on file” without violating any laws. She might even be able to instigate a criminal action to determine the origin of a false BC.

    Finally, you keep coming back to this argument that Lingle broke privacy laws. It would only be germane if what she said was true- and if its true then President Obama is a natural born citizen. Arguing that Lingle broke privacy laws is tantamount to saying that agreeing that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    But then again you think that Obama may have ‘fudged’ his birth certificate. Do you also think that Fukino and Lingle both would knowingly support a fraudulant BC?

  238. avatar
    nbc May 10, 2010 at 3:05 pm #

    My question remains, why pick and chose the divulging? That is the reason for my “conspiracy” mindedness. Transaction receipt? No way no how. But, here is other information I ain’t supposed to tell.

    It’s a fine line between revealing data that can be shared and data that should remain private.
    Index data, which was shared by Fukino, can be released which, as she points out, shows Obama born on US soil.
    The location of the hospital is not part of the index data, neither are receipts.

    So the Governor messed up.

    Your point?

  239. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 10, 2010 at 4:14 pm #

    I lost my father in November, and am doing the estate too. I feel for ya.

    I’ve looked at the regulations, and I sincerely do not see anything illegal in what Fukino did. I don’t think Lingle did anything illegal either presuming (as I do) that Lingle’s mention of the hospital was based something other than Fukino’s press release (which it had to be). It can hardly be illegal for Fukino to say something that is published in the newspaper for every child born in Hawaii.