Main Menu

Long form sighted?

A commenter under the name Danae at the Free Republic forum has posted what is claimed to be a recently-obtained (since 2001) copy of their original Hawaiian birth certificate. Here’s the image:

Non-certified copy of Hawaiian birth certificate

In support of the claim of authenticity, an image of a receipt from the Hawaii Department of Health was published.

Here is my take on all of this.

I personally think it likely that the document is authentic.

There is nothing in the image that tells me when it was issued. There is nothing that ties the image to the receipt. There is simply no way to verify the authenticity of the document as a recently-issued one (since Hawaii went “paperless” in 2001). In fact, creation of a fake one from an old Hawaiian birth certificate, is easy to accomplish.

Contrast this to Barack Obama’s published Certification of Live Birth which is on security paper, has a signature stamp and a raised seal (internal authentication) and the facts of which are verified by the Hawaii Department of Health on their web site.

On the other hand, I have no reason to conclude that the document is not authentic. The Hawaii Department of Health has stated officially, and to commenters here, that they no longer issue long-form birth certificates. However, the document in question here is not a long-form birth certificate. It is not a birth certificate of any kind because it is not certified (stamped, signed, sealed) by the state. It’s just a photocopy of an original birth certificate. It is no more a birth certificate than a photocopy of your driver’s license is a driver’s license. Therefore, issuing this plain-paper copy is consistent with the Department of Health’s statement that they don’t issue long form birth certificates any more. (In fact, I have consulted with another jurisdiction that works exactly that way — no certified copy of the long form, but they will print a image on request.)

If I had bet someone that they couldn’t get a Hawaiian long form birth certificate, I wouldn’t pay up for this piece of paper. Without any doubt, if Barack Obama were to release a document like this, not on security paper, not signed, not dated, not sealed, the birthers would not accept it, and they would most definitely not accept it as a “birth certificate.” That is, Danae has not produced what the birthers are demanding from Barack Obama.

Update:

I got an email from Danae, who filled in some of the blanks in her story, including the name of the organization for which she needed the “long form.” There were several markers in the story that increased my confidence that her document is exactly what it purports to be and nothing that led me to doubt it.

Everyone, please keep in mind that the publication of personal information about non-public figures on this blog is against the Editorial Policy and is prohibited.

305 Responses to Long form sighted?

  1. avatar
    richCares October 21, 2010 at 2:08 pm #

    So a form not on security paper, not signed, not dated, not sealed, gets the birthers all excited.
    .
    Plus it’s pretty short for a “long” form. Since it has doctors signature that suggest this was done in 1969. Or ask how did the doctor sign this in 2010 (or is it just a copy of she had in 1969. What would Hawaii say if this copy was sent to them for verification.
    Doesn’t take much to get a birther excited, does it?

  2. avatar
    Arthur October 21, 2010 at 2:16 pm #

    Dr. C:

    I’ve got a couple of questions . . . first, does the information contained on this document include all the information that one would expect to find on a State of Hawaii “long-form” birth certificate? Second, are you saying that someone could obtain a doucment like this in 2010, or that a document like this was only available before 2001? Third, if this document is not certified — and so, cannot be called a birth certificate — what does the Hawaii Department of Health call it, and what purpose does a document like this serve?

    Thanks!

  3. avatar
    richCares October 21, 2010 at 2:16 pm #

    I emailed my niece in Hawaii on this, she works for State Dept, she said “you can’t get a passport with this thing, it’s not a birth certificate, I can’t see the State issueing such a thing”

  4. avatar
    richCares October 21, 2010 at 2:32 pm #

    my niece had a problem with the state title at top left:
    “Department of Health”
    “Research and Statistics Office”

    She said the Research and Statistics Office is not in the Health Dept, it is in the labor dept and its function is to provide information that can help with research, business planning, job search and career decisions.

    You can see for yourself:
    http://hawaii.gov/labor/rs

  5. avatar
    NBC October 21, 2010 at 2:35 pm #

    She said the Research and Statistics Office is not in the Health Dept, it is in the labor dept and its function is to provide information that can help with research, business planning, job search and career decisions.

    This is correct and irrelevant as the original birth certificates as filed did belong to this branch. It can be found on other long form certificates from Hawaii..

    I explored this one as well as it looked ‘suspicious’. False alarm

  6. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund October 21, 2010 at 2:36 pm #

    Arthur-

    While I can’t remember exactly what they call it, I do know why they still issue these. Unlike the short form, the long form contains data about the parents that is used to verify Native Hawai’ian status.

  7. avatar
    NBC October 21, 2010 at 2:46 pm #

    It’s a damned if you do and damned if you don’t

    James Cone is seen as the mentor of Jeremiah Wright and a powerful voice in Black Liberation Theology.

    Know him and you are an extremist, don’t know him and you never attended Columbia… Fools.

  8. avatar
    NBC October 21, 2010 at 2:47 pm #

    It is a long form certificate which lacks the identification, date stamp, raised seal, and signature, as well as the safety paper.

    Arthur: Dr. C:I’ve got a couple of questions . . . first, does the information contained on this document include all the information that one would expect to find on a State of Hawaii “long-form” birth certificate? Second, are you saying that someone could obtain a doucment like thisin 2010, or that a document like this was only available before 2001? Third, if this document is not certified — and so, cannot be called a birth certificate — what does the Hawaii Department of Health call it, and what purpose does a document like this serve?
    Thanks!

  9. avatar
    sponson October 21, 2010 at 2:48 pm #

    If President Obama himself caved in to demands that he direct Hawaiian officials to release the document that was created at the time of his birth, and is still on file, would this document be on security paper and have a seal on it, or not? In other words, please correct me if I am confused, but perhaps Danae, some time between 2009 and now, requested a photocopy of an old, no longer valid for legal purposes, birth certificate document, and Hawaii complied and sent her such a photocopy?

  10. avatar
    NBC October 21, 2010 at 2:48 pm #

    NBC: o

    Wrong thread

  11. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund October 21, 2010 at 3:07 pm #

    Note that sometime within the past 15 months, the long form became no longer required for Native Hawai’ian status.

  12. avatar
    racosta October 21, 2010 at 3:48 pm #

    can you imagine the birther comments if Obama released this type of document as the “long form”. what a joke that would be!
    What birthers really need is more funding for the mental hospital.

  13. avatar
    sponson October 21, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    I’d like to rephrase my previous question in a different way. As I understand it, the President, as a person born in Hawaii, has a right to instruct Hawaii to release his “long form” original 1961 birth certificate to the public if he so desires, and also that such a document exists. Based on that premise (someone please correct me if it’s inaccurate), my question is, wouldn’t the result of such a request look no more “certified” or “real” than what was posted multiple times on the internet by Danae? I don’t think Danae’s posting rose to the level of the challenge, it raises more questions than it answers. However I do think that if Obama “complied to the demands,” he would run into the same problems that Danae is having now. Only they wouldn’t be caused by misleading people about the provenance of the document, which is Danae’s problem.

  14. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP October 21, 2010 at 4:14 pm #

    “Danae” is just shooting for her very own Globe headline. I’m sure that they will pay for it, and it’s not beyond birfoons to do this kind of thing to get their 15 minutes of “fame.”

  15. avatar
    Arthur October 21, 2010 at 4:24 pm #

    W. Kevin Vicklund: Arthur-While I can’t remember exactly what they call it, I do know why they still issue these. Unlike the short form, the long form contains data about the parents that is used to verify Native Hawai’ian status.

    I was thinking that it might have something to do with geneology–thanks for the reply.

  16. avatar
    Arthur October 21, 2010 at 4:27 pm #

    NBC: It is a long form certificate which lacks the identification, date stamp, raised seal, and signature, as well as the safety paper.

    So if you went to order oneof these from the Dept. of Health, would you ask for an uncertified birth record? I’m curious, because I thought all you could get these days was a document like the one President Obama has already presented.

  17. avatar
    mystylplx October 21, 2010 at 4:27 pm #

    Why does it list Oregon as the state of birth?

  18. avatar
    mystylplx October 21, 2010 at 4:28 pm #

    Oops. Never mind. (Silly me…:)

  19. avatar
    Arthur October 21, 2010 at 4:30 pm #

    sponson: I’d like to rephrase my previous question in a different way. As I understand it, the President, as a person born in Hawaii, has a right to instruct Hawaii to release his “long form” original 1961 birth certificate to the public if he so desires, and also that such a document exists.

    I was under the impression that one could not do this, even if one was a born in Hawaii.

  20. avatar
    Arthur October 21, 2010 at 4:33 pm #

    richCares: I emailed my niece in Hawaii on this, she works for State Dept, she said “you can’t get a passport with this thing, it’s not a birth certificate, I can’t see the State issueing such a thing”

    So what is this “thing”? Is it a product of the state of Hawaii or a fabrication? Is it valid evidence to support an argument, and if so, what is the argument? What bearing does this document have on President Obama? I’m remain in the dark.

  21. avatar
    racosta October 21, 2010 at 4:58 pm #

    “what is the argument?”
    the argument was that you can order a “long form” from Hawaii
    therefore Obama can order his

    But if Obama showed this type it would not be adequate for the birthers, it would not be an acceptable long form

    therefore No Argument, No Bearing! Just a joke!

  22. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 21, 2010 at 5:01 pm #

    Arthur: So what is this “thing”? Is it a product of the state of Hawaii or a fabrication? Is it valid evidence to support an argument, and if so, what is the argument? What bearing does this document have on President Obama? I’m remain in the dark.

    Its not valid evidence of anything. There’s no seal, no date of issuance nothing to tie it actually came from the DOH but looks like an earlier form that Danae posted earlier in the year.

  23. avatar
    gorefan October 21, 2010 at 5:14 pm #

    NBC: It is a long form certificate which lacks the identification, date stamp, raised seal, and signature, as well as the safety paper

    One of the ways to document something is with the story that goes with it (it’s provenance). This is where I have problems with this copy.

    She says she needed the copy for an “organization”, but didn’t know whether they wanted a certified or non-certified copy. So she got a non-certified copy. She already has a copy of her BC, she posted it online. So why not just make a copy of it?

    She then waits several weeks to post the copy after receiving it. Said she was busy. Ok, we all get busy. Although, if I was trying to stop a constitutional crisis, I probably would have found the time.

    When she does post it, it is a washed out, low resolution copy. Is she trying to hide something? I don’t know. But she had no problem posting a color scan of her older BC copy. If you had just gotten the answer to a debate that’s been going on for sometime, wouldn’t you post a high resolution, color copy? Maybe not even a scan but a photo?

    And now, Danae is claiming that when she order the BC, that she communicated with Dr. Onaka, himself. Didn’t mention that fact earlier, funny. I would think that would be a big deal.

    Post 1442

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2606951/posts?q=1&;page=1401

    If you are a birther and you know all the arguments as to why you don’t accept the President’s COLB, wouldn’t you go out of your way not to repeat those issues? Why isn’t this more straightforward? If she was trying on purpose to create suspicion, she couldn’t have done a better job.

  24. avatar
    Expelliarmus October 21, 2010 at 5:26 pm #

    sponson: As I understand it, the President, as a person born in Hawaii, has a right to instruct Hawaii to release his “long form” original 1961 birth certificate to the public if he so desires, and also that such a document exists. Based on that premise (someone please correct me if it’s inaccurate)

    Your premise is inaccurate. Hawaii went digital a number of years back and only issues the type of computer printed (and certified) document that Obama posted on his web site during his campaign. Hawaii doesn’t “release” anything else to anyone.

  25. avatar
    Expelliarmus October 21, 2010 at 5:28 pm #

    sponson: Based on that premise (someone please correct me if it’s inaccurate), my question is, wouldn’t the result of such a request look no more “certified” or “real” than what was posted multiple times on the internet by Danae? I don’t think Danae’s posting rose to the level of the challenge, it raises more questions than it answers. However I do think that if Obama “complied to the demands,” he would run into the same problems that Danae is having now.

    I do think that despite the mistaken premise, you have made a good point. If, in fact, Danae’s posted certificate were genuine… and if Obama posted something similar .. clearly that would not satisfy the birthers.

  26. avatar
    Arthur October 21, 2010 at 5:46 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Its not valid evidence of anything. There’s no seal, no date of issuance nothing to tie it actually came from the DOH but looks like an earlier form that Danae posted earlier in the year.

    Hi Dr. K:

    If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that a few months ago Danae posted a document that was a fabriaction, and that the current document is an altered iteration of that ealier document. Dr. C., on the other hand, says he has no reason to doubt the document’s authenticity, although he observes that it cannot serve as a valid birth certificate.

    Does anyone have evidence to establish whether the document is authentic? I don’t mean things like “The font is the wrong size so it must be fake” but evidence that Hawaii has issued or currently issues this type of uncertified birth record.

    Thanks.

  27. avatar
    gorefan October 21, 2010 at 5:49 pm #

    One thing that her copy has going for it are the two fields at the bottom (mom and dad race). Why their floating space away from the rest of the BC is a question mark.

    This might be resolved, if Hawaiiborn could ask the HDOH for a non-certified BC and see what he gets.

  28. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 21, 2010 at 5:59 pm #

    Arthur: Hi Dr. K:If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that a few months ago Danae posted a document that was a fabriaction, and that the current document is an altered iteration of that ealier document. Dr. C., on the other hand, says he has no reason to doubt the document’s authenticity, although he observes that it cannot serve as a valid birth certificate. Does anyone have evidence to establish whether the document is authentic? I don’t mean things like “The font is the wrong size so it must be fake” but evidence that Hawaii has issued or currently issues this type of uncertified birth record. Thanks.

    No that’s not what I said. The original posting she did may very well be a real copy. The fact remains though that the recent one would have security advances included with the seal and date of issuance.

  29. avatar
    nbc October 21, 2010 at 6:09 pm #

    gorefan: One thing that her copy has going for it are the two fields at the bottom (mom and dad race). Why their floating space away from the rest of the BC is a question mark.

    This might be resolved, if Hawaiiborn could ask the HDOH for a non-certified BC and see what he gets.

    They were not on the original certificate and thus added later from another part of the form?

    I just made a similar argument on the Fogbow as to why I have come around on the veracity and find Danae’s position more than just credible because of presumption of innocence. Why ‘invent’ two boxes that clearly were not on the first (certified) document she got.

  30. avatar
    nbc October 21, 2010 at 6:11 pm #

    Arthur: Does anyone have evidence to establish whether the document is authentic? I don’t mean things like “The font is the wrong size so it must be fake” but evidence that Hawaii has issued or currently issues this type of uncertified birth record.

    So far the evidence is lacking other than through indirect evidence

    1. Danae claims this is what she got
    2. RC and others called the DOH and were told they do not provide such documents

    It would be helpful to get Onaka’s statement on this. Did she or someone from her office, talk to Danae and did they sent an uncertified copy.

  31. avatar
    nbc October 21, 2010 at 6:59 pm #

    An uncertified copy of a birth certificate will be a photocopy on plain, white paper of the original document that was filed in our office. The information provided on a birth certificate varies from year to year. Typically, a birth certificate from 1907 will include the name of the child, the date of birth, the place of birth, and the parents’ names. Birth certificates from later years may include information on the time of birth, and the ages, place of birth, and occupation of the parents.

    Source: Wisconsin DH

    What do you mean by an uncertified copy of a certificate?
    Uncertified copies of certificates[b] are available to anyone who requests them [/b]with the exception of birth certificates for adopted persons. You must be able to provide us with all of the information requested on the application and pay the appropriate fees. Normally, uncertified copies are not accepted for legal purposes.

    Source: North Carolina

    So available to anyone, same in Minnesota, not even a tangible interest is needed…

    Demonstration of tangible interest is not required to obtain a non-certified copy of a birth record. However, release of non-certified copies of confidential birth records is restricted so you will be required to have your signature notarized on the application.

    Source: Minnesota

    Hawaii

    Abbreviated Copy
    (1) A certified copy may be issued to any person authorized to receive a standard certified copy.
    (2) A non-certified copy containing only such information as is listed in accordance with Section 2.2 may be issued to any person or organization requesting it.

    Section 2.2 states that the Director can determine what information will be provided. Given the precedent set with Danae, perhaps they have opened up our President’s BC for public non-certified display…

    Anyone care to apply for one?

  32. avatar
    Arthur October 21, 2010 at 7:23 pm #

    nbc: So far the evidence is lacking other than through indirect evidence1. Danae claims this is what she got2. RC and others called the DOH and were told they do not provide such documentsIt would be helpful to get Onaka’s statement on this. Did she or someone from her office, talk to Danae and did they sent an uncertified copy.

    Thanks for the update.

  33. avatar
    sponson October 21, 2010 at 7:38 pm #

    Thanks for the replies to my questions, everyone. I was under the impression that someone born in Hawaii in the “older form” birth certificate era prior to 2001, could request a non-certified, unofficial, plain photocopy of the document if they wanted it for some reason and if it still existed. In fact I’ve assumed all along that the President theoretically could do this, but chooses not to, and I complete support him if that were the case. The reason: trying to use an older-style document to settle a dispute of authenticity would undermine not just Hawaii’s modernized vital records system, but the system of every other state which has done something similar in the last two decades. This would be terribly compounded if the person requesting a copy of the “old style” document were the US President.

  34. avatar
    sponson October 21, 2010 at 7:51 pm #

    Quoting Dr. C in the post: Quoting Dr. C in the post:
    The Hawaii Department of Health has stated officially, and to commenters here, that they no longer issue long-form birth certificates. However, the document in question here is not a long-form birth certificate. It is not a birth certificate of any kind because it is not certified (stamped, signed, sealed) by the state. It’s just a photocopy of an original birth certificate. It is no more a birth certificate than a photocopy of your driver’s license is a driver’s license. Therefore, issuing this plain-paper copy is consistent with the Department of Health’s statement that they don’t issue long form birth certificates any more. (In fact, I have consulted with another jurisdiction that works exactly that way — no certified copy of the long form, but they will print a image on request.)

    I cannot confirm that Hawaii has such a policy (the state would “print an image on request” of a superseded, obsolete, non-valid document, which would be completely non-official) but I’ve been under the same impression since the time that I first heard of the birther conspiracy claims.

  35. avatar
    DancingRabbit October 21, 2010 at 7:53 pm #

    jamese777 must think the document is authentic…he paid the bet.

    https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/donors

  36. avatar
    Judge Mental October 21, 2010 at 8:05 pm #

    Danae has not specified any of the so far vague circumstances which gave rise to her apparently believing that the “organization” in question that she was attempting to satisfy wouldn’t be quite happy with a copy of her existing short form which is already in her possesssion and instead would want to see specifically her long form. In other words she hasn’t actually given the reason why she requested a long form.

    I don’t know about anyone else but that alone immediately makes me wonder what kind of an “organization” would lead Danae to believe that her existing certified short form was insufficient for their purpose?

    Even if you cross that initial bridge of scepticism succesfully what on earth would lead her or Onaka to believe that an organization which has such a strenuous requirement as to require sight of a long form instead of a legally valid short form, would then be prepared to accept a photocopy instead of a certified copy?

    The entire alleged scenario is absurd and stinks to high heaven.

  37. avatar
    DancingRabbit October 21, 2010 at 8:05 pm #

    It matters not where Obama was born..he is not a natural born citizen. Nevermind the 1758 Law of Nations.

    The 1797 and later editions of the Law of Nations…show Obama is an illegal President based on the citizenship of his father.

    Let this sink in a moment…there is a respected book…used by Jefferson..Supreme Court Justices and others…after..1797….

    Do you get it…

  38. avatar
    JoZeppy October 21, 2010 at 8:14 pm #

    DancingRabbit: It matters not where Obama was born..he is not a natural born citizen. Nevermind the 1758 Law of Nations.The 1797 and later editions of the Law of Nations…show Obama is an illegal President based on the citizenship of his father.Let this sink in a moment…there is a respected book…used by Jefferson..Supreme Court Justices and others…after..1797….Do you get it…

    Yes, we get it. You’ve totally bought in to the Vattel fantasy of citizenship that has no support in US law.

  39. avatar
    gorefan October 21, 2010 at 8:18 pm #

    DancingRabbit: Do you get it…

    Actually, you don’t get it.

    There was a well respected book that was referenced by James Madison as having been used at the Constitutional Convention –
    Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. And in that book the President is eligible.

    But don’t take my word for it. Listen to the words of James 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.”

    He made this statement in1789, after he helped write the Constitution

  40. avatar
    charo October 21, 2010 at 8:21 pm #

    Danae posted it all on Freep.

  41. avatar
    gorefan October 21, 2010 at 8:22 pm #

    nbc: Anyone care to apply for one?

    I don’t understand. Why would Hawaii be willing to give someone a non-cert. copy of their BC with all the info of a long form, but not give them a certified copy of the same info?

  42. avatar
    JoZeppy October 21, 2010 at 8:26 pm #

    charo: Danae posted it all on Freep.

    At best she has evidence that the state of Hawaii is willing to give her totally unauthenticated photo copy of a document that is utterly useless for any official purpose (and should the president have provided such a copy, they would justifiably laugh at it). At worst, she’s trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes in a desparate attempt at attention.

  43. avatar
    charo October 21, 2010 at 8:31 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    At best she has evidence that the state of Hawaii is willing to give her totally unauthenticated photo copy of a document that is utterly useless for any official purpose (and should the president have provided such a copy, they would justifiably laugh at it).At worst, she’s trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes in a desparate attempt at attention.

    It was a response to a bet.

  44. avatar
    JoZeppy October 21, 2010 at 8:32 pm #

    gorefan: I don’t understand. Why would Hawaii be willing to give someone a non-cert. copy of their BC with all the info of a long form, but not give them a certified copy of the same info?

    Because it is very easy to produce a photocopy of a document on file. It becomes much more difficult when you have to turn around, put that photocopy on security paper (of course dealing with multiple versions of forms produced over the ages, different sizes, etc) and authenticate it.

    Truth be told, this is very plausible. Fits in with the State’s statements that they no longer issue the “long form” and is possible that everything she got, came from the state. She doesn’t have a long form b.c. She has a photocopy of a long form. It’s not a birth certificate by any stretch of the imagination. You wouldn’t be able to use it to get a passport, driver’s license, or any government service. It’s genuinely meaningless as an official document.

  45. avatar
    JoZeppy October 21, 2010 at 8:33 pm #

    charo: It was a response to a bet.

    I suppose it comes down to the exact wording of the bet. If she claimed she could get a long form BC, she lost. If she claimed to be able to get a copy of a long form BC, she won.

  46. avatar
    charo October 21, 2010 at 8:37 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    I suppose it comes down to the exact wording of the bet.If she claimed she could get a long form BC, she lost.If she claimed to be able to get a copy of a long form BC, she won.

    I am not familiar with the details, but I am interested to know if the DoH stated that the COLB is the ONLY document generated. Do you know offhand?

  47. avatar
    charo October 21, 2010 at 8:38 pm #

    JoZeppy: It’s genuinely meaningless as an official document.

    Then I wonder why the charge is the same? Seems like there should be a discount.

  48. avatar
    gorefan October 21, 2010 at 8:51 pm #

    DancingRabbit: used by Jefferson..Supreme Court Justices and others…after..1797….

    Oh, I forgot to mention,

    Justice Scalia – “Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715
    (1999), cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen.” DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

    Blackstone has been cited by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions.

  49. avatar
    DancingRabbit October 21, 2010 at 9:05 pm #

    jamese777 paid the bet in the form of a donation to free republic.

    https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/donors

    The Obama campaign and the owner of this site and his supporters have been debunked by free republic.

    The documents have been posted at #1545 by danae…this site owes free republic and danae an appology.

  50. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross October 21, 2010 at 9:19 pm #

    DancingRabbit: jamese777 paid the bet in the form of a donation to free republic.
    https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/donorsThe Obama campaign and the owner of this site and his supporters have been debunked by free republic.The documents have been posted at #1545 by danae…this site owes free republic and danae an appology.

    Danae did not fulfill the terms of the bet. The bet was that she present a long form birth certificate after 2001. What she presented was not a birth certificate, was not official, and had no information on when it was issued on it.

  51. avatar
    DancingRabbit October 21, 2010 at 9:34 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross:
    Danae did not fulfill the terms of the bet.The bet was that she present a long form birth certificate after 2001.What she presented was not a birth certificate, was not official, and had no information on when it was issued on it.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2606951/posts?page=1565#1565

    We received $200 from jamese777 and his permission to state if asked that it was sent in.

    1,565 posted on Thursday, October 21, 2010 6:12:57 PM by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Just vote them OUT!!)

  52. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross October 21, 2010 at 9:37 pm #

    DancingRabbit:
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2606951/posts?page=1565#1565We received $200 from jamese777 and his permission to state if asked that it was sent in.1,565 posted on Thursday, October 21, 2010 6:12:57 PM by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Just vote them OUT!!)

    James doesn’t speak for us. According to the terms of the bet Danae did not fulfill it and james paid anyway. She did not present a long form birth certificate.

  53. avatar
    Majority Will October 21, 2010 at 9:56 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross:
    James doesn’t speak for us.According to the terms of the bet Danae did not fulfill it and james paid anyway.She did not present a long form birth certificate.

    I agree.

    They’ve made it abundantly clear why sane people dismiss irrelevant freepers as puerile, whiny lunatics.

  54. avatar
    gorefan October 21, 2010 at 9:58 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross: According to the terms of the bet

    For anyone who gives a hoot, here are the terms of the bet.

    Post 1341
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2606951/posts?q=1&;page=1301

  55. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross October 21, 2010 at 10:03 pm #

    gorefan:
    For anyone who gives a hoot, here are the terms of the bet.Post 1341
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2606951/posts?q=1&;page=1301

    And danae didnt fulfill the terms

  56. avatar
    jamese777 October 21, 2010 at 10:05 pm #

    I was asked yesterday by a poster named “Mr. Rogers” who fights the good fight on FreeRepublic against birtherism to donate in spite of the bet and i did that. I have spent five years on FreeRepublic, much of it challenging birthers.

    My donation was not to pay the bet but rather for five years worth of enjoyment in posting over there on various issues but most of all, on President Obama’s eligibility.

    The bet was not with Danae but with a FreeRepublic poster user named “Rolling_Stone”.
    Danae did say that she would post a long form back in the late Spring of this year. I waited for four months and then declared victory and asked Rolling_Stone to pay up. He said that he would (he now denies ever having said that).

    Months ago Danae said that her father had died and that was why she did not post the long form earlier.

    I knew from the start that someone might well scan an image of an old long form and claim that it was new after having ordered and received a short form COLB.

    I am taking steps to confirm whether or not Hawai’l still issues long forms to anyone under any conditions and I am hoping to get that information not from a clerk or from the Director of Communications, Janice Okubo, but from the proverbial “horse’s mouth,” Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, the Registrar of Vital Statistics for the state.

    More than six months ago I was asked if I was being paid to post on FreeRepublic by the Obama administration, who had contacted me from the administration to post there and how much I was being paid. I answered that yes, I was indeed a paid operative of the Obama administration, that I was contacted via psychic messages inserted in my dreams from Rahm Emanuel and that I was being paid minimum wage but because of poor posts, my salary had been reduced.
    Those posts of mine about being a “paid Obot: are the only ones on FreeRepubiic that are accepted as true and honest by the birthers! 😉

  57. avatar
    DaveH October 21, 2010 at 10:08 pm #

    FACT: If Obama were to release a long form BC from Hawai’i ON security paper, with a raised seal and signed by whoever is responsible for signing the document, the birfers would say it is a forgery just as they claim the short form is a forgery.

    So, in my opinion, this is nothing to even discuss with these ‘morans’. You can’t fix stupid.

  58. avatar
    DancingRabbit October 21, 2010 at 10:12 pm #

    Let this be a warning…do not attempt to piss in free republics sand box. You will get spanked.

  59. avatar
    gorefan October 21, 2010 at 10:16 pm #

    DancingRabbit: You will get spanked.

    But apparently not by you, since you don’t seem to even know who William Blackstone was.

  60. avatar
    Arthur October 21, 2010 at 10:17 pm #

    Thanks, jamese777, for putting this incident into context. I hope you will be able to get timely and accurate information from the state of Hawaii. I’ve been a bit confused by the discussion, and I look forward to learning the facts–if such a thing is possible.

  61. avatar
    Majority Will October 21, 2010 at 10:19 pm #

    DaveH: FACT: If Obama were to release a long form BC from Hawai’i ON security paper, with a raised seal and signed by whoever is responsible for signing the document, the birfers would say it is a forgery just as they claim the short form is a forgery.So, in my opinion, this is nothing to even discuss with these morans’. You can’t fix stupid.

    Deranged, paranoid conspiracy theorists will never be interested in the truth. If it doesn’t fit their delusions however convoluted or outright impossible, it will be dismissed. I believe most of the birfers are hate driven and all of them are cowards running from their deepest, darkest fear they might be wrong. Forget reason, credible evidence or Ockham’s razor.

  62. avatar
    gorefan October 21, 2010 at 10:21 pm #

    DancingRabbit: do not attempt to piss in free republics sand box

    Did you just call the freerepublic a litterbox.

  63. avatar
    Majority Will October 21, 2010 at 10:23 pm #

    Was Free Republic bought by Stormfront.org?

  64. avatar
    Majority Will October 21, 2010 at 10:25 pm #

    gorefan:
    Did you just call the freerepublic a litterbox.

    That makes sense. Freepers aren’t potty trained?
    Even so, I stopped playing in sand boxes when I was four.

  65. avatar
    Arthur October 21, 2010 at 10:26 pm #

    DancingRabbit: Let this be a warning…do not attempt to piss in free republics sand box. You will get spanked.

    DancingRabbit:

    It was not until this evening that I visited the site called Free Republic. You don’t have to worry about me pissing anywhere near you, for I was put off by everything I observed–from the inane and insulting rants to the undecorous design. You may have your website to yourself and I hope you enjoy it.

  66. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross October 21, 2010 at 10:47 pm #

    DancingRabbit: Let this be a warning…do not attempt to piss in free republics sand box. You will get spanked.

    So you’re saying that not only is free republic a shithole but they also are into S&M? There was no warning. I’ve learned my lesson over at Free Republic do not post facts otherwise your comments will be moderated and you will be banned without warning. Danae did not fulfill the bet by posting a long form birth certificate but rather a white wash she made from an older copy she had.

  67. avatar
    mystylplx October 21, 2010 at 11:24 pm #

    Even if it is possible to get an uncertified copy the question remains… Why should he do so? He’s already objectively provided more proof of his birth circumstances than any other President in history. What other President has not only shown a certified birth certificate, but also all the other corroborating evidence that Obama has shown? Most Presidents never showed any kind of birth certificate to the public.

    So given that, what advantage would there be for him to continue capitulating to nutjobs when it’s become quite obvious they won’t accept anything he offers anyway?

    Not to mention the fact that they (the nutjobs) only help him politically.

  68. avatar
    DancingRabbit October 22, 2010 at 3:00 am #

    To: bushpilot1; jamese777; Danae; All

    jamese777..”I am taking steps to confirm whether or not Hawaii’l still issues long forms to anyone under any conditions and I am hoping to get that information not from a clerk or from the Director of Communications, Janice Okubo, but from the proverbial “horse’s mouth,” Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, the Registrar of Vital Statistics for the state.”(jamese777)

    Let me get this straight:

    Anti-Birthers actually believe that the freckin'(sitting) President of the United States couldn’t get his own “vault” “long form” birth certificate from Hawaii?!!

    IF he so wished, he could have the whole HDOH in his office tomorrow — “long form” Birth Certificate in there hot little hands(figuratively) — and the frickin’ “vault” too!(LOL!!)

    You have got to be the most gullible people on the planet!

    When Stalin coined the term “useful Idiots”… he had YOU in mind.

    It’s not that you have low IQs or that you are, literally, idiots… it’s just that you are so easily duped.

    The “funny” thing is if you ever DO wake up to how you’ve been played you well yell and scream even more than the birthers you deride!

    Unfortunately, by that time, it’s usually too late to reverse course.

    You are so easily manipulated.

    The Idea that Obama can’t get a hold of his original “long form” Birth Certificate (assuming there ever was one under one of his many names) is, well…

    As George Orwell said:

    “Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them.”

    I can understand differences of opinion as to the definition of “Natural Born Citizen,” — and other constitutional “controversies,” — but that the most powerful man in the world can’t take possession of his own “long form” Birth Certificate because “Hawaii no longer makes them available” is beyond absurd!

    STE=Q

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2606951/posts?q=1&;page=1601

  69. avatar
    Expelliarmus October 22, 2010 at 4:09 am #

    DancingRabbit: but that the most powerful man in the world can’t take possession of his own “long form” Birth Certificate because “Hawaii no longer makes them available” is beyond absurd!

    I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the 10th Amendment or the US Constitution.

    And while you are at it, you might try reading Article II.

    It’s amazing that you Birthers who seem to be so obsessed with three little words in Article II are so eager to see the rest of the Constitution trashed.

  70. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 22, 2010 at 7:32 am #

    DancingRabbit: Anti-Birthers actually believe that the freckin’(sitting) President of the United States couldn’t get his own “vault” “long form” birth certificate from Hawaii?!!

    I don’t think anti-birthers are of one mind on this question; however, the answer is irrelevant to the question of whether Barack Obama is eligible, has already released a birth certificate and whether it is to his advantage to release a long form if he could.

    Given that birthers are an embarrassment to the Republicans, with the possibility that their crank theories might taint candidates in a few races, it is probably not in the President’s interest to release anything right now.

  71. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 22, 2010 at 7:42 am #

    Arthur: I’ve got a couple of questions . . . first, does the information contained on this document include all the information that one would expect to find on a State of Hawaii “long-form” birth certificate? Second, are you saying that someone could obtain a document like this in 2010, or that a document like this was only available before 2001? Third, if this document is not certified — and so, cannot be called a birth certificate — what does the Hawaii Department of Health call it, and what purpose does a document like this serve

    What I am saying is that I find it plausible that someone could get a document like the one above today. I cannot make a sound argument that it’s not authentic.

    To answer your first question, refer to the National Standard Birth Certificate which (although newer) is the document that all states model their certificates after. You will see that it contains far more information than the certificate above, and more than any certificate you have ever seen. This is because hospital birth reports contain two kinds of information: legal information and medical information. The medical information is part of the report, but not part of the legal certificate.

    I think it is most likely that the document above was cropped from the hospital report (what is called in the industry the “full certificate”). For all intents and purposes, what we see is the same thing we would see in a certified copy of the certificate produced before 2001. An example of a Hawaiian “long form” certificate from 1963 is here for comparison.

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 22, 2010 at 7:50 am #

    sponson: However I do think that if Obama “complied to the demands,” he would run into the same problems that Danae is having now.

    In theory, the State of Hawaii could photocopy the long form onto security paper, stamp and seal it. It wouldn’t be a standard birth certificate, since that form is not the standard now, but the birthers couldn’t make this objection because the standard form is the COLB that they already reject.

  73. avatar
    Majority Will October 22, 2010 at 7:51 am #

    Birthers’ demands are irrelevant.

    Birthers’ pointless, repetitious squawks have been irrelevant since the President was legally and democratically elected.

    Many birthers are nothing more than arrogant, pathetic lunatics motivated by their own psychosis and hate driven obsessions with politics and race. And you cannot reason with a hardcore conspiracy theorist. Ever. Any credible evidence is twisted to further justify or explain a birther’s delusions. Paranoia and fear breeds more paranoia and fear.

    We’ve witnessed the hypocrisy of a birther willing to trash and personally rewrite the Constitution they pretend to defend,

    Nothing more and a whole lot less.

  74. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 22, 2010 at 7:56 am #

    nbc: I just made a similar argument on the Fogbow as to why I have come around on the veracity and find Danae’s position more than just credible because of presumption of innocence. Why invent’ two boxes that clearly were not on the first (certified) document she got.

    That’s a very good point, and is consistent with an ad-hoc cropping of the full certificate for this special request for a non-certified copy. Remember that the “full certificate” has medical information that is never released to the public, especially now with the HIPAA regulations.

  75. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 22, 2010 at 7:58 am #

    jamese777: I am taking steps to confirm whether or not Hawai’l still issues long forms to anyone under any conditions and I am hoping to get that information not from a clerk or from the Director of Communications, Janice Okubo, but from the proverbial “horse’s mouth,” Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, the Registrar of Vital Statistics for the state.

    When asking the question, make the distinction between a certified copy and a non-certified copy.

  76. avatar
    Majority Will October 22, 2010 at 8:02 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    In theory, the State of Hawaii could photocopy the long form onto security paper, stamp and seal it. It wouldn’t be a standard birth certificate, since that form is not the standard now, but the birthers couldn’t make this objection because the standard form is the COLB that they already reject.

    Which as sane people know would be a pointless, time wasting exercise.

    It’s a safe bet that WND and many hardcore birthers already have a birther ready spin waiting in the wings . . .

    . . . it’s a cover up because Hawaii is hiding something else . . . they were bribed , , , it’s not truly official because a temp saw the real records . . . the CIA is involved . . . Hawaii was never a state . . . and on and on and on and on.

  77. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 22, 2010 at 8:56 am #

    DancingRabbit: To: bushpilot1; jamese777; Danae; Alljamese777..”I am taking steps to confirm whether or not Hawaii’l still issues long forms to anyone under any conditions and I am hoping to get that information not from a clerk or from the Director of Communications, Janice Okubo, but from the proverbial “horse’s mouth,” Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, the Registrar of Vital Statistics for the state.”(jamese777)Let me get this straight:Anti-Birthers actually believe that the freckin’(sitting) President of the United States couldn’t get his own “vault” “long form” birth certificate from Hawaii?!!IF he so wished, he could have the whole HDOH in his office tomorrow — “long form” Birth Certificate in there hot little hands(figuratively) — and the frickin’ “vault” too!(LOL!!)You have got to be the most gullible people on the planet!When Stalin coined the term “useful Idiots”… he had YOU in mind.It’s not that you have low IQs or that you are, literally, idiots… it’s just that you are so easily duped.The “funny” thing is if you ever DO wake up to how you’ve been played you well yell and scream even more than the birthers you deride!Unfortunately, by that time, it’s usually too late to reverse course.You are so easily manipulated.The Idea that Obama can’t get a hold of his original “long form” Birth Certificate (assuming there ever was one under one of his many names) is, well…As George Orwell said:“Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them.”I can understand differences of opinion as to the definition of “Natural Born Citizen,” — and other constitutional “controversies,” — but that the most powerful man in the world can’t take possession of his own “long form” Birth Certificate because “Hawaii no longer makes them available” is beyond absurd!STE=Q http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2606951/posts?q=1&;page=1601

    Here we go with pseudo-intelligent garbage from Free Republic crusading defender. Why you defend a heavily moderated, controlled site is beyond me. Danae couldn’t get her long form vault copy either. What she has shown us is an image that is almost identical to the previous one she put on her site. It is not an official birth certificate that was issued since 2001. Those were the terms. When asked to photograph the copy she received she has thus far failed to do so.

    As for your knowledge about the term useful idiot. Stalin didn’t coin it most people believed Lenin did but there is no evidence of the term Useful Idiots in any of his writings. The term’s earliest usage was in a Times article in 1948 describing Italian Politics. If anything the term would apply more aptly to the birther movement. Take for instance Lt. Col Lakin. He is a useful idiot of the movement, Jensen and his website were able to generate money off him while pretending to be an ally of his. They still try to make money off him even after he’s figured out the inevitable. Then there’s Orly Taitz who is a multimillionaire and was easily able to pay off her $20,000 sanction but still solicits money from her followers. Her followers are what you would call useful idiots.

    Obama is protected by the same privacy laws as the rest of us. Obama does not have the power to go into a state agency and make demands. This would be one of the real instances where the 10th amendment would apply.

    The state of Hawaii has said they don’t release them. Danae proved that by showing us not a certified copy with the date of issuance as well as security paper making it Prima Facie evidence but some rehash of an earlier certificate with not authenticating marks to it. Sorry if I don’t trust the birther movement as they have made forgeries in the past.

  78. avatar
    charo October 22, 2010 at 9:03 am #

    Some circumstantial evidence regarding the veracity of Danae. First, a few prior comments on Freep from someone named el sordo:

    1. “So until Yoda sits on the Supreme Court…”

    Denied still, their petitions would be.

    2. Continuing to believe that they haven’t gotten an answer because they haven’t gotten an answer they like is why some people never get anywhere.

    3. It’s not all that more irrational than some of the other birther theories.

    Now I’m not saying that it’s not patently stupid. I’m just saying that it’s not that much more stupid.

    4. Probably because Jensen reinforced Lakin’s delusions rather than slapping him down with reality.

    5. No, because yokels act stupidly in groups and will just operate along their own prejudices and misconceptions without any formal rules, structures, standards of evidence or accountability.

    How about this “Citizen’s Grand Jury” indictment: http://stj911.org/paul/SDCGJ_HistoricResults.html

    How stoked are you about their pronouncement?

    ****

    Now, on to this recent comment

    To: curiosity; james777; Danae; BuckeyeTexan
    To all it may concern, as well as those at least mildly interested.

    *Ahem*

    Danae and I live in the same town. She was kind enough to meet me on neutral ground and show me the documentation in question.

    I can wholeheartedly vouch for it being an actual document, printed on very real paper. I stake my reputation as an Obot on this!

    OK, jesting aside. It’s pretty obvious to me that she got it from Hawaii. On the back side of the copy of her long form there is a readable transfer of ink from the receipt forming a mirror image of where they had been in contact.

    It seem reasonable and clear to me that the two documents had been folded together soon after printing and had some time to get to know each other.

    Would it have been nice if she had asked for a certified copy? Yes, it would have. But that’s not the case.

    I have no reason to question her statement in regards to the pedigree of the document, regardless of any other issue or concerns.

    Danae and I had a nice opportunity to chat. We differ on certain matters and details in the meaning of NBC and other issues I imagine, but anyone who wants to call her a liar will now need to deal with me.

    -Whaps one fist into his palm-

    ***

    Circumstantial, as I said…

  79. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 22, 2010 at 9:10 am #

    charo: Some circumstantial evidence regarding the veracity of Danae. First, a few prior comments on Freep from someone named el sordo: 1. “So until Yoda sits on the Supreme Court…”Denied still, their petitions would be.2. Continuing to believe that they haven’t gotten an answer because they haven’t gotten an answer they like is why some people never get anywhere. 3. It’s not all that more irrational than some of the other birther theories.Now I’m not saying that it’s not patently stupid. I’m just saying that it’s not that much more stupid. 4. Probably because Jensen reinforced Lakin’s delusions rather than slapping him down with reality. 5. No, because yokels act stupidly in groups and will just operate along their own prejudices and misconceptions without any formal rules, structures, standards of evidence or accountability.How about this “Citizen’s Grand Jury” indictment: http://stj911.org/paul/SDCGJ_HistoricResults.htmlHow stoked are you about their pronouncement?****Now, on to this recent commentTo: curiosity; james777; Danae; BuckeyeTexanTo all it may concern, as well as those at least mildly interested.*Ahem*Danae and I live in the same town. She was kind enough to meet me on neutral ground and show me the documentation in question.I can wholeheartedly vouch for it being an actual document, printed on very real paper. I stake my reputation as an Obot on this!OK, jesting aside. It’s pretty obvious to me that she got it from Hawaii. On the back side of the copy of her long form there is a readable transfer of ink from the receipt forming a mirror image of where they had been in contact.It seem reasonable and clear to me that the two documents had been folded together soon after printing and had some time to get to know each other.Would it have been nice if she had asked for a certified copy? Yes, it would have. But that’s not the case.I have no reason to question her statement in regards to the pedigree of the document, regardless of any other issue or concerns.Danae and I had a nice opportunity to chat. We differ on certain matters and details in the meaning of NBC and other issues I imagine, but anyone who wants to call her a liar will now need to deal with me.-Whaps one fist into his palm- ***Circumstantial, as I said…

    Sorry I don’t believe just another random commenter on freerepublic. Why didn’t the person who “met her” take pictures of the document? Why didn’t they post said pictures? Now the real question should be is if Obama posted the same document as Danae would the birthers question it?

  80. avatar
    charo October 22, 2010 at 9:14 am #

    Because you don’t go to Freep, you don’t know that el sordo is not a birther. El sordo gets accused of being a troll. But el sordo has a likeable persona and hasn’t been banned. Googling showed that someone from Politijab referenced el sordo to make a point, and it wasn’t a jab at him (assuming el sordo is a him).

  81. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 22, 2010 at 9:16 am #

    charo: Because you don’t go to Freep, you don’t know that el sordo is not a birther. El sordo gets accused of being a troll. But el sordo has a likeable persona and hasn’t been banned. Googling showed that someone from Politijab referenced el sordo to make a point, and it wasn’t a jab at him (assuming el sordo is a him).

    That still doesn’t change the fact that if any of it was valid why no pictures of the document?

  82. avatar
    charo October 22, 2010 at 9:18 am #

    Further, I think that someone perceived as a birther gets different information from Hawaii than someone who is not. I believe Danae claimed it was a pain to deal with Vital Records. In my speculation, once the person on the other end realized that Danae actually was born in Hawaii, a document was generated for her. Whoever the commenter here was that called about long forms may have been perceived as a birther. Jamese has requested an official statement. Let’s see if we get something concrete, rather than reliance on phonecalls.

  83. avatar
    charo October 22, 2010 at 9:20 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    That still doesn’t change the fact that if any of it was valid why no pictures of the document?

    I am not sure what you mean because there are photos on the internet.

  84. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 22, 2010 at 9:20 am #

    charo: Further, I think that someone perceived as a birther gets different information from Hawaii than someone who is not. I believe Danae claimed it was a pain to deal with Vital Records. In my speculation, once the person on the other end realized that Danae actually was born in Hawaii, a document was generated for her. Whoever the commenter here was that called about long forms may have been perceived as a birther. Jamese has requested an official statement. Let’s see if we get something concrete, rather than reliance on phonecalls.

    Or she could have just as easily taken her older copy scanned it and manipulated the image. Like I said it wouldnt be the first time birthers have forged documents.

  85. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 22, 2010 at 9:22 am #

    charo: I am not sure what you mean because there are photos on the internet.

    No what you have is a scan. I’m saying take a photograph of the document so we can see the edges, the folds, the backside etc

  86. avatar
    charo October 22, 2010 at 9:24 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    No what you have is a scan.I’m saying take a photograph of the document so we can see the edges, the folds, the backside etc

    There is someone, who seems objective based upon prior history who did not suddenly appear IOW, who says he saw the document. Is he lying?

  87. avatar
    Nunya October 22, 2010 at 9:29 am #

    “It is no more a birth certificate than a photocopy of your driver’s license is a driver’s license.”

    Is a scan of a driver’s license, a driver’s license? What about a picture of a driver’s license? Is that a driver’s license?

    Is a scan of a COLB, a COLB?

    I think we can all agree that Danae was born in Kaiser Foundation Hospital, and that the person who “certified” her birth there was Dr. Larry R. Moncur. We have absolutely nothing that documents Obama’s birth in Kapiolani, nor do we know who certified his birth. Simply put; an Hawaiian COLB is insufficient when it comes to establishing that Obama’s birth was certified by a disinterested party, which makes the reliability suspect.

    If Danae was to be considered for eligibility to be POTUS, I think the proper source to release that information should be the Hawaii Department of Health, not Danae herself. That would significantly reduce the possibility of the documents being forged. (as many here have suggested)

    Carter, Bush, and Bush Jr. all had prior military service that included a security clearance. Most American’s are not aware that Clinton was adopted, and I can’t find a single MSM story, prior to his election to office that announced that he was adopted. Had the public been made aware of that fact, it is very likely that he would have been challenged in the same way that Obama is being challenged. Today we have blogs which permit the public to know what the MSM has chosen to keep from the public. More questions are being asked, and our elected officials are undergoing further scrutiny. George W. was the first to experience such scrutiny. Obama is the second.

  88. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 22, 2010 at 9:35 am #

    charo: There is someone, who seems objective based upon prior history who did not suddenly appear IOW, who says he saw the document. Is he lying?

    Again seeing as the source is FreeRepublic why not take pictures of the document?

  89. avatar
    DaveH October 22, 2010 at 9:35 am #

    Nunya: Simply put; an Hawaiian COLB is insufficient when it comes to establishing that Obama’s birth was certified by a disinterested party, which makes the reliability suspect.

    Except for that darned ‘Full Faith and Credit” clause in the constitution. If only that were removed, then Obama’s COLB would not be proof. Damned constitution!

  90. avatar
    Nunya October 22, 2010 at 9:37 am #

    This is for Bob Ross, who wants pictures.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2606951/posts?page=1545#1545

  91. avatar
    charo October 22, 2010 at 9:38 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    Again seeing as the source is FreeRepublic why not take pictures of the document?

    I suppose you say he is lying. That is your right to come to that conclusion.

  92. avatar
    Nunya October 22, 2010 at 9:44 am #

    DaveH: “Except for that darned Full Faith and Credit” clause in the constitution. If only that were removed, then Obama’s COLB would not be proof. Damned constitution!”

    You seem to be under the impression that whatever a state issues is not subject to challenge for lack of sufficiency. I disagree. Besides, the Full Faith and Credit Clause only applies from one state to another. (read it) It has no application as to what the federal government must accept.

  93. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 22, 2010 at 9:45 am #

    Nunya: “It is no more a birth certificate than a photocopy of your driver’s license is a driver’s license.”Is a scan of a driver’s license, a driver’s license? What about a picture of a driver’s license? Is that a driver’s license?Is a scan of a COLB, a COLB?I think we can all agree that Danae was born in Kaiser Foundation Hospital, and that the person who “certified” her birth there was Dr. Larry R. Moncur. We have absolutely nothing that documents Obama’s birth in Kapiolani, nor do we know who certified his birth. Simply put; an Hawaiian COLB is insufficient when it comes to establishing that Obama’s birth was certified by a disinterested party, which makes the reliability suspect.If Danae was to be considered for eligibility to be POTUS, I think the proper source to release that information should be the Hawaii Department of Health, not Danae herself. That would significantly reduce the possibility of the documents being forged. (as many here have suggested)Carter, Bush, and Bush Jr. all had prior military service that included a security clearance. Most American’s are not aware that Clinton was adopted, and I can’t find a single MSM story, prior to his election to office that announced that he was adopted. Had the public been made aware of that fact, it is very likely that he would have been challenged in the same way that Obama is being challenged. Today we have blogs which permit the public to know what the MSM has chosen to keep from the public. More questions are being asked, and our elected officials are undergoing further scrutiny. George W. was the first to experience such scrutiny. Obama is the second.

    We’re lucky that the country isn’t run by how you want it to be but instead by the constitution. The constitution states in the Full Faith and Credit Clause: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

    The COLB is an official state of Hawaii document and has been certified. This is all that is needed to establish birth and fulfill the obligation. Furthermore the head of the Department of Health has vouched for its authenticity. Now Nunya if Obama presented the same document as Danae would you accept it? Considering that 1. It is not an official long form birth certificate, which birthers have been clamoring about for years now. 2. It is not prima facie evidence, 3. You couldn’t get a passport with this document.

  94. avatar
    Majority Will October 22, 2010 at 9:46 am #

    Nunya: Simply put; an (sic) Hawaiian COLB is insufficient when it comes to establishing . . . SQUAWK ! ! !

    Pure birther B.S. and simply asinine.

  95. avatar
    DaveH October 22, 2010 at 9:47 am #

    Nunya: It has no application as to what the federal government must accept.

    And yet, the federal government accepts it. Why could that be?

  96. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 22, 2010 at 9:48 am #

    Nunya: This is for Bob Ross, who wants pictures.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2606951/posts?page=1545#1545

    Okay hey look her COLB looks exactly like Obama’s. Do you have a problem with her COLB as well?

  97. avatar
    Majority Will October 22, 2010 at 9:48 am #

    “You seem to be under the impression that whatever a state issues is not subject to challenge for lack of sufficiency. I disagree.”

    Luckily, the law doesn’t give a flying fluck what a delusional, irrelevant birher idiot demands or thinks.

  98. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 22, 2010 at 9:49 am #

    Nunya: DaveH: “Except for that darned Full Faith and Credit” clause in the constitution. If only that were removed, then Obama’s COLB would not be proof. Damned constitution!”You seem to be under the impression that whatever a state issues is not subject to challenge for lack of sufficiency. I disagree. Besides, the Full Faith and Credit Clause only applies from one state to another. (read it) It has no application as to what the federal government must accept.

    Funny how the Federal Government accepts COLBs when getting passports. Funny that

  99. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 22, 2010 at 9:54 am #

    Nunya: DaveH: “Except for that darned Full Faith and Credit” clause in the constitution. If only that were removed, then Obama’s COLB would not be proof. Damned constitution!”You seem to be under the impression that whatever a state issues is not subject to challenge for lack of sufficiency. I disagree. Besides, the Full Faith and Credit Clause only applies from one state to another. (read it) It has no application as to what the federal government must accept.

    Actually its exactly that. State government documents are accepted by the federal government

  100. avatar
    AnotherBird October 22, 2010 at 11:32 am #

    Nunya: I think we can all agree that Danae was born in Kaiser Foundation Hospital, and that the person who “certified” her birth there was Dr. Larry R. Moncur. We have absolutely nothing that documents Obama’s birth in Kapiolani, nor do we know who certified his birth. Simply put; an Hawaiian COLB is insufficient when it comes to establishing that Obama’s birth was certified by a disinterested party, which makes the reliability suspect.

    What Danae has done is disproved many of the birth arguments and misinformation. Also, there are so funny ironies about the effort that Danae has put in. She actually provided proof for the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2606951/posts?page=1545#1545

  101. avatar
    Judge Mental October 22, 2010 at 11:36 am #

    So piecing all the bits together…..what this lady is effectively alleging is that the acquiring of this piece of photocopy paper came about as a result of an unspecified organization/institution (she used both terms at different times on Freep) putting her in a position in which they they would not accept her certified COLB which is legal for all purposes any US citizen could ever need a birth certificate and would also not accept an uncertified colour photocopy of an earlier issued birth certificate which contains more information than the aforesaid certified COLB, but they would accept a black and white uncertified copy of yet another birth certificate which contains the same information as the uncertified colour copy with the sole addition of info about the father’s and mother’s caucasian race. Yeah, righto.

    Whether what she posted in the photographs is what was receved in the envelope or not that story simply isn’t believable. It makes no sense at all.

  102. avatar
    sponson October 22, 2010 at 12:35 pm #

    Dr. C, you have a point that if Hawaii issued a stamped, sealed copy of Obama’s obsolete, no-longer-a-birth-certificate document that logically, birthers would be trapped by their previous statements and demands into a situation where they would look completely hypocritical if they did not accept its authenticity. However I’d say that if President Obama could get Hawaii to take that step with his old, obsolete document, that it would only be fair for anyone else born in Hawaii prior to 2001 to request the same procedure, and that this would undermine the credibility of their current vital records system. It seems to me that is more than adequate reason for the President (or Hawaii) to avoid taking that step. That, and the fact that his current COLB as released is completely sufficient proof of his birth in the U.S.

  103. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 22, 2010 at 12:49 pm #

    Judge Mental: So piecing all the bits together…..what this lady is effectively alleging is that the acquiring of this piece of photocopy paper came about as a result of an unspecified organization/institution (she used both terms at different times on Freep) putting her in a position in which they they would not accept her certified COLB which is legal for all purposes any US citizen could ever need a birth certificate and would also not accept an uncertified colour photocopy of an earlier issued birth certificate which contains more information than the aforesaid certified COLB, but they would accept a black and white uncertified copy of yet another birth certificate which contains the same information as the uncertified colour copy with the sole addition of info about the father’s and mother’s caucasian race. Yeah, righto.Whether what she posted in the photographs is what was receved in the envelope or not that story simply isn’t believable. It makes no sense at all.

    Exactly this whole venture undermined the birthers complaints instead of validating them.

  104. avatar
    gorefan October 22, 2010 at 1:00 pm #

    Nunya: Simply put; an Hawaiian COLB is insufficient when it comes to establishing that Obama’s birth was certified by a disinterested party, which makes the reliability suspect.

    My birth doctor was a long time family friend who lived two doors down from my parents. If he were still alive would he constitute a disinterested Party to my birth?

    Can you name a disinterested party to the birth of Presidetn Reagan?

  105. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 22, 2010 at 1:03 pm #

    gorefan: My birth doctor was a long time family friend who lived two doors down from my parents. If he were still alive would he constitute a disinterested Party to my birth?Can you name a disinterested party to the birth of Presidetn Reagan?

    I highly doubt if even President Reagan was still alive he would be able to recall a disinterested third party to his birth

  106. avatar
    sponson October 22, 2010 at 1:17 pm #

    It appears to me that Danae had an anti-Obama motivation to begin her adventure with the HDOH, and that she concocted a false story for our benefit about the “organization” or “institution” that “demanded” something other than a legally valid Hawaii-issued modern COLB. However it also appears to me that after some persistence and perhaps a little understandable skepticism from Hawaiian officials, she convinced the State to send her a photocopy of her 1969 original birth certificate, from file. It remains to be seen whether she “could have” opted for a copy that was stamped and sealed, and I suspect there is good reason for that: it’s entirely possible that since 2001, no one has ever requested a state stamped-and-sealed copy of the obsolete form. Therefore they may not have yet formulated a policy on this type of request. As I said above, if the State of Hawaii begins issuing two different formats of stamped-and-sealed “Birth Certificates” to people, it would undermine their modern vital records system, and this would be a very bad idea, for reasons entirely independent of a “controversy” trumped up by conspiracy theorists obsessed with the President’s birthplace.

  107. avatar
    Rickey October 22, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

    Nunya: Carter, Bush, and Bush Jr. all had prior military service that included a security clearance.

    And the significance of that is…what? You don’t have to be born in the United States to join the military or get a security clearance, I had a Top Secret clearance when I was in the Navy, and one of the guys I worked with was named Cesar Pugeda. He was born in the Philippines, and he also had a TS clearance.

    Most American’s are not aware that Clinton was adopted, and I can’t find a single MSM story, prior to his election to office that announced that he was adopted. Had the public been made aware of that fact, it is very likely that he would have been challenged in the same way that Obama is being challenged.

    You birthers have a penchant for citing non-existent adoptions. Bill Clinton was never adopted by Roger Clinton, which explains why you never read about it. When Bill Clinton formally had his surname changed from Blythe to Clinton, at the age of 14, it was done at his own request, not because of any adoption.

  108. avatar
    gorefan October 22, 2010 at 1:53 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): I highly doubt if even President Reagan was still alive he would be able to recall a disinterested third party to his birth

    We could always look at his BC which is on display at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Of course, his doctor did not get around to signing it until 1942, 31 years after the event. I wonder if that would make it suspect to the birthering community?

  109. avatar
    gorefan October 22, 2010 at 1:58 pm #

    Rickey: You don’t have to be born in the United States to join the military or get a security clearance,

    Does a President get a TS clearance? I never thought about, but are there government secrets that even the President isn’t told? Like AREA 51? LOL

  110. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 22, 2010 at 2:01 pm #

    Rickey: And the significance of that is…what? You don’t have to be born in the United States to join the military or get a security clearance, I had a Top Secret clearance when I was in the Navy, and one of the guys I worked with was named Cesar Pugeda. He was born in the Philippines, and he also had a TS clearance. Most American’s are not aware that Clinton was adopted, and I can’t find a single MSM story, prior to his election to office that announced that he was adopted. Had the public been made aware of that fact, it is very likely that he would have been challenged in the same way that Obama is being challenged. You birthers have a penchant for citing non-existent adoptions. Bill Clinton was never adopted by Roger Clinton, which explains why you never read about it. When Bill Clinton formally had his surname changed from Blythe to Clinton, at the age of 14, it was done at his own request, not because of any adoption.

    That part about Clinton was another part I forgot to point out to nunya that he got wrong. It was well known when Clinton ran for office that he took the name of his step dad and had his name changed.

  111. avatar
    Bovril October 22, 2010 at 3:38 pm #

    Actually Rickey except where there is recipricocity in place as with the NATO “Cosmic” clearance, OR a case by case and bloody hard to pass exception is made you HAVE to have US Citizenship to get a TS clearance.

    For example when the M1 Abrams was being designed and developed, British staff with knowledge of the Chobham armor were temporarily brought over to the US. They had, in general, British Top Secret clearance but to work on the Abrams they needed TS.

    Much paperwork ensued and much delay occurred whilst the exceptions were made.

    In the end, if I recall correctly for most they punted around the problem by going Top Secret -> COSMIC -> TS.

  112. avatar
    Tarrant October 22, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    gorefan:
    Does a President get a TS clearance?I never thought about, but are there government secrets that even the President isn’t told?Like AREA 51? LOL

    Generally, the authority for classifying any information comes from the executive branch – most classification guides refer to executive orders and list how material is to be stored, what it is that is classified, and how and when it is to be declassified.

    All such guides I’ve read during my career have had a caveat in them that essentially said “The President can declassify material or change this guide at any time at his discretion.”

    Once in a while you see someone on freep say something like “I had to have a background check and interviews and XYZ when I got my clearance, how come the FBI didn’t investigate Obama? Did they grant him a clearance LOL!!!!” The highest clearance in the land comes with election to the office, along with the power to declassify anything they so desire. I think it was the Nixon days where the line was said “If the President does it, it’s not illegal.” That’s obviously untrue, but generally speaking, when it comes to classified information, the President is the final arbiter. (There have been a few times when freep got up in arms about “OMG Obama released classified information why isn’t he being arrested!” and the answer is, all he’d have to say is “I say it isn’t classified” and presto, it isn’t anymore).

    In theory, the President could simply open the safes and announce that all currently classified information in the entire government is instantly declassified and it would be so.

  113. avatar
    gorefan October 22, 2010 at 7:44 pm #

    Tarrant: Generally, the authority for classifying any information comes from the executive branch

    Thanks for that info.

    Nevermind the long form BC, I wish the President would release the space alien autopies.

  114. avatar
    Rickey October 22, 2010 at 7:56 pm #

    Bovril: Actually Rickey except where there is recipricocity in place as with the NATO “Cosmic” clearance, OR a case by case and bloody hard to pass exception is made you HAVE to have US Citizenship to get a TS clearance.

    My point to Nunya wasn’t about citizenship per se, it is that having a security clearance isn’t evidence that you were born in the U.S. For example, I’m pretty sure that Henry Kissinger had a TS clearance, and he was born in Germany.

    And of course not all TS clearances are equal. I had a Top Secret crypto clearance, but I wasn’t cleared to see nuclear data and I couldn’t see Naval Security Group intelligence information.

    I don’t know what the rules are now, but back in my day foreigners could get Confidential clearances. However, some sensitive classified messages were labeled Classified NOFORN, which meant that you had to have at least a Classified clearance AND be a U.S. citizen to see them.

  115. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 22, 2010 at 8:16 pm #

    I got an email from Danae, who filled in some of the blanks in her story, including the name of the organization for which she needed the “long form.” There were several markers in the story that increased my confidence that her document is exactly what it purports to be and nothing that led me to doubt it.

    Everyone, please keep in mind that the publication of personal information about non-public figures on this blog is against the Editorial Policy and is prohibited.

  116. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross October 22, 2010 at 8:24 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I got an email from Danae, who filled in some of the blanks in her story, including the name of the organization for which she needed the “long form.” There were several markers in the story that increased my confidence that her document is exactly what it purports to be and nothing that led me to doubt it.Everyone, please keep in mind that the publication of personal information about non-public figures on this blog is against the Editorial Policy and is prohibited.

    But she does know that the document she received is not the one birthers are clamoring for and if Obama presented that the birthers would not believe it.

  117. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 22, 2010 at 8:33 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross: But she does know that the document she received is not the one birthers are clamoring for and if Obama presented that the birthers would not believe it.

    She was aware that it was not certified copy.

    Her email (which is of significant length) did not push any “birther” points and dealt solely with the circumstances surrounding her obtaining the document, and some negative experiences she had as the result of her online activity, both past and present, leading to her concern about personal contact information about her being published. While her name was mentioned here (now removed), I am not aware of any contact information. If anyone knows of any, please let me know.

  118. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross October 22, 2010 at 8:35 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    She was aware that it was not certified copy.
    Her email (which is of significant length) did not push any “birther” points and dealt solely with the circumstances surrounding her obtaining the document, and some negative experiences she had as the result of her online activity, both past and present, leading to her concern about personal contact information about her being published. While her name was mentioned here (now removed), I am not aware of any contact information. If anyone knows of any, please let me know.

    i dont think anyone posted contact information. I do remember someone saying she did a bad job of blocking stuff off because if you lightened the image you could see the information

  119. avatar
    charo October 22, 2010 at 8:50 pm #

    Reality Check October 20, 2010 at 9:17 pm Reality Check(Quote) #

    I called the Hawaii Department of Vital Statistics and the office of Alvin T. Onaka, the Registrar for the State of Hawaii, and they said they WILL NOT supply the “long form” birth certificates just as Janice Okubo stated. The computer generated certificate is absolutely all that they will supply. Someone is not truthful and I have an idea who that might be.

    Doc,

    If what Reality Check said is accurately stated *the generated certificate is absolutely all that they will supply* what is going on? An assumption by the Office of Onaka that RC was questioning about certified copies? That doesn’t seem so given that he was trying to prove Danae a liar.

  120. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 22, 2010 at 9:13 pm #

    charo: If what Reality Check said is accurately stated *the generated certificate is absolutely all that they will supply* what is going on? An assumption by the Office of Onaka that RC was questioning about certified copies? That doesn’t seem so given that he was trying to prove Danae a liar.

    I have no doubt that RC reported his conversation accurately.

    The conflicting stories are interesting. I agree with someone else who suggested that Hawaii responds differently to one of their own needing a document for a legitimate purpose than it does to what they perceive as some Obama Conspiracy nut.

  121. avatar
    charo October 22, 2010 at 9:16 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I have no doubt that RC reported his conversation accurately.The conflicting stories are interesting. I agree with someone else who suggested that Hawaii responds differently to one of their own needing a document for a legitimate purpose than it does to what they perceive as some Obama Conspiracy nut.

    That would have been me.

  122. avatar
    charo October 22, 2010 at 9:19 pm #

    I have to remind you that I also said at one time I believed that is why you were not getting an answer to your FOIA, an idea which you initially poo pood, claiming something about the law having to be followed for everyone. I am sure you were much more articulate in your explanation.

  123. avatar
    charo October 22, 2010 at 9:22 pm #

    meaning, you were perceived as a conspiracy theorist by making the request

  124. avatar
    Rickey October 22, 2010 at 10:15 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I have no doubt that RC reported his conversation accurately.The conflicting stories are interesting. I agree with someone else who suggested that Hawaii responds differently to one of their own needing a document for a legitimate purpose than it does to what they perceive as some Obama Conspiracy nut.

    I think that it is worth keeping in mind that Hawaii DOH says that the only birth CERTIFICATE they now issue is the “short form” COLB. What Danae has shown is a photocopy of an old Certificate of Live Birth, but as others have pointed out a photocopy of a certificate is not itself a certificate.

    So it may be that someone born in Hawaii prior to 2001 can indeed obtain a photocopy of their original Certificate of Live Birth, while at the same time not being able to obtain a copy which can be used as legal proof of birth. If that is the case, there really is no conflict between what DOH says and what Danae received.

    In fact, I have never understood why Hawaii would refuse to provide a Hawaii native with a copy of his or her birth record, since it should be simply a matter of printing a copy from microfilm. Getting it into a format which would qualify it as a legally accepted certificate would, of course, require a number of additional steps. I have been thinking about requesting my original birth record from New York, since I do not know the name of the doctor who delivered me and I do not know what time of day I was born, but if I get it I do not expect it to be acceptable as a birth certificate.

  125. avatar
    sponson October 23, 2010 at 1:09 am #

    Perhaps Danae is the first person who has satisfied all these conditions: of 1) being born in Hawaii; 2) requesting her “old birth certificate document” post mid-2008; and 3) patient and crafty enough not to be frustrated by justifiably skeptical Hawaii Department of Health workers. This is consistent with my own theory, which some of you may be tired of hearing for over a year, that the President’s actual reasoning for not obtaining his corresponding document has mainly to do with the serious negative ramifications (in my opinion) it would have for the states with modernized vital records systems.

  126. avatar
    AnotherBird October 23, 2010 at 1:37 am #

    Rickey: So it may be that someone born in Hawaii prior to 2001 can indeed obtain a photocopy of their original Certificate of Live Birth, while at the same time not being able to obtain a copy which can be used as legal proof of birth. If that is the case, there really is no conflict between what DOH says and what Danae received.

    But she has the original document. I don’t understand why she has gone through all the effort that she has.

  127. avatar
    Majority Will October 23, 2010 at 1:44 am #

    sponson: . . . that the President’s actual reasoning for not obtaining his corresponding document has mainly to do with the serious negative ramifications (in my opinion) it would have for the states with modernized vital records systems.

    That and he is long past having to provide proof since his COLB suffices . . and that a few lunatics should be ignored.

  128. avatar
    AnotherBird October 23, 2010 at 1:50 am #

    sponson: Perhaps Danae is the first person who has satisfied all these conditions: of 1) being born in Hawaii; 2) requesting her “old birth certificate document” post mid-2008; and 3) patient and crafty enough not to be frustrated by justifiably skeptical Hawaii Department of Health workers.This is consistent with my own theory, which some of you may be tired of hearing for over a year, that the President’s actual reasoning for not obtaining his corresponding document has mainly to do with the serious negative ramifications (in my opinion) it would have for the states with modernized vital records systems.

    Danae has posted both her Certificate of Live Birth and Certification of Live Birth. The image from above is an photo copy of both the back and front of her Certificate of Live Birth, which she has also posted. Both certificates are not in the best of condition, which could suggest the real reason why Obama hasn’t released his Certificate of Live Birth. Obama was running for the office of president and wanted to have all his documents look profession.

    Take the time and look at Danae’s records. She has been kind enough to provided them.

  129. avatar
    DancingRabbit October 23, 2010 at 2:13 am #

    gorefan:
    Actually, you don’t get it.There was a well respected book that was referenced by James Madison as having been used at the Constitutional Convention –
    Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England.And in that book the President is eligible.But don’t take my word for it.Listen to the words of James 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.”He made this statement in1789, after he helped write the Constitution

    James Monroe to Madison 1784

    That there are offences of that class is clearly stated by Vattel in particular, and that the business ought to pass through’ Congress is equally clear.

    http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_mad1505&recipient=James%20Monroe

  130. avatar
    DancingRabbit October 23, 2010 at 2:25 am #

    1. Morse on Citizenship. Obama is an illegal President

    2. Law of Nations 1797 Edition. Obama is an illegal President.

    3. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary. Obama is an illegal President.

    4. US Constitution. Obama is an illegal President

    5. US Supreme Court Decisions. Obama is an illegal President.

    6. John Bingham, US Congressman, Ohio. Obama is an Illegal President.

    7. Sen Pat Leahy. Obama is an illegal President.

    8. INS Supervisor. No proof Obama is a citizen.

  131. avatar
    sponson October 23, 2010 at 2:28 am #

    AnotherBird, I didn’t claim that she has not posted or received her modern-style document, I just said that she specifically went after getting a copy of the older one. She has given a reason for doing so, but I haven’t tried to evaluate it, I see no reason to since it’s immaterial to the apparent fact that she received it.
    Majority Will, I also included the fact that his modern-style official document is totally sufficient in a previous comment in the thread so I of course agree.

  132. avatar
    AnotherBird October 23, 2010 at 2:52 am #

    Sponson, Obama might not released the birth certificate that was provided to his parents when he was born could have been because of the condition of the document.

    Obama most likely believed that having a document in impeccable condition would have been the best.

    The reference to Danae was for you to look at the documents especially the her Certification of Live Birth to see what can happen to documents over a period of time.

    Going for the wost case scenarios always make people ignore simpler explanations. Even observing the “Danae” example is simpler explanation that you suggested.

  133. avatar
    aarrgghh October 23, 2010 at 2:52 am #

    DancingRabbit: 1. Morse on Citizenship.Obama is an illegal President2. Law of Nations 1797 Edition. Obama is an illegal President.3. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary.Obama is an illegal President.4. US Constitution. Obama is an illegal President5. US Supreme Court Decisions. Obama is an illegal President.6. John Bingham, US Congressman, Ohio. Obama is an Illegal President.7. Sen Pat Leahy. Obama is an illegal President.8. INS Supervisor. No proof Obama is a citizen.

    sorry, silly wabbit, but all the people who matter seem to disagree

  134. avatar
    AnotherBird October 23, 2010 at 2:58 am #

    DancingRabbit: 1. Morse on Citizenship.Obama is an illegal President2. Law of Nations 1797 Edition. Obama is an illegal President.3. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary.Obama is an illegal President.4. US Constitution. Obama is an illegal President5. US Supreme Court Decisions. Obama is an illegal President.6. John Bingham, US Congressman, Ohio. Obama is an Illegal President.7. Sen Pat Leahy. Obama is an illegal President.8. INS Supervisor. No proof Obama is a citizen.

    It is 2010 ….

  135. avatar
    sponson October 23, 2010 at 3:08 am #

    AnotherBird, while I am speculating at why a person in Obama’s position might not go to the trouble of providing a document, if possible, in response to the demands of no one but a group of extremist critics, I should also add that he has an obvious political reason for not doing it: “birtherism” tends to be of net political benefit to him. There are more people motivated to vote in his favor, I believe, when hearing of the claims that he wasn’t born in the United States, and the activities of those who loudly make the claim, than there are people who will believe the claims and vote against him for re-election. Also I did look at the photos Danae posted online; my own original birth certificate is in worse condition, and last year I used it to obtain a passport. Therefore I don’t see any problem with the condition or legibility of her original document, it looks perfectly “professional” to me.

  136. avatar
    NbC October 23, 2010 at 3:39 am #

    aarrgghh:
    sorry, silly wabbit, but all the people who matter seem to disagree

    The Supreme Court surely appears to disagree. But why would that stop birthers from looking foolish?

  137. avatar
    Hawaiiborn October 23, 2010 at 3:54 am #

    As pointed out earlier, it seems that the DoH didn’t dig into their records, but when to another department to research the COLB for Danae (i still say that there’s too many anomalies with the photocopy to say its actually the cOLB she ordered).

    so, we can assume that the DoH in Hawaii didn’t actually do the request (which is probably why it took so long for Danae to get it) but another department (research) that has nothing to do with the legality of the forms from the DoH, and found it within their archives.

    Doesn’t make the form she received official.

    Seeing that Obama was under time pressure, he only needed the official form provided by Hawaii. even if he requests what Danae got, birthers wouldn’t accept and we are back to square 1

  138. avatar
    AnotherBird October 23, 2010 at 6:38 am #

    sponson, that is the simplest explanation for why McCain had lost the election I have ever read. Maybe if Gore or Kerry released their birth certificates they would have readily won their respective elections. Or, Bush Sr. should have released his birth certificate and he would have easily won re-election.

  139. avatar
    Northland10 October 23, 2010 at 9:00 am #

    DancingRabbit: James Monroe to Madison 1784

    That there are offences of that class is clearly stated by Vattel in particular, and that the business ought to pass through’ Congress is equally clear.

    http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_mad1505&recipient=James%20Monroe

    Next time, try reading the actual letter. This had to do with international law, in particular whether or how States or Congress (pre-Constitution) might surrender a citizen to Spain for offenses against that country. This has absolutely nothing to do with citizenship issues but international law, and yes, they did know who Vattel was in respect to international law.

  140. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross October 23, 2010 at 9:13 am #

    DancingRabbit:
    James Monroe to Madison1784That there are offences of that class is clearly stated by Vattel in particular, and that the business ought to pass through’ Congress is equally clear.http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_mad1505&recipient=James%20Monroe

    Vattel had very little to do with our Constitution. I notice you birthers magically discovered this obscure swiss philosopher after the election. Tell me how many of Vattel’s thoughts did we incorporate into the constitution? Restriction of the press? State organized religion? Restriction of the right to bear arms?

  141. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross October 23, 2010 at 9:25 am #

    DancingRabbit: 1. Morse on Citizenship.Obama is an illegal President2. Law of Nations 1797 Edition. Obama is an illegal President.3. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary.Obama is an illegal President.4. US Constitution. Obama is an illegal President5. US Supreme Court Decisions. Obama is an illegal President.6. John Bingham, US Congressman, Ohio. Obama is an Illegal President.7. Sen Pat Leahy. Obama is an illegal President.8. INS Supervisor. No proof Obama is a citizen.

    Completely off base. The law of nations had nothing to do with our constitution. You do know that the law of nations would say most of the things written in the constitution including the Bill of Rights were totally counter to what Vattel advocated. Wrong on Morse as you are on everything else. I see you draw that opinion from losing birther Leo Denofrio trying to claim Obama’s allegiance was to Britain when he was born. This would take some major twisting to claim that. John Bingham did not write the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment so his opinion does not matter. US Supreme Court upheld in US V Wong Kim Ark that those born of foreign parents on US soil are natural born. This decision upheld the opinion of the lower court on which the case was based. US Constitution says Obama is legal. Funny how many law dictionaries birthers decide not to quote from. Who is this anonymous INS supervisor? I have a feeling his credentials are bloated.

  142. avatar
    Sef October 23, 2010 at 10:46 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross: Tell me how many of Vattel’s thoughts did we incorporate into the constitution? Restriction of the press? State organized religion? Restriction of the right to bear arms?

    I like the government control of ladders part.

  143. avatar
    Sef October 23, 2010 at 10:53 am #

    sponson: Also I did look at the photos Danae posted online; my own original birth certificate is in worse condition, and last year I used it to obtain a passport. Therefore I don’t see any problem with the condition or legibility of her original document, it looks perfectly “professional” to me.

    You are assuming that the State Department uses ONLY the documents presented when deciding on issuing a passport They undoubtedly verify the information presented with their other sources to determine if issuance is appropriate. The documents presented are to determine if you are who the documents say you are, not if someone deserves a passport.

  144. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 23, 2010 at 11:35 am #

    DancingRabbit: 1. Morse on Citizenship.Obama is an illegal President2. Law of Nations 1797 Edition. Obama is an illegal President.3. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary.Obama is an illegal President.4. US Constitution. Obama is an illegal President5. US Supreme Court Decisions. Obama is an illegal President.6. John Bingham, US Congressman, Ohio. Obama is an Illegal President.7. Sen Pat Leahy. Obama is an illegal President.8. INS Supervisor. No proof Obama is a citizen.

    I think all of those have been pretty well discussed to death already. I would just point out that the 1797 Edition of the Law of nations is AFTER the constitution, so it would be pretty silly to say that the phrase “natural born citizen” comes from there. The Constitution certainly doesn’t agree with you, since all the legal processes in the Constitution have been followed. Other things spun, or taken out of context, or not authoritative.

    But what is the name of this INS Supervisor, and where is his comment published? It’s obviously wrong, but I would like to know the details.

    If you want to see a real list proving that you’re a crank, see:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/

  145. avatar
    Sef October 23, 2010 at 11:45 am #

    DancingRabbit: INS Supervisor. No proof Obama is a citizen.

    There is, of course, that little party that 2 million of my closest friends & I attended in DC on 1/20/09 & the video of his passport which would tend to disprove your assertion.

  146. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 23, 2010 at 11:45 am #

    DancingRabbit: James Monroe to Madison 1784

    That there are offences of that class is clearly stated by Vattel in particular, and that the business ought to pass through’ Congress is equally clear.

    Emerich de Vattel is one of a number of political philosophers that were influential in the 18th century. However, de Vattel also believed a number of things, such as a compulsory state religion and limitations on who could own weapons. One cannot simply wave the “de Vattel” wand and pick a bit from one of his books, and make it the foundation of the Constitution.

    In fact, when the courts have looked at acquisition of citizenship, they have rejected de Vattel and accepted English common law, and the Supreme Court in Smith v. Alabama stated that terms in the Constitution are to be understood in terms of English common law.

    I would point you to the scholarly decision by the Chancery Court of New York in the case of Lynch v. Clarke to see why English Common Law is where to look, and de Vattel is not ON THIS QUESTION. http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf

    De Vattel’s Law of Nations is a book on international law, and this is where it has it’s greatest influence on our Constitution. Citizenship is not a matter of international law. In fact, in the United States, native citizenship was defined by the States up until the 14th Amendment. Looking at state constitutions and colonial charters only increases the weight in favor of jus soli (place of birth) without any requirements as to parentage.

    Just so you know what you are up against, read the articles here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/category/citizenship/

  147. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 23, 2010 at 11:59 am #

    DancingRabbit: 7. Sen Pat Leahy. Obama is an illegal President.

    Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

    Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.
  148. avatar
    aarrgghh October 23, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    jamese777: I was asked yesterday by a poster named “Mr. Rogers” who fights the good fight on FreeRepublic against birtherism to donate in spite of the bet and i did that. I have spent five years on FreeRepublic, much of it challenging birthers …

    birfer or anti-birfer, in the end, a freeper will always remind you why they’re a freeper. i sometimes wonder about the dissonance suffered by the anti-birfers on that forum, who suffer day in and out the nonstop “obot!” and “obama-lover!” slings and arrows from their birfer soulmates who jump with both feet down the throats of anybody who challenges their nonsense:

    To: butterdezillion

    Yep. Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter are all cowards who fear bad press…that would explain why they refuse to take on Obama, Axelrod, Soros, etc. NOT!

    Just think — you cannot convince a single DA, grand jury, or state legislature. Not even in Utah or Arizona or Idaho. NOT ONE!

    AND there are sound legal reasons why the Supreme Court said natural born subject and natural born citizen differ only in terms of the government system one is under, not in fundamental meaning. If one respects the law, then the Founder’s original intent was almost certainly to allow someone who would have qualified as a natural born subject in England to be a natural born citizen eligible to run for President. And there are legal opinions to that effect going back to the early 1800s.

    The problem with Obama is the same as the problem with Bill Ayers and Rev Wright — they hate the country they were born in. But all 3 are constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President, if they win it.

    And the problem with our country is that the majority of voters voted for Obama, knowing about the Rev Wright tapes, knowing about his hatred for whites, etc. My sister is a devout Christian and a former missionary to South Africa who voted for Obama KNOWING the details of his record on abortion! I made certain she knew exactly how much a baby-killer Obama was and is — and she voted for him anyways.

    No, I do not in any way understand how anyone could vote for a baby-killing, white-hating communist for President. But the majority did.

    540 posted on October 15, 2010 5:04:08 PM EDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don’t reply…)

  149. avatar
    Hawaiiborn October 23, 2010 at 2:02 pm #

    gorefan: One thing that her copy has going for it are the two fields at the bottom (mom and dad race).Why their floating space away from the rest of the BC is a question mark.This might be resolved, if Hawaiiborn could ask the HDOH for a non-certified BC and see what he gets.

    I could, but I dont really see the point of it. And to wait 6 months to get something that is of no use to me except to maybe frame?

    I know where I was born, what time I was born and what hospital I was born at. I dont care who my doctor was since that person has never been apart of my life, save for the moment I was born and the 2 days I was at the hospital after that.

  150. avatar
    gorefan October 23, 2010 at 3:35 pm #

    DancingRabbit: 1. Morse on Citizenship. Obama is an illegal President

    You may want to put a question mark next to this one. I think you are referring to his 1904 Albany Law Review article.

    But earlier in 1881 he wrote, “A TREATISE ON CITIZENSHIP.”

    In which he quotes extensively from Vattel, including the part about two citizen parents. And that maybe his opinion, but even he recognizes that his opinion may not reflect the reality.

    Take for example:

    “§ 5. In the law of nations, “citizen” is a term applicable to every member of the civil society, every individual who belongs to the nation.(1)

    “This character is acquired in various ways, according to the laws of each state. In many states birth is sufficient to confer it; so that the child of an alien is a citizen from the fact of having been born within the territorial limits and the jurisdiction.(2)”

    “In other states parentage suffices, and the child of a citizen (3), although he may never have placed his foot on the soil of his fathers, is likewise a citizen.”

    (1) Phillimore, Int. Law, Part V. ch. 1; Grotius, Lib. II. cap. 25, sect. 9, 11; Vattel, Lib. II. cap. 6, sect. 7…..”
    “(2) It is so in England and in the United States [but the births must be “within the jurisdiction”]. It was so formerly in Spain; but the rule now is that he is a citizen of Spain who is born in Spanish dominion, of father or mother, or at least of a father, who was born or has established a domicile in the kingdom of Spain.”
    “(3) The legitimate child follows the status of the father; the illegitimate child takes the status of the mother.”

    And there is this:

    “§ 90. A natural-born citizen is one not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this class is the large majority, in fact, the mass of our citizens; all others are exceptions specially provided for by law. As they become citizens by birth, so they remain citizens during their natural lives, unless, by their own voluntary act, they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation ; for we have no law (as the French have) to decitizenize a citizen who has become such either by the natural process of birth or the legal process of adoption.”

    “The Constitution does not make the citizens (it is, in fact, made by them) ; it only recognizes such of them as are natural, home-born, and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien, foreign-born, making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.”

    [skip]

    “The expression, “natural-born citizen,” recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle common to all nations, and as old as political society, — that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic. (1)”

    Every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen.

    “(1) Bates on Citizenship, p. 12.”

    Yeah, you may want to consider adding that question mark next to Morse. Even he agrees there only two types of citizens – natural-born and naturalized.

  151. avatar
    jamese777 October 23, 2010 at 3:37 pm #

    aarrgghh: birfer or anti-birfer, in the end, a freeper will always remind you why they’re a freeper. i sometimes wonder about the dissonance suffered by the anti-birfers on that forum, who suffer day in and out the nonstop “obot!” and “obama-lover!” slings and arrows from their birfer soulmates who jump with both feet down the throats of anybody who challenges their nonsense:

    I try to deal with the insults and ad hominems through humor and facts. I find that not reacting to them pisses them off even more and then I get the last laugh.
    I’ve always been a “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me” kind of a guy.

  152. avatar
    Expelliarmus October 23, 2010 at 4:00 pm #

    gorefan: One thing that her copy has going for it are the two fields at the bottom (mom and dad race). Why their floating space away from the rest of the BC is a question mark

    Maybe the mystery is that Danae claimed to need the information to apply for benefits under the Hawaiian Home Lands program — see http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

    She could have claimed that she had been asked by the staff to provide additional documentation beyond the COLB:

    DHHL staff may ask for additional documentation if, for example, a nontraditional Hawaiian surname of “Bennett” is listed with the race given as “Hawaiian”.

    But to qualify under that program,

    You must be a native Hawaiian, defined as “any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778.” This means, you must have a blood quantum of at least 50 percent Hawaiian.

    So perhaps Danae told someone at the DOH that she needed to provide supplemental information to satisfy DHHL that she was at least 50% Hawaiian — for that purpose, “race” of the parents would be an important factor, even if it didn’t appear on the standard form. So perhaps under those circumstances the DOH is willing to do a non-certified, cut & paste job. (Obviously Danae wouldn’t qualify as both her parents are listed at white… but that by itself wouldn’t prevent her from asking. She could have made up some story or another to fit within the DHHL model).

  153. avatar
    Expelliarmus October 23, 2010 at 4:11 pm #

    AnotherBird: Sponson, Obama might not released the birth certificate that was provided to his parents when he was born could have been because of the condition of the document.

    There is no reason whatsoever to assume that Obama was in possession of such document at the time he ordered up the COLB. He can’t “release” what he doesn’t have. (I certainly don’t have mine — though I must have had it 40 years ago when I applied for my first passport & my driver’s license. But I haven’t needed to have it any time since then.)

  154. avatar
    gorefan October 23, 2010 at 4:21 pm #

    DancingRabbit: James Monroe to Madison 1784

    Ok, I have to confess, I read this Monroe letter three times and still don’t see what you are trying to get at.

    It seems as if what you are saying is the mere mention of the name Vattel is somehow significate. I really don’t think this is the standard you want to set. You see back in the 1970’s, a University of Houston political science professor (Dr. Donald Lutz) culled through quotes by the Founding Fathers to see who the Founders quoted the most. What he found was that most quoted source is the Bible, next the French Political Philosopher, baron de Montesquieu, then the English Jurist William Blackstone and finally, the English philosopher John Locke.

    And since were using ridiculous standards to define significance, how about the fact that on the Supreme Court Building’s marble friezes. The ones inside the Courtroom, one of the figures is of William Blackstone.

  155. avatar
    gorefan October 23, 2010 at 4:25 pm #

    Hawaiiborn: I could, but I dont really see the point of it.

    Your right, at the time I wrote that there was some question as to the authenticity of Danae’s “xerox BC”. But I think that has been cleared up.

  156. avatar
    gorefan October 23, 2010 at 6:43 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy

    Dr. C. are you familiar with the Portland Examer? I became acquainted with it about a year ago. I happened to read an article about President Obama and his lack of eligiblity based on historical writings. I was struck by this quote,

    “Barack Obama, by legal definitions going back to the 1600’s is not, was not, and never has been a Natural Born Citizen. It does not matter where Barack Obama was born; he was a dual American/British/Kenyan citizen. He could have been born on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. itself, and it would not matter. The basic fact of Barack Obama’s parentage remains the same. A Dual Citizen cannot ever be a Natural Born Citizen.

    There is absolutely no doubt.

    There is an Usurper in the White House, and his name is Barack Obama. He and those who aided him in this usurpation, including the DNC are guilty of Treason to the United States. Every law that has been passed, every treaty signed, every order issued to the military has zero legal weight.

    http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/barack-obama-and-state-of-hawaii-on-the-ropes

    Pretty strong words but it gets better;

    “The importance of these issues cannot be understated. What we do in the near future will determine if our constitution will be able to fully protect us in the future.

    Barack Obama has one honorable choice left to him if he is going to uphold any part of the oath of office he took on Jan. 20th, 2009. Resign immediately. The only other option left to the people and the constitution is to treat him as the criminal he is, in the middle of committing his crime.

    It is time to demand, with all the power of the American people and her full history, that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. resign the Office of the Presidency immediately. “

    http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/citizenship-what-america-forgot

    And this gem;

    “The “President” has fought attempts to reveal his birth and other records. He has done so for the singular reason to keep people focused on what he is hiding, rather than the relevance of what he has admitted in the open. This is the relevance of Barack Obama’s Heritage.

    or this:

    “Obama isn’t bound by the constitution, because he is already breaking it.

    This means he can hand out our sovereignty in a Global Climate Treaty in Copenhagen, he can force through unconstitutional measures like Cap and Trade, and Health Care. He doesn’t give a rip because he isn’t bound by the very document which prevents those things. Because of his birth status, on a legal and philosophical standpoint, Obama can turn America into a Socialist State and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

    Other than to throw him out of office which is our constitutional right as Americans.

    In order to preserve our Constitution, we have to fight for it, and that means insisting – no, demanding – that it be followed. This is why Obama must resign. “

    http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/natural-born-whats-the-big-deal

    But my alltime favorite is this one:

    “This is the reason Barack Obama is doing everything he can to keep people focused on the irrelevant issue of his birth certificate. He would rather people be thinking about where he was born rather than the citizenship that was conferred upon him by his British father.

    The smoke and mirrors have cleared. This is no longer a partisan issue, partisan issues are reserved for constitutional governments, which we do not have. There is only those who understand the peril we are in, and those who do not, and we are all Americans.

    Now, what are we going to do about it?

    http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/barack-obama-and-state-of-hawaii-on-the-ropes

    Pretty strong stuff, I wonder what she meant by “Now, what are we going to do about it?”. All of these have been written by same author (her bio is online at this site).

  157. avatar
    Sef October 23, 2010 at 7:09 pm #

    Some more humor for you: I have a new Kindle & I noticed that Amazon has Michael Savage’s book “Trickle Up Poverty: Stopping Obama’s Attack on Our Borders, Economy, and Security” listed under “Fiction”. Too funny! Also Bill O’Reilly’s “Pinheads and Patriots” Where You Stand in the Age of Obama”.

  158. avatar
    DancingRabbit October 23, 2010 at 7:27 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross:
    Vattel had very little to do with our Constitution.I notice you birthers magically discovered this obscure swiss philosopher after the election.Tell me how many of Vattel’s thoughts did we incorporate into the constitution?Restriction of the press?State organized religion?Restriction of the right to bear arms?

    The states formed into the United States based on the Law of Nations..the right to bear arms comes (self defense) from Vattel…

    Obscure….lol….what an uneducated remark.

  159. avatar
    DancingRabbit October 23, 2010 at 7:41 pm #

    Sef:
    There is, of course, that little party that 2 million of my closest friends & I attended in DC on 1/20/09 & the video of his passport which would tend to disprove your assertion.

    An INS supervisor in California returned the Soetoro Visa extension paperwork to Hawaii…”There is no proof the son (Obama Jr.) is a citizen”

  160. avatar
    richCares October 23, 2010 at 7:43 pm #

    An INS supervisor in California returned the Soetoro Visa extension paperwork to Hawaii…”There is no proof the son (Obama Jr.) is a citizen”
    .
    so tells us who was this INS supervisor? (will answer be crickets)

  161. avatar
    Arthur October 23, 2010 at 7:51 pm #

    .
    so tells us who was this INS supervisor? (will answer be crickets)

    Or perhaps the braying of asses?

  162. avatar
    racosta October 23, 2010 at 7:52 pm #

    “An INS supervisor in California returned the Soetoro Visa extension paperwork to Hawaii…”There is no proof the son (Obama Jr.) is a citizen””
    hahaha
    Soetoro Sr requested a visa extension, and he did not have a son at the time.
    So where do you get your info from, the trash can or cereal box. Are you just intent on proving the low level of your intelligence.

  163. avatar
    DancingRabbit October 23, 2010 at 7:54 pm #

    richCares: An INS supervisor in California returned the Soetoro Visa extension paperwork to Hawaii…”There is no proof the son (Obama Jr.) is a citizen”
    .
    so tells us who was this INS supervisor? (will answer be crickets)

    I can post the letter but need instructions to post on this site.

  164. avatar
    AnotherBird October 23, 2010 at 8:03 pm #

    richCares: An INS supervisor in California returned the Soetoro Visa extension paperwork to Hawaii…”There is no proof the son (Obama Jr.) is a citizen”
    .
    so tells us who was this INS supervisor? (will answer be crickets)

    It is call throwing things into to air, waiting them to land, but watching them quickly dissipate like a puff of smoke.

  165. avatar
    AnotherBird October 23, 2010 at 8:08 pm #

    DancingRabbit:
    I can post the letter but need instructions to post on this site.

    Light comedy is always needed. …

  166. avatar
    richCares October 23, 2010 at 8:10 pm #

    so you really believe an INS supervisor returned a visa extension on Soetoro Jr with a comment on Obama, and it’s related to some proof on Obama, really? Soetoro’s visa request had nothing to do with Obama. And you have a letter saying “There is no proof the son (Obama Jr.) is a citizen”was in an official letter. What is preventing you from giving the name.
    .
    Doc, give this character permission and instructions to post his proof letter so we can all laugh. Are you posting to merely embarrass Free Republic?

  167. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross October 23, 2010 at 8:27 pm #

    DancingRabbit:
    The states formed into the United States based on the Law of Nations..the right to bear arms comes (self defense) from Vattel…Obscure….lol….what an uneducated remark.

    Yes Obscure. The right to bear arms does not come from Vattel. In fact Vattel believed in limiting the right to bear arms to certain people. The states were not formed according to the Law of Nations. Where do they specifically state that the United States was formed based on Vattel. He was an obscure philosopher. His book wasn’t even translated into English until after the constitution was ratified. His original translation said nothing about Natural Born citizen. I agree you’re making uneducated remarks..

    lets see how much of Vattel applies to our constitution. From Book 1 on freedom of the press

    “I speak of the freedom of philosophical discussion, which is the soul of the republic of letters. … I know that liberty has its proper bounds — that a wise government ought to have an eye to the press, and not to allow the publication of scandalous productions, which attack morality, government, or the established religion.”

    on freedom of religion
    “Religion consists in the doctrines concerning the Deity and the things of another life, and in the worship appointed to the honour of the Supreme Being. So far as it is seated in the heart, if is an affair of conscience, in which every one ought to be directed by his own understanding: but so far as it is external, and publicly established, it is an affair of state.”

    right to bear arms

    “Whoever should so far forget himself, as, either by word or deed, to insult a man who wears a sword, might be degraded from the rank of nobility, deprived of the privilege of carrying arms, and subjected to corporal punishment — even the punishment of death, according to the grossness of the insult…”

    The fact is most of you birthers never even heard of Emmerich De Vattel before this election and to date still haven’t even read any of his books. Those who actually have taken the time to study different philosophers from that period seem to have a better grasp than you do.

  168. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross October 23, 2010 at 8:29 pm #

    DancingRabbit:
    An INS supervisor in California returned the Soetoro Visa extension paperwork to Hawaii…”There is no proof the son (Obama Jr.) is a citizen”

    Aww some magical anonymous INS supervisor in California who most likely would not have access to the records. This is another case of a birther poopoo like Tim Adams. I think the State Department’s investigation on Dunham’s renewal of her passport trumps your anonymous “INS Supervisor” when it says that Obama was born in Hawaii and is natural born

  169. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross October 23, 2010 at 8:30 pm #

    DancingRabbit:
    An INS supervisor in California returned the Soetoro Visa extension paperwork to Hawaii…”There is no proof the son (Obama Jr.) is a citizen”

    Considering Soetoro didn’t have a son at the time and Obama was never adopted I’d say you need to learn how to read things better

  170. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross October 23, 2010 at 8:33 pm #

    I’ve tried searching for this so called letter and I’m not getting any hits. In fact INS Supervisor and Obama doesn’t return anything relevant to what Sidestepping Rabbit claims

  171. avatar
    Rickey October 23, 2010 at 9:42 pm #

    DancingRabbit:
    The states formed into the United States based on the Law of Nations..the right to bear arms comes (self defense) from Vattel…Obscure….lol….what an uneducated remark.

    The Federalist

    References to Vattel: Zero

    The Debate on the Constitution (two volumes, Library of America)

    References to Vattel: Zero

    A History of American Law by Professor Lawrence M. Friedman

    References to Vattel: Zero

    DancingRabbit

    Batting Average: Zero

  172. avatar
    richCares October 23, 2010 at 9:43 pm #

    Noisewater: RabidRabbit probably misread the Strunk FOIA memos, in Strunk’s FOIA letter re Soetoro On page 38 (I think) is a short memo to the file that talks about the step-son. “The person in question is a united states citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii Aug. 4, 1961.”
    .
    you can get details at http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/
    just search for Strunk
    .
    RabidRabbit just repeating a FREEPER point, (wrong as usual)

  173. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 24, 2010 at 12:10 am #

    DancingRabbit: I can post the letter but need instructions to post on this site.

    Just type the hyperlink in your message. You can’t actually embed a document in a comment, but you can link to it. The only thing I know of in the Soetoro FOIA is a letter to the file saying the son was a citizen by birth. See: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/08/government-investigation-into-barack-obamas-citizenship/

  174. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 24, 2010 at 12:18 am #

    DancingRabbit: the states formed into the United States based on the Law of Nations.

    If that were actually true, perhaps you could cite a history book that agrees with you. After all, if the United States was really based on de Vattel’s book, every book on American history would most certainly say so.

    Only they don’t.

    Now a real authority on the Constitution is William Rawle, founder of the Pennsylvania historical society, a lawyer, and appointed by President Washington himself as District Attorney in Pennsylvania. Rawle was even Secretary of the Library Company, where Franklin’s copy of de Vattel resided. Rawle said this in A View of the Constitution:

    …he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States Therefore every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity

    Rawle’s book has been cited numerous times by the US Supreme Court.

    You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

  175. avatar
    ellid October 24, 2010 at 12:22 am #

    DancingRabbit: 1. Morse on Citizenship.Obama is an illegal President2. Law of Nations 1797 Edition. Obama is an illegal President.3. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary.Obama is an illegal President.4. US Constitution. Obama is an illegal President5. US Supreme Court Decisions. Obama is an illegal President.6. John Bingham, US Congressman, Ohio. Obama is an Illegal President.7. Sen Pat Leahy. Obama is an illegal President.8. INS Supervisor. No proof Obama is a citizen.

    #7 is a lie.

  176. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 24, 2010 at 12:29 am #

    gorefan: Dr. C. are you familiar with the Portland Examer?

    Somewhat. The Examiner is a group of local commenters collected into a web site of local opinion. It is generally low-quality information, not really a legitimate news organization.

  177. avatar
    richCares October 24, 2010 at 12:55 am #

    “DancingRabbit: the states formed into the United States based on the Law of Nations. ”
    hey DancingRabid, how can you even function in day to day life with your irrational fantasies. I suggest you go to the library and read real history and lay off FREEPER for a while. you have so little time to erase so many falsehoods.
    .
    chances high weve seen the last of DancingRabid, but he may return as a sock puppet.

  178. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross October 24, 2010 at 12:09 pm #

    richCares: “DancingRabbit: the states formed into the United States based on the Law of Nations. ”
    hey DancingRabid, how can you even function in day to day life with your irrational fantasies. I suggest you go to the library and read real history and lay off FREEPER for a while. you have so little time to erase so many falsehoods.
    .
    chances high weve seen the last of DancingRabid, but he may return as a sock puppet.

    I find it curious as to why Dancing Rabbit doesn’t use his moniker from Freeperville. I also find it funny that digging through Freerepublic the first instance I find of Dancing Rabbit is Red Steel quoting him from over here. Sounds like a sock puppet

  179. avatar
    gorefan October 24, 2010 at 1:17 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: low-quality information, not really a legitimate news organization

    That is how I view them, but this particular author struck me for her ignorance and incendiary rhetoric. I then found that you had actually written about her in an earlier article.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/12/columbia-examiner-goes-full-bore-birther/

  180. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny October 24, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I would just point out that the 1797 Edition of the Law of nations is AFTER the constitution, so it would be pretty silly to say that the phrase “natural born citizen” comes from there.

    Oh, but here you are forgetting one important law of Birtherstan: when detrimentral to Obama, effects can precede their cause.

    All that and there is a copy of Vattel’s Law of Nations on board of the Tardis.

  181. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett October 24, 2010 at 3:27 pm #

    I would just like to point out one thing, here. Having been on free republic a long time ago, I can tell you that if this site was run like that one, Dancing Rabbit would have been tossed out by now for something. How I lasted long enough to leave, rather than be banned, is still something of a mystery to me.

  182. avatar
    Seizethecarp October 24, 2010 at 3:47 pm #

    Per Dr C:

    “If I had bet someone that they couldn’t get a Hawaiian long form birth certificate, I wouldn’t pay up for this piece of paper.”

    I would pay up on the bet because it is a copy of Danae’s long form birth certificate on file with HI DOH, which we were led to believe could not be obtained whether certified or not. Obtaining the long form image was the whole reason for the bet, not whether or not a copy of the original 1961 long form birth certificate was certified to be an accurate copy by an HI official in 2010.

    You appear to have moved the goal post from obtaining the 1961 image to obtaining that image with a 2010 certification suitable for submission as evidence in a legal proceeding. I don’t believe that was a part of or the point of the bet or of “birthers” interest in the 1961 HI vital records underlying Obama’s 2007 COLB.

    Public officials have a duty to avoid “the appearance of impropriety” such as withholding a waiver of privilege from HI officials by Obama that would allow them to release all of his vital records. If Obama could request release of the image of his long form (certified or not) as simply as Danae has done, Danae has shown that his continued refusal to release the image gives the appearance that he is hiding something. I personally think that the idea that the US president cannot obtain and release to the public his 1961 long form image, which HI officials have confirmed they have retained, is silly.

    I am the sort of “birther” who just wants legal transparency of the forensic facts sufficient to allow a proper constitutional assessment of whether Obama is eligible to be president consistent with his claims to support transparency and his claim of eligibility. I reject declarations that Obama is or is not a “natural born citizen” at this time because I don’t believe sufficient forensic facts are in the public record to allow the federal courts to arrive at a conclusion and I do not presume to know what that conclusion would be.

    Dr. C, you state:

    “Without any doubt, if Barack Obama were to release a document like this, not on security paper, not signed, not dated, not sealed, the birthers would not accept it, and they would most definitely not accept it as a birth certificate.’”

    This retired CPA and Certified Fraud Examiner “birther” would absolutely “accept” Obama’s long form image if it were like Danae’s for its 1961 forensic value, which would be considerable and is the whole point of the bet. I would accept that forensic value regardless of whether it was certified in 2010 because it would answer key questions which may or may not be the end of the forensic examination of the facts and circumstances for Obama’s birth that so far are unclear.

    Specific crucial forensic information on Danae’s long form which Obama’s long form would be expected to show:

    1. an actual address location for Obama’s birth in Hawaii which could then be confirmed provided that Obama were willing to sign the necessary releases that he has withheld to date.

    2. an attendant at the birth who signed the long form in 1961 and could be confirmed by subsequent investigation which would likely also require additional releases from Obama.

    3. confirmation that Obama’s 1961 long form was not a report of a home birth witnessed by a relative or any other potentially ambiguous report or adoption which was subsequently amended to arrive at the 2007 COLB, a COLB which has never been submitted to any court and sworn to be genuine in a legal discovery.

    4. confirmation that Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was shown as the father on the 1961 long form, which if entered in court as evidence could, for the first time, give rise to a legal question of dual citizenship at birth which has only been legally “hearsay” up to this point. Yes, there was full public knowledge of Obama’s claimed paternity, but no actual examination by a court of the constitutional implication of of dual citizenship at birth could be legally ruled on without discovery of the best evidence of Obama’s paternity. Lt Lakin’s defense team would be highly interested in this information.

    5. whether any information in an uncertified 1961 long form form Obama could form that basis for legal “best evidence” discovery of additional information not contained in the long form or HI vital records. Lt Lakin’s defense team would be highly interested in a certified Obama 1961 long form if it would help them defend Lakin.

    So you can see that whether or not this particular birther would accept an Obama long form similar to Danae’s would depend on what investigation of the purported details turns up.

    If an Obama 1961 long form showed a hospital or physical address for the birth that could be confirmed and an attendant at birth who could be confirmed then for me the question of where Obama was born would be settled. Judge Carter said that even if Kenyan authorities confirmed that Obama was born there, he, as a US federal judge, would be likely compelled to rule in favor of the Hawaii state certified record, if he had to rule on the merits.

    In my understanding (not a lawyer), for a federal judge to rule on the merits of Obama’s eligibility, the “best evidence” would be discoverable and that would be Obama’s HI vital records underlying his 2007 COLB including any 1961 long form and any amendments, not the 2007 COLB.

  183. avatar
    Daniel October 24, 2010 at 3:59 pm #

    Seizethecarp: I would pay up on the bet

    You mean you’d pay up without any evidence that the document was obtained after 2001, or that the supposed reciept has any actual connection with the document, or that the document was actually received from the agency it was claimed it was from, or that it satifies the premise that it is a valid document to certify birth?

    YOu would pay up without any of that?

    Well then you’re a fool.

  184. avatar
    gorefan October 24, 2010 at 4:06 pm #

    Seizethecarp: I would pay up on the bet because it is a copy of Danae’s long form birth certificate on file with HI DOH, which we were led to believe could not be obtained whether certified or not.

    The actual bet required that the BC obtained must contain a date stamp after May, 2010. It does not contain anything close to indicating that it was printed after May, 2010. Danae is saying that the date on the receipt and the envelope proves that the “xerox BC” was issued at the same time. But there is no way to show what document was in the envelope or what document was sent with the receipt.

  185. avatar
    richCares October 24, 2010 at 4:15 pm #

    Seizethecarp: “Lt Lakin’s defense team would be highly interested in this information.”
    .
    sure buddy, what Lakin’s defense lawyer Neal Plucket said is the opposite::
    .Puckett confirmed that the judge in the case, Denise Lind, “rendered the proper legal ruling” regarding access to Obama’s birth and eligibility evidence.
    “She was right on the facts and right on the law,” he told WND.
    .
    “All those issues concerning the president’s eligibility to hold office are completely irrelevant as to whether Lt. Col. Lakin was issued lawful orders and whether he obeyed them,” he said.
    .
    “…interested in a certified Obama 1961 long form”, no, I don’t think they would be interested

    If you don’t like Obama find and support a candidate of your choice to oppose him, as the Saturday Berg rally’s lack of interest suggests, this birther issue is over.

  186. avatar
    richCares October 24, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    Danae’s useless photocopy still has the Freepers excited, a big win for them. Really Funny! What wpuld the birthers say about Obama showing a phocopy just like Danae’s, you know the answer there.

  187. avatar
    J Maine October 24, 2010 at 4:43 pm #

    Obama can’t photocopy a long form, because it doesn’t exist.

    He won’t show the vital (amended) records, because they are embarrassing or don’t show he was born there. Either.

  188. avatar
    richCares October 24, 2010 at 4:56 pm #

    Obama can’t photocopy a long form, because it doesn’t exist.

    and you know this how?

  189. avatar
    Majority Will October 24, 2010 at 5:00 pm #

    J Maine: Obama can’t photocopy a long form, because it doesn’t exist.He won’t show the vital (amended) records, because they are embarrassing or don’t show he was born there. Either.

    You’re an idiot.

  190. avatar
    richCares October 24, 2010 at 5:05 pm #

    The birther movement began as way to prevent Obama from being president. If they could only prove Obama is not eligible, he can be removed. That was a total failure, Obama was elected and after 2 years is still the president and will almost certainly be reelected. Why birther’s continue to hang on to a lost cause is either a silly mystery or mental illness. A rational opponent of Obama would find and support a candidate to oppose Obama in 2012. Not a single birther has done this. STRANGE!

  191. avatar
    jamese777 October 24, 2010 at 5:07 pm #

    JMaine is just ignorant of the actual events of this issue.

    For Immediate Release: October 31, 2008 08-93
    STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
    “There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
    “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
    “No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”

  192. avatar
    Majority Will October 24, 2010 at 5:26 pm #

    jamese777: JMaine is just ignorant of the actual events of this issue.For Immediate Release: October 31, 2008 08-93
    STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
    “There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
    “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
    “No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”

    J Maine is a bigot and an idiot.

  193. avatar
    Northland10 October 24, 2010 at 5:47 pm #

    Rickey: The Debate on the Constitution (two volumes, Library of America)

    References to Vattel: Zero

    That is not, entirely correct (with the possible exception that we are discussing two different debate documents).

    During the debate on equal suffrage to the states, Madison recorded this from the speech of M.L. Martin:

    In order to prove that individuals in a State of nature are equally free & independent he read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Summers — Priestly.
    http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0627.htm

    Now before Dancing gets all excited, this has nothing to do with the creation of the Presidency or citizenship, it was one of passages from multiple writers, and there is no indication what he actually read (possibly something from Vattel’s thoughts on liberty and natural law and equality between nations, or states).

    I have been unable to find any other reference to Vattel in the debates. Being well read, the founders would have read Vattel and likely agreed with some parts but he was one of many.

  194. avatar
    Northland10 October 24, 2010 at 6:00 pm #

    J Maine: Obama can’t photocopy a long form, because it doesn’t exist.He won’t show the vital (amended) records, because they are embarrassing or don’t show he was born there. Either.

    J Maine’s computer must have had a problem in saving and had incorrect ends to his sentences. I will try to give him a hand.

    “Obama can’t photocopy a long form, because” to ensure security of their vital records, Hawaii does not allow anybody beyond their staff direct access to the records. So yes, Obama cannot photocopy his long form (though I might have an old Kinko’s copy card he could use).

    “He won’t show the vital (amended) records, because” no amended records exists as “amended” would be stated on his released COLB.

    I hope that helps.

  195. avatar
    J Maine October 24, 2010 at 6:05 pm #

    No one of any official capacity has made ANY statement about the online COLB. I challenge you to produce verification of this. You can’t have it both ways.

    To save us the time and foolishness, don’t produce some random newspaper quote of Okubo talking about the COLB. She has also said in such quotes that she doesn’t know anything about it or its veracity.

    Your mental midgetry will also require us to believe that Joe Miller and Jess Hennig are authorities of factcheck. If the COLB is so legit, open it up to everyone. More than that, leave a copy of it with the Hawaii DoH so when anyone comes in and ask they can say here it is and it’s legit.

    You can’t knock other people’s legit documents and then use different standards for yours. I have yet to see any receipt of Obama’s COLB either.

  196. avatar
    J Maine October 24, 2010 at 6:07 pm #

    Majority, consistent lefty move: calling other people names.

    Good work. State policies and procedures allow for a LOT.

    First you couldn’t get a long form. Now even Dr. Conspiracy admits you can.

    What else are you guys gonna lie about? The facts suck, I know.

    But I’m a bigot (not sure how or what this has to do with the facts).

  197. avatar
    J Maine October 24, 2010 at 6:16 pm #

    I am the sort of “birther” who just wants legal transparency of the forensic facts sufficient to allow a proper constitutional assessment of whether Obama is eligible to be president consistent with his claims to support transparency and his claim of eligibility. I reject declarations that Obama is or is not a “natural born citizen” at this time because I don’t believe sufficient forensic facts are in the public record to allow the federal courts to arrive at a conclusion and I do not presume to know what that conclusion would be.

    I’m an “idiot and a bigot” because I believe in the Constitution and the rule of law.

    That makes those that oppose me, certainly, Anti-American, because they are therefore against the rule of law for anyone they support, regardless of their truth or transparency, or integrity.

    When you expect nothing from leaders and how they live (their actions) you are truly in a sad, sad state. Everyone has caught on to Obama’s BS, he is a master of unfulfilled promises and obfuscation, failing at everything he attempts. His legal power and threats are hard to overcome, in that manner he has been sucessful (one thing, hiding) in something.

  198. avatar
    Daniel October 24, 2010 at 6:20 pm #

    J Maine: No one of any official capacity has made ANY statement about the online COLB.

    That maybe true in the Birfer universe.

    Unfortunately for you, the rest of us have to deal with the real universe.

    J Maine: I am the sort of “birther” who just wants legal transparency of the forensic facts sufficient to allow a proper constitutional assessment of whether Obama is eligible to be president consistent with his claims to support transparency and his claim of eligibility. I reject declarations that Obama is or is not a “natural born citizen” at this time because I don’t believe sufficient forensic facts are in the public record to allow the federal courts to arrive at a conclusion and I do not presume to know what that conclusion would be.

    I’m an “idiot and a bigot” because I believe in the Constitution and the rule of law.

  199. avatar
    Daniel October 24, 2010 at 6:27 pm #

    Sorry hit the submit button before I was finished

    J Maine: I am the sort of “birther” who just wants legal transparency of the forensic facts sufficient to allow a proper constitutional assessment of whether Obama is eligible to be president consistent with his claims to support transparency and his claim of eligibility….
    I’m an “idiot and a bigot” because I believe in the Constitution and the rule of law.

    Noooooooooooooo.

    You’re an “idiot and a bigot” specifically BECAUSE you DON’T believe in the Constitution and the Rule of Law. You want to twist the Constitution to say what you want it to say, in order to support your prejudice and infantile sulking.

    THe Constitution establishes who has the authority to vette the President’s eligibility. That’s Congress….. NOT you. And Congress has done their job and are satisfied. Your crybaby whining about losing the election is NOT enshrined as rule of law in the Constitution, nor is your delusions that you somehow have the right to abrogagte the rights of all citizens’s of the US, including the POTUS; i.e. the right to freely and fairly elect, and the right to privacy, and to be free of unreasonable seach and seizure.

    So don’t come here and start dripping and moaning like you’re the one who wants to follow the Constitution and the Rule of Law. THe fact is that you are the one who wants to toss them out the window.

  200. avatar
    Majority Will October 24, 2010 at 6:30 pm #

    Daniel: Sorry hit the submit button before I was finished
    Noooooooooooooo.You’re an “idiot and a bigot” specifically BECAUSE you DON’T believe in the Constitution and the Rule of Law. You want to twist the Constitution to say what you want it to say, in order to support your prejudice and infantile sulking.THe Constitution establishes who has the authority to vette the President’s eligibility. That’s Congress….. NOT you. And Congress has done their job and are satisfied. Your crybaby whining about losing the election is NOT enshrined as rule of law in the Constitution, nor is your delusions that you somehow have the right to abrogagte the rights of all citizens’s of the US, including the POTUS; i.e. the right to freely and fairly elect, and the right to privacy, and to be free of unreasonable seach and seizure.So don’t come here and start dripping and moaning like you’re the one who wants to follow the Constitution and the Rule of Law. THe fact is that you are the one who wants to toss them out the window.

    Well said.

  201. avatar
    Rickey October 24, 2010 at 6:44 pm #

    Northland10:
    That is not, entirely correct (with the possible exception that we are discussing two different debate documents).

    I’m sure that’s a legitimate quotation, but it does not appear in the Library of America volumes.

    I also have the Library of America’s collection of Madison’s writings, which contain two references to Vattel. The first is in relation to declaring war and entering into treaties. The second is a passing reference to Vattel in a letter written in 1833 which rejects the notions of nullification and the sovereignty of the individual states.

  202. avatar
    DancingRabbit October 24, 2010 at 6:57 pm #

    “there is nothing in the file to document the status of the spouse’s son. Please inquire his citizenship status.”

    Sam Bernson or Bernsion. Regional Commissioner, San Pedros, California.

    Previously INS asked in Hawaii the citizenship status..it was never provided.

    The boss in California returned the paperwork.

  203. avatar
    jamese777 October 24, 2010 at 7:01 pm #

    J Maine: No one of any official capacity has made ANY statement about the online COLB. I challenge you to produce verification of this. You can’t have it both ways.To save us the time and foolishness, don’t produce some random newspaper quote of Okubo talking about the COLB. She has also said in such quotes that she doesn’t know anything about it or its veracity.Your mental midgetry will also require us to believe that Joe Miller and Jess Hennig are authorities of factcheck. If the COLB is so legit, open it up to everyone. More than that, leave a copy of it with the Hawaii DoH so when anyone comes in and ask they can say here it is and it’s legit.You can’t knock other people’s legit documents and then use different standards for yours. I have yet to see any receipt of Obama’s COLB either.

    Once again, JMaine is ignorant of the facts.
    The following is from Dr. Chiyome Fukino’s testimony delivered under oath before the Hawai’i state Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary and Government Operations on February 23, 2010: “For more than a year, the Department of Health has continued to receive approximately 50 email inquiries a month seeking access to President Barack Obama’s birth certificate in spite of the fact that President Obama has POSTED A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ON HIS FORMER CAMPAIGN WEBSITE.”
    That sure sounds like a confirmation of the COLB to me.

    A copy of Obama’s COLB has been on the web for years now for the whole wide world to see. In fact, Barack Obama is the only President of the United States for whom I personally know the exact moment of his birth: 7:24 pm on August 4, 1961 in the City of Honolulu, in the County of Honolulu, on the Island of Oahu, in the State of Hawai’i!

  204. avatar
    Northland10 October 24, 2010 at 7:09 pm #

    Rickey: I’m sure that’s a legitimate quotation, but it does not appear in the Library of America volumes.

    I figured as much, which is why I qualified my statement (with the possible exception…). In any case, I agree that Dancing and the other birthers put Vattel in a place he never was. He was one of many and not nearly as sourced as others.

    Interestingly, Robert Yates, who also mentioned Martin read from the aforementioned writings, did preface his notes about Martin’s speech:

    Mr. Martin, the attorney general from Maryland, spoke on this subject upwards of three hours. As his arguments were too diffuse, and in many instances desultory, in was not possible to trace him through the whole, or to methodize his ideas into a systematic or argumentative arrangement. I shall therefore only note such points as I conceive merit most particular notice

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp

  205. avatar
    richCares October 24, 2010 at 7:28 pm #

    DancingRabbit you said: INS Supervisor. No proof Obama is a citizen.
    not quite accurate your follow up quote was a bit more accurate
    “there is nothing in the file to document the status of the spouse’s son. Please inquire his citizenship .status.”

    but you neglected to put in the reply which was on page 38:
    “The person in question is a united states citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii Aug. 4, 1961.” (page 38 of Soetoro Visa request)
    .
    why did you leave that out?

  206. avatar
    Northland10 October 24, 2010 at 7:29 pm #

    DancingRabbit: “there is nothing in the file to document the status of the spouse’s son. Please inquire his citizenship status.”

    Sam Bernson or Bernsion. Regional Commissioner, San Pedros, California.

    Previously INS asked in Hawaii the citizenship status..it was never provided.

    I direct your attention to the Memo to file from W.L. Mix found on page 38 of the release

    Memo to file
    A 14 128 294
    Sept. 14, 1967

    Pursuant to inquiry from Central office regarding the status of the applicants’ [Lolo Soetoro] spouses’ child by a former marriage.

    The person in question is a united states citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii Aug. 4, 1961. He is living with the applicants’ spouse in Honolulu, Hawaii. He is considered the applicants step-child, within the meaning of Sec. 101(b)(1)(B), of the act, by virtue of the marriage of the applicant to the childs’ mother on March 15, 1965.

    W. L. Mix

    The FOIA release is at:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/08/its-raining-foias/#more-8239

    After this memo, the District Director then created the requested letter and forwarded the letter and the file, as requested, to the Assistant Regional Commissioner (page 34). The letter was then sent to the Department of State with a favorable recommendation (the file was returned – page 30).

  207. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross October 24, 2010 at 7:33 pm #

    DancingRabbit: “there is nothing in the file to document the status of the spouse’s son. Please inquire his citizenship status.”Sam Bernson or Bernsion. Regional Commissioner, San Pedros, California.Previously INS asked in Hawaii the citizenship status..it was never provided.The boss in California returned the paperwork.

    Is it Sam Bernson or Bernsion?

  208. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 24, 2010 at 7:41 pm #

    DancingRabbit: Previously INS asked in Hawaii the citizenship status..it was never provided.

    Only it was, as indicated by a later memo to the file.

    If you use a lie as a premise, you may get a lie as a conclusion. This is the fundamental flaw of birtherism. Some of them make stuff up or outright lie, and others are gullible enough to believe them.

  209. avatar
    richCares October 24, 2010 at 7:44 pm #

    for DancingRabbit
    The person in question is a united states citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii Aug. 4, 1961. He is living with the applicants’ spouse in Honolulu, Hawaii. He is considered the applicants step-child, within the meaning of Sec. 101(b)(1)(B), of the act, by virtue of the marriage of the applicant to the childs’ mother on March 15, 1965.

    why did DancingRabbit leave this out, first he phrase the INS request in a way to say Obama is illegal, then he purposely ignores the above answer
    .
    is that the kid of quality to expect from free republic? is it inuendo or what?

  210. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 24, 2010 at 7:48 pm #

    J Maine: Majority, consistent lefty move: calling other people names.

    Good work. State policies and procedures allow for a LOT.

    First you couldn’t get a long form. Now even Dr. Conspiracy admits you can.

    What else are you guys gonna lie about? The facts suck, I know.

    Let me add another name for you: hypocrite. You complain about others calling you names, and you use the pejorative “lefty” in the same sentence.

    There is a difference between a lie and an honestly held wrong opinion, Don’t you agree?

  211. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 24, 2010 at 7:49 pm #

    J Maine: Your mental midgetry …

    Uh, didn’t you say that name calling was a consistent “lefty” move? Are you a socialist, after all?

  212. avatar
    richCares October 24, 2010 at 7:52 pm #

    voting time,
    DancingRabbit: Previously INS asked in Hawaii the citizenship status..it was never provided.
    Select one:
    1. Dancing Rabbit lied
    2. DancingRabbit was mislead by FR
    3. both

  213. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 24, 2010 at 7:57 pm #

    J Maine: Obama can’t photocopy a long form, because it doesn’t exist.

    He won’t show the vital (amended) records, because they are embarrassing or don’t show he was born there. Either.

    Did you make this lie up yourself, or did you copy it from somebody else.

  214. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 24, 2010 at 8:05 pm #

    Seizethecarp: This retired CPA and Certified Fraud Examiner “birther” would absolutely “accept” Obama’s long form image if it were like Danae’s for its 1961 forensic value, which would be considerable and is the whole point of the bet. I would accept that forensic value regardless of whether it was certified in 2010 because it would answer key questions which may or may not be the end of the forensic examination of the facts and circumstances for Obama’s birth that so far are unclear.

    It is one thing to say that you would accept the document for its forensic value, and another thing to say that you would accept it as sufficient proof that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. So let me ask you specifically to answer that. You say “may or may not.” Under what circumstances would it, and when would it not. It seems to me that you asserting that I’m wrong when I say that “birthers” wouldn’t accept a document line Danae’s, but then are unwilling to commit yourself. Please take some time to explain why you don’t accept the birth certificate already published, and why this uncertified photocopy is somehow better than the certified abstract copy with fewer item on it.

    Exactly what scenario could you provide in which Obama could have the COLB as it is, and not be born in Hawaii, and how the long form could change that?

  215. avatar
    DancingRabbit October 24, 2010 at 8:20 pm #

    The Mix memo looks huh..credible..wonder who prepared it and when…

  216. avatar
    DancingRabbit October 24, 2010 at 8:25 pm #

    illegals need to prepare a memo like the Mix one..submit it for proof of citizenship..they could have used a similiar one in Arizona when stopped by the police..

  217. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP October 24, 2010 at 8:54 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    It is one thing to say that you would accept the document for its forensic value, and another thing to say that you would accept it as sufficient proof that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. So let me ask you specifically to answer that. You say “may or may not.” Under what circumstances would it, and when would it not. It seems to me that you asserting that I’m wrong when I say that “birthers” wouldn’t accept a document line Danae’s, but then are unwilling to commit yourself. Please take some time to explain why you don’t accept the birth certificate already published, and why this uncertified photocopy is somehow better than the certified abstract copy with fewer item on it.Exactly what scenario could you provide in which Obama could have the COLB as it is, and not be born in Hawaii, and how the long form could change that?

    The only reason they say they will accept it, Doc, is because they know Hawaii doesn’t have them anymore and hasn’t for 9 years. If he did produce one, they would be saying it’s fake because Hawaii doesn’t have them anymore and haven’t for 9 years. Heads, I win; tails, you lose.

  218. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP October 24, 2010 at 9:17 pm #

    Frankly, I don’t give a damn what they will accept and what they won’t accept, and neither does the president. All they have been doing for more than two years is blowing smoke up people’s butts, calling respected state officials liars, creating phony “evidence,” and moving the goalposts once they get what they are asking for all so that they can con the dumb, the delusional, and the gullible into believing their lies and propaganda, and those responsible for doing something about this if there’s anything to it, Congress, ain’t buyin’ what they’re sellin’

  219. avatar
    jamese777 October 24, 2010 at 9:19 pm #

    DancingRabbit: The Mix memo looks huh..credible..wonder who prepared it and when…

    The Mix memo was prepared by W.L, Mix on September 14, 1967.

  220. avatar
    Seizethecarp October 24, 2010 at 9:42 pm #

    Dr C asked:

    “It is one thing to say that you would accept the document for its forensic value, and another thing to say that you would accept it as sufficient proof that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. So let me ask you specifically to answer that. You say “may or may not.” Under what circumstances would it, and when would it not. It seems to me that you asserting that I’m wrong when I say that “birthers” wouldn’t accept a document line Danae’s, but then are unwilling to commit yourself. Please take some time to explain why you don’t accept the birth certificate already published, and why this uncertified photocopy is somehow better than the certified abstract copy with fewer item on it. ”

    To Dr C:

    I answered that when listed 5 questions not answered by the short form 2007 COLB which could be answered by the 1961 long form BC and when I said:

    “So you can see that whether or not this particular birther would accept an Obama long form similar to Danae’s would depend on what investigation of the purported details turns up.

    “If an Obama 1961 long form showed a hospital or physical address for the birth that could be confirmed and an attendant at birth who could be confirmed then for me the question of where Obama was born would be settled.”

    Dr C asked:

    “Exactly what scenario could you provide in which Obama could have the COLB as it is, and not be born in Hawaii, and how the long form could change that?”

    To Dr C:

    Fact: Obama has failed to submit his 2007 COLB to any court or to authorize a full, transparent release of his HI vital records. This fact gives the appearance that one of many possible scenarios or facts revealed in those intentionally hidden vital records underlying the 2007 COLB could lead to a possible foreign birth if a full forensic investigation were permitted.

    This is so obvious that even Saturday Night Live is joking about it!

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=219321

    One possible scenario (one of many): Hawaii Territorial Law 57 in force in 1961 allowed for a report of a non-hospital, non-medical-assisted Hawaiian birth to be made up to a year after the birth with minimal documentation consisting of statements from witnesses including family who might have motivation to conceal a foreign birth.

    See:

    MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE
    OF HAWAIIAN TERRITORIAL STATUTES,
    THE REVISED LAWS OF HAWAII, CHAPTER 57,
    “VITAL STATISTICS,I” AND THEIR EFFECT
    ==================================================
    John D. Hemenway

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24948817/Joint-Motion-with-HI-Territorial-Law-57

    “What in fact the territorial statute in effect before the 1982 statute sets out is an even greater latitude enabling and entitling persons to register a child for up to a year after its birth and to do so, if not attended by a locally licensed physician or midwife, for the parents or one of them to fill out the birth certificate or for a local registrar’ to fill out a birth certificate from anyone having knowledge of the birth.’ Thus a child born outside of Hawaii and attended by a non-Hawaii licensed health care provider or born unattended could get a Hawaii birth certificate nonetheless.”

  221. avatar
    Majority Will October 24, 2010 at 9:47 pm #

    Seizethecarp: Irrelevant birther stupidity.

    SQUAWK ! ! !

  222. avatar
    Northland10 October 24, 2010 at 9:52 pm #

    DancingRabbit: The Mix memo looks huh..credible..wonder who prepared it and when…

    This would be the same W. Mix who authored the letters signed by the District Director, John O’Shea. You can tell this from his initials at the end of the O’Shea letters (WLM:cs). He is obviously an assistant of some type to the Director and, by request of his boss, determined the status of the “son” and inserted a file memo to document this. “cs” on the O’Shea letters is the typist, which is good, given the quality of Mr. Mix’s typewriter (or general typing skills).

    In short, he inquired into the status and recorded his findings in a memo to the file.

  223. avatar
    Bovril October 24, 2010 at 9:57 pm #

    @Seizethecarp

    Apart from the other substantial logical and legal holes in your questions, you fail at the very very first hurdle.

    Danae hasn’t provided a “long form” BC.

    No seal
    No authenticating signature
    No date of issuance
    No Security Paper
    No legal statements
    etc etc etc

    So, before making stuff up, start with simple facts, there’s a good chap

  224. avatar
    Northland10 October 24, 2010 at 10:06 pm #

    Seizethecarp: Fact: Obama has failed to submit his 2007 COLB to any court or to authorize a full, transparent release of his HI vital records. This fact gives the appearance that one of many possible scenarios or facts revealed in those intentionally hidden vital records underlying the 2007 COLB could lead to a possible foreign birth if a full forensic investigation were permitted.

    You already said earlier that there is a question of his dual citizenship so why bother with the foreign birth. Your changing answers show, you do not care anything about the truth but only to get the object of your hate out of office (or your a troll).

    Oh, and the Hemenway lost the case.

  225. avatar
    richCares October 24, 2010 at 10:17 pm #

    DancingRabbit: The Mix memo looks huh..credible..wonder who prepared it and when
    .
    W.L. Mix of US State Dept wrote the answer to the inquiry. “Pursuant to inquiry from Central office regarding the status of the applicants’ [Lolo Soetoro] spouses’ child by a former marriage.: you may see the whole letter here on Doc’s site:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/08/government-investigation-into-barack-obamas-citizenship/

    Doc maintains a lot of accurate and factual info, so before babbling on check Doc’s archives. If you wish you can find and read all 38 pages of the FOIA info here:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/08/its-raining-foias/#more-8239
    .
    Doc’s thoroughly checked info is not like Freeper’s innuendos. Doing a little research can help keep the mud out of your mouth or you can continue being misinformed (which is your current condition).

  226. avatar
    Arthur October 24, 2010 at 10:23 pm #

    Bovril:

    So, before making stuff up, start with simple facts, there’s a good chap

    Shouldn’t that be “there’s a good carp”?

  227. avatar
    NBC October 24, 2010 at 10:27 pm #

    Danae has provided what appears to be a non-certified copy of a long birth certificate

    Just so that we can start with simple facts.

    Bovril: @SeizethecarpApart from the other substantial logical and legal holes in your questions, you fail at the very very first hurdle.Danae hasn’t provided a “long form” BC.No seal
    No authenticating signature
    No date of issuance
    No Security Paper
    No legal statements
    etc etc etcSo, before making stuff up, start with simple facts, there’s a good chap

  228. avatar
    J Maine October 24, 2010 at 10:52 pm #

    The fact is that if he were born at Kapiolani with a Dr. and a signature, they would show the document. But he wasn’t so they won’t.

    Perhaps it wouldn’t matter anyway, Dr. C. If he were exposed to have NOT been born at Kapi’olani, as I assert as fact, which is self evident at this point, would it even matter to you? Honest question.

    If he had affidavits by non medical personnel as evidence of Hawaiian birth, would you not still argue that he is legitimate, even in light of he and his camp obviously lying about Queens and then Kapio’lani as the place of birth?

    I’m sick of all the games. Just cut to the chase. If it wouldn’t matter, just say so. Say that you would defend the liar regardless. At least THEN you’d be telling the truth.

    But I sense you are a bit more fair minded than your supporting minions here. That’s why I still post intermittently. It WOULD bother you that he lied, wouldn’t it? As such, you WOULD have questions … even though you wouldn’t let on to it.

    That’s the difference between us “birthers” and you guys. Since it’s YOUR guy, you don’t care about the shadiness and lack of transparency. You don’t believe us that it’s not about politics at all … which proves your insecurities and suspicion (as ours) of his lies.

    Those who have nothing to hide, fear nothing. That’s the whole point here.

  229. avatar
    richCares October 24, 2010 at 11:07 pm #

    “The fact is that if he were born at Kapiolani with a Dr. and a signature, they would show the document. But he wasn’t so they won’t.”
    .
    sorry, the hospital published Obama’s letter on his birth in their 100th anniversery magazine, scroll down to page 6, US Congressman Neil Abercrombie, who knew Obama as a child. read Obama’s letter, where he honored the hospital he was born in, during the ceremony, why don’t you know this?
    link: http://www.kapiolanigift.org/doc/centennial-magazine.pdf
    has hating Obama damaged your brain?
    if you don’t like Obama, find and support a candidate to oppose him in 2012, this birher stuff is a waste of time. Haven’t you noticed it’s going nowhere (Berg’s rally turnout showed that) Don’t you think it’s time to get a real life. Stop embarasing your kids

  230. avatar
    Rickey October 24, 2010 at 11:58 pm #

    J Maine: If he were exposed to have NOT been born at Kapi’olani, as I assert as fact, which is self evident at this point, would it even matter to you? Honest question.

    Hogwash. There is nothing honest about your question or about you.

  231. avatar
    sfjeff October 25, 2010 at 1:42 am #

    Seize the Carp, I came in rather late to your comment

    You listed 5 items that would be listed on a long form that would be important to you- for ‘forensic’ purposes.

    But looking at those 5 items leads me to believe that you just want these 5 items to further questioning President Obama’s eligibility, rather than looking for any validation.

    Every single item you say would be important, you would then require additional verification on- many of which may be not exist. And why would we expect that would satisfy you or anyone else?

    Specific crucial forensic information on Danae’s long form which Obama’s long form would be expected to show:

    “3. confirmation that Obama’s 1961 long form was not a report of a home birth witnessed by a relative or any other potentially ambiguous report or adoption which was subsequently amended to arrive at the 2007 COLB, a COLB which has never been submitted to any court and sworn to be genuine in a legal discovery.”

    You do know that President Eisenhower- who was born at home- had his birth certificate issued 50 years later, based solely upon the confirmation of his brother- who was not quite 3 years old at the time. But you seem to be implying that President Obama’s birth certificate- if he was born at home would be somehow more suspect than President Eisenhowers- why the double standard?

    “but no actual examination by a court of the constitutional implication of of dual citizenship at birth could be legally ruled on without discovery of the best evidence of Obama’s paternity. Lt Lakin’s defense team would be highly interested in this information”

    And here we go again- as usual with Birthers- the birth certificate is the Holy Grail- except that no matter what it says, you think President Obama still isn’t eligible.

    An intellectually honest person- who really believed the ‘two citizen’ parent fiction, wouldn’t care about the birth certificate. Only Birthers who are looking for ANY reason why President Obama must be ineligible are willing to accept half a dozen reasons, some contradictory that he is ineligible.

  232. avatar
    sfjeff October 25, 2010 at 2:02 am #

    “The fact is that if he were born at Kapiolani with a Dr. and a signature, they would show the document. But he wasn’t so they won’t.”

    Do you know the difference between a fact and an opinion? Because what you just provided was not only an opinion, but it was an uninformed opinion. The hospital is not allowed to provide what you say without breaking the law.

    “Perhaps it wouldn’t matter anyway, Dr. C. If he were exposed to have NOT been born at Kapi’olani, as I assert as fact, which is self evident at this point, would it even matter to you? Honest question.”

    Would it matter to me regarding his eligibilty to be President? Of course not. If it turns out that a President- any President- misled the public about whether he was born in one specific hospital or not- I would be disappointed with the President. It wouldn’t mean that President wasn’t eligible. Now if there was evidence a President wasn’t eligible then I would be for an investigation and impeachment.

    “If he had affidavits by non medical personnel as evidence of Hawaiian birth, would you not still argue that he is legitimate, even in light of he and his camp obviously lying about Queens and then Kapio’lani as the place of birth?”

    If the President was born in cab on the streets of Honolulu, he would still be eligible, or do you think Presidents not born in hospitals are not eligible?

    “I’m sick of all the games. Just cut to the chase. If it wouldn’t matter, just say so. Say that you would defend the liar regardless. At least THEN you’d be telling the truth.”

    Sick of the games? How droll. You haven’t shown any indication that you would be willing to accept anything other than proof that President Obama is ineglible.

    “That’s the difference between us “birthers” and you guys. Since it’s YOUR guy, you don’t care about the shadiness and lack of transparency. You don’t believe us that it’s not about politics at all … which proves your insecurities and suspicion (as ours) of his lies.”

    The difference between us and birthers is that we assert that the President has already established he is eligible to the satisifaction of the voters and Congress and has been sworn in. The difference between us and birthers is that we recognize that there is actual evidence showing that President Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore eligible and don’t rely upon internet rumors and innuendo to prop up our theories.

    The difference between us and birthers is we haven’t gone out and invented a whole new definition of natural born citizen just because of this President.

    The difference for between myself and birthers is If there were ever actual evidence that showed President Obama was not eligible I would be asking for investigations, and if those played out, for impeachment- Birthers reject all evidence that President Obama is eligible, and villify judges who have the temerity to rule accordingly.

    “Those who have nothing to hide, fear nothing. That’s the whole point here.”

    Which is why President Obama has nothing to fear.

  233. avatar
    Dave October 25, 2010 at 6:57 am #

    J Maine: You don’t believe us that it’s not about politics at all …

    Actually, it’s news to me that it’s not about politics — I don’t recall hearing you or any other birther say that before. So, you like the President’s policies? I didn’t know that.

  234. avatar
    misha October 25, 2010 at 7:20 am #

    To all the Denialists: you will soon be getting your wish.

    Once the Repugs are in the majority, and jaundiced Boehner is 3rd in line (snicker), Issa and his cronies are going to subpoena every scrap of paper on Obama they can find. Issa, an Arab (ha, ha) and the Steve Jobs of car alarms, is going to have a field day.

    When they can’t find anything, Denialists will say they are in the conspiracy too, and then trot out the “two-parent” invention of Leo Donofrio, who should stick to poker.

    Sorry, but Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. True story: when Booker was a student in England, he was elected president of the Jewish student’s association. Google it.

  235. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny October 25, 2010 at 7:59 am #

    http://www.thomascrampton.com/uncategorized/getting-a-ny-birth-certificate-with-apostille/

    So, maybe Danae claimed she planned to get married in France?

    Of course, I started to wonder. Obviously, to get married in France, a French citizen needs “une copie intégrale de l’acte de naissance”. (the main difference in French certificates, integral or not, being the mention of the names of the parents).

    So, how does someone born in Hawaii, get married in France? Does (s)he show Danae’s document. Er, sorry, ceci n’est pas une acte de naissance. And Danae will never find a translator willing to make a cerified translation of it.

    So, what if you still have your old long-form birth certificate? Sorry, peut pas faire, “ne doit pas dater de plus de trois mois si elle a été délivrée en France et de plus de six mois si elle a été délivrée dans un consulat”.

    http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070721&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006421161&dateTexte=20101025

    But the right to marry is a universal human right. Obama’s COLB must therefore be sufficient – provided Hawaii DOH’s seal dates less than six months, and the certificate mentions the names of the parents. In other words, that 2007 claim about the long form is incorrect. Even though it predates Obama.

    It seems this whole long-form thingie has been an Internet meme for some time: “must have the long-form to get married abroad”, “must have the long-form to get into little league” and so on. It was a stick waiting to be used against a black man.

    By claiming the birth certificate was forged, Polarik and his fellow impostors got access to the stick.

  236. avatar
    ellid October 25, 2010 at 8:00 am #

    J Maine: The fact is that if he were born at Kapiolani with a Dr. and a signature, they would show the document. But he wasn’t so they won’t.Perhaps it wouldn’t matter anyway, Dr. C. If he were exposed to have NOT been born at Kapi’olani, as I assert as fact, which is self evident at this point, would it even matter to you? Honest question.If he had affidavits by non medical personnel as evidence of Hawaiian birth, would you not still argue that he is legitimate, even in light of he and his camp obviously lying about Queens and then Kapio’lani as the place of birth?I’m sick of all the games. Just cut to the chase. If it wouldn’t matter, just say so. Say that you would defend the liar regardless. At least THEN you’d be telling the truth.But I sense you are a bit more fair minded than your supporting minions here. That’s why I still post intermittently. It WOULD bother you that he lied, wouldn’t it? As such, you WOULD have questions … even though you wouldn’t let on to it.That’s the difference between us “birthers” and you guys. Since it’s YOUR guy, you don’t care about the shadiness and lack of transparency. You don’t believe us that it’s not about politics at all … which proves your insecurities and suspicion (as ours) of his lies.Those who have nothing to hide, fear nothing. That’s the whole point here.

    1. You’re forgetting a little thing called “privacy laws.” These prohibit a hospital from releasing records on a patient, including birth records.

    2. You ignore Kapiolani Medical Center posting a letter from the President online naming them as his birthplace. There is no reason for them to do this if it were not true, and you know it.

    3. There is no need for “affidavits” since the President has produced a legal, certified, state-issued birth certificate.

    4. The confusion about whether the President was born at Queens or Kapiolani was because of birther misreadings of an article written by a high school student. Why do you give this any credibility?

    5. There is no evidence whatsoever that the President has lied about being born in Hawaii.

    6. Your paranoia is approaching escape velocity. I suggest you seek medical attention immediately.

  237. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 25, 2010 at 8:15 am #

    J Maine: The fact is that if he were born at Kapiolani with a Dr. and a signature, they would show the document. But he wasn’t so they won’t.

    Perhaps it wouldn’t matter anyway, Dr. C. If he were exposed to have NOT been born at Kapi’olani, as I assert as fact, which is self evident at this point, would it even matter to you? Honest question.

    If he had affidavits by non medical personnel as evidence of Hawaiian birth, would you not still argue that he is legitimate, even in light of he and his camp obviously lying about Queens and then Kapio’lani as the place of birth?

    It’s “Kapi’olani” not “Kapio’lani”.

    The Obama camp has not said much about the name of the hospital, but it was named once in a letter Obama sent to the hospital congratulating them on their 100th anniversary.

    The point is, however, that whether born in a hospital or born at home, Obama has no reason to lie, as both make him equally born in Hawaii. Therefore, if he has no reason to lie, he hasn’t.

    You say that Obama’s refusal to release a copy of his original birth certificate is evidence that it shows something suspicious. I say that he refuses to release the document because he knows that birthers are crazy and nothing will satisfy them. More documentation is just more fuel for the fire. As evidence, I give you the first birth certificate.

  238. avatar
    Sef October 25, 2010 at 9:00 am #

    Seizethecarp:

    Re your 5 points: these are properly in the province of the HI DOH who would have performed any necessary validation at the time the original BC was registered. Their issuance of a signed & sealed COLB in 2007 is all the proof any court needs. No one else needs to go on a fishing expedition, nor would their testimony be accepted over the DOH.

  239. avatar
    Rickey October 25, 2010 at 11:51 am #

    Seizethecarp: 4.confirmation that Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was shown as the father on the 1961 long form, which if entered in court as evidence could, for the first time, give rise to a legal question of dual citizenship at birth which has only been legally “hearsay” up to this point.Yes, there was full public knowledge of Obama’s claimed paternity, but no actual examination by a court of the constitutional implication of of dual citizenship at birth could be legally ruled on without discovery of the best evidence of Obama’s paternity.

    Nonsense. If it ever came to that (and it won’t), Obama would simply stipulate that his father was not a U.S. citizen. There is no need for written documentation when the parties stipulate to a fact.

    Lt Lakin’s defense team would be highly interested in this information.

    Apparently you missed the part where Lakin’s new attorney has dropped the “Obama is ineligible” defense.

  240. avatar
    Daniel October 25, 2010 at 12:36 pm #

    J Maine: The fact is

    Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Inigo is much wiser than you, J…. you should listen… for a change

  241. avatar
    Greg October 25, 2010 at 3:18 pm #

    Seizethecarp: In my understanding (not a lawyer), for a federal judge to rule on the merits of Obama’s eligibility, the “best evidence” would be discoverable and that would be Obama’s HI vital records underlying his 2007 COLB including any 1961 long form and any amendments, not the 2007 COLB.

    It’s obvious from this that you are not a lawyer.

    Federal Rules of Evidence 902 – Self Authenticating documents

    (1) Domestic public documents under seal. A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any State, district, Commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof, and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution.

    If Obama put a 2007 COLB with the State seal of Hawaii, it is a self-authenticating document. That means that it is proven, without anything else, to be a birth certificate.

    FRE 803 says that Public records and reports including “statements” are admissible as against the hearsay rule to prove that which they are intended to prove.

    You’re thinking of the “Best Evidence Rule” which says that when you are attempting to prove the contents of a document, you must produce the original. However, there are several exceptions to that rule, one of which is FRE 1005 – Public Records:

    The contents of an official record, or of a document authorized to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed, including data compilations in any form, if otherwise admissible, may be proved by copy, certified as correct in accordance with rule 902 or testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original. If a copy which complies with the foregoing cannot be obtained by the exercise of reasonable diligence, then other evidence of the contents may be given.

    The court will ask some questions about the COLB:

    1. Does it bear the seal of the state of Hawaii?
    2. If not, does it bear the signature of someone attesting to its accuracy?

    If either of these things are true, the COLB suffices as a substitute for the original document.

    This is why you should never take legal advice from someone who is not a lawyer!

    Seizethecarp: give rise to a legal question of dual citizenship at birth which has only been legally “hearsay” up to this point.

    When you’re in a hole, stop digging!

    FRE 802 – Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial

    (19) Reputation concerning personal or family history. Reputation among members of a person’s family by blood, adoption, or marriage, or among a person’s associates, or in the community, concerning a person’s birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, death, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history.

    Is there a reputation concerning Obama’s father’s nationality? Is that reputation out there among Obama’s community?

    Then it’s not hearsay!

  242. avatar
    misha October 25, 2010 at 3:20 pm #

    Greg: It’s obvious from this that you are not a lawyer.

    Greg: you are being rational. Cut it out.

  243. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP October 25, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    Look birfoons, if Obama is prone to forging documents as you claim, and Hawaii will cover for him as you claim, all he has to do to buy you a nice big glass of STFUaboutit is forge a long form.

  244. avatar
    jamese777 October 25, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    J Maine: The fact is that if he were born at Kapiolani with a Dr. and a signature, they would show the document. But he wasn’t so they won’t.Perhaps it wouldn’t matter anyway, Dr. C. If he were exposed to have NOT been born at Kapi’olani, as I assert as fact, which is self evident at this point, would it even matter to you? Honest question.If he had affidavits by non medical personnel as evidence of Hawaiian birth, would you not still argue that he is legitimate, even in light of he and his camp obviously lying about Queens and then Kapio’lani as the place of birth?I’m sick of all the games. Just cut to the chase. If it wouldn’t matter, just say so. Say that you would defend the liar regardless. At least THEN you’d be telling the truth.But I sense you are a bit more fair minded than your supporting minions here. That’s why I still post intermittently. It WOULD bother you that he lied, wouldn’t it? As such, you WOULD have questions … even though you wouldn’t let on to it.That’s the difference between us “birthers” and you guys. Since it’s YOUR guy, you don’t care about the shadiness and lack of transparency. You don’t believe us that it’s not about politics at all … which proves your insecurities and suspicion (as ours) of his lies.Those who have nothing to hide, fear nothing. That’s the whole point here.

    I’m wondering what JMaine’s explanation is for why the Governor of Hawai’i Linda Lingle, who is a Republican who who endorsed John McCain for the presidency and delivered one of Sarah Palin’s endorsement speeches at the Republican National Convention would name Kapi’olani Medical Center For Women and Children as Barack Obama’s birth hospital if he was not born there.
    What would be the motivation for her to lie for Obama?
    And why would Kapi’olani Medical Center itself advertise that Barack Obama was born there if it is not true. As others have mentioned, Kapi’olani takes credit for being Obama’s birth hospital in their 100th Anniversary magazine publication and they include a congratulatory letter from Obama in that publication.

  245. avatar
    jamese777 October 25, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    “It’s been an odd situation, This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country.

    So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it’s again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. It’s been established…he was born here.”–Governor of Hawai’i Linda LIngle (R)

  246. avatar
    richCares October 25, 2010 at 4:13 pm #

    “I’m wondering what JMaine’s explanation is for …”
    what do you expect, after all J Main is a Birfoon, the primary Birfoon salute is cover your eyes and plug your ears, that’s how they greet each other in Berferstan..

  247. avatar
    Seizethecarp October 25, 2010 at 5:49 pm #

    Greg said:

    “If Obama put a 2007 COLB with the State seal of Hawaii, it is a self-authenticating document. That means that it is proven, without anything else, to be a birth certificate.”

    To Greg:

    Just because a COLB is self-authenticating, discovery of the vital records that the COLB certifies is not precluded. Self-authentication grants the COLB a hearsay exception which means that it can be entered into evidence without an HI official appearing to swear under oath that the COLB is authentic.

    My understanding is that the authenticity of a “self-authenticating document,” such as Obama’s purported 2007 COLB, is only a rebuttable presumption of authenticity and thus it can still thus be challenged. If challenged, Court ordered discovery of the vital records containing the information which the COLB certifies might reveal a legal basis for challenge of the COLB, or might justify a motion for the court to order additional discovery regarding the sources of the information in the vital records.

    Currently it is my hope that in 2011 a GOP House committee will see fit to subpoena Obama’s HI vital records underlying the short form COLB. If Obama has nothing to hide then he and his army of apologists will have nothing to fear.

    Obama was willing to send Kapi’olani Hospital a letter claiming that he was born there, but such a claim has no evidentiary value as a person cannot testify to the location of their own birth. Suspiciously, Obama did not sign a waiver for Kapi’olani Hospital to release his 1961 contemporaneous records or for HI DOH to release his 1961 vital records which would, in fact, provide evidence of his birth location address.

  248. avatar
    misha October 25, 2010 at 6:14 pm #

    Seizethecarp: his 1961 vital records which would, in fact, provide evidence of his birth location address.

    Why does it matter? I thought a president was required to have two citizen parents. I wish you guys made up your minds.

    One question: why does Obama not meet your standards, but a president with a misdemeanor conviction does? Or Cheney, or Laura Bush who ran a stop sign, and killed a classmate.

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/george-w-bush-dui-arrest-record-0

  249. avatar
    JoZeppy October 25, 2010 at 6:14 pm #

    Seizethecarp: My understanding is that the authenticity of a “self-authenticating document,” such as Obama’s purported 2007 COLB, is only a rebuttable presumption of authenticity and thus it can still thus be challenged. If challenged, Court ordered discovery of the vital records containing the information which the COLB certifies might reveal a legal basis for challenge of the COLB, or might justify a motion for the court to order additional discovery regarding the sources of the information in the vital records.

    Yes, it can be challenged….however, you don’t seem to understand what it means to challange. The party challenging the COLB has the burden to produce evidence as to why the document should not be relied on. What you have to come forward with is actual evidence why this document, in this instance should not be trusted (i.e. all the unsubstantiated claims of granny fraud won’t even be entertained, the B.S. anyone could get a Hawaiian COLB wouldn’t cut it). You need actual admissiable evidence to show the document is the product of fraud, it’s forged, or actual evidence that President Obama was born elsewhere. Simply standing up saying, “I challenge the veracity of this document” isn’t going to cut it….and even then, the evidence need only be weighed against the COLB. There’s no guarentee that the evidence you have will be enough to overcome the presumption of the COLB as prima facie evidence of the information it contains.

    So what evidence do you have? That’s right….no evidence, no challenge.

    Seizethecarp: Currently it is my hope that in 2011 a GOP House committee will see fit to subpoena Obama’s HI vital records underlying the short form COLB. If Obama has nothing to hide then he and his army of apologists will have nothing to fear.

    I too would love nothing more than the Republicans make themselves seem like a bunch of rabid nutters….did wonders for them in the Clinton years.

    Seizethecarp: Obama was willing to send Kapi’olani Hospital a letter claiming that he was born there, but such a claim has no evidentiary value as a person cannot testify to the location of their own birth. Suspiciously, Obama did not sign a waiver for Kapi’olani Hospital to release his 1961 contemporaneous records or for HI DOH to release his 1961 vital records which would, in fact, provide evidence of his birth location address.

    Nothing suspcisious about it, as he has no compelling reason to sign any such waiver. He’s already proven where he was born to a greater degree than any president, why should he feel compelled to reprove anything to an army of conspiracy nuts who will never be satisfied?

  250. avatar
    jamese777 October 25, 2010 at 6:17 pm #

    My money is on the GOP not going anywhere near the Obama eligibility issue regardless of whether they are in the majority or the minority in 2011.

    Governor Lingle has alerted the Republican National Committee to the fact that Obama’s birth documents say Kapi’olani as the birth place. Whether the documents said that back in 1961 is anybody’s guess but it says that now.

    The Republicans aren’t willing to go out on a limb and risk major embarrassment over this issue.

  251. avatar
    misha October 25, 2010 at 6:25 pm #

    jamese777: The Republicans aren’t willing to go out on a limb and risk major embarrassment over this issue.

    I’m going to disagree. I say Obama will be impeached:
    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/10/obama-will-be-impeached.html

  252. avatar
    JoZeppy October 25, 2010 at 6:26 pm #

    jamese777: Governor Lingle has alerted the Republican National Committee to the fact that Obama’s birth documents say Kapi’olani as the birth place. Whether the documents said that back in 1961 is anybody’s guess but it says that now.

    And can you give any possible evidence or reason why the document would be any different today than in 1961?

  253. avatar
    Seizethecarp October 25, 2010 at 6:39 pm #

    JoZeppy said:

    “There’s no guarentee that the evidence you have will be enough to overcome the presumption of the COLB as prima facie evidence of the information it contains.
    “So what evidence do you have? That’s right….no evidence, no challenge.”

    To JoZeppy:

    The best evidence that Obama’s HI vital records underlying his COLB raise questions regarding his eligibility is Obama’s own refusal to sign a release of those records and his use of extensive legal services before and after his election to block discovery of those records.

    Now even SNL is mocking Obama’s refusal to release his long form, if he has one. Obama is losing his standing in the court of public opinion on this issue.

  254. avatar
    JoZeppy October 25, 2010 at 6:49 pm #

    Seizethecarp: The best evidence that Obama’s HI vital records underlying his COLB raise questions regarding his eligibility is Obama’s own refusal to sign a release of those records and his use of extensive legal services before and after his election to block discovery of those records.

    Thank you for your admission that you have no evidence. That was very big of you.

  255. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP October 25, 2010 at 6:52 pm #

    jamese777: My money is on the GOPnot going anywhere near the Obama eligibility issue regardless of whether they are in the majority or the minority in 2011.Governor Lingle has alerted the Republican National Committee to the fact that Obama’s birth documents say Kapi’olani as the birth place. Whether the documents said that back in 1961 is anybody’s guess but it says that now.The Republicans aren’t willing to go out on a limb and risk major embarrassment over this issue.

    They’re not going to touch it with a ten-foot pole. They know that the COLB is rock solid proof that he was born in Hawaii and are not going to go making themselves look like fools questioning it.

  256. avatar
    Majority Will October 25, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

    Seizethecarp: Obama is losing his standing in the court of public opinion on this issue.

    Pure birther drivel. Your deranged fantasies mean nothing. You are irrelevant.

    When did Obama refuse to sign anything? More birther b.s. Provide proof the President was directly requested to sign a release and he said “no, I won’t.”

    Provide proof the President used “extensive legal services” to block discovery.

    Receipts, witnesses, interviews, anything?

    You’ve got nothing, you lying birther sack of bat crap.

  257. avatar
    JoZeppy October 25, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

    Seizethecarp: To JoZeppy:
    The best evidence that Obama’s HI vital records underlying his COLB raise questions regarding his eligibility is Obama’s own refusal to sign a release of those records and his use of extensive legal services before and after his election to block discovery of those records.
    Now even SNL is mocking Obama’s refusal to release his long form, if he has one. Obama is losing his standing in the court of public opinion on this issue.

    And just to clarify just how meanless all your claptrap is, a person’s refusal to be bullied into an action that they do not have any legal duty to do not evidence. Neither if filing and winning a motion to dismiss. You see, if you don’t have a case, you’re not entitled to discovery, so the President is not really blocking anything. If this is what you cite as your best evidence, then you are admitting that there is nothing you have that raises any concern as to the COLB as prima facie evidence or its admissability.

  258. avatar
    Seizethecarp October 25, 2010 at 7:07 pm #

    misha said:

    “I thought a president was required to have two citizen parents. I wish you guys made up your minds.”

    To misha:

    “Birthers” come in a lot of different flavors, just like Democrats or members of any group. I do not presume to know how the Supreme Court would apply the Constitution to the facts regarding the citizenship and marriage of Obama’s parents, especially since many key facts are unclear to me.

    For example, was BHO Sr. a bigamist? He was married in Kenya in a tribal marriage before marrying Stanley Ann in HI and bigamy appears to have been illegal in Kenya under UK rule even for Muslims. My non-lawyer understanding is that under the Kenya Marriage Act of 1902 and the British Nationality Act (BNA) of 1948 President Obama would not have been a legitimate child under UK law and would not have been born a subject of the Queen. If this were the case, Obama would not have dual citizenship, but only the US citizenship of his legally single mother if born in the US and only her nationality (something different from citizenship) if she were single and she delivered him in a foreign country under the age of 19.

    I do not believe any US federal court would rule that Obama was ineligible based on the citizenship of his father now that he has been sworn in because the time for that was before he was sworn in and the courts chose to ignore or “evade” the issue, as Justice Thomas said.

    On the other hand there appears to be unanimous agreement that you must be born on US soil unless you have two US citizen parents, which the Senate declared in a non-binding resolution for McCain. If Obama can be proved to have lied and hidden a foreign birth location, he would be toast. He gives the appearance of being worried about that possibility when he refuses to be transparent about his HI vital records.

  259. avatar
    misha October 25, 2010 at 7:11 pm #

    Seizethecarp: Obama is losing his standing in the court of public opinion on this issue.

    Normally, I don’t respond. Birthers are in the same class as Holocaust deniers, fortune tellers and astrologers.

    I live in a city that is 50% black, and am in a minority in my neighborhood: Jewish in Chinatown. My building’s doorman is a black woman, and she asked me “are they still making a fuss about the birth certificate?” I told her it’s getting worse. She replied, “no white man ever had to show his birth certificate.”

    The birthers’ fuss is benefitting Obama. Who are the Repugs going to run? Romney, with his steadfast belief in creation, and not evolution? Whose health plan is identical to the national plan, and now says he’s against it?

    McCain showed his BC to one Wash Post reporter, who was not allowed to take pictures, and whose story got one paragraph.

    Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Better get used to it.

  260. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP October 25, 2010 at 7:14 pm #

    Those actually elected to Congress are not going to move to violate the Constitutional rights of the 64.5 million Americans who voted for Obama because of a dumb Swiss philosophy book. This is just another birfoon fantasy that will never come true. Moreover, they are not going to waste their time investigating a claim they know has no merit.

  261. avatar
    jamese777 October 25, 2010 at 7:14 pm #

    JoZeppy: And can you give any possible evidence or reason why the document would be any different today than in 1961?

    Yes I can, but then I’d have to kill you. (just joking)
    The real answer is of course I can’t.

  262. avatar
    Majority Will October 25, 2010 at 7:18 pm #

    “If Obama can be proved to have lied and hidden a foreign birth location, he would be toast.”

    Already settled.

    Deranged birther fantasies have no bearing on reality.

  263. avatar
    misha October 25, 2010 at 7:22 pm #

    Seizethecarp: If Obama can be proved to have lied and hidden a foreign birth location, he would be toast.

    Would this authentic Kenya BC (Obama’s?) help?

  264. avatar
    Rickey October 25, 2010 at 8:04 pm #

    Seizethecarp:On the other hand there appears to be unanimous agreement that you must be born on US soil unless you have two US citizen parents, which the Senate declared in a non-binding resolution for McCain.

    Except that isn’t what the resolution says.

    The resolution says that McCain was born to American citizens, which is true. However, the resolution does not say that it was necessary that both of his parents be citizens. Birthers continue to confuse sufficiency with necessity.

    If Obama can be proved to have lied and hidden a foreign birth location, he would be toast.

    And if pigs could fly…

  265. avatar
    Rickey October 25, 2010 at 8:06 pm #

    Seizethecarp: .Now even SNL is mocking Obama’s refusal to release his long form, if he has one.

    Just like Christine O’Donnell, you believe that they are laughing with you when in fact they are laughing at you.

  266. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP October 25, 2010 at 8:12 pm #

    Actually, SNL wasn’t mocking Obama; they were mocking birfoons

  267. avatar
    misha October 25, 2010 at 8:14 pm #

    Rickey: And if pigs could fly…

    Wait, they can: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_M9JRlA_879c/SV2glodT8EI/AAAAAAAABXc/XOAkkU1W7mY/s400/flying_pig.jpg

  268. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP October 25, 2010 at 8:18 pm #

    The couple of lines referring to the birth certificate in SNL were used to show that Reid is so desperate to get reelected that he would even embrace the loony claims of birfoons.

  269. avatar
    misha October 25, 2010 at 8:19 pm #

    Rickey: Just like Christine O’Donnell

    “American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains.”

    You can’t make this stuff up.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/2010/09/christine_odonnell_on_human_mi.html

  270. avatar
    J Maine October 25, 2010 at 8:35 pm #

    “So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.”

    Do your homework, people. Neither Lingle/Fukino or Hawaii never issued a news release saying he was born at Kapi’olani. Oops, Lingle was dead wrong on a pretty critical point.

    Does that count as a fact? I wonder what your definition is. You know and I know it is.

    Amazing how much Lingle knows about the issue … or doesn’t know.

    All of these people have access to the file with(out) his permission? He offers up a document online? Yet denies access to anyone of authority.

    You love him, which is fine. You can love him all you want. But to say that he is honest or has integrity is just untrue. His whole life is a shadow and NOTHING in a birth certificate for a President of the United States if private.

    NOTHING.

    That is, unless you are hiding something. Then it conveniently becomes so because … you haven’t told the truth.

    Talk about inconvenient truths.

  271. avatar
    sfjeff October 25, 2010 at 8:48 pm #

    “All of these people have access to the file with(out) his permission? He offers up a document online? Yet denies access to anyone of authority.”

    I assume you are speaking of President Obama? Please tell me “anyone of authority” that President Obama has denied access to his Birth Certificate?

    “You love him, which is fine. You can love him all you want. But to say that he is honest or has integrity is just untrue. His whole life is a shadow and NOTHING in a birth certificate for a President of the United States if private.”

    Again, Maine, you have trouble seperating your opinion from fact. I would say that President Obama has shown as much honesty as other Presidents- as much as Bush or Reagan or Clinton.

    No President has been more open about his past than President Obama- he even wrote two books telling about his past. I can’t remember any previous Presidential candidate being that forthcoming about his childhood- he even admitted to trying drugs- something that I suspect both Bush and Clinton were less than forthcoming on.

    So which Presidents have provided there birth certificates for all voters to see, other than President Obama? None of course.

    “That is, unless you are hiding something. Then it conveniently becomes so because … you haven’t told the truth.”

    As I said before, its clear you can’t handle the truth.

  272. avatar
    Daniel October 25, 2010 at 9:00 pm #

    Seizethecarp: Obama is losing his standing in the court of public opinion on this issue.

    Which is, of course, why each of the four major Birther rallys thus far, Taitz’, Manning’s, Dr. Kates, and Berg’s, drew crowds of hundreds of thousands each. The public really does care about this issue.

    Sorry, what?

    Berg only got about 20 people? Manning only about 20, as well?

    Taitz only managed less than a dozen?

    And you’re telling me Dr. Kate only garnered three people?

    Well how the hell are we supposed to helpo old Carpe Carp convince the Obots that Obama has lost in the court of public opinion if all the Birther rallys all told couldn’t put a lousy hundred hundred people together?

    Ohhhhh right…we just lie about it…. as usual… OK I got it.

    Yup Obama has lost this issue in the court of public opinion. Carpe Carp is entirely correct about that.

  273. avatar
    Daniel October 25, 2010 at 9:03 pm #

    J Maine: Does that count as a fact?

    It might if you were using a birther dictionary to define the word “fact”.

    Unfortunately the rest of us have to rely on one of the standard Dictionaries of the English Language.

    So no….. your delusion does not count as fact.

    Sorry you don’t like that.

  274. avatar
    Expelliarmus October 25, 2010 at 9:14 pm #

    Seizethecarp: My understanding is that the authenticity of a “self-authenticating document,” such as Obama’s purported 2007 COLB, is only a rebuttable presumption of authenticity and thus it can still thus be challenged. If challenged, Court ordered discovery of the vital records ….

    Here’s where you have got it wrong — the “rebuttable presumption” must be “challenged” with EVIDENCE — not merely questions. If anyone could simply claim that they disbelieved the document, then it would be meaningless — no one’s birth certificate would be usable, because any person — any passport clerk, any employer, any voter registrar, any DMV clerk – – could arbitrarily demand more paperwork.

    You can’t get court ordered discovery on a fishing expedition. Lawsuits can’t be brought on the basis of mere suspicions or accusations — they must be brought on evidence.

    So any person who challenges the authenticity of a COLB bears the initial burden of coming up with tangible, significant, plausible evidence which has a tendency in reason to negate the authenticity of the document challenged.

    That is what you need to overcome the presumption …. not “discovery”, and not mere allegations.

  275. avatar
    Rickey October 25, 2010 at 10:39 pm #

    misha:
    Wait, they can: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_M9JRlA_879c/SV2glodT8EI/AAAAAAAABXc/XOAkkU1W7mY/s400/flying_pig.jpg

    Sure, but that looks like a pig angel to me.

  276. avatar
    Rickey October 25, 2010 at 10:42 pm #

    J Maine: All of these people have access to the file with(out) his permission?

    The director of Hawaii’s DOH is the custodian of Obama’s birth records and doesn’t need his permission to access them.

  277. avatar
    jamese777 October 25, 2010 at 11:01 pm #

    J Maine: “So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.”Do your homework, people. Neither Lingle/Fukino or Hawaii never issued a news release saying he was born at Kapi’olani. Oops, Lingle was dead wrong on a pretty critical point.Does that count as a fact? I wonder what your definition is. You know and I know it is.Amazing how much Lingle knows about the issue … or doesn’t know.All of these people have access to the file with(out) his permission? He offers up a document online? Yet denies access to anyone of authority.You love him, which is fine. You can love him all you want. But to say that he is honest or has integrity is just untrue. His whole life is a shadow and NOTHING in a birth certificate for a President of the United States if private.NOTHING.That is, unless you are hiding something. Then it conveniently becomes so because … you haven’t told the truth.Talk about inconvenient truths.

    Such a typical birther tactic to parse words. Governor Lingle’s radio interview was in February, 2010. Dr. Fukino’s last media release was in July, 2009, seven months earlier.
    The fact that the Governor didn’t memorize every word of the Fukino media release versus what might have been verbally reported to her by the state Registrar and Dr. Fukino is understandable to normal people, if not to birthers.
    In any event NO ONE has challenged Governor Lingle’s statement in a press conference or in any other interview and as even a birther might know, Governors hold press conferences and media events all the time.
    If any birther lawsuit were ever to make it past a summary dismissal for lack of standing, perhaps Governor Lingle could be subpoenaed to testify under oath and she would have the opportunity to “revise and extend her remarks.”
    I have NO love for Barack Obama or for any other politician, your creation of your own little myth shows just how pathetic you are.
    What I love are facts and since more than 120 judges (counting appeals court panels and the nine justices of the US Supreme Court and state Supreme Courts) have looked at this issue and ZERO judges or justices have ruled in the favor of any birther lawsuit, I will continue to agree with Glenn Beck: “birtherism is the dumbest thing I ever heard;” I will agree with Ann Coulter, birthers are “cranks.” I will agree with Karl Rove: “the Tea Party movement must disassociate itself from conspiracy nuts and those who think that President Obama is not a natural born citizen;” I will continue to agree with the Tea Party endorsed candidate for the US Senate in Colorado, Ken Buck: birthers are “dumbasses.”

    I’ll conclude with the words of the Chief US District Court Judge for the District of Columbia who was an appointee of Ronald Wilson Reagan: “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution (see Const. Art. II, Section 1). This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”–Royce C. Lamberth in his Memorandum Opinion in “Taitz v Obama.” seeking a quo warranto claim.
    You are free to continue “tilting at windmills.”

  278. avatar
    katahdin October 25, 2010 at 11:26 pm #

    I believe that if Republicans retake Congress, they will investigate President Obama’s birth certificate. They will investigate every single part of his life, and every single act of his administration, including the ones they themselves have made up (death panels, 16,000 new IRS agents).
    The Republican Congress in 1995 was crazy enough. They had 18 separate congressional subcommittees holding simultaneous hearings on Whitewater, when it was obvious by 1995 that the failed land deal involved no lawbreaking. And does anyone remember Watermelon Dan Burton, the Congressman who shot a watermelon in his backyard to prove that Vince Foster was murdered?
    If the 2011 Republican Congress happens, they will be orders of magnitude crazier than than their 1995 counterparts for the simple reason that all the moderate, sane conservatives are dead, have run screaming for the hills, or have been essentially forced out of the party.
    All that’s left are the crazies, and in order to keep the their crazy base happy, they will have to ramp up constant, hysterical investigations of the president and probably the first lady as well. I can guarantee that every crazy internet rumor about the president will receive a painstaking and expensive congressional investigation by the party of fiscal responsibility.
    Even the idiot who maintained that the president’s children are not really his children and are in fact not children at all, will receive due consideration from the party of crazy.
    Anyone who bets on the sanity and good judgment of the Republican party makes a fool’s wager.
    It’ll happen.

  279. avatar
    NbC October 25, 2010 at 11:47 pm #

    katahdin: Anyone who bets on the sanity and good judgment of the Republican party makes a fool’s wager.

    The Republicans are too power hungry to destroy our country that they will forego going after our President. Their corporate masters would not stand for such.

  280. avatar
    misha October 26, 2010 at 12:12 am #

    katahdin: I believe that if Republicans retake Congress, they will investigate President Obama’s birth certificate. They will investigate every single part of his life

    I completely agree. Obama will be impeached:
    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/10/obama-will-be-impeached.html

  281. avatar
    misha October 26, 2010 at 12:36 am #

    katahdin: I can guarantee that every crazy internet rumor about the president will receive a painstaking and expensive congressional investigation

    They will give a hearing to every kook in the country. Orly will be given a hearing to lecture about her two-parent “proof.” They’ll make life hell, like they did to Clinton.

    You can take that to the bank.

    Dan Burton has the worst rug I’ve seen in the past 10 years.

  282. avatar
    Seizethecarp October 26, 2010 at 1:04 am #

    Rickey: Just like Christine O’Donnell, you believe that they are laughing with you when in fact they are laughing at you.

    To Rickey:

    The Obama supporters on Huffpo in the comments on the SNL birther skit did NOT get the joke (nor did the audience if you listen to the tape):
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/24/snl-harry-reid-birther_n_772982.html

  283. avatar
    misha October 26, 2010 at 1:09 am #

    Seizethecarp: The Obama supporters on Huffpo in the comments on the SNL birther skit

    Obama was born on Atlantis; I have proof.

  284. avatar
    Rickey October 26, 2010 at 2:37 am #

    Seizethecarp:
    The Obama supporters on Huffpo in the comments on the SNL birther skit did NOT get the joke (nor did the audience if you listen to the tape)

    It sailed right over your head, I see.

  285. avatar
    AnotherBird October 26, 2010 at 5:42 am #

    Seizethecarp:
    To Rickey:The Obama supporters on Huffpo in the comments on the SNL birther skit did NOT get the joke (nor did the audience if you listen to the tape):

    It is always fun to point out to birthers where they are wrong. The SNL skit was a perfect example.

  286. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 26, 2010 at 11:20 am #

    Seizethecarp: For example, was BHO Sr. a bigamist? He was married in Kenya in a tribal marriage before marrying Stanley Ann in HI and bigamy appears to have been illegal in Kenya under UK rule even for Muslims. My non-lawyer understanding is that under the Kenya Marriage Act of 1902 and the British Nationality Act (BNA) of 1948 President Obama would not have been a legitimate child under UK law and would not have been born a subject of the Queen. If this were the case, Obama would not have dual citizenship, but only the US citizenship of his legally single mother if born in the US and only her nationality (something different from citizenship) if she were single and she delivered him in a foreign country under the age of 19…

    On the other hand there appears to be unanimous agreement that you must be born on US soil unless you have two US citizen parents, which the Senate declared in a non-binding resolution for McCain. If Obama can be proved to have lied and hidden a foreign birth location, he would be toast. He gives the appearance of being worried about that possibility when he refuses to be transparent about his HI vital records.

    I wrote an article on this topic a while back. I think the conclusion based on my research and comments left here is it would take an attorney with some expertise in Kenyan/British law to render a an informed opinion on whether President Obama actually was a Citizen of the UK and Colonies or not (and if not, then he would not have been a citizen of Kenya either).

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/barack-obama-was-never-a-british-citizen/

    See also:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/did-wnd-sign-crash-stock-market/#comment-43470
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/is-president-obama-a-british-citizen/#comment-7822

    Obama has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was born in the USA, so there is no toast on the menu and no reason to think that he is worried about the original certificate’s contents.

  287. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 26, 2010 at 11:25 am #

    Seizethecarp: The best evidence that Obama’s HI vital records underlying his COLB raise questions regarding his eligibility is Obama’s own refusal to sign a release of those records and his use of extensive legal services before and after his election to block discovery of those records.

    If that’s the “best evidence”, your argument is in pretty bad shape.

    Saying that Obama used “extensive legal resources” to block discovery of the records is a misrepresentation of the facts. In every instance, Obama simply moved to dismiss the case, not specifically to block access to his vital records. Every case involved more than just the vital records, adding all sorts of allegations of fraud. Kerchner’s suit made hundreds of allegations! Any attorney will tell you that the simplest and most cost-effective solution to a lawsuit is to have the case dismissed.

  288. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 26, 2010 at 11:32 am #

    Seizethecarp: To Greg:

    My understanding is that the authenticity of a “self-authenticating document,” such as Obama’s purported 2007 COLB, is only a rebuttable presumption of authenticity and thus it can still thus be challenged.

    Greg is an attorney and you are not. Sometimes it pays to listen.

    Yes,the COLB could be challenged WITH EVIDENCE. However, your “best evidence” (your words) is that Obama hasn’t released the document. You’ll never succeed in a challenge (and get to discovery) with evidence like that. Or perhaps, you would submit a Kenyan birth certificate provided by a convicted forger.

  289. avatar
    Greg October 26, 2010 at 12:06 pm #

    Seizethecarp: Self-authentication grants the COLB a hearsay exception

    Self authentication is a different beast than hearsay. Self authentication means that no one has to come into court to attest to the validity of the document itself. The document would still have to independently overcome any hearsay objections. FRE 902

    Vital records are granted a hearsay exception by FRE 803. See, different rules. That’s a strong indication that we are talking about different things.

    Do you want to continue to pretend to know legal rules as well as the lawyers?

    Seizethecarp: thus it can still thus be challenged.

    Sure it can be challenged. Tell us what you’re challenging?

    Do you want to challenge the authenticity of the document? Then you’ll need proof that the seal and signature were forged. However, what does that get you? The state of Hawaii has said the contents of the vital records will show that he was born in Hawaii. S

    Do you want to challenge the contents of the document? Then you’ll need some proof that the contents are invalid. And, again, the State of Hawaii has confirmed that the records they have show Obama being born in Hawaii.

    You have evidence of neither thing.

    Seizethecarp: but such a claim has no evidentiary value as a person cannot testify to the location of their own birth.

    Under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(19), , Obama could testify that his parents told him that he was born at such and such a location.

    Here’s a suggestion, when you want to make a claim like “a person cannot testify…” cite one of the Federal Rules or a court case. Otherwise, I’m going to conclude that you are continuing to make stuff up.

    Seizethecarp: Suspiciously, Obama did not sign a waiver for Kapi’olani Hospital to release his 1961 contemporaneous records or for HI DOH to release his 1961 vital records which would, in fact, provide evidence of his birth location address.

    Show me why you need the birth location?

    1. The COLB (signed and sealed) show that he was born in Hawaii.
    2. The State of Hawaii has made at least two statements that he was born in Hawaii.
    3. The index data confirms that the COLB reflects the accurate information.
    4. Two different newspapers have birth announcements that show he was born in Hawaii.

    Show me how you can prove it is more likely than not that he was born somewhere other than Hawaii!

    Because simply proving that he was born at home, or that his birth was attested to by his mother/grandmother, doesn’t get you to Obama’s ineligibility!

    You’re sitting at Spot A, and you want to get to Spot Z. Proving either of those two things gets you to Spot B.

    In either of these situations, you’d still have to prove that the State of Hawaii was duped into accepting the Hawaiian birthplace.

    Nothing contained in the “Long Form” birth certificate can support that conclusion, so you will have zero chance of convincing a court that you should receive it!

    Instead of barking up this tree, if you really believed that Obama was born outside the United States, you would first come up with evidence that he was born outside the United States! Real, admissible, solid evidence.

    Not hints, allegations, suppositions or suspicions. Let me suggest you google “Twombly and Iqbal.”

    Seizethecarp: On the other hand there appears to be unanimous agreement that you must be born on US soil unless you have two US citizen parents, which the Senate declared in a non-binding resolution for McCain.

    If I say, “If you study, you will get an A,” do you think that the ONLY way to get an A is to study? What about cheating? Being naturally smart? Having taken the class before?

    If you think that I’ve said something that lets you conclude that a person who does not study will not get an A, you’ll be doomed to a terrible LSAT score and, consequently, a legal education at one of the non-accredited law schools in California.

    Based on what the Congress said, you can conclude that Person Z, not a citizen, did NOT have two citizen parents (and was born on a military base). In my example above, you can conclude that if Person Z did not get an A, he did not study. That’s it!

    Seizethecarp: The best evidence that Obama’s HI vital records underlying his COLB raise questions regarding his eligibility is Obama’s own refusal to sign a release of those records and his use of extensive legal services before and after his election to block discovery of those records.

    Not really evidence, though, is it? At least, not the way that real lawyers understand evidence. Since any lawyer or judge who is familiar with the legal system can think of at least 10 plausible and more likely reasons why a person might want to dismiss frivolous lawsuits, doing so doesn’t make it more likely that Obama is hiding something. Ditto not granting birthers access to vital records, which are protected by privacy laws.

    Wake me up when you have real evidence that could be admitted at court to prove your case.

    Seizethecarp: Now even SNL is mocking Obama’s refusal to release his long form, if he has one. Obama is losing his standing in the court of public opinion on this issue.

    Did you watch the whole sketch, or just that one line? Were they mocking Obama’s refusal to release the long form, or were they mocking Reid’s callow political attempt to distance himself from Obama?

    I guess that since you have no grasp of basic logic or fundamental rules of law, a misunderstanding of humor isn’t too hard to understand.

  290. avatar
    Seizethecarp October 26, 2010 at 1:07 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Greg is an attorney and you are not. Sometimes it pays to listen.Yes,the COLB could be challenged WITH EVIDENCE. However, your “best evidence” (your words) is that Obama hasn’t released the document. You’ll never succeed in a challenge (and get to discovery) with evidence like that. Or perhaps, you would submit a Kenyan birth certificate provided by a convicted forger.

    Are you familiar with the legal concept of “consciousness of guilt”? Behavior that indicates consciousness of guilt can be introduced as evidence. Think of the murder suspect who runs away from the law or the suspect who destroys evidence.

    Is Obama behaving as though he has nothing to hide in his HI vital records or is he acting as though he has something to hide and is he displaying “consciousness of guilt”?

    Up until Danae’s apparent proof that an image of a pre-2001 long form can be obtained from HI DOH, the Obama team and apologists were claiming that Obama was not refusing to release his long form because that form was no longer available from HI. Perhaps HI only meant that _after_ 2001 they no longer created long forms.

    Up until Danae’s apparent success in obtaining her pre-2001 long form Obama could claim that his behavior was no different than the behavior that would be expected from a man who had nothing to hide. CNN News President Jon Klein even forced Lou Dobbs to read a statement on the air that HI DOH had destroyed all HI long forms when it went electronic in 2001 in a desperate attempt to protect Obama from Lou Dobbs’ questioning of why Obama wouldn’t release his long form. Embarrassed HI officials were then forced to state that under HI law they were required to preserve and had in fact preserved all long forms from prior to 2001.

    If Danae’s claims are factual, as of this week for the first time we have potential evidence Obama is now shown to be behaving as a man who has something to hide, as a man who is displaying “consciousness of guilt” and not as an innocent man who simply can’t release vital records that no longer exist.

    I have never asserted that any citizen will be able to gain “standing” to obtain court-ordered discovery of Obama’s long form. I have only said the if Obama’s hearsay exception short form 2007 COLB were entered into evidence in some future proceeding (it has not been to date), it could be challenged and discovery of the underlying HI vital records could be obtained if the court were persuaded to order it.

    I do not presume to know how any appeals to the Supreme Court would be decided if Obama’s COLB were entered into evidence and challenged to be backed up by the HI vital records including a long form, such as Danae claims to have received. But the case for release of Obama’s vital records is now much stronger if Danae has proved that the records still exist and can be obtained and could have been obtained and released by Obama.

  291. avatar
    Majority Will October 26, 2010 at 1:18 pm #

    Seizethecarp: More birther B.S.

    Your paranoid delusions, illogical drivel and outright lies don’t count or qualify as meaning anything other than to identify a deranged birther with irrelevant opinions and baseless speculation.

    The President’s COLB is legal proof of his birth in Hawaii.

    Your demands and objections are irrelevant.

    However, repeating the same irrelevant demands ad nauseam is a clear sign of mental illness.

  292. avatar
    richCares October 26, 2010 at 1:25 pm #

    DancibngRabbit: “…records still exist and can be obtained and could have been obtained and released by Obama.”
    .
    why, the birther issue is over, who cares what your deluded mind thinks. Were you at Berg’s rally with that large group of people that care about this bull pupu? They could all fit in one van with you as the driver. This is a big issue to a very numb minority, no one else!

  293. avatar
    Greg October 26, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

    Seizethecarp: Are you familiar with the legal concept of “consciousness of guilt”?

    Show me a single case in the history of this nation in which a vigorous defense of civil litigation is considered consciousness of guilt. Where a motion to dismiss frivolous claims was introduced as evidence for such a purpose. As far as I can tell, nothing even remotely similar has ever happened.

    Seizethecarp: I have only said the if Obama’s hearsay exception short form 2007 COLB were entered into evidence in some future proceeding (it has not been to date), it could be challenged and discovery of the underlying HI vital records could be obtained if the court were persuaded to order it.

    The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.

    Of course it could be challenged. And a court could be convinced to order discovery (assuming someone had standing to challenge it).

    That’s a whole different question from whether you could, on the evidence you’ve got, convince anyone to order discovery.

    1. Guilty conscience? Obama’s behavior is explained, easily, as that of a man who has: 1) convinced a majority of Americans to vote for him; 2) a man who does not want to be burdened with frivolous lawsuits that seek discovery of dozens, if not hundreds of unrelated issues (kindergarten records, anyone?); and/or 3) a man who has is running the country and doesn’t have time for the concerns of a tiny minority of people who have been soundly rejected by even the Republican party!

    2. Any other evidence? Nope, there’s none of that, either!

  294. avatar
    Greg October 26, 2010 at 2:01 pm #

    Seizethecarp: I do not presume to know how any appeals to the Supreme Court would be decided if Obama’s COLB were entered into evidence and challenged to be backed up by the HI vital records including a long form

    Using basic logic, we can determine what the HI vital records would say.

    1. The COLB suggests they will say he was born in Hawaii on the date claimed.
    2. The state of Hawaii has said they have seen the records and can confirm that he was born in Hawaii.
    3. The newspaper reports at the time suggest he was born in Hawaii on the date claimed.
    4. The index data suggests he was born in Hawaii on the date claimed.

    So, the long form will say he was born in Hawaii. It will say that he was born on the date claimed.

    What could the long form possibly tell us that’s different from the COLB or the story of Obama’s birth.

    The name of his parents.
    That he was born in a hospital.
    That his birth was attested to by a family member.

    None of this will, in itself, prove that Obama is ineligible.

    With this information, plus concrete, admissible, evidence that Obama was born elsewhere, you can, then, and ONLY THEN, prove that Obama is ineligible.

    Of course, you don’t need the long form certificate to come up with this concrete evidence that Obama was born elsewhere. So, where’s the concrete, admissible, evidence that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii?

  295. avatar
    jamese777 October 26, 2010 at 2:05 pm #

    Seizethecarp: Are you familiar with the legal concept of “consciousness of guilt”? Behavior that indicates consciousness of guilt can be introduced as evidence. Think of the murder suspect who runs away from the law or the suspect who destroys evidence.Is Obama behaving as though he has nothing to hide in his HI vital records or is he acting as though he has something to hide and is he displaying “consciousness of guilt”?Up until Danae’s apparent proof that an image of a pre-2001 long form can be obtained from HI DOH, the Obama team and apologists were claiming that Obama was not refusing to release his long form because that form was no longer available from HI. Perhaps HI only meant that _after_ 2001 they no longer created long forms.Up until Danae’s apparent success in obtaining her pre-2001 long form Obama could claim that his behavior was no different than the behavior that would be expected from a man who had nothing to hide. CNN News President Jon Klein even forced Lou Dobbs to read a statement on the air that HI DOH had destroyed all HI long forms when it went electronic in 2001 in a desperate attempt to protect Obama from Lou Dobbs’ questioning of why Obama wouldn’t release his long form. Embarrassed HI officials were then forced to state that under HI law they were required to preserve and had in fact preserved all long forms from prior to 2001.If Danae’s claims are factual, as of this week for the first time we have potential evidence Obama is now shown to be behaving as a man who has something to hide, as a man who is displaying “consciousness of guilt” and not as an innocent man who simply can’t release vital records that no longer exist. I have never asserted that any citizen will be able to gain “standing” to obtain court-ordered discovery of Obama’s long form. I have only said the if Obama’s hearsay exception short form 2007 COLB were entered into evidence in some future proceeding (it has not been to date), it could be challenged and discovery of the underlying HI vital records could be obtained if the court were persuaded to order it. I do not presume to know how any appeals to the Supreme Court would be decided if Obama’s COLB were entered into evidence and challenged to be backed up by the HI vital records including a long form, such as Danae claims to have received. But the case for release of Obama’s vital records is now much stronger if Danae has proved that the records still exist and can be obtained and could have been obtained and released by Obama.

    Does this mean that you would accept records released by Obama or under Obama’s authority as being legitimate, valid and authentic?

    I believe that a much better way to release Obama’s long form, vault copy, original birth records is via a subpoena for those records wherein Obama would have no impact on the release.

    Obama has the statements of Hawai’i governmental officials and the statement of the Governor of Hawai’i confirming his birth in that state. I believe any judge or justice in the nation would accept those public statements as evidence when coupled with Obama’s internet posted copy of his Certificate of Live Birth which contains all the information necessary to establish Article II, Section I, Clause IV eligibility.
    At the bottom of every state of Hawai’i issued short form COLB the following statement appears: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”
    Hawai’i law allows for a private birth record to be released to: “a person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.” Hawai’i Revised Statutes 338-18(b) (9)
    Why has no prosecuting attorney in the nation sought a subpoena for Obama’s long form birth certificate in the 3 years and 9 months since he first announced his candidacy for the presidentcy?

  296. avatar
    Greg October 26, 2010 at 2:48 pm #

    Seizethecarp: Are you familiar with the legal concept of “consciousness of guilt”?

    Are you familiar with a “Terry stop?” It is when the police stop and frisk a suspect. It is a search by the police that requires the least amount of suspicion. Police need only have a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. By contrast, to get a warrant, you need probable cause. To win a civil case, you need to prove something is more likely than not. To win a criminal case, you need to prove the facts beyond a reasonable doubt. So, when I say, “Terry stop,” I’m talking about the smallest legally quantifiable amount of proof – only that which would cause reasonable suspicion.

    The courts have consistently concluded that flight alone is not enough to warrant a Terry stop.

    A majority of jurisdictions addressing this issue have held that flight alone is insufficient to justify a Terry stop. See, e.g., State v. Tucker,136 N.J. 158, 642 A.2d 401 (1994); State v. Hicks,241 Neb. 357, 488 N.W.2d 359 (1992); People v. Shabaz,424 Mich. 42, 378 N.W.2d 451 (1985); People v. Aldridge,35 Cal.3d 473, 674 P.2d 240, 198 Cal.Rptr. 538 (1984); People v. Thomas,660 P.2d 1272 (Colo.1983); Watkins v. State,288 Md. 597, 420 A.2d 270 (1980). “Instead, courts require proof of some independently suspicious circumstance to corroborate the inference of a guilty conscience associated with flight at the sight of the police. [Citations.]” Hicks, 241 Neb. at 362-63, 488 N.W.2d at 363; see also Tucker, 136 N.J. at 169, 642 A.2d at 407 (for departure to take on the legal significance of flight, there must be some circumstances present and unexplained which, in conjunction with the leaving, reasonably justify an inference that it was done with a consciousness of guilt and pursuant to an effort to avoid an accusation based on that guilt).

    People v. Wardlow

    If fleeing from the police, a much more obvious and concrete demonstration of a guilty conscience, isn’t enough, by itself, to satisfy the most lenient of standards, how do you think that moving to dismiss frivolous cases or failing to authorize birthers to access private records is going to convince a court to grant discovery?

  297. avatar
    gorefan October 26, 2010 at 2:54 pm #

    Seizethecarp: Is Obama behaving as though he has nothing to hide in his HI vital records or is he acting as though he has something to hide and is he displaying “consciousness of guilt”?

    Yes, the President is acting exactly as someone who has nothing to hide.

    In 2007 when the President asked for and received his COLB, few people would have even known there was a difference between a long form and a short form. He acted in good faith. I’m sure that if in the future, he should ever be required to get a “xerox” of his long form, he will. But for now he’s done everthing that is required of him.

    Remember, that the document that Danae is saying she got from Hawaii, could just as easily be produced at home on any all-in-one printer. And is not valid for any legal purpose. The form that the President has produced is a legal document and is proof of birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4th, 1961.

  298. avatar
    dunstvangeet October 26, 2010 at 3:40 pm #

    Siezethecarp,

    You stated the best evidence standard.

    Let me ask you, what is the best evidence of a place of birth:

    1. A certified copy of a birth certificate, saying that the state certified that the facts is true, and contains the place of birth on it.

    2. A long-form photocopy on regular paper without a seal, without a certification that it is true.

    In order to get the second into evidence, you’d first have to authenticate it. This means that you’d have to call the person who issued it, to determine whether or not they actually issued it. The first one is a self-authenticating document, which can be offered into evidence without any further authentication. Which one is easier to get into evidence? The first (which Obama has supplied a picture of multiple places and released to the public).

    Again, you’re stating the “Best Evidence” rule without actually knowing what it means. A certified copy of a birth certificate is automatically better evidence than an non-certified copy of a birth certificate. I still have not seen any evidence that anybody can get a certified copy of their “long form”. And I know that you birthers would not accept the same document that Danae produced. And I know that the State Department would not accept what Danae got from Hawaii over a certified state birth certificate to prove place of birth. And I have absolutely no doubt that even the DMV in the state where Danae lives would not accept the document that Danae got from the Hawaii Department of Health.

    Hawaii has already said that they don’t issue certified copies of “long-form” birth certificates. Nothing that Danae has produced proves that wrong.

  299. avatar
    Daniel October 26, 2010 at 4:17 pm #

    Seizethecarp: Behavior that indicates consciousness of guilt can be introduced as evidence. Think of the murder suspect who runs away from the law or the suspect who destroys evidence.
    Is Obama behaving as though he has nothing to hide in his HI vital records or is he acting as though he has something to hide and is he displaying “consciousness of guilt”?
    Up until Danae’s apparent proof that an image of a pre-2001 long form can be obtained from HI DOH, the Obama team and apologists were claiming that Obama was not refusing to release his long form because that form was no longer available from HI. Perhaps HI only meant that _after_ 2001 they no longer created long forms.
    Up until Danae’s apparent success in obtaining her pre-2001 long form Obama could claim that his behavior was no different than the behavior that would be expected from a man who had nothing to hide.

    Well the two big holes, among many others, in your arguement are…

    1. Danae has still to show that she was successful. She still has no evidence that you can obtain a “long form” from HI. What she has shown has not been verified at all, and runs counter to the actual evidence.

    2. The behaviour of Obama that you are elluding to exists only in your mind. It is akin to seeing your neighbour walking down your street and deciding that, to you, that is suspicious behaviour. If you tried to have the police question him based on that, it’s more likely they’d tell you mind your own business. If you continued to press the issue, you might end up with a visit from the police yourself, a la Walt Fitzpatrick.

  300. avatar
    Whatever4 October 26, 2010 at 9:17 pm #

    President Obama released the COB in June 2008. Phil Berg filed the first birther suit on August 21, 2008. Since then, there hasn’t been a week go by without a suit being pending in some court somewhere.

    You don’t give the kid candy to shut him up even if he throws a 20-hour tantrum. Or a 30-hour. It just teaches him to keep screaming and stamping his teeney feets.

  301. avatar
    Bob Weber October 27, 2010 at 5:31 pm #

    Seizethecarp: “Just because a COLB is self-authenticating, discovery of the vital records that the COLB certifies is not precluded. Self-authentication grants the COLB a hearsay exception which means that it can be entered into evidence without an HI official appearing to swear under oath that the COLB is authentic.”

    But Danae’s long-form is NOT self-authenticating and would require authenticating in some way, such as an affidavit from a Hawaiian official! Why would any court decline a self-authenticating document, but require instead a non-authenticated document?

    One CAN challenge a self-authenticating document – e.g. by introducing evidence that the document itself is a forgery. Good luck with that. If a birther were to somehow get a court to hear his case, Obama’s COLB would be introduced into evidence directly from the state of Hawaii, and you’d have to prove that some nefarious plot intercepted the document en route to the court, and submitted a forgery in its place!

    One could still challenge the evidentiary value of the COLB, but only by submitting actual evidence. Got that? ACTUAL EVIDENCE. I was banned from FreeRepublic for posting ways that birthers could actually attempt to gather ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

    For example, one could introduce evidence that Hawaii COLBs cannot be relied upon. It’s an article of faith among birthers that Hawaii knowingly and routinely handed out COLBs stating Hawaii as place of birth, even when they knew the person was born overseas. Maya Soetoro, born in Indonesia, is supposedly one of tens of thousands of such people. Well, get some ACTUAL EVIDENCE! Immigration-restriction groups like FAIR would give their eyeteeth to show that tens of thousands of fraudulent COLB’s were routinely handed out. Put up a reward, with guarantee of confidentiality in case of possible legal difficulties, to anyone with a COLB showing birth in Hawaii who can prove he was born elsewhere. (In most cases, there would be no legal difficulties. Maya Soetoro, even though born in Indonesia, is a U.S. citizen at birth by statue law.) If you were able to bring numbers of people into court who held routinely issued fraudulent COLBs, a court might rule COLBs to be inherently unreliable. See if you can convince groups like FAIR, which are both sympathetic to you and stand to gain by proving the unreliability of COLBs, to go in with you. If you can’t convince them, you’re not going to convince anyone. Or maybe FAIR is part of the Vast Conspiracy.

    Or one could impeach Obama’s COLB directly. (Again, it would be an incredible feather-in-their-cap if FAIR could show an illegal alien was elected POTUS!) All international carriers keep passenger manifests. That’s how we know the names of the passengers aboard RMS Titanic. A BOAC passenger manifest showing “Mr. & Mrs. Barack Obama” departing Honolulu for Nairobi, July 20, 1961, and another showing departure from Nairobi with infant son on August 10, would serve to impeach Obama’s COLB. Why not persuade FAIR to go in with you on a search of passnger manifests? What have you got to lose?

    Seizethecarp: “Are you familiar with the legal concept of “consciousness of guilt”? Behavior that indicates consciousness of guilt can be introduced as evidence. Think of the murder suspect who runs away from the law or the suspect who destroys evidence.”

    Sorry, but except in the Catch-22 world of Birfistan, no court will ever rule that a motion to dismiss a lawsuit is reason to not dismiss, but to instead grant discovery to the plaintiff. A motion to dismiss would be automatically self-defeating! Likewise, no court will ever rule that failure to produce a confidential document, which a person is under no legal obligation to produce, is reason to require disclosure of that document! Again, document confidentiality would be self-defeating!

  302. avatar
    misha October 27, 2010 at 7:29 pm #

    Bob Weber: It’s an article of faith among birthers that Hawaii knowingly and routinely handed out COLBs stating Hawaii as place of birth, even when they knew the person was born overseas.

    I sent an e-mail to Paul Jensen: ‘Obtain a Hawaii COLB for yourself, prove it to me, and I will gladly donate to your cause.’ I did the same for Keller, the convicted felon/Baptist minister.

    The response was they couldn’t get one because Hawaii was on to them.

    Weasels. (my apologies to ferrets)

  303. avatar
    Bob Weber October 28, 2010 at 7:06 pm #

    misha:
    “I sent an e-mail to Paul Jensen: Obtain a Hawaii COLB for yourself, prove it to me, and I will gladly donate to your cause.’ I did the same for Keller, the convicted felon/Baptist minister.The response was they couldn’t get one because Hawaii was on to them.Weasels. (my apologies to ferrets)”

    Well, all ferrets are weasels, but not all weasels are ferrets. Poor ferrets can’t control who their family members are.