Main Menu

CNN Birther tutorial video

You want to know what? Here’s a user-friendly approach to the birthers.

See also CNN’s article: Debunking the Birther Claim for a more in-depth analyis. This is a welcome addition to the Obama Conspiracy Theories list of fact checking and debunking resources. You want to know what? It seems to me like just about every major article I read debunking the birthers has something wrong with it, the longer article from CNN included.

Print Friendly

278 Responses to CNN Birther tutorial video

  1. avatar
    obsolete April 21, 2011 at 4:28 pm #

    The birthers will be angry at this because the host has dark skin- therefore he is “in on it”.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 21, 2011 at 4:36 pm #

    There is one major error in the CNN article where Chin says: “…even if Obama had been born overseas, he is still a natural born citizen, because he obtained citizenship at birth through his mother who unquestionably was a U.S. citizen.”

    In 1961, a married woman could not pass on her US citizenship at birth to a child born abroad. One might argue that Ann Dunham was not legally married at the time, but whether her bigamous marriage to Obama Sr. was legal or not is a matter of debate.

    These major news organizations mean well, but they inadvertently screw up something.

  3. avatar
    Obsolete April 21, 2011 at 5:07 pm #

    Even with what you say, Doc, if Obama was born overseas, would the Supreme Court overturn an election bases on what is arguably a technicality?
    I have my doubts.

  4. avatar
    Obsolete April 21, 2011 at 5:08 pm #

    Even with what you say, Doc, if Obama was born overseas, would the Supreme Court overturn an election based on what is arguably a technicality?
    I have my doubts.

  5. avatar
    Thrifty April 21, 2011 at 5:15 pm #

    Was that someone else’s COLB in the video? It’s smaller than I expected.

  6. avatar
    Robert Clark April 21, 2011 at 5:21 pm #

    Obsolete: Even with what you say, Doc, if Obama was born overseas, would the Supreme Court overturn an election based on what is arguably a technicality?I have my doubts.

    In the very unlikely event that Obama turned out not to be eligible that would have to mean he engaged in fraud in winning the White House. Most republicans and many democrats would vote for impeachment in that case.
    A problem is that would leave Biden as President. Then impeachment would have to be made as well against Biden, eventhough it would be overwhelmingly likely we was not part of the deception. That would leave Speaker of House Boehner as President.

    Bob

  7. avatar
    Stanislaw April 21, 2011 at 5:33 pm #

    Obsolete:
    Even with what you say, Doc, if Obama was born overseas, would the Supreme Court overturn an election bases on what is arguably a technicality?
    I have my doubts.

    The Supreme Court has no role in the electoral process. The only way to remove a sitting President for any reason is through impeachment. If the House voted to impeach the President the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would preside over the trial, and that would be the extent of the court’s involvement with the election.

  8. avatar
    nemocapn April 21, 2011 at 5:34 pm #

    It beggars belief to suggest that Obama’s family was smart enough to commit vital statistics fraud to obtain citizenship for their son, but were so stupid they confessed the crime to their son. If such a crime occurred, Obama would be unaware, because it happened when he was an infant.

  9. avatar
    Joey April 21, 2011 at 5:37 pm #

    Robert Clark: In the very unlikely event that Obama turned out not to be eligible that would have to mean he engaged in fraud in winning the White House. Most republicans and many democrats would vote for impeachment in that case.A problem is that would leave Biden as President. Then impeachment would have to be made as well against Biden, eventhough it would be overwhelmingly likely we was not part of the deception. That would leave Speaker of House Boehner as President.

    Bob

    Where do you get that 20 Democratic Senators (that’s what would be needed) would vote Obama guilty under a bill of impeachment?
    It takes 67 votes in the Senate to remove a president from office and there are currently 47 Republicans, counting moderate Republicans and RINOs.
    I highly doubt that every Republican would vote for a guilty verdict. Remember that 10 Republicans voted Clinton “not guilty” of perjury and 5 Republicans voted him “not guilty” of obstruction of justice.
    And there is no way on earth that 20 Democrats in the Senate would vote Joe Biden guilty and just hand the presidency to the Republicans. That’s not going to happen.

  10. avatar
    Scientist April 21, 2011 at 5:39 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: There is one major error in the CNN article where Chin says: “…even if Obama had been born overseas, he is still a natural born citizen, because he obtained citizenship at birth through his mother who unquestionably was a U.S. citizen.”
    In 1961, a married woman could not pass on her US citizenship at birth to a child born abroad. One might argue that Ann Dunham was not legally married at the time, but whether her bigamous marriage to Obama Sr. was legal or not is a matter of debate.
    These major news organizations mean well, but they inadvertently screw up something.

    Doc- I have a lot of respect for you and what you do here. However, as far as I know, you don’t have a law degree, nor are you a professor of law. Prof. Chin does and is, Most of us here know what the statute says; however, if interpreting and applying the statutes were cut and dried, there would be no lawyers, as we could all read them for ourselves. Personally, I am not sure how actual courts would interpret and apply the statutes in an ordinary citizenship case or in a presiidential eligibility case.

    Before you call someone of Prof Chin’s stature “wrong”, I think you owe it to yourselves and to your readers to contact him and perhaps invite him to discuss his opinions in this forum.

    I hope you will take this suggestion seriously.

  11. avatar
    Judge Mental April 21, 2011 at 5:41 pm #

    Robert Clark: In the very unlikely event that Obama turned out not to be eligible that would have to mean he engaged in fraud in winning the White House. Most republicans and many democrats would vote for impeachment in that case.A problem is that would leave Biden as President. Then impeachment would have to be made as well against Biden, eventhough it would be overwhelmingly likely we was not part of the deception. That would leave Speaker of House Boehner as President.Bob

    It wouldn’t HAVE to mean that he engaged in fraud. There are hypothetical circumstances in which he could have been born abroad without him knowing anything at all about having been born abroad. You cannot be guilty of fraud if you have absolutely no idea that there is anything fraudulent about your documents or about the born in USA history that your family has led you to believe is true all of your life.

  12. avatar
    Scientist April 21, 2011 at 5:42 pm #

    Robert Clark: A problem is that would leave Biden as President.

    Why is that a problem?

    Robert Clark: impeachment would have to be made as well against Biden,

    If he didn’t know what high crimes and misdemeanors would he be guilty of.?

    Sorry to say, but now to

    Phony, phony, phony I must add moron, moron, moron

  13. avatar
    Sean April 21, 2011 at 5:44 pm #

    Robert Clark: In the very unlikely event that Obama turned out not to be eligible that would have to mean he engaged in fraud in winning the White House. Most republicans and many democrats would vote for impeachment in that case.A problem is that would leave Biden as President. Then impeachment would have to be made as well against Biden, eventhough it would be overwhelmingly likely we was not part of the deception. That would leave Speaker of House Boehner as President.Bob

    Dream on, Bob!

  14. avatar
    Stanislaw April 21, 2011 at 5:46 pm #

    Robert Clark: In the very unlikely event that Obama turned out not to be eligible that would have to mean he engaged in fraud in winning the White House. Most republicans and many democrats would vote for impeachment in that case.A problem is that would leave Biden as President. Then impeachment would have to be made as well against Biden, eventhough it would be overwhelmingly likely we was not part of the deception. That would leave Speaker of House Boehner as President.

    Bob

    Complete nonsense, all of it. First of all, if the President reasonably believed that he was born overseas (which makes sense because it would be, well, impossible to remember his own birth) then he isn’t guilty of fraud.

    Second, Biden wouldn’t be impeached because he, like the President himself, would have reasonably believed that the President was born where he says he was, which is in Honolulu. Unless there’s evidence that suggests otherwise, there would be no grounds for impeachment of the vice President either.

    As for Boehner becoming President, he would have to be impeached as well if you follow what the birthers consider to be logic. After all he was 1) a member of Congress when the election was certified in 2008 and yet he 2) made no objection as to outcome of the election. Under the birther definition of fraud he’d be the next one on the chopping block because he was “in on it” along with every other member of Congress that didn’t object to the election results…which would be every all of them.

  15. avatar
    gorefan April 21, 2011 at 5:53 pm #

    Stanislaw: which would be every all of them.

    That would include the cabinet members as they were never legal to begin with. I think under the line of succession, that would make the Capital buildings janitor the new President.

  16. avatar
    Obsolete April 21, 2011 at 5:57 pm #

    Notice how birthers NEVER give President Obama the benefit of the doubt? They never consider that if the Hawaiian birth story was phony, then Obama was lied to as well.

    I don’t think the Supreme Court would overturn the election on a technicality, nor do I think Congress would impeach on a technicality.

    Otherwise, I would want Bush/Cheney retroactively impeached for the fact that Cheney resided in Texas, not Wyoming.

  17. avatar
    Robert Clark April 21, 2011 at 5:58 pm #

    nemocapn: It beggars belief to suggest that Obama’s family was smart enough to commit vital statistics fraud to obtain citizenship for their son, but were so stupid they confessed the crime to their son. If such a crime occurred, Obama would be unaware, because it happened when he was an infant.

    The only way this hypothetical scenario could occur is that the released COLB falsely gives the impression that he was born in Hawaii. Following along with this hypothetical scenario it would be difficult to believe that his refusal to release the original long form birth certificate had nothing to do with that.

    Bob

  18. avatar
    Passerby April 21, 2011 at 6:00 pm #

    It’s not just his refusal to release it, it’s that the Department of Health of Hawaii does not provide such documents.
    But even assuming that they would, the COLB reflect what the data on the long form shows. So under what scenario do you operate?
    Details would help.

  19. avatar
    Obsolete April 21, 2011 at 6:01 pm #

    The “long-form” will list the same info as the COLB. So you make no sense, Bob.

  20. avatar
    Robert Clark April 21, 2011 at 6:05 pm #

    Scientist: Why is that a problem?If he didn’t know what high crimes and misdemeanors would he be guilty of.?Sorry to say, but now toPhony, phony, phony I must add moron, moron, moron

    ??????

    “What do you mean officer I have to return the TV? I didn’t know it was stolen; why can’t I just keep it?”

    Bob

  21. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 21, 2011 at 6:05 pm #

    Robert Clark: The only way this hypothetical scenario could occur is that the released COLB falsely gives the impression that he was born in Hawaii. Following along with this hypothetical scenario it would be difficult to believe that his refusal to release the original long form birth certificate had nothing to do with that.

    Bob

    Since we’re dealing with hypotheticals how come you haven’t released any information proving you weren’t a child molester and Chris Hansen isn’t after you? If you had nothing to hide you would release all your information including your gerber baby certificate, certification that you completed potty training and that you never had a lobotomy. Come to the land of Reality phony bob.

  22. avatar
    Obsolete April 21, 2011 at 6:05 pm #

    What damaging info do you think is being hidden on the ” long-form”, Bob?

    Babies Religion:
    Radical Muslim
    Babies Politics:
    Marxist

    Etc. Etc.

    Something like this?

  23. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 21, 2011 at 6:07 pm #

    Robert Clark: ??????

    “What do you mean officer I have to return the TV? I didn’t know it was stolen; why can’t I just keep it?”

    Bob

    Stupid comparison. There is no TV in this case. There’s also the point that Obama is legally the President because he was sworn in by congress. You’re a moron based on the fact that you continue to repeat such pathetic falsehoods

  24. avatar
    Obsolete April 21, 2011 at 6:10 pm #

    I think Scientist means that Obama wouldn’t be impeached for fraud if he didn’t know he wasn’t born in Hawaii.
    I also don’t think Congress would impeach him for being ineligible on a technicality.
    So if info came out that Obama was actually born in Kenya, nothing would happen except the voters would get to decide how important that was to them.

  25. avatar
    Passerby April 21, 2011 at 6:18 pm #

    Robert Clark: “What do you mean officer I have to return the TV? I didn’t know it was stolen; why can’t I just keep it?”

    He would have to return it unless bought in good faith. But he would not be prosecuted unless it can be shown otherwise.
    Bad example

  26. avatar
    Joey April 21, 2011 at 6:22 pm #

    All of us know people who just can’t admit that they are wrong.

    When President Obama posted his COLB on the fightthesmears.com web site, he proved those questioning his place of birth wrong but they were/still are unable to accept that so they go into a state of denial.
    On some deep level, they know that a COLB is just an abstract of a Certificate of Live Birth but they can’t allow their intellect to challenge their emotional attachment to the issue.
    They continue to hope beyond hope that a Republican administration in Hawaii lied and covered up in order to assist a liberal Democrat.
    Common sense and logic, be damned!

  27. avatar
    Scientist April 21, 2011 at 6:23 pm #

    Robert Clark: “What do you mean officer I have to return the TV? I didn’t know it was stolen; why can’t I just keep it?”

    The analogy is false. The Constitution is very clear that if the President is relieved of office for ANY reason (death, disability, resignation or impeachment) the Vice President takes over. It’s basically the only reason to have a Vice President, beyond a rather rare tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

    You can’t remove a Vice President simply because a President did something bad (else Ford wouldn’t have succeeded Nixon). You would either have to prove Biden wasn’t born in Scranton (I’ve been to Scranton; everyone there looks like Biden’s cousin) or that he participated in a cover up. You would have to believe that when Obama asked Biden to be his running mate, Biden asked to see the birth certificate and Obama said, “Joe it’s fake”.

    If you believe what you write you are a moron, moron, moron.. However, i doubt you do, so you are a phony, phony, phony

  28. avatar
    Robert Clark April 21, 2011 at 6:24 pm #

    Obsolete: Notice how birthers NEVER give President Obama the benefit of the doubt? They never consider that if the Hawaiian birth story was phony, then Obama was lied to as well. I don’t think the Supreme Court would overturn the election on a technicality, nor do I think Congress would impeach on a technicality. Otherwise, I would want Bush/Cheney retroactively impeached for the fact that Cheney resided in Texas, not Wyoming.

    OK, since this is only a hypothetical scenario. I suppose it could happen that he was not aware of it.
    There would be problem though of convincing the members of Congress and the Senate he really did not know. Plus you have the fact that you know you have someone as President who is breaking the Constitution, and whose continued presence in that position rewards him for breaking the Constitution. I think in that case even his closest supporters in Congress would ask him to resign.

    Bob

  29. avatar
    nemocapn April 21, 2011 at 6:28 pm #

    Scientist: Doc- I have a lot of respect for you and what you do here. However, as far as I know, you don’t have a law degree, nor are you a professor of law. Prof. Chin does and is, Most of us here know what the statute says; however, if and applying the statutes were cut and dried, there would be no lawyers, as we could all read them for ourselves. Personally, I am not sure how actual courts would interpret and apply the statutes in an ordinary citizenship case or in a presiidential eligibility case.

    While Doc isn’t a lawyer, I’m sure he has lawyers as sources to support his view and contradict Chin.

    There’s an online article,”U.S. Citizenship Acquired by Birth Abroad” by Henry J. Chang, J.D., who is described as “a recognized authority in the field of United States and Canadian immigration law.” He wrote:

    On December 24, 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the “1952 Statute”) became effective. As under the previous statute, where both parents were U.S. citizens, one parent would have to have resided in the United States prior to the child’s birth in order to transmit U.S. citizenship. The meaning of residence previously applied under the 1940 Statute was essentially the same as under the 1952 Statute.

    In the case of a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, the U.S. citizen parent now had only to be physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth for 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 14. “Physical presence” was different from the concept of “residence” which had applied under the previous statute. The physical presence requirement could be satisfied by mere presence in the United States even if the person had not established a legal residence there.

    That requirement was for “legitimate children.” For “illegitimate children” he writes the following:

    “The 1952 Statute provided that an illegitimate child acquired U.S. citizenship from a U.S. citizen mother if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth and had been physicially present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year. This provision did not adversely affect the status of anyone who had previously acquired U.S. citizenship. This provision is still in effect.”

    Now, I’ve wondered, as I’m sure we all have, what would happen in the case where it’s simply impossible for an 18 year old to have lived five years in the US after the age of 14.
    There’s actually a court case that deals with this issue. US v. Flores-Villar, 536 F. 3d 990 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2008. It has since been appealed to the Supreme Court. The case involves Ruben Flores-Villar who was born in Mexico of a Mexican citizen mother and a US citizen father who was 16 years old when his son was born.

    In US v. Flores-Villar, 497 F. Supp. 2d 1160 – Dist. Court, SD California 2007, the discussion says, “In light of the fact that Floresvillar was sixteen when Defendant was born, he could not have satisfied the requirement of physical presence in the United States for five years after attaining the age of fourteen years. Therefore, Floresvillar did not transmit U.S. citizenship to Defendant.”

    This is the only area where birthers could be right. If Obama were born abroad, his mother wouldn’t have the requisite physical presence to transmit U.S. citizenship, provided her marriage is considered valid. If it was a bigamous marriage, it was void ab initio, and Obama would still be a U.S.citizen at birth. I guess we need to await the SCOTUS decision.

  30. avatar
    The Magic M April 21, 2011 at 6:30 pm #

    > Bad example

    Of course, or did you expect a birther to understand *any* law at all? After all, the entire half of the Pest and eFail articles stem from the simple misconception that a grand jury foreman is a juror.
    I know a nutcase in my country who misunderstood the meaning of a date stamp on a court document which led him to believe the judge falsified the records which sent him on a 20-year crusade against the entire judicial system (as of course no-one would see things his way). He is now one of the “the entire history of the country is a huge conspiracy” fools.

  31. avatar
    Robert Clark April 21, 2011 at 6:39 pm #

    Passerby: He would have to return it unless bought in good faith. But he would not be prosecuted unless it can be shown otherwise.Bad example

    The point is he would not be allowed to keep that which is stolen.
    Undoubtedly, again in this very unlikely scenario, Obama would be prosecuted after he left office. Biden would not be allowed to serve as President but he would not be prosecuted.
    I suppose though since Biden would not be guilty a more palateable solution would be to ask Biden to offer his resignation.
    BTW, I thought of another comparison. There were cases where one member of a team sport in the Olympics was found to have used performance enhancing drugs. Unfortunately, that meant that all the members on the team had to be stripped of their medals eventhough they had not done anything wrong.

    Bob

  32. avatar
    Scientist April 21, 2011 at 6:40 pm #

    Robert Clark: There would be problem though of convincing the members of Congress and the Senate he really did not know. Plus you have the fact that you know you have someone as President who is breaking the Constitution, and whose continued presence in that position rewards him for breaking the Constitution. I think in that case even his closest supporters in Congress would ask him to resign.

    Believe it or not, an impeachment, like a criminal trial, involves a presumption of innocence. Rather than having to convince Senators that he didn’t know, the prosecutors would have to convince them that he did. Barring a smoking gun, that isn’t so easy. Would someone in that situation resign? Quite possibly. In either case, there is no doubt that the Vice President takes over.

    I won’t say it this time, because your last sentence might actually be true (even a stopped clock is right twice a day).

  33. avatar
    Passerby April 21, 2011 at 6:41 pm #

    Sorry Bob but you’re just making up this stuff to get a rise out of us.
    Well done…

  34. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 21, 2011 at 6:43 pm #

    Passerby:
    Sorry Bob but you’re just making up this stuff to get a rise out of us.
    Well done…

    Good call.

  35. avatar
    Robert Clark April 21, 2011 at 6:45 pm #

    Obsolete: What damaging info do you think is being hidden on the ” long-form”, Bob?Babies Religion:Radical MuslimBabies Politics:MarxistEtc. Etc. Something like this?

    As I said it is a very unlikely scenario. But on the other hand his refusal to release the original just makes no sense at all because there should be nothing of major importance on there that has not already been released.

    Bob

  36. avatar
    Obsolete April 21, 2011 at 6:53 pm #

    Robert Clark: “As I said it is a very unlikely scenario. But on the other hand his refusal to release the original just makes no sense at all because there should be nothing of major importance on there that has not already been released.”

    Since it has been shown that there is really nothing that could be listed on there that would be embarrassing for him, maybe you should reconsider your belief that he is actively “refusing” to release it.

  37. avatar
    Robert Clark April 21, 2011 at 6:54 pm #

    Passerby: Sorry Bob but you’re just making up this stuff to get a rise out of us.Well done…

    It’s only a hypothetical not likely to come to pass. Speculating is fun.

    Bob

  38. avatar
    gorefan April 21, 2011 at 6:56 pm #

    Robert Clark: But on the other hand his refusal to release the original just makes no sense at all because there should be nothing of major importance on there that has not already been released.

    You just hit the nail on the head, it is totally inconsequential. President’s typically ignore gossip like this. Bush with the 9/11 conspiracies, Clintons with all the murder conspiracies. The rule is if you respond to nonsense, you give it credibility.

  39. avatar
    Robert Clark April 21, 2011 at 7:02 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Since we’re dealing with hypotheticals how come you haven’t released any information proving you weren’t a child molester and Chris Hansen isn’t after you? If you had nothing to hide you would release all your information including your gerber baby certificate, certification that you completed potty training and that you never had a lobotomy. Come to the land of Reality phony bob.

    Actually that reinforces the point I’m making. You’re being accused of this horrible crime and you can easily show you are not guilty, yet you refuse to take the steps to show it!
    It just makes no sense.

    Bob

  40. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 21, 2011 at 7:08 pm #

    Robert Clark: As I said it is a very unlikely scenario. But on the other hand his refusal to release the original just makes no sense at all because there should be nothing of major importance on therethat has not already been released.

    Bob

    It makes plenty of sense. No other president has had to release their birth certificate, a black man shouldn’t have to either. Also the state of Hawaii no longer gives out the long form certified birth certificates so once again phony bob you’re talking in circles

  41. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 21, 2011 at 7:09 pm #

    Robert Clark: Actually that reinforces the point I’m making. You’re being accused of this horrible crime and you can easily show you are not guilty, yet you refuse to take the steps to show it!It just makes no sense.

    Bob

    Sure it makes sense, you’re a child molester and you pretty much just admitted to it.

  42. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 21, 2011 at 7:11 pm #

    Robert Clark: Actually that reinforces the point I’m making. You’re being accused of this horrible crime and you can easily show you are not guilty, yet you refuse to take the steps to show it!It just makes no sense.

    Bob

    What steps did Bush take to prove he wasn’t involved in the slaughter of 3000 Americans on 9/11/01?

  43. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 21, 2011 at 7:16 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: What steps did Bush take to prove he wasn’t involved in the slaughter of 3000 Americans on 9/11/01?

    Let alone that he wasn’t sleeping with the wives of US serviceman after he sent them off to war. After all he did say this during the debate with Kerry

    “You know, it’s hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm’s way.” –George W. Bush, first presidential debate, Coral Gables, Fla., Sept. 30, 2004

  44. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 21, 2011 at 7:19 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Let alone that he wasn’t sleeping with the wives of US serviceman after he sent them off to war.After all he did say this during the debate with Kerry

    “You know, it’s hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm’s way.” –George W. Bush, first presidential debate, Coral Gables, Fla., Sept. 30, 2004

    Yup, guilty until proven innocent, Bob – the new mantra of the right; lord help us

  45. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 21, 2011 at 7:21 pm #

    There’s nothing there that they already don’t know, so there will be nothing there that they can complain about, yet they demand he show it to them anyway just because they demand it. How much more kafkaesque can they get?

  46. avatar
    Robert Clark April 21, 2011 at 7:23 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: There is one major error in the CNN article where Chin says: “…even if Obama had been born overseas, he is still a natural born citizen, because he obtained citizenship at birth through his mother who unquestionably was a U.S. citizen.”In 1961, a married woman could not pass on her US citizenship at birth to a child born abroad. One might argue that Ann Dunham was not legally married at the time, but whether her bigamous marriage to Obama Sr. was legal or not is a matter of debate.These major news organizations mean well, but they inadvertently screw up something.

    The full opinion piece linked on that page is an interesting read. Already it got 2,004 comments after only one day.
    An interesting question it raises is how would you change that clause in the Constitution? The currently accepted interpretation is you have to be born on U.S. soil. Professor Chin wants to expand it to include anyone who is a citizen at birth. And since under some conditions one parent being a citizen automatically makes the child a citizen, even if the other parent is not, the child would be “natural born” and allowed to be President.
    However, it is clear the framers intention was not to have someone as President of divided loyalties. On that basis I would prefer the requirement that they were born on U.S. soil or both parens were citizens.

    Bob

  47. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 21, 2011 at 7:31 pm #

    Robert Clark: The full opinion piece linked on that page is an interesting read. Already it got 2,004 comments after only one day.An interesting question it raises is how would you change that clause in the Constitution? The currently accepted interpretation is you have to be born on U.S. soil. Professor Chin wants to expand it to include anyone who is a citizen at birth. And since under some conditions one parent being a citizen automatically makes the child a citizen, even if the other parent is not, the child would be “natural born” and allowed to be President.However, it is clear the framers intention was not to have someone as President of divided loyalties. On that basis I would prefer the requirement that they were born on U.S. soil or both parens were citizens.

    Bob

    Which means under your scenario Obama is the President. So what’s your complaint again since we know it isn’t chicago politics as that’s a stupid stereotype driven by you watching too many movies.

  48. avatar
    Scientist April 21, 2011 at 7:36 pm #

    Robert Clark: Professor Chin wants to expand it to include anyone who is a citizen at birth.

    I think you have misinterpreted Prof Chin (no surprize). He wants to get rid of the clause entirely and allow any citizen to run for President. Prof Chin thinks the voters are big boys and girls and can decide for themselves who their leader should be. Most countries place no restriction on whiich citizens are eligible for office. In other words, they have faith in the voters.

  49. avatar
    G April 21, 2011 at 9:20 pm #

    Robert Clark: However, it is clear the framers intention was not to have someone as President of divided loyalties. On that basis I would prefer the requirement that they were born on U.S. soil or both parens were citizens.

    Again with trying to pass off a “false meme” by making something out to be more than it is.

    Please, I’d love to hear your “scenario” of a “divided loyalty” situation that could happen and how it would play out….

  50. avatar
    nemocapn April 21, 2011 at 10:18 pm #

    Robert Clark: However, it is clear the framers intention was not to have someone as President of divided loyalties

    You mean like HIllary Clinton who has a British grandfather and an Irish passport (or so I’ve heard)?

  51. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 21, 2011 at 11:20 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: These major news organizations mean well, but they inadvertently screw up something.

    It’s frustrating how birthers will swarm over such easily corrected errors like flies on $hit…

  52. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 21, 2011 at 11:27 pm #

    Robert Clark: it is clear the framers intention was not to have someone as President of divided loyalties.

    Not true. It is clear that the Founders wanted a check against a foreign prince taking over the government (a not uncommon practice at the time) and it is clear that they wrote ‘natural born citizen’. Anything else is conjecture, which, in your case, is based primarily on your bigotry against and hate for President Obama. Apparently your ego can’t entertain the notion that you may be wrong about President Obama or that you’re a pitiful dupe that’s swallowed the propaganda of whackjobs and con artists. What a pitiful, deluded soul you must be…

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 21, 2011 at 11:54 pm #

    Thrifty: Was that someone else’s COLB in the video? It’s smaller than I expected.

    It was miniature copy of the COLB, such as the one included in Barack Obama 44th President Collector’s Vault that contains buttons and bumper stickers, and a little birth certificate taped in.

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 22, 2011 at 12:07 am #

    Scientist: Before you call someone of Prof Chin’s stature “wrong”, I think you owe it to yourselves and to your readers to contact him and perhaps invite him to discuss his opinions in this forum.

    I hope you will take this suggestion seriously.

    The point is not that Jack Chin is unqualified or that we have a difference of opinion; he was shooting from the hip, which is the beef I have with a number of major news organizations when it comes to birther issues.

    What I posted is the same thing I have seen in FAQ pages on more than one immigration attorney’s web site. The State Department’s plain English citizenship site says the same thing. I would have been more cautious if this thing hadn’t been discussed to death here long ago with no dissenting opinion, but it was.

    I sent a note to CNN about their error.

  55. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 22, 2011 at 12:26 am #

    Robert Clark: The currently accepted interpretation is you have to be born on U.S. soil. Professor Chin wants to expand it to include anyone who is a citizen at birth

    I don’t think that’s true. The “accepted interpretation” among authorities is that anyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen with a legitimate minority position that one must be born a citizen in the United States. This was discussed at length here and there is a lot of reading material available in law journals on the subject.

  56. avatar
    nc1 April 22, 2011 at 3:17 am #

    Even 2.5 years after the first eligibility lawsuit was filed, the major media outlet cannot present an error free presentation of Obama’s eligibility case.

    We still see false claims that DoH issued a press-release about Kapiolani Hospital birth,
    and that Okubo mentioned birth registration coming from Kapiolani,…

    The video presentation contains a false claim that COLB was issued by DoH – all of you know already that this is just an assumption – DoH still refuses to confirm that they issued a copy of birth certificate to Obama campaign in 2007.

    Obama cannot release the original birth certificate unless Hawaii changes its law, this is a laughable claim. There is no law that prevents the release of this document to a person with tangible interest.

  57. avatar
    dunstvangeet April 22, 2011 at 3:57 am #

    nc1,

    The video presentation contains a false claim that COLB was issued by DoH – all of you know already that this is just an assumption – DoH still refuses to confirm that they issued a copy of birth certificate to Obama campaign in 2007.

    Actually, that’s not a “false claim”. The Hawaii Department of Health issued the COLB, and you know it. They’ve certified the birth certificate, and that is all that needs to happen. The fact that you want a confirmation of the confirmation of the confirmation is of no consequence.

    Obama cannot release the original birth certificate unless Hawaii changes its law, this is a laughable claim. There is no law that prevents the release of this document to a person with tangible interest.

    You’ll forgive me if I take the Hawaii Attorney General’s office over your’s. The Hawaii Attorney General actually knows Hawaii law, and how to read Hawaii Law. You, on the other hand, do not. You’ve proven that you do not many times throughout this blog.

  58. avatar
    nc1 April 22, 2011 at 4:25 am #

    dunstvangeet:
    nc1,

    Actually, that’s not a “false claim”.The Hawaii Department of Health issued the COLB, and you know it.They’ve certified the birth certificate, and that is all that needs to happen.The fact that you want a confirmation of the confirmation of the confirmation is of no consequence.

    You’ll forgive me if I take the Hawaii Attorney General’s office over your’s.The Hawaii Attorney General actually knows Hawaii law, and how to read Hawaii Law.You, on the other hand, do not.You’ve proven that you do not many times throughout this blog.

    You are mistaken – Hawaii DoH have never confirmed issuing of COLB to Obama in 2007. They have refused to answer this question.

    Please show me the law that prevents the release of certified copy of the original to the person of interest. You won’t be able to – it does not exist.
    On a contrary the law says that a copy of the record can be issued to the registrant:
    §338-18 Disclosure of records.
    a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

    (b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:

    (1) The registrant;…

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.HTM

  59. avatar
    Robert Clark April 22, 2011 at 5:34 am #

    Scientist: I think you have misinterpreted Prof Chin (no surprize). He wants to get rid of the clause entirely and allow any citizen to run for President. Prof Chin thinks the voters are big boys and girls and can decide for themselves who their leader should be. Most countries place no restriction on whiich citizens are eligible for office. In other words, they have faith in the voters.

    The link above provided by Dr. C only provided a summary of Prof. Chin’s view written by a reporter. Take a look at the full opinion piece by Prof. Chin to get a fuller idea of his viewpoint:

    Who’s really eligible to be president?
    By Gabriel “Jack” Chin, Special to CNN
    April 21, 2011 10:02 a.m. EDT
    http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/20/chin.natural.born/index.html

    He wants the clause to be re-interpreted or a further Amendment passed to the effect that they are “natural born”, and therefore eligible, if their citizenship occurs *at birth*. So it still would not apply to naturalized citizens.
    Chin argues that Obama would be eligible because under some conditions a child with only one parent who is a citizen becomes a citizen at birth regardless of where they are born. Prof.Chin though really needed to write more fully on what those conditions were because as Dr.C noted there is some question whether Obama would qualify even then,

    Bob

  60. avatar
    Robert Clark April 22, 2011 at 5:41 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: What steps did Bush take to prove he wasn’t involved in the slaughter of 3000 Americans on 9/11/01?

    The key fact is that step to clear oneself is so utterly trivial and easy to do and one which one should gladly want to do anyway. As I mentioned before most people are proud of their birth place and birth hospital. There is no reason to want to keep that information secret by not revealing the documents that prove it.

    Bob

  61. avatar
    Robert Clark April 22, 2011 at 5:50 am #

    G: Again with trying to pass off a “false meme” by making something out to be more than it is.Please, I’d love to hear your “scenario” of a “divided loyalty” situation that could happen and how it would play out….

    One very important one applies to Obama. Barack Obama Sr’s father, it has been reported, was tortured by the British during the Kenyan uprisings for independence. That colored Barack Sr.’s views toward any colonial powers, meaning those who seek to gain greater territory by taken over lands in other countries. It is a very common viewpoint in the third world that the U.S. is a colonial power. Very likely then Barack Obama Sr. had that view of the U.S.

    Bob

  62. avatar
    Robert Clark April 22, 2011 at 5:58 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The State Department’s plain English citizenship site says the same thing.

    Was this said specifically in regards to Obama or about citizenship in general?
    If it was said in general then it’s a more serious mistake because it might lead people to think they are citizens when they are not. If that is so then it would be important to send them a corrective note as well.
    If it was said only in respect to Obama, then I think you can see where some people could get the idea of a conspiratorial intent.

    Bob

  63. avatar
    Robert Clark April 22, 2011 at 6:05 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I don’t think that’s true. The “accepted interpretation” among authorities is that anyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen with a legitimate minority position that one must be born a citizen in the United States. This was discussed at length here and there is a lot of reading material available in law journals on the subject.

    I’m aware there is debate on this issue, but Chin in the opinion piece notes the prevailing opinion is that it means jus soli which, in this context, means due to birth on the soil.
    McCain also wouldn’t have had any problem at all if it only required both parents to be citizens.

    Bob

  64. avatar
    Scientist April 22, 2011 at 7:06 am #

    Robert Clark: The link above provided by Dr. C only provided a summary of Prof. Chin’s view written by a reporter. Take a look at the full opinion piece by Prof. Chin to get a fuller idea of his viewpoint:
    Who’s really eligible to be president?
    By Gabriel “Jack” Chin, Special to CNN
    April 21, 2011 10:02 a.m. EDT
    http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/20/chin.natural.born/index.html

    I DID read the full piece. Read all the way to the bottom. You birthers seem incapable of reading ENTIRE articles. Chin says the following:

    In a symposium of distinguished constitutional scholars, the combination of unintelligibility, interference with democratic choice and suspicion of naturalized citizens made Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy and Yale Law School Dean Robert Post nominate the clause as the “stupidest” in the Constitution. They may be right; it may be that We, the People of the United States, are perfectly capable of sensibly choosing presidents. Unless there are some justifications for it that make sense in a modern, free society, it may be time to consider getting rid of the clause.

    So let’s review what Chin actually says:

    1. Current law in his opinion says that anyone born a citizen is eligible, whether through birth in the US, birth abroad with 2 citizen parents or, with the statutory requirements met, 1 citizen parent,

    2. Chin think the entire natural born citizen nonsense should be amended out of the Constitution.

    Chin’s point is very clear to anyone who is not a phony moron, phony moron, phony moron.

  65. avatar
    Scientist April 22, 2011 at 7:15 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The point is not that Jack Chin is unqualified or that we have a difference of opinion; he was shooting from the hip, which is the beef I have with a number of major news organizations when it comes to birther issues.
    What I posted is the same thing I have seen in FAQ pages on more than one immigration attorney’s web site. The State Department’s plain English citizenship site says the same thing. I would have been more cautious if this thing hadn’t been discussed to death here long ago with no dissenting opinion, but it was.
    I sent a note to CNN about their error.

    I think there are dissenting opinions. First, there is the issue of whether his parent’s marriage was valid. Second is the issue of what exact standards a court would apply especially in a case of presidential eligibility (and whether a court would have jurisdiction at all). The courts could take the position that in an election held in 2008, the law as it stands in 2008 should apply, not that in 1961. I don’t know and neither do you or Chin.

    IMO, the courts would very likely say that the determination of eligibility is a matter for Congress. In effect, one could say that Obama is eligible REGARDLESS of where he was born and who his parents were, because that is solely a matter for Congress and they found him so.

  66. avatar
    Scientist April 22, 2011 at 7:20 am #

    Robert Clark: One very important one applies to Obama. Barack Obama Sr’s father, it has been reported, was tortured by the British during the Kenyan uprisings for independence. That colored Barack Sr.’s views toward any colonial powers, meaning those who seek to gain greater territory by taken over lands in other countries. It is a very common viewpoint in the third world that the U.S. is a colonial power. Very likely then Barack Obama Sr. had that view of the U.S.

    Since Barack Obama Sr saw his son (other than as an infant) for approximately 1 month around Christmas 1971, I’m not sure what the relevancy of his views are. However, if his views were that the United States should not torture and should not take over other countries, then i would hope that his son shares those. Those to me are basic American and human values.

    Which you would know if you were not a phony moron, phony moron, phony moron

  67. avatar
    Robert Clark April 22, 2011 at 7:44 am #

    Scientist: I DID read the full piece. Read all the way to the bottom. You birthers seem incapable of reading ENTIRE articles.

    The passage I was referring to where he was giving his opinion of what the law should be is this one:

    Most scholars, including me, believe that natural born citizenship extends further, to all of those who obtain citizenship at birth by law. Calvin’s Case was about subjectship, duties owed by subjects to a monarch who claimed to rule by the grace of God. U.S. citizenship, by contrast, involves membership in a political community based on democratic principles. Those born overseas are natural born citizens not because of natural law, but because Congress determined that they are naturally part of the political community.
    If this argument is right, then even if Obama had been born overseas, he is still a natural born citizen, because he obtained citizenship at birth through his mother who unquestionably was a U.S. citizen.

    You would get rid of the clause as it currently stands by amending it.

    Bob

  68. avatar
    Greg April 22, 2011 at 10:32 am #

    Hey, Robert, with your silly stolen TV analogy, may I suggest you look up “bona fide purchaser” and “purchaser in the due course.”

    Let’s say you sell a house to Dr. C. He forgets to record his purchase. You notice the failure and sell the same house to me. I don’t know about the previous sale. I then record my purchase. I have, in essence, bought really expensive stolen property. But, I have done so innocently. And in this example, I in all US jurisdictions. I get to keep the house. Dr. C can sue you, but not me.

  69. avatar
    G April 22, 2011 at 11:20 am #

    Robert Clark: One very important one applies to Obama. Barack Obama Sr’s father, it has been reported, was tortured by the British during the Kenyan uprisings for independence. That colored Barack Sr.’s views toward any colonial powers, meaning those who seek to gain greater territory by taken over lands in other countries. It is a very common viewpoint in the third world that the U.S. is a colonial power. Very likely then Barack Obama Sr. had that view of the U.S.Bob

    Obama Sr. never had US Citizenship. The Constitution easily took care of that situation. Obama Sr. was never eligible to run for U.S. president.

    Obama Sr’s hypothetical views of the world have no legal connection to Obama Jr’s birth and eligibility.

  70. avatar
    Greg April 22, 2011 at 11:30 am #

    Are the father’s views a sex-linked genetic trait, like male-pattern baldness?

  71. avatar
    James M April 22, 2011 at 1:22 pm #

    nc1:

    The video presentation contains a false claim that COLB was issued by DoH

    Do you have evidence of forgery, or don’t you?

  72. avatar
    James M April 22, 2011 at 1:34 pm #

    Obsolete:
    Even with what you say, Doc, if Obama was born overseas, would the Supreme Court overturn an election based on what is arguably a technicality?
    I have my doubts.

    Before the subject of the election even comes up, some process would have to remove his citizenship which was already granted at birth. If it was granted in error, even if you could prove it, it might not be possible to revoke it. Obama was born a citizenship, not naturalized. Birth certificates are irrelevant. Everything is irrelevant except for two points:

    1. President Obama is a citizen of the United States.

    and

    2. President Obama is not a Naturalized Citizen of the United States.

    There is no question on point #1, even given some error under 1961 law.

    There is no question on point #2.

    There probably is not even a process by which citizenship once granted at birth, can be revoked, especially fifty years after the fact. How would that even happen?

  73. avatar
    Joey April 22, 2011 at 2:07 pm #

    nc1: You are mistaken – Hawaii DoH have never confirmed issuing of COLB to Obama in 2007.They have refused to answer this question.

    Please show me the law that prevents the release of certified copy of the original to the person of interest. You won’t be able to – it does not exist.
    On a contrary the law says that a copy of the record can be issued to the registrant:
    §338-18Disclosure of records.
    a)To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

    (b)The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record.The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:

    (1)The registrant;…

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.HTM

    Since the Hawaii Department of Health posted on their website an FAQ on President Obama’s birth records and since they have confirmed that they possess an index file of a birth record for Barack Hussein Obama II and since they have on several occasions confirmed that copies of President Obama’s COLB are authentic and since the Director of Health declared that President Obama is “a natural born United States citizen,” I think that its reasonable to conclude that they did indeed issue a COLB to Barack Obama in 2007.
    At any time, a congressional committee could call Dr. Fukino, Janice Okubo, Dr. Onaka and former Governor Lingle to testify before a committee of the House of Representatives to answer that question directly, but to date, no such congressional action has been undertaken.

  74. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 22, 2011 at 3:24 pm #

    Scientist: Before you call someone of Prof Chin’s stature “wrong”, I think you owe it to yourselves and to your readers to contact him and perhaps invite him to discuss his opinions in this forum.

    I sent the following email to Dr. Chin:

    In your article, Who’s really eligible to be president, you wrote:

    If this argument is right, then even if Obama had been born overseas, he is still a natural born citizen, because he obtained citizenship at birth through his mother who unquestionably was a U.S. citizen.

    This presumes that Barack Obama would have been a citizen at birth through his mother. However, the US State Department web site, summarizing the US Code, gives the rule for a US Citizen mother married to a foreign national father:

    For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

    Ann Dunham was only 18 years old in 1961 when President Obama was born, one year short of the required 5 years US residence after 14. The only way Barack Obama could have been born a citizen overseas would be he was born out of wedlock, which could be argued given that his father was already married in Kenya and that bigamous marriages are null ab inito in Hawaii.

    I hope there is some way the CNN article can be fixed (and the other CNN article that cites the mistake in it) so that this error won’t be passed on forever.

    Dr. Chin replied:

    Thanks for this. Given the bigamous marriage, it seems to me that either way he is a citizen.

  75. avatar
    Greg April 22, 2011 at 3:36 pm #

    Bigamous marriages are void in Hawaii, but issue from those marriages are treated as if the marriage was valid. There’s a presumption against illegitimacy.

    nc1: You are mistaken – Hawaii DoH have never confirmed issuing of COLB to Obama in 2007.They have refused to answer this question.

    They have also never denied issuing the COLB. Now, if someone out a forgery out there and the DOH was asked to verify the information it, do you think they would confirm the information IN the forgery without mentioning that it WAS a forgery?

    That seems pretty incredible to me.

  76. avatar
    Vince Treacy April 22, 2011 at 3:58 pm #

    Chin was not very responsive. I just posted over on the “No, no, no, CNN” thread, that law prof Eugene Volokh said that the five year requirement applied, and that she fell short.

    http://volokh.com/2008/12/01/correction-about-natural-born-citizen-law/

    “So, as I now read 8 U.S.C. § 1401, ‘a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States’ before Nov. 14, 1986 is a natural-born citizen only if the citizen parent ‘was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years’ — the same rule that was in place in the early 1960s. See also United States v. Flores-Villar, 497 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1162–64 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (taking the same view and concluding the change from ten years/five years to five years/two years only applied to people born after 1986), aff’d, 536 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2008) (so assuming but not discussing it in detail); Rico-Ibarra v. Mukasey, 281 Fed. Appx. 694, 695 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008) (not precedential).”

    This was posted on December 1, 2008, at The Volokh Conspiracy, a libertarian legal blog with a stable of law professor posters. It is as far from a pro-Obama site as anyone can get. Volokh is a completely mainstream scholar of constitutional law, just like Jack Chin, with top credentials on constitutional law, and his view is inconsistent with Chin’s is on citizenship law. In Chin’s defense, this is a devilishly complex issue, and Volokh himself admits he initially made a mistake in his conclusion.

    I hope Chin will restudy the matter.

  77. avatar
    Suranis April 22, 2011 at 4:06 pm #

    nc1: The video presentation contains a false claim that COLB was issued by DoH – all of you know already that this is just an assumption – DoH still refuses to confirm that they issued a copy of birth certificate to Obama campaign in 2007.

    I’ve answered this before and you mysteriously ignored it

    here lemme give you the the oppritunity to ignore it again

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/13/obamas-birth-certificate/

    “Shortly after we posted this document on June 12, 2008, some PolitiFact readers questioned its authenticity.

    “You have shown a Certificate of Live Birth — not a birth certificate,” one e-mailed. “There is a difference. Look at state laws regarding the completion of both forms.”

    Another wrote: “I have serious doubts about the purported ‘birth certificate’ you were sent.”

    To verify we did indeed have the correct document, we contacted the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records.

    “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008, after we e-mailed her our copy.

    Okubo said a copy of the birth certificate was requested in June 2008, but she wouldn’t specify by whom. But as we know from our attempts to get the record in April 2008, Hawaii law states that only family members can access such records.”

    So they confirmed it. even the typo about 2008 can’t make you deny the ending of one of your 3 standard lines.

  78. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 22, 2011 at 4:12 pm #

    Greg: Bigamous marriages are void in Hawaii, but issue from those marriages are treated as if the marriage was valid. There’s a presumption against illegitimacy.

    At this point, I don’t think I know enough to have my own opinion. Can I borrow yours?

  79. avatar
    Northland10 April 22, 2011 at 4:30 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: At this point, I don’t think I know enough to have my own opinion. Can I borrow yours?

    It is the comments like these, which give me a laugh, that I miss the comment rating/like/dislike feature. Ah well.

  80. avatar
    nemocapn April 22, 2011 at 5:09 pm #

    Greg: Bigamous marriages are void in Hawaii, but issue from those marriages are treated as if the marriage was valid. There’s a presumption against illegitimacy.

    Thanks for bringing that up, because there are situations under the law where an illegitimate child would be treated as a legitimate child, and that makes the subject so complex it can even confuse lawyers. There’s the “putative marriage doctrine” which is applicable in some states. It could be argued that Ann Dunham is a putative spouse. A putative spouse is a person, who in good faith, entered into marriage, thinking its legitimate and later finds out it’s not for some reason, usually bigamy. For purposes of citizenship, would the US treat Ann Dunham as a putative spouse or an out of wedlock spouse?

  81. avatar
    Greg April 22, 2011 at 5:22 pm #

    There’s also a preemption/reverse-preemption issue. Does federal law look to state law iN determinin whether the marriage is valid. Federal law always controls on issues of immigration, but the Feds have not traditionally been involved in marriage. And the birth would be in a foreign country which might or might not view the child as legitimate. Are there foreign law comity issues. It’s a civil procedure/choice-of-law problem that would take several hours of research and thought to suss out and I doubt any three lawyers would come up with two answers in common.

  82. avatar
    nemocapn April 22, 2011 at 5:42 pm #

    Greg: Federal law always controls on issues of immigration, but the Feds have not traditionally been involved in marriage.

    Agreed. The first federal law against bigamy was the Morrill Act of 1862, signed by Abraham Lincoln. Before that it was a violation of state law, not federal law.

  83. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 22, 2011 at 9:06 pm #

    nemocapn: For purposes of citizenship, would the US treat Ann Dunham as a putative spouse or an out of wedlock spouse?

    Would not the status of innocent versus guilty party be important here? Obama Sr obviously was the guilty party here. he was the one who illegally got hi;self a second spouse and we can assume he did not tell his second wife about the first one. As a guilty party, it seems presumpious that he would benefit from any putativeness of marriage. If fathering a child in official wedlock in the USA was a way of obtaining US citizenship, “natural law” would say he is not entitled to US citizenship .

    Ann Dunham’s situation is different. Assuming she did not know about the first wife at the moment of marriage, she would be clearly the innocent party here and entitled to the status of putative wife of Obama Sr. Now two possibilities exist:

    1) she can waiver that entitlement. If she has that right, it is obvious that she would exercise it to give her son US citizenship more easily

    2) she cannot waiver that right. Common sense would then say that she cannot combine the advantages of putative wife and those of an unmarried mother as stated in any law – BUT that she would be able to chose the most advantageous status. Therefore she would be allowed to pass on her citizenship to her son more easily. “Natural law” would not have any problems here, since Obama Sr virtually abandoned his son and the whole burden of upbringing the son fell upon the mother.

    The same thing would probably apply to Obama Jr himself, since at actual law you cannot “visit the sins of the parents upon their children”. Obama Jr would be able to claim inheritance on his father’s estate as if he were a legitimate child, but still be able to claim to be an illegitimate child on citizenship issues – if that status were more advantageous.

    In the film “Witness for the Prosecution” Marlene Dietrich gets away with testifying against her husband and breaking matrimonial trust by proving that she was still married at the time she wed her British husband, so herf marriage to Tyrone Power is legally void. That is a grave error in the script, however. In real life, Marleen would have been a putative wife and still unentitled to testify against her putative husband. Tyrone Power, however, being the innocent party (though hardly innocent as far as the charge of murder is concerned) would have been able to testify against his putative wife in a later trial, if Marlene had only hurt him, and not actually killed him.

  84. avatar
    jeffhack April 23, 2011 at 1:36 am #

    Facts:
    -Obama has not shown ANYONE his long form BC
    -Obama’s mother’s Passport records prior to 1965 are missing (Obama was born in 1961)
    -Obama has not released any of his college records
    -Obama “retired” his law license
    -Obama has a CT SSN but never lived there
    -Obama has something to hide

  85. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 23, 2011 at 1:41 am #

    jeffhack: The debunker’s guide to Obama conspiracy theories

    Hello new troll! You can find a debunking of all of your ‘facts’ here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/

  86. avatar
    Greg April 23, 2011 at 1:42 am #

    jeffhack: -Obama has not shown ANYONE his long form BC

    He sent his $20 to the state and he got the only type of form they give. He showed that form.

    jeffhack: -Obama has not released any of his college records

    No Presidential candidate has willingly released their college records. Bush’s were stolen. Kerry’s were stolen. Etc. What grades did Reagan get? We know that McCain was near the bottom of his class, but no one has seen his actual report cards.

    jeffhack: -Obama “retired” his law license

    He wasn’t representing clients. It costs money to maintain a law license. One is required to obtain continuing legal education in many states, which costs more money. Many people retire their law license. It’s not that uncommon.

    jeffhack: -Obama has a CT SSN but never lived there

    There is no such thing as a “CT SSN” there is a Federal Social Security Number. The Social Security Administration has warned against any attempt to correlate numbers with geographic locations, noting that it is entirely an internal system and not for external use.

    jeffhack: -Obama has something to hide

    The only conclusion that one can draw from your so-called “facts” is that you don’t know how to reason.

  87. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 23, 2011 at 1:50 am #

    jeffhack:
    Facts:
    -Obama has not shown ANYONE his long form BC

    President Obama can not show anyone is original birth certificate (although he would be permitted to view it in person. He has shown his official birth certificate which proves his eligibility to a legal certainty.

    -Obama’s mother’s Passport records prior to 1965 are missing (Obama was born in 1961)

    No, her passport APPLICATION records from prior to 1965 were destroyed – Strunk’s FOIA request didn’t ask for the actual PASSPORTS, just the applications (typical birther incompetence…)

    -Obama has not released any of his college records

    Nor did any of his predecessors.

    -Obama “retired” his law license

    He’s not an active member of the bar – very common for lawyers who are not practicing…

    -Obama has a CT SSN but never lived there

    Which could have resulted from a ’9′ being confused with a ’0′ – have you ever heard of Ockham’s razor? (it cuts your implication of malfeasance to shreds…)

    -Obama has something to hide

    What are you hiding? – you’ve spent as much as President Obama has in order to seal your records and you’ve not provided the original copy of your birth certificate to verify yourself, so you are clearly hiding something – what is it?

  88. avatar
    Daniel April 23, 2011 at 1:55 am #

    jeffhack: Facts:

    How about you look up the meaning aof a word in the dictionary before using it next time…. OK?

  89. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 23, 2011 at 2:33 am #

    jeffhack:
    Facts:
    -Obama has not shown ANYONE his long form BC
    -Obama’s mother’s Passport records prior to 1965 are missing (Obama was born in 1961)
    -Obama has not released any of his college records
    -Obama “retired” his law license
    -Obama has a CT SSN but never lived there
    -Obama has something to hide

    The constitution doesn’t require a long form birth certificate FACT
    You probably never heard of a long form birth certificate before 2008 FACT
    No previous president has released their long form birth certificate while in office FACT
    Many president’s college records aren’t available to the public FACT
    Obama law’s license was put in inactive status because he isn’t currently practicing law. In order to keep a law license active you have to pay fees and do other things on a yearly basis. Maybe some of the lawyers here can describe that for you.
    The SSN aren’t necessarily given according to state.
    Yes Obama has something to hide and it’s that you’re an idiot.

  90. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 23, 2011 at 2:34 am #

    Also there’s no proof Ann Dunham had a passport before 1965

  91. avatar
    nc1 April 23, 2011 at 4:16 am #

    Suranis: I’ve answered this before and you mysteriously ignored it here lemme give you the the oppritunity to ignore it again

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/13/obamas-birth-certificate/

    “Shortly after we posted this document on June 12, 2008, some PolitiFact readers questioned its authenticity.

    “You have shown a Certificate of Live Birth — not a birth certificate,” one e-mailed. “There is a difference. Look at state laws regarding the completion of both forms.”

    Another wrote: “I have serious doubts about the purported birth certificate’ you were sent.”

    To verify we did indeed have the correct document, we contacted the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records.

    “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008, after we e-mailed her our copy.

    Okubo said a copy of the birth certificate was requested in June 2008, but she wouldn’t specify by whom. But as we know from our attempts to get the record in April 2008, Hawaii law states that only family members can access such records.”

    So they confirmed it. even the typo about 2008 can’t make you deny the ending of one of your 3 standard lines.

    1. The final Okubo’s quote from the follow up article (June 27, 2008):

    “Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.””
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

    This statement is not a confirmation that DoH issued COLB to Obama.

    2. I see, Okubo mentioning 2008 request was a typo. There is always a typo or an error when explaining unconvenient facts for Obama’s eligibility.

    If the official story were true, the payment of fee for issuing the COLB was recorded by the DoH. They could confirm that they received the payment. This transaction is not a protected record under the UIPA law.

  92. avatar
    The Magic M April 23, 2011 at 5:39 am #

    > They could confirm that they received the payment.

    And why would you believe them if you state everywhere that “Okubo is lying, Fukino is lying, Abercrombie is lying, Lingle is lying”? Why would you believe this specific confirmation above all?

  93. avatar
    Whatever4 April 23, 2011 at 5:45 am #

    nc1:
    If the official story were true, the payment of fee for issuing the COLB was recorded by the DoH.They could confirm that they received the payment.This transaction is not a protected record under the UIPA law.

    How do we know it’s not protected?

  94. avatar
    The Magic M April 23, 2011 at 5:49 am #

    > Very likely then Barack Obama Sr. had that view of the U.S.Bob

    And again you prove the whole birfer crapalooza is only about “he’s not one of us” – that’s why you keep pushing the memes of “his father was anti-US, so he must be too”, “his stepfather was a Mooslim, so he must be too” and Orly’s latest idiocy “he secretly spent one year in Pakistan under a radical Mooslim regime, so he must have been influenced”.

    It is and was always only about “he’s not a 100% red-blooded white Christian American”. Geez, I think the only way Obama could have angered you white racists more was if he had married Scarlett Johansson instead of Michelle.

  95. avatar
    Robert Clark April 23, 2011 at 7:15 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I hope there is some way the CNN article can be fixed (and the other CNN article that cites the mistake in it) so that this error won’t be passed on forever.

    Dr. Chin replied:

    Thanks for this. Given the bigamous marriage, it seems to me that either way he is a citizen.

    It appears that Chin is MORE interested in protecting Obama than giving out correct information to the public.

    Bob

  96. avatar
    Robert Clark April 23, 2011 at 7:25 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I hope there is some way the CNN article can be fixed (and the other CNN article that cites the mistake in it) so that this error won’t be passed on forever.

    Good point. That mistake put out by Joshua Wisch spokesman for the Hawaii Atty. Gen. that it is illegal in Hawaii for someone to get a copy of their own original long form birth certificate is already propagating to different news sites. In reality the EXACT opposite is true: the Hawaii health department MUST provide those documents if the person their about requests them.
    It is unconscionable that this mistake is allowed to remain out in the public without being corrected by the Attorney General. This only serves to give further doubt among the public about whether or not high members in the Hawaiian government are being above board in dealing with this issue.

    Bob

  97. avatar
    Suranis April 23, 2011 at 7:36 am #

    Robert Clark: In reality the EXACT opposite is true: the Hawaii health department MUST provide those documents if the person their about requests them.

    Liar.

    Prove me wrong. Show the statute that says that they MUST give them to someone.

    3 years and all long forms the Hawai’in Birthers have shown is a non certified photocopy that was gotten after weeks of pestering the DOH, and a fake. We would be awash with them of it were as simple as requesting one. So wheres the birth certificate, Sherlock?

  98. avatar
    Scientist April 23, 2011 at 7:55 am #

    Suranis: Liar.Prove me wrong. Show the statute that says that they MUST give them to someone.3 years and all long forms the Hawai’in Birthers have shown is a non certified photocopy that was gotten after weeks of pestering the DOH, and a fake. We would be awash with them of it were as simple as requesting one. So wheres the birth certificate, Sherlock?

    Terry Lakin couldn’t get one for his daughter who was born in Hawaii.

    I am not even convinced by the “Danae” certificate. She shows a certificate which I accept as real, but it has no release date, just the birth and filing dates from 1968. She shows a receipt for a birth certificate dated Sept 2010 and an envelope mailed from the DOH in Sept 2010. So, yes, she got something from DOH in 2010. But what? Was it a “long form’ certificate or a COLB? Who knows?

    Mr Clark is still waiting breathlessly for the Attorney General to “correct” Mr Wisch, but he has not. Why? Because what Mr Wisch stated is an accurate description of the POLICY of DOH. If someone thinks the policy is against statute, then they can sue. If they do and win their case, then there is sometthing to discuss.. Otherwise, it is a bunch of hot air.

  99. avatar
    Suranis April 23, 2011 at 7:57 am #

    nc1: 1. The final Okubo’s quote from the follow up article (June 27, 2008):

    “Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.””
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

    This statement is not a confirmation that DoH issued COLB to Obama.

    No its a statement of intellectual honesty, that you can’t 100% trust images on the internet. I can’t 100% be sure Austria exists, I’ve never been there. Which is why factcheck went and examined the physical copy. And so did CNN recently. I didn’t see any birthers bothering their fat asses to go to Chicago and taking a look at the physical copy.

    And we know that the COLB image and the factcheck images are the same document because they have same printing artifacts. That would be near impossible to fake. Thanks Polarik for pointing that out.

    In any case THIS is a confirmation :- It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008, after we e-mailed her our copy.

    Okubo said a copy of the birth certificate was requested..”

    That’s a confirmation that a copy was requested before the image was released before the image went live and the image is OF A VALID Hawai’in BC

    2. I see, Okubo mentioning 2008 request was a typo.There is always a typo or an error when explaining unconvenient facts for Obama’s eligibility.

    I’ll just sit back and read over Orly Taitz pulling out yet another SSN and finding yet again the guy who had it was still alive when Obama was supposed to have stolen it from the death index, shall I?

    If the official story were true, the payment of fee for issuing the COLB was recorded by the DoH.They could confirm that they received the payment.This transaction is not a protected record under the UIPA law.

    Says who? You? Show us where under UIPA law it would be, or shut up. You are the one making the accusation, its up to you to prove such a statement. So put up.

  100. avatar
    Jes Beard April 23, 2011 at 8:20 am #

    CNN and most news organizations have one important fact absolutely wrong regarding Obama’s birth certificate — he unquestionably can get the “long form” records from Hawaii if he wants to get them. The law on the issue is absolutely clear. I set it out in detail at my blog at http://jesbeard.com/?p=33

  101. avatar
    Sef April 23, 2011 at 8:25 am #

    Jes Beard:
    CNN and most news organizations have one important fact absolutely wrong regarding Obama’s birth certificate — he unquestionably can get the “long form” records from Hawaii if he wants to get them.The law on the issue is absolutely clear.I set it out in detail at my blog at http://jesbeard.com/?p=33

    The HI AG doesn’t agree with you. Guess which view is accepted in HI?

  102. avatar
    Jes Beard April 23, 2011 at 8:32 am #

    I probably should expand on that last post. The fact that CNN, and most news organizations get this issue so clearly wrong, and that Obama refuses to produce the records which he clearly can require be produced, is one of the reasons there are so many doubters, and one of the reasons so many of the doubters flatly dismiss much of the news reporting on the issue. Once you have concluded that a person or news organization is not just wrong, but that the person deliberately and knowingly continues to insist on the truth of that which they either know is false or which they clearly should now is false, and they further persist even when the falsity is pointed out to them (in other words once you know someone is lying and you have confronted them about it and they continue lying), it is hard to assign a great deal of credibility to them on other matters, particularly matters closely related to the matter on which you have pointed out the falsity.

  103. avatar
    Jes Beard April 23, 2011 at 8:35 am #

    Sef, a public relations flack with the AG’s office has issued a statement at odds which what I point out the law is. That is not close to saying the AG agrees with that statement, or that the AG is correct if he does.

    The blog I posted sets out the law in detail. You can read it. The law is clear, and no court decision has ever addressed it to suggest that it means anything other than what it says.

    Please read it and explain to me any error in my analysis.

  104. avatar
    Sef April 23, 2011 at 8:44 am #

    Jes Beard: The HI AG doesn’t agree with you. Guess which view is accepted in HI?

    It doesn’t matter what you or I think or say. The AG’s view is what is important. Now, if you want to sue the AG to challenge his view, be my guest.

  105. avatar
    Scientist April 23, 2011 at 8:53 am #

    Jes Beard: Obama’s birth certificate — he unquestionably can get the “long form” records from Hawaii if he wants to get them.

    We all know what the statutes say. The fact is that government agencies have wide latittude to interpret statutes. I have dealt with a whole raft of government agencies, including FDA, NIH, the Patent Office, USDA and others. You can go in there waving statutes at them and it will do you a fat lot of good. They will stick with their procedures. Your only recourse is to sue. Such suits have a low (but not zero) probability of success. If Hawaii says it will not give out “long-forms” then the only recourse Mr Obama or anyone else has is to sue. I for one don’t think that the President of the United States should be suing a sovereign state government over a personal matter. It would be highly inappropriate. However, anyone born in Hawaii is welcome to file such a suit; if they do and win, then we will have something to talk about.

    I will point out again that Terry Lakin tried to get a “long form” for his daughter who was born in Hawaii. He could not. I am not convinced that the 2 “long forms” shown on biorther web sites were truly issued recently (though I accept that they are genuine). It is simply silly coming here and claiming that they can be obtained when no one has definitively shown that they can be.

    It is nice that Mr Beard takes advantage of Doc’s policy of allowing people to post freely while banning people (yours truly) from his own site. Clearly Mr Beard is one who likes to dish it out, but can’t take it.

  106. avatar
    Jes Beard April 23, 2011 at 9:17 am #

    Scientist, such suits have an extremely high probability of success when they are brought to require a state agency to do something which the law clearly requires the agency to do. As to Obama needing to sue….. get real. Governor Abercrombie has made clear that he WANTS to produce the records, but simply is not allowed to do so because the statute gives Obama rights of confidentiality which only Obama can waive.

    As to being banned from my site, I told you that continued efforts to derail discussion there (from the issue of access to the records and to the Vattel issue) would get you banned. You persisted. You got banned. I also made clear that if you wanted to discuss the issue by email, which would not hijack the blog, I was happy to do so. You chose not to.

    Amusing that someone who supports an agency rule contrary to state law complains of a rule made clear to him and which he chose to ignore. I had, and have, no problem with criticism of me or my site. I do have a problem with trying to hijack a discussion.

  107. avatar
    Suranis April 23, 2011 at 9:32 am #

    Jef, lets take this logically.

    You say any hawai’in can get a long form. All they have to do is request one.

    So, how come there are no recent long forms in circulation? Hawai’i has a population of 1.3 million. Are you telling me you cant get 5 people to request their long forms and show them to the world?

    How come when Terry Lakins brother was asked why cant Terry show his daughters long form, the brother replied that Terry tried to get it but the DOH told him no, flat out?

    How come in 3 years the only long forms you have gotten out there are a non certified photocopy with no date or stamp, and a long form form an anti-obama fanatic whose date looked like it was actually issued in 2001?

    3 years and the only proof you have that ANYONE (your word) can get a long form by simply requesting it is 2 of dubious origin and a guy that went to prison despite knowing full well that he could not get a long form from Hawai’i?

    So wheres the Birth Certificate?

  108. avatar
    Scientist April 23, 2011 at 9:41 am #

    Jes Beard: Scientist, such suits have an extremely high probability of success when they are brought to require a state agency to do something which the law clearly requires the agency to do.

    Then let’s see someone bring one. Perhaps you could take the case (or perhaps you can’t).

    Jes Beard: As to Obama needing to sue….. get real. Governor Abercrombie has made clear that he WANTS to produce the records, but simply is not allowed to do so because the statute gives Obama rights of confidentiality which only Obama can waive

    I’m glad you can draw clarity from Abercrombie’s pronouncements. i can’t. In fact, I have rarely found a public official who speaks less clearly.

    Jes Beard: I also made clear that if you wanted to discuss the issue by email, which would not hijack the blog, I was happy to do so. You chose not to

    I couldn’t find you Email on your blog. If you want to post it here, I will consider emailing you.

    Regarding Vattel, I suggest you look ate the numerous postings here by Lupin, a French lawyer. i did not hijack the thread, since YOU brought up Vattel first, not me. You didn’t like it when I pointed out that the legal expertise on one side dwarfed that on the other. Too bad.

  109. avatar
    Greg April 23, 2011 at 10:27 am #

    AG’s office: we can’t release the long form.
    0-76 losers: Hawaii is wrong!

    Who has more credibility about what Hawaiian law says? The AG’s office or birthers who have lost almost 80 court cases.

    Aside: maybe I missed it in Jes’ extremely long article, but I didn’t see a discussion of Hawaiian regulations. An obvious mistake, since he complains that there is no definition of common ancestor. Regulations are almost always where one finds missing definitions like this.

  110. avatar
    nc1 April 23, 2011 at 11:52 am #

    Whatever4: How do we know it’s not protected?

    Because we are not talking about person’s birth certificate but a different type of information – transaction with a government agency.

    AP writter Mark Niesse used the same law and asked the DoH for contact information of people who had inquired about Obama’s birth registration. DoH released this information to him.

  111. avatar
    Jes Beard April 23, 2011 at 12:26 pm #

    Suranis, you are assuming there ARE no long forms in circulation, and dismissing the long forms from Booth and Danae. Pretty damn week reed there, but also a quite irrelevant one, for two different reasons.

    The first reason is that Abercrombie has made clear that he WANTS to release the records, and would do so…. except for the fact that Obama is the one who would have to waive his right to confidentiality, and Obama will not. So the idea that they are not available to Obama is, well, absurd.

    The second reason is that what the Department may have been doing (presumably because administratively it is much easier not to make the effort to copy the actual original document and to simply spit it out on the computer printer without the bureaucrat responding to the request needing to walk another 10 feet), the law passed by the legislature is what controls, not the rules adopted by the Department.

    Greg, thanks for the point about look at the agency regulations, and I will, but that only addresses the question as to who OTHER than Obama might have access, not whether Obama might have access. Additionally, since the legislature did not give the Department authority to define words in such a manner as to make them mean something other than their common language meaning, whether such regulations defining “common ancestor” or not exist really should make no difference at all in what the statute says, means, requires, or allows. But it is a decent point.

    As to the contention that the AG’s office determines what the law is by the public statements of its public relations person, that is a bit absurd. I do not believe you could find any opinion or pleading, memo or brief, filed by any attorney in the AG’s office taking the position voiced by the public relations flack. And the reason you will not is because that position is so clearly and flatly contrary to Hawaiian law as set out by the legislature.

    You want to rely on the informal statement of a public relations flack, a non-lawyer, as to what the law is in Hawaii, while I want to rely on what the state legislature said the law was in statutes signed into law by Hawaii’s governor and never interpreted by any court.

    Scientist, sorry you couldn’t find my email. As owner of the site, I see the email address of anyone who posts and simply thought you could do the same. I tried sending a email to the email address you used, and, as I suspect you know, that email address does not work. As with the username you hide behind, it is bogus. But, if you wish, my last response to you there has now been updated to include my email.

  112. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2011 at 12:29 pm #

    nc1: AP writter Mark Niesse used the same law and asked the DoH for contact information of people who had inquired about Obama’s birth registration. DoH released this information to him.

    Can you provide a source for this claim?

  113. avatar
    Suranis April 23, 2011 at 12:50 pm #

    Jes Beard: Suranis, you are assuming there ARE no long forms in circulation, and dismissing the long forms from Booth and Danae. Pretty damn week reed there, but also a quite irrelevant one, for two different reasons.

    Of course there are long forms in circulation… from 2001 and before. 10 years is a very short time for a document to go extinct. But there are no new ones.

    I’m not dismissing Danae’s at all, I’m just pointing out that you birthers are pretty desperate to hold up a photocopy as evidence when a certified document isn;t enough for you. Danae is the one person you have in 3 years who got a copy of her vital records and she pestered them like crazy to get it.

    And yes I’m dismissing Miki Booths as the first time it was shown it was missing the date and stamp and the second time it had it… only it looked like 2001. And then yet another copy popped out and it looked like 2011. In addition she lied flat out about what was on the birth request form, saying there was a tickbox for longforms whem their hasn;t beed one for yeats. If that had been Obamas cert you would have been screaming fake.

    The first reason is that Abercrombie has made clear that he WANTS to release the records, and would do so…. except for the fact that Obama is the one who would have to waive his right to confidentiality, and Obama will not. So the idea that they are not available to Obama is, well, absurd.

    Of course they are available to Obama. Didn;’t you read the interview with Fukuno? he can go in and view them any time he wants. But the only copy he can get is the long form.

    And you lot haven’t managed to get a long form either. Nor did Terry Lakin. yes I noticed you dodged the mention of THAT guy.

    The second reason is that what the Department may have been doing (presumably because administratively it is much easier not to make the effort to copy the actual original document and to simply spit it out on the computer printer without the bureaucrat responding to the request needing to walk another 10 feet), the law passed by the legislature is what controls, not the rules adopted by the Department.

    Actually the files are stored electronically, and the physical copies are in a warehouse somewhere. Are you seriously suggesting they are storing the birth records of 1.3 million people in a filing cabinet in the office?

    Standard paper is about 0.1 mms thick. Assuming that each file is one piece of paper, then 1.36 million people would result in a pile 136 kilometers high. That’s 81 miles. You honestly think they are searching though that every time to get a photocopy?

    And here’s another joker that refuses to quote hawai’in law. Quote or shut up about it. Any law I’ve seen gives the department statutory authority to run the place via any regulations it wants. You don’t like it? Sue them.

    So, where’s the Birth cert Terry Lakin knew he could not get, and still was dumb enough to go to jail?

  114. avatar
    Suranis April 23, 2011 at 12:54 pm #

    Suranis: But the only copy he can get is the long form.

    Of course I meant short form here. :)

    I mean seriously. Who the hell had heard of “short forms” before June 15th 2008? Nobody. A birth cert was a birth cert.

    But then they were also saying “what makes America great is that anyone born here can become president” I guess it was too much to bear when “Anyone born in America” actually did.

  115. avatar
    nc1 April 23, 2011 at 1:18 pm #

    Suranis: No its a statement of intellectual honesty, that you can’t 100% trust images on the internet. I can’t 100% be sure Austria exists, I’ve never been there. Which is why factcheck went and examined the physical copy. And so did CNN recently. I didn’t see any birthers bothering their fat asses to go to Chicago and taking a look at the physical copy.

    And we know that the COLB image and the factcheck images are the same document because they have same printing artifacts. That would be near impossible to fake. Thanks Polarik for pointing that out.

    In any case THIS is a confirmation :- It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008, after we e-mailed her our copy.

    Okubo said a copy of the birth certificate was requested..”

    That’s a confirmation that a copy was requested before the image was released before the image went live and the image is OF A VALID Hawai’in BC

    2. I see, Okubo mentioning 2008 request was a typo.There is always a typo or an error when explaining unconvenient facts for Obama’s eligibility.

    I’ll just sit back and read over Orly Taitz pulling out yet another SSN and finding yet again the guy who had it was still alive when Obama was supposed to have stolen it from the death index, shall I?

    Says who? You? Show us where under UIPA law it would be, or shut up. You are the one making the accusation, its up to you to prove such a statement. So put up.

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

    LOL, in one sentence you say that it was not possible to use web posted image as a proof and in the next one you claim that Okubo confirmed that an image emailed to her represents a valid Hawaii certificate.

    In a follow up interview, two weeks after the first one, she said that she had no idea whether this was a legitimate document or not.

    This is one of the reasons why people asked for a very specific confirmation – the one that does not allow any wiggle room for speculation – whether a COLB was issued to Obama on June 6, 2007.

    As you have learned the DoH refuses to be specific and confirm the issuing of this document to Obama.

    Could you provide a link to the story that backs your claim that CNN had a chance to examine the physical copy of Obama’s birth certificate?

    There was two months delay between releases of Daily Kos and FactCheck COLB images. Obama’s campaign had plenty of time to improve the document.

    You did not understand what Polarik was saying, did you? There are some artifacts shown on the Daily Kos image that were result of the scanning process – those things do not exist on the original document. Therefore, when FactCheck took photos of the document, those artifacts should not have been visible. Their existence in FactCheck photos indicates that FactCheck document was prepared after the image was scanned and printed on the paper outside the DoH office.

  116. avatar
    G April 23, 2011 at 1:35 pm #

    Robert Clark: Good point. That mistake put out by Joshua Wisch spokesman for the Hawaii Atty. Gen. that it is illegal in Hawaii for someone to get a copy of their own original long form birth certificate is already propagating to different news sites. In reality the EXACT opposite is true: the Hawaii health department MUST provide those documents if the person their about requests them.
    It is unconscionable that this mistake is allowed to remain out in the public without being corrected by the Attorney General. This only serves to give further doubt among the public about whether or not high members in the Hawaiian government are being above board in dealing with this issue.
    Bob

    There is NO mistake in that quote. You simply don’t like that truth.

    Please stop your incessant lying and slandering.

    You have nothing that proves the AG’s statements to be anything but true.

  117. avatar
    Greg April 23, 2011 at 1:41 pm #

    Jes Beard: And the reason you will not is because that position is so clearly and flatly contrary to Hawaiian law as set out by the legislature.

    AG spokesman = can’t get it.
    DOH spokesman = can’t get it
    Random internet guy = can get it

    Random internet guy hasn’t sued the state.
    Random internet guy hasn’t cited the regulations.

    I’m sorry, but you could write a million words about how the law really agrees with you, Jes, but until you sue the state and win, you’re some random internet guy who is talking out of his rectum.

    The state says it cannot release the information. It acts, apparently, in accordance with that belief.

    Are you disbarred Tennessee lawyer Jes Beard, by the way?

  118. avatar
    G April 23, 2011 at 1:41 pm #

    Jes Beard: I probably should expand on that last post. The fact that CNN, and most news organizations get this issue so clearly wrong, and that Obama refuses to produce the records which he clearly can require be produced, is one of the reasons there are so many doubters, and one of the reasons so many of the doubters flatly dismiss much of the news reporting on the issue. Once you have concluded that a person or news organization is not just wrong, but that the person deliberately and knowingly continues to insist on the truth of that which they either know is false or which they clearly should now is false, and they further persist even when the falsity is pointed out to them (in other words once you know someone is lying and you have confronted them about it and they continue lying), it is hard to assign a great deal of credibility to them on other matters, particularly matters closely related to the matter on which you have pointed out the falsity.

    Which is why you birthers and your birther sites and fake stories have NO credibility.

    Sorry, I’ll take the actual officials repeated statements and the actual news organizations over you conspiracy nut fiction writers any day of the week.

    Real people make minor mistakes or omissions from time to time…but the overall bigger picture of their accounts and experience is where the credibility comes in. Overall, just about all official HI info and supporting statements by former & current officials as well as mainstream media coverage on these issues has been generally consistent.

    The only thing that doesn’t match up with this pattern is the fairly tale lies and misinterpretations by you irrational birthers.

    Simply put: You all have no credibility and no authority/expertise in the matter in the first place. All you do is talk out your *ss and your fanciful notions are wrong.

  119. avatar
    nc1 April 23, 2011 at 1:41 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Can you provide a source for this claim?

    Sharon Rondeau posted emails from DoH and Mark Niesse. If you don’t trust her – ask DoH to release you this information.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/28/hawaii-department-of-health-labels-the-post-email-a-vexatious-requester-2/

    Niesse’s article confirms that he contacted Rondeau:
    “No one here is requesting Obama’s birth certificate, since it is obvious that he doesn’t possess a valid one,” said one of the requesters, Sharon Rondeau, editor of The Post & Email website that publishes efforts to disprove disprove, Obama’s birth in the United States.”

    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/07/birthers-fade-after-passage-of-law-against-them/

  120. avatar
    The Magic M April 23, 2011 at 1:46 pm #

    > n one sentence you say that it was not possible to use web posted image as a proof and in the next one you claim that Okubo confirmed that an image emailed to her represents a valid Hawaii certificate

    Well she can confirm that simply because she knows Obama requested it and there cannot be anything “forged” if the web image looks the same as the COLB they issued and contains the same data. You are simply delusional if you think the Obama campaign would “forge” a COLB that contains exactly the same data as the original.

    > the one that does not allow any wiggle room for speculation – whether a COLB was issued to Obama on June 6, 2007.

    Of course that leaves plenty of wiggle room for you birthers. Because such a statement would not include the information whether the COLB issued contained the same data as the COLB published. See, you’re so easy to predict.

    > the DoH refuses to be specific and confirm the issuing of this document to Obam

    Only in the mindset of a looney idiot would the confirmation of the DoH that Obama was born in Hawaii and the fact that the DoH did not find anything worth criticizing about the image the Obama campaign published not be “confirming that the COLB is authentic”.

    Again, you are indirectly claiming that the Obama campaign would “forge” a COLB that was identical to the one issued to them. And that’s plain out of looney world.

    > Obama’s campaign had plenty of time to improve the document.

    And what “improvements” would that be, given the Daily Kos image and the FactCheck image shows the same data on the same document?

  121. avatar
    Suranis April 23, 2011 at 1:49 pm #

    nc1: =================================================================

    LOL, in one sentence you say that it was not possible to use web posted image as a proof and in the next one you claim that Okubo confirmed that an image emailed to her represents a valid Hawaii certificate.

    I don’t “claim” it. That’s what she said. In quotes. Black and white.

    In a follow up interview, two weeks after the first one, she said that she had no idea whether this was a legitimate document or not.

    No. She was asked is she sure that this was a legit document, and she said she was. Then she was asked was she 100% sure and she said who can be 100% sure about anything?

    That’s along LONG was away from saying she had no idea whether it was legit or not.

    Which means as far as she was concerned it was a legitimate document

    She is on the record as saying this is a valid Hawaiin birth certificate. Which means she is confirming what Governer Lingle, Gov, Albercombie, 2 Hawai’in Newspapers and Lolo Soerto said.

    This is one of the reasons why people asked for a very specific confirmation – the one that does not allow any wiggle room for speculation – whether a COLB was issued to Obama on June 6, 2007.

    Yep, you deliberately asked for information which is illegal to give you. Really intellectually honest there. They did however confirm it had been released prior to the Image being released, and a reasonable assumption is that June 2008 means June 2007.

    As you have learned the DoH refuses to be specific and confirm the issuing of this document to Obama.

    The confirmed it had been requested, and only a member of his family could have requested one. What more confirmation do you want?

    Could you provide a link to the story that backs your claim that CNN had a chance to examine the physical copy of Obama’s birth certificate?

    Sure!

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/cnn-birther-tutorial-video/

    Oh hang on, it’s this page! What a coincidence!

    I know you didn’t listen to the guy in the video above saying it, but then it would have been stressful because the guy is black.

    There was two months delay between releases of Daily Kos and FactCheck COLB images.Obama’s campaign had plenty of time to improve the document.

    Which explains why they look the same. Oh hang on…

    You did not understand what Polarik was saying, did you?There are some artifacts shown on the Daily Kos image that were result of the scanning process – those things do not exist on the original document. Therefore, when FactCheck took photos of the document, those artifacts should not have been visible.Their existence in FactCheck photos indicates that FactCheck document was prepared after the image was scanned and printed on the paper outside the DoH office.

    And that shows once again that Polarik has not a clue what he is talking about. Those were not scanner artifacts. They were printing artifacts, caused by the Printer building up spots of ink inside it and the translation of digital information to printer information (no they are not the same). It happens to every laser printer. The fact that the artifacts were in the same place proves that they were of the same document. If Obama’s office had printed off another copy themselves there would be different artifacts.

    Remember I had to explain shutter speed to you? Unlike Polarik, I actually used to work on this stuff.

    Whada moran.

  122. avatar
    G April 23, 2011 at 1:51 pm #

    nc1: You did not understand what Polarik was saying, did you? There are some artifacts shown on the Daily Kos image that were result of the scanning process – those things do not exist on the original document. Therefore, when FactCheck took photos of the document, those artifacts should not have been visible. Their existence in FactCheck photos indicates that FactCheck document was prepared after the image was scanned and printed on the paper outside the DoH office.

    Polarik has long been utterly discredited. You show yourself as a gullble fool if you use that faker and known liar as a source.

  123. avatar
    G April 23, 2011 at 1:56 pm #

    nc1: In a follow up interview, two weeks after the first one, she said that she had no idea whether this was a legitimate document or not.
    This is one of the reasons why people asked for a very specific confirmation – the one that does not allow any wiggle room for speculation – whether a COLB was issued to Obama on June 6, 2007.
    As you have learned the DoH refuses to be specific and confirm the issuing of this document to Obama.

    Ah typical birther in denial. For a long time, you complain that an official’s earlier statement doesn’t cover every nit-pick detail to satisfy you and then you close your eyes and plug your ears when that very same official comes back and provides further clarification in subsequent interviews, which address said nitpick.

    That you then refer back only to the older, less detailed conversations at this point in time shows your dishonesty and denial on the matter.

    Let’s look at Fukino’s most recent and most detailed statement on that 2007 COLB again, shall we?

    Her second point — one she made repeatedly in the interview — is that the shorter, computer generated “certification of live birth” that was obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007 and has since been publicly released is the standard document that anybody requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would receive from the health department.

    The document was distributed to the Obama campaign in 2007 after Obama, at the request of a campaign official, personally signed a Hawaii birth certificate request form downloaded on the Internet, according to a former campaign official who asked for anonymity. (Obama was “testy” when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said. The White House has dismissed all questions about the president’s birth as “fictional nonsense.”)

    The certification that the campaign received back —which shows that Obama was born in Honolulu at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961 — was based on the content of the original document in state files, Fukino said.

    “What he got, everybody got,” said Fukino. “He put out exactly what everybody gets when they ask for a birth certificate.”

    So please stop lying, NC1. The 2007 COLB has been confirmed by Fukino right there.

  124. avatar
    Scientist April 23, 2011 at 1:59 pm #

    Jes Beard: The second reason is that what the Department may have been doing (presumably because administratively it is much easier not to make the effort to copy the actual original document and to simply spit it out on the computer printer without the bureaucrat responding to the request needing to walk another 10 feet), the law passed by the legislature is what controls, not the rules adopted by the Department

    The law allows different modes of furnishing the information. Period.

    Jes Beard: As to the contention that the AG’s office determines what the law is by the public statements of its public relations person, that is a bit absurd. I do not believe you could find any opinion or pleading, memo or brief, filed by any attorney in the AG’s office taking the position voiced by the public relations flack. And the reason you will not is because that position is so clearly and flatly contrary to Hawaiian law as set out by the legislature

    It is now about 2 weeks since Mr Wisch made the statement. No one from the AG’s office, or the Governor’s office` has said differently. Nor has any Hawaiian legislator. If the executive branch is violating the expressed will of the Legislature, I would expect them to be raising a ruckus. The only one who have been complaining are you and Mr Clark. Mr Clark has never said he is a lawyer. Are you? Do you practice in Hawaii? I wiil go with the folks who do, until a court says you are right and they are wrong.

    Jes Beard: But, if you wish, my last response to you there has now been updated to include my email.

    I will treasure it. As I have told you I am not about to open myself to harrassment by a bunch of loons by posting my real name. Prove you are trustworthy and I might share it with you. So far, you are off to a poor start. You misquoted a statute, which I corrected and you said you didn’t have time to check. You mis-stated the publication date of a Vattel translation, as did I. I corrected myself, you didn’t correct yourself.

  125. avatar
    Suranis April 23, 2011 at 2:03 pm #

    nc1: Because we are not talking about person’s birth certificate but a different type of information – transaction with a government agency.

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    # Records pertaining to the Department of Health database for vital statistics information:

    “Records pertaining to the Department of Health database for vital statistics information are not required to be disclosed by the Uniform Information Practices Act because those records, by their very nature, must be confidential in order for the government to avoid the frustration of a legitimate government function (see HRS §92F-13(3)). Disclosing such information compromises the department’s ability to protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system as is required by HRS §338-18.”

    It appears that your request for a receipt IS protected under hawai’in law after all. Whadda surprise.

  126. avatar
    Jes Beard April 23, 2011 at 2:12 pm #

    Which is why you birthers and your birther sites and fake stories have NO credibility.

    G, I am not a “birther.” I have said repeatedly that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, because the logistics of any other birthplace are incredible, in the literal sense of the word.

    Sorry, I’ll take the actual officials repeated statements and the actual news organizations over you conspiracy nut fiction writers any day of the week.

    The only “official” I am aware of who has said that Hawaiian law does not allow release of original copies of the records even to the registrant is the public relations flack with the Attorney General’s Office, though I guess you could regard him as an “official” if it suits your agenda. And I agree that news organizations have repeatedly reported that Hawaiian law will not allow the release of the records. Now, will you look at the two relevant statutes, 338-13 and 338-18, and direct me to any language of the actual law consistent with those reports. The reality is that the clear statutory language, which you can find at http://jesbeard.com/?p=33 is entirely at odds with the news reports. Now, if you can see for yourself what the law is, and the news reports say the opposite, I take it that you prefer to believe the news reports.

    Real people make minor mistakes or omissions from time to time…but the overall bigger picture of their accounts and experience is where the credibility comes in. Overall, just about all official HI info and supporting statements by former & current officials as well as mainstream media coverage on these issues has been generally consistent.

    True enough that the reports have been consistent that the records can not be released to anyone. Now, look at the law. It is not hard to understand.

    The only thing that doesn’t match up with this pattern is the fairly tale lies and misinterpretations by you irrational birthers.

    Attacking someone as a “birther,” when they clearly are not, might be a good example of “irrational.”

    Simply put: You all have no credibility and no authority/expertise in the matter in the first place. All you do is talk out your *ss and your fanciful notions are wrong.

    And attacking someone’s credibility, based on your faulty assumption as to their position on an issue, and without any idea what their expertise might be, is a pretty good way to damage your own credibility.

    You essentially contend that “birthers” are not to be believed on anything, not even enough to bother to look at the statute which resolves the immediate issue, because they are “birthers” and agenda driven and have a bias against anything Obama…. and in launching that attack against me, in your zeal to defend anything Obama, you show your own agenda driven bias, which doesn’t do much for your own credibility.

  127. avatar
    Scientist April 23, 2011 at 2:22 pm #

    Jes Beard: The only “official” I am aware of who has said that Hawaiian law does not allow release of original copies of the records even to the registrant is the public relations flack with the Attorney General’s Office, though I guess you could regard him as an “official” if it suits your agenda. And I agree that news organizations have repeatedly reported that Hawaiian law will not allow the release of the records. Now, will you look at the two relevant statutes, 338-13 and 338-18, and direct me to any language of the actual law consistent with those reports. The reality is that the clear statutory language, which you can find at http://jesbeard.com/?p=33 is entirely at odds with the news reports. Now, if you can see for yourself what the law is, and the news reports say the opposite, I take it that you prefer to believe the news reports.

    Once again, you can read the statutes as you wish. I read them as giving DOH discretion as to what form to release the information in. You claim they are violating Hawaiian statute, yet the Hawaiiian legislators who wrote that statute haven’t said a word.

    I don’t believe or accept your interpretation of the law. Period. Nor do I feel you have the credentials that would compel me to accept your interpretation as definitive. You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is, your opinion. Take it to court; that’s where differnt interpretattions of the law get resolved. If you do annd win, then you have something. Until then, you have nothing.

  128. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 23, 2011 at 2:29 pm #

    Jes Beard:
    I probably should expand on that last post.The fact that CNN, and most news organizations get this issue so clearly wrong,

    Of course you have no EVIDENCE to back this accusation up – you’ve just decided that anything that doesn’t conform to your bias is true.

    and that Obama refuses to produce the records which he clearly can require be produced,

    No, he can clearly go have a look at them himself and he can clearly request a certified copy of the COLB – nothing more (by which I mean, ‘nothing more is clearly true’).

    is one of the reasons there are so many doubters, and one of the reasons so many of the doubters flatly dismiss much of the news reporting on the issue.

    Which has to do with doubters confirmation biases being challenged rather than the accuracy (or lack thereof) of news organizations.

    Once you have concluded that a person or news organization is not just wrong, but that the person deliberately and knowingly continues to insist on the truth of that which they either know is false or which they clearly should now is false, and they further persist even when the falsity is pointed out to them (in other words once you know someone is lying and you have confronted them about it and they continue lying), it is hard to assign a great deal of credibility to them on other matters, particularly matters closely related to the matter on which you have pointed out the falsity.

    So if, for instance, someone had said President Obama had been born in Kenya, needed two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen, said the COLB was a forgery based on naive and faulty analyses, hasn’t released a birth certificate, is less transparent than his predecessors, had been adopted by his step-father, had obtained Indonesian citizenship (and had thereby lost his US citizenship), had renounce US citizenship as a child, was born in Kenya, didn’t attend Columbia, wasn’t remembered by people in his early life, traveled to Pakistan during a travel ban, traveled to Pakistan with a foreign passport, and is part of a vast conspiracy which includes (but is not limited to) Hillary Clinton, John McCain, the 111th Congress, the Democratic party, the Republican party, the entire SCOTUS, every judge who has heard a birther case, every Constitutional scholar, every military officer (except for the coward convicted felon Lakin), the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and so on… If someone had said all of those things which the evidence strongly suggests are wrong (if it doesn’t prove that they are wrong outright…) then you would say that it would be hard to assign them a great deal of credibility on the eligibility issue – if that’s true, then why are you a birther?

  129. avatar
    Suranis April 23, 2011 at 2:32 pm #

    Jes Beard: Now, will you look at the two relevant statutes, 338-13 and 338-18, and direct me to any language of the actual law consistent with those reports. The reality is that the clear statutory language, which you can find at http://jesbeard.com/?p=33 is entirely at odds with the news reports. Now, if you can see for yourself what the law is, and the news reports say the opposite, I take it that you prefer to believe the news reports.

    Sigh, ok lets do that

    338-13

    §338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

    (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

    (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.”

    Gee, nothing about having to release a long form in that. I guess you mean

    the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, OR the contents of any certificate, OR any part thereof.”

    Se the OR part. That means one OR the other.

    Ok lets look at §338-18

    <blockquote?Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

    (b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:

    {Snips long list}

    c) The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made.

    (d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.

    (e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.

    (f) Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies. Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct.

    (g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:

    (1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;

    (2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities;

    (3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;

    (4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or

    (5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]"

    Hey look. There’s nothing in that that says they have to make a long form available to the person on request either.

    I suppose you could mean “(9) 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;”

    So yeah if you have a court order you might be able to view the record, or get a certified copy. Good luck with that. Andy Martin tried that and failed.

    I’m really tired of these idiots. Plain language my ass.

  130. avatar
    Jes Beard April 23, 2011 at 2:36 pm #

    I read them as giving DOH discretion as to what form to release the information in.

    Please point me to the language allowing that discretion. The language clearly gives NO discretion.

    The language states: the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof. HRS 338-13(a)

    The only way the Department has discretion is if it is the Department which is to determine what “part thereof” shall be copied instead of the requesting party, and if the Department could decide what “part thereof,” then the Department to provide a copy of no more than a page number or a blank area of the page. Such an interpretation is nonsensical. It clearly means the requesting party gets to decide what they want copied.

  131. avatar
    Jes Beard April 23, 2011 at 2:46 pm #

    Suranis, Martin was not able to state an interest allowing him access to the records. Contending that his case indicates that the registrant, in this case Obama, could not get the records, is a bit absurd.

    Slartibartfast, it appears that you are arguing I am a “birther,” despite the fact that I have even here posted my belief that Obama was born in Hawaii. Perhaps that means Obama himself is a “birther.”

  132. avatar
    Scientist April 23, 2011 at 2:48 pm #

    Jes Beard: The language states: the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof. HRS 338-13(a)

    The COLB is a certifiied copy.

    Jes Beard: The only way the Department has discretion is if it is the Department which is to determine what “part thereof” shall be copied instead of the requesting party

    Bingo! I can see my records, but I can’t obligate the state to produce an official document containing only the items I want.

    Jes Beard: It clearly means the requesting party gets to decide what they want copied.

    Not to me and not to others here. Nor has the Hawaii Legislature that wrote the law seen fit to disagree, at least not publically.

    So we have 2 different interpretations. Why should I believe yours? Are you a licensed attorney? Do you practice in this area of law? Mr Wisch isn’t an attorney, but he came out as an official spokesperson for the Attorney General who hasn’t contradicted him.

    If you are so convinced of yours, then go to court. That how 2 different interpretations of the law get sorted out.

  133. avatar
    Suranis April 23, 2011 at 2:58 pm #

    Jes Beard: Suranis, Martin was not able to state an interest allowing him access to the records. Contending that his case indicates that the registrant, in this case Obama, could not get the records, is a bit absurd.

    Great, then you will be able to point me to the court ruling or order as required by

    “(9) 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;”

    Oh, there isn’t a court order? Too bad, then he can’t get one.

    Besides the certified copy could be argued as being under 338-13 which states

    “a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.”

    You know, the bit out of by previous reply that you deliberately ignored, which kind of blows your whole argument.

    [FIFY. Doc.]

  134. avatar
    Suranis April 23, 2011 at 2:59 pm #

    dangit I should have asked someone how to bold stuff. :)

  135. avatar
    Jes Beard April 23, 2011 at 3:19 pm #

    and

    Eliminate the spaces and you will set in bold what is in the middle

  136. avatar
    Jes Beard April 23, 2011 at 3:21 pm #

    Welllll…. looks as if it does it even if the spaces are not eliminated.

    and

    How about eliminate the periods?

  137. avatar
    Jes Beard April 23, 2011 at 3:22 pm #

    Boy. It really doesn’t like the carrot symbols right about the comma and period.

    Sorry, Suranis.

  138. avatar
    Jes Beard April 23, 2011 at 3:24 pm #

    Suranis, regarding Martin, I never contended he had a right to see the records. He clearly did not. THAT is why he is not an example to use to illustrate your contention that the registrant himself can not require the state to produce the records.

  139. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 23, 2011 at 4:07 pm #

    Jes Beard:
    Suranis, Martin was not able to state an interest allowing him access to the records.Contending that his case indicates that the registrant, in this case Obama, could not get the records, is a bit absurd.

    Slartibartfast, it appears that you are arguing I am a “birther,” despite the fact that I have even here posted my belief that Obama was born in Hawaii.Perhaps that means Obama himself is a “birther.”

    Personally, the definition of the term ‘birther’ that I (and, I believe, most people at this site…) use is someone who questions President Obama’s eligibility. I concede that you are hewing to rationality on one of the two main ‘birther’ memes, but just like you can’t be a little bit pregnant, the assertion that, ‘I’m not a whackjob because I only believe one of these two whackjob ideas’ is clearly fallacious. Past this point, we’re purely arguing semantics, but to me (and, I suspect, most people here) you will be considered a birther unless you admit President Obama is eligible for office.

  140. avatar
    nc1 April 23, 2011 at 4:12 pm #

    G: Ah typical birther in denial.For a long time, you complain that an official’s earlier statement doesn’t cover every nit-pick detail to satisfy you and then you close your eyes and plug your ears when that very same official comes back and provides further clarification in subsequent interviews, which address said nitpick.

    That you then refer back only to the older, less detailed conversations at this point in time shows your dishonesty and denial on the matter.

    Let’s look at Fukino’s most recent and most detailed statement on that 2007 COLB again, shall we?

    Her second point — one she made repeatedly in the interview — is that the shorter, computer generated “certification of live birth” that was obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007 and has since been publicly released is the standard document that anybody requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would receive from the health department.

    The document was distributed to the Obama campaign in 2007 after Obama, at the request of a campaign official, personally signed a Hawaii birth certificate request form downloaded on the Internet, according to a former campaign official who asked for anonymity. (Obama was “testy” when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said. The White House has dismissed all questions about the president’s birth as “fictional nonsense.”)

    So please stop lying, NC1.The 2007 COLB has been confirmed by Fukino right there.

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

    The NBC story mentioning an anonimous campaign official said that Obama was testy about signing a request and it also claims that campaign wanted to put an issue to rest.

    I have to dissapoint you – there was no controversy about Obama’s name or birthplace in June 2007. It is obvious that, if any request was made, it was done in 2008 not 2007.

    If Fukino confirmed that COLB shown online has been issued by DoH, as you claim, why would Hawaii DoH refuse to do so when the official request was made for such a confirmation?

  141. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 23, 2011 at 4:14 pm #

    Suranis:
    dangit I should have asked someone how to bold stuff.

    Replace ‘{‘ and ‘}’ with ‘lesser than’ and ‘greater than’. The descriptions are encased in real commands that are encased in fake commands.

    {b} bold {/b}

    {i} italics {/i}

    {blockquote}

    blockquote

    {/blockquote}

    {strong}strong{/strong}

  142. avatar
    Suranis April 23, 2011 at 4:16 pm #

    Jes Beard:
    Suranis, regarding Martin, I never contended he had a right to see the records.He clearly did not.THAT is why he is not an example to use to illustrate your contention that the registrant himself can not require the state to produce the records.

    Fair enough.

  143. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 23, 2011 at 4:26 pm #

    nc1: ================================================================

    The NBC story mentioning an anonimous campaign official said that Obama was testy about signing a request and it also claims that campaign wanted to put an issue to rest.

    I have to dissapoint you – there was no controversy about Obama’s name or birthplace in June 2007.It is obvious that, if any request was made, it was done in 2008 not 2007.

    So someone conflated two events or made a minor error of fact. So what? The birthers willingness to damage the Republican party over this family of non-issues is hilarious, by the way…

    If Fukino confirmed that COLB shown online has been issued by DoH, as you claim, why would Hawaii DoH refuse to do so when the official request was made for such a confirmation?

    At this point, I look at everything regarding the DOH in the context of the ‘vexatious requester law’. Repeated birther bad faith is reason enough to discount any birther interpretation of DoH statements or testimony (the birthers once again are hoist on their own petard – they have made it impossible for themselves to believe the plain meaning of the DoH which causes them to act based on faulty premises – it’s pretty funny, really…). Plus the fact that your ravings on this matter (and pretty much every other birther issue as well) are exactly the kind of thing that I think will help to re-elect President Obama…

  144. avatar
    nc1 April 23, 2011 at 4:27 pm #

    Suranis:
    dangit I should have asked someone how to bold stuff.

    Enter tags for highlighting text: (b) before and after the text you want to highlight ( /b )

    I could not use the proper brackets because the syntax would not be visible in the message. In the above example replace
    ( with “less than”
    and replace
    ) with “greater than” symbol.

    If you want to make the text Italic replace letter b with leter i in the above example .

  145. avatar
    nc1 April 23, 2011 at 4:49 pm #

    Slartibartfast:So someone conflated two events or made a minor error of fact. So what? The birthers willingness to damage the Republican party over this family of non-issues is hilarious, by the way

    It is not a minor error – it discredits the claim that Obama campaign made a request for COLB in June 2007.

    I am not a GOP member.

  146. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 23, 2011 at 4:56 pm #

    nc1: It is not a minor error – it discredits the claim that Obama campaign made a request for COLB in June 2007.

    I am not a GOP member.

    All I care about is that you are helping them to lose (which is in the best interests of ALL Americans…). Keep up the good work!

  147. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 23, 2011 at 5:02 pm #

    nc1: It is not a minor error – it discredits the claim that Obama campaign made a request for COLB in June 2007.

    The birthers have no credibility to make accusations of any sort – go read ‘The Boy Who Cried “Wolf!”‘ In particular, you’re trying to use nitpicking of reported facts to impeach official statements – something that no rational person would attempt.

  148. avatar
    Jes Beard April 23, 2011 at 5:05 pm #

    Personally, the definition of the term birther’ that I (and, I believe, most people at this site…) use is someone who questions President Obama’s eligibility. I concede that you are hewing to rationality on one of the two main birther’ memes, but just like you can’t be a little bit pregnant, the assertion that, I’m not a whackjob because I only believe one of these two whackjob ideas’ is clearly fallacious. Past this point, we’re purely arguing semantics, but to me (and, I suspect, most people here) you will be considered a birther unless you admit President Obama is eligible for office.

    Talk about blind partisanship…. Slartibartfast, can you point to any post of mine where I said Obama is not eligible to hold office? Can you point to any post where I wrote anything suggesting that he is not legally holding the office?

    Your partisanship, or simple worship of Obama, is so absolute you are not able to think straight on any issue involving him.

  149. avatar
    G April 23, 2011 at 5:21 pm #

    Jes Beard: G, I am not a “birther.” I have said repeatedly that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, because the logistics of any other birthplace are incredible, in the literal sense of the word.
    etc.
    etc.
    etc.

    Jes, I read all of your replies and am only listing the beginning part for sake of keeping this short.

    In summary, Scientist’s response pretty much covers everything I was going to say, so I’ll restate his post as my full response to this post of yours and highlight some key points:

    Scientist: Once again, you can read the statutes as you wish.

    I read them as giving DOH discretion as to what form to release the information in.

    You claim they are violating Hawaiian statute, yet the Hawaiiian legislators who wrote that statute haven’t said a word.

    I don’t believe or accept your interpretation of the law. Period. Nor do I feel you have the credentials that would compel me to accept your interpretation as definitive. You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is, your opinion. Take it to court; that’s where differnt interpretations of the law get resolved. If you do and win, then you have something. Until then, you have nothing.

    That pretty much covers most of it. There were a few other brief points you made that fall outside of that, which I’ll address:

    Jes Beard: The only “official” I am aware of who has said that Hawaiian law does not allow release of original copies of the records even to the registrant is the public relations flack with the Attorney General’s Office, though I guess you could regard him as an “official” if it suits your agenda.

    Um…sorry, the guy works for the AG office. He *IS* able to answer such questions in his official capacity AND is in the proper job in the proper place to be considered viably knowledgeable and credible on such matters. You sir…eh…not so much. I have yet to see any credentials from you to show where your opinion is worth anything on this matter and has any relevancy to compare to his.

    There is no “agenda” here. He under any simple, factual definition of the word is an official of the state of HI. That is his job. *duh*. So, yeah… I’ll consider him an official because HE IS!

    You seem to talk like someone who tries to live in some weird faith-based perception of the world around them, where the “agenda” in your own mind can make some mystical pretend alternate realities exist. Sorry…doesn’t work that way. You are just playing pretend.

    I’m simply dealing with actual reality.

    Finally, on the point of calling you a “birther” – I painted you into that generalization based on not only your posts here but YES – also going to your site article you linked at and reading both your thread and your comments.

    Why do I still view you in the “birther” camp…even though you’re fairy rational in your statements over there… because of a few of the things you seem to cling to – the perception that “Fact Check.org” is somehow biased and connected to Obama, repeating some false assumptions about de Vattel…which are arguments that have only been made on birther sites since 2008…and the mere meme of “why doesn’t he just release the original long form”…which is just birther-lite concern trolling in my mind.

    Here, from one of your own more recent response comments on the issue…a fairly succinct synopsis of what seems to be driving you:

    My own belief is that there is a long form, has always been a long form, and that the Obama camp is playing the issue for political advantage, with the full expectation and plan to release everything at some point and to persuade the vast middle of the nation that those raising doubts were racists all the time. As to the “documented evidence the Hawaiian Health Department has conspired with” anyone, where is that proof? I certainly did not present any. Incompetence, bias in favor of Obama because he is from Hawaii, and ignorance explain everything the Department has done.

    So that is the reason why I initially just labelled you as a “birther”…really of a type that lately we’ve just been calling “birther-lite”.

    In fairness and in reassessing the matter, I’m willing to back off of calling you a birther and reconsider my “snap assessment” of you as “birther-lite” for the moment. I’ll be kind and just call you a suspicious skeptic with a few “birther sympathies”…for now.

    Obviously, I’m skeptical of what is driving your concerns on these matters and why you have such a focus on caring about a “long form” or thinking it matters at all. I’m critical of your insistence that the “long form” can be released, because IMHO, you are interpreting the statutes in a way that you wish to see and not in terms of what is actually there and completely discounting what every HI official seems to say on the matter…which seems to indicate irrational bias and suspicion on your part.

    That’s my perpsective of both these issues and you.

  150. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 23, 2011 at 5:29 pm #

    Jes Beard:
    Personally, the definition of the term birther’ that I (and, I believe, most people at this site…) use is someone who questions President Obama’s eligibility. I concede that you are hewing to rationality on one of the two main birther’ memes, but just like you can’t be a little bit pregnant, the assertion that, I’m not a whackjob because I only believe one of these two whackjob ideas’ is clearly fallacious. Past this point, we’re purely arguing semantics, but to me (and, I suspect, most people here) you will be considered a birther unless you admit President Obama is eligible for office.

    Talk about blind partisanship….Slartibartfast, can you point to any post of mine where I said Obama is not eligible to hold office?Can you point to any post where I wrote anything suggesting that he is not legally holding the office?

    Your partisanship, or simple worship of Obama, is so absolute you are not able to think straight on any issue involving him.

    So, Mr Beard, where is the problem? Do we need to infer from this comment that you don’t believe in Vattel? You do know that we established here that Vattel never said that a natural born citizen needs both parents to have been citizens at the time (s)he was born, right?

  151. avatar
    G April 23, 2011 at 5:35 pm #

    Jes Beard: The language states: the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof. HRS 338-13(a)

    And they have told you what they consider to be their ONLY current format for CERTIFIED COPY – THE COLB. All of the info from the COLB gets its data from the original source data.

    When you get to the “or” parts of that clause which happen PAST the point of where they use the word CERTIFIED, I can see where some might interpret that to allows for exceptions to release a non-certified “photo copy” of more detailed at their discretion, such as the Danae example. However, making such exceptions might be an individual’s interpretation and actions and not in line with departmental standards and regulations on how to enforce their policies.

    This is generally consistent with Wisch’s statments on the matter:

    Trump and other skeptics have questioned why the original birth certificate has not been released.

    But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.

    “It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

    But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated “certification of live birth” form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.

  152. avatar
    G April 23, 2011 at 5:45 pm #

    nc1: The NBC story mentioning an anonimous campaign official said that Obama was testy about signing a request and it also claims that campaign wanted to put an issue to rest.
    I have to dissapoint you – there was no controversy about Obama’s name or birthplace in June 2007. It is obvious that, if any request was made, it was done in 2008 not 2007.
    If Fukino confirmed that COLB shown online has been issued by DoH, as you claim, why would Hawaii DoH refuse to do so when the official request was made for such a confirmation?

    Blah, blah, blah… back to this broken record LIE again?

    Again, we’ve already covered that with you in extensive detail. So, either you are a disingenous liar or you have some sort of brain damage and keep repeating the same nonsense over again, because your memory fails to retain info. Which is it?

    Obama started his campaign in early 2007. It makes perfect sense that someone on his campaign would want to obtain copies of official documents at that time that they MIGHT need for filing as part of the process. Debunking rumors and conspiracies doesn’t even have to factor into the equation.

    The “testy” comment by some unsourced staffer is an opinion that we have NO idea what it meant. There is NO connection made to conspiracies or giving reasons why – you are doing that all on your own and seeing stuff that isn’t there. He could merely be “testy” for not wanting to bother filing out paperwork. We simply don’t know and it is simply UTTERLY IRRELEVANT AND MEANINGLESS as a point.

    You seem to have a lot of trouble with distinguishing between the request of the COLB in 2007 to when his campaign decided to publish it on the internet a year later. Same document – two completely UNRELATED events

    You are a complete idiot.

  153. avatar
    G April 23, 2011 at 5:47 pm #

    nc1: The NBC story mentioning an anonimous campaign official said that Obama was testy about signing a request and it also claims that campaign wanted to put an issue to rest.
    I have to dissapoint you – there was no controversy about Obama’s name or birthplace in June 2007. It is obvious that, if any request was made, it was done in 2008 not 2007.
    If Fukino confirmed that COLB shown online has been issued by DoH, as you claim, why would Hawaii DoH refuse to do so when the official request was made for such a confirmation?

    Blah, blah, blah… back to this broken record LIE again?

    Again, we’ve already covered that with you in extensive detail. So, either you are a disingenous liar or you have some sort of brain damage and keep repeating the same nonsense over again, because your memory fails to retain info. Which is it?

    Obama started his campaign in early 2007. It makes perfect sense that someone on his campaign would want to obtain copies of official documents at that time that they MIGHT need for filing as part of the process. Debunking rumors and conspiracies doesn’t even have to factor into the equation.

    The “testy” comment by some unsourced staffer is an opinion that we have NO idea what it meant. There is NO connection made to conspiracies or giving reasons why – you are doing that all on your own and seeing stuff that isn’t there. He could merely be “testy” for not wanting to bother filing out paperwork. We simply don’t know and it is simply UTTERLY IRRELEVANT AND MEANINGLESS as a point.

    You seem to have a lot of trouble with distinguishing between the request of the COLB in 2007 to when his campaign decided to publish it on the internet a year later.

    Same document – two completely UNRELATED events.

  154. avatar
    G April 23, 2011 at 5:51 pm #

    nc1: Enter tags for highlighting text: (b) before and after the text you want to highlight ( /b )I could not use the proper brackets because the syntax would not be visible in the message. In the above example replace( with “less than”and replace) with “greater than” symbol.If you want to make the text Italic replace letter b with leter i in the above example .

    Actually, I find that using the “greater than” and “less than” symbols work best(on most keyboards found as the shift option over the , and .)

    Try those with the same interior symbol use for bolding, italics and block quoting.

    If there are more formatting options available than this (underline doesn’t work) on this site, it would be nice for Doc to let us know the full set of options available – including full “smiley set” … I’m only aware of how to make :) and ;) appear on this site…

  155. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 23, 2011 at 6:11 pm #

    G: it would be nice for Doc to let us know the full set of options available – including full “smiley set” … I’m only aware of how to make and appear on this site

    Yes, because it would be so nice if Doc could figure out ways to make the site run slower.

    The smiley’s are image. Small ones, but images nonetheless. It doesn’t use extra bandwidth for a server to show multiple views of the same image, because it only takes one file to display that, and that file will only be downloaded once the user’s computer & browser. But lots of smiley’s mean lots of images — so lots of downloads. 10 different smiley’s on a page would require at least 11 connections for the page to be downloaded — since you also need a connection for the html on the page.

  156. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 23, 2011 at 6:13 pm #

    Jes Beard: Talk about blind partisanship….

    Blind partisanship? I was giving you my definition of the term ‘birther’ and explaining how I believe most people on this site apply the term – I like to formally and explicitly do things like this because of my training in mathematics (I have a PhD). On this site the definition of ‘birther’ that I use is the norm (if a tad pejorative) – in order to have a discussion we must agree on the definitions of the terms we use – what objection do you have to using the consensus definition when you post on this site?

    Slartibartfast, can you point to any post of mine where I said Obama is not eligible to hold office? Can you point to any post where I wrote anything suggesting that he is not legally holding the office?

    No, but here those who post in opposition are assumed birthers until proven otherwise (a VERY large data set supports this assumption as incredibly accurate) – I took a look at your blog, and it seems that you think birtherism is counter-productive in any case (I saw no indication that you believe that President Obama is eligible to be POTUS – perhaps you would settle the matter by telling us what you believe regarding the president’s eligibility yourself…).

    Your partisanship,

    I’m not a Democrat, I’m a liberal – I would have no problem voting for a Republican if they spoke out against the wackjobs that have come to dominate Republican politics and were willing to work with the Democrats on solutions that could be shown to be empirically effective – and had positions that I believed would be in the best interests of the country (which, admittedly, is unlikely – at least anytime soon…). I’ve not assumed anything about you based on partisan reasons (I’ve made assumptions based on empirical evidence and [as I did above] I’ll freely admit it when and if they appear to be incorrect. After reading your blog, I think you’ve got a boatload of issues, but I’m not sure whether or not you are a birther (I suspect you may be some kind of ‘birther heretic – someone who was once a birther but has now seen a ‘better way’ to go about removing the evil usurper…)

    or simple worship of Obama,

    Far from worshiping President Obama I’m disappointed in him for a variety of reasons (Libya, civil liberties, Bradley Manning’s torture, not fighting for a public option in health care, giving too much to Republicans in negotiations to name a few…), I stand four-square against the unAmerican values endorsed by the teabaggers in the interests of the corporatists (like the Koch brothers and Dick Armey) who co-opted the movement at the beginning – the Republicans (by completely selling out to the corporate interests that fund their campaigns [the Democrats have only significantly or mostly sold out to corporate interests, in my opinion]) have necessitated that anyone with views at all to the left of center support the Democrats by kowtowing to the fear-mongering, hate-mongering lunatic fringe wignuts who’s ideas of how to save this country would ensure its destruction (or at least another great depression).

    is so absolute you are not able to think straight on any issue involving him.

    You complained about me making (entirely reasonable) assumptions about you (which I have now corrected and will correct further if evidence warrants) and then went on to make (unsupported and inaccurate) assumptions about me… – what a guy! I think you will find (assuming that you are rational enough to do so) that my thinking regarding President Obama, while very different from yours, is entirely rational (based on the information I have available) and I will thank you to stop putting words in my mouth.

  157. avatar
    G April 23, 2011 at 6:20 pm #

    Expelliarmus: Yes, because it would be so nice if Doc could figure out ways to make the site run slower.The smiley’s are image. Small ones, but images nonetheless. It doesn’t use extra bandwidth for a server to show multiple views of the same image, because it only takes one file to display that, and that file will only be downloaded once the user’s computer & browser. But lots of smiley’s mean lots of images — so lots of downloads. 10 different smiley’s on a page would require at least 11 connections for the page to be downloaded — since you also need a connection for the html on the page.

    I didn’t realize that. I’ll probably try to avoid using smileys except in rare instances now.

    I still wish we knew the full set of formatting options available on here. Is there more than just bold, italics and blockquote?

  158. avatar
    Jes Beard April 23, 2011 at 6:22 pm #

    The partisanship (and I refer to the pro-Obama camp and the anti-Obama camp here, not formally Democrats or Republicans) on this issue is truly amazing.

    I am posting here about the same things I have on the freerepublic,com site, where my posting privileges have been revoked because I am obviously an Obama plant, and posters here are convinced I am a birther.

    I must be taking a reasonable position when both extremes are accusing me of being in the other camp, and doing so for the same position.

  159. avatar
    Rickey April 23, 2011 at 6:39 pm #

    nc1: It is not a minor error – it discredits the claim that Obama campaign made a request for COLB in June 2007.

    It’s more likely that the anonymous staffer doesn’t really remember why the COLB was requested in 2007 and now assumes that it was done to counter birther lies.

    My personal theory is that the Obama campaign was preparing to counter any and all smears which might come down the road. While the claims that Obama was not born in the United States did not surface until 2008, as far back as 2006 right-wingers were claiming that he was a Muslim and that he was educated as a madrassa in Indonesia.

    http://www.debbieschlussel.com/2750/barack-hussein-obama-once-a-muslim-always-a-muslim/

    http://articles.cnn.com/2007-01-22/politics/obama.madrassa_1_islamic-school-madrassa-muslim-school?_s=PM:POLITICS

  160. avatar
    G April 23, 2011 at 6:43 pm #

    Jes Beard: I must be taking a reasonable position when both extremes are accusing me of being in the other camp, and doing so for the same position.

    Sorry, but making that conclusion is a misapplication of logical conditioning. I’ll assume you are being facetious in your statement.

    You have yet to explain why you care so much about the “long form” issue – something smells fishy there. I stipulate that your position has no rational basis for inquiry – there is nothing on a “long form” that would differ from relevant fields already revealed on the COLB.

    There is simply NO real purpose, value or need to see that document for Obama, nor could it say anything different than the COLB in terms of the only aspects of NBC eligibility that matter (place of birth & confirmation that he is older than 35 years)… except by those trying to manufacture doubts and push false memes for some dubious agenda and purpose.

    You attack others for bias yet try to hide and deny the biases behind your motivations and reasoning. We have every reason to be skeptical of you and your claims.

  161. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 23, 2011 at 6:46 pm #

    Jes Beard:
    The partisanship (and I refer to the pro-Obama camp and the anti-Obama camp here, not formally Democrats or Republicans) on this issue is truly amazing.

    Your referring to the ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ Obama camps (as if everyone must choose one side or the other and then be for or against anything the president does or says…) is, in my opinion, indicative of someone with Obama Derangement Syndrome. Explain to me the president’s good points (and please do so while referring to our country’s legitimate chief executive – President Obama – with the respect due the office [which was due even when President Bush occupied the Oval Office...]) and I will reconsider my opinion that you view everything through the lens of your bias against President Obama, but if you ignore this I (and, likely, everyone else) will assume that even if you aren’t a birther, you’re still looking at the president from a birther’s point of view.

    I am posting here about the same things I have on the freerepublic,com site, where my posting privileges have been revoked because I am obviously an Obama plant, and posters here are convinced I am a birther.

    I must be taking a reasonable position when both extremes are accusing me of being in the other camp, and doing so for the same position.

    We’re not convinced you are a birther (at least I’m not) – I’m accepting what you’ve said at face value while maintaining my skepticism (kind of like ‘trust but verify’). I’ve already made one invitation for you to explain your position more clearly, but let me do so again – if you feel that we are misrepresenting you, then please present your correct positions so that we understand how we are mistaken. Personally, I’d like you to clarify how you reconcile this entry on your blog:

    http://jesbeard.com/?p=86

    with the concern over abstruse, trivial points of bureaucratic minutia regarding the President’s birth records that you’ve displayed here…

  162. avatar
    Scientist April 23, 2011 at 7:27 pm #

    Mr Beard: i think you are quite wrong on your interpretation of Hawaiian law. But let’s pretend you’re right. As a practical matter, so what? The documents are in the possession of Hawaii. If they won’t release them, then someone who wants them would have to either argue, beg, pressure or, if those fail, sue. That would apply to you or me or even the President.

    But you say, in the President’s case, he can just call his friend Abercrombie and get them. Maybe yes, maybe no.. Either way, I see a big problem with that. Unless the birthers are the rankest of hypocrites and flat-out rascists (some are, but I will try to be fair), then they must demand a “long form” (whatever that is) from every single candidate in 2012 and every subsequent election. And Hawaii is not the only state whose normal practise is to release only computer-generated b.c.s. That is the case with quite a number, perhaps most. So we can imagine situations where a candidate was born in a state (where he may not have lived for decades) whose governor wishes to thwart his run for President and says No.

    This whole thing seems to me to have the potential to create a legal and political morass. The US managed for 220 years wiithout having candidates show any birth documents at all (for about 100 years there were none anyway). I’m willing to allow states to ask for a birth certificate. But it should be whatever normal everyday birth certificate you or I would get had we been born in that state. No super-duper special-favors-for-friends, none-for-enemies papers.

  163. avatar
    Scientist April 23, 2011 at 7:33 pm #

    Jes Beard: I am posting here about the same things I have on the freerepublic,com site, where my posting privileges have been revoked because I am obviously an Obama plant, and posters here are convinced I am a birther

    i will note, that you have not been banned here, as i was on your site, nor will you be banned. And don’t give me “hijacked the thread”. You mentioned Vattel first, not me and I could not allow your mis-representations to go uncorrected.

  164. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 23, 2011 at 7:35 pm #

    G: I didn’t realize that.I’ll probably try to avoid using smileys except in rare instances now.

    I still wish we knew the full set of formatting options available on here.Is there more than just bold, italics and blockquote?

    I wouldn’t worry about emoticons ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

    It’s your computer that is loading them (not doc’s server), so you don’t need to worry about slowing down the site (like the comment ratings [which required a database of comments] or gravatars did… [from calculating the gravatar addresses, I guess, since they are also loaded by your computer from gravatar directly]).

  165. avatar
    Rickey April 23, 2011 at 7:58 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Personally, I’d like you to clarify how you reconcile this entry on your blog:

    Jes Beard may not be a birther, but his blog makes it clear that he is anti-Obama (which certainly is his right).

    However, his main complaint seems to be that the birthers represent Obama’s best chance of being re-elected and that he will be defeated in 2012 if the NBC “controversy” dies down.

    If Beard is correct – a big if, to be sure – why should Obama raise a finger to shut up the birthers?

  166. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 23, 2011 at 8:11 pm #

    Rickey: Jes Beard may not be a birther, but his blog makes it clear that he is anti-Obama (which certainly is his right).

    However, his main complaint seems to be that the birthers represent Obama’s best chance of being re-elected and that he will be defeated in 2012 if the NBC “controversy” dies down.

    If Beard is correct – a big if, to be sure – why should Obama raise a finger to shut up the birthers?

    I agree – I think that Mr. Beard has a severe case of ODS and has decided that the birther movement wont work (not an unreasonable conclusion, given the evidence…) and is grasping for something that will. Since he seems unwilling to affirm President Obama’s eligibility and willing to nit pick abstruse details of mundane Hawai’ian records law and DoH statements, I think the evidence shows him to be exactly what I thought: a heretic from the Vattelist faction of birtherism who’s decided that the birthers are doomed to crash and burn and is yelling at them to get off of the bus. I believe he is struggling to give up his ‘birther’ confirmation bias while retaining his ‘anit-Obama’ confirmation bias and hasn’t quite got the cognitive dissonance under control. Interesting…

  167. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 23, 2011 at 8:18 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I wouldn’t worry about emoticons

    It’s your computer that is loading them (not doc’s server),

    After it has downloaded the first one that’s true, as far as identical emoticons are concerned — my comment was in regards to the request for more

    It’s still an image — coded by reference to a file on Doc’s site:
    /images/smilies/icon_smile.gif

    The first time the browser sees the link to icon_smile.gif it downloads it to the user’s computer — it then store it in its cache and every time it sees the same reference while the user is browsing the site, it serves up the cached image, until the cache expires (determined by user settings).

    However, if you learn the code to call up other smilies — for example, icon_suprised.gif and icon_eek.gif and icon_biggrin.gif — then those each have to be downloaded on the first encounter as well. The icon files are teensy, but because they are unique files, each one represents its own separate hit to the server. For a low traffic site, it’s nothing — but when you multiply that by the number of visitors to the site, its pushing up hits and potentially slowing down the site.

  168. avatar
    G April 23, 2011 at 8:18 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I agree – I think that Mr. Beard has a severe case of ODS and has decided that the birther movement wont work (not an unreasonable conclusion, given the evidence…) and is grasping for something that will. Since he seems unwilling to affirm President Obama’s eligibility and willing to nit pick abstruse details of mundane Hawai’ian records law and DoH statements, I think the evidence shows him to be exactly what I thought: a heretic from the Vattelist faction of birtherism who’s decided that the birthers are doomed to crash and burn and is yelling at them to get off of the bus. I believe he is struggling to give up his birther’ confirmation bias while retaining his anit-Obama’ confirmation bias and hasn’t quite got the cognitive dissonance under control. Interesting…

    I concur.

  169. avatar
    Jes Beard April 23, 2011 at 8:27 pm #

    G:
    You have yet to explain why you care so much about the “long form” issue – something smells fishy there. I stipulate that your position has no rational basis for inquiry – there is nothing on a “long form” that would differ from relevant fields already revealed on the COLB.

    “So much”? How much is “so much”?

    I saw an opportunity to address a very narrow issue, examine in fully, determine what the law was, and present it. I did so.

    For ten years I was in TV news as a reporter. I did a lot of news stories. I am not sure how “much” I cared about any of them.

    There are lots of issues related to the question of Obama’s place of birth and qualification to serve as president. Most of them either require facts which I do not personally have access to or would require much deeper examination that I am willing to spend on it, access to resources which I do not have, or expertise which I lack. And many of those issues have been address at great length by the parties on different sides, generally with what would appear to be a results oriented analysis.

    The issue of access to records, and the the law is, as opposed to what the day to day practice is of those in the Department of Human Services, is a narrow issue which I could examine rather quickly, without needing access to anything more than the internet, and because of the competing claims on both sides a true examination of the law, instead of relying on a public relations flack with the Attorney General’s office, might show one side was clearly right or wrong, or that both sides were wrong, or that there was simply a misunderstanding.

    My conclusion was that both sides could get access to the actual long form records if they wanted them (though certainly it would be easier for Obama to get them), and that both sides are distorting the issue for political gain.

    For that conclusion, the folks at freerepublic.com have concluded that I am an “Obot” and should, “Go back to your supervisor, these points so obviously out you as a Dem operative it’s not even funny. You’re really bad at this, you know.

    And the conclusion here is that I am a birther.

    Sorry if the law makes clear that Obama could get the records (which I suspect that he has done) and produce them at any time and that his camp has been lying about not having access to them, but it is clear.

    As to the suggestion from some poster here that the flack with the AG’s office was obviously stating the law correctly because no one in the legislature has come forward to say otherwise…. Hawaii is a strongly Democratic state, and Obama is the first president they have elected. No member of the legislature there is likely to say anything that might be construed as calling him a liar. Just don’t think that is likely to happen. Then there is also the fact that there may well no one in the legislature who ever had any involvement with the drafting or passage of those provisions.

    But the meaning of the law is not determined several years after the fact by members of the legislature telling the public what it means, or what they wanted it to mean when they passed it. It is determined by what it says.

    And 338-13 states that, “the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

    In other words, Obama only has to ask for his records and he can get a copy of all of it.

  170. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 23, 2011 at 8:31 pm #

    Expelliarmus: After it has downloaded the first one that’s true, as far as identical emoticons are concerned — my comment was in regards to the request for more

    It’s still an image — coded by reference to a file on Doc’s site:
    /images/smilies/icon_smile.gif

    The first time the browser sees the link to icon_smile.gif it downloads it to the user’s computer — it then store it in its cache and every time it sees the same reference while the user is browsing the site, it serves up the cached image, until the cache expires (determined by user settings).

    However, if you learn the code to call up other smilies — for example, icon_suprised.gif and icon_eek.gif and icon_biggrin.gif — then those each have to be downloaded on the first encounter as well. The icon files are teensy, but because they are unique files, each one represents its own separate hit to the server.For a low traffic site, it’s nothing — but when you multiply that by the number of visitors to the site, its pushing up hits and potentially slowing down the site.

    I thought that the emoticons were loaded from WordPress’ servers (i.e. not on Doc’s bandwidth) – but a quick look at the page source verifies that you are correct here. I still don’t think that it’s something that would be a noticeable effect to the Doc (even with all of the traffic this site gets), but I could be mistaken…

  171. avatar
    Suranis April 23, 2011 at 8:40 pm #

    Jes Beard:
    G:

    But the meaning of the law is not determined several years after the fact by members of the legislature telling the public what it means, or what they wanted it to mean when they passed it.It is determined by what it says.

    And 338-13 states that, “the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

    In other words, Obama only has to ask for his records and he can get a copy of all of it.

    A certified copy of any certificate, OR the contents of any certificate, OR any part thereof.

    So Obama can request a copy of his records, and he gets one of those options. There is nothing in the law that says the applicant gets to chose what version he wants. not in 338-13 or in 338-18.

    Hell 338-18 says

    or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part OR by rules adopted by the department of health.

    If the DOH says no long form, you don’t get a long form. Period.

    That’s the plain language of the legislation. If you cant accept it then you have a problem.

  172. avatar
    Scientist April 23, 2011 at 8:44 pm #

    Jes Beard: There are lots of issues related to the question of Obama’s place of birth and qualification to serve as president.

    Such as? You said the story of his mother travelling to Kenya to drop a child and tthen smuggling him back into the US is incredible (it certainly is). The only story that is credible is that she gave birth where 99.9999% of all pregnant women do; namely where she, her husband and parents lived. So what issues are there?

    The people voted for him,, the Electoral College voted for him and the Congress, which is the body that decides if a candidate is qualified or not under the 20th Amendment ratified the selection. And he was sworn in by the Chief Justiice with the other 8 looking on. There are in fact no more issues with Obama’s eligibility than any of his 42 predecessors.

    Jes Beard: But the meaning of the law is not determined several years after the fact by members of the legislature telling the public what it means, or what they wanted it to mean when they passed it. It is determined by what it says.

    The meaning is determined by what judges say it means. If the meaning of laws and their application to particular cases were clear to all who read a statute there would be far fewer lawyers and judges. Since no one has sued to get a long form, it is simply your opinion that they can have one.

    Anyway, as I pointed out above, Hawaii has the records. If they say you can’t have them, you have 2 choices: accept that or sue. That’s the reality.

  173. avatar
    G April 23, 2011 at 8:49 pm #

    Jes Beard: As to the suggestion from some poster here that the flack with the AG’s office was obviously stating the law correctly because no one in the legislature has come forward to say otherwise…. Hawaii is a strongly Democratic state, and Obama is the first president they have elected. No member of the legislature there is likely to say anything that might be construed as calling him a liar. Just don’t think that is likely to happen. Then there is also the fact that there may well no one in the legislature who ever had any involvement with the drafting or passage of those provisions.
    But the meaning of the law is not determined several years after the fact by members of the legislature telling the public what it means, or what they wanted it to mean when they passed it. It is determined by what it says.
    And 338-13 states that, “the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.
    In other words, Obama only has to ask for his records and he can get a copy of all of it.

    Again, you come up with an opinion completely contradictory to what every official queried from HI has said and trying to act ignorant of the simple relationship between laws and internal written policies and procedures, which EVERY organization has and is supposed to follow.

    You show your own irrational bias by dismissing all HI officials as if they have some sort of Democratic “bias” to treat Obama’s records different than any other persons – without sufficient cause to substantiate such a claim, except your own warped perceptions.

    Sorry, but prior to the most recent election, the state had a GOP governor and administration. Fukino was GOP as was Lingle. In fact, Lingle was actively supporting and campaigning for McCain AGAINST Obama. If there was any grain of truth or hope in being able to use his birth certificates against him, they would have.

    There is nothing there. Your very need to see something odd and mysterious in the mundane and even and take up this issue to go after excessive requirements of evidence and proof beyond what ANY other candidate or President ever had to show is telling of your own bias in the matter.

    If you were really just curious, you’d be able to see that almost every angle of these issues have been addressed and looked into to a reasonable level and that for there to be something wrong with the existing story that is worth reporting about requires an unbelievable level of conspiracy thinking for it to make any sense at all.

    That you dismissively discount just about every normal fact checking site or standard media reporting institution, government official, etc. shows the irrational and paranoid thinking on your part. Sorry, but there is just no “there” there. One has to be excessively paranoid to step back and not see that or to be so smugly self-deluded as to buy into a false equivelency mindset of life as if all information and reality is just subjective. Your perceptions may be subjective, but reality isn’t. Actual facts and evidence don’t change to the whims of someone’s faith-based fantasy view of the world.

  174. avatar
    Rickey April 23, 2011 at 9:53 pm #

    After reading this, I don’t know why anyone would accept legal advice from Jes Beard.

    http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tsc/PDF/093/Jes%20Beard%20v%20BPR%20OPN.pdf

    His profile on LinkedIn makes it clear that he is the same person – formerly an attorney and formerly in television news (as he mentions at 8:27 p.m. above).

    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jes-beard/a/34a/846

  175. avatar
    G April 23, 2011 at 10:19 pm #

    Rickey: After reading this, I don’t know why anyone would accept legal advice from Jes Beard.http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tsc/PDF/093/Jes%20Beard%20v%20BPR%20OPN.pdfHis profile on LinkedIn makes it clear that he is the same person – formerly an attorney and formerly in television news (as he mentions at 8:27 p.m. above).http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jes-beard/a/34a/846

    Wow…that is quite a doozy! No wonder they suspended his law license for such an extended period of time… that is quite a litanny of charges he was found guilty of:

    From pgs 12-13:

    Based on these findings, the Panel concluded that Mr. Beard: (1) made “a false statement of
    fact or law to a tribunal,” Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 3.3(a)(1); (2) offered evidence that he knew to be false, id. RPC 3.3(b); (3) affirmed the validity and otherwise used evidence that he knew to be false, id. RPC 3.3(c), (d); (4) assisted a witness to offer false testimony, id. RPC 3.4(b); (5)
    “knowingly ma[d]e a false statement of material fact or law to a third person,” id. RPC 4.1(a); (6) “violate[d] . . . the Rules of Professional Conduct,” id. RPC 8.4(a); (7) engaged “in conduct
    involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation,” id. RPC 8.4(c); and (8) engaged “in
    conduct that [wa]s prejudicial to the administration of justice,” id. RPC 8.4(d).

    After determining that Mr. Beard violated disciplinary rules, the Panel analyzed the ABA
    Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (“ABA Standards”) in order to determine the appropriate discipline to impose.20 Having determined that a suspension was the appropriate sanction, the Panel next considered any mitigating and aggravating factors. The Panel first considered Mr. Beard’s prior disciplinary sanctions. In October 1998, Mr. Beard received a private informal admonition for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, DR 7-101(A)(1). In June 1999, Mr. Beard received a private reprimand for engaging in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice and degrading to a tribunal, and for knowingly making false accusations against a judge. Id. DR 1-102(A)(5), 7-106(C)(6), 8-102(B). In August 2000, Mr. Beard received a public censure for engaging in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice and adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law. Id. 1-102(A)(1, 5-6). Mr. Beard received a private reprimand in January 2001 for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. Id. DR 7-101(A)(1). In December 2002, Mr. Beard received a public censure for failing to pursue formal discovery and/or take sufficient action to prosecute his client’s case and failing, without consultation with or agreement of his client, to file a response to or appear for argument on a Motion for Summary Judgment. Id. DR 7-101(A)(1-4). Mr. Beard received a third public censure in June 2003, this time for engaging in conduct that adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law and for intentionally and habitually violating an established rule of procedure or evidence. Id. DR. 1-102(A)(6) and 7-106(C)(7). The Panel found these six disciplinary sanctions to be aggravating factors.

    The Panel also considered as aggravating factors Mr. Beard’s substantial experience in the
    practice of law, the multiple offenses that constitute a pattern of misconduct, and his “bad faith
    obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency.”
    Mr. Beard offered no relevant mitigating evidence, and therefore, the Panel found no mitigating factors. Based on these findings, the Panel suspended Mr. Beard’s law license for two years, imposing a two-year suspension for each petition for discipline with each suspension to run concurrently.

    The Panel noted that even if Mr. Beard was merely negligent: (1) in failing to properly draw a Final Decree, as alleged in the [McGehee Petition]; (2) in giving advice to his client to settle for $10,000 without first reading the Memorandum Opinion which the court had already rendered and which [Mr. Beard] had in his possession, as alleged in the [Murray Petition]; and (3) in filing false pleadings and a false affidavit of his client asserting that the client had not timely received the Findings and Recommendations of the Referee, as alleged in the [Morehead Petition], the [Panel] believes that suspension would still be the appropriate discipline.

    Wow…just wow…

    And the final conclusion on his appeal and all of his claims in that:

    Conclusion
    For the reasons stated above, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects. Costs of
    this appeal are assessed to Jes Beard, and his surety, for which execution may issue if necessary.

    OUCH!!!

  176. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2011 at 11:07 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I thought that the emoticons were loaded from WordPress’ servers (i.e. not on Doc’s bandwidth) – but a quick look at the page source verifies that you are correct here. I still don’t think that it’s something that would be a noticeable effect to the Doc (even with all of the traffic this site gets), but I could be mistaken

    I don’t think it’s an issue.

  177. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2011 at 11:23 pm #

    Jes Beard: My conclusion was that both sides could get access to the actual long form records if they wanted them (though certainly it would be easier for Obama to get them), and that both sides are distorting the issue for political gain.

    The “tangible interest” standard is common to many states. I don’t personally see how someone on one side could get around it. But in any case, Obama is not claiming that he can’t get a long form and that’s why he isn’t releasing it. We can only speculate as to the reason. I don’t see the value in someone else raising a defense of Obama that Obama doesn’t raise himself.

  178. avatar
    nemocapn April 23, 2011 at 11:29 pm #

    Guys, I think you’re attacking Jes and not his arguments. I read the article on his blog and I’m going to comment on the summary of his main points:

    1) It appears Obama, his supporters and Hawaiian officials are ignoring Hawaiian law by claiming he can not get any records beyond the Certification of Live Birth his campaign posted on the internet in 2008.

    For some of Obama’s supporters, it’s not about ignoring the law, but rather having a different interpretation of the law then you do. If you think that Hawaiian officials are ignoring the law, find someone with standing to file a lawsuit.

    2) Hawaiian officials contending they can not release any more information from Obama’s birth records because Hawaiian law prohibits it, are violating clear provisions which prohibit them from even confirming that such records exist or that what the Obama campaign posted was accurate or that the original records do indicate the hospital where he was born or the attending physician.

    Since they have made the birth index public, they can confirm that such records exist. The law doesn’t prohibit that. You say they’re prohibited by law from indicating the attending physician. Maybe that’s why they haven’t given the physician’s name.

    3) If those challenging Obama’s birthplace were really interested in checking the records, they might want to have Sara Palin or Rush Limbaugh ask to see the records, since both have common ancestors with Obama.

    From what I’ve heard, someone already tried that. They said they’re descended from Adam and Eve. The DOH denied access. They may have told them something to the effect to come back when they can prove they’re related. Palin is Obama’s 10th cousin. That’s a 23rd degree relative. If DOH allows secondary research, you could present that as documentation, but if they require primary evidence, it could take years to document that many generations. That’s a herculean task. Better to find a second or third cousin.

  179. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 23, 2011 at 11:45 pm #

    nemocapn:
    2) Hawaiian officials contending they can not release any more information from Obama’s birth records because Hawaiian law prohibits it, are violating clear provisions which prohibit them from even confirming that such records exist or that what the Obama campaign posted was accurate or that the original records do indicate the hospital where he was born or the attending physician.

    This is just the old fake Donofrio argument. Hawaii SS 338.18 clearly says that:

    (d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm

    The director is allowed under that statute to make the index data public. Please stop recycling the old BS and try to come up with something new.

  180. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 23, 2011 at 11:47 pm #

    That was for the original publisher of that information, not nemocapn. I copied the info from his post. My bad

  181. avatar
    nemocapn April 24, 2011 at 12:10 am #

    Correction. Tenth cousins are 22nd degree relatives since 1st cousins are 4th degree, 2nd cousins 6th degree, 3rd cousins 8th degree and so on. In any case, that’s a lot of generations to document to get one birth certificate.

  182. avatar
    Rickey April 24, 2011 at 1:01 am #

    nemocapn:
    Since they have made the birth index public, they can confirm that such records exist.The law doesn’t prohibit that.

    Actually, the fact that Obama’s name is in the birth index is all the confirmation anyone needs that his records exist. You have to be born in Hawaii to be listed in the birth index.

  183. avatar
    G April 24, 2011 at 2:18 am #

    Rickey: Actually, the fact that Obama’s name is in the birth index is all the confirmation anyone needs that his records exist. You have to be born in Hawaii to be listed in the birth index.

    AGREED. That alone should be the end of the story in a reasonable world…

  184. avatar
    Scientist April 24, 2011 at 8:27 am #

    nemocapn: Guys, I think you’re attacking Jes and not his arguments.

    I’d like to make a general point regarding ad hominem arguments. Like everything else in life their appropriateness depends on the context. As a scientist I am familiar with cases where scientific fraud has occurred. While it is possible that someone who committed fraud in one publication might have been quite honest in others, the scientific community will generally take the most conservative position and disregard all of that person’s work, at least until such time as another scientist can independently verify the findings.

    Let’s look at another case, Does it matter in evaluating Lucas Smith’s “birth certificate” that he is a convicted forger? Of course it does. Let’s suppose he had been a smarter forger and not made the obvious errors he did. You would then have a document that might appear legit and might be worthy of further investigation if presented by someone with an unblemished record. But, at least for me, even a perfect document presented by a convicted forger is to be considered highly suspect. If that strikes Lucas as unfair, I would tell him that he shouldn’t have forged those checks.

    So what about Jes Beard? That is certainly a pretty astounding record of multiple malfeasance. i was aware of it and hinted at it here and on his blog, which got me banned on his blog. Does it matter? Could even the arguments of such a person be right? If we were discussing baseball, I would answer “No” and “Yes”. But we are discussing legal matters. So, Mr Beard’s record in the law is relevant. Could he be right notwithstanding? The answer is yes, but quite frankly, the odds of his being right are significantly lower because of his record.

    And what about the birther lawyers as a group? While none of them have been disbarred (yet), their records hardly give one confidence. You have:
    1. Phil Berg who may have once been a competent attorney, but has clearly flipped out.
    2. A dentist/lawyer whose only known cases were defending herself from malpractice
    3. A poker player who, as far as I know, has never actually practiced law
    4. A DWI defense lawyer who has never practiced in citizenship or electoral law.

    Does that automatically mean their arguments are wrong? Perhaps not, but it doesn’t inspire one to give them great credit.

  185. avatar
    James M April 24, 2011 at 3:20 pm #

    Obsolete:
    Even with what you say, Doc, if Obama was born overseas, would the Supreme Court overturn an election based on what is arguably a technicality?
    I have my doubts.

    There’s no mechanism for the Supreme Court to overturn a presidential election, certainly not after the President takes office.

    The technicality could be grounds for impeachment, but then, an impeachment could conceivably proceed on *unspecified* “high crimes and misdemeanors”, given a sufficiently unified and hostile Congress.

  186. avatar
    Rickey April 24, 2011 at 7:17 pm #

    Scientist: I

    So what about Jes Beard?That is certainly a pretty astounding record of multiple malfeasance.i was aware of it and hinted at it here and on his blog, which got me banned on his blog. Does it matter? Could even the arguments of such a person be right?If we were discussing baseball, I would answer “No” and “Yes”.But we are discussing legal matters.So, Mr Beard’s record in the law is relevant.Could he be right notwithstanding?The answer is yes, but quite frankly, the odds of his being right are significantly lower because of his record.

    Agreed. Someone claiming to have a better understanding of Hawaiian law than Hawaii’s Attorney General is open to having his or her credentials questioned. In Mr. Beard’s case, his license to practice law in Tennessee was suspended on 7/13/09 and he was disbarred on 3/9/11. All of this is public record.

    On March 3, 2011, Jes Beard of Chattanooga, Tennessee, was disbarred by the Tennessee Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 9, Section 4.1, of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

    Mr. Beard violated disciplinary rules by ignoring conflicts of interest between clients, by taking action to the detriment of one client in order to gain an advantage for another client, by improperly communicating with a person represented by another lawyer, by failing to competently and diligently represent his clients, and by failing to properly communicate the status of a case to a client. Mr. Beard also continually failed to respond to disciplinary counsel. Mr. Beard’s actions violated Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.7(a) (Conflict of Interest: General Rule), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 3.3(a) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 4.1(Truthfulness and Candor in Statements to Others), 4.2 (Communication With a Person represented by Counsel) and 8.4 (Misconduct).

    http://www.tbpr.org/NewsAndPublications/Releases/Pdfs/Beard%201746-3%20and%201798-3%20rel.634352895660471502.pdf

    Jes Beard wasn’t even able to read a child support ruling without getting it wrong, yet he insists that we give credence to his interpretation of Hawaii’s vital records laws and regulations.

    I don’t think so.

  187. avatar
    nc1 April 24, 2011 at 11:41 pm #

    Rickey: Actually, the fact that Obama’s name is in the birth index is all the confirmation anyone needs that his records exist. You have to be born in Hawaii to be listed in the birth index.

    The question is – what kind of document was used to register his birth in Hawaii?

    In a recent interview Dr. Fukino described original birth certificate as half handwritten. This is not a description of “Nordyke type” document. According to Obama’s claim of birth at Kapiolani his certificate should have been the same as Nordykes’ certificates. Everything typed up and the only handwritten part are signatures and the Date Signed field.

    Hawaii DoH hides the original birth registration index compiled in 1961. When UIPA request was made for it, they printed the 5-year aggregated list claiming this was the birth index.

    DoH officials are not that stupid not to understand what the request was for – the way they responded indicates that they are covering for Obama.

  188. avatar
    JoZeppy April 24, 2011 at 11:55 pm #

    nc1: The question is – what kind of document was used to register his birth in Hawaii?

    Doesn’t really matter, now does it…since it will stay say he is born in Hawaii, and is still prima facie evidence of his birth there, and you have no evidence to counter with.

    nc1: In a recent interview Dr. Fukino described original birth certificate as half handwritten. This is not a description of “Nordyke type” document. According to Obama’s claim of birth at Kapiolani his certificate should have been the same as Nordykes’ certificates. Everything typed up and the only handwritten part are signatures and the Date Signed field.

    blah, blah, blah….half written is not a scientific measure. Get over it. It’s pretty meaningless.

    nc1: Hawaii DoH hides the original birth registration index compiled in 1961. When UIPA request was made for it, they printed the 5-year aggregated list claiming this was the birth index.

    I love how you assume so much. Like the fact that the original complied index from 1961 exists, or that if it did, you would be entiteld to see it. Oh, and that the Nordyke BC is the standard, and that all the numbers are cranked out exactly as you expect them, based on a complete absence of facts.

    nc1: DoH officials are not that stupid not to understand what the request was for – the way they responded indicates that they are covering for Obama.

    No but apparently you are not smart enough to understand that just because a birther asks for something doesn’t mean his is entitled to get it. The way they responded merely indicates that you aren’t special enough to get special treatment.

  189. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 25, 2011 at 12:23 am #

    nc1: The question is – what kind of document was used to register his birth in Hawaii?

    In a recent interview Dr. Fukino described original birth certificate as half handwritten. This is not a description of “Nordyke type” document.

    As far as anyone knows, there is only one form that could have been used. You are far too literal minded to understand Fukino’s statement. She didn’t take a ruler and measure the signature part and the typed part.

  190. avatar
    Rickey April 25, 2011 at 12:26 am #

    nc1: The question is – what kind of document was used to register his birth in Hawaii?

    Since it was 1961, I’m guessing that it was a paper document.

    I could be wrong, though. It may have been parchment.

  191. avatar
    jeffhack April 25, 2011 at 12:31 am #

    jeffhack:
    Facts:
    -Obama has not shown ANYONE his long form BC
    -Obama’s mother’s Passport records prior to 1965 are missing (Obama was born in 1961)
    -Obama has not released any of his college records
    -Obama “retired” his law license
    -Obama has a CT SSN but never lived there
    -Obama has something to hide

    Slartibartfast: Hello new troll!You can find a debunking of all of your facts’ here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/

    thank you all for your sweet comments :) (nice group of friends on here!)

    facts 2:
    I’ve never heard of a “short form BC”-still unclear why if the long one has been viewed by others in the hospital – why not release it?

    here’s trumps:

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/03/donald-trump-releases-official-birth-certificate.html

    Obama’s Momma worked for Geithner’s Poppa (small world, eh?)

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2446765/posts

  192. avatar
    jeffhack April 25, 2011 at 12:35 am #

    thank you all for your sweet comments (nice group of friends on here!)

    facts 2:
    I’ve never heard of a “short form BC”-still unclear why if the long one has been viewed by others in the hospital – why not release it?

    here’s trumps:

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/03/donald-trump-releases-official-birth-certificate.html

    Obama’s Momma worked for Geithner’s Poppa (small world, eh?)

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2446765/posts

  193. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 25, 2011 at 12:47 am #

    jeffhack:

    facts 2:
    I’ve never heard of a “short form BC”-still unclear why if the long one has been viewed by others in the hospital [it's been viewed by Hawai'ian officials, not people at the hospital] – why not release it?

    Because it can’t be released to anyone without a tangible interest by law (it’s not clear that Hawai’i will even release an uncertified copy (i.e. one with no legal value) and it hasn’t been the official Hawai’i DoH’s ‘birth certificate’ in almost a decade (that would be the COLB).

    here’s trumps:

    He still hasn’t met the standard set by President Obama – an image of a document which has been verified by its official custodian. I haven’t heard any New York officials verifying Trump’s BC…

    Obama’s Momma worked for Geithner’s Poppa (small world, eh?)

    Significance?

  194. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 25, 2011 at 12:50 am #

    jeffhack: I’ve never heard of a “short form BC”-still unclear why if the long one has been viewed by others in the hospital – why not release it?

    Some states provide two forms of birth certificate sort of like an 8×10 and a wallet size, the latter being a “short form.”. Hawaii only issues one form now, certified data from the computer files, which they called up until recently a “Certification of Live Birth.” What the birthers claim that they want is a photocopy of the certificate filed with the state in 1961, which the state says they have. Hawaii says they don’t issue those any more, at least not in normal circumstances.

    Why not release it? One can only speculate between some plausible and harmless reasons and some highly implausible nefarious reasons most of which require a massive conspiracy and coverup in Hawaii.

  195. avatar
    jeffhack April 25, 2011 at 1:17 am #

    Thank you for the kinder responses (It is Resurrection Day!)

    We all seem to agree that he has an actual long form BC and that gov officials have seen it. We should also agree that the actual contents (nefarious/harmless) are causing concern/division (at least among fellow “trolls/idiots” like me)

    Obama could clear this up in about 10 minutes by providing a copy of this document to the press.

    People are going to keep digging until he shows this – seems like now would be a good time. would make Trump look foolish.

    However, if I see one more talking head show the “cert of birth” doc and act like the other one doesnt exist I will barf.

  196. avatar
    jeffhack April 25, 2011 at 1:27 am #

    ok -so we agree there is “another document” that has been viewed by gov officials.

    (not sure why every talking head has a copy of the “cert birth” doc and pretends they are the same)

    People (“trolls/idiots” like me) are going to keep digging until he releases it with the harmless/nefarious details.

    The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.

    every day the story gets bigger – just release it and make trump look like an idiot.

    no one in the wh press court will ask him to do it

    I’m ready to move on, when he is

  197. avatar
    G April 25, 2011 at 1:27 am #

    jeffhack: Thank you for the kinder responses (It is Resurrection Day!)We all seem to agree that he has an actual long form BC and that gov officials have seen it. We should also agree that the actual contents (nefarious/harmless) are causing concern/division (at least among fellow “trolls/idiots” like me)Obama could clear this up in about 10 minutes by providing a copy of this document to the press.People are going to keep digging until he shows this – seems like now would be a good time. would make Trump look foolish. However, if I see one more talking head show the “cert of birth” doc and act like the other one doesnt exist I will barf.

    Except Obama couldn’t “clear this up in 10 minutes”.

    Here, please educate yourself and you will see why. In simple terms, the state does NOT offer any other certified BC than the COLB and hasn’t for the past 10 years. Any request for a certfied copy of his “long form” would merely result in receiving the same COLB he already received in 2007 and then released to the public in 2008.

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    And here is an official’s recent and explicit explanation of that very same question you just posed:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics

    Trump and other skeptics have questioned why the original birth certificate has not been released.
    But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.

    “It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

    But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated “certification of live birth” form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.

  198. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 25, 2011 at 1:45 am #

    jeffhack:
    Thank you for the kinder responses (It is Resurrection Day!)

    You can believe in whatever pre-enlightenment myths you want (personally, I try to avoid them…) but don’t expect me to care…

    We all seem to agree that he has an actual long form BC and that gov officials have seen it.

    Okay.

    We should also agree that the actual contents (nefarious/harmless) are causing concern/division (at least among fellow “trolls/idiots” like me)

    An unreasonable suspicion of nefariousness based on misinformation and bias has caused some people (call them ‘birthers’ – ‘trolling’ is a tactic [and who's stupid enough to label someone by the tactics they use? - that would be like having a 'War on Terror'...] and ‘idiocy’ is demonstrated lack of intelligence – both of which are inappropriate to your meaning) to express concern even though they lack any evidence (without which it seems unlikely that they will be able to convince a significant segment of the population). President Obama is not responsible for their Obama Derangement Syndrome nor is it in his best interests to appease these liars and smear merchants (and sinners – or is bearing false witness okay if you’re doing it against a darkie?).

    Obama could clear this up in about 10 minutes by providing a copy of this document to the press.

    A) No, he couldn’t. B) It wouldn’t be in his interest to do so even if he could. C) Any angst that the birthers feel is merely a fraction of what they deserve for the hateful things they have said about the Constitutional POTUS and his family.

    People are going to keep digging until he shows this – seems like now would be a good time. would make Trump look foolish.

    Trump is making himself look foolish all on his own, but – more importantly – Trump’s shameful media sluttery is making Republicans have to come out as pro- or anti- birther and that’s great for President Obama.

    However, if I see one more talking head show the “cert of birth” doc and act like the other one doesnt exist I will barf.

    And what about birthers who wont admit that the mythical ‘long form’ MUST say that President Obama was born in Hawai’i (and is thus a natural born citizen) – either that or EVERYBODY was in on the conspiracy… (in which case birthers are still doomed)

  199. avatar
    nc1 April 25, 2011 at 1:55 am #

    JoZeppy: Doesn’t really matter, now does it…since it will stay say he is born in Hawaii, and is still prima facie evidence of his birth there, and you have no evidence to counter with.

    blah, blah, blah….half written is not a scientific measure.Get over it.It’s pretty meaningless.

    I love how you assume so much.Like the fact that the original complied index from 1961 exists, or that if it did, you would be entiteld to see it.Oh, and that the Nordyke BC is the standard, and that all the numbers are cranked out exactly as you expect them, based on a complete absence of facts.

    No but apparently you are not smart enough to understand that just because a birther asks for something doesn’t mean his is entitled to get it.The way they responded merely indicates that you aren’t special enough to get special treatment.

    ================================================================
    “blah blah blah” – I hope you represent your clients better than this response would indicate.

    Birth certificate fraud is a big problem:
    1. http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf

    One interesting excerpt:
    “…
    Birth Certificate Fraud is Hard to Detect
    Many altered or counterfeit birth certificates and genuine birth certificates held by imposters may go undetected. The reasons why these fraudulent birth certificates are hard to detect include the following:
    * over 14,000 different versions of birth certificates are in circulation;
    * nearly 4 million United States births were registered in 1999;
    * security features contained in the paper used to issue birth certificates, as well as formats and signatures, vary among State vital records offices and the many local entities issuing them;
    * technological advances in the Internet, scanners, color printers, and copiers make it easier to obtain genuine birth certificates and create counterfeit ones;
    * between 85 and 90 percent of the birth certificate fraud encountered by the Immigration and Naturalization Services and Passport Services staff is the result of genuine birth certificates held by imposters — the most difficult fraud to detect; and
    * Federal and State agency staff report receiving only limited training focused on the detection of fraudulent birth certificates.

    2. One corrupt state official is all it takes to issue hundreds of valid birth certificate to illegals:
    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=107200

    as a result of this corruption:

    “Birth certificates previously issued by the Jersey City/Hudson County Office of Vital Statistics (with the raised seal from Hudson County):
    Are no longer accepted by the federal government when applying for a U.S. passport;
    May not be accepted by other federal agencies; and
    May not be accepted by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, depending on year of birth.”

    http://www.nj.gov/health/vital/jerseycity.shtml

    In Obama’s case we only have one person (Dr. Fukino) claiming that she saw the original birth certificate but her description is different from the official birthplace story – Kapiolani Hospital. You don’t have to be geniuos to understand why people are suspicious about the official story.

  200. avatar
    Robert Clark April 25, 2011 at 2:06 am #

    Slartibartfast:

    Slartibartfast: Because it can’t be released to anyone without a tangible interest by law (it’s not clear that Hawai’i will even release an uncertified copy (i.e. one with no legal value) and it hasn’t been the official Hawai’i DoH’s birth certificate’ in almost a decade (that would be the COLB).

    It can certainly be released to the person himself, despite the claims of the spokesman for the Atty. Gen.’s office. And more importantly the Atty. Gen. himself has said they can be released to the public with the person’s consent.

    Bob

  201. avatar
    Robert Clark April 25, 2011 at 2:10 am #

    G: But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.

    “It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

    Wisch is only a spokesman. The Atty. Gen. himself has said they can be released to the public with Obama’s consent.

    Bob

  202. avatar
    G April 25, 2011 at 2:10 am #

    nc1: Birth certificate fraud is a big problem:
    1. http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf

    Wow…you are absolutely desperate to make up straw-man arguments and try to make up linkages to cast asperions that aren’t really there, aren’t you?

    Read the actual report you fool. Read about the sources of the fraud they are talking about and how they talk about catching and detecting it.

    BOTTOM LINE: The STATE would NOT vouch for a fraud document. They are the one’s catching the identity thieves out there who are part of this.

    ALL state of HI officials have REPEATEDLY and CONSISTENTLY VOUCHED for Obama’s COLB and BC info.

    So you FAIL again. Boy, you are desperate…

  203. avatar
    G April 25, 2011 at 2:14 am #

    Robert Clark: It can certainly be released to the person himself, despite the claims of the spokesman for the Atty. Gen.’s office. And more importantly the Atty. Gen. himself has said they can be released to the public with the person’s consent.
    Bob

    NO. You are in total denial. I’ll take the offiial’s word over yours any day. You’ve demonstrated a solid history here of being wrong and often outright lying. You’ve YET to provide any evidence that backs up such statements.

    Robert Clark: Wisch is only a spokesman. The Atty. Gen. himself has said they can be released to the public with Obama’s consent.
    Bob

    Source, please?

    You’ve been WRONG about nearly everything else you’ve said and so far, every time you’ve been asked to provide a source, it DOES NOT say what you claim it does.

    So, considering how bad your record is on making such claims, you have no credibility for me to take your arguments seriously. Please provide a source.

  204. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 25, 2011 at 2:15 am #

    nc1: Birth certificate fraud is a big problem:

    Not in Hawai’i (the illegals find it hard to swim there – especially while carrying the child they just gave birth to…).

    In Obama’s case we only have one person (Dr. Fukino) claiming that she saw the original birth certificate

    This is a lie.

    but her description is different from the official birthplace story – Kapiolani Hospital.

    Another lie – everything she’s said has been consistent with a birth at Kapiolani.

    You don’t have to be geniuos [sic] to understand why people are suspicious about the official story.

    It just so happens that I am a genius (according to an online IQ test I’m the stupidest genius you’ll ever meet…) and, personally, I find the amount of lying that the birthers do to be very suspicious. If there really were an issue with President Obama’s eligibility, why would birthers need to make up so many lies? Also, I’m suspicious that they can’t find any evidence to support their claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs and the birthers can’t even muster any mundane evidence… why is that?

  205. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 25, 2011 at 2:18 am #

    Robert Clark:
    It can certainly be released to the person himself, despite the claims of the spokesman for the Atty. Gen.’s office. And more importantly the Atty. Gen. himself has said they can be released to the public with the person’s consent.

    Bob

    Sorry, Bob – the guy from the AG’s office gets the benefit of my doubt, you do not (you’ve lied too many times here) – if you want to change my mind then sue the AG’s office over it (and win).

  206. avatar
    Keith April 25, 2011 at 2:23 am #

    Robert Clark: It can certainly be released to the person himself, despite the claims of the spokesman for the Atty. Gen.’s office.

    NO Can you comprehend the difference between the word ‘released’ and ‘shown’? The original document is state property, it cannot be ‘released’ to anyone for any purpose at any time. Period. Full Stop. End of Story.

    It can be SHOWN to the person whose details it records. It cannot be released from state control under any circumstances.

    And more importantly the Atty. Gen. himself has said they can be released to the public with the person’s consent.

    I do not believe the AG has made such a statement. Link please.

  207. avatar
    nc1 April 25, 2011 at 2:24 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: As far as anyone knows, there is only one form that could have been used. You are far too literal minded to understand Fukino’s statement. She didn’t take a ruler and measure the signature part and the typed part.

    Tim Adams told you in the radio interview that home birth registrations used different form compared to hospital births.

    Who describes a document which is only signed but otherwise typed as a half handwritten? That comment is Dr. Fukino’s cover your a@@ strategy. Both of her press-releases fall nicely in line with this scenario.

    Add into the picture Abercrombie’s comment that they found something “actually written” as a registration of Obama’s birth in Hawaii – it is quite obvious that they are not talking about the “Nordyke type” document.

  208. avatar
    nc1 April 25, 2011 at 2:39 am #

    Slartibartfast: It just so happens that I am a genius (according to an online IQ test I’m the stupidest genius you’ll ever meet…) and, personally, I find the amount of lying that the birthers do to be very suspicious.If there really were an issue with President Obama’s eligibility, why would birthers need to make up so many lies?Also, I’m suspicious that they can’t find any evidence to support their claims.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs and the birthers can’t even muster any mundane evidence… why is that?

    What lies are you talking about?

    Who else (other than Dr. Fukino) claimed that (s)he saw the original birth certificate?

    Nordyke type document is not half handwritten. All data fields are typed – only the signature part is hand written. Dr. Fukino did not describe the hospital generated birtth certificate.

  209. avatar
    G April 25, 2011 at 3:18 am #

    nc1: Tim Adams told you in the radio interview that home birth registrations used different form compared to hospital births. Who describes a document which is only signed but otherwise typed as a half handwritten? That comment is Dr. Fukino’s cover your a@@ strategy. Both of her press-releases fall nicely in line with this scenario. Add into the picture Abercrombie’s comment that they found something “actually written” as a registration of Obama’s birth in Hawaii – it is quite obvious that they are not talking about the “Nordyke type” document.

    Tim Adams has no credibility. His story has so many holes in it, it is absolutely pathetic.

    Tim Adams has not demonstrated that he knows what he’s talking about and if anything, has only shown that he lies and exaggerates a lot. His knowledge of home birth registrations would be yet another example of him talking out his @ss.

    Keep being in deinal of REAL HI officials…such as Fukino. Life in your little fictional fantasy bubble all you want… in the real world, the HI COLB for Obama has been repeatedly vouched for and his is and will continue to serve as POTUS and there is nothing you can do about it, other than cast your vote in 2012.

    All your arguments are meaningless at best and often utter BUNK.

  210. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 25, 2011 at 4:05 am #

    nc1: Nordyke type document is not half handwritten. All data fields are typed – only the signature part is hand written

    I’m confused. When did you ever see the full Nordyke certificates, including the bottom part? The only images I’ve seen show the top section only.

  211. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 25, 2011 at 12:00 pm #

    nc1: What lies are you talking about?

    If I were to document all of the birther lies we’d be here for days, but here is a partial list off of the top of my head:

    President Obama was born in Kenya

    Natural born citizenship requires two citizen parents (or a citizen father)

    Lolo Soetoro adopted President Obama

    President Obama had/has Kenyan/British citizenship

    President Obama became an Indonesian citizen

    President Obama gave up his US citizenship by him (or his mother) getting Indonesian citizenship

    Hawai’ian Officials have not confirmed the relevant circumstances of President Obama’s birth

    $x was spend to ‘seal’ President Obama’s records

    Convicted felon and ‘Blue Falcon’ Lakin is not a cowardly idiot

    Vattel influenced the founders on citizenship

    The term ‘law of nations’ in the Constitution refers to Vattel’s book

    Wong Kim Ark was not a natural born citizen

    Barack Obama Sr. was not subject to US jurisdiction

    President Obama is not eligible for POTUS

    All lies told by birthers (you yourself have probably repeated variants of most of those…)

    Who else (other than Dr. Fukino) claimed that (s)he saw the original birth certificate?

    Who cares? (Governors Lingle and Abercrombie may have seen it and Dr. Fukino was not alone when she looked at it [she was probably accompanied by Dr. Onaka, if I recall correctly]).

    Nordyke type document is not half handwritten.All data fields are typed – only the signature part is hand written.Dr. Fukino did not describe the hospital generated birtth certificate.

    How do you know – you don’t. Dr. Fukino wasn’t speaking in precise mathematical equations – she may have seen all of the written signatures and called that ‘half handwritten’. Without more information, you just don’t know, but that doesn’t stop you from making things up with the help of your bigotry against the lawful president…

  212. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 25, 2011 at 12:05 pm #

    nc1,

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – so far, all of the evidence points to the birthers acting in bad faith all of the time…

    Why do birthers like yourself think that lying is a good way to advance your cause?

  213. avatar
    Jes Beard April 25, 2011 at 1:05 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    nc1,

    Why do birthers like yourself think that lying is a good way to advance your cause?

    And why do some Obama defenders seem to think that attributing to malice and malevolence (calling someone a liar) that which can also be explained by mistake is a good way to advance YOUR cause?

    Or is the cause you (that is the singular “you” and not the plural “you”) want to advance simply deepening the divisions in the nation?

    If a statement or contention is wrong, simply point out the error, including links to any supporting sources, if possible.

    The name calling and efforts to dismiss people before addressing what they have to say is as annoying from one side as it is from the other.

  214. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 25, 2011 at 1:38 pm #

    Jes Beard: And why do some Obama defenders seem to think that attributing to malice and malevolence (calling someone a liar) that which can also be explained by mistake is a good way to advance YOUR cause?

    Again, it’s a case of 99.99% of these ‘mistakes’ having been made with ‘malice and malevolence’ that makes most of us here assume bad faith – plus the fact that most birthers (including yourself) have repeatedly demonstrated their bad faith – although I’m not surprised that someone with your apparent ethical shortcomings doesn’t understand…

    Or is the cause you (that is the singular “you” and not the plural “you”) want to advance simply deepening the divisions in the nation?

    I want to poke birthers so that they squawk louder and exacerbate the wedge they drive between Republicans and Independents – to try and equate that with the entire Republican party championing divisive politics for decades (and doing so more and more aggressively of late…) is disingenuous in the extreme.

    If a statement or contention is wrong, simply point out the error, including links to any supporting sources, if possible.

    No (unless I feel like it… ;-)). This is an attempt to drag the debate onto an asymmetric playing field (it takes a lot more time for me to debunk a lie than it does for you to say it). On this site, you’ve got to deal with the fact that pretty much all of your lies were debunked before you tried them – if you don’t want to be called a liar then you can find out where on the site the particular lies that you are telling are debunked and refute the debunking. Or just stop lying.

    The name calling and efforts to dismiss people before addressing what they have to say is as annoying from one side as it is from the other.

    Ad hominem is perfectly legitimate as long as the attacks are backed up with evidence. What’s wrong with calling you an ethically challenged lawyer who is currently unable to practice due to his own professional malfeasance? Is any of this untrue? Similarly, when birthers have shown no compunctions about repeatedly using the same hateful, viscous, and baseless lies in an effort to smear the legitimate POTUS by any means possible, highlighting that behavior (by calling their ilk out as the bigoted scum that they are) is the appropriate thing to do. If birthers don’t want to be called liars, then they should stop lying. If they don’t want to be called stupid, they should stop saying obviously stupid things. If they don’t want to be called bigots, they should stop hating President Obama for irrational reasons (or no reasons at all). If they don’t want to be called ignorant, they should learn about topics BEFORE spreading lies about them. If they don’t want to be called hypocrites, they should stop advocating double standards. If you think that I have unfairly maligned you in any way, explain how and I will either:

    A) Admit my mistake and apologize

    B) Address your charge and explain why I think my statements were correct

    As far as I can tell, most birthers use option C:

    C) Ignore any debunked lies and move on to the next lie…

    Until you prove otherwise by your actions, I will consider you another lapsed birther who has the minimal amount of sanity necessary to realize that the birther movement is ineffective (actually, it’s counter-effective…), but still wishes to remove the lawful POTUS by any means possible (there’s a word for that, you know…). You may not be a birther, but you’re still a sniveling little worm.

  215. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 25, 2011 at 1:39 pm #

    Jes Beard: And why do some Obama defenders seem to think that attributing to malice and malevolence (calling someone a liar) that which can also be explained by mistake is a good way to advance YOUR cause?

    It is very hard for rational people to comprehend how misinformation doesn’t spring from an intent to deceive. In fact, such things may just result from mental defect, or carelessness.

    In any case, the argument isn’t advanced by attributing motives to one’s opponents.

  216. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 25, 2011 at 1:42 pm #

    Jes Beard: The name calling and efforts to dismiss people before addressing what they have to say is as annoying from one side as it is from the other.

    I forgot to point out that the name calling is IN ADDITION to addressing birther arguments, not IN PLACE of it… moron.

  217. avatar
    Scientist April 25, 2011 at 2:07 pm #

    Jes Beard: And why do some Obama defenders seem to think that attributing to malice and malevolence (calling someone a liar) that which can also be explained by mistake is a good way to advance YOUR cause?

    Suppose Mr Beard, someone leveled accusations of felony fraud against YOUR mother and grandmother without having the slightest proof? What would you call them?

  218. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 25, 2011 at 2:20 pm #

    Scientist: Suppose Mr Beard, someone leveled accusations of felony fraud against YOUR mother and grandmother without having the slightest proof?What would you call them?

    Not to mention all of the hate-filled bile (much of it racist as well) and vicious lies that accompanied the spurious allegations of fraud…

  219. avatar
    Jes Beard April 25, 2011 at 3:50 pm #

    Scientiest, let us start with the obvious — Obama ain’t your momma. Nor are you Obama, to make the claims about birthplace being against your momma. Nor, for that matter, is it likely that fraudulent application for a birth certificate would ever have constituted felony fraud in Hawaii.

    Next, if you are addressing folks who claim to have personal knowledge, such as the guy circulation the supposed Kenyan birth certificate, or Orly Taitz with some of her claims, you might call them liars. But those who are merely repeating something they mistakenly believe to be true, you simply point out there error.

    Slatribartfast, that fact that many of those insisting Obama was born in Kenya may be racist, certainly does not mean that all of those who think he was are racist, and even less that those who simply would like to see the long form birth certificate are racist.

    Now, as I have pointed out several times, I have no doubt but that the Obama camp intends to play this entire issue as one in which anyone having doubts as to whether Obama meets the Constitutional requirements, and even everyone who opposed Obama on policy or effectiveness grounds, is racist…. And folks like you will do your best to help with that.

    Now, for both you you, what do YOU call those who post bitter personal attacks on others and do so without using their actual names?

    I think you might START by calling them cowards, but when they take steps to conceal their identity, it might also make sense to call them somewhat less credible or trustworthy than they might be if they removed the veil of anonymity.

    But, that’s just me.

    Dr. Conspiracy, while “misinformation (may) spring from an intent to deceive,” you are very seldom if ever addressing the source from which any misinformation did any springing. You are generally addressing those who are repeating information, and sincerely believe it. The name calling which permeates BOTH sides actually makes it much more difficult to persuade someone who was honestly mistaken that they were mistaken. It is utter foolishness.

  220. avatar
    Scientist April 25, 2011 at 4:21 pm #

    Jes Beard: Scientiest, let us start with the obvious — Obama ain’t your momma. Nor are you Obama, to make the claims about birthplace being against your momma. Nor, for that matter, is it likely that fraudulent application for a birth certificate would ever have constituted felony fraud in Hawaii.

    I take offense at any false accusations against anyone, especially dead people who can’t defend themselves. You want to attack Obama himself; he’s a big boy and can take it. his parents, children and assorted relatives should be off limit. I took the same position regarding the slurs about Bristol Palin’s child, for example. They were disgusting.

    Jes Beard: Next, if you are addressing folks who claim to have personal knowledge, such as the guy circulation the supposed Kenyan birth certificate, or Orly Taitz with some of her claims, you might call them liars. But those who are merely repeating something they mistakenly believe to be true, you simply point out there error.

    You are new here. These “errors” have been pointed out ad infinitum. If I say something false about you and you correct me, the first time might be an “error”. If I repeat, especially several it they are LIES.

    Jes Beard: Now, for both you you, what do YOU call those who post bitter personal attacks on others and do so without using their actual names?

    I have explained several times why I am NOT going to post my real name here or on your blog. There are a lot of sick individuals out there and I am not going to expose myself or my family to the risk of harassment or worse. You will have to take my word for the fact that:
    1. I have never been disciplined by any professional body, nor accused of any violation of the ethics of my profession.
    2. I have never been arrested nor accused of any crime beyond a couple of minor traffic violatiions.

    I’m sorry, but your record as an attorney is relevant when you come here pontificating on the law. As I have said, it doesn’t automatically make everything you say wrong, but it is a factor that a wise and judicious person would take into account, just as part of evaluating an investtment is looking carefully at the people behind it, no matter how good the numbers appear.

    Look around here. Virtually everyone posts under a screen name-I don’t know if Robert Clark is his real name, but even if it is, it’s common enough not to be an identifierwithout a lot more information. Mine is much less common.

    Jes Beard: But, that’s just me

    That’s the one thing you’ve said that I agree with.

  221. avatar
    Thrifty April 25, 2011 at 4:35 pm #

    Jes Beard: Next, if you are addressing folks who claim to have personal knowledge, such as the guy circulation the supposed Kenyan birth certificate, or Orly Taitz with some of her claims, you might call them liars. But those who are merely repeating something they mistakenly believe to be true, you simply point out there error.

    Joe, you don’t have a lot of experience with birthers. The ones who come around here aren’t making honest mistakes. I have never once at this forum seen one of them go through this cycle.

    1) Make a claim.
    2) Have that claim corrected.
    3) Say “I admit my error and stand corrected.” or something similar.

    That’s why they’re called liars. Birthers don’t say false things once out of error. They say things over and over again after being corrected.

    I have seen one guy on another forum admit he was mistaken about making the claim that Obama never released his birth certificate. I suppose that if theoretically a person came here and repeated some oft-debunked birther claim, and we called him a liar and corrected him, but he then said “Hey guys chill. I didn’t realize this had been adressed. I stand corrected.” If that happened, I think that the regulars here would apologize and perhaps respect the man for his intellectual honesty, even if he was a little ignorant of the facts.

  222. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 25, 2011 at 5:09 pm #

    Jes Beard:
    Scientiest, let us start with the obvious — Obama ain’t your momma.Nor are you Obama, to make the claims about birthplace being against your momma.Nor, for that matter, is it likely that fraudulent application for a birth certificate would ever have constituted felony fraud in Hawaii.

    It doesn’t change the fact that birthers have baselessly slandered the President’s family (in vile and bigoted ways as well) – is that acceptable behavior?

    Next, if you are addressing folks who claim to have personal knowledge, such as the guy circulation the supposed Kenyan birth certificate, or Orly Taitz with some of her claims, you might call them liars.But those who are merely repeating something they mistakenly believe to be true, you simply point out there error.

    Since all of the regular birther trolls have had their multitude of errors repeatedly debunked here (which they generally refuse to acknowledge), new people (or, more accurately, new handles) don’t get the benefit of the doubt when they repeat things that have been shown to be lies. Generally, I try to say ‘ignorant or dishonest’ until someone proves themselves to be both, but empirical evidence suggests that I don’t need to bother.

    Slatribartfast, that fact that many of those insisting Obama was born in Kenya may be racist, certainly does not mean that all of those who think he was are racist, and even less that those who simply would like to see the long form birth certificate are racist.

    I’m very careful to make a distinction between ‘bigot’ and ‘racist’. All birthers are not racists, although a significant portion are. I’ve not seen any indication that you are a racist, but you have been unquestionably ‘palling around with racists’. On the other hand, birtherism is rooted in prejudice against President Obama (for whatever reason) – in other words, bigotry. Calling a birther a bigot, therefore, is not an underserved slur, but a recognition of that fact (and thus a justified slur). “Those who simply would like to see the long form birth certificate” (which has no additional relevant information regarding President Obama’s eligibility) when the president’s birth in Hawai’i is established beyond any reasonable level of certainty are clearly demonstrating prejudice against President Obama (since no one did the same for any of his predecessors) and hence have no defense against being called out on their bigotry.

    Now, as I have pointed out several times, I have no doubt but that the Obama camp intends to play this entire issue as one in which anyone having doubts as to whether Obama meets the Constitutional requirements,

    You can have doubts and ask questions – that’s reasonable – but when you continue to ask questions because you didn’t like the answers you were given (and were verified to be correct) it quickly becomes clear that you’ve left ‘reasonable’ far behind…

    and even everyone who opposed Obama on policy or effectiveness grounds, is racist….

    Nope – you can be opposed to President Obama for any reason based on facts and you wont have a problem with me (start calling him a socialist or a muslim or a communist or saying that he’s unpatriotic and out to ruin the country [intentionally] and I’ll point out that your bigotry is showing, though…).

    And folks like you will do your best to help with that.

    Not me – I’m opposed to Republicans because their economic policies are insane and have been empirically demonstrated to be catastrophic and the seem completely beholden to corporate interests (which the Democratic party seems only partially beholden to). I’ll point out that all racists are Republican but I’ll never say that all Republicans are racist (some of my best friends are Republicans… ;-)) [The preceding was a hyperbolic statement - it wasn't literally true, but it held a lot of truth - and a jab at racists 'protesting too much' - I'm not sure that I have any close Republican friends (a lot of family, though...)]

    Now, for both you you, what do YOU call those who post bitter personal attacks on others and do so without using their actual names?

    Answering for myself, you can call me Kevin. As most people here know, I’m not using an anonymous identity, but an acknowledged pseudonym (I’ve given my last name on this site before, but I’m not going to give it to you without seeing some sort of apology first – if you wont apologize, then do your homework and figure out my last name yourself… [it shouldn't be hard unless you're a complete idiot... ;-)]). Nor are my attacks bitter (maybe a little bit – I resent having been told that it was unpatriotic not to support the president in a time of war only to have many of the same people refuse to even refer to the president with the respect due his office…) and if they are personal, they are also justified. If you stop acting like a bigot (i.e. prejudiced against President Obama) then I will stop calling you one.

    I think you might START by calling them cowards, but when they take steps to conceal their identity,

    “Take steps to conceal their identity”? What the hell do you mean? In any case, I’ve provided you with the information necessary to find my identity (and the only reason I haven’t said it outright is to annoy you – like I said, apologize for implying that I was a coward and I’ll acknowledge it with my last name).

    it might also make sense to call them somewhat less credible or trustworthy than they might be if they removed the veil of anonymity.

    Let’s look at the tale of the tape, shall we:

    Jes:
    Lawyer
    currently not allowed to practice
    prejudiced against President Obama
    (previous posts on this site speak for themselves)

    Kevin:
    Mathematician
    currently unemployed (working on becoming self-employed)
    prejudiced towards scientific empiricism
    (previous posts on this site speak for themselves)

    I know who I think is more credible, but maybe that’s just me…

    But, that’s just me.

    Dr. Conspiracy, while “misinformation (may) spring from an intent to deceive,” you are very seldom if ever addressing the source from which any misinformation did any springing.You are generally addressing those who are repeating information, and sincerely believe it.

    Once someone is exposed to the truth, their belief in a lie is no longer sincere.

    The name callingwhich permeates BOTH sides actually makes it much more difficult to persuade someone who was honestly mistaken that they were mistaken.It is utter foolishness.

    People that show up here asking honest questions and considering the answers with an open mind get treated accordingly, even if their minds are filled with disinformation. You showed up wrapped in dishonesty and reeking of birther prejudices – and you were treated accordingly, too.

  223. avatar
    Scientist April 25, 2011 at 5:11 pm #

    Thrifty: I have never once at this forum seen one of them go through this cycle.
    1) Make a claim.
    2) Have that claim corrected.
    3) Say “I admit my error and stand corrected.” or something similar

    Just a note regarding my exchange witth Mr Beard on his blog.

    He made the following statement: ” at the time of his birth, US law only gave citizenship by birth to those born outside of the US if the mother was both a US citizen AND had been in the US for five years after her 20th birthday…. and momma was not yet 20 when he was born:

    As we all know, that is incorrect. I cited the correct law. I took it from wikipedia rather than directly from the US Code, because that was easier to find, but my citation was correct.

    Mr Beard’s response, “I don’t know for sure whether I am right regarding the law of citizenship in 1961 or not…. and don’t really car enough about that issue to argue it,”

    Now that statute was peripheral to the discussion, but why not simply admit the error and correct it? Why say, I can’t be bothered with the facts?

    Later on I gave an incorrect date for the first English translation of Vattel. When Mr Beard pointed out my error, I admitted my mistake.

    We all make errors. Some folks are wiillng to correct their errors, some insist on persisting in their error.

  224. avatar
    Majority Will April 25, 2011 at 5:19 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I know who I think is more credible, but maybe that’s just me…

    It’s not just you and for the rest of your comment . . . hear, hear. Well said.

  225. avatar
    Majority Will April 25, 2011 at 5:27 pm #

    Scientist: We all make errors. Some folks are wiillng to correct their errors, some insist on persisting in their error.

    Why would a birther be interested in the truth? The truth is an annoyance to a birther and only gets in their way of smearing the President.

  226. avatar
    Scientist April 25, 2011 at 6:34 pm #

    in case Mr Beard is wondering about the difference between an error and a bold-faced birther lie, I give you the infamous Pakistani travel ban. This canard, that holders of US passports could not enter Pakistan in the early 1980s and thus Obama must have held another passport to visit there, has been repeated hundreds of times here. It has even been included in court filings by birther attorneys. Yet, the plain truth is there never was such a ban. There were travel warnings as there are today for about 30 countries, including Mexico, Japan, Israel and Egypt, countries to which large numbers of Americans go. The plain fact is that Americans could go to Pakistan freely in the early 1980s, only needing to get a 30-day visa upon entry, as is the case for dozens of countries.

    So when this falsehood is repeated for the 357th time, it is no error, no matter of interpretation, no typo, it is a LIE.

  227. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 25, 2011 at 7:09 pm #

    Scientist:
    in case Mr Beard is wondering about the difference between an error and a bold-faced birther lie, I give you the infamous Pakistani travel ban.This canard, that holders of US passports could not enter Pakistan in the early 1980s and thus Obama must have held another passport tovisit there, has been repeated hundreds of times here.It has even been included in court filings by birther attorneys. Yet, the plain truth is there never was such a ban.There were travel warnings as there are today for about 30 countries, including Mexico, Japan, Israel and Egypt, countries to which large numbers of Americans go. The plain fact is that Americans could go to Pakistan freely in the early 1980s, only needing to get a 30-day visa upon entry, as is the case for dozens of countries.

    So when this falsehood is repeated for the 357thtime, it is no error, no matter of interpretation, no typo, it is a LIE.

    I guess the birthers figure that they can’t admit that they were wrong in one blatantly obvious case as they would be setting a precedent which would undo their entire argument…

  228. avatar
    G April 25, 2011 at 7:19 pm #

    Kudos to Thrifty, Slarti, Majority Will and Scientist.

    You’ve made all the rational points that I would have made. I concur. ‘Nuff Said!

  229. avatar
    Jes Beard April 26, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

    Scientist:
    So when this falsehood is repeated for the 357thtime, it is no error, no matter of interpretation, no typo, it is a LIE.

    Perhaps it would be a lie in the world of the Borg where all of those having doubts about Obama would have full and instantaneous sharing of information, but, believe it or not, some of the doubters have not assimilated, and those defending Obama would be far more effective in persuading someone of an honest error by pointing out what the Obama camp believes the truth to be… instead of trying to brand someone a liar.

    But, as I have said before, many in the Obama camp seem to want to create more division — Slartibartfast has admitted as much.

  230. avatar
    G April 26, 2011 at 12:18 pm #

    Jes Beard: Perhaps it would be a lie in the world of the Borg where all of those having doubts about Obama would have full and instantaneous sharing of information, but, believe it or not, some of the doubters have not assimilated, and those defending Obama would be far more effective in persuading someone of an honest error by pointing out what the Obama camp believes the truth to be… instead of trying to brand someone a liar.But, as I have said before, many in the Obama camp seem to want to create more division — Slartibartfast has admitted as much.

    They are only branded a liar if they demonstrate they are such.

    That means the first time someone says something factually incorrect, they are provided responses and sources with the correct info.

    If they come back and continue to repeat the same debunked info time after time after they have been shown their info is false, then there is no conclusion left but that they are intentially and willfully lying and hoping that if they only repeat the lie enough, they won’t always get caught and can brainwash some poor dupe into falling for it.

    You misinterpret Slarti. Noone here is trying to “create division”.

    But getting entertainment out of a delusional group eating their own and taking themselves down – well, that’s just pure entertainment.

    We’re not creating any division – we’re just sititng back and watching the spite-driven rabid nuts do it to themselves. It is known as reap what you sow…

    Hey, if you want to go play in traffic, we’ve already told you its a bad idea… but if you insist..then go for it and we’ll watch you self-destruct. That sorta thing.

  231. avatar
    Scientist April 26, 2011 at 12:30 pm #

    Jes Beard: Perhaps it would be a lie in the world of the Borg where all of those having doubts about Obama would have full and instantaneous sharing of information, but, believe it or not, some of the doubters have not assimilated, and those defending Obama would be far more effective in persuading someone of an honest error by pointing out what the Obama camp believes the truth to be… instead of trying to brand someone a liar

    Oh, come now!! You are new to this site, so let me regale you with a bit of history by way of example. A certain attorney named Mario Apuzzo, who has lost a few birther cases for his “client”, used to come here quite regularly. The “Pakistani travel ban” was one of his favorite themes. Every time he posted it here it was debunked with specific references to the State Dept and a NY Times Travel article from 1981 about visiting Pakistan, among others. 2 days later, back was Mario with the exact same garbage. What’s worse, is not only did he repeat the falsehood over and over on this site and his blog, he put it in court filings.

    “Lie” is defined as : “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood”

    So when the SAME person is informed that their statement is untrue and given impartial sources that demonstrate it is untrue, yet they persist in making the same statement, I don’t know what else to call it but a LIE. And since the definition of a “liar” is: “a person who tells lies”, I don’t know what else to call them but a LIAR..

  232. avatar
    JoZeppy April 26, 2011 at 1:05 pm #

    nc1: Tim Adams told you in the radio interview that home birth registrations used different form compared to hospital births. Who describes a document which is only signed but otherwise typed as a half handwritten? That comment is Dr. Fukino’s cover your a@@ strategy. Both of her press-releases fall nicely in line with this scenario. Add into the picture Abercrombie’s comment that they found something “actually written” as a registration of Obama’s birth in Hawaii – it is quite obvious that they are not talking about the “Nordyke type” document.

    Wow….point to Tim Adams? And considering the office Tim Adams briefly temp’ed in has no access to vitial records, how exactly would he have any knowledge about these records?

    And can you now understand why no one takes you birthers remotely seriously?

  233. avatar
    Jes Beard April 26, 2011 at 1:15 pm #

    Scientist: Just a note regarding my exchange witth Mr Beard on his blog.

    He made the following statement: ” at the time of his birth, US law only gave citizenship by birth to those born outside of the US if the mother was both a US citizen AND had been in the US for five years after her 20th birthday…. and momma was not yet 20 when he was born:

    As we all know, that is incorrect.I cited the correct law.I took it from wikipedia rather than directly from the US Code, because that was easier to find, but my citation was correct.

    Mr Beard’s response, “I don’t know for sure whether I am right regarding the law of citizenship in 1961 or not…. and don’t really car enough about that issue to argue it,”

    Now that statute was peripheral to the discussion, but why not simply admit the error and correct it?Why say, I can’t be bothered with the facts?

    Later on I gave an incorrect date for the first English translation of Vattel.When Mr Beard pointed out my error, I admitted my mistake.

    We all make errors.Some folks are wiillng to correct their errors, some insist on persisting in their error.

    Some also persist in distorting things.

    Scientist, why not quote the REST of my response? but I do know that I do not place tremendous weight on wiki as a source for my legal conclusion. In other words, you may be right. You may be wrong. I quite seriously am not arguing with you or doubting your honesty in telling me what you found in wiki. I am simply saying I don’t think much of wiki as a source on such issues, and don’t care enough about that specific issue (at least at this time) to make the effort to find out.

    I did not dispute the issue. I said it was not an issue which mattered to my point, and it does not. My point was that Obama could get the records any time he wants them, and that the law is clear on that.

    You were banned on my site because that site does not exist to argue such issues, and it became painfully apparent that you insisted on arguing them. There are plenty of venues for this. Such as here.

    Slartibartfast:

    Slartibartfast: People that show up here asking honest questions and considering the answers with an open mind get treated accordingly, even if their minds are filled with disinformation. You showed up wrapped in dishonesty and reeking of birther prejudices – and you were treated accordingly, too.

    Really?

    Please direct me to my “dishonesty,” and also my “birther prejudice,” in any post here While you are at it, try to define “birther prejudice.”

    Do I like Obama? Certainly not. Less than half of the nation’s population approves of his job performance, and I believe most now say they will not vote for him in 2012… are all of those folks reeking of birther prejudice?

    I neither hid my distaste of Obama, nor my identity. You not only hide your identity, you also seem to pretend that you have no pro-Obama bias, or that if you do it should make no difference regarding your credibility.

    And what I presented in my blog was not presented with any suggestion that anyone should believe me or accept what I said simply because I said it. All of it was cited to the sources supporting what I presented, not just other folks saying any position I took was right, but to the actual law involved.

  234. avatar
    Jes Beard April 26, 2011 at 1:20 pm #

    G: You misinterpret Slarti. Noone here is trying to “create division”.

    Slartibartfast: — I want to poke birthers so that they squawk louder and exacerbate the wedge they drive between Republicans and Independents

    To use one of my favorite movie quotes, “Don’t piss down my neck and tell me it’s raining.”

  235. avatar
    Scientist April 26, 2011 at 1:22 pm #

    Jes Beard: I did not dispute the issue. I said it was not an issue which mattered to my point, and it does not.

    So as far as your concerned quoting a statute correctly or incorrectly is of no consequence? I am not surpised to hear that from yyou.

    Jes Beard: You were banned on my site because that site does not exist to argue such issues,

    Just out of curiosity, what does it exist for?

  236. avatar
    G April 26, 2011 at 2:22 pm #

    Jes Beard: Slartibartfast: — I want to poke birthers so that they squawk louder and exacerbate the wedge they drive between Republicans and Independents To use one of my favorite movie quotes, “Don’t piss down my neck and tell me it’s raining.”

    Yeah, you are still not getting it. Slarti is poking birthers for being birthers.

    If they *squawk* louder, that is them being what they are – birthers squawking and doing their “birther thing”.

    If their own actions and statements when made public drive a wedge between “Republicans and Independents” who’s fault is that? The blame belongs to the birthers. If their actions drive sane people away…then the responsibility lies on them.

    HINT: Nobody is putting the words into birthers mouth when they squawk. They are responsible for their own actions and words. If the mere visibility of their own ideas repulses sane people from them, that is their own darn fault.

    There is another saying: Shining light is the best disinfectant.

  237. avatar
    G April 26, 2011 at 2:29 pm #

    Jes Beard: Do I like Obama? Certainly not. Less than half of the nation’s population approves of his job performance, and I believe most now say they will not vote for him in 2012… are all of those folks reeking of birther prejudice?

    No. No one is saying that, so stop right there with a straw-man argument.

    None of us care if people like or don’t like Obama or some other candidate. Free country. Vote for who you want. That is how the system works.

    We only care about those that need to resort to spreading lies and misrepresentations in order to demagogue.

    If you can’t make your point on actual issues, then you have no point. Birtherism is all kooky bigotry (of various types – because of party, religion or race) with no sense and no real evidence behind it. It is just a “beard” argument to cover up their real predjudice and sow smears and discord.

  238. avatar
    Jes Beard April 26, 2011 at 3:36 pm #

    G:
    None of us care if people like or don’t like Obama or some other candidate.

    Again, don’t piss down my neck and tell me it’s raining.

  239. avatar
    Greg April 26, 2011 at 3:45 pm #

    Jes Beard: Again, don’t piss down my neck and tell me it’s raining.

    Jes Beard: Again, don’t piss down my neck and tell me it’s raining.

    Do you see commentary here calling Tim Pawlenty a nutjob? Or John Boehner?

    Or perhaps you can point to some pro-Obama birther who has escaped criticism?

    Tim Adams claims to be a pro-Obama birther. He’s been pretty well condemned on the site if I’m not mistaken.

  240. avatar
    nemocapn April 26, 2011 at 4:03 pm #

    G: None of us care if people like or don’t like Obama or some other candidate. Free country. Vote for who you want. That is how the system works.

    That’s my sentiment, too. I’d like to see a Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul ticket, but I know some people think that’s crazy. I voted for Obama in order to reverse the intrusion on civil liberties during the Bush administration and to combat the ever creeping expansion on executive power. Kucinich and Paul are stronger on civil liberties.

    If Obama loses on the issues, so be it. He deserves to lose. But he doesn’t deserve to lose because of smear tactics. That goes for any candidate. I didn’t like Bush, but to suggest that he’s literally a Nazi or the Anti-Christ is beyond the pale.

  241. avatar
    G April 26, 2011 at 4:13 pm #

    Jes Beard: Again, don’t piss down my neck and tell me it’s raining.

    Wow…now you are just in a snit and being glib.

    This is the second time you’ve tried to dismissively use that old southern phrase, which to my recollection, roughly translates as “Don’t tell me a lie and expect me to believe it”

    So, the challenge is to YOU to explain yourself on what precisely you mean by that and defend your own words here.

    I have not told you any LIE. If you are incapable of addressing what was said and can only provide a childish and snotty retort and not back it up, then you are just coming across like an immature prick.

    Exactly what is it that you take issue with? Please, show us that you actually have the maturity to carry on an adult conversation and can back up your smug statements and justify your attitude of glib superiority.

  242. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 26, 2011 at 4:33 pm #

    Jes Beard: Some also persist in distorting things.

    Hmmm… like you Jes?

    [A response to scientist deleted]

    Really?

    Please direct me to my “dishonesty,” and also my “birther prejudice,” in any post hereWhile you are at it, try to define “birther prejudice.”

    Here you go:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/has-the-birther-movement-peaked/#comment-108674

    I think you exhibit prejudice against President Obama (see the above comment) and I’ll let everyone make up their own mind about whether or not your actions here have been honest.

    Do I like Obama?Certainly not.Less than half of the nation’s population approves of his job performance, and I believe most now say they will not vote for him in 2012… are all of those folks reeking of birther prejudice?

    Well see what happens in the election (if historical precedents hold true then he will be re-elected based on polling to date…), but no – not all of them, but many of them are (since the Republicans choose to fight President Obama with fear-mongering, hate mongering, and demagoguery instead of on the issues it is unsurprising that many people were duped by right-wing propaganda into being prejudiced against the president [call them 'FOX NEWS bigots']). I’m hoping that (and helping make) this bite them in the a$$. The Republicans sowed the wind – and the birthers are a part of the whirlwind that they will reap.

    I neither hid my distaste of Obama, nor my identity.You not only hide your identity

    Yes, I’ve made it impossible for anyone to figure out my secret identity! *cough* Kevin Kesseler *cough* BWA-ha-ha-HA-ha!

    , you also seem to pretend that you have no pro-Obama bias, or that if you do it should make no difference regarding your credibility.

    Actually, I don’t have a pro-Obama bias – I’m pretty pissed at him right now for various reasons, but my vehement rational opposition to the insanity that is currently the American right wing impels me to support him to the best of my ability. Furthermore, I expect any factual information in my comments to be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny that birther lies undergo here and I’ve always been very clear as to when what I was saying was an opinion rather than fact – I flatter myself to think that many others here have come to respect my opinion whether they agree with it or not.

    And what I presented in my blog was not presented with any suggestion that anyone should believe me or accept what I said simply because I said it.All of it was cited to the sources supporting what I presented, not just other folks saying any position I took was right, but to the actual law involved.

    And the logical contradiction between the two articles I pointed out? Or are you just used to the cognitive dissonance from your time as a birther?

  243. avatar
    G April 26, 2011 at 4:38 pm #

    nemocapn: If Obama loses on the issues, so be it. He deserves to lose. But he doesn’t deserve to lose because of smear tactics. That goes for any candidate. I didn’t like Bush, but to suggest that he’s literally a Nazi or the Anti-Christ is beyond the pale.

    Well said! I completely agree!

    I was very, very disappointed in GWB and his administration, but I really couldn’t stand all the BDS nonsense that eventually emerged in response to it. Eventually, you couldn’t read any newsstory without some crazies irrationally blaming GWB for it, down to local stories about bad weather or some drunk driver being arrested. It was insane. Worse, some of the more unhinged folks would have to say unnecessary, undeserved and uncalled for vile things about his wife, kids and other family. I mean come on, there were lots of legitimate stuff to criticize him and his administration on…the rest was nothing but illogical and utterly unnecessary madness! It reminded me of the same ugly nonsense on the fringes that said such awful things during the Clinton years (although we didn’t have the term CDS for it back then).

    I naively thought that once his presidency was over, that sanity might return to the political dialogue…but then before Obama even got elected, ODS emerged! Ugh!!! Stop the insanity!!!

    If anything, I think it was that sheer grating revulsion to the tactics and smear-based ugliness of Derangement Syndrome attacks -period, that attracted me to sites like this early on.

  244. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 26, 2011 at 4:40 pm #

    Jes Beard:

    G: You misinterpret Slarti. Noone here is trying to “create division”.

    Slartibartfast: — I want to poke birthers so that they squawk louder and exacerbate the wedge they drive between Republicans and Independents

    To use one of my favorite movie quotes, “Don’t piss down my neck and tell me it’s raining.”

    As G pointed out, making someone hoist themselves on their own petard is not encouraging divisiveness and Republicans can make my strategy ineffective by coming down hard on the birthers (like they did to the Birchers back in the day) – an outcome that’s fine by me (and would be a baby step towards a less divisive environment). The birthers are merely one of the Republicans’ chickens from the 2008 campaign coming home to roost… I certainly didn’t make Caribou Barbie play the politics of hate on her dog whistle.

  245. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 26, 2011 at 4:41 pm #

    Jes Beard: (or, suggestions on how to improve my gardening)

    Spend more time on it.

  246. avatar
    G April 26, 2011 at 4:51 pm #

    nemocapn: Same here. Ron Paul is way better than Rand Paul, and Billy Graham is way better than Franklin Graham. (in my opinion)

    Yeah, talk about apples falling far from the tree! *sheesh*

    Mind you, there were definitely a few situations that have come out over time that revealed that Billy Graham wasn’t always what his public persona appeared to be. (I remember certain statements about former presidents viewing him as more of an opportunist publicity hound as well as I think there were even several anti-semetic statements of his that have been revealed)

    But Franlin Graham – ugh! He’s a lot more similar to Pat Robertson than Billy Graham, if you ask me.

    Oh, while I’m at it – I wanted to comment on your mention of Dennis Kucinich and let you know that I feel the same way about him as what I expressed about Ron Paul. Obviously the two are from very different political perspectives, but they are both sincere and consistent in their views. I just find them to be too idealistic for my pragmatic tastes, but I respect and like both of them as individuals and as honest people that I can respect yet disagree with.

  247. avatar
    Scientist April 26, 2011 at 5:36 pm #

    Jes Beard: When the statute is not one at issue in the blog entry, you are correct that it doesn’t matter. You want to quote for me the statute in Pennsylvania on who could register to vote in that state in 1830? I am not going to argue with whatever you offer, because it doesn’t matter to the current discussion

    If you bring up the statute on registration in Pennsylvania,then you should quote it correctly. YOU brought up the 1952 nationality statute, not me. i corrected you quite non-critically and politely. The gentlemanly and sensible thing to say, would have been “I stand corrected”? Would that have hurt your manhood to admit an error?

    Jes Beard: It exists as a vehicle for my writing, and for commentary on that writing (or, suggestions on how to improve my gardening),

    I enjoy gardening also. I’m not that good at it, so I don’t have a lot of suggestions for you. Herbs are my favorite.

  248. avatar
    nemocapn April 26, 2011 at 6:25 pm #

    James M: She did kill her friend Michael Douglas in 1963 in a vehicle accident.There is no reason to call it murder, but it was a vehicular homicide, even if an accident.

    Was there some point to bringing the subject up?I remember it being brought up as an example of how fatal car accidents can happen, such as the accident with Senator Kennedy.

    It’s just an example of how people take information about first families and twist it into some awful conspiracy. Instead of being a tragic accident, it became a hushed up, premeditated murder in the minds of some political opponents. G and I are of the same mind that these smears are inappropriate whether directed at a Democrat or a Republican.

  249. avatar
    G April 26, 2011 at 9:19 pm #

    nemocapn: It’s just an example of how people take information about first families and twist it into some awful conspiracy. Instead of being a tragic accident, it became a hushed up, premeditated murder in the minds of some political opponents. G and I are of the same mind that these smears are inappropriate whether directed at a Democrat or a Republican.

    Yes, we absolutely agree on this.

  250. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 11:17 am #

    Scientist:

    So what about Jes Beard?That is certainly a pretty astounding record of multiple malfeasance.i was aware of it and hinted at it here and on his blog, which got me banned on his blog.

    No. What got you banned was exactly what I told you would get you banned — insisting on trying to make my blog into another site debating whether Obama does or does not meet the constitutional qualifications. Unlike you, Scientist, I use my real name. Anyone wanting to check anything about me can do so. I do not hide it.

    Now, let’s look at the essence of my argument — that the long form was available and that Obama could produce it any time he wanted to do so.

    You and others here disputed that, contending the law did not allow it (and ignoring the clear language of the statutes), and contending the regulations must have prevented the release (and ignoring the regulations which are posted now at least on this site), and contending Obama requesting it would create an unseemly conflict between the President and Hawaii….

    And all such claims were bull, and my contention has been proven right… which anyone bothering to look at the statute could see, and which only those who would refuse to look at the statute, or were died in the wool Obama apologists would deny.

  251. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 27, 2011 at 11:21 am #

    Jes Beard: No.What got you banned was exactly what I told you would get you banned — insisting on trying to make my blog into another site debating whether Obama does or does not meet the constitutional qualifications.Unlike you, Scientist, I use my real name.Anyone wanting to check anything about me can do so.I do not hide it.

    Now, let’s look at the essence of my argument — that the long form was available and that Obama could produce it any time he wanted to do so.

    You and others here disputed that, contending the law did not allow it (and ignoring the clear language of the statutes), and contending the regulations must have prevented the release (and ignoring the regulations which are posted now at least on this site), and contending Obama requesting it would create an unseemly conflict between the President and Hawaii….

    And all such claims were bull, and my contention has been proven right… which anyone bothering to look at the statute could see, and which only those who would refuse to look at the statute, or were died in the wool Obama apologists would deny.

    Sorry Jes, but apparently the White House got a special waiver to release it – in other words, they went around the law.

  252. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 11:33 am #

    Slartibartfast: Please direct me to my “dishonesty,” and also my “birther prejudice,” in any post hereWhile you are at it, try to define “birther prejudice.”

    Here you go:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/has-the-birther-movement-peaked/#comment-108674

    Slartibartfast, that’s a good one. In trying to provide and example of MY dishonesty, you provide a link to a thread where it appears I have not even posted.

  253. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 27, 2011 at 11:41 am #

    Jes Beard: Slartibartfast, that’s a good one.In trying to provide and example of MY dishonesty, you provide a link to a thread where it appears I have not even posted.

    You asked for a definition of ‘birther prejudice’ – the comment I liked to gave one. I could come up with examples of your dishonesty, but I’m too busy roasting marshmallows over the embers of the birther movement today – I have some plans for pushing the edge of the envelope in s’more engineering…

  254. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 11:55 am #

    Slartibartfast: You asked for a definition of birther prejudice’ – the comment I liked to gave one.

    So if a person insists that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and even if he was, he doesn’t meet the Vattel “natural born citizen” definition because his father was not a citizen or because Obama once held dual citizenship , and even if he did originally meet that definition he lost his citizenship when his step-father adopted him or because he renounced it when he applied to Occidental as a foreign student (have I forgotten any?), but those beliefs are NOT the result of Obama being (or beeing perceived as) “a… negro, communist, socialist, left-wing, Kenyan, muslim, CIA agent, Soviet spy, nazi” that person is NOT a birther?

  255. avatar
    Scientist April 27, 2011 at 11:58 am #

    Jes Beard: You and others here disputed that, contending the law did not allow it (and ignoring the clear language of the statutes), and contending the regulations must have prevented the release (and ignoring the regulations which are posted now at least on this site), and contending Obama requesting it would create an unseemly conflict between the President and Hawaii….

    Slarty:already answered it. You are wrong, sir. The President got a waiver from the policy not to release such documents. i think it’s unfortunate and unseemly. Why? Because think to the precedent. What if Pawlenty wants to run and the Democratic Governor of Minnesota orders the DOH to go strictly by the book and only release the ordinary computer-generated form that everybody else gets? This is a bad precedent that may come back to bite someone, if not in 2012, then in some future election.

    Now, please go and analyze the statutes of all 50 states before you return, because this isn’t just about Obama and Hawaii.

  256. avatar
    Scientist April 27, 2011 at 12:00 pm #

    By the way, Jes, not that I don’t trust you, but I will be checking your blog to make sure that you don’t ignore the fact that Obama GOT A WAIVER from the policy.

  257. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 27, 2011 at 12:05 pm #

    Jes Beard: So if a person insists that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and even if he was, he doesn’t meet the Vattel “natural born citizen” definition because his father was not a citizen or because Obama once held dual citizenship , and even if he did originally meet that definition he lost his citizenship when his step-father adopted him or because he renounced it when he applied to Occidental as a foreign student (have I forgotten any?), but those beliefs are NOT the result of Obama being (or beeing perceived as) “a… negro, communist, socialist, left-wing, Kenyan, muslim, CIA agent, Soviet spy, nazi” that person is NOT a birther?

    Someone who believes all of those things does so in the face of the facts. To me, that is prima facie evidence of prejudice against President Obama and thus bigotry. The list of forms of bigotry I gave was not exhaustive and the hypothetical person you suggest does not exist.

  258. avatar
    The Magic M April 27, 2011 at 12:32 pm #

    > And all such claims were bull, and my contention has been proven right…

    Well, even if it was, where are you going to go from here? The BC is there, nothing more to ask for.

  259. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 12:36 pm #

    Slartibartfast: You asked for a definition of birther prejudice’ – the comment I liked to gave one.

    So if a person insists that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and even if he was, he doesn’t meet the Vattel “natural born citizen” definition because his father was not a citizen or because Obama once held dual citizenship , and even if he did originally meet that definition he lost his citizenship when his step-father adopted him or because he renounced it when he applied to Occidental as a foreign student (have I forgotten any?), but those beliefs are NOT the result of Obama being (or beeing perceived as) “a… negro, communist, socialist, left-wing, Kenyan, muslim, CIA agent, Soviet spy, nazi” that person is NOT a birther?

    Scientist:
    By the way, Jes, not that I don’t trust you, but I will be checking your blog to make sure that you don’t ignore the fact that Obama GOT A WAIVER from the policy.

    Why should I? When he was already clearly allowed under the law to get the records, how did he get a “waiver” to get what he was already allowed to get?

    Beyond that, the blog is not intended as a news source to provide the latest development on some issue.

    Slartibartfast: Someone who believes all of those things does so in the face of the facts. To me, that is prima facie evidence of prejudice against President Obama and thus bigotry. The list of forms of bigotry I gave was not exhaustive and the hypothetical person you suggest does not exist.

    Yes, such people DO exist. And a few of them are even black.

    Scientist: please go and analyze the statutes of all 50 states before you return, because this isn’t just about Obama and Hawaii.

    My posts have been, and I certainly haven’t seen any indication otherwise from any of your posts.

  260. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 12:46 pm #

    Scientist: The President got a waiver from the policy not to release such documents.

    Since this site now has all of the regulations and policies posted at it, is there any chance you could direct me to the regulatory language or policy which you are referencing?

    Remember, my dispute was with the claim made in the CNN video up at the top of this page which claimed Hawaiian law would have to be changed to allow release of the long form (at 2:09 into the video), a claim which was bullshit then, and which my blog established was bullshit, and which the events of this morning demonstrate was bullshit, since no law was changed.

    Remember the point of my original post, CNN and most news organizations have one important fact absolutely wrong regarding Obama’s birth certificate — he unquestionably can get the “long form” records from Hawaii if he wants to get them.

    sef and others disputed that. sef and others were wrong.

  261. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 12:54 pm #

    The Magic M: where are you going to go from here?

    I am afraid most of the doubters will move to the authenticity of the document released today, or to the Vattel issues. Both moves I believe are mistakes, whether they are sincere or not. It is impossible that the Supreme Court would address the issue before the November 2012 election, and in the eyes of many any new demands made by doubters will tend to make them appear to be racists and cause independents to support Obama in revulsion.

    The focus of those who do not want Obama as president needs to be on his job performance and his policies.

    School records and anything he might have submitted to a law review might have been relevant in 2008 to provide insight into how he would likely govern, but at this point, when he has a record of governance, that needs to be the focus of his opponents.

    If they focus on that, Obama will be a one term president. If the eventual nominee spends any meaningful time on birthplace, Vattel, school transcripts, application records, Affirmative Action, or anything else, his opponents might well snap defeat from the jaws of victory.

  262. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 12:59 pm #

    As I wrote…..http://bryankeithnixon.com/?p=103

  263. avatar
    Scientist April 27, 2011 at 1:06 pm #

    Jes Beard: If they focus on that, Obama will be a one term president.

    Back when Obama took office, I predicted that if unemployment were around 8% and trending down in late 2012, he would be re-elected. I think it will be and he will be. I will happily place money on that with you.

    Jes Beard: Why should I? When he was already clearly allowed under the law to get the records, how did he get a “waiver” to get what he was already allowed to get?

    Both DOH and the White House have said they made an “exception” to their policy. You continue to pretend that government agencies don’t have policies. They do.

    I have tried to be polite with you. As an incompetent ex-attorney, it takes what we call iin New York chutzpah (defined as killing your parents and asking for mercy because you are an orphan) for you, in view of your record, to say a single word about any legal issue. If you had any sense of shame or honor you would limit yourself to gardening.

    I tried to be kind and not confront that directly, but your obstinacy is too much to take..

  264. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 27, 2011 at 1:18 pm #

    Jes Beard: Yes, such people DO exist. And a few of them are even black.

    Either someone is prejudiced against President Obama (for whatever reason) and is a bigot or they are opposed to President Obama based on an objective evaluation of his actions (which is their right). Or both. The problem is that due to the enormous amount of right-wing propaganda being produced these days, many, if not most, people on the right are prejudiced against the straw man that FOX News et al. has made of President Obama – meaning that there are a whole bunch of unintentional bigots out there… Race is just one of the possible reasons for bigotry against the president.

  265. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 27, 2011 at 1:26 pm #

    Jes Beard: I am afraid most of the doubters will move to the authenticity of the document released today, or to the Vattel issues.Both moves I believe are mistakes, whether they are sincere or not.It is impossible that the Supreme Court would address the issue before the November 2012 election, and in the eyes of many any new demands made by doubters will tend to make them appear to be racists and cause independents to support Obama in revulsion.

    The focus of those who do not want Obama as president needs to be on his job performance and his policies.

    School records and anything he might have submitted to a law review might have been relevant in 2008 to provide insight into how he would likely govern, but at this point, when he has a record of governance, that needs to be the focus of his opponents.

    I agree with everything up to this point (we’ll see how accurate the following is in November 2012… I don’t think your insights will prove to be very insightful).

    If they focus on that, Obama will be a one term president.If the eventual nominee spends any meaningful time on birthplace, Vattel, school transcripts, application records, Affirmative Action, or anything else, his opponents might well snap defeat from the jaws of victory.

  266. avatar
    Joey April 27, 2011 at 1:26 pm #

    Jes Beard: I am afraid most of the doubters will move to the authenticity of the document released today, or to the Vattel issues.Both moves I believe are mistakes, whether they are sincere or not.It is impossible that the Supreme Court would address the issue before the November 2012 election, and in the eyes of many any new demands made by doubters will tend to make them appear to be racists and cause independents to support Obama in revulsion.

    The focus of those who do not want Obama as president needs to be on his job performance and his policies.

    School records and anything he might have submitted to a law review might have been relevant in 2008 to provide insight into how he would likely govern, but at this point, when he has a record of governance, that needs to be the focus of his opponents.

    If they focus on that, Obama will be a one term president.If the eventual nominee spends any meaningful time on birthplace, Vattel, school transcripts, application records, Affirmative Action, or anything else, his opponents might well snap defeat from the jaws of victory.

    I think who the Republicans select as their candidate will be the most important dynamic, regardless of the policy issues. Never underestimate the Republican Party’s ability to select another Bob Dole or John McCain.

  267. avatar
    G April 27, 2011 at 2:32 pm #

    Jes Beard: Remember the point of my original post, CNN and most news organizations have one important fact absolutely wrong regarding Obama’s birth certificate — he unquestionably can get the “long form” records from Hawaii if he wants to get them.
    sef and others disputed that. sef and others were wrong.

    Just a clarification – the process that CNN referred to was a HI FOIA request. That is a separate process outside of the HI DOH standard procedures for certified birth certificate requests. It is a legal avenue around the standard system.

  268. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 2:40 pm #

    Scientist: Both DOH and the White House have said they made an “exception” to their policy. You continue to pretend that government agencies don’t have policies. They do.

    Where is the policy?

    Where is the regulation?

    Call me whatever names you wish, but could you try to find that non-existent policy?

  269. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 2:42 pm #

    G: Just a clarification – the process that CNN referred to was a HI FOIA request.That is a separate process outside of the HI DOH standard procedures for certified birth certificate requests.It is a legal avenue around the standard system.

    I thought it was a waiver…. you might want to talk with Scientist and slartbart to get them to toe the official line.

  270. avatar
    G April 27, 2011 at 2:50 pm #

    Jes Beard: I am afraid most of the doubters will move to the authenticity of the document released today, or to the Vattel issues. Both moves I believe are mistakes, whether they are sincere or not. It is impossible that the Supreme Court would address the issue before the November 2012 election, and in the eyes of many any new demands made by doubters will tend to make them appear to be racists and cause independents to support Obama in revulsion.
    The focus of those who do not want Obama as president needs to be on his job performance and his policies.
    School records and anything he might have submitted to a law review might have been relevant in 2008 to provide insight into how he would likely govern, but at this point, when he has a record of governance, that needs to be the focus of his opponents.

    If the eventual nominee spends any meaningful time on birthplace, Vattel, school transcripts, application records, Affirmative Action, or anything else, his opponents might well snap defeat from the jaws of victory.

    On those points, we are essentially agreed.

    Agreed.

    Jes Beard: but at this point, when he has a record of governance, that needs to be the focus of his opponents.
    If they focus on that, Obama will be a one term president.

    This is the only point I take issue with, as such pronouncements are excessively bold and premature. If you change the word *will* to *might* that would be a more accurate statement.

    There are too many unknowns this early in the game for anyone to have excessive confidence of how an election 18 months from now will turn out. Economic factors, gas prices, war and other big events are always a key part of the equation.

    Just as important is who the options are. It requires more than just people unhappy with the status quo – they must also feel that their alternatives provide a better choice than what they have at the moment. If a strong third-party challenger enters the mix, that too affects the whole dynamic….particularly with where that third-party’s viewpoints most closely align in terms of the other two options.

    At this stage of the game, the entire potential GOP field is not strong and each of the names has various achilles heels to deal with and each will have to offer better options and serious solutions if they want to compete. Those are some big hurdles to overcome.

  271. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 27, 2011 at 2:53 pm #

    Jes Beard: I thought it was a waiver…. you might want to talk with Scientist and slartbart to get them to toe the official line.

    My god, you’re an idiot! President Obama did not use existing Hawai’i legislation or policy to obtain the LFBC, nor did he (or Hawai’ian officials) do anything outside the law to obtain it. What G said in no way contradicted what Scientist or I said.

  272. avatar
    Greg April 27, 2011 at 2:57 pm #

    Jes Beard: I thought it was a waiver…. you might want to talk with Scientist and slartbart to get them to toe the official line.

    Why don’t you read the request and response?

  273. avatar
    Greg April 27, 2011 at 3:01 pm #

    From the request:

    [W]e are writing to request a waiver of the Department of Health’s policy, so that my client can receive two certified copies of his original “long form” birth certificate. Waiver of the Department’s policy in this instance would allow my client to make a certified copy copy of his birth certificate publicly available…

    From the response:

    I am making an exception to current departmental policy…

    So, despite your protestations, everyone involved in this release believed it was the policy of the DOH to only release the short form.

    So, do you still insist that this policy is “non-existent?”

  274. avatar
    G April 27, 2011 at 3:10 pm #

    Jes Beard: I thought it was a waiver…. you might want to talk with Scientist and slartbart to get them to toe the official line.

    No, the special waiver they are referring to is what Obama actually did this past week to get the form that he released today:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-correspondence.pdf

    The AC360 shows specifically talked about filing a HI FOIA request, which they also confirmed that only 1 person did within the past year (and they confirmed it was a birther) and that such FOIA result would NOT be a Certified Copy.

    See Dr. C’s article on the show, which hopefully has all the video segments in it or go to CNN’s website to watch.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/hawaii-clarified-trump-evades/

    Greg did an excellent detailed explanation of what this process actually is on another thread:

    Greg: Do you understand that a FOIA request is an entirely different animal than a request for a birth certificate? If you go to the DOH and request a birth certificate, you will get a short form. If you write a letter to the UIPA contact person for the Department of Health requesting a copy of your birth records, and the UIPA contact person determines, in consultation with the legal counsel for the DOH, OIP and AG’s office that the information contained in your birth records does not fall within one of the exemptions for the UIPA, then you’ll get a copy of your birth records. The DOH releases the short form in response to requests they receive for a birth certificate because that’s what they give. It’s what their regulations authorize them to give. A totally separate regulation, a totally separate law, and a totally separate office cover UIPA requests. It has nothing to do with what the DOH likes.

    I hope that clears things up.

  275. avatar
    Scientist April 27, 2011 at 4:11 pm #

    Mr Beard has probably never worked for a private sector company or government agency. All of them have written down “Policies and Procedures” covering what to do in as many circustances as management can reasonably forsee. These are internal documents that are not made public (in the pharmaceutical industry they are closely guarded trade secrets). If you work for that company or agency you are as bound by those P&Ps as you are by any law. Violation of them is cause for termination

    Obviously, from what has been said, Hawaii DOH had P&Ps that said long forms were not to be given out. If you want one you have 2 options: 1. An FOIA request; 2. Ask tthe Director to make an exception (or waiver).

    The President, probably for reasons of expediency and simplicity chose #2.

    Now Mr Beard, do you understand? Should I come to Chattanooga and explain it in person?

  276. avatar
    Sef April 27, 2011 at 4:28 pm #

    Scientist:
    Mr Beard has probably never worked for a private sector company or government agency.All of them have written down “Policies and Procedures” covering what to do in as many circustances as management can reasonably forsee.These are internal documents that are not made public (in the pharmaceutical industry they are closely guarded trade secrets).If you work for that company or agency you are asbound by those P&Ps as you are by any law.Violation of them is cause for termination

    Obviously, from what has been said, Hawaii DOH had P&Ps that said long forms were not to be given out.If you want one you have 2 options: 1. An FOIA request; 2. Ask tthe Director to make an exception (or waiver).

    The President, probably for reasons of expediency and simplicity chose #2.

    Now Mr Beard, do you understand?Should I come to Chattanooga and explain it in person?

    Yes, usually P&Ps have exception mechanisms/clauses, otherwise no one would ever get anything done.

  277. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 9:16 pm #

    Sef: Yes, usually P&Ps have exception mechanisms/clauses, otherwise no one would ever get anything done.

    Before we grt to the exceptions, where again are the procedures from which the exception is being made? (And then we will deal with the policy for making an exception.)

  278. avatar
    Scientist April 27, 2011 at 9:22 pm #

    Jes Beard: Before we grt to the exceptions, where again are the procedures from which the exception is being made? (And then we will deal with the policy for making an exception.)

    Here are the rules that are supposed to be followed:

    Officials said, “Mr. Beard violated disciplinary rules by ignoring conflicts of interest between clients, by taking action to the detriment of one client in order to gain an advantage for another client, by improperly communicating with a person represented by another lawyer, by failing to competently and diligently represent his clients, and by failing to properly communicate the status of a case to a client. Mr. Beard also continually failed to respond to disciplinary counsel. Mr. Beard’s actions violated Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.7(a) (Conflict of Interest: General Rule), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 3.3(a) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 4.1(Truthfulness and Candor in Statements to Others), 4.2 (Communication With a Person represented by Counsel) and 8.4 (Misconduct).

333333 44444
5555555
6666666