Main Menu

“Hairbrained”

Oh, that liberal media! Mrs. Conspiracy showed me the Opinion page of yesterday’s Spartanburg Herald-Journal newspaper. There was a political cartoon depicting Donald Trump, wearing two campaign buttons: “President TRUMP 2012” and “Where is your birth certificate, Obama?” In place of Trump’s usual comb-over, we see a straight jacket on his head and the cartoon carries the caption, “Hairbrained.”

I never considered Spartanburg, South Carolina, to be a liberal stronghold, nor a newspaper that features George Will on the Opinion page to be a card-carrying member of the liberal media.

Update:

You gotta see this one by Robert Ariail from the Sunday Herald-Journal!

63 Responses to “Hairbrained”

  1. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett April 24, 2011 at 12:40 pm #

    Speaking of hairbrained, did you see Farah’s last word on the fistfight between WND and Salon?

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=290213

    I don’t see how what he’s saying is making any sense whatsoever.

    I also note that he’s backtracking. “I think Trump essentially spoke truth. We don’t know exactly how much money Obama has spent hiding public documentation about his nativity story. I suspect it could be substantially more than $2 million”

    ???

    J

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2011 at 12:48 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett: I also note that he’s backtracking. “I think Trump essentially spoke truth. We don’t know exactly how much money Obama has spent hiding public documentation about his nativity story. I suspect it could be substantially more than $2 million”

    Cute. While denying he ever claimed the $2 million number he at the same time puts out a larger number! Of course, never says anything but just raises a smear.

    However, I though that the original misinformational story linking Obama campaign expenses to eligibility lawsuits was in WND. Maybe it was commentary, which WND takes no responsibility for.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2011 at 1:30 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett: Speaking of hairbrained, did you see Farah’s last word on the fistfight between WND and Salon?

    Joseph Farah: Sometimes I wonder why I waste time refuting websites like Salon.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Sometimes I wonder why I waste time refuting websites like WorldNetDaily.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2011 at 1:43 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett: I also note that he’s backtracking. “I think Trump essentially spoke truth. We don’t know exactly how much money Obama has spent hiding public documentation about his nativity story. I suspect it could be substantially more than $2 million”

    Looking back over WorldNetDaily, we see headlines like:

    Is Obama campaign cash quashing eligibility suits?
    FEC shows more than $1 million paid to top law firm since election

    and then

    Obama law tab up to $1.4 million
    ‘Grass-roots army’ contributions being used to crush eligibility lawsuits?

    and then

    Obama law tab up to $1.7 million
    ‘Grass-roots army’ contributions used to crush eligibility lawsuits?

    The $2 million number surfaced as innuendo in a May, 2010 article that said:

    Nearly $2 million, or $1,941,381.04, of that sum was paid to Perkins Coie since questions about Obama’s eligibility were raised in June 2008 while Bauer was a partner (until Bauer’s departure in December 2009).

    The article goes on to document that Bauer represented Obama in an eligibility lawsuit.

    Given that the audience of WorldNetDaily is prone to reading things in the worst possible light and jumping to unwarranted conclusions, such innuendo is tantamount to a straightforward claim that Obama took $2 million from his campaign fund to pay eligibility lawyers.

  5. avatar
    Lil' Red April 24, 2011 at 2:20 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Cute. While denying he ever claimed the $2 million number he at the same time puts out a larger number!

    Does the number really matter? If it was $1000, it is still greater than the cost of obtaining the documentation requested. Is withholding any more justified by $1000 than it is by $2 million? I don’t think so. All the $2 million (or greater) number does is give those defending Obama something to refute. In reality, the cost vs. benefit is not justified as soon as it exceeds $10 plus time.

    Have Obama send a formal request to the Hawaii DOH authorizing and asking them to publish a copy of his original record. If they refuse, we have something to discuss. Until such time, the Hawaii DOH has not refused anything. Only Obama has refused to fully cooperate with any attempt to verify that he was born in a hospital in Hawaii. In doing so, he has caused many people to question the validity of his birth report.

    If you were going to loan me your car, and you asked me to show my driver’s license, I would not be offended. Further, I would not be offended if you asked me to provide a copy of my driving record. People with nothing to hide generally don’t have a problem making everything that could be considered relevant available, as long as it can be reasonably obtained.

  6. avatar
    Joey April 24, 2011 at 2:49 pm #

    Lil' Red: Does the number really matter? If it was $1000, it is still greater than the cost of obtaining the documentation requested. Is withholding any more justified by $1000 than it is by $2 million? I don’t think so. All the $2 million (or greater) number does is give those defending Obama something to refute. In reality, the cost vs. benefit is not justified as soon as it exceeds $10 plus time.

    Have Obama send a formal request to the Hawaii DOH authorizing and asking them to publish a copy of his original record. If they refuse, we have something to discuss. Until such time, the Hawaii DOH has not refused anything. Only Obama has refused to fully cooperate with any attempt to verify that he was born in a hospital in Hawaii. In doing so, he has caused many people to question the validity of his birth report.

    If you were going to loan me your car, and you asked me to show my driver’s license, I would not be offended. Further, I would not be offended if you asked me to provide a copy of my driving record. People with nothing to hide generally don’t have a problem making everything that could be considered relevant available, as long as it can be reasonably obtained.

    A certified copy of a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth (COLB) contains all the information that any birth certificate needs to supply in order to qualify as a natural born citizen under Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution: date of birth documenting age 35 or over and birth in the United States.
    Since 2008, a copy of Barack Hussein Obama II’s Certification of Live Birth has been available for anyone on the planet to see. That document states that he was born at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961 in the City of Honolulu, in the County of Honolulu, on the Island of Oahu, in the state of Hawaii, in the United States of America.
    That information has been verified by the Director of Health for the state of Hawaii and by the Registrar of Vital Statistics for the State of Hawaii and it was further confirmed as accurate by the former Republican Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle.
    If any official body needs more information than that (a court of law or a congressional committee), they can get a court order for the release of Obama’s original birth records under the provisions of Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-18(b)(point 9).
    “The president was, in fact, born at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii..” “And that’s just a fact. It’s been established. He was born here.”–Former Governor Linda Lingle (R-HI).
    “Kapiolani [is]the place of my birth.”–Barack Hussein Obama, in a letter to the hospital published in the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children Centennial Magazine.

  7. avatar
    James M April 24, 2011 at 2:51 pm #

    Lil' Red: Only Obama has refused to fully cooperate with any attempt to verify that he was born in a hospital in Hawaii.

    President Obama himself has never actually been asked to do that.

  8. avatar
    Lil' Red April 24, 2011 at 2:53 pm #

    James M: President Obama himself has never actually been asked to do that.

    James,

    Do you support asking him to do that?

  9. avatar
    misha April 24, 2011 at 3:01 pm #

    Lil' Red: People with nothing to hide generally don’t have a problem making everything that could be considered relevant available, as long as it can be reasonably obtained.

    Most interesting comment. Unfortunately, our system of justice is based on innocent until proven guilty. In this case, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Obama does not have to show you anything, nor should he.

    Trump got on the crazy train, so Bachmann got her ticket punched. Boehner and Cantor are winking at the mob. This is all going to wreck Romney, which makes me elated. If Romney says one word about it, he is going to get his father thrown back in his face.

    Not only was George born in Mexico, but it was a polygamist community, which is why they were in Mexico.

    Here’s a dog whistle from Milquetoast Pawlenty: “Now, I’m not one to question the authenticity of Barack Obama’s birth certificate.”

    To borrow from Shrub, “bring it on.”

  10. avatar
    Lil' Red April 24, 2011 at 3:07 pm #

    Joey,

    “Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.” —Thomas Jefferson

    Obama was not a witness to his own birth. Neither was his sister. If his birth was fraudulently registered in Hawaii, do you really think they have any interest in disclosing that?

    If Hawaii accepted a fraudulent birth registration, without any supporting evidence, do you think they would be interested in disclosing that?

    Did Gov. Lingle view Obama’s birth records? Did Gov. Lingle repeat what Fukino said in her official public statement?

    You state a whole lot, but you do everything you can to avoid providing anything that would demonstrate that Obama’s birth registration was not the product of fraud. What are you afraid of? Why make excuses? Why not ask Obama and the Hawaii DOH to prove that his birth registration was not the product of fraud?

    When Obama ran against Jack Ryan, the media filed suit to access Ryan’s divorce records. The claimed that the public interest outweighed any privacy concerns. The media prevailed! Are you really claiming that Obama’s privacy concerns outweigh the public interest in this case? If so, on what grounds? What information would be contained on the original records that you would consider to be a significant privacy concern? Surely you must have a reason to support your position.

  11. avatar
    Joey April 24, 2011 at 3:21 pm #

    Lil' Red:
    Joey,

    “Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.” —Thomas Jefferson

    Obama was not a witness to his own birth. Neither was his sister. If his birth was fraudulently registered in Hawaii, do you really think they have any interest in disclosing that?

    If Hawaii accepted a fraudulent birth registration, without any supporting evidence, do you think they would be interested in disclosing that?

    Did Gov. Lingle view Obama’s birth records? Did Gov. Lingle repeat what Fukino said in her official public statement?

    You state a whole lot, but you do everything you can to avoid providing anything that would demonstrate that Obama’s birth registration was not the product of fraud. What are you afraid of? Why make excuses? Why not ask Obama and the Hawaii DOH to prove that his birth registration was not the product of fraud?

    When Obama ran against Jack Ryan, the media filed suit to access Ryan’s divorce records. The claimed that the public interest outweighed any privacy concerns. The media prevailed! Are you really claiming that Obama’s privacy concerns outweigh the public interest in this case? If so, on what grounds? What information would be contained on the original records that you would consider to be a significant privacy concern? Surely you must have a reason to support your position.

    There are lawful and appropriate ways of dealing with privacy concerns.
    Fraud is a crime. Crimes are investigated by grand juries. Grand juries have subpoena power. If there is reasonable suspicion that fraud has been committed, any jurisdiction where the name “Barack Hussein Obama II” appeared on a state ballot seeking that state’s electoral college votes can launch a grand jury probe. This is also true of the committees of the US Congress.
    If there are legitimate questions, subpoena the relevant documents and witnesses. Grand juries can investigate any issue that a prosecutor and the grand jurors deem to be significant to the public interest. The same is true of the Congress of the United States which has congressional subpoena power.
    I hope that I have addressed your questions. My answer, one more time, is subpoena the documents and witnesses as a part of a criminal grand jury investigation and/or a congressional investigation.
    Without exception, every significant issue regarding the constitutional powers of the presidency has been dealt with via the combination of a grand jury investigation and a congressional investigation going back to Watergate in the 1970’s.

  12. avatar
    Lil' Red April 24, 2011 at 3:29 pm #

    misha: Most interesting comment. Unfortunately, our system of justice is based on innocent until proven guilty. In this case, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Obama does not have to show you anything, nor should he.Trump got on the crazy train, so Bachmann got her ticket punched. Boehner and Cantor are winking at the mob. This is all going to wreck Romney, which makes me elated. If Romney says one word about it, he is going to get his father thrown back in his face.Not only was George born in Mexico, but it was a polygamist community, which is why they were in Mexico. Here’s a dog whistle from Milquetoast Pawlenty: “Now, I’m not one to question the authenticity of Barack Obama’s birth certificate.”To borrow from Shrub, “bring it on.”

    Misha,

    Obama is not a criminal on trial. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply here. What does apply here is that the burden is on the claimant to prove his eligibility. If you applied for a position that required a college degree, you would be asked to either provide proof of that degree yourself, or you would be asked to sign a release so that your employer could obtain it directly from the college/university. This has nothing to do with guilt. It has to do with proving that you are eligible.

    The liberals are known for their belief in a living Constitution. If that is truly their belief, it would permit them to understand that the need for conclusive evidence is justified by the direct and imediate power now granted to the Commander in Chief. High-speed world travel, global communications, and document creation on a home computer provide a mechanism for fraud that could not have been predicted by the Framers of our Constitution.

    By bringing up Romney’s father, you only demonstrate your misunderstanding of the Constitution. There is not constitutional mandate that a candidate must be eligible to run for the office of President. This is further demonstrated by the fact that Roger Calero was on the ballot in 6 states in 2008. Calero was a Nicaraguan citizen, here on a green card. There is no way that anyone, save maybe “scientist” that would consider Calero to be eligible. Who gets on the ballot is controlled by the states. The Twentieth Amendment was created to deal with a candidate who was elected, but not eligible.

    Try to focus on the current issue. Obama is the first of 44 Presidents whose father was known to not be a citizen of the United States when he was born. He is the first to have the government of another country officially claim that he was not born in the U.S. He is the first to have his wife describe another country as his “home country”. He is the first to have his paternal grandmother say that she was present when he was born in another country. Member of Kenyan Parliament, his own wife, and paternal grandmother, at the very least, raise the question of foreign birth, and it’s only the kooks who say “Let’s make sure they are not telling the truth.”” Let’s make sure that his birth was not fraudulently registered in Hawaii.”

  13. avatar
    Steve April 24, 2011 at 3:38 pm #

    Lil' Red: Misha,Obama is not a criminal on trial. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply here. What does apply here is that the burden is on the claimant to prove his eligibility. If you applied for a position that required a college degree, you would be asked to either provide proof of that degree yourself, or you would be asked to sign a release so that your employer could obtain it directly from the college/university. This has nothing to do with guilt. It has to do with proving that you are eligible.The liberals are known for their belief in a living Constitution. If that is truly their belief, it would permit them to understand that the need for conclusive evidence is justified by the direct and imediate power now granted to the Commander in Chief. High-speed world travel, global communications, and document creation on a home computer provide a mechanism for fraud that could not have been predicted by the Framers of our Constitution.By bringing up Romney’s father, you only demonstrate your misunderstanding of the Constitution. There is not constitutional mandate that a candidate must be eligible to run for the office of President. This is further demonstrated by the fact that Roger Calero was on the ballot in 6 states in 2008. Calero was a Nicaraguan citizen, here on a green card. There is no way that anyone, save maybe “scientist” that would consider Calero to be eligible. Who gets on the ballot is controlled by the states. The Twentieth Amendment was created to deal with a candidate who was elected, but not eligible.Try to focus on the current issue. Obama is the first of 44 Presidents whose father was known to not be a citizen of the United States when he was born. He is the first to have the government of another country officially claim that he was not born in the U.S. He is the first to have his wife describe another country as his “home country”. He is the first to have his paternal grandmother say that she was present when he was born in another country. Member of Kenyan Parliament, his own wife, and paternal grandmother, at the very least, raise the question of foreign birth, and it’s only the kooks who say “Let’s make sure they are not telling the truth.”” Let’s make sure that his birth was not fraudulently registered in Hawaii.”

    Lil Red,
    Obama provided the necessary proof that he was born in this country. He doesn’t need to provide any more proof.
    If you question whether or not that proof is true, it’s up to you to prove it is not.

  14. avatar
    Lil' Red April 24, 2011 at 3:39 pm #

    Joey,

    In 2001, the State of Hawaii removed the information that would identify the need for further investigation into the potential for fraud. The didn’t eliminate the possibility of past fraud, they only eliminated the possibility of recognizing the need for further scrutiny.

    The information I speak of is the identity of the person upon whose testimony the hearsay document relies. When a document is permitted to be an exception to that which would normally be excluded as hearsay, it only makes sense that the identity of the person providing the origin of the hearsay evidence be disclosed. Garbage in results in garbage out. Ignoring the fact that it was garbage in does nothing to increase the validity of the garbage out.

    Questions: Who has the authority to assemble a federal grand jury? Who does that authority work for? If it was disclosed that the witness to Obama’s birth was identified as Mickey Mouse, would you consider that the birth registration was probably fraudulent?

  15. avatar
    Lil' Red April 24, 2011 at 3:44 pm #

    Steve: Lil Red,
    Obama provided the necessary proof that he was born in this country. He doesn’t need to provide any more proof.

    Interesting! Where did you find the statutory provision for what is deemed to be acceptable evidence of proof of natural-born citizenship IAW Article II? After all, it is you who claim that he has provided the necessary proof. In order to avoid arbitrary application of the law, I submit that you should provide the relevant clause that specifically defines what is to be accepted.

  16. avatar
    Joey April 24, 2011 at 3:47 pm #

    Lil' Red: Misha,

    Obama is not a criminal on trial. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply here. What does apply here is that the burden is on the claimant to prove his eligibility. If you applied for a position that required a college degree, you would be asked to either provide proof of that degree yourself, or you would be asked to sign a release so that your employer could obtain it directly from the college/university. This has nothing to do with guilt. It has to do with proving that you are eligible.

    The liberals are known for their belief in a living Constitution. If that is truly their belief, it would permit them to understand that the need for conclusive evidence is justified by the direct and imediate power now granted to the Commander in Chief. High-speed world travel, global communications, and document creation on a home computer provide a mechanism for fraud that could not have been predicted by the Framers of our Constitution.

    By bringing up Romney’s father, you only demonstrate your misunderstanding of the Constitution. There is not constitutional mandate that a candidate must be eligible to run for the office of President. This is further demonstrated by the fact that Roger Calero was on the ballot in 6 states in 2008.Calero was a Nicaraguan citizen, here on a green card. There is no way that anyone, save maybe “scientist” that would consider Calero to be eligible. Who gets on the ballot is controlled by the states. The Twentieth Amendment was created to deal with a candidate who was elected, but not eligible.

    Try to focus on the current issue. Obama is the first of 44 Presidents whose father was known to not be a citizen of the United States when he was born. He is the first to have the government of another country officially claim that he was not born in the U.S. He is the first to have his wife describe another country as his “home country”. He is the first to have his paternal grandmother say that she was present when he was born in another country. Member of Kenyan Parliament, his own wife, and paternal grandmother, at the very least, raise the question of foreign birth, and it’s only the kooks who say “Let’s make sure they are not telling the truth.”” Let’s make sure that his birth was not fraudulently registered in Hawaii.”

    Psst…fraud and election fraud are crimes that can be charged at the misdemeanor and at the felony level. With criminal investigations comes grand jury investigations, subpoena power and no issues of Article III standing to get in the way of the proceedings.

    “A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”–US District Court Judge Clay R. Land, MIddle District of Georia District Court
    Rhodes v MacDonald, September 16, 2009
    Judge Land, an appointee of President George W. Bush then imposed a $20,000 sanction on birther attorney Orly Taitz for wasting his time with frivolous nonsense. The $20,000 fine was upheld, unanimously by the Supreme Court of the United States.

  17. avatar
    Steve April 24, 2011 at 3:49 pm #

    Lil' Red: Interesting! Where did you find the statutory provision for what is deemed to be acceptable evidence of proof of natural-born citizenship IAW Article II? After all, it is you who claim that he has provided the necessary proof. In order to avoid arbitrary application of the law, I submit that you should provide the relevant clause that specifically defines what is to be accepted.

    Well, there is that statement at the bottom of the COLB that says it’s prima facie evidence.
    The U.S. State Department also says the COLB meets all requirements for proving where he was born.

  18. avatar
    Suranis April 24, 2011 at 4:00 pm #

    Lil' Red: Why not ask Obama and the Hawaii DOH to prove that his birth registration was not the product of fraud?

    They did. obama released his Birth certificate, and The head of the DOH Went down into the file room and looked up his BC and verified that he was (a) born in Hawai’i and (b) is a natural Born citizen

    Lil' Red: Did Gov. Lingle repeat what Fukino said in her official public statement?

    Unless kaapiolaani hospital moved to another part of planet earth on Obama’s birthday, yes she did.

    If Hawaii accepted a fraudulent birth registration, without any supporting evidence, do you think they would be interested in disclosing that?

    Since it would have given the presidency to John McCain, yes they bloody well would have had an interest in disclosing it.

    Lil' Red: What are you afraid of? Why make excuses? Why not ask Obama and the Hawaii DOH to prove that his birth registration was not the product of fraud?

    He has. That’s why he released his birth certificate. And since his birth date was 4 days before the birth ewas files it could not have been a late application. Since in an unattended birth only the parents could have registered the birth we know damn well that the mother could not have been in Kenya. The father was away at school. And it could not have been the grandmother as THE LAW ONLY ACCEPTS APPS FROM THE PARENTS.

    Which means that Fukinos assertion that there was a doctors sig on the vital records was true. Which kinda blows your conspiracy out of the water.

    There was no late or unattended application, so there is no possibility of fraud. So Obama has proved that the impossible did not occur.

    Lil' Red: If his birth was fraudulently registered in Hawaii, do you really think they have any interest in disclosing that?

    Probably not. BUT if you turn it around, if his birth was legitimately registered in Hawai’i guess what he would have no interest in disclosing that either.

    Seriously you sad pathetic little man, If I had shown you the proof that I was eligible and you started screaming it was not enough for you, a non-elected non-official with no power nor any qualifications to vet his edibility, my response would be “talk to the finger” too.

  19. avatar
    Lil' Red April 24, 2011 at 4:09 pm #

    Joey,

    You demonstrated that Orly Taitz filed a frivilous lawsuit. That is all. I have no problem with her being sanctioned, and I have no problem with the various courts dismissing all of the cases that I have familiarized myself with. None of that does anything to prove that a challenge to Obama’s eligibility doesn’t have merit. You don’t have to take my word, but you should consider the word of Professor Charles Rice;

    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/110227

    “Their lack of success cannot be ascribed simply to a hyper-technical evasion of judicial responsibility. For example, the rule requiring a plaintiff in a federal court proceeding to have a sufficient personal interest, or standing, to bring the suit provides needed assurance that suits will be seriously contested and will seek more than merely advisory opinions. On the other hand, it is fair to say that the Obama controversy involves significant issues of fact and law that deserve some sort of official resolution.”

    That “evidence of fraud” is what we are looking for. It is evidence that would have been available when G.W. took office, had he been born in Hawaii. It was Hawaii who decided to take away the information that would identify possible fraud. Hmmm? I wonder if Obama was instumental in getting the Hawaii DOH to change what was included on the documents they issue.

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2011 at 4:14 pm #

    Lil' Red: Does the number really matter? If it was $1000, it is still greater than the cost of obtaining the documentation requested

    No, that is untrue. None of the cases would have been settled by producing any document or collection of documents. Claims that all the birthers want, or all the lawsuits demand, is a birth certificate is no more true than the $2 million.

    If you doubt this, select the Docket from the menu on this web site and start reading cases.

    Further, the lawsuits were dismissed for a reason, a reason that prevents any court from hearing them whether Obama opposed them or not. His attorneys responded in the three cases because they were required to by the situation.

  21. avatar
    Lil' Red April 24, 2011 at 4:14 pm #

    Steve: Well, there is that statement at the bottom of the COLB that says it’s prima facie evidence.The U.S. State Department also says the COLB meets all requirements for proving where he was born.

    Does the State of Hawaii get to decide what the minimum proof is? They never did in the past. All Hawaii did, in creating their COLB, is comply with the federal law that defines what is needed to get a passport. Is the evidence necessary to get a passport the same as that to hold the office of Commander in Chief. One would think that the necessary evidence would be commensurate with the objective.

    Could you please provide a link to the State Department determination? Was it a State Department determination that was made before or after Obama controlled the State Department?

  22. avatar
    Lil' Red April 24, 2011 at 4:17 pm #

    Suranis: They did. obama released his Birth certificate, and The head of the DOH Went down into the file room and looked up his BC and verified that he was (a) born in Hawai’i and (b) is a natural Born citizenUnless kaapiolaani hospital moved to another part of planet earth on Obama’s birthday, yes she did.Since it would have given the presidency to John McCain, yes they bloody well would have had an interest in disclosing it.He has. That’s why he released his birth certificate. And since his birth date was 4 days before the birth ewas files it could not have been a late application. Since in an unattended birth only the parents could have registered the birth we know damn well that the mother could not have been in Kenya. The father was away at school. And it could not have been the grandmother as THE LAW ONLY ACCEPTS APPS FROM THE PARENTS.Which means that Fukinos assertion that there was a doctors sig on the vital records was true. Which kinda blows your conspiracy out of the water.There was no late or unattended application, so there is no possibility of fraud. So Obama has proved that the impossible did not occur.Probably not. BUT if you turn it around, if his birth was legitimately registered in Hawai’i guess what he would have no interest in disclosing that either.Seriously you sad pathetic little man, If I had shown you the proof that I was eligible and you started screaming it was not enough for you, a non-elected non-official with no power nor any qualifications to vet his edibility, my response would be “talk to the finger” too.

    Suranis,

    Until you provide truthful commentary, I will not respond to you.

  23. avatar
    Steve April 24, 2011 at 4:21 pm #

    Lil' Red: Does the State of Hawaii get to decide what the minimum proof is? They never did in the past. All Hawaii did, in creating their COLB, is comply with the federal law that defines what is needed to get a passport. Is the evidence necessary to get a passport the same as that to hold the office of Commander in Chief. One would think that the necessary evidence would be commensurate with the objective.Could you please provide a link to the State Department determination? Was it a State Department determination that was made before or after Obama controlled the State Department?

    Why would one need a higher level of proof to be President of the United States than one would need to get a passport?

  24. avatar
    Steve April 24, 2011 at 4:23 pm #

    Lil' Red: Does the number really matter? If it was $1000, it is still greater than the cost of obtaining the documentation requested. Is withholding any more justified by $1000 than it is by $2 million? I don’t think so. All the $2 million (or greater) number does is give those defending Obama something to refute. In reality, the cost vs. benefit is not justified as soon as it exceeds $10 plus time.Have Obama send a formal request to the Hawaii DOH authorizing and asking them to publish a copy of his original record. If they refuse, we have something to discuss. Until such time, the Hawaii DOH has not refused anything. Only Obama has refused to fully cooperate with any attempt to verify that he was born in a hospital in Hawaii. In doing so, he has caused many people to question the validity of his birth report.If you were going to loan me your car, and you asked me to show my driver’s license, I would not be offended. Further, I would not be offended if you asked me to provide a copy of my driving record. People with nothing to hide generally don’t have a problem making everything that could be considered relevant available, as long as it can be reasonably obtained.

    And if you showed me your driver’s license and everything looked legit, I’d lend you my car. I would not insist on knowing the score on your driver’s test, the branch of the DMV where the test was taken and the name of the DMV employee who administered the test.

  25. avatar
    Lil' Red April 24, 2011 at 4:24 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: No, that is untrue. None of the cases would have been settled by producing any document or collection of documents. Claims that all the birthers want, or all the lawsuits demand, is a birth certificate is no more true than the $2 million.If you doubt this, select the Docket from the menu on this web site and start reading cases.Further, the lawsuits were dismissed for a reason, a reason that prevents any court from hearing them whether Obama opposed them or not. His attorneys responded in the three cases because they were required to by the situation.

    Doc,

    I never said that providing the original records would settle any legal case. Of course, you knew that. You can read.

    There is suspicion that Obama’s birth was fraudulently registered. That question could be adequately removed by having the Hawaii DOH directly produce a copy of Obama’s original records for all the world to see. If there is a legitimate privacy concern, please identify it, and I will gladly ask that the identified portion be redacted. See how easy this is?

    I understand when an aswer is required and when it is not. You’re not seeing me argue that the cases were not properly dismissed.

  26. avatar
    Joey April 24, 2011 at 4:24 pm #

    Lil' Red:
    Joey,

    In 2001, the State of Hawaii removed the information that would identify the need for further investigation into the potential for fraud. The didn’t eliminate the possibility of past fraud, they only eliminated the possibility of recognizing the need for further scrutiny.

    The information I speak of is the identity of the person upon whose testimony the hearsay document relies. When a document is permitted to be an exception to that which would normally be excluded as hearsay, it only makes sense that the identity of the person providing the origin of the hearsay evidence be disclosed. Garbage in results in garbage out. Ignoring the fact that it was garbage in does nothing to increase the validity of the garbage out.

    Questions: Who has the authority to assemble a federal grand jury? Who does that authority work for? If it was disclosed that the witness to Obama’s birth was identified as Mickey Mouse, would you consider that the birth registration was probably fraudulent?

    If what you say above is true, then what good would a long form birth certificate do? It is unlikely that any witnesses to the actual birth of Barack Obama from 51 years ago are still alive.

    A US Attorney has the statuatory authority to convene a grand jury. My choice for the perfect US Attorney to convene an investigation into Obama’s eligibility would be the US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Patrick J. Fitzgerald. US Attorney Fitzgerald is a Bush administration appointee and he has shown bipartisanship in his prosecutions, having prosecuted and convicted Scooter Libby during the Bush administration and having prosecuted and convicted Obama’s buddy Rod Blagojevich during the Obama administration. It was Fitzgerald’s investigation which resulted in the impeachment and removal of Blagojevich as Governor of Illinois.

    However it doesn’t take a FEDERAL grand jury to do the trick, any jurisdiction where Obama’s name was on the ballot could conduct an investigation into whether he was legitimately on the ballot or not. Watergate began as a local Washington DC burglary investigation and ended with the resignation of a president. Whitewater began as an Arkansas state grand jury investigation into the billing records of the Rose Law firm in Little Rock and ended with the impeachment of a president.
    Grand juries are always useful because of their subpoena power. The same is true of congressional investigations.

  27. avatar
    dunstvangeet April 24, 2011 at 4:24 pm #

    Lil Red, the Federal Government actually gets to decide what documents prove the place of birth. The Federal Government has said time and time again that the Hawaii Birth Certificate is proof of the place of birth. Therefore, the States get to decide that.

    I got my passport with a document that looked almost exactly like Obama’s. I sent it into the United States State Department, and a few weeks later it was returned with a brand new passport. There was no hospital on my form (I only know my hospital because my parents told me. By the way, the hospital I was born in no longer exists. The building is now the U.S. Headquarters for Adidas.). There was no doctor’s signature (And even though I’m only half of Obama’s age, I seriously doubt that the doctor who delivered me would actually remember whether or not he actually delivered me). All that it had for place was city (a city that is currently 583,776 and contains dozens of hospitals) and county (which has a population of 735,334).

    Read Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. It’s the Federal Government which determines the adequacy of documents, and the Hawaii COLB meets all the requirements and is accepted as proof of place of birth.

  28. avatar
    Lil' Red April 24, 2011 at 4:25 pm #

    Steve: Why would one need a higher level of proof to be President of the United States than one would need to get a passport?

    If you can’t answer that question on your own, you have no idea of the power granted to the Commander in Chief.

  29. avatar
    James M April 24, 2011 at 4:27 pm #

    Lil' Red: If you applied for a position that required a college degree, you would be asked to either provide proof of that degree yourself, or you would be asked to sign a release so that your employer could obtain it directly from the college/university.

    My last three jobs have required degrees, and I’ve been prepared to provide transcripts to these employers, but was never asked. All three of my last employers (my only employers since I was in a research institution where I got my last degree) have accepted my own word on my CV.

    I have, however, been asked to prove my citizenship for I-9 purposes, for which I have always used a US passport.

    Now, when President Obama declared his candidacy, he did so in the form of a sworn and notarized affadavit. All you need to do in order to seek impeachment is prove that he lied, and you have a slam-dunk case of perjury.

    So my question is, why can’t you prove that he lied?

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2011 at 4:28 pm #

    Lil' Red: Does the State of Hawaii get to decide what the minimum proof is? They never did in the past. All Hawaii did, in creating their COLB, is comply with the federal law that defines what is needed to get a passport. Is the evidence necessary to get a passport the same as that to hold the office of Commander in Chief. One would think that the necessary evidence would be commensurate with the objective.

    Could you please provide a link to the State Department determination? Was it a State Department determination that was made before or after Obama controlled the State Department?

    There is no constitutional or statutory standard stating an evidentiary requirement for Presidential eligibility. Therefore your question about “what is needed…to hold the office of Commander in Chief?” is meaningless.

    The State Department passport requirements go back before Obama became President, but the current link goes to a more recent, and more stringent standard that went into effect April 1. The COLB meets both standards.

    I find your innuendo that the State Department under Obama changed the rules to match Hawaii’s certificate to be offensive and irrational.

  31. avatar
    dunstvangeet April 24, 2011 at 4:29 pm #

    Lil’ Red, there is actually no evidence that Obama’s birth was fraudulently registered.

    Imagine a scenario here…

    You’re standing in line, renewing your license. You present your birth certificate, as is required. The guy behind you goes: “You know, that birth certificate may be fraudulently registered. Of course, I have no evidence of this, but it may be fraudulently registered, because I read on the internet that births sometimes get fraudulently registered, and that document has no doctor’s signature, nor does it list the hospital on it.”

    Do you actually believe that the DMV would go: “You know, normally we would accept this document. But the guy behind you in line has made a claim that it’s fraudulently registered. Therefore, we must insist that you present another document.”

    This is basically what your scenario actually is. Furthermore, if any of these cases ever did get to a court of law and past the standing stage, all Obama would have to do to prove that he was born in the United States is take the exact same document that he’s released over the web nearly 3 years ago, and present it to the court of law. The court, in accordance with Rule 902, would not require any further documentation of proof.

  32. avatar
    Lil' Red April 24, 2011 at 4:29 pm #

    Steve: And if you showed me your driver’s license and everything looked legit, I’d lend you my car. I would not insist on knowing the score on your driver’s test, the branch of the DMV where the test was taken and the name of the DMV employee who administered the test.

    Please don’t insert your premise into my argument and them proceed to take it to absurdity.

    I said “my driving record”. Why would I say that? At one time I had a company issued vehicle. They wanted more than just my drivers license. They asked my to provide a copy of my driving record. So, I went to the DMV and obtained a copy of my driving record.

    It wasn’t a big deal. I didn’t feel violated. I felt that my employer had a legitimate interest, so I provided it.

    People that don’t have something to hide, usually don’t have a problem complying with simple requests.

  33. avatar
    Steve April 24, 2011 at 4:31 pm #

    Lil' Red: If you can’t answer that question on your own, you have no idea of the power granted to the Commander in Chief.

    No, good enoigh to get a passport or a driver’s license, good enough to prove you’re eligible to be President.
    There is no court in the country that would not accept Obama’s COLB as proof of where he was born.

  34. avatar
    misha April 24, 2011 at 4:31 pm #

    Lil' Red: Did Gov. Lingle view Obama’s birth records?

    I’ll try again: Linda Lingle is Jewish. She felt McCain/Palin would be better for Israel, than Obama. If she could have found anything, the GOP would have used it with glee.

    Steve: Why would one need a higher level of proof to be President of the United States than one would need to get a passport?

    Obama’s passport shows he was born in Hawaii.

    Lil' Red: By bringing up Romney’s father, you only demonstrate your misunderstanding of the Constitution.

    No, I’m demonstrating how this is going to wreck the GOP. Everyone is getting on the crazy train, except Romney. He’s finished, and the others are unelectable. Bring it on.

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2011 at 4:31 pm #

    Lil' Red: If you can’t answer that question on your own, you have no idea of the power granted to the Commander in Chief.

    You confuse your own notions with the constitution and the law. Just because you want it to be so doesn’t make it so. A great deal of birther rhetoric is based on this mistake.

  36. avatar
    Lil' Red April 24, 2011 at 4:32 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I find your innuendo that the State Department under Obama changed the rules to match Hawaii’s certificate to be offensive and irrational.

    And I find a lot of things that you state to be offensive and irrational. Welcome to the debate. 🙂

  37. avatar
    Steve April 24, 2011 at 4:33 pm #

    Lil' Red: Please don’t insert your premise into my argument and them proceed to take it to absurdity.I said “my driving record”. Why would I say that? At one time I had a company issued vehicle. They wanted more than just my drivers license. They asked my to provide a copy of my driving record. So, I went to the DMV and obtained a copy of my driving record.It wasn’t a big deal. I didn’t feel violated. I felt that my employer had a legitimate interest, so I provided it.People that don’t have something to hide, usually don’t have a problem complying with simple requests.

    And if you showed me your driving record and it looked OK, I’d lend you my car. Maybe if I had a question I might call the DMV, but if they said you had a valid license, I’d let it go at that.

  38. avatar
    Lil' Red April 24, 2011 at 4:42 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You confuse your own notions with the constitution and the law. Just because you want it to be so doesn’t make it so. A great deal of birther rhetoric is based on this mistake.

    What’s the matter? Is that whole “living Constitution” thing causing you a problem when it is used by the other side?

    You’ve been at this for how long now, Doc? Over two years for sure. Have all of you efforts gained support, or is the birther movement becoming stronger and stronger?

    Even law professors and many historical records demonstrate that the definition of natural-born citizen is unsettled. However, that’s not where you’re losing ground. Is it? No! The place you, and those who continue to defend Obama, are losing ground in when it comes to having a valid reason to avoid providing evidence that Obama’s birth was not fraudulently registered. That’s an argument you can win. You can BS them about many other things, but when it is pointed out that his COLB does not answer the question, they will always wonder why he won’t simply provide it.

    When it comes to releasing the underlying document, you , Obama, and everyone who supports his failure to settle the matter will lose. The wave is building. It will keep building and it will crest at the appropriate time. Then the Obots will scatter like cockroaches.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2011 at 4:46 pm #

    Lil' Red: And I find a lot of things that you state to be offensive and irrational. Welcome to the debate.

    Welcome to the door. You’re banned.

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2011 at 4:52 pm #

    Lil' Red: Even law professors and many historical records demonstrate that the definition of natural-born citizen is unsettled.

    No. There is no debate over the fact that those born US Citizens in the United States are natural born citizens. The debate is over those born citizen abroad.

  41. avatar
    Lil' Red April 24, 2011 at 4:57 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: No. There is no debate over the fact that those born US Citizens in the United States are natural born citizens. The debate is over those born citizen abroad.

    Per Dr. Charles E. Rice, professor emeritus at Notre Dame Law School;

    In Minor v. Happersett, in 1875, the Supreme Court, made an incidental reference to the issue: “[N]ew citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875).

    Hmmm? Given a choice of retired liberal computer geek or professor emeritus at Notre Dame Law School, I think the good professor wins.

    Just another reason why you feel the need to control the message.

    [Given that I was thinking about Minor when I wrote my comment, I can hardly gainsay you bringing it up. So I will let your comment pass and reply to it.

    I won’t talk about Rice here (except to mention that he was a New York State Conservative Party official and not just a disinterested academic), since all you are actually doing here is quoting Rice quoting the Supreme Court in the Minor v Happersett. Rice himself says nothing about that citation except to describe it as “incidental.” Rice never disagrees with the statement I made about natural born citizenship in his article. What you have done is to either read what I wrote carelessly, or read what the Court said carelessly, or both.

    I chose my words carefully when I said: “There is no debate over the fact that those born US Citizens in the United States are natural born citizens.” The question being discussed by the Minor court was not whether Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen, but whether she was a citizen at all. If you look carefully, it is citizenship itself being questioned. My formulation stated “those born US Citizens”. The Court in Minor v Happersett did not say that doubts existed whether those born citizens in the United States to alien parents were natural born citizens, but rather it said that doubts existed as to whether those born in the United States to alien parents were citizens. That latter question was decisively determined by the Supreme Court in United States v Wing Kim Ark. The former question was not raised at all, and never has been in a court case or historical document to my knowledge. Doc.]

    Ref:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/03/notre-dame-law-professor-dives-into-birther-waters/
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/minor-v-happersett-88-u-s-162-1874/
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/

  42. avatar
    dunstvangeet April 24, 2011 at 4:59 pm #

    Lil’ Red, Obama doesn’t have to prove that his birth was not fraudulently registered. The people claiming that the birth was fraudulently registered have to prove that it was to negate the birth certificate. It’s part of our justice system. It’s called burden of proof, and trying to shift that burden of proof will do nothing.

    Like I said. Imagine you’re in line at the DMV. There’s an idiot behind you.

    You present your birth certificate to the DMV. The person behind you starts to claim that it’s fraudulently registered. He has absolutely no evidence to the fact, but starts spouting mis-truths and lies that he heard out on the Internet. Your position is essentially the DMV should go, “Normally, we would accept this birth certificate as proof of the place of birth, and your citizenship. However, the guy behind you in line has started spouting off that your birth may have been fraudulently registered. Therefore, I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your birth was not fraudulently registered before I can accept your birth certificate as proof of birth. Please come back with the documentation required to do this.”

    I know you’re banned, so, you can’t exactly respond. However, this is essentially what you’re supporting.

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2011 at 5:04 pm #

    Lil' Red: You’ve been at this for how long now, Doc? Over two years for sure. Have all of you efforts gained support, or is the birther movement becoming stronger and stronger?

    I wouldn’t say I have “gained support.” I have always been aligned with the people that matter.

    As the birther mythology becomes more widely known, those who have never heard of it and who are psychologically disposed to believe anything bad about Obama will join up. Eventually the market will become saturated and the birther movement will peak–at least that’s how I see it. Indeed with the Donald Trump publicity, it probably has already peaked.

  44. avatar
    Suranis April 24, 2011 at 5:07 pm #

    Lil' Red: Suranis,

    Until you provide truthful commentary, I will not respond to you.

    WHat exactly did I say that was untrue?

    They did. obama released his Birth certificate, and The head of the DOH Went down into the file room and looked up his BC and verified that he was (a) born in Hawai’i and (b) is a natural Born citizen

    Dr Fukino Dod this

    Unless kaapiolaani hospital moved to another part of planet earth on Obama’s birthday, yes she did.

    Govener lingle said OPbama was born in kaapiolani, which is in Honolulu hawaii, so she did confirm Fukino;s statement.

    Since it would have given the presidency to John McCain, yes they bloody well would have had an interest in disclosing it.

    They would have had a reason to disclose a fraud perpetrated by a previous adm,inistration that had nothing to do with them, as they were republicans campaigning for McCain.

    He has. That’s why he released his birth certificate. And since his birth date was 4 days before the birth ewas files it could not have been a late application. Since in an unattended birth only the parents could have registered the birth we know damn well that the mother could not have been in Kenya. The father was away at school. And it could not have been the grandmother as THE LAW ONLY ACCEPTS APPS FROM THE PARENTS.Which means that Fukinos assertion that there was a doctors sig on the vital records was true. Which kinda blows your conspiracy out of the water.There was no late or unattended application, so there is no possibility of fraud. So Obama has proved that the impossible did not occur.

    The fact that unattended births could only by filed by a Parent and not a grandparent is confirmed by a reading of 338-05 and 338-06 of Hawaiian statute.

    The rest is just conjecture.

  45. avatar
    misha April 24, 2011 at 5:35 pm #

    dunstvangeet: The people claiming that the birth was fraudulently registered have to prove that it was to negate the birth certificate. It’s part of our justice system. It’s called burden of proof, and trying to shift that burden of proof will do nothing.

    Thank you.

  46. avatar
    Scientist April 24, 2011 at 6:40 pm #

    Lil' Red: There is no way that anyone, save maybe “scientist” that would consider Calero to be eligible.

    Normally, i wouldn’t waste my time responding to a fool, but since you mentioned my name, I will. No, I obviously don’t think Calero is eligible. It was wrong of him to run and for his party to put him forward. But since you know that he is not a citizen it is evident that even for a non-serious candidate who got zero scrutiny from any other candidates or the press, the truth came out. With a serious candidate whose opponents would conduct professional opposition research and bout whom reporters would write hundreds of stories, it would be impossible for the truth not to come out.

    In fact, for Obama, both Hillary and McCain looked into the stories about birth in Kenya and found nothing to support them. You throw around accusations about a fraudulent birth registration in Hawaii, something no decent person should do without evidence. Yet, since he exists, he was born somewhere. You may wish to pretend that you internet birthers are smarter than the pros that Hillary and the Republicans hired to look into their opponent, but nothing in your success rate to date suggests that.

    By the way, regarding Calero, he also ran for President in 2004 and for the Senate from NY in 2006. I don’t recall any of you guys ever saying boo about that. So let’s not pretend that Calero is the issue here.

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2011 at 8:14 pm #

    Another cartoon appeared in the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, this time by local cartoonist Robert Ariail. It highlights the Republican discomfort with Trump’s birther tour:

    http://robertariail.com/2011/04/23/bad-eggs/

    See also:

    http://robertariail.com/2011/04/14/trump/

  48. avatar
    G April 24, 2011 at 11:23 pm #

    Here’s another good recent relevant cartoon to share:

    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/04/22/cartoon_of_the_day.html

  49. avatar
    G April 24, 2011 at 11:28 pm #

    Lil' Red: “Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.” —Thomas Jefferson

    Seeing a Birther offer this quote means that another irony meter exploded…

    I find it hilarious that they would offer such a quote that so undermines only the Birther position.

    All birther arguments have no facts or evidence to support them and are merely “faith based” off the emotional “gut-feel” based hatred of Obama that these bigots are predisposed to (for whatever basis that bigotry comes from).

    On the flip side, all fact and logic-based info – law, evidence, official statements, etc. consistently support the same conclusion – Obama is NBC and there is nothing of merit at all to Birther claims.

  50. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 24, 2011 at 11:33 pm #

    G: Seeing a Birther offer this quote means that another irony meter exploded…

    I find it hilarious that they would offer such a quote that so undermines only the Birther position.

    All birther arguments have no facts or evidence to support them and are merely “faith based” off the emotional “gut-feel” based hatred of Obama that these bigots are predisposed to (for whatever basis that bigotry comes from).

    On the flip side, all fact and logic-based info – law, evidence, official statements, etc. consistently support the same conclusion – Obama is NBC and there is nothing of merit at all to Birther claims.

    Dr. Freud call it “projection.”

  51. avatar
    G April 24, 2011 at 11:39 pm #

    Lil' Red: That “evidence of fraud” is what we are looking for.

    I just wanted to comment on this telling birther statement, because it is the same “fishing expedition” nonsense that was one of the many FATAL FLAWS of all the frivolous Birther Lawsuits that have been shot down and dismissed.

    Basically, this statement acknowledges a certain “truth” behind Birtherism – it all starts off with a biased assumption of dislike for Obama and therefore assuming he *must* somehow be guilty of something, somewhere…in desperate hopes they can make him go away.

    As there IS no real legal arguments nor evidence of problems against him, they have to manufacture phony Concern Troll causes and nit-pick irrelevant issues in desperate hope that if only they can be granted some unlimited “fishing expedition”, then they can finally find some scrap of dirt to smear him with.

    It is nothing but desperate, pathetic and rephrensible – both as a mindset and a tactic. Of course, such unsupported “fishing expeditions” also are not allowed in our legal system (and for good reason.)

  52. avatar
    G April 24, 2011 at 11:57 pm #

    Lil' Red: but when it is pointed out that his COLB does not answer the question, they will always wonder why he won’t simply provide it.

    Except that the HI COLB already answered the ONLY relevant info a BC can provide in terms of the NBC issue – place of birth (HONOLULU, HI) and date/time of birth to confirm that the person meets the minimum 35 year age requirement.

    Therefore, any relevent and serious question to those matters WAS addressed in 2008, when the COLB was released and all subsequent info to come out has only reinforced what it already revealed.

    Those who still wonder why are either ill-informed at best or completely insincere in their demands.

    Lil' Red: When it comes to releasing the underlying document, you , Obama, and everyone who supports his failure to settle the matter will lose. The wave is building. It will keep building and it will crest at the appropriate time. Then the Obots will scatter like cockroaches.

    Ah, more delusional and wishful thinking born out of Birther desperation and frustration.

    There is no need to release any further documents. The COLB is the official HI form and must be accepted by all states due to FFAC. The “long form” nonsense is just red-herring concern trolling and would add NOTHING to the issue that hasn’t already beenr revealed on the COLB.

    The “wave” is sufficiently limited to those who are predisposed to want to look for excuses to pretend Obama isn’t really president. Therefore, such fairly tale bogeyman issues mainly only resonate amongst the population of voters that didn’t vote for him in 2008 and aren’t likely to vote for him under most circumstances in 2012 either.

    In other words, this voting pool is already fairly lock-set in the current political environment, regardless of whether they drink the Birther kool-aid or not. Considering that Obama had a very comfortable 9.5 million vote margin (and even greater electoral college victory margin) in 2008… limiting his ability to gain votes from those that didn’t vote for him before really doesn’t “hurt” his chances at all, nor does it really “help” his opposition.

  53. avatar
    G April 24, 2011 at 11:58 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: Dr. Freud call it “projection.”

    Yes. And Birthers sure tend to do that a lot. I would say that is one of the most prominent symptoms of their disease that we regularly see on display here.

    Time to up our stock buys in Irony Meters!

  54. avatar
    Lupin April 25, 2011 at 4:04 am #

    @ Lil’ Red:

    The reason why birthers come across as complete idiots is this:

    As a Frenchman, I don’t really care about Mr. Obama. Frankly, I don’t even agree with many of his policies.

    When he first campaigned, I had no idea where he was born until the question arose. Then his campaign produced an official piece of paper stating that he was born in one of your 50 states, ie: Hawaii.

    At this point, that’s all I needed to know to realize he was indeed eligible to run.

    Then, another question arose: could that piece of paper be forged? Okay. It’s unlikely, I thought, but I’m game. Could it be a forgery?

    At that point, an official from the State of HI stood up and said, no I checked it against the original in our files & it’s accurate.

    THAT’S THE END OF THAT DEBATE. There’s nothing more to ask. It doesn’t matter if somewhere, there’s a lengthier hospital document stating that Obama was born with six fingers or a tail or that he has a fourth middle name, Satan, or that the hospital transplanted his liver from Mars.

    ALL THAT MATTER IS THAT HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII. Period. End of discussion. The rest is irrelevant.

    To suppose the that State of HI itself is part of a larger, grander conspiracy to forge evidence and cover up illegal wrongdoings on a massive scale is just asinine. Only a bigot blinded by racism would believe that.

  55. avatar
    Thrifty April 25, 2011 at 8:11 am #

    Lil' Red: Even law professors and many historical records demonstrate that the definition of natural-born citizen is unsettled. However, that’s not where you’re losing ground. Is it? No! The place you, and those who continue to defend Obama, are losing ground in when it comes to having a valid reason to avoid providing evidence that Obama’s birth was not fraudulently registered.

    Isn’t it widely known that you can’t prove a negative? Why should Obama or his supporters prove that the birth wasn’t fraudulently registered? You’re making the accusations; you prove that it was fraudulently registered.

    Or we can play it your way too. Prove to me that you didn’t murder John Ritter and make it look like an aortic dissection.

  56. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 25, 2011 at 12:24 pm #

    Lil' Red: None of that does anything to prove that a challenge to Obama’s eligibility doesn’t have merit.

    None of the legal challenges to President Obama’s eligibility having any merit whatsoever does nothing to prove that challenges against President Obama’s eligibility have no merit? You’re a real thinker, aren’t you?

  57. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 25, 2011 at 12:44 pm #

    Lil' Red: Does the State of Hawaii get to decide what the minimum proof is?

    Yes – Hawai’i decides what they will accept as proof and the other states are required to do likewise. The Federal Government has it’s own standard for proof which the Hawai’ian COLB meets. President Obama has been unquestionably proven to be a natural born citizen according to the US Constitution and this will remain true until evidence that invalidates the prima facie claim of legitimacy for the COLB is presented in court (or Congress, I suppose…).

    They never did in the past. All Hawaii did, in creating their COLB, is comply with the federal law that defines what is needed to get a passport.

    So the COLB is recognized as prima facie proof of birth on US soil by Hawai’i, the other 49 states, and the federal government. Game over, man… game over.

    Is the evidence necessary to get a passport the same as that to hold the office of Commander in Chief. One would think that the necessary evidence would be commensurate with the objective.

    The necessary evidence is commensurate with THE ASSERTION IN QUESTION. To get a passport you need to prove you are a US citizen – proof of birth in the US does this (mod diplomats and enemies). To be eligible for POTUS you need to prove natural born citizenship – again, proof of birth in the US is sufficient to establish natural born citizenship (mod diplomats and enemies). The evidence is sufficient to both objectives.

    Could you please provide a link to the State Department determination?

    I don’t think anyone here should respond to any troll’s requests until said trolls respond to the debunking of their arguments – it seems only fair…

    Was it a State Department determination that was made before or after Obama controlled the State Department?

    What are you whining about? I’ll just cut to the chase – President Obama is eligible and you are a dishonest troll.

  58. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 25, 2011 at 12:49 pm #

    Lil' Red: There is suspicion that Obama’s birth was fraudulently registered.

    There is no reasonable or credible suspicion of this nor is there any evidence to support such suspicions.

  59. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 25, 2011 at 12:58 pm #

    Lil' Red: People that don’t have something to hide, usually don’t have a problem complying with simple requests.

    Yes, and President Obama released his birth certificate (in the only reasonable way possible) so now the only people who are demanding more are those trying to forward their anti-Obama agenda due to their unreasoning bigotry against the legitimate POTUS… why should anyone care about what this seditious refuse thinks?

  60. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 25, 2011 at 1:08 pm #

    Lil' Red: And I find a lot of things that you state to be offensive and irrational. Welcome to the debate.

    The fact that you make a baseless accusation like this without providing any evidence to support it only proves Doc’s point… You haven’t been able to defend the rationality of your position (and I dare say that Doc generally isn’t responsible for remarks intended to be offensive to birthers (like saying that Lil’ Red is a unpatriotic, hypocritical, lying bigot who would be a danger to the American body politic if it weren’t for the fact that her irrationality in pursuing her Quixotic quest was, like all birthers, dwarfed by the incompetence that leaves her impotent to stop an American icon [like him or not, being the first African-American president is a big f-ing deal as Joe the Vice-President would say…] from “presidentin’ while black”).

  61. avatar
    Greg April 25, 2011 at 1:35 pm #

    Lil' Red: Given a choice of retired liberal computer geek or professor emeritus at Notre Dame Law School, I think the good professor wins.

    So, let’s play compare the source.

    Charles Evans Hughes. Born April 11, 1862 in New York to a British Subject who later naturalized. In 1910, Hughes was appointed to the Supreme Court. In 1916, Hughes resigned from the Supreme Court to run for President.

    So, we’ve got a Supreme Court justice resigning from the Supreme Court, giving up the highest legal job you can have, in order to run for the Presidency. There is no citizenship requirement for the Supreme Court. The job is for life. And Hughes gave it up to run for the Presidency. A job that requires natural born citizenship.

    Apparently, it was not obvious to him that birth here in the United States, was not enough.

    He lost the Presidential election that year to Woodrow Wilson, but only by half a million votes and 23 electoral college votes. He lost California and its 13 electoral votes by 3,800 votes – he probably would have won those (and the Presidency) had he not lost the governor’s endorsement by failing to show up for an appearance with the governor.

    A single legal scholar (Breckenridge Long) argued that Hughes was ineligible because his dad was an English subject at the time of his birth plus Hughes was born before the enactment of the 14th Amendment which would have saved his eligibility.

    After losing the election, Hughes was asked to run by the Republicans several times before he was appointed to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1929.

    Breckenridge Long went on to become ambassador to Italy where he was criticized for being too Pro-Mussolini. After that post, he returned to the State Department and tightened immigration policies – denying visas to Jews fleeing the holocaust.

    So, who would you choose? The Supreme Court Justice who bet his career on his eligibility and was reappointed to the Supreme Court as its Chief Justice? Or the xenophobe whose legal theories were so ill-received that they didn’t prevent Hughes from being approached numerous times to re-run his campaign for President or from being reappointed to the Supreme Court? A xenophobe whose anti-immigrant policies prevented visas from being granted to as many as 190,000 fleeing Jews?

    Personally, I’ll take Charles Evans Hughes, who made his views clear by running for President, over even Professor Rice. I’ll certainly take this former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court over the legal lowpoints that are Apuzzo, Donofrio, Berg and Taitz!

  62. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 25, 2011 at 4:03 pm #

    Lil' Red: What’s the matter? Is that whole “living Constitution” thing causing you a problem when it is used by the other side?

    No, we have a problem with the birther’s whole ‘ignore the Constitution and make up what we want’ thing.

    You’ve been at this for how long now, Doc? Over two years for sure. Have all of you efforts gained support, or is the birther movement becoming stronger and stronger?

    You so badly misunderstand both the nature and state of birtherism that it is laughable. I’d say this site is ‘stronger’ than it’s ever been and that the birther movement has been suffering repeated blows (mainly relating to The Donald – remember, it’s all about The Donald [at least to The Donald…]) to its credibility that has most likely already eliminated the possibility of the birthers being a political force (except as a wedge between Republicans and independents) in 2012.

    Even law professors and many historical records demonstrate that the definition of natural-born citizen is unsettled. However, that’s not where you’re losing ground. Is it? No! The place you, and those who continue to defend Obama, are losing ground in when it comes to having a valid reason to avoid providing evidence that Obama’s birth was not fraudulently registered.

    Any reason (including no reason at all) is sufficient to refuse to appease the unreasonable demands of hateful bigots who support their specious allegations with scurrilous lies.

    That’s an argument you can win. You can BS them about many other things, but when it is pointed out that his COLB does not answer the question, they will always wonder why he won’t simply provide it.

    The COLB answers all of the relevant questions.

    When it comes to releasing the underlying document, you , Obama, and everyone who supports his failure to settle the matter will lose.

    How much do you want to bet?

    The wave is building. It will keep building and it will crest at the appropriate time. Then the Obots will scatter like cockroaches.

    Can you show us any predictions you’ve made regarding the birther movement that have been correct? Whatever your record is, it’s going to have another big FAIL! on it after this all plays out…

  63. avatar
    G April 25, 2011 at 5:14 pm #

    Lupin: @ Lil’ Red:The reason why birthers come across as complete idiots is this:As a Frenchman, I don’t really care about Mr. Obama. Frankly, I don’t even agree with many of his policies.When he first campaigned, I had no idea where he was born until the question arose. Then his campaign produced an official piece of paper stating that he was born in one of your 50 states, ie: Hawaii.At this point, that’s all I needed to know to realize he was indeed eligible to run.Then, another question arose: could that piece of paper be forged? Okay. It’s unlikely, I thought, but I’m game. Could it be a forgery? At that point, an official from the State of HI stood up and said, no I checked it against the original in our files ; it’s accurate.THAT’S THE END OF THAT DEBATE. There’s nothing more to ask. It doesn’t matter if somewhere, there’s a lengthier hospital document stating that Obama was born with six fingers or a tail or that he has a fourth middle name, Satan, or that the hospital transplanted his liver from Mars.ALL THAT MATTER IS THAT HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII. Period. End of discussion. The rest is irrelevant.To suppose the that State of HI itself is part of a larger, grander conspiracy to forge evidence and cover up illegal wrongdoings on a massive scale is just asinine. Only a bigot blinded by racism would believe that.

    Very well said, Lupin!!!