Main Menu

“I’m not a birther”

That’s what the sole Republican in the Hawaii Senate said in a radio interview. Senator Slom asked “but…”

why would anyone spend millions of dollars in legal fees, particularly someone in public office, particularly someone in the highest public office, to not make that information public?

That’s a page right out of the birther mythology. Senator Slom, if you have to say that you’re not a birther, you probably are.

Print Friendly

179 Responses to “I’m not a birther”

  1. avatar
    Steve April 6, 2011 at 10:05 am #

    I’m not a birther but…

    Sort of reminds me of my college days. Whenever we went downtown to go to the bars, we’d drive through some pretty bad neighborhoods. Always, without fail, somebody in the car felt compelled to give his big speech about “how he felt about black people.”
    He’d always try to sound as liberal as possible, make sure to point out that some of his friends were black, etc. Then he’d say “but you know, there’s a difference between blacks and (the n-word).”
    I always felt uncomfortable whenever somebody gave that speech. I always wanted to throw them out of the car and tell them to share their thoughts with the locals.

  2. avatar
    Thrifty April 6, 2011 at 11:22 am #

    “Cathy: Oh, he’s not gay.
    Kathy: Oh?
    Cathy: No, he explained it to me once. He says he sleeps with men every now and then to prove that he doesn’t like it.
    Kathy: So he’s sort of a sexual scientist?”

    –The Kids in the Hall

  3. avatar
    Thrifty April 6, 2011 at 11:25 am #

    Steve: I’m not a birther but…
    Sort of reminds me of my college days. Whenever we went downtown to go to the bars, we’d drive through some pretty bad neighborhoods. Always, without fail, somebody in the car felt compelled to give his big speech about “how he felt about black people.”
    He’d always try to sound as liberal as possible, make sure to point out that some of his friends were black, etc. Then he’d say “but you know, there’s a difference between blacks and (the n-word).”
    I always felt uncomfortable whenever somebody gave that speech. I always wanted to throw them out of the car and tell them to share their thoughts with the locals.

    I like to say that if you feel uncomfortable enough with your beliefs that you feel you need to justify and qualify them, then you should probably change your beliefs, or at least not express them.

  4. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 6, 2011 at 11:28 am #

    Thrifty: I like to say that if you feel uncomfortable enough with your beliefs that you feel you need to justify and qualify them, then you should probably change your beliefs, or at least not express them.

    Good advice…

  5. avatar
    Majority Will April 6, 2011 at 11:28 am #

    Sam Slom “earned a B.A. in Economics & Government from the University of Hawaii Manoa (1963) and an LL.B. from LaSalle Law School (1966)”.

    (Source [PDF] -http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/members/senate/MemberFiles/slom/Newsletters/Slom_2011_Bio.pdf)

    A politician and attorney with an incredibly extensive economics, journalism, political and business background apparently has done no fact checking whatsoever on an issue of legal fees he openly questions but just lazily parrots birther blather instead?

    How embarrassing for Hawaiians and Republicans.

    Joseph Farah just giggled, “KA-CHING! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!”

    “I’m not a ‘birther,’” Hawaii State Sen. Sam Slom told Jeff Katz of WXKS Radio in Boston, “and I followed this from the very beginning. At first I followed it with amusement, and then I got really concerned about it, because the question was if it was not just the birth certificate, but other records as well – school records, academic records, work records – why would anyone spend millions of dollars in legal fees, particularly someone in public office, particularly someone in the highest public office, to not make that information public?”

    (emphasis added)

  6. avatar
    misha April 6, 2011 at 11:34 am #

    “I’m not a birther”

    “I am not a crook.”

  7. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 6, 2011 at 11:34 am #

    Majority Will: Sam Slom “earned a B.A. in Economics & Government from the University of Hawaii Manoa (1963) and an LL.B. from LaSalle Law School (1966)”.(Source [PDF] -http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/members/senate/MemberFiles/slom/Newsletters/Slom_2011_Bio.pdf)A politician and attorney with an incredibly extensive economics, journalism, political and business background apparently has done no fact checking whatsoever on an issue of legal fees he openly questions but just lazily parrots birther blather instead?How embarrassing for Hawaiians and Republicans.Joseph Farah just giggled, “KA-CHING! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!”“I’m not a birther,’” Hawaii State Sen. Sam Slom told Jeff Katz of WXKS Radio in Boston, “and I followed this from the very beginning. At first I followed it with amusement, and then I got really concerned about it, because the question was if it was not just the birth certificate, but other records as well – school records, academic records, work records – why would anyone spend millions of dollars in legal fees, particularly someone in public office, particularly someone in the highest public office, to not make that information public?”(emphasis added)

    So where can I get a copy of State Senator Sam Slom’s school records, academic records, work records and long form birth certificate? Why does he spend millions hiding them?

  8. avatar
    Sean April 6, 2011 at 11:43 am #

    misha:
    “I’m not a birther”

    “I am not a crook.”

    “I’m not a witch.”

  9. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 6, 2011 at 11:50 am #

    Sean: “I’m not a witch.”

    BURN HIM!

  10. avatar
    Majority Will April 6, 2011 at 11:57 am #

    “In any event, here is the president of the United States,” Slom said, “you’ve got to have [a birth certificate to present], why don’t we require that of the president?”

    “We have two forms of the birth certificate,” Slom said. “One is the long-form, official certificate of live birth, and that’s the one that’s got all the data; and then there’s the short form, and that’s the one they’ve put up on the website … but that doesn’t go into detail, doesn’t give you all the information.”

    Slom doesn’t think his own state’s COLB birth certification is valid? Again, what an embarrassment to Hawaii and especially to the Hawaiian government including the former REPUBLICAN administration that issued the President’s certified proof of Hawaii birth.

    It’s a face slap from Senator Slom to Dr. Fukino, Dr. Alvin Onaka and Governor Linda Lingle.

    “If Palafox serves as a shoehorn to get for the public any Obama birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has, I am all for doing so,” [Slom] said. “I don’t understand why Obama has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep all his records from the public – not just his Hawaii birth records, but his passport records and his school records. All Obama’s records should be public, including any Hawaii birth records that exist.”

    A Hawaiian state Senator and attorney doesn’t understand his own state’s privacy laws or apparently ANY PRIVACY LAWS?

    Is the legal incompetence of Taitz, Berg, Apuzzo, et al. contagious among birthers?

  11. avatar
    dunstvangeet April 6, 2011 at 12:07 pm #

    Why is it that the words: “I’m not a birther, but” are always followed by some long tribe proving that they are in fact a birther?

  12. avatar
    Thrifty April 6, 2011 at 12:14 pm #

    Sean: “I’m not a witch.”

    “There are ways of telling if Barack Obama is a Kenyan.”

    “There are? What are they? Tell us!”

    “What do Kenyans do?”

    “Export secret Muslims to usurp the presidency and establish Sharia Law!”

    “What else do Kenyans do?”

    *long silence*

    “Do Kenyans move slowly?”

    “No! No! They run fast! Make Barack Obama run a race!”

    “Quiet quiet quiet! What also moves quickly.”

    “Turtles.”

    “Orange juice.”

    “Uh… dogs.”

    “Municipal buildings.”

    “Cars!”

    “Very small rocks.”

    “A CHEETAH!”

    “… EXACTLY!”

    “So…. if Barack Obama weighs the same as a cheetah…. then…. he moves quickly.”

    “…and therefore…”

    “A KENYAN! Remove the Kenyan Muslim usurper!”

  13. avatar
    misha April 6, 2011 at 12:15 pm #

    dunstvangeet:
    Why is it that the words: “I’m not a birther, but” are always followed by some long tribe proving that they are in fact a birther?

    Can you pay a rainbow to be less beautiful? – Mango

  14. avatar
    Hawaiiborn April 6, 2011 at 1:07 pm #

    I would suggest emailing him to express your displeasure of him repeating long debunked claims

    http://samslom.com/

  15. avatar
    Hawaiiborn April 6, 2011 at 1:09 pm #

    Added:

    Sam Slom
    Senatorial District 8
    Hawaii State Capitol, Room 214
    phone: 808-586-8420
    fax: 808-586-8426
    senslom@Capitol.hawaii.gov

    He is representative of Diamond, Hawaii Kai, Aina Haina and Kahala ; Districts that Obama grew up in.

  16. avatar
    Majority Will April 6, 2011 at 1:22 pm #

    Hawaiiborn:
    Added:

    Sam Slom
    Senatorial District 8
    Hawaii State Capitol, Room 214
    phone: 808-586-8420
    fax: 808-586-8426
    senslom@Capitol.hawaii.gov

    He is representative of Diamond, Hawaii Kai, Aina Haina and Kahala ; Districts that Obama grew up in.

    Copy the editors and reporters of Hawaiian newspapers and other media as well:

    http://www.usnpl.com/hinews.php

    Slom should be held accountable at the very least to the voters and citizens of the state of Hawaii.

  17. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett April 6, 2011 at 1:22 pm #

    I’m not an ideological warrior who’s out for blood, but I still wonder why the President won’t tell me why he hasn’t stopped beating his wife

  18. avatar
    Thrifty April 6, 2011 at 1:37 pm #

    Sam Slom, release your original long form birth certificate!

    Sorry to be brief. It’s a busy day. I have a lot of character assasination to do.

  19. avatar
    misha April 6, 2011 at 1:40 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett: I still wonder why the President won’t tell me why he hasn’t stopped beating his wife

    Why hasn’t Glenn Beck denied raping and murdering that poor girl:
    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/11/glenn-beck-accidentally-not-put-down.html

  20. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 6, 2011 at 2:00 pm #

    misha: Can you pay a rainbow to be less beautiful? – Mango

    F’ING A Misha that’s my retort you beat me to it this time but you’ll rue the day you crossed me Trebek

  21. avatar
    ASK Esq April 6, 2011 at 3:57 pm #

    I’m not a birther, but I play one on TV.

    I may be showing my age here.

  22. avatar
    Daniel April 6, 2011 at 4:04 pm #

    I am a Witch.

    Being a Witch may not require a firm grasp on reality, but it does require an ability to comprehend simple concepts.

    That alone means I cannot be a birther.

  23. avatar
    Adam April 6, 2011 at 4:54 pm #

    Has anyone investigated Slom’s claims that the Kapiolani clinic is now “hiding” the letter it has from Obama that claims them as his birth hospital?

    The only place I could find mention of this claim is at WorldNutDaily, so I don’t take it at face value.

    I’m curious what’s behind it. WND bends the truth and misleads, but they usually don’t make stuff up out of whole cloth. Okay, well, they do sometimes, but not that often.

  24. avatar
    Sef April 6, 2011 at 5:20 pm #

    It looks like the HI Senate political makeup may be a model for Wisconsin after the recall elections.

  25. avatar
    misha April 6, 2011 at 6:50 pm #

    Hawaiiborn:
    I would suggest emailing him to express your displeasure of him repeating long debunked claims

    http://samslom.com/

    I just sent his office this e-mail:

    Subject: Obama born in Kenya

    You are right!! Obama was born in Kenya!!

    I found his Kenya birth certificate. See it for yourself:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/09/another-kenyan-birth-certificate.html

    misha marinsky
    philadelphia

    Someone in his office clicked on that link. Ha, ha – made you look.

  26. avatar
    US Citizen April 6, 2011 at 8:23 pm #

    I think you finally found the answer.
    Obama WAS a reptilian… in fact, a newt.
    But he got better.

  27. avatar
    Black Lion April 7, 2011 at 7:17 am #

    Right now on the Today show Donald Trump is still going full birther….He claims that the President was not born in the US, recycled the “grandmother claims he was born in Kenya” lie, that the President spent 2 million to hide his info, that the COLB doesn’t have a serial number and is not a birth certificate, and most of all he claims that he has people in HI searching for the BC and they can’t find any evidence for the President’s birth. When Meridith Viera attempts to correct Trump, he basically talks over her to push his birther meme and attack Obama on every issue….Interesting….

  28. avatar
    US Citizen April 7, 2011 at 9:19 am #

    If people in such positions of power are so apt to believe rumors like this and reiterate them publicly without even verifying them first,
    it’s a scary observation to consider what other items or issues will they or have they also done the same with.

    To witness someone with power so easily put their reputations on the line over something that would take just a few moments to clarify.
    Someone who votes on things of importance and should easily have the investigative power to vet issues like this before he speaks.
    To watch a person at the senatorial level do this just amazes me.

    I don’t know if his reasons are party, racism, publicity or maybe just if one says something stupid, others feels more at ease to also chime in, but I know people that put more thought into their Amazon orders than this.

    He’s either misinformed or a liar and neither is an exciting prospect for a state like Hawaii.
    I’d expect it out of some of the southern states, but not Hawaii.

    Perhaps the GOP have learned that if they want any press today, they have to “go birther?”
    A sort of porkbill where once they’ve grabbed attention, only then can have any audience for their other views?
    So I’m curious if he’ll retract it soon or stand by it?
    I wonder if it’s publicity or sincere.
    Trump can be dismissed using it as marketing, but a senator?

  29. avatar
    richCares April 7, 2011 at 11:46 am #

    “Has anyone investigated Slom’s claims that the Kapiolani clinic is now “hiding” the letter ”
    .
    Birthers claim the Obama letter to Kapio’lani has been removed as it was fake.
    How silly of them ,The letter story, being older, has been archived in their 100
    year anniversary magazine and is still available.
    .
    quote from first page:
    “In fact, our 44th President Barack Obama
    commended “the excellence of Kapiolani Medical Center—
    the place of my birth.” He added, “Hawaii has always been a
    Home to me” (see page 6)
    .
    Page 6 has a copy of the Obama letter.
    http://www.kapiolanigift.org/doc/centennial-magazine.pdf

  30. avatar
    Robert Clark April 7, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    Steve:
    I’m not a birther but…

    Sort of reminds me of my college days. Whenever we went downtown to go to the bars, we’d drive through some pretty bad neighborhoods. Always, without fail, somebody in the car felt compelled to give his big speech about “how he felt about black people.”
    He’d always try to sound as liberal as possible, make sure to point out that some of his friends were black, etc. Then he’d say “but you know, there’s a difference between blacks and (the n-word).”
    I always felt uncomfortable whenever somebody gave that speech. I always wanted to throw them out of the car and tell them to share their thoughts with the locals.

    Here’s another analogy:

    “What do you mean I’m a suspect in the murder?!? Yes, I certainly do have an alibi!
    But just to show you how indignant I am at the accusation I am not going to tell you what it is!”

    Bob ;-)

  31. avatar
    Robert Clark April 7, 2011 at 12:41 pm #

    misha:
    “I’m not a birther”

    “I am not a crook.”

    “I am not a foreigner.”

    Bob

  32. avatar
    dunstvangeet April 7, 2011 at 12:49 pm #

    Robert Clark:
    “What do you mean I’m a suspect in the murder?!? Yes, I certainly do have an alibi!
    But just to show you how indignant I am at the accusation I am not going to tell you what it is!”

    No, the better analogy is…

    “Here’s positive proof that I was somewhere else during the murder. Oh, you think that the proof was forged, and want me to present more evidence, with absolutely no evidence that it was forged? You can call my lawyer.”

    Obama has proved his birthplace to the satisfaction of the Federal Government, and presented the document that would present it in any court of law. It’s the same document that millions of Americans use across the country.

  33. avatar
    Scientist April 7, 2011 at 12:50 pm #

    Robert Clark: Here’s another analogy:
    “What do you mean I’m a suspect in the murder?!? Yes, I certainly do have an alibi!
    But just to show you how indignant I am at the accusation I am not going to tell you what it is!”

    Given that the cops have absolutely no evidence, the “suspect” in your analogy would be well advised to simply say nothing. At least that’s what any decent lawyer would tell him.

  34. avatar
    misha April 7, 2011 at 12:57 pm #

    misha:
    “I’m not a birther”
    “I am not a crook.”

    Robert Clark: “I am not a foreigner.”

    The first two are actual quotes. Who said the third one, and provide a link. Thanks for playing.

  35. avatar
    richCares April 7, 2011 at 1:33 pm #

    Slom’s office has been flooded with emails on his silly views, they are reading but no anwers from them on their sillyness

  36. avatar
    Thrifty April 7, 2011 at 1:54 pm #

    dunstvangeet: Obama has proved his birthplace to the satisfaction of the Federal Government, and presented the document that would present it in any court of law. It’s the same document that millions of Americans use across the country.

    But it’s clearly forged because he didn’t include his receipt from when he purchased it.

  37. avatar
    Suranis April 7, 2011 at 2:10 pm #

    Robert Clark: Here’s another analogy:

    “What do you mean I’m a suspect in the murder?!?Yes, I certainly do have an alibi!But just to show you how indignant I am at the accusation I am not going to tell you what it is!”

    Bob

    Actually you have the conclusions of your analogy wrong

    Actually the answer your murderer gave is “Actually I do have an alibi. I was away at a hotel. Look here’s the receipt”

    You the police ring the hotel staff, who say “yes he was here and thats a valid receipt”

    Then you Yell “Thats not TRUE! THATS NOT THE SAME AS THE RECIETP YOU GAVE 40 YEARS AGO! I WANT THE LONGFORM RECEIPT WITH THE PLACES HE WALKED, THE TV CHANNELS HE WATCHED AND EXACTLY HOW MANY FLUSHES HE GAVE ON THE TOILET!”

    Sorry Bob, you’re analogy is out of luck on that score.

  38. avatar
    Majority Will April 7, 2011 at 3:19 pm #

    Robert Clark: “I am not a foreigner.”

    Bob

    If a state agency will vouch for you like they have for the President, I would believe you.

    But for now, you’re just an anonymous birther and little else.

  39. avatar
    Greg April 7, 2011 at 3:29 pm #

    Robert Clark: Here’s another analogy:

    Person A is a suspect in a murder case. He provides an alibi to the police. He then provides an alibi to the DA. The DA is convinced by the evidence of the alibi and chooses not to prosecute. The DA from the next county over, wanting to win reelection, decides to prosecute despite the evidence of an alibi. He argues that Person A hasn’t presented the “best evidence” of the alibi – Person A only gave the testimony of three separate people to his alibi, and videotape, with time-stamp, showing him entering the place of alibi at the time of the crime. The new DA thinks Person A should be able to provide a receipt from the place of the alibi.

    The jury acquits person A of the crime, based in part on the alibi evidence.

    The new DA, however, continues to assert that Person A is guilty because he couldn’t present the “best evidence.”

    There, I fixed it for you.

    Obama’s birth in Hawaii was questioned.
    He requested his birth certificate from Hawaii.
    They provided him with the COLB.
    He posted the COLB.
    The State of Hawaii confirmed that his birth certificate was handled in exactly the same way as anyone else’s.
    The State of Hawaii confirmed that he was born in Hawaii.
    69 million people voted for Obama in the general election, more than have voted for any other candidate in the history of the United States.
    His election was accepted by Congress, with no objection.

    You want more? That’s, well, special. Good for you. I would advise you not to hold your breath, however.

  40. avatar
    Robert Clark April 7, 2011 at 3:39 pm #

    Suranis: Actually you have the conclusions of your analogy wrong
    Actually the answer your murderer gave is “Actually I do have an alibi. I was away at a hotel. Look here’s the receipt”

    You the police ring the hotel staff, who say “yes he was here and thats a valid receipt”
    Then you Yell “Thats not TRUE! THATS NOT THE SAME AS THE RECIETP YOU GAVE 40 YEARS AGO! I WANT THE LONGFORM RECEIPT WITH THE PLACES HE WALKED, THE TV CHANNELS HE WATCHED AND EXACTLY HOW MANY FLUSHES HE GAVE ON THE TOILET!”
    Sorry Bob, you’re analogy is out of luck on that score.

    Or another analogy would be you went to a hotel chain which allows YOU YOURSELF to print out the time of your stay and the cost. But this computer print out does not say which particular hotel it was in nor who the hotel clerk was.
    When the police ask for the particular hotel and for you to identify the clerk. You become indignant and exclaim. “What do you mean? I already supplied you with my alibi!”

    Bob Clark

  41. avatar
    Robert Clark April 7, 2011 at 3:41 pm #

    Scientist: Given that the cops have absolutely no evidence, the “suspect” in your analogy would be well advised to simply say nothing.At least that’s what any decent lawyer would tell him.

    Yes, that’s what those great lawyers always tell those mafia guys …

    Bob

  42. avatar
    Robert Clark April 7, 2011 at 3:46 pm #

    Greg: …
    The State of Hawaii confirmed that he was born in Hawaii.
    69 million people voted for Obama in the general election, more than have voted for any other candidate in the history of the United States.
    His election was accepted by Congress, with no objection.
    You want more? That’s, well, special. Good for you. I would advise you not to hold your breath, however.

    The state of Arizona has already voted that presidential candidates have to present a birth certificate to get on their state ballots. Other states may follow suit.
    Tell me what do you honestly think Obama will do then? Provide the birth certificate or take a court case to the Supreme Court to get those laws thrown out?

    Bob

  43. avatar
    Scientist April 7, 2011 at 3:50 pm #

    Robert Clark: Yes, that’s what those great lawyers always tell those mafia guys

    They would also tell it to the poor innocent schlub. I’m not mafia and if arrested, i would keep quiet until my lawyer arrived. You can do different, if you’d like. See in striped pajamas, sucker.

  44. avatar
    Suranis April 7, 2011 at 3:52 pm #

    Robert Clark:Or another analogy would be you went to a hotel chain which allows YOU YOURSELF to print out the time of your stay and the cost. But this computer print out does not say which particular hotel it was in nor who the hotel clerk was.
    When the police ask for the particular hotel and for you to identify the clerk. You become indignant and exclaim. “What do you mean? I already supplied you with my alibi!”

    Ok NOW you are desperately spinning.

    The Reciept is not one designed by accused but the standard one given out to all residents.

    The printout does say that you were in a hotel 3000 miles away from where the offense took place,

    Since all that it would take to prove you are innocent is that you were away from the city where the crime happened, or in this case born on the United states, and both the receipt proves that you were AND the receipt has been confirmed as correct by the hotels, the accused is actually correct to tell the police to get stuffed.

    Its none of your goddam business. If you actually come back with proof that he is lying, then you are entitled to ask questions. Till then he doesn’t have to say a word. And in your 3 years of investigating the amount of proof you have come up with is sod and all.

    And “Maybe the entire hotal chain is involved in a vast conspiracy of silece that also includes that airlines and the country of africa” is not proof.

  45. avatar
    Robert Clark April 7, 2011 at 3:53 pm #

    Scientist: They would also tell it to the poor innocent schlub.I’m not mafia and if arrested, i would keep quiet until my lawyer arrived.You can do different, if you’d like.See in striped pajamas, sucker.

    So you want the president to “take the fifth”?

    Bob

  46. avatar
    Suranis April 7, 2011 at 3:55 pm #

    Robert Clark: The state of Arizona has already voted that presidential candidates have to present a birth certificate to get on their state ballots.

    Nope. It hasn’t. It was just retained on the calender. That does not mean it was passed.

    Moron.

  47. avatar
    Majority Will April 7, 2011 at 3:55 pm #

    Robert Clark: Or another analogy would be you went to a hotel chain which allows YOU YOURSELF to print out the time of your stay and the cost. But this computer print out does not say which particular hotel it was in nor who the hotel clerk was.When the police ask for the particular hotel and for you to identify the clerk. You become indignant and exclaim. “What do you mean? I already supplied you with my alibi!”

    Bob Clark

    Seriously? Please tell me YOU YOURSELF are not actually that stupid but you just really get a silly birther giggle over trolling because you have nothing better to do.

    Do all of your fantasy worlds have self-service state agencies? Why do you have such blatant disrespect and disdain for the former Republican state administration of the state of Hawaii and the Hawaiian Department of Health? Do they owe you money?

    Do you forge your own currency, passports and other legal documents?

    If so, I, Lucas Smith might want to date you (or at least paint you).

    STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

  48. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 7, 2011 at 3:55 pm #

    Robert Clark: Or another analogy would be you went to a hotel chain which allows YOU YOURSELF to print out the time of your stay and the cost. But this computer print out does not say which particular hotel it was in nor who the hotel clerk was.When the police ask for the particular hotel and for you to identify the clerk. You become indignant and exclaim. “What do you mean? I already supplied you with my alibi!” Bob Clark

    You’re not very good with analogies.

  49. avatar
    Scientist April 7, 2011 at 3:57 pm #

    Robert Clark: The state of Arizona has already voted that presidential candidates have to present a birth certificate to get on their state ballots. Other states may follow suit.
    Tell me what do you honestly think Obama will do then? Provide the birth certificate or take a court case to the Supreme Court to get those laws thrown out?

    First of all, no law has been enacted yes. Remember civics class, a bill is not a law.

    If laws pass, then it depends on the exact wording. If it says, valid state birth certificate, then provide it gladly. If it attempts to dictate that you have to be born in a hospital or must provide the original (which can’t leave the arrchives) or other unconstitutional nonsense, then off to court. By the way, it is a presumption that Obama would be the only candidate who might fight such a law. In fact, since it seems Hawaii may be willing to provide a copy of the original and some other states may not, it may be some other candidate who is off the ballot.

  50. avatar
    Suranis April 7, 2011 at 3:59 pm #

    Robert Clark? Provide the birth certificate or take a court case to the Supreme Court to get those laws thrown out?

    Bob

    Full faith and credit clause. Look it up. Obama gives his COLB that you have all seen, he is certified and your head explodes.

  51. avatar
    Greg April 7, 2011 at 4:00 pm #

    Robert, the Rules Committee of the Senate of the State of Arizona voted that presidential candidates have to present a birth certificate, or two of the following: a baptismal record, circumcision certificate, a hospital birth record, a postpartum medical record or even an early census record.

    Next, the full Senate will have to vote on the bill. It will have to be reconciled with the House version, and then signed by the governor. Until then, it’s not a law.

    The Senate version is not obviously unconstitutional, so if it becomes a law, Obama will comply with it.

    But, remember, Arizona asking for the documents in order to run in the next election is different than short-bus riders asking for additional documents in order to invalidate the last election.

  52. avatar
    Scientist April 7, 2011 at 4:00 pm #

    Robert Clark: So you want the president to “take the fifth”?

    You should read the Constitution and try to understand what the Fifth Amendment says. Not providing everything that some nut-bag asks for is not “taking the fifth”.

  53. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 7, 2011 at 4:01 pm #

    Robert Clark: The state of Arizona has already voted that presidential candidates have to present a birth certificate to get on their state ballots. Other states may follow suit.Tell me what do you honestly think Obama will do then? Provide the birth certificate or take a court case to the Supreme Court to get those laws thrown out?Bob

    These birther bills won’t even make it past the circuit court. Its a violation of the constitution and the full faith and credit clause. Claiming one needs birth in a hospital adds requirements not listed under the constitution. Also under Arizona’s own bil anyone born after 1989 would not be eligible to run for President in 14 years

  54. avatar
    G April 7, 2011 at 4:04 pm #

    Robert Clark: Or another analogy would be you went to a hotel chain which allows YOU YOURSELF to print out the time of your stay and the cost. But this computer print out does not say which particular hotel it was in nor who the hotel clerk was.When the police ask for the particular hotel and for you to identify the clerk. You become indignant and exclaim. “What do you mean? I already supplied you with my alibi!” Bob Clark

    FAIL. Too bad your analogy has no connection with anything that happened in reality.

    Come on Mr. Clark, back up your statements. Show us evidence that matches up your conconcted analogy with anything in this situation, I dare ya – you can’t, because your analogy completely falls apart. All you will do is make yourself look like the liar and fool you are. Come on…let’s start with the part of him printing out the time and stay of his cost at the hotel himself… how does that stack up to the DOH HI official forms and their official website explaining their procedures and and aswering these questions…

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

    You are pretty vapid and weak for a birther troll, Mr. Clark.

  55. avatar
    Sef April 7, 2011 at 4:07 pm #

    Greg: baptismal record, circumcision certificate

    Why would either of these be considered proof of birth location/date???

  56. avatar
    G April 7, 2011 at 4:08 pm #

    Robert Clark: The state of Arizona has already voted that presidential candidates have to present a birth certificate to get on their state ballots. Other states may follow suit.
    Tell me what do you honestly think Obama will do then? Provide the birth certificate or take a court case to the Supreme Court to get those laws thrown out?
    Bob

    O RLY? Care to provide a link to this supposed law passed in AZ?

    HINT: There is a huge difference between legislators suggesting language to put into bills and those bills actually being voted on, passed and signed into law with that same language intact.

    Until that all happens, there is NO such law. But thanks for playing, Mr. Clark.

    Thanks for demonstrating your limited and stunted knowledge of the basics of how govenrment works.

  57. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 7, 2011 at 4:12 pm #

    G: You are pretty vapid and weak for a birther troll, Mr. Clark.

    And completely typical of a freeper

  58. avatar
    G April 7, 2011 at 4:12 pm #

    Robert Clark: Yes, that’s what those great lawyers always tell those mafia guys …
    Bob

    That is what all good lawyers tell ALL of their clients.

    Obviously, your understanding of real life is limited to what movies you watch on TV. But keep on demonstrating how foolish you can make yourself look here.

  59. avatar
    Majority Will April 7, 2011 at 4:12 pm #

    Robert Clark: The state of Arizona has already voted that presidential candidates have to present a birth certificate to get on their state ballots. Other states may follow suit.Tell me what do you honestly think Obama will do then? Provide the birth certificate or take a court case to the Supreme Court to get those laws thrown out?

    Bob

    I know how much birthers despise and even like to rewrite or ignore U.S. laws and the Constitution at their own bigoted whim so here’s a little help since you appear to be so clueless:

    Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution

    “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

    Why do birthers have such enormous, anti-American contempt for state officials, privacy laws and the Constitution?

    It’s hard to believe so many birthers are idiots so it must be loathing, paranoid fear and bigotry.

  60. avatar
    Steve April 7, 2011 at 4:14 pm #

    Robert Clark: The state of Arizona has already voted that presidential candidates have to present a birth certificate to get on their state ballots. Other states may follow suit.Tell me what do you honestly think Obama will do then? Provide the birth certificate or take a court case to the Supreme Court to get those laws thrown out?Bob

    He’ll present the COLB, which the state(s) will be required to accept as proof of citizenship under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

  61. avatar
    Majority Will April 7, 2011 at 4:21 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Claiming one needs birth in a hospital adds requirements not listed under the constitution.

    And it implies, under birther logic, that all but four of all U.S. Presidents were ineligible for the office.

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 8, 2011 at 12:34 am #

    Robert Clark: Tell me what do you honestly think Obama will do then? Provide the birth certificate or take a court case to the Supreme Court to get those laws thrown out?

    When and if a state law is passed requiring ID and birth certificate to get on the ballot, Obama would be crazy to challenge the law. Doing that would make Obama really guilty of what birthers have been claiming, using the courts to hide his records.

  63. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 1:22 am #

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

    There are a couple of problems with this statement. First that earlier statement she referred to from October 2008 actually said she had seen his “birth certificate”. Now she says only she has seen his “vital records”. Did she change it because she realized the original phrasing was not precisely correct?
    Also we really don’t know what those “vital records” are. Perhaps it just says his grandparents registered him with the state as being born on that date without being born in a hospital where it could be independently confirmed.

    Bob

  64. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 1:39 am #

    Greg: Robert, the Rules Committee of the Senate of the State of Arizona voted that presidential candidates have to present a birth certificate, or two of the following: a baptismal record, circumcision certificate, a hospital birth record, a postpartum medical record or even an early census record.Next, the full Senate will have to vote on the bill. It will have to be reconciled with the House version, and then signed by the governor. Until then, it’s not a law. The Senate version is not obviously unconstitutional, so if it becomes a law, Obama will comply with it. But, remember, Arizona asking for the documents in order to run in the next election is different than short-bus riders asking for additional documents in order to invalidate the last election.

    Thanks for that clarification. Your last point though raises an interesting question. Conservatory talk show host Michael Medved has had the opinion on this issue, “Suppose he was shown to be born in another country. So what? Nothing would be changed.”
    I don’t agree with that view. I believe if he was proven not to be a natural born citizen then there would be a strong push for impeachment.
    Because the White House has resisted attempts to get at the birth records there would be little doubt that he would have been aware of this beforehand, including the fact that the COLB he released incorrected suggested that he was natural born. I would say most Americans including democrats would say he became elected under fraudulent circumstances and would favor impeachment.
    After all, what could he say in his defense? “Yes, I realize I wasn’t really a natural born citizen but I believe my candicacy was so important because no one else could bring forth these important policies that it was better for me to evade that constitutional fact for the good of the country.”

    Bob

  65. avatar
    Suranis April 8, 2011 at 1:39 am #

    Robert Clark: Perhaps it just says his grandparents registered him with the state as being born on that date without being born in a hospital where it could be independently confirmed.

    Only possible for a delayed birth. That required a sworn affidavit with at least 2 witnesses AND needed a hearing with a representative of the secretary of state. That would have taken months. Not 4 days. Including a weekend.

    And before you say Well they could have registered it at that day, I don’t think that a court would have allowed a birth to to be registered after the application was accepted do you? You needed a baby to start the process, not pop one out when its done.

  66. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 1:42 am #

    That should be:

    “Conservative talk show host Michael Medved…”

    Bob

  67. avatar
    Suranis April 8, 2011 at 1:46 am #

    Robert Clark: I believe if he was proven not to be a natural born citizen then there would be a strong push for impeachment. blahblah stupid stuffblah
    Bob

    Lool at the post you quoted above

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”

    The records say hes a Natural Born Citizen.

    The end.

  68. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 1:47 am #

    Steve: He’ll present the COLB, which the state(s) will be required to accept as proof of citizenship under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

    That would not be sufficient under the Arizona law.

    Bob

  69. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 1:58 am #

    Majority Will: I know how much birthers despise and even like to rewrite or ignore U.S. laws and the Constitution at their own bigoted whim so here’s a little help since you appear to be so clueless:Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”Why do birthers have such enormous, anti-American contempt for state officials, privacy laws and the Constitution?It’s hard to believe so many birthers are idiots so it must be loathing, paranoid fear and bigotry.

    The entire crux of the matter could be summed up in this one succinct statement:

    “In the state of Hawaii, it is possible to receive a “Certification of Live Birth” without having been actually born in the state.”

    There is little doubt the White House lawyers are aware of this fact. But most people including those in the news media think these COLBs from Hawaii act just like those they get from their own states other than Hawaii and are only granted when you are born in the state.
    The White House is depending on the fact that most reporters won’t do the extra research to discover that this is not always true in the state of Hawaii, or will willingly keep this fact from their readers.

    Bob

  70. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 8, 2011 at 1:58 am #

    Robert Clark: That would not be sufficient under the Arizona law.

    Bob

    Which is why (at least it’s one of the reasons why…) the Arizona law would be unConstitutional.

  71. avatar
    Suranis April 8, 2011 at 2:02 am #

    Robert Clark: That would not be sufficient under the Arizona law.

    Bob

    Full faith and credit Clause of the US constitution. They are required to accept the documentary evidence of another state. Therefore the law would be struck down for adding requirements not actually in the US constitution and for not accepting the evidence of another state in violation of the US constitution.

    PLUS the Birth Certificate now issued in Arizona itself would be inadmissible under the law as it stands, making everyone in Arizona under the age of 14 unable to run for president.

    2 good reasons why the bill you are desperately hoping for will fail. The only way it will pass will be for it to pass in a state where President Obama can simply present the COLB we have all seen and be eligible to run in Arizona.

  72. avatar
    Suranis April 8, 2011 at 2:07 am #

    Robert Clark: The entire crux of the matter could be summed up in this one succinct statement:

    “In the state of Hawaii, it is possible to receive a “Certification of Live Birth” without having been actually born in the state.”

    The accurate statement is ““In the state of Hawaii, it is NOT possible to receive a “Certification of Live Birth” that says you were born in Honolulu or any other part of Hawai’i without having been actually born in the state.”

    Its been 3 years of you lot saying this, and you have not managed to drag up one single person who actually did get a BC from Hawai’i despite not being born there.

  73. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 8, 2011 at 2:09 am #

    Robert Clark: But most people including those in the news media think these COLBs from Hawaii act just like those they get from their own states other than Hawaii and are only granted when you are born in the state.

    COLBs from Hawai’i are given full faith and credit (just like those of every other state) and you cannot get a COLB from Hawai’i (stating that you were born IN Hawai’i) if you were born outside the state. But keep telling those lies – it will help with President Obama’s reelection…

  74. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 2:22 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): And completely typical of a freeper

    Sorry. Not a “Freeper”. That is not a contributor to the Free Republic discussion board.
    But I should say more accurately what my view is. I think most likely Obama was born in Hawaii. But I can’t rule out that he wasn’t because he is not behaving in a rational manner.
    There are several states considering provisions to require an original birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot. That alone should tell the White House this should be of sufficient concern to just go ahead and release the original birth certificate. Also Chris Mathews on MSNBC said as many as 40% (!) of Americans aren’t sure if Obama was really born in America or not. That again is so astonishing that it should provide overwhelming impetus to release the birth certificate.
    Now a very important point to also keep in mind is that the additional information on the original long form birth certificate is so minor compared to what was already contained on the COLB that was released. The additional information would just be the name of the hospital, the signature of the mother and attending physician and perhaps another signature of another witness such as a nurse. It’s not like the extra information on this long form would be like detailing his fathers past political sympathies. It just makes no sense he would make such a big deal out of keeping this secret. And it is important to remember that is what he is doing, keeping it secret.
    Finally there is the matter of that Kapiolani letter. Again the White House or Obama is behaving in a way that makes absolutely no sense. It’s all over the internet that Obama was born at Kapiolani hospital. Why will the White House neither confirm nor deny they wrote the letter or even that he was born at Kapiolani?

    Bob

  75. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 8, 2011 at 2:47 am #

    Robert Clark: Sorry. Not a “Freeper”. That is not a contributor to the Free Republic discussion board.But I should say more accurately what my view is. I think most likely Obama was born in Hawaii. But I can’t rule out that he wasn’t because he is not behaving in a rational manner.

    By ignoring the birthers except for the occasional joke? Seems perfectly rational to me…

    There are several states considering provisions to require an original birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot. That alone should tell the White House this should be of sufficient concern to just go ahead and release the original birth certificate.

    How would that gain the president any votes? If he does nothing, he damages his opponents – where’s the advantage to doing as you say?

    Also Chris Mathews on MSNBC said as many as 40% (!) of Americans aren’t sure if Obama was really born in America or not.

    But how many of them care about it? (I’ll give you a hint – not as many as you would like to think…)

    That again is so astonishing that it should provide overwhelming impetus to release the birth certificate.

    Again – there is no advantage in doing so.

    Now a very important point to also keep in mind is that the additional information on the original long form birth certificate is so minor compared to what was already contained on the COLB that was released.

    Not only is it minor, but it is irrelevant to determining eligibility…

    The additional information would just be the name of the hospital, the signature of the mother and attending physician and perhaps another signature of another witness such as a nurse. It’s not like the extra information on this long form would be like detailing his fathers past political sympathies. It just makes no sense he would make such a big deal out of keeping this secret. And it is important to remember that is what he is doing, keeping it secret.

    He’s doing nothing but ignoring willful idiots like you.

    Finally there is the matter of that Kapiolani letter. Again the White House or Obama is behaving in a way that makes absolutely no sense. It’s all over the internet that Obama was born at Kapiolani hospital. Why will the White House neither confirm nor deny they wrote the letter or even that he was born at Kapiolani?

    Why should they? The birthers have continually and repeatedly proved their bad faith – they should never be given the benefit of any doubt or pandered to in any way. (Personally, I’d prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law (i.e. arrest Hollister, sue Orly for harassment, etc. putting BF Lakin behind bars was a good start – maybe the judge can sentence Teresa Cao to community service doing PSAs explaining to people how we are certain that President Obama is a natural born citizen. Plus, they help President Obama’s campaign…

  76. avatar
    G April 8, 2011 at 3:11 am #

    Robert Clark: Sorry. Not a “Freeper”. That is not a contributor to the Free Republic discussion board.But I should say more accurately what my view is. I think most likely Obama was born in Hawaii. But I can’t rule out that he wasn’t because he is not behaving in a rational manner.

    Not behaving “rationally”. Based on what? Sounds like nothing but bigoted subjective bias BS to me.

    So, what you are saying is you are nothing but a Concern Troll.

    You see controversy where there is none, because for some reason, deep down you just plain “want to”.

    There is no value and no political point for Obama to respond to crazy haters. He simply doesn’t need to respond to you folks. If that makes you angry and feeling impotent, well tough cookies.

    His manner of behavior on this seems perfectly “rational” to me. If I was a politician dealing with a bunch of sore losers that would never vote for me anyways and only want to come up with creative ways to slander me, I’d fully ignore them too. That is the most rational response. Wasting time pandering to the crazies would be irrational. There truly is nothing to be gained by doing that.

  77. avatar
    G April 8, 2011 at 3:19 am #

    Robert Clark:
    There are several states considering provisions to require an original birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot. That alone should tell the White House this should be of sufficient concern to just go ahead and release the original birth certificate.

    So what?
    Sorry, but ALL the laws and evidence are on Obama’s side here and there is nothing the Birthers can do about it.

    So far, not a single state Birther Bill attempted has been passed.

    Even if any did, they would not last long if they tried to add any requirements that violate FFAC.

    Stop being such a dipwad and educate yourself. Go to the official HI DOH source on what they produce and what they think of the issue and not waste your time on useless birther rumors on nutty websites with no say in the matter:

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

    The HI COLB is their official document and answers the ONLY relevant questions – where and when he was born – HONOLULU, HI. Any “longer form” wouldn’t say any different and any other fields of info are completely IRRELEVANT to the question.

  78. avatar
    G April 8, 2011 at 3:19 am #

    Robert Clark:
    Also Chris Mathews on MSNBC said as many as 40% (!) of Americans aren’t sure if Obama was really born in America or not. That again is so astonishing that it should provide overwhelming impetus to release the birth certificate.

    *yawn* More lame Concern Trolling.

    So, you’re poll only shows that there are a large percentage of idiots out there.

    What percent of people cannot even name their politicians? A lot. They just had a big media segment today on how few people even knew the name of the Speaker of The House, who’s 3rd in line for the Presidency. They even showed pictures of John Boehner and the majority of people on the street couldn’t name him. Heck, the percentage of people who can’t even name all 50 states is pretty depressingly astounding.

    Your 40% numbers are right up there with some polls showing people expressing other crazy things like 9/11 Truther beliefs, belief in ghosts, thinking we never landed on the moon and that Elvis is still alive somewhere.

    Again, read the HI DOH weblink I already gave. He ALREADY released the OFFICIAL HI birth certificate. That is what the COLB is, you dummy!

  79. avatar
    G April 8, 2011 at 3:28 am #

    Robert Clark:
    Now a very important point to also keep in mind is that the additional information on the original long form birth certificate is so minor compared to what was already contained on the COLB that was released. The additional information would just be the name of the hospital, the signature of the mother and attending physician and perhaps another signature of another witness such as a nurse. It’s not like the extra information on this long form would be like detailing his fathers past political sympathies.
    It just makes no sense he would make such a big deal out of keeping this secret.

    Which just proves why a “longer form” is NOT NECESSARY. As you admit, those additional fields of info have NOTHING to do with the NBC issue, which was already answered as much as a BC can on his COLB. Born in HONOLULU, HI. That doesn’t change and anything beyond that doesn’t matter. It has already been proved to you and explained to you that the COLB is the OFFICIAL HI BC that they give out these days. Has been for well over a decade now. Deal with it.

    There is NO requirements that someone be born in a hospital. That detail would be completely immaterial to the issue, so WHY do you really care about these NON-ISSUE details that have NOTHING to do with NBC?

    What makes NO sense is WHY any serious person would NEED or CARE or REQUIRE more info than what Obama has already provided, when he showed his COLB, especially when NO other prior Presidential Candidate in history EVER provided the public with even that.

    You have NO rights to any person’s private info that they don’t chose to give to you. That goes for your neighbor’s info as well as for government officials, including the POTUS. Tough cookies. Deal with it.

  80. avatar
    G April 8, 2011 at 3:36 am #

    Robert Clark:
    And it is important to remember that is what he is doing, keeping it secret.Finally there is the matter of that Kapiolani letter. Again the White House or Obama is behaving in a way that makes absolutely no sense. It’s all over the internet that Obama was born at Kapiolani hospital. Why will the White House neither confirm nor deny they wrote the letter or even that he was born at Kapiolani? Bob

    Again, mere Concern Trolling.

    Same answer as you’ve been TOLD in numerous responses from me and others already. That you still try pulling this crap after being given those responses shows you are nothing but an insincere Concern Troll.

    SIMPLE ANSWER: Why should he? No reason to waste time responding to excessive personal info requests from hateful whiners that there is NO law requiring him to provide and that NO other President has had to answer. He has the same right to Privacy as any other person and there is NO political gain to wasting his busy time responding to you hopeless and crazy folks.

    That you would require Obama to provide further documentation shows your true intent and utter non- sincerity on the matter. No other serious candidate for President before Obama EVER even provided their BC to the public in order to get elected. There is NO requirement for you to have that info.

    If the COLB doesn’t satisfy you or some other percent of whiners out there, tough cookies. The world is full of a lot of people who believe in all sorts of crazy stuff. That doesn’t mean that their bizarre demands based on paranoid fantasies or old wives tales should be paid attention to.

    In fact, the SMARTEST and most LOGICAL path IS to completely IGNORE you folks.

    Don’t like it? Well, all you can do about it is cast your vote for someone else in 2012. …Which you obviously would no matter what he does.

    So just own up to what this is REALLY about. You want people to know that you don’t like Obama and won’t vote for him. There, was that really so hard? See, that is all you needed to say and doing that doesn’t require you to waste your time embarrassing yourself and coming across like an uneducated moron, as you have so far with your silly and easily discredited posts.

  81. avatar
    Majority Will April 8, 2011 at 7:13 am #

    G: So just own up to what this is REALLY about. You want people to know that you don’t like Obama and won’t vote for him. There, was that really so hard? See, that is all you needed to say and doing that doesn’t require you to waste your time embarrassing yourself and coming across like an uneducated moron, as you have so far with your silly and easily discredited posts.

    Well said.

  82. avatar
    Scientist April 8, 2011 at 7:26 am #

    G: So just own up to what this is REALLY about. You want people to know that you don’t like Obama and won’t vote for him. There, was that really so hard? See, that is all you needed to say and doing that doesn’t require you to waste your time embarrassing yourself and coming across like an uneducated moron, as you have so far with your silly and easily discredited posts

    Unless, unless, could it be? Could I at long last have found the Holy Grail (cue music)? Could Mr. Robert Clark be the elusive pro-Obama birther, the one who agrees with the President on most issues and thinks he is doing a fine job, only he is troubled about the birth certificate? Please, Bob, please say that is you! End my quest for the pro-Obama birther!

  83. avatar
    Majority Will April 8, 2011 at 7:37 am #

    Robert Clark: The entire crux of the matter could be summed up in this one succinct statement:

    “In the state of Hawaii, it is possible to receive a “Certification of Live Birth” without having been actually born in the state.”

    There is little doubt the White House lawyers are aware of this fact. But most people including those in the news media think these COLBs from Hawaii act just like those they get from their own states other than Hawaii and are only granted when you are born in the state.The White House is depending on the fact that most reporters won’t do the extra research to discover that this is not always true in the state of Hawaii, or will willingly keep this fact from their readers.

    Bob

    You’re wrong, you’re lying and it’s been explained repeatedly why.

    In the state of Hawai’i, it is not possible to receive a Certification of Live Birth stating you were born in Hawai’i without having been actually born in the state.

    Reporters won’t do the research? LMFAO That’s a manipulative birther moving the goalposts and laughably irrelevant. You must be accustomed to trolling with idiots. Skating the obvious doesn’t work here. Your ignorance of the law is no excuse.There is no doubt that White House lawyers are lawyers, that you’re not but you lie and pretend you understand the law and that the Attorney Generals of every U.S. state understand prima facie evidence and more importantly, Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

    Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution

    “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

    Why do you have such an enormous, anti-American contempt for state officials, privacy laws and the Constitution?

    As a lying birther and a fool, you are an embarrassment to this country.

  84. avatar
    Suranis April 8, 2011 at 8:13 am #

    Robert Clark: Chris Mathews on MSNBC said as many as 40% (!) of Americans aren’t sure if Obama was really born in America or not.

    Mathews was quoting a CNN poll that saib that 27%, not 40% of people “had doubts.” which is about the same as the hardcore vote if the republican party. I love birther number inflation.

  85. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 8, 2011 at 8:57 am #

    Robert Clark: Sorry. Not a “Freeper”. That is not a contributor to the Free Republic discussion board.
    But I should say more accurately what my view is. I think most likely Obama was born in Hawaii. But I can’t rule out that he wasn’t because he is not behaving in a rational manner.
    There are several states considering provisions to require an original birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot. That alone should tell the White House this should be of sufficient concern to just go ahead and release the original birth certificate. Also Chris Mathews on MSNBC said as many as 40% (!) of Americans aren’t sure if Obama was really born in America or not. That again is so astonishing that it should provide overwhelming impetus to release the birth certificate.
    Now a very important point to also keep in mind is that the additional information on the original long form birth certificate is so minor compared to what was already contained on the COLB that was released. The additional information would just be the name of the hospital, the signature of the mother and attending physician and perhaps another signature of another witness such as a nurse. It’s not like the extra information on this long form would be like detailing his fathers past political sympathies. It just makes no sense he would make such a big deal out of keeping this secret. And it is important to remember that is what he is doing, keeping it secret.
    Finally there is the matter of that Kapiolani letter. Again the White House or Obama is behaving in a way that makes absolutely no sense. It’s all over the internet that Obama was born at Kapiolani hospital. Why will the White House neither confirm nor deny they wrote the letter or even that he was born at Kapiolani?

    Ignoring the birthers is completely rational. How many previous presidents have the birthers asked for confirmations of confirmations of?

    Several states meaning like 2? Most of the birther bills in the states have been shot down and there are about 2 or so remaining. How does that help your case?

    There are more states trying to do bills to outlaw Sharia law. Does that mean Sharia law is such a huge concern in this country or does it mean a lot of whackos are trying to scare people to the ballot box?

    Chris Matthews says a lot of crazy things does that mean we should look to him for accurate information? Considering the poll he was citing from very clearly said only 27% believed Obama was born elsewhere.

    He has released his birth certificate in contravention to any other president. He is the only one thus far to show his birth certificate in the most public way possible while in office. But that’s not enough for you. Even you have admitted that releasing more information would do nothing to satisfy that he is NBC that the COLB has not already done.

    There is no requirement to be born in a hospital otherwise every President but Carter, Clinton, Obama, Bush would be disqualified under your rules.

    How would the nurse or attending physician’s signature satisfy the NBC requirements for President?

    Why should the white house have to confirm it? It’s pretty self evident what the letter is. Again you birthers want confirmations of confirmations.

  86. avatar
    The Magic M April 8, 2011 at 9:17 am #

    > Again you birthers want confirmations of confirmations.

    Well, it’s always been any crank’s last resort. If even with your best attempts you can’t succeed in twisting an official statement of A into non-A (as they tried with Abercrombie “not able to find the BC” or Governor Lingle “not saying there is a BC”), your last resort or Hail Mary is always to demand another confirmation and then try to draw favourable conclusions from not getting one.

    I mean, if you’ve asked the Vatican a hundred times if Benedict really is the Pope, the 101st time you might not get a confirmation which you can then turn into an all uppercase headline “VATICAN WON’T CONFIRM BENEDICT IS LEGIT!”.

    So sad and so predictable.

  87. avatar
    The Magic M April 8, 2011 at 9:28 am #

    > Also Chris Mathews on MSNBC said as many as 40% (!) of Americans aren’t sure if Obama was really born in America or not.

    Hm, now who is “sure” anyway? I mean, most people probably have no idea where Obama was born (in Hawaii). If they don’t even know the official story, how can they be “sure”?

    It’s a question that makes little sense. I have no idea where my chancellor was born. I remember having heard she was born in the former German Democratic Republic, but that’s all. Also I have never seen her birth certificate, so I’d have to roll with what Wikipedia or the official government websites tell me.
    So if you asked me the “right” question, I would likely also answer that I “don’t know” or “am not sure” if she was born in the country.

    I always say that these polls are completely meaningless for the birthers. And I tell you why:

    My point above makes clear that very likely the vast majority of the people say “don’t know” or “not sure” because that is precisely the truth, but nothing more.
    Not being sure or not knowing is a far cry from “having serious concerns”.

    Or how do you birfoons explain the simple fact that, if your WND poll of “91%” or other polls of “40%” were really saying “so many people are actually birthers”, why don’t your birfoon events only tally between 3 and 30 people? If allegedly 100+ million are behind you?

    The key observation is that a poll on a political question is pretty meaningless unless it is accompanied by a question as to how important the issue is to the participant.

    99% of the people “don’t know” if LeBron James is a space lizard. 99% of the people “don’t know” if Hillary beats her children. 99% of the people “don’t know” if France is racking up 500+ nuclear warheads to be deployed towards the US on the last day of the Tour de France.
    Yet obviously no-one considers any of this a serious issue.

    And precisely the same holds for the Obama birthplace. Even though a considerable minority “doesn’t know” or “is not sure”, they don’t seem to care – simply because “don’t know” is not the same as “I am worried, this is a severe constitutional crisis” or “… and therefore I will not vote for him (again)”.

    But you birthers can’t get this simple distinction in your heads because they’re already filled to the brim with hate, right?

  88. avatar
    G April 8, 2011 at 9:33 am #

    Suranis: Mathews was quoting a CNN poll that saib that 27%, not 40% of people “had doubts.” which is about the same as the hardcore vote if the republican party. I love birther number inflation.

    This is one of the DUMBEST things that Birthers do: Citing MSNBC’s Chris Matthews in their support.

    It just makes me laugh. Anyone with half-a-brain can look up his record and see that Chris Matthews speaks out AGAINST birthers probably more than almost any other news pundit on TV. Chris Matthews is definitely NOT the friend NOR ally of the birthers. He reports on them because he openly DETESTS them and often calls them “crazy”, “wacko”, “insane” and “anti-American”. You can catch his show almost any day of the week and hear him vociferously denouncing them with strong rebuke and clear disdain.

    It is some of the weakest and lamest forms of Trolling, since it so clearly is a FAIL against their movement. Birther Trolls might as well claim that the sun rises in the West and sets in the East… that is about the closest comparison of a statement that would be clearly opposite of reality and debunkable as frequently as their citing Matthews in their favor.

  89. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 8, 2011 at 1:13 pm #

    Robert Clark: “In the state of Hawaii, it is possible to receive a “Certification of Live Birth” without having been actually born in the state.”

    When people say that, they usually imply that there is something unique about Hawaii in that respect; however, Hawaii is like everywhere else. It is possible to defraud the jurisdiction and get a birth registered. In New Jersey, a local registrar filled out fake birth forms and inserted them into the work flow. In Texas and California midwives filled out false forms. I’m sure people lied about home births in many places.

    The truth is that it is impossible to obtain a Hawaiian Certification of Live birth LEGALLY unless born there.

  90. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 8, 2011 at 1:40 pm #

    Robert Clark: Why will the White House neither confirm nor deny they wrote the letter or even that he was born at Kapiolani?

    Do you think that is important? I certainly don’t. Congressman Abercrombie, a friend of Obama read the letter, the hospital published it with Barack Obama’s signature prominently displayed. That seems to me all one would normally ask for.

    There is a logical fallacy called “argument by question.” In formal arguments, facts are presented and logic is used to come to conclusions. You don’t do that. You ask questions. Questions are funny things because it is possible to make an assertion in the form of a question, but since it is a question, one isn’t expected to support the validity of the question with evidence.

    If one takes your question, “Why will the White House neither confirm nor deny they wrote the letter or even that he was born at Kapiolani?” at face value, then there is an obvious answer, “they don’t have any reason to.” However, just by raising the question, you are really making an assertion that the Kapi’olani letter lacks legitimacy because the White House would have acknowledged it if it were legitimate. And that is an assertion you haven’t supported and one I disagree with.

    In response to another part of your comment, there is no space on a Birth Certificate form from 1961 for an additional witness signature. There is a place for the informant (the person providing the name and address part — usually the mother but possibly the father), the attendant (someone present at the birth that attests that the child was born alive — usually a physician) and a registrar.

  91. avatar
    Scientist April 8, 2011 at 3:02 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: When people say that, they usually imply that there is something unique about Hawaii in that respect; however, Hawaii is like everywhere else. It is possible to defraud the jurisdiction and get a birth registered. In New Jersey, a local registrar filled out fake birth forms and inserted them into the work flow. In Texas and California midwives filled out false forms. I’m sure people lied about home births in many places.
    The truth is that it is impossible to obtain a Hawaiian Certification of Live birth LEGALLY unless born there

    And this is what latter-day birtherism is all about, as it has followed the inevitable path of decay from the ridiculous to the insane. It started out with the assertion of a Kenyan birth. Lacking even the faintest evidence to support that and in the absence of any sensible story as to why and how a young American woman went to Africa to undergo parturition and even moresoo lacking any mechanism to retuurn said infant home, they passed on tto the present state-to whit, “It’s possible that the birth was fraudulently registered in Hawaii.”

    Now is that indeed possible? Of course it is. Doc has pointed out that complicit folks in registrar’s offiice can fraudulently register births. But let’s look at the reality:
    1. No known instances of fraudulent birth registrations in Hawaii around 1961
    2. No registrars or employees from that period later found to be corrupt
    3. No convictions, indictments, arrests or suspicions of any family member, including the Senior Mrs Dunham who completed a career in banking, rising from teller to Vice President without any suspicions of fraud or embezzlement.

    So there is no more reason to think that the President’s birth is registered fraudulently than there is to think that Robert Clark’s birth was registered fraudulently. Perhaps less in fact.

  92. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 3:15 pm #

    The Magic M:
    > Also Chris Mathews on MSNBC said as many as 40% (!) of Americans aren’t sure if Obama was really born in America or not.
    Hm, now who is “sure” anyway? I mean, most people probably have no idea where Obama was born (in Hawaii). If they don’t even know the official story, how can they be “sure”?

    I think you’re being disingenuous here. I don’t think 40% of the people would say either they don’t believe George Bush was born in this country or aren’t sure.

    Bob

  93. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 3:19 pm #

    G: This is one of the DUMBEST things that Birthers do: Citing MSNBC’s Chris Matthews in their support.
    It just makes me laugh.Anyone with half-a-brain can look up his record and see that Chris Matthews speaks out AGAINST birthers probably more than almost any other news pundit on TV.Chris Matthews is definitely NOT the friend NOR ally of the birthers.He reports on them because he openly DETESTS them and often calls them “crazy”, “wacko”, “insane” and “anti-American”.You can catch his show almost any day of the week and hear him vociferously denouncing them with strong rebuke and clear disdain.

    It is some of the weakest and lamest forms of Trolling, since it so clearly is a FAIL against their movement.Birther Trolls might as well claim that the sun rises in the West and sets in the East… that is about the closest comparison of a statement that would be clearly opposite of reality and debunkable as frequently as their citing Matthews in their favor.

    That’s the point. Chris Mathews is one of the strongest Obama supporters in the news media. As you said he strongly opposes the “birthers” viewpoint.
    But even he says Obama should release the original long form birth certificate and get the issue out of the way.

    Bob

  94. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 8, 2011 at 3:24 pm #

    Robert Clark: That’s the point. Chris Mathews is one of the strongest Obama supporters in the news media. As you said he strongly opposes the “birthers” viewpoint.But even he says Obama should release the original long form birth certificate and get the issue out of the way.

    G,

    You should thank Mr. Clark for providing such a clear and obvious example of what you were talking about.

    Mr. Clark,

    How many people would say that they are unsure that President Bush was legally elected in 2000?

  95. avatar
    Daniel April 8, 2011 at 3:26 pm #

    Robert Clark: I think you’re being disingenuous here. I don’t think 40% of the people would say either they don’t believe George Bush was born in this country or aren’t sure.

    Bob

    But could you find a commentator who would be willing to pull the 40% figure out of his hat for claiming people who weren’t sure Bush was born here?

    Now do you see how badly you’re missing the point?

    Probably not. If you were capable of putting facts together to come to a reasonable conclusion… you wouldn’t be a birther.

  96. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 3:26 pm #

    Scientist: Unless, unless, could it be?Could I at long last have found the Holy Grail (cue music)?Could Mr. Robert Clark be the elusive pro-Obama birther, the one who agrees with the President on most issues and thinks he is doing a fine job, only he is troubled about the birth certificate?Please, Bob, please say that is you!End my quest for the pro-Obama birther!

    Scientist, I have haven’t read all the comments on this topic, but is there is a reason why you think there could be a pro-Obama birther? Or is this a sarcastic comment?
    No, I am not a fan of Obama. It’s not likely you’ll find an Obama supporter among the birthers.
    However, I can well imagine you could find people who are indifferent to Obama and his presidency that would agree with the view that Obama should just release his original long form birth certificate.

    Bob

  97. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 3:31 pm #

    Slartibartfast: G,
    You should thank Mr. Clark for providing such a clear and obvious example of what you were talking about.

    Mr. Clark,

    How many people would say that they are unsure that President Bush was legally elected in 2000?

    A heck of a lot. I am not a fan of George Bush either. I’m registered independent. I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and felt sick for days thinking of George Bush winning that election. I voted against Bush again in 2004.
    However I voted for McCain against Obama in 2008.

    Bob

  98. avatar
    Daniel April 8, 2011 at 3:33 pm #

    Robert Clark: However, I can well imagine you could find people who are indifferent to Obama and his presidency that would agree with the view that Obama should just release his original long form birth certificate.

    I think we could probably find people who are indifferent to Obama and his presidency that would agree with the view that Obama should just release his pet unicorn.

    That doesn’t mean he has one.

  99. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 3:43 pm #

    Majority Will: You’re wrong, you’re lying and it’s been explained repeatedly why.
    In the state of Hawai’i, it is not possible to receive a Certification of Live Birth stating you were born in Hawai’i without having been actually born in the state.
    Reporters won’t do the research?LMFAO That’s a manipulative birther moving the goalposts and laughably irrelevant. You must be accustomed to trolling with idiots. Skating the obvious doesn’t work here. Your ignorance of the law is no excuse.There is no doubt that White House lawyers are lawyers, that you’re not but you lie and pretend you understand the law and that the Attorney Generals of every U.S. state understand prima facie evidence and more importantly, Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
    Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution
    “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
    Why do you have such an enormous, anti-American contempt for state officials, privacy laws and the Constitution?
    As a lying birther and a fool, you are an embarrassment to this country.

    When people can only resort to hurling insults and can no longer present a reasoned response, THAT’s when you know you’re winning.

    Bob

  100. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 3:45 pm #

    Daniel: I think we could probably find people who are indifferent to Obama and his presidency that would agree with the view that Obama should just release his pet unicorn.
    That doesn’t mean he has one.

    Perhaps you didn’t mean to phrase that that way

    Bob

  101. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 8, 2011 at 3:49 pm #

    Robert Clark: A heck of a lot.

    Which is a better analogy that the one you were making – it’s still flawed, however, because the argument against President Bush’s legitimacy was far more credible that the argument against President Obama’s legitimacy.

    I am not a fan of George Bush either. I’m registered independent. I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and felt sick for days thinking of George Bush winning that election. I voted against Bush again in 2004.However I voted for McCain against Obama in 2008.

    Since, policy-wise, President Obama is virtually indistinguishable (certainly before the election) from Senator Kerry and Vice President Gore as compared to President Bush and Senator McCain (and don’t even mention Caribou Barbie or Dick the war criminal) and the arguments against President Obama’s legitimacy are all specious, whatever the reason you chose to compromise any political principles you hold speaks extremely poorly of you, sir.

  102. avatar
    Majority Will April 8, 2011 at 3:49 pm #

    “It’s not likely you’ll find an Obama supporter among the birthers.”

    And the reasons behind this are why birthers are rightfully despised for being anti-American scum.

    Not for opposing or hating the President and his politics because that’s a normal by-product of American politics.

    But for resorting to unrelenting smears, lies, fear mongering, bigotry, willful ignorance, vengeance*, advocating sedition, the complete and utter disrespect for U.S. laws, the Constitution, U.S. legal precedence and accusations of fraud among all levels of government without a shred of compelling or credible evidence.

    *Because Bush was bashed or Nixon disgraced himself is not a valid justification for birther stupidity and lawlessness unless you’re either under the age of four or a mentally challenged sociopathic bully without a lick of common sense or the slightest comprehension of valid logical arguments.

  103. avatar
    Majority Will April 8, 2011 at 3:51 pm #

    Robert Clark: When people can only resort to hurling insults and can no longer present a reasoned response, THAT’s when you know you’re winning.

    Bob

    Yeah, you and Charlie Sheen. You’re still a liar.

  104. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 8, 2011 at 3:52 pm #

    Majority Will:
    “It’s not likely you’ll find an Obama supporter among the birthers.”

    And the reasons behind this are why birthers are rightfully despised for being anti-American scum.

    Not for opposing or hating the President and his politics because that’s a normal by-product of American politics.

    But for resorting to unrelenting smears, lies, fear mongering, bigotry, willful ignorance, vengeance*, advocating sedition, the complete and utter disrespect for U.S. laws, the Constitution, U.S. legal precedence and accusations of fraud among all levels of government without a shred of compelling or credible evidence.

    *Because Bush was bashed or Nixon disgraced himself is not a valid justification for birther stupidity and lawlessness unless you’re either under the age of four or a mentally challenged sociopathic bully without a lick of common sense or the slightest comprehension of valid logical arguments.

    Well said. You’re on fire today, Will…

  105. avatar
    G April 8, 2011 at 3:54 pm #

    Robert Clark: I think you’re being disingenuous here. I don’t think 40% of the people would say either they don’t believe George Bush was born in this country or aren’t sure.
    Bob

    How do you know? I’ve never seen that question poll tested. Of course, that would be as stupid a question as questioning Obama’s birth…

    Now if you had a poll that asked what state GWB was born, I’d bet you that a MUCH higher than 40% would get that answer wrong. HINT: It WASN’T Texas.

    40% of people out there believe in lots of nonsense. I’ve already addressed this with you. So, who cares what the uninformed or uneducated think, other than to underscore just how ill informed most people are on basic matters or how much superstition guides a lot of people’s beliefs.

    Should we listen to people who still believe Elvis is alive or in ghosts or that the earth is only 6000 yrs old? I don’t think so.

  106. avatar
    Majority Will April 8, 2011 at 3:58 pm #

    Robert Clark: However, I can well imagine you could find people who are indifferent to Obama and his presidency that would agree with the view that Obama should just release his original long form birth certificate.

    Bob

    With all due respect, let me amend my last observation: an unrepentant liar, a birther troll and incredibly obtuse.

    Keep moving those goalposts, though. It keeps them slim and trim.

    Speaking of winning:

    Obama/Biden 2012.

    I fully expect a handful of hardcore birthers to run screaming through the streets before bursting into flames in a wave of spontaneous combustion.

  107. avatar
    G April 8, 2011 at 4:00 pm #

    Robert Clark: That’s the point. Chris Mathews is one of the strongest Obama supporters in the news media. As you said he strongly opposes the “birthers” viewpoint.But even he says Obama should release the original long form birth certificate and get the issue out of the way.Bob

    Ah…you folks are such easy marks, you know that? See…the whole Chris Matthews “meme” you are peddling here is based on the same RW twisted version of a story that gets passed around, that you gullible nuts just swallow wholesale without questioning and then parrot the same myth over and over and over again.

    Obviously, you never actually watched and listened to that specific Chris Matthews interview you are referring to. I did.

    Because if you did, you would realize that Matthews was putting the question out there as a rhetorical challenge – a way of throwing out an argument to then setup destroying it that he often does and is a very common part of his style.

    So no, his words were NOT supporting the Birther argument – they were put out there to do the exact opposite.

    Anyone who even did a cursory review of how Matthew’s interviews or listened to his programs would quickly see that. You have to be a lying fool to delude yourself to think otherwise. Oh…I guess that describes you perfectly.

  108. avatar
    Majority Will April 8, 2011 at 4:01 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Well said.You’re on fire today, Will…

    Thanks. I have good days. Now does anyone have a bucket of water handy?

  109. avatar
    G April 8, 2011 at 4:03 pm #

    Robert Clark: However I voted for McCain against Obama in 2008.

    Hmmm…now we’re getting to the heart of the matter here.

    You didn’t just vote for McCain OVER Obama…you voted for McCain AGAINST Obama.

    Yet you mention voting for Al Gore in 2000 and AGAINST GWB’s second term in 2004…

    …So, what is it exactly about the Obama that struck a deep chord inside you that made you so reflexively AGAINST him from the outset?

    Just be honest here. Because this is REALLY what your “birtherism” is all about.

  110. avatar
    G April 8, 2011 at 4:05 pm #

    Daniel: I think we could probably find people who are indifferent to Obama and his presidency that would agree with the view that Obama should just release his pet unicorn.That doesn’t mean he has one.

    LOL! Well put!

  111. avatar
    G April 8, 2011 at 4:12 pm #

    Robert Clark: When people can only resort to hurling insults and can no longer present a reasoned response, THAT’s when you know you’re winning.
    Bob

    Yeah, you’re Charlie Sheen “winning” all right.

    See, you have to tell yourself these things to feel secure and protect you from the truth that other’s reactions to you are your own fault.

    They are a direct result of your being insincere on here from the get go and from being able to merely (and quite poorly I may add) parrot the same lame and long debunked arguments that we’ve heard and which have been shot down over and over again, many for several years now.

    A sincere person with questions would have the ability to do some quick and quality research on the internet and be smart enough to go to OFFICIAL sites, such as the HI DOH and such and LEARN something.

    Someone who lacks intelligence and sincerity would only go to sites they know full well are agenda-based propoganda that will spoon-feed them stories built soley to reinforce their own biases and turn a complete blind eye to every bit of information that blows holes in the nonsense being peddled at those propoganda sites.

    So, you only have yourself to blame for the charges that have been made towards you. You’ve eared it by constantly coming across as extremely dishonest and not very bright.

  112. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 8, 2011 at 4:12 pm #

    G: Hmmm…now we’re getting to the heart of the matter here.

    You didn’t just vote for McCain OVER Obama…you voted for McCain AGAINST Obama.

    Yet you mention voting for Al Gore in 2000 and AGAINST GWB’s second term in 2004…

    …So, what is it exactly about the Obama that struck a deep chord inside you that made you so reflexively AGAINST him from the outset?


    Just be honest here.Because this is REALLY what your “birtherism” is all about.

    I hope Mr. Clark will stick around – I would be fascinated hear the reasoning (or rationalizations) behind these three votes… (For the record, I voted for Gore, against Bush, for Obama (although I was passionately against Senator hypocrisy and Caribou Barbie [by which I mean the former half-term Governor of Alaska and failed Vice-Presidential candidate...], and I will be voting against the Republican in 2012 in all likelihood).

  113. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 8, 2011 at 4:17 pm #

    Robert Clark: When people can only resort to hurling insults and can no longer present a reasoned response, THAT’s when you know you’re winning.

    Here’s where you’ve got a problem, Bob: people are refuting your comments with reasoned responses AND hurling insults at you, you idiot (see how that’s done… ;-)). The most reasonable explanation for that behavior is that you have taken a position that is rightly reviled…

  114. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 8, 2011 at 4:26 pm #

    G: Yeah, you’re Charlie Sheen “winning” all right.

    See, you have to tell yourself these things to feel secure and protect you from the truth that other’s reactions to you are your own fault.

    They are a direct result of your being insincere on here from the get go and from being able to merely (and quite poorly I may add) parrot the same lame and long debunked arguments that we’ve heard and which have been shot down over and over again, many for several years now.

    A sincere person with questions would have the ability to do some quick and quality research on the internet and be smart enough to go to OFFICIAL sites, such as the HI DOH and such and LEARN something.

    Someone who lacks intelligence and sincerity would only go to sites they know full well are agenda-based propoganda that will spoon-feed them stories built soley to reinforce their own biases and turn a complete blind eye to every bit of information that blows holes in the nonsense being peddled at those propoganda sites.

    So, you only have yourself to blame for the charges that have been made towards you.You’ve eared it by constantly coming across as extremely dishonest and not very bright.

    You’re right that we’re getting a poor grade of trolls these days – the most interesting episode of trolling in recent memory was MichaelN and that derived mostly from the novelty of his subject (Calvin’s case) and not at all from the (nonexistent) quality of his arguments. Mario where art thou? (for my money he’s the best that the birthers have to offer [and even I was enough to drive him to censorship to protect his arguments...])

  115. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 6:00 pm #

    G: Ah…you folks are such easy marks, you know that? See…the whole Chris Matthews “meme” you are peddling here is based on the same RW twisted version of a story that gets passed around, that you gullible nuts just swallow wholesale without questioning and then parrot the same myth over and over and over again.Obviously, you never actually watched and listened to that specific Chris Matthews interview you are referring to. I did.Because if you did, you would realize that Matthews was putting the question out there as a rhetorical challenge – a way of throwing out an argument to then setup destroying it that he often does and is a very common part of his style.So no, his words were NOT supporting the Birther argument – they were put out there to do the exact opposite. Anyone who even did a cursory review of how Matthew’s interviews or listened to his programs would quickly see that. You have to be a lying fool to delude yourself to think otherwise. Oh…I guess that describes you perfectly.

    G, I did watch that entire Mathews interview. I’m sure you’re aware that people who have interest in this issue read and watch as much as they can find on it.
    I agree with you Mathews hates the birthers. But he is also a reporter. He thinks Obama should just release the original birth certificate to get the issue out of the way. Note as well he was able to get the other two correspondents he was interviewing to finally agree to this also, though a bit grudgingly.

    Bob

  116. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 8, 2011 at 6:02 pm #

    Robert Clark: G, I did watch that entire Mathews interview. I’m sure you’re aware that people who have interest in this issue read and watch as much as they can find on it.I agree with you Mathews hates the birthers. But he is also a reporter. He thinks Obama should just release the original birth certificate to get the issue out of the way. Note as well he was able to get the other two correspondents he was interviewing to finally agree to this also, though a bit grudgingly.

    Bob

    If you think that you weren’t really paying attention. He said it rhetorically as an interview tactic. Matthews isn’t a reporter he’s a commentator.

  117. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 6:08 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I hope Mr. Clark will stick around – I would be fascinated hear the reasoning (or rationalizations) behind these three votes… (For the record, I voted for Gore, against Bush, for Obama (although I was passionately against Senator hypocrisy and Caribou Barbie [by which I mean the former half-term Governor of Alaska and failed Vice-Presidential candidate...], and I will be voting against the Republican in 2012 in all likelihood).

    Slarty man, I gather you favor more democratic candidates which is of course perfectly fine. But there are many registered independent voters who don’t just vote a party line. For instance many voted for Carter against Ford but then voted for Reagan against Carter.

    Bob

  118. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 6:14 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): If you think that you weren’t really paying attention. He said it rhetorically as an interview tactic. Matthews isn’t a reporter he’s a commentator.

    Ken (or Bob), I don’t believe you really believe that. Look at the last few minutes of the interview where he manages, with some effort, to get the other two reporters on the show to agree he should probably release the original birth certificate.

    Bob

  119. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 6:20 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Here’s where you’ve got a problem, Bob: people are refuting your comments with reasoned responses AND hurling insults at you, you idiot (see how that’s done… ). The most reasonable explanation for that behavior is that you have taken a position that is rightly reviled…

    Slarty man, how I can I get mad at a man whose name “is as close to being obscene without being so”. ;-)

    Bob

  120. avatar
    Suranis April 8, 2011 at 6:28 pm #

    Its funny when Chris mathews is suddenly the greatest hope the birthers have. But theyn they are pretty much abused spouses, they will flock to anyone that insults them the least. But I think the main thing here is “LOOK HES ON NBC HES A LINERAL PAY ATTENTION TO HIM LIBULS… why arnt you paying attention libruls… why?”

    And Chris Mathews was the guy that said he had a thrill up his trouser leg from President Bush in a flight suit and commented on the size of his jock strap.

    And the thing is, Chris Mathews is Not the president of the United states, with the ultimate power to completely ignore concern trolling ‘members’.

    Barack Obama. Still sleeping in the white house tonight.

  121. avatar
    Scientist April 8, 2011 at 6:31 pm #

    Robert Clark: I don’t think 40% of the people would say either they don’t believe George Bush was born in this country or aren’t sure.

    It was never polled, but so what? The entire idea that Obama is foreign born is based on no facts. It’s based on his father’s nationality and his “foreign-sounding” name. Now you might wish to say that having a father from another country somehow makes it likely that his US-born and bred mother would run over to some Third World backwater in the midst of an independence struggle to give birth. Sir, it does not. Perhaps you have never worked with and known many people from overseas. Being in the medical sciences I have. They, at least the ones from poorer countries, appreciate more than most native-born Americans the benefits of good medical care. It’s not like Ms Dunham married a Swiss guy and decided to give birth at University Hospital in Lausanne. I knew quite a few foreign students and postdocs, married both to Americans and to other foreigners. Not one went back home to have a baby. So, the ideathat Ms Dunham went to Kenya to drop a baby is so far out, that as a scientist I could only accept it on the most rock-solid unimpeachable evidence.

    And what is the evidence for birth in Kenya? A manufactured conversation between an American street preacher and Obama’s step-grandmother, edited to give a pre-determined result. THAT’S IT. Nothing more. And yet I’m supposed to get my underpants in a knot?

    Robert Clark: Scientist, I have haven’t read all the comments on this topic, but is there is a reason why you think there could be a pro-Obama birther? Or is this a sarcastic comment?
    No, I am not a fan of Obama. It’s not likely you’ll find an Obama supporter among the birthers.

    No, I am quite serious. I would be really interested to see a pro-Obama birther as a biological curiosity, like a two-headed frog. It’s argued that Obama should “release something” to make nice to the birthers. But we seem to agree that none of the birthers would support him even if there was verified footage of him being born in Times Square on New Year’s Eve in front of 100,000 people. Every single birther would still oppose him for a mix of reasons includiing race (yes, I’m afraid there are many birthers who are simply rascists), ideology, his name,the fact that he is an intellectual (or perceiived that way) or any of a slew of reasons. So there is nothing to be gained. The birth certificate is simply an excuse for those people to do what they would do anyway. It simply would be a waste of electrons to post or say anything more.

  122. avatar
    Scientist April 8, 2011 at 6:43 pm #

    Robert Clark: When people can only resort to hurling insults and can no longer present a reasoned response, THAT’s when you know you’re winning.
    Bob

    Hurling insults is far preferable to hurllng accusations of fraud backed by absolutely NO proof. Especially claims that people who are dead and unable to defend themselves committed fraud by falsely registering a birth. There is not a shred of evidence to support that, nor were the people being accused of this crime known during their lives to have committed crimes.

    I wonder how YOU would like people tossing around accusations about YOU after you’re dead and buried?

  123. avatar
    G April 8, 2011 at 6:57 pm #

    Suranis: And Chris Mathews was the guy that said he had a thrill up his trouser leg from President Bush in a flight suit and commented on the size of his jock strap.

    Link, please? I don’t remember that. I think you have your reference wrong.

    The common reference of a “thrill up his leg” being said by Matthews was after hearing one of Obama’s speeches during the primary season of the 2008 Presidential candidacy race.

    His point being at the time, that Obama was a masterful speaker and that he, who loves politics and political speeches, thought that speech reminded him of other great speeches from his youth, such as Kennedy or MLK.

  124. avatar
    G April 8, 2011 at 6:58 pm #

    Robert Clark: Slarty man, how I can I get mad at a man whose name “is as close to being obscene without being so”. Bob

    Obviously, you don’t understand the actual reference.

    HINT: Try Douglas Adams. I don’t fault you if you don’t know who that is, but maybe you can actually look something up and educate yourself for once.

  125. avatar
    G April 8, 2011 at 7:19 pm #

    Robert Clark: G, I did watch that entire Mathews interview. I’m sure you’re aware that people who have interest in this issue read and watch as much as they can find on it.
    I agree with you Mathews hates the birthers. But he is also a reporter. He thinks Obama should just release the original birth certificate to get the issue out of the way. Note as well he was able to get the other two correspondents he was interviewing to finally agree to this also, though a bit grudgingly.
    Bob

    FAIL! No he doesn’t. I’ve already explained this to you, as has Bob Ross, who put it quite correctly and succinctly:

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): If you think that you weren’t really paying attention. He said it rhetorically as an interview tactic. Matthews isn’t a reporter he’s a commentator.

    You are so desperate to grasp at straws to get your confirmation-bias fix that you see only what you wish to see and ignore reality around you.

    If you DID actually research Matthews, you would see that he uses that rhetorical interview tactic all the time. In a way, it is close to “Concern Trolling” as he uses it as a tactic to get the person he’s interviewing to drop their guard and reveal their true motives and not just stick to their pre-planned script.

    Matthews calls this tactic playing “Hardball”. That IS why his show is named that.

    This is the same rhetorical tactic he used on Michelle Bachmann several years back, which brought her to national attention for the now infamous segment where she reveals that she would like to have ALL of congress investigated to see who is “pro-America” and who isn’t. What Matthews accomplished in using this tactic to get Bachmann to start saying those things is to reveal that she holds “McCarthyesque” views. It exposed her true nature to the world.

    I just watched Matthews show again today (you can catch it again right now, it repeats during the 7pm hour). During his segment on the Budget Showdown between the gentleman representing the Tea Party and the gentleman from Mother Jones, representing a liberal perspective, he uses this very SAME tactic, to get the Tea Party guy to admit that his true motives is to try to take over the GOP and control them…something the Tea Party guy had been trying to downplay and pretend that wasn’t his goal during the entire interview until that point. If you hurry, you can catch that segment as it comes up this hour and see it in progress…or watch it online later.

    As further proof, and why you birthers look so foolish on this issue is the BODY of WORK that Matthews daily show provides as evidence, clearly NOT in support of your position.

    Other than this small instance that some RW group first grasped onto as a desperate straw and twisted the meaning, so that you gullible fools repeat the same instance over and over again, crowing like fools…

    …well…then tell me WHY Matthews doesn’t push that “release the long form” argument in all of his OTHER daily broadcasts? Eh?

    I mean, Chris Matthews reports on the birthers just about EVERY DAY, slamming them repeatedly. Chris Matthews is known for talking and stating his opinions over and over and over again…

    …yet he DOESN’T mention “release the long form” in his arguments in all these other daily broadcasts, when covering the topic….

    Gee…that should tell you something. *DUH*

  126. avatar
    G April 8, 2011 at 7:22 pm #

    G: Hmmm…now we’re getting to the heart of the matter here.You didn’t just vote for McCain OVER Obama…you voted for McCain AGAINST Obama.Yet you mention voting for Al Gore in 2000 and AGAINST GWB’s second term in 2004……So, what is it exactly about the Obama that struck a deep chord inside you that made you so reflexively AGAINST him from the outset? Just be honest here. Because this is REALLY what your “birtherism” is all about.

    Come on Robert Clark…still waiting for you to answer this question.

    I noticed you gave other responses, but carefully avoided answering this one completely…

    …Why is that exactly?

  127. avatar
    Suranis April 8, 2011 at 7:31 pm #

    Robert Clark: When people can only resort to hurling insults and can no longer present a reasoned response, THAT’s when you know you’re winning.

    Bob

    In that case the Obots have been winning since the term was invented.

  128. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 7:35 pm #

    G: Obviously, you don’t understand the actual reference. HINT: Try Douglas Adams. I don’t fault you if you don’t know who that is, but maybe you can actually look something up and educate yourself for once.

    I’m fairly Slarty got my joke and why it was in quotation marks.

    Bob

  129. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 7:40 pm #

    Robert Clark: I’m fairly Slarty got my joke and why it was in quotation marks.Bob

    “Fairly sure” that is.

    Bob

  130. avatar
    G April 8, 2011 at 7:40 pm #

    Robert Clark: I think you’re being disingenuous here. I don’t think 40% of the people would say either they don’t believe George Bush was born in this country or aren’t sure.Bob

    Back to another thing you’ve avoided. You still haven’t provided your evidence and link supporting your 40% birther claims…

    So, I’ll help you out by showing the latest FNC poll on the topic. That is a source that should highly favor a large showing of birtherism:

    http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_ad.htm

    Fox News Poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). April 3-5, 2011. N=914 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error 3.

    “Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?”

    Think he was Do not think he was Unsure
    % % %
    ALL 67 24 10
    Democrats 84 12 4
    Republicans 47 37 16
    Independents 69 21 10

    Hmmm… doesn’t quite support your 40% numbers, does it? More like 24% overall.

    Unless you meant 40% of GOP voters… which is within the range that other polls have been showing on this.

    So, all this points is what we’ve all known. The GOP base is full of a bunch of gullible folks who’ve bought into the incessent drum of propoganda fed to them in their RW media.

    Nothing new there. Nothing that is a threat to Obama either. These aren’t the people that were voting for him or would ever vote for him…so they can believe ALL the crazy they want and that won’t dent Obama’s voter base…

    What is more important is the VAST discrepancy that ALL these polls show between GOP voters (their base) and the percentages amongst Independents and Democrats.

    If anything, it shows that if the gullible GOP base forces the GOP establishment to end up nominating a crazy candidate in their primaries, that only marginalizes them further in the general and helps Obama’s re-election chances.

    Oh, and while we are discussing your foolish crowing about 40% numbers, as if that is something to be proud of, let’s look at a similar, yet even higher statistic in this poll that just came out:

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/04/mississippi-republicans/36455/

    So, 46% of Mississippi GOP polled would make interracial marriage illegal….

    …hmmmm… care to be proud of those numbers, Robert Clark?

    Why do I suspect there is a high correlation between those stats and the self-reporting “birther” poll numbers…

  131. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 8, 2011 at 7:51 pm #

    G: Come on Robert Clark…still waiting for you to answer this question.

    I noticed you gave other responses, but carefully avoided answering this one completely…

    …Why is that exactly?

    Don’t feel left out – while he ‘responded’ to us, he in no way ‘answered’ us… (obviously because he is unable to).

  132. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 7:53 pm #

    G: FAIL! No he doesn’t. I’ve already explained this to you, as has Bob Ross, who put it quite correctly and succinctly:You are so desperate to grasp at straws to get your confirmation-bias fix that you see only what you wish to see and ignore reality around you.

    Here’s the link to that Matthews interview:

    Chris Matthews Why Doesn’t Obama Just Release The Birth Certificate.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VTMWRpkVbI&feature=player_embedded

    From your description of the interview tactic you say he was using, it would appear that that would apply only to people of opposing views to Matthews. But here both of the reporters agree with Matthews that the birthers are wrong and are strong supporters of Obama as is Matthews.

    Bob

  133. avatar
    Daniel April 8, 2011 at 7:53 pm #

    Robert Clark: When people can only resort to hurling insults and can no longer present a reasoned response, THAT’s when you know you’re winning.

    Bob

    If you don’t want to be ridiculed… don’t be ridiculous.

  134. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 7:55 pm #

    G: Come on Robert Clark…still waiting for you to answer this question.I noticed you gave other responses, but carefully avoided answering this one completely……Why is that exactly?

    It was a fair question and will require a deeper response than the shorter ones I was mostly giving. I’ll compose an answer and answer it shortly.

    Bob

  135. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 8, 2011 at 8:00 pm #

    Robert Clark: Slarty man, I gather you favor more democratic candidates which is of course perfectly fine.

    It would be more accurate to say that, as a liberal, my interests are nearly always best served by voting Democratic…

    But there are many registered independent voters who don’t just vote a party line. For instance many voted for Carter against Ford but then voted for Reagan against Carter.

    All of which is irrelevant to the question: Why did you vote ‘D’ in 2000 and 2004 and ‘R’ in 2008? Why wont you answer a simple question? What do you have to hide?

  136. avatar
    G April 8, 2011 at 8:01 pm #

    Robert Clark: Here’s the link to that Matthews interview:Chris Matthews Why Doesn’t Obama Just Release The Birth Certificate.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VTMWRpkVbI&feature=player_embeddedFrom your description of the interview tactic you say he was using, it would appear that that would apply only to people of opposing views to Matthews. But here both of the reporters agree with Matthews that the birthers are wrong and are strong supporters of Obama as is Matthews.Bob

    Hello… I’ve already mentioned that I’ve seen that interview. In fact, I’ve seen it several times, including when it originally aired. I think it is fairly clear that I’m much more familiar with Chris Matthews show than you are. Your doubling down on being wrong is not helping you.

    If you read my posts, I’ve explained that this is one of the STANDARD tactics that Matthews uses – it is part of what he calls playing “Hardball”. Hence, why his ENTIRE SHOW is named HARDBALL.

    Hence, he uses this standard tactic with MANY of his guests, regardless of whether they are “supporters” or “opponents” of an issue. Matthew’s point is to CHALLENGE their views by using this tactic.

    The only one who is blind to understanding that simple concept is YOU. You are so desperate to see only what you wish to see…

  137. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 8:06 pm #

    G: Back to another thing you’ve avoided. You still haven’t provided your evidence and link supporting your 40% birther claims…So, I’ll help you out by showing the latest FNC poll on the topic. That is a source that should highly favor a large showing of birtherism:http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_ad.htmHmmm… doesn’t quite support your 40% numbers, does it? More like 24% overall.

    The 40% was from the Matthews interview quoting a New York Times poll. Note that that number included both people who believe he was not and those who were not sure he was.
    If you add the numbers for your poll of those who believe he was not to those that were unsure it would be 34% according to this poll.
    You can take your pick about which poll you think is more accurate.

    Bob

  138. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 8:11 pm #

    G: Hello… I’ve already mentioned that I’ve seen that interview. In fact, I’ve seen it several times, including when it originally aired. I think it is fairly clear that I’m much more familiar with Chris Matthews show than you are. Your doubling down on being wrong is not helping you.If you read my posts, I’ve explained that this is one of the STANDARD tactics that Matthews uses – it is part of what he calls playing “Hardball”. Hence, why his ENTIRE SHOW is named HARDBALL.Hence, he uses this standard tactic with MANY of his guests, regardless of whether they are “supporters” or “opponents” of an issue. Matthew’s point is to CHALLENGE their views by using this tactic.The only one who is blind to understanding that simple concept is YOU. You are so desperate to see only what you wish to see…

    OK. You’re not convinced.

    Bob

  139. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 8:27 pm #

    G: … in this poll that just came out:http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/04/mississippi-republicans/36455/So, 46% of Mississippi GOP polled would make interracial marriage illegal…. …hmmmm… care to be proud of those numbers, Robert Clark? Why do I suspect there is a high correlation between those stats and the self-reporting “birther” poll numbers…

    As I said I’m a registered independent. There are republicans with stupid views as there are democrats with stupid views. For instance there was a poll a few years ago that said 35% (!) of democrats said Bush knew about the 911 attacks beforehand:

    22% Believe Bush Knew About 9/11 Attacks in Advance.
    Friday, May 04, 2007

    Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure. Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

    Bob

  140. avatar
    Sef April 8, 2011 at 8:35 pm #

    Robert Clark: As I said I’m a registered independent.

    What does that mean???

  141. avatar
    Scientist April 8, 2011 at 8:38 pm #

    I think you have to be very careful about all polls of thiis type. The answers can vary considerably depending on how you ask the question and even what order the choices are given. In polls that ask “Are you sure Obama was born in the US?” how should I interpret the word “sure”. If you mean absolutely 100%, then I would say the ONLY people of whom i am SURE as to their birthplace arre mmy children, since I witnessed their birth. I can’t be SURE even of my own birth, since I don’t remember it. So, perhaps I should answer “unsure”. And no documents could possibly change that.

    On the Bush poll, i think some people interpreted the question to include “Bush SHOULD have known”; i.e., that there were intelligence screw-ups.

    In summary, whereas polls that ask which candidate would you vote for tend to be very accurate if the sampling is good (since there is little room for interpretation), issue polls are much less so,

  142. avatar
    Robert Clark April 8, 2011 at 9:05 pm #

    Sef: What does that mean???

    It means I’m a cynic and a skeptic about both parties. It also means in my state I don’t vote in primaries.

    Bob

  143. avatar
    Sef April 8, 2011 at 9:08 pm #

    Robert Clark: It means I’m a cynic and a skeptic about both parties. It also means in my state I don’t vote in primaries.

    Bob

    You don’t appreciate the oxymoronic quality of your statement?

  144. avatar
    G April 8, 2011 at 9:12 pm #

    Robert Clark: The 40% was from the Matthews interview quoting a New York Times poll. Note that that number included both people who believe he was not and those who were not sure he was.If you add the numbers for your poll of those who believe he was not to those that were unsure it would be 34% according to this poll.You can take your pick about which poll you think is more accurate.Bob

    Well, finally your actually having a conversation of a more reasonable nature.

    I’ve seen poll interpretations reported that claim over 50% of GOP base holding “birther” beliefs. I’ve also seen one’s that were as low as in the 20′s. So numbers within the 30-40 range fit that model and as with any poll topic, it all depends on how the questions are being asked and how the results are being aggregated.

    There is always a interpretation bias that people need to be careful of when lumping in the “not sure” category with the others. The meaning for why someone responds “not sure” instead of more definitive options can vary quite a bit. Often times, it simply is an indicator of people who don’t know/care about an issue (and likely never will), who chose the choice that is closest to saying “pass” over an alternative that indicates one thing or the other.

    All I’m getting at is the more valuable numbers are where people make a definitive choice in any poll. Even “hedge” categories, where people leave room for doubt of “might” don’t really tell us enough compared to those categories that say “definitely”.

    Anyways, that applies to any poll on any topic.

    In regards to birtherism, the only area where there has been a consistent noted increase over time across polls is amongst the self-identifying GOP category. Considering the RW need to demonize their opponents as “the other” and the constant drum beat of certain propoganda that passes for RW news, I don’t think anyone should be surprised by this effect at all.

    However, those that chose to innoculate themselves from a broader world and live in a bubble only will see and hear what they want to…and that causes them to miss the bigger picture.

    In the bigger picture, the “birther” issue remains a non-starter. It doesn’t matter how many GOP primary voters are into certain issues – if that is disconnected from the rest of the public at large, it only hurts candidates that pander to those issues in a much broader general election. In that context, “birtherism” doesn’t stand up too well to the light of day.

  145. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 8, 2011 at 9:48 pm #

    Robert Clark: Here’s the link to that Matthews interview:

    Chris Matthews Why Doesn’t Obama Just Release The Birth Certificate.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VTMWRpkVbI&feature=player_embedded

    From your description of the interview tactic you say he was using, it would appear that thatwould apply only to people of opposing views to Matthews. But here both of the reportersagree with Matthews that the birthers are wrong and are strong supporters of Obama as is Matthews.

    Bob

    Incorrect. Its a typical interview tactic to say something that seems a bit off to get people to respond and correct the error.

  146. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 8, 2011 at 9:51 pm #

    Robert Clark: The 40% was from the Matthews interview quoting a New York Times poll. Note that that number included both people who believe he was not and those who were not sure he was.If you add the numbers for your poll of those who believe he was not to those that were unsure it would be 34% according to this poll.You can take your pick about which poll you think is more accurate.

    Bob

    Now you’re just fudging the numbers. I remember this poll just as Squeeks fudges the numbers Bob fudges them. Just as squeeks did he adds those who say Obama was probably born in the US and those who didn’t care to answer the question to the non believers.

    If this was the case Bob then would that mean those who said he probably wasn’t born here had some degree of uncertainty about him not being born here so using your math would we then add those to the column of people who believe he was born in the US?

  147. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 8, 2011 at 9:53 pm #

    Robert Clark: As I said I’m a registered independent. There are republicans with stupid views as there are democrats with stupid views. For instance there was a poll a fewyears ago that said 35% (!) of democrats said Bush knew about the 911 attacks beforehand:

    22% Believe Bush Knew About 9/11 Attacks in Advance.
    Friday, May 04, 2007

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

    Bob

    Bob there is a difference between saying Bush knew about the attacks and that he planned them. Yes Bush did know the attacks were imminent as he got that August PDB telling him such. Also Condi Rice told her good friend Willie Brown not to fly that day.

  148. avatar
    G April 8, 2011 at 9:59 pm #

    Robert Clark: As I said I’m a registered independent. There are republicans with stupid views as there are democrats with stupid views. For instance there was a poll a few years ago that said 35% (!) of democrats said Bush knew about the 911 attacks beforehand:22% Believe Bush Knew About 9/11 Attacks in Advance.Friday, May 04, 2007http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advanceBob

    I’ve ALWAYS been an Independent too and I’ve voted in every election -local, state, and federal since I turned 18. In my state, I’ve had to declare a party in order to vote in Primaries, so I’ve been registered at different times with different parties and I only switch that when I feel there is a primary field that has a choice of candidate that I’d wish to cast a vote FOR. I’ve never been for the theory of “sabatoging” that I know happens out there in primaries – where folks cast votes to try to get what they consider a “weak” opponent elected. I understand the political reasons why some do so, but I personally don’t like that tactic, so I never do it. I’ve also voted for various 3rd party or truly “independent” candidates for offices from time to time – when I considered that individual to be my preferred choice amongst the field I had to select from.

    But the term “independent” is so meaningless in our two-party dominated system that it means so many different things to so many different people. For example, I’m in an area with a strong “Tea Party” following…including a few family members. I have to chuckle that just about ALL of them have been calling themselves “Independent” over the past few years…yet their voting pattern is just about 100% GOP all the time – it was before they became “Tea Party” and it remained that way through this past election. So, folks like that aren’t really “Independents” as they claim in my view; they are merely GOP loyalists who don’t like the current “stink” attached to the GOP label since the GWB administration and who are just trying to pretend they are something they are not.

    I view 9/11 Truthers to be as crazy as Birthers. Not surprisingly, there is a certain amount of overlap of people that are both. I chalk that up to the faction of Birthers that are really just paranoid anti-government conspiracy addicts. The original Birther lawyer, Phil Berg is a good example of this type of nut. He also falls in the PUMA category too… but that’s a whole additional category of crazy that overlaps into making the Birther crowd.

    Because I’ve truly voted “Independent” a number of times, I’ve grown up hanging out with lots of folks that are or used to be 3rd party voters – there are quite a few Libertarians, Greens and even “Constitution Party” members out there.

    Other people’s experiences of course may differ, but in my experience, most of the actual “9/11 Truther” nuts I knew more often fell in the Libertarian category (and a few of the kookier Greens) or amongst those folks that talked alot of anti-government smack, but as it turned out don’t actually vote at all. In conversations, I’ve actually been surprised to find out how many people who’ve been quite vocal on various “political issues” turned out to be non-voters, when it came time to actually cast a ballot. This is a pet peeve issue of mine that I will probably never understand…but I digress.

    Anyways, back to those crazy “9/11 Truthers”. In actual conversations with folks (family, friends, coworkers) that self-identify as either Democrat or Republican, I’ve enountered very, very few who hold any actual “Truther” beliefs.

    And that get’s to part of the problem with the poll you cited – which is a prime example of where perception and reality can be very different things and where a bad poll question leads to bad interpretations of the results.

    Look at how the question is asked: “Bush knew about the 911 attacks beforehand”.

    There is a huge problem with that question – it doesn’t actually identify Trutherism at all!

    “9/11 Truthers” are those that believe that the US was somehow INVOLVED in the attacks that happend that day. They have all sorts of crazy conspiracies ranging from the government using explosives to help bring down the buildings to faking the planes, to the terrorists actually being agents of either the US or Israel, etc. Bottom line, I find it all to be crazy and often as distastefully unpatriotic and offensive as Birtherism.

    Now look at the question that was asked compared to what Truther’s actually believe – do you see the difference yet?

    HINT: It is a WELL-KNOWN FACT that the GWB administration was given NIE reports stating that Al-Qaeda was likely planning an attack to strike US Soil as far back as August of 2001. It is also well known that the GWB administration didn’t take those reports that seriously and didn’t really do anything to follow-up on those reports.

    What I’m getting at is that the Poll Question “”Bush knew about the 911 attacks beforehand” is an extremely poor question to ask to determine who holds actual “Truther” views.

    The problem with that question is you might get some actual nutty Truthers answering YES to that question, but you will also snag a good portion of people who simply think of the NIE reports that weren’t taken seriously and merely interpret that question to mean that the GWB administration had advanced warning that something was going to happen and didn’t take it seriously enough and do enough follow-up to help prevent that tragedy from happening. That is merely an acknowledgement of failure to prevent the tragedy and in NO WAY implies either a conspiracy or complicitness in the attacks…merely bad judgement at best and negligent incompetence at worst.

    If anything, that poll you cited is the perfect example of polling GIGO. (Garbage In, Garbage Out), where the results are meaningless and misleading.

  149. avatar
    Robert Clark April 10, 2011 at 1:07 am #

    G: Hmmm…now we’re getting to the heart of the matter here.You didn’t just vote for McCain OVER Obama…you voted for McCain AGAINST Obama.Yet you mention voting for Al Gore in 2000 and AGAINST GWB’s second term in 2004……So, what is it exactly about the Obama that struck a deep chord inside you that made you so reflexively AGAINST him from the outset? Just be honest here. Because this is REALLY what your “birtherism” is all about.

    A fair question. I was a strong supporter of Bill Clinton in both of his terms. All reports on his presidency showed that Hillary was a big factor in his campaign and in his presidency. Insiders said she was his most relied upon advisor on policy decisions even more than his Chief of Staff. Bill Clinton once said in reference to her you get “two for one” during his presidency.
    I was impressed enough by that that I read a few biographies of her that reinforced my positive opinion of her. That plus the fact I’ve always been a strong supporter of women taking important roles in all segments of society led me to support her in her presidential run.
    I like most people did not know much about Obama when his presidential run began. However, I had a strong disfavor of him for President because I had the personal viewpoint that for someone to become President he had to have “paid his dues”. He had to have a lot of experience in the political realm before he couild be considered for President.
    Granted Hillary had only served one and half terms as Senator but because of what I had read of her importance during the Clinton presidency that alone would have been sufficient for me to support her for President. Again knowledgeable insiders said Bill Clinton had the personality but Hillary had the brains.
    During the campaign I read more about Obama. I read of his associations with questionable and worse characters like Tony Rezko. True, in Chicago politics you had to have dealings with such people but Obama in my opinion went the extra mile to cozy up to such people. What really dismayed me far above anything else was that Rezko was a slum lord of the worse stripe yet Obama, who claimed to be supporter of the poor, counted Rezko among his closest friends.
    Additionally, his associations and friendships with, quite frankly, what many Americans would regard as America-haters such as Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers made it impossible for me personally to support him for President.
    There is also the fact that I believe his viewpoint was completely wrong on economic issues. He seemed to want to hearken back to the days of extreme liberalism personified by Jimmy Carter. I and I think a sizable percentage of democrats, which I was during the Carter years, now believe this view has been discredited.
    The idea supported by Obama was the extreme liberal idea that you should help the poor just by using federal funds to hand out to them. I think many Americans including many democrats think this creates a culture of dependency that is not good for them nor is it good for the country. One of the important policy decisions during the Clinton administration was the idea of welfare reform. It is notable that Hillary’s influence led this to being supported by Bill Clinton though he initially was only lukewarm to the idea.
    That pretty much sums up the reasons why I did not support Obama for President and still do not support him.

    Bob

  150. avatar
    G April 10, 2011 at 1:33 am #

    Robert Clark: A fair question. I was a strong supporter of Bill Clinton in both of his terms. All reports on his presidency showed that Hillary was a big factor in his campaign and in his presidency. Insiders said she was his most relied upon advisor on policy decisions even more than his Chief of Staff. Bill Clinton once said in reference to her you get “two for one” during his presidency.I was impressed enough by that that I read a few biographies of her that reinforced my positive opinion of her. That plus the fact I’ve always been a strong supporter of women taking important roles in all segments of society led me to support her in her presidential run.I like most people did not know much about Obama when his presidential run began. However, I had a strong disfavor of him for President because I had the personal viewpoint that for someone to become President he had to have “paid his dues”. He had to have a lot of experience in the political realm before he couild be considered for President.Granted Hillary had only served one and half terms as Senator but because of what I had read of her importance during the Clinton presidency that alone would have been sufficient for me to support her for President. Again knowledgeable insiders said Bill Clinton had the personality but Hillary had the brains.During the campaign I read more about Obama. I read of his associations with questionable and worse characters like Tony Rezko. True, in Chicago politics you had to have dealings with such people but Obama in my opinion went the extra mile to cozy up to such people. What really dismayed me far above anything else was that Rezko was a slum lord of the worse stripe yet Obama, who claimed to be supporter of the poor, counted Rezko among his closest friends.Additionally, his associations and friendships with, quite frankly, what many Americans would regard as America-haters such as Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers made it impossible for me personally to support him for President.There is also the fact that I believe his viewpoint was completely wrong on economic issues. He seemed to want to hearken back to the days of extreme liberalism personified by Jimmy Carter. I and I think a sizable percentage of democrats, which I was during the Carter years, now believe this view has been discredited.The idea supported by Obama was the extreme liberal idea that you should help the poor just by using federal funds to hand out to them. I think many Americans including many democrats think this creates a culture of dependency that is not good for them nor is it good for the country. One of the important policy decisions during the Clinton administration was the idea of welfare reform. It is notable that Hillary’s influence led this to being supported by Bill Clinton though he initially was only lukewarm to the idea.That pretty much sums up the reasons why I did not support Obama for President and still do not support him.Bob

    Well, I appreciate that you took the time to give a full response.

    My take: In summary, you are a PUMA.

    Nearly everyone in politics has worked with or has associations that others can pick apart. The only people who focus on such associations are those that are looking for a personal excuse to be opposed to that individual. You make more of Obama’s associations than they really factor into anything, because you chose to…its an easy meme for you.

    Just as the meme of Obama as an “extreme liberal” might sound good from perception, but doesn’t hold up well under scrutiny. The far right views him as some “commie socialist”, while the far left howls endlessly that he betrays them and NEVER pursues the “liberal” path. He’s excoriated by business, yet so far his policies have really been more focused on providing benefits to corporations over regular people.

    So, perception and reality don’t seem to match up from critics on either end of the spectrum. Basically, it comes down to you finding excuses to paint him as how you wish to see him so you can justify being angry. Hey, nobody said you have to vote for the guy or even like him. Nor do you have to agree with his policies. Just be honest about your motivations – to both yourself and others and you won’t get all the flack. No need to peddle easily debunked birther nonsense, nor do you have to paint people as something other than what they are in order to chose not to support them.

    Finally, you totally lost me with your last paragraph going off about welfare. Sounds like you are still living in some democratic argument perspective that sounds like it came from the 1980′s and doesn’t seem to match up with today’s reality.

    I mean welfare, really? Where has there been this big “welfare” push by this president?
    There hasn’t. You are making that up. Extending umemployment benefits to people during a major recession isn’t the same thing and doesn’t count. HINT: Study history and you’ll see that in EVERY prior major recession in which unemployment benefits were a factor, such thing were always extended. In the past, that was never a controversial concept. But hey, if that isn’t what you were talking about welfare…than what is it? Because for the life of me, I can’t seem to come up with any real policy examples that in the slightest deal with what you were claiming. Corporate welfare could easily be argued between the bail outs and tax cuts…but that doesn’t seem to match up with your screed either.

    Your argument sounds as fake and made up as those on the far right who keep complaining about their guns rights being attacked by Obama. That never happened either. In terms of actual policies that went into effect since he took office, gun rights are actually LESS restrictive these days than they were were during the past administration.

    My point is you seem to make statements that aren’t backed up by reality. I think it comes down to you being a PUMA who needs to come up with excuses and protect yourself in a false perception bias view of the world in order to keep justifying your anger and sense of loss that HRC didn’t become POTUS.

  151. avatar
    Robert Clark April 10, 2011 at 1:59 am #

    G: Your argument sounds as fake and made up as those on the far right who keep complaining about their guns rights being attacked by Obama. That never happened either. In terms of actual policies that went into effect since he took office, gun rights are actually LESS restrictive these days than they were were during the past administration.My point is you seem to make statements that aren’t backed up by reality. I think it comes down to you being a PUMA who needs to come up with excuses and protect yourself in a false perception bias view of the world in order to keep justifying your anger and sense of loss that HRC didn’t become POTUS.

    You’re entitled to your opinion but I did answer the question honestly. Note that for many Americans the what I would call personal stuff takes priority over the economic issues. For instance Obama’s economic outlook is similar to Jimmy Carter’s. My opinion is that alot of democrats who did not prefer Obama could have voted for a Carter-like candidate who did not have these questionable associations in his background.
    The economic issues were secondary to why many Americans could not support him for President.

    Bob

  152. avatar
    Scientist April 10, 2011 at 7:53 am #

    Bob: I don’t want to cut and repaste your long post, so permit me to offer a few observations:

    1. None of your stated reasons for disliking Obama had anything to do with birtherism.
    2. That Obama was light on experience in 2008 is beyond dispute. That was the principal barrier he faced at that time. I’m trying to figure how that can be a valid argument against him in 2012.
    3. Of all the associations you mention, the only one that troubled me was Rezko. However, the Rezko case was handled by probably the most independent and toughest prosecuter in the country, Patrick Fitzgerald (a Republican). He found nothing to persue against Obama , so that shoulld really end the matter. As for Rev Wright, it’s all well and good to pick a few phrases out of his sermons. Taken within the entire context of his life and his community, as Obama explained in his speech in Philadelphia, produces a different view. Those who take the time to criticize the state of things in the US are not usually America-haters at all; most are America-lovers who want the country to be the best it can be.
    4.Your analysis of Jimmy Carter as an “extreme liberal” is laughable. He was so far to the right of much of the Democratic party that he drew a primary challenge from Teddy Kennedy which he almost lost.
    5. Similarly, your analysis of Hillary leaves a lot to be desired If you are troubled by Obama possibly getting a good deal on his house in Chicago through Rezko, what do you make of Hillary’s quick $100k in the commodities market through her Tyson contacts? Also, what historical sources do you have that Hillary got Bill to sign welfare reform? The books I have read on the Clinton presidency credit Dick Morris and have Hillary opposed.
    6. Your view of the Clinton-Obama primary contest doesn’t gibe with reallity. I say this as someone who likes Hillary very much and thought she was an excellent senator for New York and is a first-rate Secretary of State and would probably have been a fine President. I watched many of the debates and frankly they were very boring because they agreed on virtually every issue. The only major disagreement was on health care-Hillary wanted an individual mandate and Obama didn’t. Since the final plan contains Hillary’s mandate (and Romney’s), what exacty is your problem? Can you specify what things you think Hillary would have done differently from Obama as President? I can’t think of much.

  153. avatar
    Black Lion April 10, 2011 at 8:46 am #

    I find the right’s fascination to demonize Jerimiah Wright to be hilarious. I thought as Americans we could question our country and still love it at the same time…..For instance lets look at his history….

    “From 1959 to 1961, Wright attended Virginia Union University, in Richmond. In 1961 Wright left college and joined the United States Marine Corps and became part of the 2nd Marine Division attaining the rank of private first class. In 1963, after two years of service, Wright joined the United States Navy and entered the Corpsman School at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center. Wright was then trained as a cardiopulmonary technician at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Wright was assigned as part of the medical team charged with care of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Before leaving the position in 1967, the White House Physician, Vice Admiral Burkley, personally wrote Wright a letter of thanks on behalf of the United States President.”

    So someone like that is some sort of an “America hater”? Really? People cherry pick a couple of sermons out of hundreds given and make such a claim without knowing the history of the individual? That is why the “association with Wright” meme is foolish. You mean the President associated with a man cited by President johnson? Unbelievable…

  154. avatar
    Robert Clark April 10, 2011 at 8:54 am #

    OK, we all have our own reasons for supporting one candidate over another. If the discussion turns into one about which candidate would have been better it will never end, completely aside from the birther issue.
    So I’ll just leave it at that.

    Bob

  155. avatar
    Scientist April 10, 2011 at 9:02 am #

    Robert Clark: OK, we all have our own reasons for supporting one candidate over another. If the discussion turns into one about which candidate would have been better it will never end, completely aside from the birther issue

    But it’s curious that none of the mish-mash of reasons you gave for not liking Obama in 2008 involved his birth circumstances. This smacks of a “concern of convenience” on your part. The issues of experience and background won’t go far against a sitting President, so you invent concern about his birth (nothing about which has changed since 2008) to justify your preconceived opinions.

  156. avatar
    Robert Clark April 10, 2011 at 9:04 am #

    Just saw this on Media Matters:

    “Bor[ed]” Of Birth Certificate Issue, O’Reilly Calls For Obama To “Put This Whole Thing To Bed”
    April 08, 2011 9:34 pm ET
    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201104080038

    Note that O’Reilly like most mainstream conservative commentators and talk show hosts does not take the birther issue seriously. Recall how he discounted Trumps views on it when he interviewed him.
    Now he says Obama should just release the long form birth certificate just to get the issue out of the way.

    Bob

  157. avatar
    Scientist April 10, 2011 at 9:12 am #

    Robert Clark: Now he says Obama should just release the long form birth certificate just to get the issue out of the way.

    Doing the exact opposite of everything Bill O’Reilly says would be a pretty good llife plan.

  158. avatar
    Scientist April 10, 2011 at 9:13 am #

    Bob: See if you can respond to my post from 9:02 AM.

  159. avatar
    Robert Clark April 10, 2011 at 9:23 am #

    Scientist: But it’s curious that none of the mish-mash of reasons you gave for not liking Obama in 2008 involved his birth circumstances. This smacks of a “concern of convenience” on your part. The issues of experience and background won’t go far against a sitting President, so you invent concern about his birth (nothing about which has changed since 2008) to justify your preconceived opinions.

    Bringing it back to the birther discussion, I did have questions about him during the campaign about why he did not initially release his birth certificate when questions about his eligibility first arose. However, when he did release his Certification of Live Birth and it was confirmed as valid, like many of his detractors even among ardent conservatives I put the issue to bed.
    However, I recently learned that it is possible to receive one of these Hawaii COLB’s without having been born in Hawaii. That and the fact he wants to keep secret the information in the long form that should be completely innocuous and non-controversial makes me wonder if there is something significant there that he does not want to become known.

    Bob

  160. avatar
    Suranis April 10, 2011 at 9:25 am #

    The only think that proves is that Billo’s handling of birthers did not go down well with his idiot viewers and trumo is popular with his idiot viewers, so he’s changing his tune again.

    Hence “I’m not saying I’m a birther or that Obama is not an American…but just show us the birth certificate”

    All it proves is that Billo has no morals and lies with the wind. But hey, he is on FOX.

  161. avatar
    Wile E. April 10, 2011 at 9:54 am #

    Robert Clark: However, I recently learned that it is possible to receive one of these Hawaii COLB’s without having been born in Hawaii.

    Bob

    Under what circumstances and in what years would this have been possible?

    What would lead you to believe that if and when this did happen…the listed location of birth would be any different from the actual location of birth?

  162. avatar
    Scientist April 10, 2011 at 10:52 am #

    Robert Clark: However, I recently learned that it is possible to receive one of these Hawaii COLB’s without having been born in Hawaii

    What you “recently learned” is flat-out plan-old wrong. You simply cannot get a Hawaiian COLB that states Place of Birth: Honolulu, unless you were indeed born there. Since that’s what Obama’s (which you acknowledge is valid) states, then i call b.s. on you..Back to school for you until you “learn” something that is actually true.

  163. avatar
    Bovril April 10, 2011 at 11:44 am #

    Tut, tut tut…

    Reading some arrant BS on WND does not count as “learning”

  164. avatar
    Majority Will April 10, 2011 at 12:15 pm #

    Bovril:
    Tut, tut tut…

    Reading some arrant BS on WND does not count as “learning”

    But why would there be so many birther lies published on wnd.com on a regular basis?

    Is it possible that Joseph Farah has a money driven and fright wing political agenda?

    But . . . but . . . I thought he would never bear false witness:

    “WorldNetDaily.com Inc. is an independent news company dedicated to uncompromising journalism, seeking truth and justice and revitalizing the role of the free press as a guardian of liberty. We remain faithful to the traditional and central role of a free press in a free society – as a light exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power.”

    If Farah was a fairy tale’s wooden puppet, you could walk to the moon on his nose.

  165. avatar
    nc1 April 10, 2011 at 12:27 pm #

    Wile E.: Under what circumstances and in what years would this have been possible?

    What would lead you to believe that if and when this did happen…the listed location of birth would be any different from the actual location of birth?

    If a relative filed a false unattended (by a physician or a midwife) home birth registration with Hawaii DoH the place of birth would be listed as Hawaii.

  166. avatar
    Suranis April 10, 2011 at 12:31 pm #

    nc1: If a relative filed a false unattended (by a physician or a midwife) home birth registration with Hawaii DoH the place of birth would be listed as Hawaii.

    Not 4 days after the birth they couldn’t.

  167. avatar
    Robert Clark April 10, 2011 at 12:44 pm #

    Robert Clark: Thanks for that clarification. Your last point though raises an interesting question. Conservatory talk show host Michael Medved has had the opinion on this issue, “Suppose he was shown to be born in another country. So what? Nothing would be changed.”I don’t agree with that view. I believe if he was proven not to be a natural born citizen then there would be a strong push for impeachment.Because the White House has resisted attempts to get at the birth records there would be little doubt that he would have been aware of this beforehand, including the fact that the COLB he released incorrected suggested that he was natural born. I would say most Americans including democrats would say he became elected under fraudulent circumstances and would favor impeachment.After all, what could he say in his defense? “Yes, I realize I wasn’t really a natural born citizen but I believe my candicacy was so important because no one else could bring forth these important policies that it was better for me to evade that constitutional fact for the good of the country.”Bob

    I was thinking that if this were the case then Biden would just become President since he almost certainly would not have had knowledge of the deception. But since the electoral victory was fraudulent obtained, logically you could make the argument the entire Presidential election should be invalidated. In that case the Speaker of the House would become President.
    Hmm, maybe Speaker Boehner should change his opinion about whether these eligibility questions against Obama should be investigated … ;-)

    Bob

  168. avatar
    Joey April 10, 2011 at 12:47 pm #

    Suranis: Not 4 days after the birth they couldn’t.

    Why not?

  169. avatar
    Joey April 10, 2011 at 1:11 pm #

    Robert Clark: I was thinking that if this were the case then Biden would just become President since he almost certainly would not have had knowledge of the deception. But since the electoral victory was fraudulent obtained, logically you could make the argument the entire Presidential election should be invalidated. In that case the Speaker of the House would become President.Hmm, maybe Speaker Boehner should change his opinion about whether these eligibility questions against Obama should be investigated …

    Bob

    There is no Constitutional provision for invalidating a national election. The 12th Amendment is very clear: whoever receives a majority of the votes of the Electoral College and has those votes certified by the President of the Senate (the Vice President) without written objection from at least one Senator and one Representative (and I quote the Amendment) “shall be the President.”
    It takes 67 votes in the Senate to remove a president via impeachment. There are currently 47 Republicans and 52 Democrats and 1 Independent in the Senate. That would mean the votes of 20 Democrats and/or the Independent would be needed for a conviction for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” assuming all the Republicans voted for conviction.
    Under that hypothetical situation, Joe Biden would become president and he could only be removed by impeachment and conviction on the votes of 67 Senators as well.
    A federal judge has already ruled on this scenario in an Obama eligibility lawsuit: US District Court Judge David O. Carter wrote in his opinion on Barnett v Obama “…on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for removal of a president, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.
    Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president-REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON–is within the province of Congress, not the Courts.”–October 29, 2009

  170. avatar
    G April 10, 2011 at 1:12 pm #

    Robert Clark: However, I recently learned that it is possible to receive one of these Hawaii COLB’s without having been born in Hawaii. That and the fact he wants to keep secret the information in the long form that should be completely innocuous and non-controversial makes me wonder if there is something significant there that he does not want to become known.
    Bob

    Bob,

    Why don’t you read HI DOH’s own answer to those questions instead of going off of rumors.

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

    Here is the SIMPLE truth:

    The COLB has a clear field that states the place of birth. In Obama’s case, it clearly states HONOLULU, HI.

    If he or any other person with a HI BC was born somewhere OTHER than HI, the PLACE OF BIRTH would clearly state that. HINT: If someone was born in Sacremento, CA and then somehow got a HI BC, the place of birth on their HI COLB would state SACREMENTO, CA. Same if they were born in Japan, etc.

    There is NO way to get a HI BC that lists the place of birth as HONOLULU, HI *unless* one is ACTUALLY born within the physical territorial location of HONOLULU, HI.

  171. avatar
    Suranis April 10, 2011 at 2:08 pm #

    Joey: Suranis: Not 4 days after the birth they couldn’t.

    Why not?

    Because under the laws in effect at the time, it would have only been possible with a delayed birth announcement. The laws on that were fairly clear. A sworn affidavit had to be presented to the secretary of state with the sworn affidavits of 2 witnesses. Then from my understanding there would be a hearing in which you had to testify, and present the infant. If you satisfied a representative of the SOC then your birth was registered. I’m not sure of the time scale, but the process could have taken 6 months. Delayed birth certs were available to infants under a year old.

    There was a program for people of Hawai’n blood to get a birth cert, but that was only available for people a year old and up

    Since the Birth was filed 4 days after the birth,and the newspaper ads appeared with the births of the previous 2 weeks, there simply is not enough time for a delayed birth cert to be filed. Aside from the fact there were only 14 home births in Hololulu in 1961. The sane conclusion is that it was included as normal with all the filings in the state dept.

    This leaves NC1 with someone in the state dept filing the birth for a baby that was snuck in through customs. Or something.

  172. avatar
    Joey April 10, 2011 at 2:26 pm #

    Suranis: Because under the laws in effect at the time, it would have only been possible with a delayed birth announcement. The laws on that were fairly clear. A sworn affidavit had to be presented to the secretary of state with the sworn affidavits of 2 witnesses. Then from my understanding there would be a hearing in which you had to testify, and present the infant. If you satisfied a representative of the SOC then your birth was registered. I’m not sure of the time scale, butthe process could have taken 6 months. Delayed birth certs were available to infants under a year old.

    There was a program for people of Hawai’n blood to get a birth cert, but that was only available for people a year old and up

    Since the Birthwas filed 4 days after the birth,and the newspaper ads appeared with the births of the previous 2 weeks, there simply is not enough time for a delayed birth cert to be filed. Aside from the fact there were only 14 home births in Hololulu in 1961. The sane conclusion is that it was included as normal with all the filings in the state dept.

    This leaves NC1 with someone in the state dept filing the birth for a baby that was snuck in through customs. Or something.

    Ah, I get it now. Thanks for the clarification.
    Be sure not to miss Dr. Fukino’s new interview:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951

  173. avatar
    The Magic M April 10, 2011 at 2:46 pm #

    > But since the electoral victory was fraudulent obtained, logically you could make the argument the entire Presidential election should be invalidated.

    No, the Constitution says if the President elect “has failed to qualify”, the Vice President elect “shall be President”. No “if”‘s, “but”‘s or “except”‘s.

    Funny how birthers always try to dance around the clear wording of the Constitution if it fits their agenda. A little hand-waving and “how Little Annie understands the Law” and *poof* all Constitutional provisions go out the window. Right?

    There is no “Biden cannot be president because Obama selected him and Obama is out” reasoning. Not in the US Constitution in this universe. Your birther parallel universe North Korean Constitution may vary.

  174. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 10, 2011 at 7:46 pm #

    The Magic M: There is no “Biden cannot be president because Obama selected him and Obama is out” reasoning

    There is also no electoral do-over. We don’t have a system under our constitution for invalidating a Presidential election, even if fraud is shown. The only mechanism for removing Obama from office would be impeachment…. and I have a hard time figuring out how it would be an impeachable offense given Hawaii’s official records. (I mean,Obama certainly has a right to rely on the official records of the state he thinks he was born in.)

  175. avatar
    Keith April 10, 2011 at 8:43 pm #

    Robert Clark: However, I recently learned that it is possible to receive one of these Hawaii COLB’s without having been born in Hawaii.

    NO YOU CANNOT. And especially, not in 1961 you couldn’t as the law was not in force until 1982.

    A birth certificate for an out of state birth will show the ACTUAL, FACTUAL place of birth. In all circumstances. Also, I believe the document would state that it is a ‘Certificate of Out of State Birth’, not a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’.

    In other words, if the Hawai’ian Birth Certificate says he was born in Honolulu (and it does) then that is where he was born.

    Repetition of FACT for emphasis: Obama could not have obtained an out of state birth certificate because they did not exist until 11 years after he was born. Period.

    Repetition of FACT for emphasis:: even if he could have obtained an out of state birth certificate it would have to state exactly where the out of state birth occurred.

    Repetition of FACT for emphasis: Obama’s birth certificate says he was born in Honolulu, not Mombasa.

    The last time I checked an atlas, and admittedly it has been a while, Honolulu is in Hawaii, Hawaii is in America, and anyone born there under the jurisdiction of the United States is a Natural Born Citizen.

  176. avatar
    Keith April 10, 2011 at 8:58 pm #

    Robert Clark: That and the fact he wants to keep secret the information in the long form that should be completely innocuous and non-controversial

    Who says he wants to keep any thing secret? Because he chooses to remain silent doesn’t mean he hiding something, it just means he chooses to remain silent. He doesn’t owe it to you or anybody else to somehow use his Presidential authority to violate the U.S. Constitution to force the state of Hawai’i to violate its own laws in this manner.

    He has laid his life, with his faults and his family’s imperfections, bare in his books. What type of relevant information could be on the document that you think is secret? His birth weight? The width of his shoulders? Whether he has webbed feet? In what way is that relevant to anything?

    Especially, how is it possibly important enough that he should seek to force Hawai’i to violate (or amend) State Law for his one special case because a few hateful people think they can make his life miserable by chanting ‘show us the paper’?

    There are only three pieces of relevant information: his birth date, the location of his birth, and how long he has been resident in the United States. The released COLB addresses two of those three, and public knowledge has supports the third.

    End of story (or at least it SHOULD be).

  177. avatar
    Joey April 10, 2011 at 10:11 pm #

    Robert Clark: Bringing it back to the birther discussion, I did have questions about him during the campaign about why he did not initially release his birth certificate when questions about his eligibility first arose. However, when he did release his Certification of Live Birth and it was confirmed as valid, like many of his detractors even among ardent conservatives I put the issue to bed.However, I recently learned that it is possible to receive one of these Hawaii COLB’s without having been born in Hawaii. That and the fact he wants to keep secret the information in the long form that should be completely innocuous and non-controversial makes me wonder if there is something significant there that he does not want to become known.

    Bob

    One additional confirmation that what Robert Clark thinks that he “learned” is incorrect. From Janice Okubo, Director of Communications/Public Information Officer for the Hawaii Department of Health:
    “It’s crazy,” said Janice Okubo, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health. “I don’t think anything is ever going to satisfy them.”
    Okubo, who said that she gets weekly questions from Obama Birthers’ that are “more like threats,” explained that the certificate of live birth reproduced by Obama’s campaign should have debunked the conspiracy theories. “If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate. But it’s become very clear that it doesn’t matter what I say. The people who are questioning this bring up all these implausible scenarios. What if the physician lied? What if the state lied? It’s just become an urban legend at this point.”
    http://washingtonindependent.com/51489/birther-movement-picks-up-steam
    Barack Obama’s Certification of Live Birth 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.

  178. avatar
    sean April 14, 2011 at 5:28 pm #

    It’s probably too late, but the question I would’ve had for Robert Clark is, if all the stuff that bothered you about Obama was your reason for not voting for him, how could you vote for Kerry (who was described exactly the same way by all the sources you now trust) and especially Gore?

  179. avatar
    G April 14, 2011 at 7:59 pm #

    sean: It’s probably too late, but the question I would’ve had for Robert Clark is, if all the stuff that bothered you about Obama was your reason for not voting for him, how could you vote for Kerry (who was described exactly the same way by all the sources you now trust) and especially Gore?

    Sean, the simple answer there is that Robert Clark is a PUMA – many of which have glommed onto birtherism. (When you look at polls of birthers and wonder who are these self-identifying democrats that by into birtherism…most of them are likely PUMAs…or at least fall into the “3rd category of PUMA” that I’ll define below)

    He’s a former democrat that was strongly for Hillary Clinton…but for whatever reasons, couldn’t “stomach” Obama.

    There is some extent of PUMA that just so personally clung to her as a “cult” figure that was “owed” the presidency and can never “forgive” Obama for that. They view him as an “enemy” just because he won and she didn’t…so they would rather cut off their noses to spite their face…even though HRC is a key ally and part of Obama’s cabinet and that their positions are extremely similar and close together. Some of these folks would rather support a party (GOP or Tea-Party) nearly diametrically opposed to all their previously held positions, just to get “revenge”. …in otherwords, extremely juvenile and sad and nothing but a self-destructive spoiled and whiny position to take.

    I’m going to give Bob the “benefit of the doubt” and put him in this first PUMA category for now. That seems to match up with many of them who voted for Kerry and Gore in the past.

    There are other PUMAs who similarly held up HRC as their “cult” figure, but it was soley because she was a WOMAN who could achieve that ultimate symbol of power and they identified with being “OWED” breaking that glass ceiling more than anything. These PUMAs (which includes both women and a certain number of gay men PUMAs) valued HRC more as a “symbol” instead of really identifying with her policy positions. This is the group that quickly jumped on the pro-Palin bandwagon…even though Palin’s positions are almost anti-everything that HRC stood for. The only thing that matters to this crowd is that a woman is overdue for being in power and for them it seems ANY woman will do.

    Then there is the third major crowd of PUMAs…one that sadly seems to overlap the most with birtherism and is hard to distinguish from PUMA crowd #1. These are folks who simply were democrats that also happen to be bigots. Their bigotry did not surface until Obama’s chances of winning the election became real…and their “gut reaction” simply cannot accept him as president. There are two main forms of bigotry going on here – racial (those upset that he’s black or bi-racial or even that he’s not “black enough”) and religious based (those that view him as a muslim simply because of his name or background, despite the fact that he is NOT a muslim.)

    As with most things the breakdown is not quite that simple and clean and there is a lot of PUMAs that are a combination or all 3 of the above. There are probably a few other outlying reasons that fall outside those 3, but that generally explains the PUMAs.

    Bob could easily be part of category 3 as well as category 1 of the PUMA breakdown. Category 3 seems to have the strongest correlation to true birtherism, but category 1 PUMAs might try to disingenuously push birtherism just because they are all about pure spite and revenge and see pushing such lies knowingly as a justified part of their tantrum.