Main Menu

Obama releases long form

I was out bird watching and enjoying nature here in the mountains of North Carolina and a most inconsiderate Barack Obama chose this, of all times, to release his long form birth certificate.

I must say that there aren’t a lot of surprises here. I had reconstructed my own version of Obama’s original birth certificate in August of 2009 from information available publicly, and I wasn’t too far off.

I, and many others, have predicted that the release of this document will mean little to the birther movement who will begin to spin stories about the document, claim that is a forgery, and blame Obama for all the trouble caused by the delay in releasing it.

Doctor David A. Sinclair, who delivered Barack Obama, died in 2003 at 81.

We can attest to the fact that it is indeed dad’s signature,” Yoshimura-Sinclair said. “It’s not a common name over here. There’s no confusion that it was dad.”

Birthers, far from keeping their promise that the release of the long-sought long form would end there, immediately began the effort to spin stories to discredit it.

Print Friendly

331 Responses to Obama releases long form

  1. avatar
    G Wiz April 27, 2011 at 2:39 pm #

    The rabid birthers on Facebook didn’t take five minutes before denouncing it as a forgery. Right after many said they weren’t even going to watch the President’s statement.

  2. avatar
    richCares April 27, 2011 at 2:42 pm #

    Birgtewrs first response: it’s a forgery the race wrong it says African
    instructions on race in Kenya’s Census form says:
    .
    Column 5. Race.-Write European, Arab, Somali or African, etc. Asians must write Indian or Pakistan.
    .
    http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/IPUMSI/CensusForms/Africa/ke1962ef_kenya_enumeration_forms.en.pdf

  3. avatar
    ANT Pogo April 27, 2011 at 2:47 pm #

    I’m disappointed it wasn’t Dr. West, too.

    But as I posted in the comments elsewhere, I’m more than satisfied to learn that the doctor who did deliver Obama, Dr. David A. Sinclair, was the same OB/GYN that delivered Miki Booth’s son Alan.

    That’s really gotta be bothering her!

  4. avatar
    Jules April 27, 2011 at 2:47 pm #

    My understanding is that the Hawaii Department of Health had to suspend its ordinary practice of issuing only certified abstract copies rather than certified photocopies of the original. I assume that they agreed to do this in large part because they hope to receive fewer calls and letters from conspiracy theorists.

    In case some states continue with their silly birther bills, I hope that Obama obtained multiple certified photocopies to submit to any and every state that starts trying to reject the standard Hawaiian birth certificate. (He should be able to obtain a letter of verification as to each of the facts on the original that we have seen and this may well comply with the requirements of the birther bill. I am not sure if the signature is legible enough to identify who the attending physician was.)

    Those who have accused Hawaii state officials of lying might want to issue polite apologies now that it has been confirmed that Obama does have an original certificate on file and that it shows his birth in a hospital.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 27, 2011 at 2:48 pm #

    richCares: Column 5. Race.-Write European, Arab, Somali or African, etc. Asians must write Indian or Pakistan.

    The parent’s race for birth certificate is self-reported; there is no list to choose from.

  6. avatar
    Bovril April 27, 2011 at 2:48 pm #

    Guys, if you’re gonna use my stuff at least use all of it…. 8-)

    1. “People self identify their race when a BC is filled in, the registrar does not”

    2. “People can call themselves any race they want when they self identify”

    3. “Only Americans called themsleves Negro as an identifier”

    4. “Obama Snr, as an African, never mind in the ’60′s would NEVER call himself a Negro”

    5. “I LANR plainly lied when I said I “work” with BC’s or I would know these facts”

    Here’s the administrative paperwork for filling in the Kenyan census of 1962.

    You know, Kenya, where Obama Snr was from..? Where he would SELF IDENTIFY himself…

    Column 5. Race —- Write European, Arab, Somali or African etc. Asians must write Indian or Pakistan.

    http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/IPUMSI/CensusForms/Africa/ke1962ef_kenya_enumeration_forms.en.pdf

  7. avatar
    Bovril April 27, 2011 at 2:49 pm #

    That’s the point Doc,

    An African then and now would NEVER EVER EVER describe themselves as “Negro”. the only descriptor would be African as seen in the Kenyan census documentation.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 27, 2011 at 2:51 pm #

    Sorry, bad link to long form. Fixed.

  9. avatar
    Greg April 27, 2011 at 2:53 pm #

    The letter from the Director of the DOH is also golden. She watched the copying and attests to the validity of the copies.

  10. avatar
    Sef April 27, 2011 at 2:55 pm #

    Bovril: Column 5. Race —- Write European, Arab, Somali or African etc. Asians must write Indian or Pakistan.

    So Chinese have to say they are Indian or Pakistani? What idiocy is that?

  11. avatar
    y_p_w April 27, 2011 at 3:00 pm #

    Jules:
    My understanding is that the Hawaii Department of Health had to suspend its ordinary practice of issuing only certified abstract copies rather than certified photocopies of the original. I assume that they agreed to do this in large part because they hope to receive fewer calls and letters from conspiracy theorists.

    In case some states continue with their silly birther bills, I hope that Obama obtained multiple certified photocopies to submit to any and every state that starts trying to reject the standard Hawaiian birth certificate. (He should be able to obtain a letter of verification as to each of the facts on the original that we have seen and this may well comply with the requirements of the birther bill. I am not sure if the signature is legible enough to identify who the attending physician was.)

    Those who have accused Hawaii state officials of lying might want to issue polite apologies now that it has been confirmed that Obama does have an original certificate on file and that it shows his birth in a hospital.

    CNN has posted the requests and the response from the current Hawaii Director of Health. The first request was dated April 22 on the stationery of President Obama’s attorney at Perkins Coie in DC. The second request is a supplementary letter signed by President Obama on White House stationery. Both requests specially ask for two certified copies. The answer from Director of Health Fuddy is that she was specifically making an exception for the President and notes that two copies would be issued along with a receipt.

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/04/27/obama-birth-certificate-correspondence.pdf?hpt=C1

    Since they were picked up in person, it doesn’t look like there are any folds. Of course the birthers will find that to be troubling.

  12. avatar
    richCares April 27, 2011 at 3:05 pm #

    “That link is from a KENYAN census form”
    correct, which clearly shows how an African from Kenya would self identify.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 27, 2011 at 3:07 pm #

    Jules: I hope that Obama obtained multiple certified photocopies to submit to any and every state that starts trying to reject the standard Hawaiian birth certificate

    He got two.

  14. avatar
    Bovril April 27, 2011 at 3:11 pm #

    Sef: So Chinese have to say they are Indian or Pakistani? What idiocy is that?

    Hey, I didn’t put it together…..In all probability assuming in 1962 there were any Chinese in Kenya (not certain) they would probably have SELF IDENTIFIED as Chinese, sure as anything not “Negro”… 8-)

    You have to remember the date and context, independance fro Kenya was still over a year away, this was still a country of Empire.

    India and Pakistan had only been seperate entities for about 13 years and in many case the Indo-Pak peoples in other countries were still sorting out which nation they belonged to (usually on religious grounds).

    This wan’t Kansas…. 8-)

  15. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 27, 2011 at 3:15 pm #

    I though President Obama seemed very presidential – I wonder what the birthers think…

  16. avatar
    Gregory April 27, 2011 at 3:17 pm #

    Sef: So Chinese have to say they are Indian or Pakistani?What idiocy is that?

    It’s only within my lifetime that Far East Asians would identify as “Asian.” In those days, they were called “Oriental”.

  17. avatar
    That Other Mike April 27, 2011 at 3:21 pm #

    Gregory: It’s only within my lifetime that Far East Asians would identify as “Asian.” In those days, they were called “Oriental”.

    Oriental is not unheard of in the UK still as a descriptor for non-Indian Asians, and is not considered pejorative, although it seems (anecdotally) that most would describe themselves as Chinese, Japanese, etc.

  18. avatar
    richCares April 27, 2011 at 3:21 pm #

    From Birferstan news “…,name of the hospital at the time of his birth should have been Kauikeolani Children’s Hospital not Kaipolani.
    .
    However we find Obama.s, Nordyke twins, my daughters BC all show the same Hospital(Kapiolani), it seems the rule in Birferstan is “make stuff up”. The gullible fall for it so easily!

  19. avatar
    Suranis April 27, 2011 at 3:21 pm #

    Ladies and gentlemen its time for your favorite hit show… GETTING FIT WITH BIRTHERS!!

    Ok lets do it. Bend and spin and Evade and spin and dodge and spin and move those goalposts! And now lets run on the left track and pretend we were never running on the right track!

  20. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 3:35 pm #

    I know it can’t mean anything, because the long form released today is authentic and all, and ends any question about Obama, but the long form identifies the doctor at Davidl Sinclair…. and I just found the link I read more than a year ago which said it was a different doctor…. http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don't%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm

    “I may be the only person left who specifically remembers his birth. His parents are gone, his grandmother is gone, the obstetrician who delivered him is gone,” said Nelson, referring to Dr. Rodney T. West, who died in February at the age of 98. Here’s the story: Nelson was having dinner at the Outrigger Canoe Club on Waikiki Beach with Dr. West, the father of her college friend, Jo-Anne. Making conversation, Nelson turned to Dr. West and said: “So, tell me something interesting that happened this week,’” she recalls.

    His response: “Well, today, Stanley had a baby. Now that’s something to write home about.”

    The new mother was Stanley (later referred to by her middle name of Ann) Dunham, and the baby was Barack Hussein Obama.

    “I penned the name on a napkin, and I did write home about it,” said Nelson, knowing that her father, Stanley A. Czurles, director of the Art Education Department at Buffalo State College, would be interested in the “Stanley” connection.

    She also remembers Dr. West mentioning that the baby’s father was the first black student at the University of Hawaii and how taken he was by the baby’s name.

  21. avatar
    Greg April 27, 2011 at 3:40 pm #

    Jes Beard: I just found the link I read more than a year ago which said it was a different doctor….

    Note that no where does the article say that Dr. West said he delivered that baby. That was the inference this woman drew from his story of something interesting that happened at his hospital that week.

  22. avatar
    Ellen April 27, 2011 at 3:41 pm #

    As expected, birthers are claiming that the long-form was forged:

    http://wireupdate.com/video/2011/04/president-obamas-birth-certificate-pdf-has-layers/

  23. avatar
    That Other Mike April 27, 2011 at 3:41 pm #

    Jes Beard: I know it can’t mean anything, because the long form released today is authentic and all, and ends any question about Obama, but the long form identifies the doctor at Davidl Sinclair…. and I just found the link I read more than a year ago which said it was a different doctor

    Except that’s second-hand (possibly third-hand) information, and the article doesn’t say that Rodney West delivered Obama, either.

  24. avatar
    Sean April 27, 2011 at 3:42 pm #

    Jerome Corsi now has to change the name of his book to “Oh there it is!” or simply “Moot.”

  25. avatar
    Gordon April 27, 2011 at 3:43 pm #

    What a sad day in America. The leader of the free world treated like some shifty street thug, only because he is black.

  26. avatar
    Thrifty April 27, 2011 at 3:43 pm #

    Jes Beard: I know it can’t mean anything, because the long form released today is authentic and all, and ends any question about Obama, but the long form identifies the doctor at Davidl Sinclair…. and I just found the link I read more than a year ago which said it was a different doctor…. http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don't%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm“I may be the only person left who specifically remembers his birth. His parents are gone, his grandmother is gone, the obstetrician who delivered him is gone,” said Nelson, referring to Dr. Rodney T. West, who died in February at the age of 98. Here’s the story: Nelson was having dinner at the Outrigger Canoe Club on Waikiki Beach with Dr. West, the father of her college friend, Jo-Anne. Making conversation, Nelson turned to Dr. West and said: “So, tell me something interesting that happened this week,’” she recalls.His response: “Well, today, Stanley had a baby. Now that’s something to write home about.”The new mother was Stanley (later referred to by her middle name of Ann) Dunham, and the baby was Barack Hussein Obama.“I penned the name on a napkin, and I did write home about it,” said Nelson, knowing that her father, Stanley A. Czurles, director of the Art Education Department at Buffalo State College, would be interested in the “Stanley” connection.She also remembers Dr. West mentioning that the baby’s father was the first black student at the University of Hawaii and how taken he was by the baby’s name.

    This is gonna be the new “Obama’s family says he was born at 2 different hospitals”, isn’t it?

  27. avatar
    Suranis April 27, 2011 at 3:44 pm #

    Jes Beard: I know it can’t mean anything, because the long form released today is authentic and all, and ends any question about Obama, but the long form identifies the doctor at Davidl Sinclair…. and I just found the link I read more than a year ago which said it was a different doctor…. http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don't%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm

    The article doesn’t say West delivered him, just that it happened. You’re a laywer, you should be able to spot the distenction

    Doctor West was was the senior birth doctor in the hospital. Sinclair worked under him like a lot of other doctors. I’m sure that Sinclair would have mentioned it to west in his end of shift report.

    People didn’t know or care who was the doctor that delivered President Obama (I haven’t got the slightest idea who delivered me, do you?” but people assumed that it was doctor west because of that article, and birthers were crying it could not have been him as he had retired so the whole story was a lie. Turns out, like all birther facts, that was wrong and/or incomplete. He went back to work a few years later.

  28. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 3:45 pm #

    Jules: Those who have accused Hawaii state officials of lying might want to issue polite apologies now that it has been confirmed that Obama does have an original certificate on file and that it shows his birth in a hospital.

    Until someone points me to that written policy which the Department of Health says kept them from releasing a copy earlier, why should anyone apologize to them for anything? And if there IS a policy, what is the policy in place for allowing an exception?

    This has been orchestrated by Obama from the start. I do not question whether he was born in Hawaii. I take that as a given. But the document released today, which actually looks photoshopped and begs doubters to brand it as a forgery, seems only to continue to play the issue for political gain, despite the division it causes in the nation.

  29. avatar
    Suranis April 27, 2011 at 3:50 pm #

    Jes Beard: Until someone points me to that written policy which the Department of Health says kept them from releasing a copy earlier, why should anyone apologize to them for anything?And if there IS a policy, what is the policy in place for allowing an exception?

    This has been orchestrated by Obama from the start.I do not question whether he was born in Hawaii.I take that as a given.But the document released today, which actually looks photoshopped and begs doubters to brand it as a forgery, seems only to continue to play the issue for political gain, despite the division it causes in the nation.

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

    Oh yeah and grow up.

  30. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 3:51 pm #

    Suranis: The article doesn’t say West delivered him, just that it happened. You’re a laywer, you should be able to spot the distenction

    Never said I couldn’t find the distinction. I specifically stated that I believe the document is authentic, and have repeatedly stated that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Suranis: People didn’t know or care who was the doctor that delivered President Obama (I haven’t got the slightest idea who delivered me, do you?

    Actually I do. It was Dr. Wendall Spalding, in Mishawaka, Indiana. I don’t dispute your point, but your rhetorical is a foolish one. A great many people can name the doctor who delivered them.

  31. avatar
    Scientist April 27, 2011 at 3:54 pm #

    Suranis: You’re a laywer, you should be able to spot the distenction

    No Mr Beard is NOT a lawyer. Was, but is no longer. I would have more confidence in the janitor who cleaned his former law office to interpret the law. Much more.

    The article never said Dr West delivered the baby, merely that he had heard about it.

    I take Mr Beard the way i take certain stock market prognosticators, as a contrarian indicator. When they say buy, I sell; when Mr Beard says it is, it isn’t

  32. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 27, 2011 at 3:54 pm #

    Okay, now how long is it going to take one of the idiots to download it from the internet, alter it, and then claim it’s a fake like they did with the COLB?

  33. avatar
    richCares April 27, 2011 at 3:58 pm #

    “A great many people can name the doctor who delivered them.”
    true, but so what?

  34. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 27, 2011 at 3:59 pm #

    Jes Beard: But the document released today, which actually looks photoshopped and begs doubters to brand it as a forgery, seems only to continue to play the issue for political gain, despite the division it causes in the nation.

    Are you actually stupid enough to believe that anyone here will buy this dishonest garbage? State clearly what you believe he should have done (so it can be debunked) or admit that there is no behavior that you would have considered appropriate.

  35. avatar
    misha April 27, 2011 at 4:00 pm #

    Suranis: (I haven’t got the slightest idea who delivered me, do you?

    Jes Beard: Actually I do. It was Dr. Wendall Spalding, in Mishawaka, Indiana.

    I was delivered by Doctor Tari. He was well known in New York as Doc Tari.

    Thank you. I’ll be here all week.

  36. avatar
    DP April 27, 2011 at 4:01 pm #

    Jes Beard: Until someone points me to that written policy which the Department of Health says kept them from releasing a copy earlier, why should anyone apologize to them for anything?And if there IS a policy, what is the policy in place for allowing an exception?

    This has been orchestrated by Obama from the start.I do not question whether he was born in Hawaii.I take that as a given.But the document released today, which actually looks photoshopped and begs doubters to brand it as a forgery, seems only to continue to play the issue for political gain, despite the division it causes in the nation.

    You’re a sad piece of work.

    Someone is born in the United States. They go about their life and eventually become President. Because they’re not a white male, they felt the need to be the only President to release a birth certificate. it was real. People who hate the fact that he’s black said it wasn’t. They claimed he wasn’t born in the US without an ounce of proof to dispute the obvious fact that he was. So he finally release the precious original birth certificate, which says exactly what the previous birth certificate posted in 2008 says. He even has a letter from the relevant Hawaiian official testifying to its authenticity.

    But, no. It doesn’t look exactly like what you think a birth certificate should look like. So you continue this farce because, well, he’s still black. And somehow that’s all his fault.

  37. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 27, 2011 at 4:02 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP:
    Okay, now how long is it going to take one of the idiots to download it from the internet, alter it, and then claim it’s a fake like they did with the COLB?

    The question is how many birthers are in their basement hunched over photoshop doing just that right now?

  38. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 27, 2011 at 4:05 pm #

    I would bet at least a dozen, slart.

  39. avatar
    JoZeppy April 27, 2011 at 4:07 pm #

    Jes Beard: This has been orchestrated by Obama from the start. I do not question whether he was born in Hawaii. I take that as a given. But the document released today, which actually looks photoshopped and begs doubters to brand it as a forgery, seems only to continue to play the issue for political gain, despite the division it causes in the nation.

    Sure…blame the guy, who unlike any other presidential candidate before him, releases an official copy of his birth certificate, rather than the rabid nuts who hound him for 2 and a half years based on lies and innuendo. Perhaps it’s not the President that is causing the division in the nation but insincere hacks who when faced with original documents that everyone in the Hawaiian government freely acknowledged as original spout of nonsense like “looks photoshopped and begs doubters to brand it a forgery”? Would you even know an original if it bit you on the backside? I’m guessing not.

  40. avatar
    bjphysics April 27, 2011 at 4:10 pm #

    Over at Daily Kos Jeb Lewison has nailed down what might become standard terminology moving forward with his article “Obama’s long-form birth certificate vs. The Birthers of a Nation”.

    “Birthers of a Nation” or BoN in intertubese. I like it, clever and accurate. As an old German physics professor of mine was fond of saying: “Whose fooling who here?”

  41. avatar
    Joey April 27, 2011 at 4:14 pm #

    Jes Beard: Until someone points me to that written policy which the Department of Health says kept them from releasing a copy earlier, why should anyone apologize to them for anything?And if there IS a policy, what is the policy in place for allowing an exception?

    This has been orchestrated by Obama from the start.I do not question whether he was born in Hawaii.I take that as a given.But the document released today, which actually looks photoshopped and begs doubters to brand it as a forgery, seems only to continue to play the issue for political gain, despite the division it causes in the nation.

    You’re right, those Republicans of the Lingle administration did two and a half years worth of obfuscating. It took left wing Democrats of the Abercrombie administration to get the deed done. The new Health Director only took on her position after confirmation by the state Senate in early March.

  42. avatar
    Scientist April 27, 2011 at 4:14 pm #

    Please excuse the double post. I want to be absolutely clear Mr Beard reads and understands this, since I really don’t want to have to explain it to him in person.

    Mr Beard has probably never worked for a private sector company or government agency. All of them have written down “Policies and Procedures” covering what to do in as many circustances as management can reasonably forsee. These are internal documents that are not made public (in the pharmaceutical industry they are closely guarded trade secrets). If you work for that company or agency you are as bound by those P&Ps as you are by any law. Violation of them is cause for termination

    Obviously, from what has been said, Hawaii DOH had P&Ps that said long forms were not to be given out. If you want one you have 2 options: 1. An FOIA request; 2. Ask tthe Director to make an exception (or waiver).

    The President, probably for reasons of expediency and simplicity chose #2.

    Now Mr Beard, do you understand? Should I come to Chattanooga and explain it in person?

  43. avatar
    misha April 27, 2011 at 4:18 pm #

    Scientist: Now Mr Beard, do you understand? Should I come to Chattanooga and explain it in person?

    It won’t matter. He’s been disbarred.

  44. avatar
    Joey April 27, 2011 at 4:22 pm #

    And so it continues…

    From free Republic

    Orly Taitz: Obama’s Long-Form Birth Certificate Should Say ‘Negro’ Not ‘African’
    TPMMuckraker ^ | 4/27/2011 | Ryan J. Reilly

    Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 10:54:31 AM by jdoug666

    “In those years … when they wrote race, they were writing ‘Negro’ not ‘African’,” Taitz says. “In those days nobody wrote African as a race, it just wasn’t one of the options. It sounds like it would be written today, in the age of political correctness, and not in 1961 when they wrote white or Asian or ‘Negro’.”

    (Excerpt) Read more at tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com …

  45. avatar
    Adam April 27, 2011 at 4:23 pm #

    I’m surprised he did it this quickly. IMHO, he made a mistake. He should have waited until after the GOP primary was over. That way he would have kept the issue alive in the mainstream press and possibly forced GOP candidates to spend time on it during the campaign.

    The fringe, of course, will still cling to birthism, but by releasing the long form now, he’s effectively taken all pressure to take a stand on the birther issue off the GOP primary candidates.

    Big mistake. An unforced error, but as someone who wants to see Obama defeated, I’ll take it.

  46. avatar
    y_p_w April 27, 2011 at 4:23 pm #

    Scientist:
    Obviously, from what has been said, Hawaii DOH had P&Ps that said long forms were not to be given out. If you want one you have 2 options: 1. An FOIA request; 2. Ask tthe Director to make an exception (or waiver).

    A lot of people thought that it was the Director of Health’s call as to the policy, and that she could easily make an exception. I was thinking she wouldn’t be making an exception because it sets a precedence after they’ve spent on overhauling their system so they wouldn’t have to pull out the original form on a regular basis.

  47. avatar
    Majority Will April 27, 2011 at 4:28 pm #

    Jes Beard: A great many people can name the doctor who delivered them.

    Is that how you once formed legal arguments too back when you were still allowed to practice law?

    That’s impressive.

    “Your honor, I have vague, anecdotal opinions that are going to blow your mind . . . if I may.”

  48. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 27, 2011 at 4:28 pm #

    Adam:
    I’m surprised he did it this quickly. IMHO, he made a mistake. He should have waited until after the GOP primary was over. That way he would have kept the issue alive in the mainstream press and possibly forced GOP candidates to spend time on it during the campaign.

    The fringe, of course, will still cling to birthism, but by releasing the long form now, he’s effectively taken all pressure to take a stand on the birther issue off the GOP primary candidates.

    Big mistake. An unforced error, but as someone who wants to see Obama defeated, I’ll take it.

    I agree. If he had waited until a couple of months before the election, it would have caused a big division in the GOP with many conservatives calling their candidates traitors for defending him on this issue. Releasing it now makes it much easier for the GOP presidential candidates to dismiss birthers’ claims

  49. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 27, 2011 at 4:32 pm #

    Adam:
    I’m surprised he did it this quickly. IMHO, he made a mistake. He should have waited until after the GOP primary was over. That way he would have kept the issue alive in the mainstream press and possibly forced GOP candidates to spend time on it during the campaign.

    The fringe, of course, will still cling to birthism, but by releasing the long form now, he’s effectively taken all pressure to take a stand on the birther issue off the GOP primary candidates.

    Big mistake. An unforced error, but as someone who wants to see Obama defeated, I’ll take it.

    You’re entitled to your opinion, but I don’t think this was an error at all – the media attention was there now, if the issue had been dragged out the focus wouldn’t have been there and the release might not have completely neutered the birther movement like it did now. As someone who wants to see President Obama re-elected, I’ll take it.

  50. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 4:36 pm #

    Suranis: Have a read. http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    Sorry, Suanis. That is NOT a copy of Department of Health rules, regulations or policy. It is a summary someone in the Department wrote claiming the existence of a policy which I believe does not exist and never has existed. Policies, rules and regulations are adopted after formal notice and after those opposed to the rule have an opportunity to be heard, and they are found published as rules, regulations or policy. That does not come close to qualifying.

    Scientist: The article never said Dr West delivered the baby, merely that he had heard about it.

    Sorry, Scientist, the article states as follows: ” ….the obstetrician who delivered him is gone,” said Nelson, referring to Dr. Rodney T. West, who died in February at the age of 98.

    DP: But, no. It doesn’t look exactly like what you think a birth certificate should look like. So you continue this farce because, well, he’s still black. And somehow that’s all his fault.

    I said nothing whatsoever about “fault.” I said it is by design, that the Obama camp planned it, counting on folks like you to frantically waive the race card in an effort to move independents toward Obama so they are not associated with racists.

    Slartibartfast: Are you actually stupid enough to believe that anyone here will buy this dishonest garbage?

    It is my sincere opinion, and I stated it as nothing other than that. Certainly you understand the difference between opinion (which my be unfounded or foolish, but not dishonest) and a statement of fact, which may well be knowingly false, and the result of dishonesty.

    Slartibartfast: State clearly what you believe he should have done (so it can be debunked) or admit that there is no behavior
    that you would have considered appropriate

    He should have done as McCain did with the allegations in the New York Times that he was having an affair with a lobbyist and giving her issues preferred treatment in the Senate. She should have held a news conference, during the campaign, addressing any and all issues, answering questions until those questioning had nothing more to ask, providing documents or allowing access to documents to the extent that anyone could articulate a remotely credible basis for seeking them, and then left it alone. He also, at least in the case of Larkin’s Court Martial, allowed access to records in the court proceeding. He also, at that 2008 campaign news conference which he should have had, should have himself held the Certification of Live Birth in his hand, AND the long form, and personally vouched for them, instead of leaving it to a posting on the “fightthesmears” website, and with his press secretary refusing to respond to questions on the issue during White House briefings.

    He should have made reasonable efforts to maintain confidence in the legitimacy of chief executive officer of the nation instead of allowing doubts to reach the level they have.

    I am not going to deny that racism is a reason many doubters find the claims credible, but that does not alter the fact that they have, and that the portion of the electorate which believed Obama was not born in Hawaii never would have reached the level it did, despite the existence of racism, if he had dealt with it early.

  51. avatar
    y_p_w April 27, 2011 at 4:46 pm #

    Jes Beard: Sorry, Suanis.That is NOT a copy of Department of Health rules, regulations or policy.It is a summary someone in the Department wrote claiming the existence of a policy which I believe does not exist and never has existed.Policies, rules and regulations are adopted after formal notice and after those opposed to the rule have an opportunity to be heard, and they are found published as rules, regulations or policy.That does not come close to qualifying.

    There doesn’t have to be formal process. The statute on the books clearly gives the Hawaii Director of Health the authority to make executive decisions on her own about the form of certified vital records without any formal rule-making hearings required. That’s what the current one has done here.

  52. avatar
    DP April 27, 2011 at 4:48 pm #

    I said nothing whatsoever about “fault.”I said it is by design, that the Obama camp planned it, counting on folks like you to frantically waive the race card in an effort to move independents toward Obama so they are not associated with racists.

    Doing something by design does make it your fault, genius.

    So now your argument is that Obama deliberately set out to make foolish people look foolish?

    And as far as the obvious racism goes, if you don’t like it when someone holds a mirror up to you, maybe you should work on your own foolishness.

  53. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 4:48 pm #

    Joey: Orly Taitz: Obama’s Long-Form Birth Certificate Should Say Negro’ Not African’
    TPMMuckraker ^ | 4/27/2011 | Ryan J. Reilly

    Orly Taitz is an idiot. She is so incompetent the Obama campaign itself could have picked her, or at least is happy that she is heading up many of the legal challenges.

    Scientist:
    Mr Beard has probably never worked for a private sector company or government agency. All of them have written down “Policies and Procedures” covering what to do in as many circustances as management can reasonably forsee. These are internal documents that are not made public (in the pharmaceutical industry they are closely guarded trade secrets). If you work for that company or agency you are as bound by those P&Ps as you are by any law. Violation of them is cause for termination…

    Now Mr Beard, do you understand? Should I come to Chattanooga and explain it in person?

    What I understand is that you are unable to direct me to any policy, rule or regulation. Without regard to private industry, or other governmental entities, under Hawaiian law, such a policy, rule or regulation would have to be formally adopted, after a period of comment was allowed, and then it would have to be published and publicly available for review and examination.

    You, Scientist, are one of the better examples of utterly blind and irrational defense of Obama on any issue related to his birth certificate or whether he qualifies as a “natural born citizen,” such as your claim on my blog that with regard to Vattel, an accurate translation of what he really meant when he wrote in French was more important than the English language translation which the founding fathers might have read (even if what they read was poorly or inaccurately translated).

    As I have said, if the policy, rule or regulation exists, find it.

  54. avatar
    sfjeff April 27, 2011 at 4:49 pm #

    Jes Beard: P>I am not going to deny that racism is a reason many doubters find the claims credible, but that does not alter the fact that they have, and that the portion of the electorate which believed Obama was not born in Hawaii never would have reached the level it did, despite the existence of racism, if he had dealt with it early.</blockq

    Of course the Electorate voted him into office and had no such doubts.

    And he did deal with it early.

    And what he released today has the same legal weight as what he released 2 years ago.

    And you are still doubting.

  55. avatar
    sfjeff April 27, 2011 at 4:50 pm #

    Jes Beard: P>As I have said, if the policy, rule or regulation exists, find it.

    Why?

    The issue is moot now.

    You can can continue to argue the point if you wish, but what does it have to do with President Obama clearly proven- again- elgibility?

  56. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 4:50 pm #

    DP: Doing something by design does make it your fault, genius.

    Fault requires more than design. You know that. Don’t be so foolish.

  57. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 4:53 pm #

    sfjeff: And you are still doubting.

    Please find a single post where I have said I thought Obama was not born in Hawaii.

    Find anything ANYWHERE where I wrote that or said it. I have not. I have said repeatedly that the logistics involved make it incredible, in the literal sense of the word, that he was born in Kenya.

  58. avatar
    DCH April 27, 2011 at 4:56 pm #

    Beard
    “He should have done as McCain did with the allegations in the New York Times that he was having an affair with a lobbyist and giving her issues preferred treatment in the Senate.”

    He did a smarter thing than that – he released his COLB. Which did more than any press conference since it was court admissiable evidence to back up his truthful story of his birth.

    Since then you stupid birthers being impervious to information have added exactly ZERO new facts and made up clouds of crank claims – all of which have been debunked on this site by the Doc. You have collectively filed and lost at least 86 court cases in a row – all of which have withstood appeals, the SCOTUS has completely ignored you.

    This week he obtained the images of the LFBC you’ve said he has been hiding (he did not have until the DoH sent it this week, so he was not hiding it) and added the hospital name, his mom’s address, etc. None of which are any different then what was already known. He also provide the evidence to back up the LFBC’s origin at the DoH.

    The bigger joke is that he is already in compliance with any of the Birther Bills – unlike hsi GOP challengers who wil have to go through the same hoops to gettheir LFBCs now.

    Who are losers here?

  59. avatar
    DP April 27, 2011 at 5:00 pm #

    Jes Beard: Fault requires more than design.You know that.Don’t be so foolish.

    I’m not the one producing ludicrous arguments for a silly supposition based on a conspiracy I claim to not even believe.

    And yes, if I design for something to happen, and thus by my own subsequent actions achieve that result as you claim Obama did, then I am at least partially culpable for its results.

    In the case of Obama and the birthers, however, that is a patently ridiculous assertion. He provided a perfectly valid birth certificate for people to examine years ago. Only fools and racists pretended otherwise.

  60. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 27, 2011 at 5:03 pm #

    Adam: I’m surprised he did it this quickly. IMHO, he made a mistake

    I don’t think it was bad timing. We had Trump exposed and vulnerable, everybody had the issue in mind, CNN did a dynamite series, Boyles called the hospital, Hawaiian officials are on video tape and the birthers are reeling. What better time to throw the knockout punch before Corsi’s book can come out.

    I mean, what good is a book now that’s titled “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”

  61. avatar
    Scientist April 27, 2011 at 5:04 pm #

    Jes Beard: What I understand is that you are unable to direct me to any policy, rule or regulation. Without regard to private industry, or other governmental entities, under Hawaiian law, such a policy, rule or regulation would have to be formally adopted, after a period of comment was allowed, and then it would have to be published and publicly available for review and examination.

    That’s ridiculous. Agencies have all kinds of policies that don’t have to be formally adopted. If there was no policy, Obama would not have had to ask for a waiver as he did. There is no need to waive a policy that doesn’t exist.

    Your ignorance of the world is truly astoundiing.

    Jes Beard: such as your claim on my blog that with regard to Vattel, an accurate translation of what he really meant when he wrote in French was more important than the English language translation which the founding fathers might have read (even if what they read was poorly or inaccurately translated).

    The translation you cited was fiirst published in 1797, so it could not have been read by anyone when the Constitution was written. The Vattelist arguments have been so totally demoslished on this blog that you simply look like a fool for even attemptiing to go there. i gave you plenty of links to read. But why should you try to learn something new. You know everything and are never wrong, right

    Why don’t you tell us about your legal career? That could at least provide some entertainment.

  62. avatar
    Joey April 27, 2011 at 5:04 pm #

    Adam:
    I’m surprised he did it this quickly. IMHO, he made a mistake. He should have waited until after the GOP primary was over. That way he would have kept the issue alive in the mainstream press and possibly forced GOP candidates to spend time on it during the campaign.

    The fringe, of course, will still cling to birthism, but by releasing the long form now, he’s effectively taken all pressure to take a stand on the birther issue off the GOP primary candidates.

    Big mistake. An unforced error, but as someone who wants to see Obama defeated, I’ll take it.

    Your position is exactly what Obama’s political advisors told him but he decided to go his own way and not care about the politics. I was expecting the release of the long form to be an October (2012) surprise.
    The President obviously expects the Republicans to nominate the 2012 version of Bob Dole or John McCain, so he won’t need the political advantage of an October Surprise with a long form.

  63. avatar
    DP April 27, 2011 at 5:07 pm #

    I mean, what good is a book now that’s titled “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”

    LOL. That tired repetition of the idiotic question they all thought was so clever looks pretty lame about now, doesn’t it?

    Too bad he didn’t stick with his original working title: “Obama, the Communist, Atheist, Muslim, Scary Black Man Who Doesn’t Deserve to Sit in the White House Even if He Has a Birth Certificate.”

  64. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 27, 2011 at 5:16 pm #

    Even though I think it was a little too early to release the certificate, I am glad that the president served the birther klan their due shit sandwiches

  65. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 5:18 pm #

    Scientist: That’s ridiculous.Agencies have all kinds of policies that don’t have to be formally adopted. If there was no policy, Obama would not have had to ask for a waiver as he did.There is no need to waive a policy that doesn’t exist.

    You are correct that a waiver is not needed if no policy exists.

    That is sort of my point. But if there WAS a waiver, there needs to be some procedure in place for the policy or rule to be waived…. where is that?

    There was no policy or rule or regulation. Governmental policies rules or regulations are
    not the whim of those who run the agency.

    DP: And yes, if I design for something to happen, and thus by my own subsequent actions achieve that result as you claim Obama did, then I am at least partially culpable for its results.

    Culpability or blame is only at issue if what was done or happened was somehow wrong. That is a moral judgment which I did not make.

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 27, 2011 at 5:20 pm #

    Scientist: The article never said Dr West delivered the baby, merely that he had heard about it.

    For the record, Barbara Nelson never said Dr. West delivered Obama; that was a conclusion made by the Buffalo News reporter. WorldNetDaily called Nelson shortly after and she said that Dr. West did not say who had delivered Obama. I have been working under this clarification since the story broke.

  67. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 27, 2011 at 5:21 pm #

    Okay, let me try this again to see if I can get past moderation

    Even though I think it was a little too early to release the certificate, I am glad that the president served the birther klan their due CRAP sandwiches

  68. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 27, 2011 at 5:21 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I don’t think it was bad timing. We had Trump exposed and vulnerable, everybody had the issue in mind, CNN did a dynamite series, Boyles called the hospital, Hawaiian officials are on video tape and the birthers are reeling. What better time to throw the knockout punch before Corsi’s book can come out.I mean, what good is a book now that’s titled “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”

    Its the punch Ali never gave Joe Frasier

  69. avatar
    JohnC April 27, 2011 at 5:22 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I mean, what good is a book now that’s titled “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”

    We know how birthers like Corsi will react. They’ll say Obama preemptively released his LFBC to deflect from other issues in his book, like “missing” school records and so on.

    Of course, logic once again successfully eludes the birthers. If Corsi’s theories were demonstrably wrong about Obama’s birth certificate, why should we believe anything else Corsi claims about the other issues?

  70. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 27, 2011 at 5:25 pm #

    Jes Beard: But the document released today, which actually looks photoshopped and begs doubters to brand it as a forgery

    If a document is authentic, how does it “look photoshopped” and how does one produce a document that doesn’t look photoshopped if the real one does?

  71. avatar
    DP April 27, 2011 at 5:27 pm #

    Culpability or blame is only at issue if what was done or happened was somehow wrong.That is a moral judgment which I did not make.

    Sure you didn’t.

    I know what you are, and mister, so do you.

  72. avatar
    DP April 27, 2011 at 5:29 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: If a document is authentic, how does it “look photoshopped” and how does one produce a document that doesn’t look photoshopped if the real one does?

    Exactly. The more they try to play these games, the more inept they get.

  73. avatar
    Scientist April 27, 2011 at 5:34 pm #

    Jes Beard: You are correct that a waiver is not needed if no policy exists.
    That is sort of my point. But if there WAS a waiver, there needs to be some procedure in place for the policy or rule to be waived…. where is that?

    If there were no policy, there would have been no need for a waiver. Since there was a waiver, there was a policy.

    The simple truth is whatever Jes Beard says, the opposite is true. If he says the policy doesn’t exist, it does.

  74. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 5:46 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: For the record, Barbara Nelson never said Dr. West delivered Obama; that was a conclusion made by the Buffalo News reporter.

    Correct. And I never would dispute that. My argument was with Scientist’s claim that he article never said Dr West delivered the baby, merely that he had heard about it.

    Dr. Conspiracy: If a document is authentic, how does it “look photoshopped” and how does one produce a document that doesn’t look photoshopped if the real one does?

    THAT was quite clearly wrong.

    Poor wording on my part. I am not contending the document is anything other than authentic. I am pointing out that the form of the document, is such that it quite easily could have been photoshopped and does not have the same appearance as the Nordyke birth certificates. I suspect that the Obama camp did not even WANT it to look like them, because the difference would make more doubters continue to insist that it is not real and that he was not born in Hawaii.

    It appears to have been the result of a digital image reproduced on the security paper the Health Department uses for its short form COLB forms. It does not look like the recently obtained long form COLB Miki Booth has produced, http://www.thepostemail.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Long-form-BC-from-Hawaii.jpg , which was also on security paper. That doesn’t mean either of them are anything other than authentic. Just that they are different.

    And either, or both, could fairly easily be generated with a computer and a laser printer.

    JohnC: We know how birthers like Corsi will react. They’ll say Obama preemptively released his LFBC to deflect from other issues in his book, like “missing” school records and so on.

    No. Corsi has already responded. And that was not it. On his facebook page, THIS was his response: My comment “NOW THE GAME BEGINS” just got posted on Drudge – right column — Obama blinked — he has now raised the issue to the level of the president. His presidency will not survive the information released in WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE — the quiet period will continue — no interviews — until May 17.

  75. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 5:48 pm #

    Scientist: The simple truth is whatever Jes Beard says, the opposite is true.

    Amusing…. considering that I have always said Obama was born in Hawaii and the the logistics make claims he was born in Kenya incredible in the literal sense of the word.

    Now…. where is that regulation?

  76. avatar
    ASK Esq April 27, 2011 at 5:51 pm #

    I have a feeling the most immediate result of this release was Jerome Corsi frantically contacting Amazon to see if all the pre-orders had been canceled.

  77. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 27, 2011 at 5:54 pm #

    Jes Beard: It does not look like the recently obtained long form COLB Miki Booth has produced

    There is evidence that this form was not obtained recently. In fact, it has been confirmed by the Hawai’i DoH that Miki Booth did not obtain this for recently – therefore she is a liar. I expect your apology for repeated unconfirmed lies as fact will be forthcoming.

  78. avatar
    ellid April 27, 2011 at 5:57 pm #

    Jes Beard:A great many people can name the doctor who delivered them.

    All I know about him is that his nickname was “Skip.” Other than that, I have no idea if he’s alive, dead, or a zombie.

  79. avatar
    nemocapn April 27, 2011 at 6:00 pm #

    ASK Esq:
    I have a feeling the most immediate result of this release was Jerome Corsi frantically contacting Amazon to see if all the pre-orders had been canceled.

    Maybe he’s thinking about suing Obama for releasing the birth certificate. After all, he was financially harmed by the release. He’ll still get sales but not at the levels he’d get if the certificate were still private.

  80. avatar
    G April 27, 2011 at 6:02 pm #

    Adam: The fringe, of course, will still cling to birthism, but by releasing the long form now, he’s effectively taken all pressure to take a stand on the birther issue off the GOP primary candidates.
    Big mistake. An unforced error, but as someone who wants to see Obama defeated, I’ll take it.

    Adam, first of all, I fully respect your choice of wanting to see a different candidate elected. We can all fairly agree to disagree on who we want to see lead this country. That is what elections are all about, after all.

    That being said, I think it should everyone should be cautious of pronouncing the Birther movement “dead” – just beyond the reach of sanity. The “long form” was never their purpose…just their excuse. ODS is too deeply ingraned in most of them and sadly, they will remain a large component of the GOP and Tea Party bases.

    While today’s release certainly gives cover for some to finally stop pandering to the crazies (which Boehner has already done) and for some candidates to further distance themselves from the issue in public – that doesn’t mean that this sizable group of the base will suddenly become rational or go away.

    More likely, Frankenstein’s Monster has been nurtured and encouraged with dog whistles for too long…fed on a steady diet of fear and smear that has become a rabid and cancerous addition. These folks are beyond rational and unlikely to be satiated.

    They are beyond the control of their GOP “handlers” and will still pose a significant dilemma of crazy demands on candidates who feel they need their votes.

    Therefore, I’m still convinced that the GOP has a huge dilemma with this constiuency – needing it to some extent to win the Primaries…and being burned by it in the process for the General. Even more alarming is that it is likely that there is enough crazy out there for those folks to drive the agenda for awhile, despite what the more rational party members might want to do. I’m afraid the chickens have come home to roost and the GOP machine has a very limited ability to stop it at this point.

  81. avatar
    Stanislaw April 27, 2011 at 6:03 pm #

    Joey:
    And so it continues…

    From free Republic

    Orly Taitz: Obama’s Long-Form Birth Certificate Should Say Negro’ Not African’TPMMuckraker ^ | 4/27/2011 | Ryan J. Reilly

    Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 10:54:31 AM by jdoug666

    “In those years … when they wrote race, they were writing Negro’ not African’,” Taitz says. “In those days nobody wrote African as a race, it just wasn’t one of the options. It sounds like it would be written today, in the age of political correctness, and not in 1961 when they wrote white or Asian or Negro’.”

    (Excerpt) Read more at tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com …

    I’m sure that Orly and the birthers had a different N-word in mind.

  82. avatar
    G April 27, 2011 at 6:08 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I don’t think it was bad timing. We had Trump exposed and vulnerable, everybody had the issue in mind, CNN did a dynamite series, Boyles called the hospital, Hawaiian officials are on video tape and the birthers are reeling. What better time to throw the knockout punch before Corsi’s book can come out.I mean, what good is a book now that’s titled “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”

    You make a very convincing argument with those points…particularly about delivering the KO before Corsi’s book release.

  83. avatar
    Scientist April 27, 2011 at 6:08 pm #

    Jes Beard: Amusing…. considering that I have always said Obama was born in Hawaii and the the logistics make claims he was born in Kenya incredible in the literal sense of the word.
    Now…. where is that regulation?

    The regulation is in the P&Ps of the DOH. Go to Honolulu and ask for them.. Please don’t come back.

    If there were no policy, there would be no need for a waiver. Why write a letter asking the Director personally for a waiver.

    Aside from being corrupt and incompetent you are clearly dumber than a rock, Why should anyone listen to a word you say.

    Idiot!

  84. avatar
    Robert Clark April 27, 2011 at 6:09 pm #

    Guys, my main problem was that he didn’t release the original birth certificate when I could see logical reason why he would not. Now he has released it. I’m satisfied with its validity.
    It’s been fun. But I have to get back to my own work.

    Take care all,

    Bob

  85. avatar
    G April 27, 2011 at 6:19 pm #

    Jes Beard: No. Corsi has already responded. And that was not it. On his facebook page, THIS was his response: My comment “NOW THE GAME BEGINS” just got posted on Drudge – right column — Obama blinked — he has now raised the issue to the level of the president. His presidency will not survive the information released in WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE — the quiet period will continue — no interviews — until May 17.

    I don’t think you, or I or anyone is surprised that Corsi would quickly be trying to put a desperate, positive spin to try to salvage interest in his book.

    But who is gullible enough to still buy into his schtick, I wonder? We’ll know in a few weeks…but then again, due to his high-volume pre-sales, we’ll never know how many folks are just stuck receiving an order they wanted yesterday, but would think twice about placing today… I wonder if some of those pre-order sites allow for cancellations at this stage or accept returns…

    So, due to pre-orders, his book was “predicted” to shoot to the top of the best-seller list. Real successful books stay high on that list and have longevity in their sales.

    I predict that once the pre-sales numbers are out of the picture, it will plummet like a rock.

    I definitely don’t take seriously his laughable “His presidency will not survive the information released in WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE” sales pitch whatsoever at all. Not going to happen.

    Of course, gullible birthers, always looking for their next “OMG” and “any day now” moment will be still drawn to it…like flies on…well, you know… I daresay, a rather apt analogy in this situation.

  86. avatar
    nemocapn April 27, 2011 at 6:21 pm #

    Robert Clark:
    Guys, my main problem was that he didn’t release the original birth certificate when I could see logical reason why he would not. Now he has released it. I’m satisfied with its validity.It’s been fun. But I have to get back to my own work.

    Take care all,

    Bob

    Thanks, Bob. It will be interesting to see how many people will be convinced by the release of the birth certificate. Take care, too.

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

    Adam: I’m surprised he did it this quickly. IMHO, he made a mistake. He should have waited until after the GOP primary was over. That way he would have kept the issue alive in the mainstream press and possibly forced GOP candidates to spend time on it during the campaign.
    The fringe, of course, will still cling to birthism, but by releasing the long form now, he’s effectively taken all pressure to take a stand on the birther issue off the GOP primary candidates.
    Big mistake. An unforced error, but as someone who wants to see Obama defeated, I’ll take it.

    Here’s a thought as to what the strategy might be. I think the President wants to run on the Ryan budget, as the guy who will veto any attempt to cut Medicare. The polling annd the fact that Republican members of Congress are getting booed suggests that’s a good issue for him. This is a distraction.

    He also knew it wouldn’t satisfy the rabid birthers, but would probably satisfy a significant number of Republicans, enough to ensuure that a non-birther Republican gets the nod. But there still might be enough birthers left that someone (Trump?) runs as an independent. That guarantees re-election.

  88. avatar
    G April 27, 2011 at 6:22 pm #

    Robert Clark: Guys, my main problem was that he didn’t release the original birth certificate when I could see logical reason why he would not. Now he has released it. I’m satisfied with its validity.It’s been fun. But I have to get back to my own work.Take care all,Bob

    That was actually a reasonable response and I will accept it.

    May you find more satisfaction focusing on the more important things in your daily life and may the effects of ODS diminish for you over time.

  89. avatar
    Sef April 27, 2011 at 6:23 pm #

    Robert Clark:
    Guys, my main problem was that he didn’t release the original birth certificate when I could see logical reason why he would not. Now he has released it. I’m satisfied with its validity.It’s been fun. But I have to get back to my own work.

    Take care all,

    Bob

    So, you’ll vote for him now?

  90. avatar
    G April 27, 2011 at 6:33 pm #

    Scientist: Here’s a thought as to what the strategy might be. I think the President wants to run on the Ryan budget, as the guy who will veto any attempt to cut Medicare. The polling annd the fact that Republican members of Congress are getting booed suggests that’s a good issue for him. This is a distraction.
    He also knew it wouldn’t satisfy the rabid birthers, but would probably satisfy a significant number of Republicans, enough to ensuure that a non-birther Republican gets the nod. But there still might be enough birthers left that someone (Trump?) runs as an independent. That guarantees re-election.

    Good points.

    The “birther” constiuency is definitely not a threat to Obama’s voting base, but I woudn’t count them out as a continuing cancerous factor on the other side of the aisle…or on leading to a 3rd-party entry emerging.

    The biggest outstanding question is where Trump goes with things from here. The hard-core birthers are still out there and a factor that is both “up for grabs” and a vexing dilemma for the GOP, even if they are successfully brushed aside. That is a committed GOP or Indy constituency that contains quite a few that still will cast a vote. Where their vote goes will be interesting…along with the strings/implications that tar a candidate who gets them.

    As I’ve said before, Trump is in a position now where he build and retain a certain “cult base” that will stick to him no matter how much he get’s mocked by everyone else.

    Trump could ride a bad-boy crazy train candidacy into at least the early GOP primaries or at any time switch over to a 3rd party/Indy candidate, no matter what the GOP leadership wants or how much he gets panned in the media, if he so chooses. He’s just enough of an egotistical reality-show glory hound to do it.

  91. avatar
    misha April 27, 2011 at 6:39 pm #

    Jes Beard:His presidency will not survive the information released in WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE

    Like what? Obama is a space alien? He’s an undocumented worker? He’s secretly gay? He snorts cocaine? Evaded income tax like Spiro Agnew? Shook down contractors for bribes, like Agnew? Was privy to a break-in?

    He’s trying to salvage sales of a third rate hatchet job.

  92. avatar
    G April 27, 2011 at 6:40 pm #

    Jes Beard: He also, at least in the case of Larkin’s Court Martial, allowed access to records in the court proceeding.

    I completely don’t get what point you are trying to make here. Partially becaue I don’t think you wrote it the way you intended, but also because as a former lawyer, you should know better.

    Lakin’s charges were straightforward – they all dealt with his missing a movement and simple failure to follow a direct order. Simple, straightforward standard military policy.

    You should know better that Lakin’s misguided personal beliefs about the President are completely irrelevant and not a usable excuse for him in defense of those charges. Personal motivations are not acceptible reasons to disobey such straightforward orders.

    Obama and his records were NEVER introduced nor entered into that case and could not be under legal circumstances. There were utterly immaterial to the charges.

  93. avatar
    gens April 27, 2011 at 6:41 pm #

    “…. the trouble caused by the delay in releasing it…”

    Its been an excellent political strategy….kind of surprised his team didn’t hold off longer, but there’s plenty to work with already. The people involved in many of the conspiracies (many fairly popular politicians) have been noted, just like the tax extension hostage issue and many more unpopular (R/Tea) political tactics of late. Its good political leverage for Obama..and people call him dumb ??

  94. avatar
    Daniel April 27, 2011 at 6:44 pm #

    Robert Clark:
    Guys, my main problem was that he didn’t release the original birth certificate when I could see logical reason why he would not. Now he has released it. I’m satisfied with its validity.It’s been fun. But I have to get back to my own work.

    Take care all,

    Bob

    OK then.

    Talk to you when you come back under another name…

  95. avatar
    Suranis April 27, 2011 at 6:53 pm #

    Jes Beard: Sorry, Suanis. That is NOT a copy of Department of Health rules, regulations or policy. It is a summary someone in the Department wrote claiming the existence of a policy which I believe does not exist and never has existed. Policies, rules and regulations are adopted after formal notice and after those opposed to the rule have an opportunity to be heard, and they are found published as rules, regulations or policy. That does not come close to qualifying.

    From the page I gave you, which you obviously didn’t even read.

    # All records on department regulations and rules related to vital records are at:

    http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/admrules/default.aspx

    These records consist of:
    Public Health Regulations Chapter 8 (Vital Records Regulations and Records)
    Public Health Regulations Chapter 8A (Delayed Birth Registration)
    Public Health Regulations Chapter 8B (Vital Statistics Regulations and Records)
    Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 11 Department of Health Chapter 120 (Foreign Born Persons Adopted in Hawaii)
    Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 11 Department of Health Chapter 123 (Names of Natural Parents in Birth Certificate of Adopted Person)

    Now why don’t you read them yourself and do your own goddam research. Or would you like me to hold your hand while you actually read the stuff yourself? How the hell did you ever pass law school?

    No wonder you were disbarred.

  96. avatar
    Suranis April 27, 2011 at 7:02 pm #

    Jes Beard: He also, at least in the case of Larkin’s Court Martial, allowed access to records in the court proceeding.

    Why on earth should he have? Lakins trial was not about Obamas BC, it was about an officer refusing to deploy not and liking the answers he was given about his concerns. Charges which the guy plead guilty to I might add.

    If Obama had sent a copy of the vital record, Lakin would still have gone to jail for every day of his sentance and been dismissed. And if you cant understand that you know jack all about military law. Oh right.

  97. avatar
    Suranis April 27, 2011 at 7:03 pm #

    that should read “not liking the answers” above

  98. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 8:14 pm #

    Slartibartfast: There is evidence that this form was not obtained recently.In fact, it has been confirmed by the Hawai’i DoH that Miki Booth did not obtain this for recently – therefore she is a liar.I expect your apology for repeated unconfirmed lies as fact will be forthcoming.

    Slart, I have you, someone who will not even use his name, claiming that someone else, whose name you do not provide, but who you say is with the Health Department, disputes Miki Booth’s claim, and apparently in the process contends that the certificate on the Booth document is also bogus. And the Health Department, thru its spokesman and director, had repeatedly made absolutely false claims that the long form was unavailable (pretty apparent at this point that those claims were false), meaning even if I believed you, I would not put much stock in anything from the Health Department.

    You will have to wait a while before I apologize on that one.

  99. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 8:22 pm #

    Suranis: Why on earth should he have? Lakins trial was not about Obamas BC, it was about an officer refusing to deploy not and liking the answers he was given about his concerns. Charges which the guy plead guilty to I might add.

    If Obama had sent a copy of the vital record, Lakin would still have gone to jail for every day of his sentance and been dismissed. And if you cant understand that you know jack all about military law. Oh right.

    Larkin raised his concern, and wrote Obama with it, well before he was to deploy. It was a concern Larkin would not even have had if Obama had made the long form available from the start. Larkin’s concern, whether misplaced or not, was in good faith. If Obama had sent a copy of the record to Larkin in response to Larkin’s letter, which was a perfectly respectful letter, there would not even have been a courts martial.

  100. avatar
    Ellen April 27, 2011 at 8:27 pm #

    Re: “made absolutely false claims that the long form was unavailable .”

    Answer: They never made such a claim. In fact, they repeatedly said that the long-form was available, in the file but that they did not send it out anymore. Both were true. They did have the original in the files, and they did not send out copies of it (unless people actually used the Hawaii version of the Freedom of Information Act on their own files.)

    Now, they have made an exception, and sent out a copy for Obama. I’ve always thought that it would be unfair if they made an exception, but they did. But they did not lie about having the original, and they did not lie about not sending it out. They did not send it out, or give it out–except to one guy prior to Obama in the last year who got his original through the Hawaiian Freedom of Information Act.

  101. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 8:27 pm #

    G: Jes Beard: He also, at least in the case of Larkin’s Court Martial, allowed access to records in the court proceeding.

    I completely don’t get what point you are trying to make here. Partially becaue I don’t think you wrote it the way you intended, but also because as a former lawyer, you should know better.

    You are right that I meant to write, “He also, at least in the case of Larkin’s Court Martial, SHOULD HAVE allowed access to records in the court proceeding.”

    But I respectfully disagree regarding the records.

  102. avatar
    Ellen April 27, 2011 at 8:29 pm #

    Re: “It was a concern Larkin would not even have had if Obama had made the long form available from the start. ”

    Sure. Since the birthers are now claiming that Obama’s long form birth certificate was forged, that is hardly likely.

  103. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 8:37 pm #

    Suranis: From the page I gave you, which you obviously didn’t even read.

    # All records on department regulations and rules related to vital records are at:

    http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/admrules/default.aspx

    These records consist of:
    Public Health Regulations Chapter 8 (Vital Records Regulations and Records)
    Public Health Regulations Chapter 8A (Delayed Birth Registration)
    Public Health Regulations Chapter 8B (Vital Statistics Regulations and Records)
    Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 11 Department of Health Chapter 120 (Foreign Born Persons Adopted in Hawaii)
    Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 11 Department of Health Chapter 123 (Names of Natural Parents in Birth Certificate of Adopted Person)

    Now why don’t you read them yourself and do your own goddam research. Or would you like me to hold your hand while you actually read the stuff yourself? How the hell did you ever pass law school?

    I have already reviewed them. It is not there, but it is a bit tough for me to prove the negative. It would be much easier to prove the positive….. IF those regulations were
    there. You say they are. It should be pretty simple to prove me wrong.

    In fact not only is such restriction there, but if you look at Chapter 8B of the Regs, at 2.4(A)(1), it sure looks as it the regs even say that the copies WILL be provided.

  104. avatar
    Obsolete April 27, 2011 at 8:38 pm #

    For someone so concerned all of a sudden with Lakin, why can’t they even get his name right?

  105. avatar
    JoZeppy April 27, 2011 at 8:38 pm #

    Jes Beard: You are right that I meant to write, “He also, at least in the case of Larkin’s Court Martial, SHOULD HAVE allowed access to records in the court proceeding.”But I respectfully disagree regarding the records.

    As the documents had nothing to do with Lakin’s crime, why should he have? Lakin was charged with disobeying a lawful order. The President and his documents were not relevant to his court martial.

  106. avatar
    Obsolete April 27, 2011 at 8:41 pm #

    Jes, all your BS has already been answered in these threads.

    If I rob a bank and say I did it because the bank manager has a STD, should I get to peruse his medical records as part of my defense?
    You are a crappy lawyer.

  107. avatar
    JoZeppy April 27, 2011 at 8:43 pm #

    Jes Beard: Larkin raised his concern, and wrote Obama with it, well before he was to deploy. It was a concern Larkin would not even have had if Obama had made the long form available from the start. Larkin’s concern, whether misplaced or not, was in good faith. If Obama had sent a copy of the record to Larkin in response to Larkin’s letter, which was a perfectly respectful letter, there would not even have been a courts martial.

    And Lakin was counseled by his superiors and warned that his actions would lead to court martial. Lakin is a soldier. His job is to follow lawful orders. It really doesn’t matter whether his concern was in good faith or not, he was foolish, violated the the UCMJ, and got what was coming to him.

  108. avatar
    Sef April 27, 2011 at 8:46 pm #

    JoZeppy: and got what was coming to him.

    And hopefully, short-circuited any other military personnel from being equally stupid.

  109. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 27, 2011 at 8:51 pm #

    Jes Beard: Slart, I have you, someone who will not even use his name,

    It’s Kevin Kesseler – I got a PhD from Duke in 2004 (mathematics) and you can look up my (scant) publication history on PubMed if you like. Is there any more information that you would like?

    claiming that someone else, whose name you do not provide, but who you say is with the Health Department, disputes Miki Booth’s claim,

    In a CNN interview last night, a DoH official said that only one long form had been requested recently and it was given to a male who identified himself as a birther. This does not agree with Miki Booth’s claim – I take a DoH official as more credible than a birther bigot. Furthermore, some people on this site have alleged that the certificate Ms. Booth showed had a form date in 2001 (suggesting the 2011 date was forged). Given birther history, it is to be assumed that Ms. Booth is a stupid (to think she could get away with it), incompetent (for obvious reasons), lying (again obvious), racist (I’m no longer giving birthers the benefit of the doubt that their bigotry is not racially motivated) who has tried to fake evidence for seditious purposes (a coup against the legitimate POTUS).

    and apparently in the process contends that the certificate on the Booth document is also bogus.

    Yes – as in ‘not what it is represented to be’ (i.e. recent) – I have no reason to believe that it is not a real Hawai’ian long form, but I wont accept that as fact until it is verified by a Hawai’i DoH official (and I assume that birthers wont either – wouldn’t want a double standard would we?).

    And the Health Department, thru its spokesman and director, had repeatedly made absolutely false claims that the long form was unavailable (pretty apparent at this point that those claims were false), meaning even if I believed you, I would not put much stock in anything from the Health Department.

    Yes, I’m well aware of your straw man (and how thoroughly it has been debunked…)

    You will have to wait a while before I apologize on that one.

    Yes, I understand that you are too much of a coward to admit when you are wrong.

  110. avatar
    Scientist April 27, 2011 at 8:54 pm #

    Jes Beard: But I respectfully disagree regarding the records.

    Who cares what you think? You wouldn;t know the law if it hit you over the head..

    Found incompetent by the Tennessee Supreme Court and by the readers of this blog,

  111. avatar
    Suranis April 27, 2011 at 8:54 pm #

    Jes Beard: In fact not only is such restriction there, but if you look at Chapter 8B of the Regs, at 2.4(A)(1), it sure looks as it the regs even say that the copies WILL be provided.

    And in combination with 338-13

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

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

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

    and 338-18

    §338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

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

    Gives you the rules and regs. Hell I vantent even looked at 338-16 and 17

    For fecks sake i’m not a laywer, I’m not trained as a laywer and even i understand this stuff.

    You just want to have another corner of doubt to crawl into away from the light.

  112. avatar
    El Diablo Negro April 27, 2011 at 9:05 pm #

    Maybe it’s me, but if I was in the same shoes as BHO, I would not release the long form since it’s not a legal binding document. This whole debate mystified me because the need of an unofficial document outweighed the legal one which was was presented years ago. Sorry for using logic.

    To me this whole birther thing is an information grab among other things. Get as much info on your opponent as possible valid or not and maybe you will find that needle in a universe that invalidates his presidency. There will be mistakes in records, I don’t think any president should answer to every crazy story that’s concocted about them.

  113. avatar
    Majority Will April 27, 2011 at 9:10 pm #

    Jes Beard: Larkin raised his concern, and wrote Obama with it, well before he was to deploy.It was a concern Larkin would not even have had if Obama had made the long form available from the start.Larkin’s concern, whether misplaced or not, was in good faith.If Obama had sent a copy of the record to Larkin in response to Larkin’s letter, which was a perfectly respectful letter, there would not even have been a courts martial.

    Here’s what lawyers and judges who are experts in military justice have to say on the issue:
    http://www.caaflog.com/2011/04/27/terry-lakin-action-funds-response-to-todays-developments/#comments

    Note that the name is LTC Terry Lakin.

  114. avatar
    nemocapn April 27, 2011 at 9:19 pm #

    misha: Like what? Obama is a space alien? He’s an undocumented worker? He’s secretly gay? He snorts cocaine? Evaded income tax like Spiro Agnew? Shook down contractors for bribes, like Agnew? Was privy to a break-in?

    Good point. So much mud has been slung at Obama, what’s left? Birthers have been crying wolf for so long, nobody would believe them if a wolf actually showed up.

  115. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 27, 2011 at 9:27 pm #

    El Diablo Negro:
    Maybe it’s me, but if I was in the same shoes as BHO, I would not release the long form since it’s not a legal binding document. This whole debate mystified me because the need of an unofficial document outweighed the legal one which was was presented years ago. Sorry for using logic.

    To me this whole birther thing is an information grab among other things. Get as much info on your opponent as possible valid or not and maybe you will find that needle in a universe that invalidates his presidency. There will be mistakes in records, I don’t think any president should answer to every crazy story that’s concocted about them.

    It’s just more fodder for the witch hunt. That’s the ONLY reason they wanted it

  116. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 10:22 pm #

    Suranis: You just want to have another corner of doubt to crawl into away from the light.

    No. “A corner of doubt” would be phrase which might be applicable to someone who doubted where Obama was born. I have never suggested I have any.

    But the statutory language which you quote, and the regulation I directed you to, make clear that the Health Department was at all times required to provide the records.

    That being the case, there are only two conclusions:

    1) That the claim the Health Department could not release the records was a lie (while honest errors are always possible, it is extremely hard to believe the Department, which certainly should have known what the law was and what their regs were, and the Obama camp, which certainly would have looked to see what the rules were, were making an honest mistake),

    2) That Obama and his camp were orchestrating the production of the long form for maximum political value… just as I wrote here.

  117. avatar
    Scientist April 27, 2011 at 10:31 pm #

    Jes Beard: But the statutory language which you quote, and the regulation I directed you to, make clear that the Health Department was at all times required to provide the records.

    No they were NOT.

    Incompetent, lacking truthfullness and candor in statements. I wouldn’t trust you to read a parking sign, let alone to interpret the law of a state you never even lived in. Show me a COURT RULING from Hawaii that says DOH had to give the long form.

  118. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 10:34 pm #

    Slartibartfast: In a CNN interview last night, a DoH official said that only one long form had been requested recently and it was given to a male who identified himself as a birther. This does not agree with Miki Booth’s claim – I take a DoH official as more credible than a birther bigot. Furthermore, some people on this site have alleged that the certificate Ms. Booth showed had a form date in 2001 (suggesting the 2011 date was forged). Given birther history, it is to be assumed that Ms. Booth is a stupid (to think she could get away with it), incompetent (for obvious reasons), lying (again obvious), racist (I’m no longer giving birthers the benefit of the doubt that their bigotry is not racially motivated) who has tried to fake evidence for seditious purposes (a coup against the legitimate POTUS).

    Make enough assumptions in there and you can feel quite confident with you conclusion… which you have also assumed.

    But regarding anything on any alleged forgery of the Booth document, can you direct me to it?

  119. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 10:36 pm #

    Scientist: Show me a COURT RULING from Hawaii that says DOH had to give the long form.

    Show me a court ruling saying it did not.

    The statute and regulation are clear.

  120. avatar
    Scientist April 27, 2011 at 10:43 pm #

    Jes Beard: The statute and regulation are clear.

    You are not competent to interpret Hawaiian statute. I interpret it differently as do many others here, none of whom have been disbarred. Your opinion is dust in the wind, of no significance. You don’t know what you are talking about. Is that plain enough for you?

  121. avatar
    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 10:48 pm #

    Majority Will: Here’s what lawyers and judges who are experts in military justice have to say on the issue:
    http://www.caaflog.com/2011/04/27/terry-lakin-action-funds-response-to-todays-developments/#comments

    None of the comments there are remotely close to addressing the point that I made, which was that Lakin had respectfully requested a copy of the records before he was to deploy, allowing plenty of time for a response, and that had Obama responded, to a perfectly reasonable request, there is no reason to believe Lakin would have refused deployment and therefor no Court Martial.

  122. avatar
    nemocapn April 27, 2011 at 10:49 pm #

    Are these Freepers for real? Jennyscool wrote:

    An undercurrent here, I think, is that those who were vehemently anti-”birther” were disappointed when what was released was yet another bureaucratic bookkeeping document rather than the birth certificates we’re all used to, with baby footprints, hospital logo, etc

    If Obama released a birth certificate with baby footprints and a hospital logo, I would’ve turned birther. Obama released exactly what I was expecting. It’s remarkably close to Doc’s reconstruction.

    When did the practice of putting baby footprints on a hospital certificate start? I was born in the 60′s, and they didn’t give me a hospital birth certificate. All they gave my mom, besides the wristband, was a Rolodex card with the room number and my measurements. It says “Compliments of Pet Milk Company.” I guess I’m not a natural born citizen. I must be Misha’s cat.

  123. avatar
    Suranis April 27, 2011 at 10:56 pm #

    Jes Beard: No. “A corner of doubt” would be phrase which might be applicable to someone who doubted where Obama was born. I have never suggested I have any.

    But the statutory language which you quote, and the regulation I directed you to, make clear that the Health Department was at all times required to provide the records.

    For the last time. They were required to provide PART of the record. Not the whole thing or the long form, and in accordance with the rules of the DOH, and they are prohibited from issuing it without the petitioner showing a tangible interest.

    If you cant understand that when its pointed out to you in black and white, you are not capable of understanding anything to do with the law especially on this issue.

    And the corner of doubt you want to create is the corner you want to create yourself with refusing to understand the regulations that are there. You want to doubt that the regulations exist, so you can doubt the motives of all the officials in Hawai’i and you can doubt the president, and you can recreate the whole conspiracy again.

    You want to live in distrust and hate.

    And I am not going there with you.

  124. avatar
    Suranis April 27, 2011 at 11:01 pm #

    Jes Beard: None of the comments there are remotely close to addressing the point that I made, which was that Lakin had respectfully requested a copy of the records before he was to deploy, allowing plenty of time for a response, and that had Obama responded, to a perfectly reasonable request, there is no reason to believe Lakin would have refused deployment and therefor no Court Martial.

    The very fact of refusing to deploy invited Lakins court marshal. Whether Obama sent the BC or not, Lakin was going to jail once he refused direct orders. President Obama had no responsibility to make the guy feel better about following his oath. Lakins duty was to follow his oath.

    AND HE PLEADED GUILTY TO JUST THAT. And he spent an hour speaking, convincing the court of his guilt. That’s the way a guilty plea in a court marshal works. Its not just entering a plea of guilty.

    Stop with your deliberate doubt.

  125. avatar
    Scientist April 27, 2011 at 11:06 pm #

    Jes Beard: None of the comments there are remotely close to addressing the point that I made, which was that Lakin had respectfully requested a copy of the records before he was to deploy, allowing plenty of time for a response, and that had Obama responded, to a perfectly reasonable request, there is no reason to believe Lakin would have refused deployment and therefor no Court Martial.

    Listen you incompetent fool. Soldiers don’t get to question their superiors. Not in any army in the world. “Yours is not to reason why, yours is but to do or die’”. In the old days, a soldier who questioned a superior would have been put against the wall and shot. Lakin should thank his lucky stars he served in 2010 rather than 1810 or 1910.

  126. avatar
    nemocapn April 27, 2011 at 11:12 pm #

    Scientist: In the old days, a soldier who questioned a superior would have been put against the wall and shot.

    That’s the exact same thing I heard from someone who attended the Naval Academy. He said that we’re in wartime. Disobeying orders during wartime can get you shot.

  127. avatar
    Keith April 27, 2011 at 11:15 pm #

    G: I predict that once the pre-sales numbers are out of the picture, it will plummet like a rock.

    I believe pre-sales include bookstore orders. Bookstores ordering stock does not indicate actual sales to actual customers for actual reading purposes, just preparation.

    I predict that these things will set the Guinness Book of Records record for fastest trip to the remainder tables. The bookstores won’t even take them out of the boxes, they’ll just ship them directly back to the publisher who will try to flog them in distressed merchandise auctions, and when that fails, they’ll be pulped.

  128. avatar
    Stanislaw April 27, 2011 at 11:16 pm #

    Suranis: Stop with your deliberate doubt.

    Like all birthers, he’s gone way beyond deliberate doubt into the realm of deliberate ignorance.

  129. avatar
    Keith April 27, 2011 at 11:22 pm #

    Jes Beard: You are right that I meant to write, “He also, at least in the case of Larkin’s Court Martial, SHOULD HAVE allowed access to records in the court proceeding.”

    Obama didn’t have to allow access to the records in the court proceeding.

    It the court found them in any way relevant or even possibly relevant, they could have been obtained by a subpoena.

    Obama’s eligibility was not at issue in Lakin’s trial, and could never have been.

  130. avatar
    Suranis April 27, 2011 at 11:30 pm #

    Keith: It the court found them in any way relevant or even possibly relevant, they could have been obtained by a subpoena.

    Indeed. Section B – 9 in 338-18 states

    (9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;

    So, if it was relevant it could have been ordered by the court. It wasn’t. Case closed.

  131. avatar
    G April 27, 2011 at 11:31 pm #

    El Diablo Negro: Maybe it’s me, but if I was in the same shoes as BHO, I would not release the long form since it’s not a legal binding document. This whole debate mystified me because the need of an unofficial document outweighed the legal one which was was presented years ago. Sorry for using logic.To me this whole birther thing is an information grab among other things. Get as much info on your opponent as possible valid or not and maybe you will find that needle in a universe that invalidates his presidency. There will be mistakes in records, I don’t think any president should answer to every crazy story that’s concocted about them.

    I agree with you.

  132. avatar
    Rickey April 27, 2011 at 11:39 pm #

    Jes Beard: Larkin raised his concern, and wrote Obama with it, well before he was to deploy.It was a concern Larkin would not even have had if Obama had made the long form available from the start.Larkin’s concern, whether misplaced or not, was in good faith.If Obama had sent a copy of the record to Larkin in response to Larkin’s letter, which was a perfectly respectful letter, there would not even have been a courts martial.

    It’s easy to see why you were disbarred.

    Lakin didn’t write to Obama “well before he was to deploy.” His letter – assuming it was actually sent – is dated March 30, 2010. Lakin missed his flight on April 12, 2010, less than two weeks later.

    http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/news/terry-lakins-letter-to-potus.html

    And even if the letter was mailed, what makes you think that Obama ever saw it? Do you have any idea how much mail the President receives every day? Not to mention that Lakin’s letter contain lies:

    My orders included a requirement to bring copies of my birth certificate. I will provide a certified copy of my original birth certificate with common, standard identifiers, including the name of an attending physician and a hospital.

    Fact: Lakin produced a COLB, very similar to Obama’s COLB. He never produced a copy of this “orginal birth certificate.”

    In 2008, after pressure from the news media, Senator McCain produced an original birth certificate from the Panama Canal Zone; a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing examined and affirmed his “natural born” status and Constitutional eligibility to serve as President.

    Fact: McCain never produced his birth certificate and no hearings were held.

    In addition, military personnel are required to go through the chain of command. Lakin had no right to disregard his chain of command and go directly to the commander-in-chief.

    Finally, during the two weeks after the date of Lakin’s letter, Obama made a trip to Prague to meet with President Medvedev and sign the START treaty – you think that maybe that was more important than responding to a disgruntled Army officer who was seduced by birhters into believing that he was going to become a hero?

    Lakin was told repeatedly that his orders were legal. He made his own prison cell.

  133. avatar
    James M April 27, 2011 at 11:40 pm #

    Jes Beard: there is no reason to believe Lakin would have refused deployment and therefor no Court Martial.

    An officer of the United States Army, there is no reason to believe that Prisoner Lakin would have refused deployment, full stop.

  134. avatar
    misha April 27, 2011 at 11:44 pm #

    Jes Beard: Lakin had respectfully requested a copy of the records before he was to deploy, allowing plenty of time for a response, and that had Obama responded, to a perfectly reasonable request, there is no reason to believe Lakin would have refused deployment and therefor no Court Martial.

    What universe do you live in? I was a civilian volunteer with the IDF. I could not pick and choose what my CO ordered – got that?

    The only order Lakin could refuse would be one that resulted in another My Lai. The end. He got what he deserved.

    You write drivel, too.

  135. avatar
    Majority Will April 27, 2011 at 11:48 pm #

    Jes Beard: None of the comments there are remotely close to addressing the point that I made, which was that Lakin had respectfully requested a copy of the records before he was to deploy, allowing plenty of time for a response, and that had Obama responded, to a perfectly reasonable request, there is no reason to believe Lakin would have refused deployment and therefor no Court Martial.

    Evidently, no one is allowed to disobey lawful orders in the military for any reason and regardless of his or her irrelevant political questions or doubts.

    Did you know that?

  136. avatar
    Majority Will April 27, 2011 at 11:51 pm #

    Jes Beard: a perfectly reasonable request

    I’ll give you credit. THAT was FUNNY! Have you considered stand up comedy?

  137. avatar
    Jes Beard April 28, 2011 at 12:38 am #

    Scientist: Lakin should thank his lucky stars he served in 2010 rather than 1810 or 1910.

    At least you are aware it is not 1810 or 1910.

  138. avatar
    Jes Beard April 28, 2011 at 12:40 am #

    nemocapn: When did the practice of putting baby footprints on a hospital certificate start? I was born in the 60′s, and they didn’t give me a hospital birth certificate.

    One of the better immediate clues that one of the alleged Kenyan birth certificates floating around is a fake….

  139. avatar
    obsolete April 28, 2011 at 1:15 am #

    A great comment from Daily Kos:

    This is all about feeding their whipping impulse.

    It’s all very primal. Emancipation never sank in to these people, and they can’t accept it intellectually. They are constantly looking for a substitute way to humiliate and degrade blacks, since they can’t physically beat them like animals any more, which they would prefer to do. This is just an extension of that. They intend to make the President jump through as many potentially humiliating hoops as possible so they can establish in their minds that they are Master and he is Slave.

  140. avatar
    obsolete April 28, 2011 at 1:20 am #

    BTW- Has nc1 shown up anywhere?
    I have a suggested response to nc1 & others who show up and try to peddle further BS:

    “SHUT UP you racist sore-loser!”

    I think it is a good stock response to further birther questions and posts. Perhaps some of the quality lawyers and wordsmiths here could fine-tune it, but I think it is OK as it is.

  141. avatar
    gorefan April 28, 2011 at 2:02 am #

    Jes Beard: which was that Lakin had respectfully requested a copy of the records before he was to deploy,

    SO you believe that junior officers can request whatever information they like from their superiors and it should be given to them. Lakin could have taken the time to view the COLB that was available. His own daughter was born in Hawaii and he could not get a long form birth certificate for her. He bought into every rumor that the birther’s spread including the grandma rumor.

    He didn’t perform the due diligence that was required of him. And then he publicly tried to extort the Commander in Chief.

    At the point, I’m sure the Pentagon advised the President not to give in to his requests and to let them handle it.

  142. avatar
    obsolete April 28, 2011 at 2:19 am #

    Not to forget- Lakin asked his superiors if Obama was eligible. They told him Obama was. Lakin got his answer, he just didn’t like it.

  143. avatar
    John Reilly April 28, 2011 at 2:41 am #

    An officer in the United States military would never get involved in partisan politics. Once Senator Obama received a majority of the electoral vote, and Congress agreed, and the Chief Justice swore him in, he became President. The civilian authority over the military changed from President Bush to President Obama. A true officer would not publicly question the civilian authority without risking dismissal, or worse. A true officer would never get involved in this squabble. An officer ought not publicly debate any political issue. It is unseemly and inconsistent with miliary discipline.

    And as someone who has received treatment from military doctors in Afghanistan, former officer Lakin’s act of disobeying an order from his immediate supervisor, a medal of honor recipient, was despicable.

  144. avatar
    Lupin April 28, 2011 at 3:33 am #

    Jes Beard: such as your claim on my blog that with regard to Vattel, an accurate translation of what he really meant when he wrote in French was more important than the English language translation which the founding fathers might have read (even if what they read was poorly or inaccurately translated).

    For argument’s sake, we don’t know that the founders didn’t read Vattel in the original French and understood him a lot better than the birthers do.

    I always was under the impression than people like Jefferson, Franklin, Adams read French (reading being easier than speaking or writing).

  145. avatar
    Lupin April 28, 2011 at 3:35 am #

    obsolete: It’s all very primal. Emancipation never sank in to these people, and they can’t accept it intellectually. They are constantly looking for a substitute way to humiliate and degrade blacks, since they can’t physically beat them like animals any more, which they would prefer to do. This is just an extension of that. They intend to make the President jump through as many potentially humiliating hoops as possible so they can establish in their minds that they are Master and he is Slave.

    I couldn’t agree more.

    As I wrote elsewhere: I feel kinda sad inside that Trump made Obama his bitch on this issue.

  146. avatar
    nc1 April 28, 2011 at 5:11 am #

    Lupin: I couldn’t agree more.

    As I wrote elsewhere: I feel kinda sad inside that Trump made Obama his bitch on this issue.

    Lakin’s trial was the last train for Obama to look presidential about the birth certificate issue. He released the long form because of the noise created by Trump yet he let an officer be sent to prison and stripped of his benefits earned after 18 years of service.

    Not a very presidential behavior – a little egoist, whose feelings were hurt by a bigger loudmouth, so he had to respond.

    If Obama’s campaign team had any brains – Lakin would be out of prison tomorrow, his benefits restored and career resumed. His scheduled exit is in two weeks.

  147. avatar
    Daniel April 28, 2011 at 5:30 am #

    nc1: Lakin’s trial was the last train for Obama to look presidential about the birth certificate issue. He released the long form because of the noise created by Trump yet he let an officer be sent to prison and stripped of his benefits earned after 18 years of service.

    Listen up, maladroit.

    AS you’ve been informed, repeatedly, Lakin screwed himself and his family by being a moron.

    Obama had nothing to do with it, and the BC wouldn’t have made a lick of difference. Lakin refused a lawful order that had nothing to do with eligibility. Even if it had, the real proof of eligibility was the COLB.

    This certificate released today has no legal weight, and could not be used to prove eligibility. The release today was just a final attempt to let morons like you, and Lakin, have a chance to be rational.

    Predictably, it didn’t work. You’re still being a moron.

  148. avatar
    Lupin April 28, 2011 at 5:56 am #

    nc1: Lakin’s trial was the last train for Obama to look presidential about the birth certificate issue. He released the long form because of the noise created by Trump yet he let an officer be sent to prison and stripped of his benefits earned after 18 years of service.

    Not a very presidential behavior – a little egoist, whose feelings were hurt by a bigger loudmouth, so he had to respond.

    If Obama’s campaign team had any brains – Lakin would be out of prison tomorrow, his benefits restored and career resumed. His scheduled exit is in two weeks.

    Lakin is a loathsome coward, and a traitor and likely a racist as well. If this truly was a time of war (as some of the Right argue) he should be up against a wall facing a firing squad.

    I say this as someone whose father, two grandfathers, uncle and godfather (and many ancestors) served in the Army or Navy,.

    Your continued spitting in the face of the military is truly disgusting.

  149. avatar
    The Magic M April 28, 2011 at 5:57 am #

    So, nc1, is Lakin now going to publically state that Obama is the legitimate CiC?

    If not, his (and other birfers’) claims that he only wanted to see Obama’s BC before he follows orders are obviously lies.

  150. avatar
    The Magic M April 28, 2011 at 6:03 am #

    > Evidently, no one is allowed to disobey lawful orders in the military for any reason and regardless of his or her irrelevant political questions or doubts.

    The standard is even higher; a member of the military must obey all orders that are not illegal on their face (a standard which is only met by extreme cases such as “shoot these children”).

    The birfers have no idea how the military works; they think it is some sort of a loose group of people who will only obey orders if they are convinced it’s OK to do so in every individual case.
    They think it works like everyday life, like “no, Mister, I won’t give you the keys to the garage until you can prove you have rented it”, instead of how it really works, like “yes, Lieutenant, Sir, here are the keys to the garage, Sir”.

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

    nc1: Lakin’s trial was the last train for Obama to look presidential about the birth certificate issue.He released the long form because of the noise created by Trump yet he let anofficer be sent to prison and stripped of his benefits earned after 18 years of service.

    The coward Lakin dishonored his uniform in his racist attack on President Obama – he was lucky that his punishment was so mild.

    Not a very presidential behavior – a little egoist, whose feelings were hurt by a bigger loudmouth, so he had to respond.

    I thought that President Obama was extremely presidential today – that you don’t is one of the reasons that you are a lowlife racist birther klan member.

    If Obama’s campaign team had any brains – Lakin would be out of prison tomorrow, his benefits restored and career resumed.His scheduled exit is in two weeks.

    No one cares about a loser like Lakin – I’m sure that no one in the White House thinks about him at all. To the extent that he is remembered in history it will be in ignominy – like Benedict Arnold.

    Sorry nc1, but you’re a known dishonest, hypocritical, ignorant idiot and no one cares about the bigoted lies and misinformation you spew. Grow up an admit the President is legitimate or STFU.

  152. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 28, 2011 at 6:18 am #

    The Magic M:
    > Evidently, no one is allowed to disobey lawful orders in the military for any reason and regardless of his or her irrelevant political questions or doubts.

    The standard is even higher; a member of the military must obey all orders that are not illegal on their face (a standard which is only met by extreme cases such as “shoot these children”).

    The birfers have no idea how the military works; they think it is some sort of a loose group of people who will only obey orders if they are convinced it’s OK to do so in every individual case.
    They think it works like everyday life, like “no, Mister, I won’t give you the keys to the garage until you can prove you have rented it”, instead of how it really works, like “yes, Lieutenant, Sir, here are the keys to the garage, Sir”.

    I’d like to see the birthers given into the tender mercies of an African-American drill sergeant who despises racists until they can establish their citizenship as unquestionably as President Obama did.

  153. avatar
    nc1 April 28, 2011 at 6:22 am #

    The Magic M:
    > Evidently, no one is allowed to disobey lawful orders in the military for any reason and regardless of his or her irrelevant political questions or doubts.

    The standard is even higher; a member of the military must obey all orders that are not illegal on their face (a standard which is only met by extreme cases such as “shoot these children”).

    The birfers have no idea how the military works; they think it is some sort of a loose group of people who will only obey orders if they are convinced it’s OK to do so in every individual case.
    They think it works like everyday life, like “no, Mister, I won’t give you the keys to the garage until you can prove you have rented it”, instead of how it really works, like “yes, Lieutenant, Sir, here are the keys to the garage, Sir”.

    You didn’t get it, Fritz.

    The main problem is the kangaroo court – an officer is sent to prison without chance to examine the evidence that the order to go to war (which cannot be issued by anyone other than a legitimate CiC) was a lawful one.

    Officer’s oath asks for the defense of Constitution first. If Lakin thought that his order for deployment was unconstitutional he should have been given proof in court (prior to sentencing) that this was not the case.

  154. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 28, 2011 at 6:34 am #

    nc1: You didn’t get it, Fritz.

    Another example of what a hateful bigot you are. I hope your family knows about the dishonor and shame you bring on them…

    The main problem is the kangaroo court – an officer is sent to prison without chance to examine the evidence that the order to go to war (which cannot be issued by anyone other than a legitimate CiC) was a lawful one.

    You are an idiot if you believe that the military could function under such rules.

    Officer’s oath asks for the defense of Constitution first.

    And President Obama is the POTUS according to the US Constitution – therefore Lakin violated his oath – during a time of war, no less – he’s lucky he wasn’t shot.

    If Lakin thought that his order for deployment was unconstitutional he should have been given proof in court (prior to sentencing) that this was not the case.

    He was told repeatedly that it was not unConstitutional (I notice that you disrespect the Constitution by failing to capitalize it – you unAmerican prick…) before he decided to disobey a real hero and put brave soldiers in danger.

  155. avatar
    Keith April 28, 2011 at 6:35 am #

    obsolete:
    BTW- Has nc1 shown up anywhere?
    I have a suggested response to nc1 & others who show up and try to peddle further BS:

    “SHUT UP you racist sore-loser!”

    A bit more class keeps us take the high road. Maybe something like Saint Lute said to Coach K when he was whining about the referee after a game:

    SCORE BOARD!

    I think it is a good stock response to further birther questions and posts. Perhaps some of the quality lawyers and wordsmiths here could fine-tune it, but I think it is OK as it is.

  156. avatar
    Keith April 28, 2011 at 6:36 am #

    I guess I mucked up that post but I thing you get the idea.

  157. avatar
    Prasad April 28, 2011 at 6:42 am #

    Mr. Obama did very well i hope now Donald Trump will calm up i think this matter will ends with this action (Release of Obama’s birth certificate).

  158. avatar
    G April 28, 2011 at 7:26 am #

    Jes Beard: None of the comments there are remotely close to addressing the point that I made, which was that Lakin had respectfully requested a copy of the records before he was to deploy, allowing plenty of time for a response, and that had Obama responded, to a perfectly reasonable request, there is no reason to believe Lakin would have refused deployment and therefor no Court Martial.

    Lakin is a soldier. He is not entitled to just bother the President with any crazy questions or demands. I mean really, the President is busy with much more important things and certainly not catering to birthers.

    Lakin has a chain of command. He asked them questions and they responded to him that it was not an issue to pursue. He wouldn’t accept their answers.

    Tough cookies for him. He’s where he is due to his own actions and stupidity. People are responsible for their own actions. The POTUS doesn’t owe him anything. If you think otherwise, you are living in fantasy land and obviously have no understanding of how the military works either.

  159. avatar
    Jes Beard April 28, 2011 at 7:36 am #

    G: Lakin is a soldier. He is not entitled to just bother the President with any crazy questions or demands. I mean really, the President is busy with much more important things and certainly not catering to birthers.

    Like golf, picking his NCAA brackets and listening to McCartney at the White House.

  160. avatar
    G April 28, 2011 at 7:36 am #

    Prasad: Mr. Obama did very well i hope now Donald Trump will calm up i think this matter will ends with this action (Release of Obama’s birth certificate).

    Considering that Trump immediately went to demanding Obama’s school records and basically insinuating Affirmative Action and calling Obama a poor student… doesn’t look like it will end…

    Considering that all the birther boards immediately moved to claiming “fraud!!!!” or claiming he’s not eligible no matter what because of his father and trying to go the crazy “Vattel” argument… doesn’t look like anything will satisfy or quiet down these malcontents.

    Anyone who sincerely believed releasing the completely unnecessary “long form” would make a difference to the Birthers, after the official COLB has been released for nearly 3 years to the public and constantly vouched for by HI officials and supported by other strong evidence, was woefully naive about what is really going on here.

    The “long form” demands were never sincere. They were just concern trolling to trick people into thinking there was some “sinister” or “unknown” issue at hand, when there NEVER was…but Birtherism is NOT rational and never really was about the BC. It was just a cover argument for what is sadly, really going on here.

  161. avatar
    G April 28, 2011 at 7:39 am #

    Jes Beard: Like golf, picking his NCAA brackets and listening to McCartney at the White House.

    Wow… you sound like a real tool making weak and petty arguments like that.

    Do you honestly mean to tell me that none of our prior presidents played golf or had entertainment at the White House? Please. Get real.

    I love how you try to make partisan hay out of inconsequential and pretty standard stuff and ignore how every prior president did pretty similar stuff.

    …Or is there some reason you apply a DIFFERENT STANDARD to this president.

    You are really just making yourself look petty and pathetic here. You have issues.

  162. avatar
    Scientist April 28, 2011 at 7:43 am #

    Jes Beard: Like golf, picking his NCAA brackets and listening to McCartney at the White House.

    So according to you Presidents shouldn’t golf or have concerts at the White House? Can you name any President that met Jes Beard’s high standards? I mean a disbarred attorney must have AWFULLY high standards, right?

  163. avatar
    Jes Beard April 28, 2011 at 7:54 am #

    Slartibartfast: The coward Lakin dishonored his uniform in his racist attack on President Obama – he was lucky that his punishment was so mild.

    Lakin did not “attack” Obama. There also is nothing about his conduct which was racist (unless Obama’s skin color insulates him from either criticism or questioning). And a principled stand which a person takes with the knowledge it will subject them to considerable ridicule and has a high probability of subjecting them to prison, is not cowardly, bur heroic.

  164. avatar
    Jes Beard April 28, 2011 at 7:58 am #

    Scientist: So according to you Presidents shouldn’t golf or have concerts at the White House?

    I would personally be quite happy if he spent the rest of his term on the golf course, My response was simply to point out that the claim Obama was “too busy” is laughable.

  165. avatar
    Lupin April 28, 2011 at 7:58 am #

    Jes Beard: There also is nothing about his conduct which was racist

    I wasn’t aware that Lakin had asked to see the birth certificates of the previous (white) presidents.

    There’s word for that: it is “racist”.

  166. avatar
    Jes Beard April 28, 2011 at 7:59 am #

    G: …Or is there some reason you apply a DIFFERENT STANDARD to this president.

    You have no idea what standard I have applied to prior presidents.

  167. avatar
    Scientist April 28, 2011 at 8:00 am #

    Jes Beard: There also is nothing about his conduct which was racist (unless Obama’s skin color insulates him from either criticism or questioning).

    Lakin’s status as an active duty officer means that any crticism or questioning of any orders is forbidden. That’s how the military works, in this or any country. That’s the law. Not that a disbarred attorney would know.

    You should hang your head in shame every day.

  168. avatar
    Lupin April 28, 2011 at 8:01 am #

    Jes Beard: You have no idea what standard I have applied to prior presidents.

    By all means show us: any link to a pre-2008 post on a yahoo group or newsgroup or forum will do just fine.

    Please show us that you exhibited the same concerns about prior presidents.

  169. avatar
    Scientist April 28, 2011 at 8:02 am #

    Jes Beard: My response was simply to point out that the claim Obama was “too busy” is laughable.

    Having been disbarred, I guess you aren’t too busy, are you?

  170. avatar
    G April 28, 2011 at 8:10 am #

    Jes Beard: Lakin did not “attack” Obama. There also is nothing about his conduct which was racist (unless Obama’s skin color insulates him from either criticism or questioning). And a principled stand which a person takes with the knowledge it will subject them to considerable ridicule and has a high probability of subjecting them to prison, is not cowardly, bur heroic.

    Sorry, but pulling a cheap stunt and refusing to deply with your unit is a betrayal to that unit. He’s a coward and a Blue Falcon and a dishonor to the military. Another military doctor had to leave his family at the last minute to fill in and then join Lakin’s unit.

    As others have said, in earlier times in our history, soldiers were shot for such disobedience at a time of war. Lakin got off easy.

  171. avatar
    The Magic M April 28, 2011 at 8:11 am #

    > You didn’t get it, Fritz.

    Ja, I did. Funny that a German has to tell you how your own military works. Or your own language, for that matter.

    > The main problem is the kangaroo court – an officer is sent to prison without chance to examine the evidence that the order to go to war (which cannot be issued by anyone other than a legitimate CiC) was a lawful one.

    The military doesn’t work that way. If the orders were not unlawful on their face, he has to obey them. He doesn’t get to review orders or to approve orders. He doesn’t get a time-out until everything has been “proven” to his own set of standards.

    If the military worked like that, a whole batallion could, in the midst of armed conflict, lay down their arms and say “we first want proof our commander is really our commander and his commander is really his commander and the orders we just got were approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and they were triple-checked to avoid a misunderstanding”.
    In that case, you could just dissolve the military altogether because they wouldn’t get anything done.

    > If Lakin thought that his order for deployment was unconstitutional he should have been given proof in court (prior to sentencing) that this was not the case.

    No, Lakin would have had to prove his orders were illegal. That’s how the UCMJ works. And he couldn’t do that since they came from his direct superior and were obviously not illegal on their face. Even if, arguendo, Obama were not the legitimate CiC, the order to deploy, coming from Lakin’s direct superior, would have been legal.

    Because again, the military does not work the way you think. Do you really think orders become illegal if the person giving them has no opportunity to check with his superiors? How do you think the military works in a situation where the communication lines are down? Do they all stop working because there is no way to verify your superior’s orders really come from his commander?

    And if the order was legal, it doesn’t matter if the CiC is ineligible or not.

    Or do you really think that if, arguendo, Obama was not eligible, the entire military should be allowed to fall apart because, as you birfers allege, there is a “broken chain of command”? Does that mean that you say that right now, every soldier could legitimately (or even: would be required to) stop following orders and allow your enemies to invade your country? Isn’t that mutiny and treason par excellence? Isn’t that the opinion of a North Korean agent, not the opinion of an American patriot?

  172. avatar
    G April 28, 2011 at 8:14 am #

    Jes Beard: I would personally be quite happy if he spent the rest of his term on the golf course, My response was simply to point out that the claim Obama was “too busy” is laughable.

    Everybody needs some down time, you fool. There is no modern president that has had to face the amount of challenges our country is currently under since the time of FDR. Being POTUS is more than just a full-time job. It is 7 days a week and always on call. Any human being needs some down time to refresh.

    Jes Beard: You have no idea what standard I have applied to prior presidents.

    What a glib dodge. So why are you singling out this president for petty and fairly standard activities that most presidents do and definitely the ones prior to him engaged in?

  173. avatar
    JoZeppy April 28, 2011 at 8:20 am #

    nc1: You didn’t get it, Fritz.The main problem is the kangaroo court – an officer is sent to prison without chance to examine the evidence that the order to go to war (which cannot be issued by anyone other than a legitimate CiC) was a lawful one. Officer’s oath asks for the defense of Constitution first. If Lakin thought that his order for deployment was unconstitutional he should have been given proof in court (prior to sentencing) that this was not the case.

    Actually quite the opposite, you don’t get it.

    An officer in the military has no place making determinations if he feels his civilian chain of command meets his arbitrary standards. That may be the case in banna republics where military juntas pick presidents, and swap them out as they feel appropriate, but not here. Check out that Constitution you claim needs to be upheld. Nowhere does it give hte military a right of review over civilian branches of government. And what exactly gives Nakin the qulaifications to make that determination? He’s obviously not qualified since didn’t realize the full faith and credit clause of that Constitution he’s claiming to defend required he accept Hawaii’s COLB. Not only does his knowledge of the Constitution seem to be lacking, but his knowledge of the UCMJ seems pretty thin as well….missing pretty basic concepts like what a lawful order is, his duty to follow them, and the defacto authority doctrine. So again, even if the now Private Lakin did have some right to question his orders, he was woefully unqualified to make any determiniation.

    Insulting the court that rejected a fishing expedition into documents unrelated to the crime he committed only highlights your ignorance of the most basic functions of a court. He refused to obey a direct, lawful order. His motivation for commiting the crime are irrelevant, it is still a violation of the UCMJ even if President Obama was born on the planet Krypton. Therefore the documents he sought were irrelevant to the charges brought against him, and the court properly rejected this fishing expedition.

  174. avatar
    Jes Beard April 28, 2011 at 8:26 am #

    Lupin: For argument’s sake, we don’t know that the founders didn’t read Vattel in the original French and understood him a lot better than the birthers do.

    Many did.

    In the 1814 case of The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814), Justice Livingstone, writing for a unanimous Court, only 25 years after ratification, and putting all members of the Court old enough to have themselves taken part in the ratification debates, Livingstone quoted Vattel at some length, using his own translation from the original French.

    Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
    “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

    And while this is one of the “natural born citizen” passages and helps with the argument of Obama defenders that “natural born citizen” did not mean as some of the published Vattel translations present it, the passage also helps the argument of the doubters by defining citizenship (at that time) as coming from the father, without regard to place of birth.

    Yes, I already know the 14th Amendment changed the manner in which citizenship is acquired by birth, but a change in how citizenship itself is acquired, would not necessarily also change the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen.”

    I am not taking a position on the “natural born citizen” issue, other than to point out that neither those ridiculing it, nor those who insist that the phrase clearly disqualifies Obama from holding the office and makes him a usruper, have clearly persuasive arguments.

  175. avatar
    Bovril April 28, 2011 at 8:30 am #

    So where pray tell Nancy is your concern for the troops that Lakin was supposed to assist?

    During the lying, cowardly buddy feckers courtmartial, the Major who had to deploy in Lakins place had this to say.

    Due to the extremely short period of time that he had from orders to deployment he had insufficient time to fully refresh his trauma training and had no time to integrate with his deployment unit and his trauma, nursing and medevac teams.

    As a consequence, when, 3 days after deployment, there was a mass casualty event, he stated, for the record that the care provided to the injured was directly and adversely impacted.

    THAT’S what that c*nt Lakin caused, so feck off and die NC1 when you support him.

  176. avatar
    Bovril April 28, 2011 at 8:36 am #

    Oh and lets not forget,

    Lakins daughter was BORN in Hawai’i and he tried to get her long form and couldn’t so that twat knew his whining was full of crap.

    Nexty, he was counselled 3 times seperately that his actions had no validity in the eyes of the UCMJ and would lead to his courtmartial

    He was AGAIN informed by his commanding officer, the only serving Medal of Honor holder in the Army, that he would either deploy or face court martial to which his response was, and the quote came from the record, “Bring it on”.

    Never mind that Lakin, even though he had stated multiple times he would not deploy, STILL took the pre-deployment leave that only soldiers who are ACTUALLY deploying are entitled to.

    Liar, thief, bigot, coward and buddy fecker

    Waaaaaay to go Birfoons, lookie at your poster boy.

  177. avatar
    JoZeppy April 28, 2011 at 8:39 am #

    Jes Beard: I am not taking a position on the “natural born citizen” issue, other than to point out that neither those ridiculing it, nor those who insist that the phrase clearly disqualifies Obama from holding the office and makes him a usruper, have clearly persuasive arguments.

    No…there is a clearly persuasive argument. It is the one that won the day on Marcy 28, 1898.

  178. avatar
    JoZeppy April 28, 2011 at 8:45 am #

    Jes Beard: And a principled stand which a person takes with the knowledge it will subject them to considerable ridicule and has a high probability of subjecting them to prison, is not cowardly, bur heroic.

    And what do you call a stand, based on ignorance of the law, and a total disregard of facts? I call it stupid.

  179. avatar
    Sef April 28, 2011 at 8:52 am #

    Jes Beard: Yes, I already know the 14th Amendment changed the manner in which citizenship is acquired by birth, but a change in how citizenship itself is acquired, would not necessarily also change the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen.”

    Please explain how, prior to the 14th Amendment, U.S. citizenship was Constitutionally obtained other, than by naturalization.

  180. avatar
    Majority Will April 28, 2011 at 9:06 am #

    Jes Beard: You have no idea what standard I have applied to prior presidents.

    Then prove it. Or is this more of your grand blustering?

    “And a principled stand which a person takes with the knowledge it will subject them to considerable ridicule and has a high probability of subjecting them to prison, is not cowardly, bur heroic.”

    Birther James Von Brunn thought he was taking a principled stand. Is he your hero too?

    Blue Falcon Lakin took pre-deployment leave knowing he wouldn’t deploy. He deprived the Major deploying in his place to an active war zone the time to prepare for casualties.

    That’s your hero?

    An LTC questioning the eligibility of his CiC is a political question but the highest priority for you over the care of war time casualties.

    I dare you to tell that to a veteran to his or her face. Go on. Do it.

  181. avatar
    nemocapn April 28, 2011 at 9:10 am #

    Jes Beard: Lakin did not “attack” Obama.There also is nothing about his conduct which was racist (unless Obama’s skin color insulates him from either criticism or questioning).And a principled stand which a person takes with the knowledge it will subject them to considerable ridicule and has a high probability of subjecting them to prison, is not cowardly, bur heroic.

    I think Lakin, in his eyes, did see it as a principled stand, but he was Don Quixote tilting at windmills. Was Quixote a hero? Yes, but he was also a fool.

    If anything, Obama’s release of his birth certificate makes Lakin look more foolish and more guilty of disobeying a lawful order. Obama isn’t Mighty Mouse with a birth certificate. (“Here I come to save the day!”)

  182. avatar
    Joey April 28, 2011 at 9:20 am #

    Jes Beard: Many did.

    In the 1814 case of The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814), Justice Livingstone, writing for a unanimous Court, only 25 years after ratification, and putting all members of the Court old enough to have themselves taken part in the ratification debates, Livingstone quoted Vattel at some length, using his own translation from the original French.

    Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
    “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

    And while this is one of the “natural born citizen” passages and helps with the argument of Obama defenders that “natural born citizen” did not mean as some of the published Vattel translations present it, the passage also helps the argument of the doubters by defining citizenship (at that time) as coming from the father, without regard to place of birth.

    Yes, I already know the 14th Amendment changed the manner in which citizenship is acquired by birth, but a change in how citizenship itself is acquired, would not necessarily also change the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen.”

    I am not taking a position on the “natural born citizen” issue, other than to point out that neither those ridiculing it, nor those who insist that the phrase clearly disqualifies Obama from holding the office and makes him a usruper, have clearly persuasive arguments.

    My understanding is that Supreme Court decisions rendered after the ratification of the 14th Amendment have established the principle that there are only two forms of US Citizenship for all Americans and that those two forms of citizenship are codified in the current law of the land, found in the US Code: Citizens of the United States at Birth and Naturalized American citizens. There is no distinction in law between a Citizen of the United States at birth and a natural born citizen for Article II, Section 1 purposes.
    Indeed, that point of view was affirmed by the Indiana Court of Appeals with specific regard to Barack Hussein Obama II when a three judge panel ruled unanimously that Obama was indeed eligible to receive Indiana’s Electoral College votes as a “natural born citizen” because: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the birthplace of their parents.”–Ankeny, et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, Indiana Court of Appeals, (November 12, 2009).
    No court has ever ruled that Barack Hussein Obama II is ineligible due to the fact that his father was born in Kenya and never obtained US citizenship. Obama’s mother’s birth in Kansas and Obama’s own birth in Honolulu are obviously enough to establish his natural born citizenship. The Supreme Court of the United States has now had 13 opportunities to grant Petitions for Writs of Certiorari or applications for emergency stays in appeals challenging Obama’s eligibility and the High Court has denied them all without comment.

  183. avatar
    Lupin April 28, 2011 at 10:13 am #

    Jes Beard: And while this is one of the “natural born citizen” passages and helps with the argument of Obama defenders that “natural born citizen” did not mean as some of the published Vattel translations present it, the passage also helps the argument of the doubters by defining citizenship (at that time) as coming from the father, without regard to place of birth.

    No you are incorrect.

    Let’s hypothesize that Obama had been born at the time of Vattel in the 18th century in Geneva or Zurich from a Swiss mother and British traveling salesman father.

    What Vattel says is (a) Obama is a Swiss indigene because his family (on his mother’s side) is Swiss, and (b) further, he also inherits (or more accurately is eligible to inherit) his father’s citizenship, which is British.

    There is nothing in that construction — which is, in all honestly, rather unarguable — unlike, say, the connection between Vattel’s terms of indigene and naturel and the American term “natural-born citizen” — that helps the birther cause. Nothing.

    Unless of course you want to postulate (which Vattel did not) that (potential) dual citizens are simply ineligible, which is another argument altogether.

  184. avatar
    ballantine April 28, 2011 at 10:30 am #

    Jes Beard: Many did.

    In the 1814 case of The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814), Justice Livingstone, writing for a unanimous Court, only 25 years after ratification, and putting all members of the Court old enough to have themselves taken part in the ratification debates, Livingstone quoted Vattel at some length, using his own translation from the original French.

    Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
    “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

    And while this is one of the “natural born citizen” passages and helps with the argument of Obama defenders that “natural born citizen” did not mean as some of the published Vattel translations present it, the passage also helps the argument of the doubters by defining citizenship (at that time) as coming from the father, without regard to place of birth.

    Yes, I already know the 14th Amendment changed the manner in which citizenship is acquired by birth, but a change in how citizenship itself is acquired, would not necessarily also change the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen.”

    I am not taking a position on the “natural born citizen” issue, other than to point out that neither those ridiculing it, nor those who insist that the phrase clearly disqualifies Obama from holding the office and makes him a usruper, have clearly persuasive arguments.

    Good grief. Will the ignorance ever cease. You are quoting Marshall’s dissent in The Venus, not the majority. Marshall was citing Vattel on the issue of domicile of a citizen in time of war. The citation and the case have nothing to do with citizenship and cannot be cited as such. I hope you are not a lawyer if you think that a citation on the issue of domicile is relevant to native citizenship. And, of course, the quote does not contain the term “natural born citizen.” Sorry, there is no pre-civil war legal authority support the Vattel definition.

    And I suggest you read the debates on the 14th Amendment. They only said about 50 times that they were not changing the way citizenship was acquired at birth. Hence, Wong Kim Ark’s holding that the amendment was simply declaratory of pre-existing law.

  185. avatar
    Jes Beard April 28, 2011 at 10:36 am #

    G: Jes Beard: Lakin did not “attack” Obama. There also is nothing about his conduct which was racist (unless Obama’s skin color insulates him from either criticism or questioning). And a principled stand which a person takes with the knowledge it will subject them to considerable ridicule and has a high probability of subjecting them to prison, is not cowardly, bur heroic.

    Sorry, but pulling a cheap stunt and refusing to deply with your unit is a betrayal to that unit.

    Whether what Lakin did was a “cheap stunt” on a “betrayal to (his) unit” is quite different from your first contention that Lakin attacked Obama or that it was racist or that it was cowardly.

  186. avatar
    Scientist April 28, 2011 at 10:45 am #

    ballantine: I hope you are not a lawyer if you think that a citation on the issue of domicile is relevant to native citizenship.

    Ballantine: Our buddy Jes WAS a lawyer, but got disbarred….Yet he seems to believe he should continue to spout on the law. Amazing!!

  187. avatar
    JoZeppy April 28, 2011 at 11:01 am #

    ballantine: I hope you are not a lawyer

    “Mr. Beard violated disciplinary rules by ignoring conflicts of interest between clients, by taking action to the detriment of one client in order to gain an advantage for another client, by improperly communicating with a person represented by another lawyer, by failing to competently and diligently represent his clients, and by failing to properly communicate the status of a case to a client. Mr. Beard also continually failed to respond to disciplinary counsel. Mr. Beard’s actions violated Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.7(a) (Conflict of Interest: General Rule), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 3.3(a) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 4.1(Truthfulness and Candor in Statements to Others), 4.2 (Communication With a Person represented by Counsel) and 8.4 (Misconduct).”

    Trouble with competence, candor and truthfulness…..I would have never guessed.

    (and of course, that’s not including the 2 year suspension in 2007 for other violations of the Rules of Professional Responsibility)

  188. avatar
    Jes Beard April 28, 2011 at 11:01 am #

    ballantine: Good grief. Will the ignorance ever cease. You are quoting Marshall’s dissent in The Venus, not the majority. Marshall was citing Vattel on the issue of domicile of a citizen in time of war. The citation and the case have nothing to do with citizenship and cannot be cited as such. I hope you are not a lawyer if you think that a citation on the issue of domicile is relevant to native citizenship. And, of course, the quote does not contain the term “natural born citizen.” Sorry, there is no pre-civil war legal authority support the Vattel definition.

    You are correct that I was wrong in attributing to Livingstone what Marshall had written. Marchall wrote separately, both concurring in part and dissenting in part, with Livingstone concurring in Marshall’s opinion.

    I already mentioned that the quote did not contain the phrase “natural born citizen,” and did not suggest that it supported the Vattel definition. In fact, I expressly stated that I am not taking a position on the “natural born citizen” issue, other than to point out that neither those ridiculing it, nor those who insist that the phrase clearly disqualifies Obama from holding the office and makes him a usruper, have clearly persuasive arguments.

  189. avatar
    JoZeppy April 28, 2011 at 11:05 am #

    JoZeppy: “Mr. Beard violated disciplinary rules by ignoring conflicts of interest between clients, by taking action to the detriment of one client in order to gain an advantage for another client, by improperly communicating with a person represented by another lawyer, by failing to competently and diligently represent his clients, and by failing to properly communicate the status of a case to a client. Mr. Beard also continually failed to respond to disciplinary counsel. Mr. Beard’s actions violated Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.7(a) (Conflict of Interest: General Rule), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 3.3(a) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 4.1(Truthfulness and Candor in Statements to Others), 4.2 (Communication With a Person represented by Counsel) and 8.4 (Misconduct).”Trouble with competence, candor and truthfulness…..I would have never guessed. (and of course, that’s not including the 2 year suspension in 2007 for other violations of the Rules of Professional Responsibility)

    Oh…and must provide citations:

    http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tsc/PDF/093/Jes%20Beard%20v%20BPR%20OPN.pdf

  190. avatar
    JoZeppy April 28, 2011 at 11:07 am #

    Jes Beard: In fact, I expressly stated that I am not taking a position on the “natural born citizen” issue, other than to point out that neither those ridiculing it, nor those who insist that the phrase clearly disqualifies Obama from holding the office and makes him a usruper, have clearly persuasive arguments.

    And you are in fact expressly wrong. There is a clearly persuasive argument, and it has nothing to do with Vattel, and everything with the common law.

  191. avatar
    Jes Beard April 28, 2011 at 11:13 am #

    Scientist, have you found those Health Department regulations yet that support your claim the long form records were not available to Obama?

  192. avatar
    Jes Beard April 28, 2011 at 11:14 am #

    JoZeppy: There is a clearly persuasive argument, and it has nothing to do with Vattel, and everything with the common law.

    And it would be…..?

  193. avatar
    Scientist April 28, 2011 at 11:17 am #

    Jes Beard: Scientist, have you found those Health Department regulations yet that support your claim the long form records were not available to Obama?

    Yes.

  194. avatar
    Daniel April 28, 2011 at 11:18 am #

    Jes Beard: to a perfectly reasonable request, there is no reason to believe Lakin would have refused deployment and therefor no Court Martial.

    It wasn’t a reasonable request.

    He demanded something above the legal requirement.

    He was not the authority charged with determining eligibility.

    He had no right to see the document, nor any business mixing his duty with his political lunacy.

  195. avatar
    ballantine April 28, 2011 at 11:21 am #

    Jes Beard: And it would be…..?

    Let’s see, the Supreme Court’s adoption of the common law rule as well as every court that actually addressed the issue, the opinion of every pre-Dred Scott legal authority of any significance, the statements of the framers themselves and the fact that there was no other definition of “natural born” in 1787 other than the common law. I would say pretty persuasive.

  196. avatar
    JoZeppy April 28, 2011 at 11:40 am #

    Jes Beard: And it would be…..?

    Thank you for providing supporting material to show the Tennessee Supreme Court was correct in finding correct in finding you violate Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 and 4.1.

    I can almost excuse your average birther for making these genuinely foolish statements. But you were an attorney. You should know better.

  197. avatar
    G April 28, 2011 at 12:22 pm #

    Jes Beard: Whether what Lakin did was a “cheap stunt” on a “betrayal to (his) unit” is quite different from your first contention that Lakin attacked Obama or that it was racist or that it was cowardly.

    Um…you are confusing me with a conversation you had with Slarti.

    I never said the things you are accusing me of saying in bold…so you are WRONG on what I said.

  198. avatar
    nemocapn April 28, 2011 at 12:52 pm #

    Joey: My understanding is that Supreme Court decisions rendered after the ratification of the 14th Amendment have established the principle that there are only two forms of US Citizenship for all Americans and that those two forms of citizenship are codified in the current law of the land, found in the US Code: Citizens of the United States at Birth and Naturalized American citizens.

    You understanding is similar to that of Republicans William Loughridge and Benjamin F. Butler who were in Congress when the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. They wrote in a minority report on the topic of women’s voting rights:

    “In a recent work of some research, written in opposition to female suffrage, the author takes the ground that women are not citizens….But all such fallacious theories as this are swept away by the fourteenth amendment, which abolishes the theory of different grades of citizenship, or different grades of rights and privileges, and declares all persons born in the country or naturalized in it to be citizens, in the broadest and fullest sense of the term, leaving no room for cavil, and guaranteeing to all citizens the rights and privileges of citizens of the republic.”

    They also wrote, “By the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, what constitutes citizenship of the United States, is for the first time declared, and who are included by the term citizen. Upon this question, before that time, there had been much discussion judicial, political and general, and no distinct and definite definition of qualification had been settled. The people of the United States determined this question by the fourteenth amendment….This amendment, after declaring who are citizens of the United States, and thus fixing but one grade of citizenship, which insures to all citizens alike all the privileges, immunities and rights which accrue to that condition….”

  199. avatar
    Rickey April 28, 2011 at 1:19 pm #

    Jes Beard displays all of the traits of the typical concern troll. You’ll notice that he has not acknowledged that he was wrong when he claimed that Lakin wrote to Obama “well before he was to deploy” (it was actually 12 days). He never explained how he knows that Obama was aware of Lakin’s letter, or that Obama was aware of Lakin’s court-martial.

    Does disbarred attorney Jes Beard really believe that if Obama had produced his long-form birth certificate during Lakin’s court-martial, that Lakin would then have been allowed to say “my bad” and the Army would forget about the fact that he disobeyed orders and missed movement with his unit?

    Is Lakin a racist? I don’t know. Is Lakin a coward? What we do know is that Lakin had no problem obeying his orders during the first year of Obama’s presidency, during which time he had safe stateside duty. Is Lakin selfish? Absolutely. He betrayed his unit and another Army doctor was forced to rotate to Afghanistan early and without adequate training.

    Was there any support for Lakin among active duty military personnel? None that I could discern.

    Then, when things get too uncomfortable for Jes Beard, he uses misdirection and tries to change the subject. So typical, and so pathetic.

  200. avatar
    Daniel April 28, 2011 at 1:29 pm #

    Jes Beard: Daniel

    Yeah because that’s all the POTUS does…

    /facepalm

    Can people really be that stupid and still breathe unassisted?

  201. avatar
    Daniel April 28, 2011 at 1:31 pm #

    Jes Beard: Like golf, picking his NCAA brackets and listening to McCartney at the White House.

    Yeah because that’s all the POTUS does…

    /facepalm

    Can people really be that stupid and still breathe unassisted?

  202. avatar
    DP April 28, 2011 at 1:38 pm #

    Rickey:

    Then, when things get too uncomfortable for Jes Beard, he uses misdirection and tries to change the subject. So typical, and so pathetic.

    Bingo.

    Very transparent. Common hallmark of a charlatan. That’s probably why he felt the need to violate codes of conduct and got disbarred.

  203. avatar
    misha April 28, 2011 at 2:10 pm #

    Jes Beard: Like golf, picking his NCAA brackets and listening to McCartney at the White House.

    Eisenhower was basically 8 years of playing golf. Dulles was an anti-semite. He also had an affair with Kay Summersby.

    Oh, that’s right. He was white.

  204. avatar
    Sean April 28, 2011 at 2:18 pm #

    nc1: You didn’t get it, Fritz.

    The main problem is the kangaroo court – an officer is sent to prison without chance to examine the evidence that the order to go to war (which cannot be issued by anyone other than a legitimate CiC) was a lawful one.

    Officer’s oath asks for the defense of Constitution first.If Lakin thought that his order for deployment was unconstitutional he should have been given proof in court (prior to sentencing) that this was not the case.

    The evidence was posted on line for a while. But the evidence showed akin was full of shit.

  205. avatar
    Sean April 28, 2011 at 2:21 pm #

    Jes Beard: bracket

    George W Bush spent about one third of his 8 year Presidency on vacation, but someoe singing at the White House is wrong?

    Different standards for different skin color.

  206. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 28, 2011 at 2:28 pm #

    misha: Eisenhower was basically 8 years of playing golf. Dulles was an anti-semite. He also had an affair with Kay Summersby.Oh, that’s right. He was white.

    They expect him to be playing basketball and chasing white girls

  207. avatar
    James M April 28, 2011 at 2:53 pm #

    Jes Beard: McCartney at the White House.

    It’s thanks to the Reagans that the White House has such a nice theatre and stage.

  208. avatar
    Majority Will April 28, 2011 at 3:06 pm #

    James M: It’s thanks to the Reagans that the White House has such a nice theatre and stage.

    The idea probably started after Lincoln.

  209. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 28, 2011 at 3:11 pm #

    Jes Beard: Whether what Lakin did was a “cheap stunt” on a “betrayal to (his) unit” is quite different from your first contention that Lakin attacked Obama or that it was racist or that it was cowardly.

    As G pointed out, it was me who said those things – convicted felon Lakin questioned President Obama’s legitimacy after it had been legally established (beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise as we now know for certain). This was most certainly an attack on President Obama and holding the first African-American POTUS to a standard that his caucasian predecessors were not held to is transparently racist. Just like you.

  210. avatar
    Joey April 28, 2011 at 3:26 pm #

    nemocapn: You understanding is similar to that of Republicans William Loughridge and Benjamin F. Butler who were in Congress when the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.They wrote in a minority report on the topic of women’s voting rights:

    “In a recent work of some research, written in opposition to female suffrage, the author takes the ground that women are not citizens….But all such fallacious theories as this are swept away by the fourteenth amendment, which abolishes the theory of different grades of citizenship, or different grades of rights and privileges, and declares all persons born in the country or naturalized in it to be citizens, in the broadest and fullest sense of the term, leaving no room for cavil, and guaranteeing to all citizens the rights and privileges of citizens of the republic.”

    They also wrote, “By the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, what constitutes citizenship of the United States, is for the first time declared, and who are included by the term citizen. Upon this question, before that time, there had been much discussion judicial, political and general, and no distinct and definite definition of qualification had been settled.The people of the United States determined this question by the fourteenth amendment….This amendment, after declaring who are citizens of the United States, and thus fixing but one grade of citizenship, which insures to all citizens alike all the privileges, immunities and rights which accrue to that condition….”

    Thank you for those supporting quotations! They fit perfectly with the Supeme Court of the United States’ decision in Elk v Wilkens [112 U. S. 94 (1884)]

    “The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.”

  211. avatar
    Jes Beard April 28, 2011 at 9:57 pm #

    nemocapn: You understanding is similar to that of Republicans William Loughridge and Benjamin F. Butler who were in Congress when the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. They wrote in a minority report on the topic of women’s voting rights:

    “In a recent work of some research, written in opposition to female suffrage, the author takes the ground that women are not citizens….But all such fallacious theories as this are swept away by the fourteenth amendment, which abolishes the theory of different grades of citizenship, or different grades of rights and privileges, and declares all persons born in the country or naturalized in it to be citizens, in the broadest and fullest sense of the term, leaving no room for cavil, and guaranteeing to all citizens the rights and privileges of citizens of the republic.”

    They also wrote, “By the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, what constitutes citizenship of the United States, is for the first time declared, and who are included by the term citizen. Upon this question, before that time, there had been much discussion judicial, political and general, and no distinct and definite definition of qualification had been settled. The people of the United States determined this question by the fourteenth amendment….This amendment, after declaring who are citizens of the United States, and thus fixing but one grade of citizenship, which insures to all citizens alike all the privileges, immunities and rights which accrue to that condition….”

    Two questions: 1) Did the majority report take anything resembling a similar position, or was is silent, or even hostile to this position? 2) And what is the significance of a minority report on an issue AFTER the ratification, other than to show that might have been the understanding of those two members of Congress at the time of ratification (or to show that even if it had not been their understanding they hoped to use the comments to persuade others to join them on an unrelated issue)?

  212. avatar
    Jes Beard April 28, 2011 at 10:01 pm #

    Sean: George W Bush spent about one third of his 8 year Presidency on vacation, but someoe singing at the White House is wrong?

    Different standards for different skin color.

    I never said, or suggested that anything was “wrong” about it. I merely pointed out that the idea that the President was “too busy” to attend to certain issues is the excuse of an apologist and not grounded in reality.

  213. avatar
    Jes Beard April 28, 2011 at 10:08 pm #

    misha: Eisenhower was basically 8 years of playing golf. Dulles was an anti-semite. He also had an affair with Kay Summersby.

    And I don’t think anyone excused anything Eisenhower failed to do on him being “too busy.”

  214. avatar
    Jes Beard April 28, 2011 at 10:10 pm #

    Daniel: Can people really be that stupid and still breathe unassisted?

    Not at all. I use a vent.

  215. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 28, 2011 at 10:10 pm #

    Jes Beard: I never said, or suggested that anything was “wrong” about it.I merely pointed out that the idea that the President was “too busy” to attend to certain issues is the excuse of an apologist and not grounded in reality.

    The fact that he takes vacations doesn’t change the fact that the president is too busy (he has an important job, after all) to waste time on useless $hit and mundane irrelevancies – I don’t want my president thinking about this sort of thing no matter what his party.

  216. avatar
    Jes Beard April 28, 2011 at 10:44 pm #

    Rickey: Then, when things get too uncomfortable for Jes Beard,

    Rickey: He never explained how he knows that Obama was aware of Lakin’s letter, or that Obama was aware of Lakin’s court-martial.

    irection and tries to change the subject. So typical, and so pathetic.

    Wow…. THAT sounds like a good tactic… to help me use it in the future, why don’t you explain what I was misdirecting anyone from…. and how I was trying to do it.

    Rickey: Jes Beard displays all of the traits of the typical concern troll. You’ll notice that he has not acknowledged that he was wrong when he claimed that Lakin wrote to Obama “well before he was to deploy” (it was actually 12 days).

    I also never disputed what you posted, but arguing over whether 12 days is “well before” or “at the last minute” is rather pointless.

    Rickey: He never explained how he knows that Obama was aware of Lakin’s letter, or that Obama was aware of Lakin’s court-martial.

    Since I did not know it, I thought it best not to try to explain it.

    Rickey: Is Lakin a racist? I don’t know. Is Lakin a coward?

    So why bring it up?

    Are you a child molester? I don’t know. Do you steal Girl Scout cookies? I don’t know that either.

    Rickey: What we do know is that Lakin had no problem obeying his orders during the first year of Obama’s presidency, during which time he had safe stateside duty.

    That’s a good point, however, a soldier’s potential liability for conduct in a war theater is likely to be a bit higher than with stateside duty, and as a result concern over carrying out an illegal order might be a bit greater when stationed in areas where that duty might be more likely to result in deaths. Yes, I know your position, and the court decisions, about the legality of orders in such situations and that whether Obama was a “natural born citizen” or had actually been murdered after his innaugeration and we had only seen body doubles while Oliver North’s successors ran the government from the White House basement made no difference to the legality of the order. But Lakin might not have understood the issue.

    Rickey: Was there any support for Lakin among active duty military personnel? None that I could discern.

    And as near as I can tell, that is of no relevance one way or the other.

    G: Um…you are confusing me with a conversation you had with Slarti.

    Sorry, but all of you Obama apologists look alike to me.

    ballantine: Let’s see, the Supreme Court’s adoption of the common law rule as well as every court that actually addressed the issue, the opinion of every pre-Dred Scott legal authority of any significance, the statements of the framers themselves and the fact that there was no other definition of “natural born” in 1787 other than the common law. I would say pretty persuasive.

    Come on. I know you have all of the case names written on a cheat sheet you have tucked up your sleeve, why not list a few links?

  217. avatar
    nemocapn April 28, 2011 at 11:07 pm #

    Jes Beard:

    Two questions:
    1) Did the majority report take anything resembling a similar position, or was is silent, or even hostile to this position?

    The Majority report of the House Judiciary Committee said, “Since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution, there is no longer any reason to doubt that all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside, for that is the express declaration of the amendment.”

    The majority report didn’t mention anything for or against the theory of grades of citizenship and didn’t mention Natural Born Citizenship.

    2) And what is the significance of a minority report on an issue AFTER the ratification, other than to show that might have been the understanding of those two members of Congress at the time of ratification (or to show that even if it had not been their understanding they hoped to use the comments to persuade others to join them on an unrelated issue)?

    Yes, it was to show the understanding of the 14th amendment by two attorney members of Congress who were present during the 14th amendment ratification. The topic of citizenship came up in determining whether women are citizens and have the right to vote under the 14th amendment. It is because of these majority and minority reports that Minor v. Happersett came into being.

  218. avatar
    Jes Beard April 28, 2011 at 11:48 pm #

    Lupin: Jes Beard: And while this is one of the “natural born citizen” passages and helps with the argument of Obama defenders that “natural born citizen” did not mean as some of the published Vattel translations present it, the passage also helps the argument of the doubters by defining citizenship (at that time) as coming from the father, without regard to place of birth.

    No you are incorrect.

    Let’s hypothesize that Obama had been born at the time of Vattel in the 18th century in Geneva or Zurich from a Swiss mother and British traveling salesman father.

    What Vattel says is (a) Obama is a Swiss indigene because his family (on his mother’s side) is Swiss, and (b) further, he also inherits (or more accurately is eligible to inherit) his father’s citizenship, which is British.

    There is nothing in that construction — which is, in all honestly, rather unarguable — unlike, say, the connection between Vattel’s terms of indigene and naturel and the American term “natural-born citizen” — that helps the birther cause. Nothing.

    Unless of course you want to postulate (which Vattel did not) that (potential) dual citizens are simply ineligible, which is another argument altogether.

    You are likely far more familiar with Vattel than I am, so I ask this not to argue the issue, but in the hope you could explain your position.

    Vattel wrote, The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

    That would seem to be saying that in Vattel’s view citizenship by birth was restricted to children whose fathers were citizens.

  219. avatar
    G April 29, 2011 at 12:08 am #

    Jes Beard: G: Um…you are confusing me with a conversation you had with Slarti.
    Sorry, but all of you Obama apologists look alike to me.

    Wow Jess. Obviously, I’ve made the mistake of trying to converse with you like a human being, when you are interested in only being a total prick.

    What an audacious jerk you are. First you totally dodge my question like a coward by responding with a glib and dismissive remark, mistakingly accusing me of saying things I never said.

    And then when I generously point out that you are mistaken and confusing me for someone else, you don’t even have the decency to say “my bad” and correct yourself… no, instead you make a stupid crack like that.

  220. avatar
    Ballantine April 29, 2011 at 12:31 am #

    Jes Beard: irection and tries to change the subject. So typical, and so pathetic.

    Wow…. THAT sounds like a good tactic… to help me use it in the future, why don’t you explain what I was misdirecting anyone from…. and how I was trying to do it.I also never disputed what you posted, but arguing over whether 12 days is “well before” or “at the last minute” is rather pointless.Since I did not know it, I thought it best not to try to explain it.So why bring it up?Are you a child molester? I don’t know. Do you steal Girl Scout cookies? I don’t know that either.That’s a good point, however, a soldier’s potential liability for conduct in a war theater is likely to be a bit higher than with stateside duty, and as a result concern over carrying out an illegal order might be a bit greater when stationed in areas where that duty might be more likely to result in deaths. Yes, I know your position, and the court decisions, about the legality of orders in such situations and that whether Obama was a “natural born citizen” or had actually been murdered after his innaugeration and we had only seen body doubles while Oliver North’s successors ran the government from the White House basement made no difference to the legality of the order. But Lakin might not have understood the issue.And as near as I can tell, that is of no relevance one way or the other.Sorry, but all of you Obama apologists look alike to me.Come on. I know you have all of the case names written on a cheat sheet you have tucked up your sleeve, why not list a few links?

    Well, if you really have done no research, as it appears, try these links:

    http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2011-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2012-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=1

    http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2010_02_01_archive.html

    http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2009/12/in-united-states-court-of-appeals-for.html

  221. avatar
    Lupin April 29, 2011 at 7:56 am #

    Jes Beard: Vattel wrote, The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

    That would seem to be saying that in Vattel’s view citizenship by birth was restricted to children whose fathers were citizens.

    Gladly. As mentioned here the word “parens” actually means relatives or family, not merely “parents” (father + mother).. Even in French today if you say “I have parents who live in America,” you merely mean that you family who live in America (uncle, cousins etc) not necessarily father/mother.

    So what Vattel says in plain modern-day English is, 1) a child born in a Swiss family will be Swiss, and 2) if hjs father is not Swiss, he will also inherit his nationality. (There is no either/or, mutually exclusive clause between the two sentences.)

    You might be interested to know that the second edition was footnoted at that very point to add that the child could also inherit his mother’s nationality if the parents were not married.

    As I said this is more relevant to European history than American history, and arguably Vattel’s “indigene” or “naturel” may or may not translate exactly into “natural-born citizen” but it wouldn’t exclude Obama from being one.

  222. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 29, 2011 at 8:42 am #

    Lupin: Gladly. As mentioned here the word “parens” actually means relatives or family, not merely “parents” (father + mother).. Even in French today if you say “I have parents who live in America,” you merely mean that you family who live in America (uncle, cousins etc) not necessarily father/mother.

    So what Vattel says in plain modern-day English is, 1) a child born in a Swiss family will be Swiss, and 2) if hjs father is not Swiss, he will also inherit his nationality.(There is no either/or, mutually exclusive clause between the two sentences.)

    You might be interested to know that the second edition was footnoted at that very point to add that the child could also inherit his mother’s nationality if the parents were not married.

    As I said this is more relevant to European history than American history, and arguably Vattel’s “indigene” or “naturel” may or may not translate exactly into “natural-born citizen” but it wouldn’t exclude Obama from being one.

    The problem with “parens” is that at the time in French, its use in the meaning “father+mother” was supposed to be substandard, like “ain’t” today in English, which you do not expect to read in a scientific text either. In English too, “parents” was often used in the meaning “relatives” at the time – so you cannot even say that the first translations were wrong. What happened afterwards was that translators just copied the translation from former editions, not realizing the meaning of the words had changed.

    Proof for “parens means relatives in civilized language” has been found in the works of Dominque Bouhours, an imminent French Jesuit grammarian, who actually is considered to be a very lenient linguist, who more or less started the tendency to describe language rather than prescribe it. There can be little doubt that Vattel followed the advice of Bouhours on “parens”, since everywhere else in “The Law of Nations” he uses “parens” in the meaning “relatives”.

    It is true that “naturel” later in French became for a short time a term of art meaning “ciitizen from birth” (by whatever means, jus soli, jus snaguinis or a change in the law as in the 1790 decree on foreigners of Huguenot descent), but in the sentence you quote, it does not necessarily refer to citizenship. It rather means “natural Frenchman” in the same way as we would say ” natural tango dancer” or “natural hockey player”.

  223. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 11:56 am #

    Lupin: Gladly. As mentioned here the word “parens” actually means relatives or family, not merely “parents” (father + mother).. Even in French today if you say “I have parents who live in America,” you merely mean that you family who live in America (uncle, cousins etc) not necessarily father/mother.

    So what Vattel says in plain modern-day English is, 1) a child born in a Swiss family will be Swiss, and 2) if hjs father is not Swiss, he will also inherit his nationality. (There is no either/or, mutually exclusive clause between the two sentences.)

    You might be interested to know that the second edition was footnoted at that very point to add that the child could also inherit his mother’s nationality if the parents were not married.

    As I said this is more relevant to European history than American history, and arguably Vattel’s “indigene” or “naturel” may or may not translate exactly into “natural-born citizen”
    but it wouldn’t exclude Obama from being one.

    I may be reading you wrong, but it appears you are saying regarding Vattel that the English language translations translate Vattel poorly, and at times even inaccurately on this issue, and that as such the English language translation should be ignored and the French language translation should be the one relied upon…. even though the French language translation did not use the phrase “natural born citizen.”

    If I have read you right on that point, my response is that what Vattel in fact meant, and what the “law of nations” may actually have been (since Vattel may have been stating things on that issue in his book which did not in fact reflect the law at all), is quite irrelevant. What the founders understood Vattel to mean might be relevant to determining the meaning of “natural born citizen” (or it may not, depending on the application of the 14th Amendment), but what Vattel in fact meant would seem meaningless. And in determining what the founders understood Vattel to mean, it would seem that the English language translations of the book (even if faulty) are far more meaningful than what Vattel actually wrote or meant in French, or what a good translation would have produced.

    As to your reference to the 2nd edition (and please understand that I am not trying to argue this point or challenge you, but am simply asking a question…. some here seem to have difficulty with such things), do you know when it was published? And do you have any links to it, so I can look at the footnote you mention? And is there any source available regarding the relative sales of the English language translations of Vattel in the colonies as opposed to the French language editions? (If the French language editions sold twice as many copies in the US as the English language editions prior to the ratification of the Constitution, then I may be misplacing emphasis on the English language wording.)

  224. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 12:02 pm #

    G: First you totally dodge my question like a coward by responding with a glib and dismissive remark, mistakingly accusing me of saying things I never said.

    What earth shattering question of yours was it that I was dodging?

    My response was not intended to be dismissive at all. It was in response to the following from you:

    G: G April 28, 2011 at 12:22 pm(Quote) #
    Jes Beard: Whether what Lakin did was a “cheap stunt” on a “betrayal to (his) unit” is quite different from your first contention that Lakin attacked Obama or that it was racist or that it was cowardly.

    Um…you are confusing me with a conversation you had with Slarti.

    I never said the things you are accusing me of saying in bold…so you are WRONG on what I said.

    Now that was part and parcel EVERYTHING in the post of yours to which I was responding, and perhaps I have not picked up all of the code used here, but, for the life of me I seriously do not see a question in there.

    Now, without arguing over whether there was one or not, if you want to ask a question, have at it. Just state the question so I can respond.

  225. avatar
    Sef April 29, 2011 at 12:12 pm #

    Jes Beard: If I have read you right on that point, my response is that what Vattel in fact meant, and what the “law of nations” may actually have been (since Vattel may have been stating things on that issue in his book which did not in fact reflect the law at all), is quite irrelevant. What the founders understood Vattel to mean might be relevant to determining the meaning of “natural born citizen” (or it may not, depending on the application of the 14th Amendment), but what Vattel in fact meant would seem meaningless. And in determining what the founders understood Vattel to mean, it would seem that the English language translations of the book (even if faulty) are far more meaningful than what Vattel actually wrote or meant in French, or what a good translation would have produced.

    It has been stated recently on this site, (and no, I am not going to dredge it up for you) that the founders were fluent in French and could or did read de Vattell’s treatise in the original French. If so, they would have understood the discrepancy between the original and any English translation they may have been able to access. If they actually did read de Vattell they would have used the original meaning.

  226. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 29, 2011 at 12:16 pm #

    nc1: You didn’t get it, Fritz.The main problem is the kangaroo court – an officer is sent to prison without chance to examine the evidence that the order to go to war (which cannot be issued by anyone other than a legitimate CiC) was a lawful one. Officer’s oath asks for the defense of Constitution first. If Lakin thought that his order for deployment was unconstitutional he should have been given proof in court (prior to sentencing) that this was not the case.

    If that’s the case NC1 his problem is not with President Obama but Congress and President Bush who initiated the war. Besides the orders he violated wasn’t to go to war. He was given a direct order to get on a specific flight to report somewhere else stateside before deployment. He disobeyed that order

  227. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 12:16 pm #

    Oh, one thing I can’t resist mentioning however…. Since so many Obama apologists here have defended Obama’s failure to release the document long ago, or address the “birther” issues, or respond to Lakin, and defended Obama by saying he was simply “too busy,” I can’t resist pointing out where Obama went immediately after the short White House statement he made when he released the long form….. off to Chicago for taping of the Oprah program with Michelle and for three fundraisers.

    Yup. Busy man. One might ask why he wouldn’t have asked Oprah to come to Washington for the taping, instead of Obama being the one to do the travelling, but then, Oprah probably couldn’t fit travel like that into her schedule…. and then, well, there were those fundraisers…..

  228. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 12:21 pm #

    Sef: It has been stated recently on this site, (and no, I am not going to dredge it up for you) that the founders were fluent in French and could or did read de Vattell’s treatise in the original French.If so, they would have understood the discrepancy between the original and any English translation they may have been able to access.If they actually did read de Vattell they would have used the original meaning.

    Not all of the Founders were going to be fluent in French, and it is unlikely any were as “fluent” in French as in English, and the meaning to the Founders is only half of the equation. The rest is what the language meant to the citizenry at large who ratified the Constitution. This is a problem which those promoting Vattel as a basis for Obama no meeting the “natural born citizen” requirement fail to address — even if every member of the Constitution Convention understood the phrase as requiring birth in the US and tow citizen parents, if that is not what the nation which ratified the document understood it to mean, that understanding by those at the Constitution Convention would seem to be of little significance.

  229. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 12:22 pm #

    Jes Beard: for Obama no meeting the “natural born citizen” requirement fail to address

    That should have been “for Obama not meeting….”

  230. avatar
    Majority Will April 29, 2011 at 12:27 pm #

    Jes Beard:
    Oh, one thing I can’t resist mentioning however….Since so many Obama apologists here have defended Obama’s failure to release the document long ago, or address the “birther” issues, or respond to Lakin, and defended Obama by saying he was simply “too busy,” I can’t resist pointing out where Obama went immediately after the short White House statement he made when he released the long form….. off to Chicago for taping of the Oprah program with Michelle and for three fundraisers.

    Yup.Busy man.One might ask why he wouldn’t have asked Oprah to come to Washington for the taping, instead of Obama being the one to do the travelling, but then, Oprah probably couldn’t fit travel like that into her schedule…. and then, well, there were those fundraisers…..

    Keep defending Blue Falcon Lakin, troll. That makes you a coward’s apologist.

    You and he obviously share the same ethically challenged, scum based and perverse sense of values.

  231. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 12:27 pm #

    nc1: The main problem is the kangaroo court

    Let’s stop right there.

    Once you plead guilty, as Lakin did, you no longer get to claim you are not guilty…. or that there was a “kangaroo court.” Once you plead guilty, you have admitted the charges, and you also agree that the tribunal is a proper one to render a decision and that it had conducted itself properly, including the ruling on the availability of evidence.

    He can still complain that Obama should have responded to his request before he was to be deployed, and he can still defend himself as believing what he did was reasonable and an act of courage and of patriotism, and I have no problem accepting that.

    But “kangaroo court”? That is a non-starter.

  232. avatar
    G April 29, 2011 at 12:28 pm #

    Jes Beard: G: First you totally dodge my question like a coward by responding with a glib and dismissive remark, mistakingly accusing me of saying things I never said.
    What earth shattering question of yours was it that I was dodging?
    My response was not intended to be dismissive at all. It was in response to the following from you:
    G: G April 28, 2011 at 12:22 pm (Quote) #
    Jes Beard: Whether what Lakin did was a “cheap stunt” on a “betrayal to (his) unit” is quite different from your first contention that Lakin attacked Obama or that it was racist or that it was cowardly.
    Um…you are confusing me with a conversation you had with Slarti.
    I never said the things you are accusing me of saying in bold…so you are WRONG on what I said.
    Now that was part and parcel EVERYTHING in the post of yours to which I was responding, and perhaps I have not picked up all of the code used here, but, for the life of me I seriously do not see a question in there.
    Now, without arguing over whether there was one or not, if you want to ask a question, have at it. Just state the question so I can respond.

    Look, at this point, it is clear that between all the various posts & replies that various converations got muddled. At the moment, there aren’t any questions for you that I still care about, so I’m happy to drop it as this had descended into us arguing that neither of us understands what the other meant to be arguing about.

    If something new comes up that you say that I feel like responding to, I will, but other than that, no new questions for you.

    A simple word of advice to prevent these problems in the future – if, out of confusion, you make the mistake again of attributing someone else’s words or POV to me and I just point out that you’ve got the wrong person, don’t double-down by following up with yet another reply attributing your conversations with others to me. Just simply say sorry for the confusion and leave it at that.

  233. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 29, 2011 at 12:30 pm #

    Jes Beard: Oh, one thing I can’t resist mentioning however…. Since so many Obama apologists here have defended Obama’s failure to release the document long ago, or address the “birther” issues, or respond to Lakin, and defended Obama by saying he was simply “too busy,” I can’t resist pointing out where Obama went immediately after the short White House statement he made when he released the long form….. off to Chicago for taping of the Oprah program with Michelle and for three fundraisers.Yup. Busy man. One might ask why he wouldn’t have asked Oprah to come to Washington for the taping, instead of Obama being the one to do the travelling, but then, Oprah probably couldn’t fit travel like that into her schedule…. and then, well, there were those fundraisers…..

    How petty you are. Where was your complaint when Bush spent almost a year of his presidency on vacation

  234. avatar
    Scientist April 29, 2011 at 12:33 pm #

    Disbarred attorney Jes Beard:

    I’m not sure who said that Obama was too busy to address the birther issue or to ask Hawaii for an exception to release his long form. I did not. I said that using the prestige of the office to extract a meaningless form out of Hawaii (and it is meaningless since the COLB already established eligibility) was inappropriate. I also said it is a bad precedent, since legitimate candidates in 2012 and future elections may find themselves having to ask for favors from the Administration of their birth states, and they won’t have the prestoge of their office or friendship with the Governor to back them up. I also said that as a human being who had already provided something that no other President had, he could justifiably feel that he was being treated unfairly and dare I say with prejudice.

    I am still far from convinced that the President did the right thing in releasing it and i will not be surprised to see this become an issue for some other candidate at some point in the future. Politics is a contact sport, so how can anyone assure me that a governor of one party wouldn’t seek to throw roadblocks in the way of a potential presidential candidate of an opposing party?

  235. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 12:34 pm #

    Majority Will: Keep defending Blue Falcon Lakin, troll. That makes you a coward’s apologist.

    Look at the time stamp on my last post, Majority. Look at it, then look at the time stamp on your post to which I am responding.

    Defending Lakin?

    I never have.

    That is one of the problems you, and several others here seem to have. You want an echo chamber, and if anyone says anything which is not in perfect conformity with your echo, which might to any degree suggest that Obama is somehow less than saintly, or which asks a sincerely question or suggests that somehow those challenging Obama might be raising a legitimate issue, you feel compelled to attack. Forget about reasoning.

    You are every bit as bad as many on the other side.

  236. avatar
    G April 29, 2011 at 12:36 pm #

    Jes Beard: Oh, one thing I can’t resist mentioning however…. Since so many Obama apologists here have defended Obama’s failure to release the document long ago, or address the “birther” issues, or respond to Lakin, and defended Obama by saying he was simply “too busy,” I can’t resist pointing out where Obama went immediately after the short White House statement he made when he released the long form….. off to Chicago for taping of the Oprah program with Michelle and for three fundraisers.Yup. Busy man. One might ask why he wouldn’t have asked Oprah to come to Washington for the taping, instead of Obama being the one to do the travelling, but then, Oprah probably couldn’t fit travel like that into her schedule…. and then, well, there were those fundraisers…..

    Newsflash – the president is running for re-election. Like any othe president, he will continue to have multiple meetings, events, fundraisers, appearances and yes…even momemnts of down time on his schedule in addition to dealing with all the issues that fall on the desk and office of President all the time.

    You can make valid arguments about policy and decisions that you felt should have been handled differently or argue for causes that you think should be addressed, but to make silly arguments whining that the president fits in other smaller activities too is just petty and meaningless. How is this different from any other president in the course of their term?

    It simply isn’t anything unusual or different. Complaining about such trivial and typical matters only comes across bitter and whiny.

  237. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 12:36 pm #

    G: A simple word of advice to prevent these problems in the future – if, out of confusion, you make the mistake again of attributing someone else’s words or POV to me and I just point out that you’ve got the wrong person, don’t double-down by following up with yet another reply attributing your conversations with others to me. Just simply say sorry for the confusion and leave it at that.

    If that is the best you can do by way of an apology, I guess that is the best you can do.

  238. avatar
    Joey April 29, 2011 at 12:36 pm #

    Jes Beard:
    Oh, one thing I can’t resist mentioning however….Since so many Obama apologists here have defended Obama’s failure to release the document long ago, or address the “birther” issues, or respond to Lakin, and defended Obama by saying he was simply “too busy,” I can’t resist pointing out where Obama went immediately after the short White House statement he made when he released the long form….. off to Chicago for taping of the Oprah program with Michelle and for three fundraisers.

    Yup.Busy man.One might ask why he wouldn’t have asked Oprah to come to Washington for the taping, instead of Obama being the one to do the travelling, but then, Oprah probably couldn’t fit travel like that into her schedule…. and then, well, there were those fundraisers…..

    All presidents of the modern era work extremely hard. I don’t begrudge any of them, of any political ideology their down time.

    For example, how soon Jes Beard forgets President Obama’s predecessor:
    “George W. Bush is today making his final visit to Camp David as president.

    He will likely miss the place: According to CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller, today’s trip marks Mr. Bush’s 149th visit to the presidential retreat. The planned three-day stay, during which the president is being joined by family and former and current aides, will bring his total time spent at Camp David to all or part of 487 days.

    Yes, that’s 487 days. And Camp David is not even where the president has spent the most time when not at the White House: Knoller reports that Mr. Bush has made 77 visits to his ranch in Crawford during his presidency, and spent all or part of 490 days there.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4728085-503544.html

    I suppose Jes thinks that President Bush could have spent some of those Camp David or Crawford Ranch days personally searching for WMDs in Iraq?

  239. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    G: It simply isn’t anything unusual or different. Complaining about such trivial and typical matters only comes across bitter and whiny.

    I never once have complained about Obama spending time doing anything other than the work of the presidency. I would love to see him take a golf vacation for the next 18 months. You would hear no complaint from me about it. I have simply pointed out that those who contend Obama, the guy who can both walk and chew gum at the same time, did not have the time to do something are making absurdly lame apologies.

  240. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 12:40 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Where was your complaint when Bush spent almost a year of his presidency on vacation

    The same place it was with Obama. Non-existent.

  241. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 12:43 pm #

    Scientist: I said that using the prestige of the office to extract a meaningless form out of Hawaii (and it is meaningless since the COLB already established eligibility) was inappropriate.

    You also said the law or the regulations would not allow it.

    Have you found those regulations, yet?

  242. avatar
    G April 29, 2011 at 12:44 pm #

    Jes Beard: I never once have complained about Obama spending time doing anything other than the work of the presidency. I would love to see him take a golf vacation for the next 18 months. You would hear no complaint from me about it. I have simply pointed out that those who contend Obama, the guy who can both walk and chew gum at the same time, did not have the time to do something are making absurdly lame apologies.

    You are missing the point. No one isn’t saying that he can’t “walk and chew gum” at the same time or handle many things, both important and trivial.

    The point IS that he doesn’t need to waste spending ANY of his time on truly STUPID and CRAZY stuff at all. Such things are simply not worthy of serious attention. Even if he had all the free time in the world and nothing better to do, there is no point or value in his paying attention to it.

  243. avatar
    G April 29, 2011 at 12:45 pm #

    Jes Beard: If that is the best you can do by way of an apology, I guess that is the best you can do.

    Why do I owe you an apology on anything? I don’t.

  244. avatar
    Scientist April 29, 2011 at 12:57 pm #

    Jes Beard: You also said the law or the regulations would not allow it.
    Have you found those regulations, yet?

    I said the policy of the DOH was not to release certified copies. This has been the policy since 2001 as specifid by the current and former directors of the office.
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/hawaii-press-release-on-obama-long-form/

    You can tell me until you’re blue in the face that the policy violates the statute. No one complained from 2001-2009. Legal or not it was the policy. So, a person who wanted a long form had the following options:
    1. File an FOIA
    2. Sue DOH
    3. Lobby the Legislature to order to DOH to change policy.
    4. Ask for an exception.

    Obama chose #4. I told you that I don’t like his choice and explained why.

    Now I have 2 questions for you:

    1. Have you EVER admitted you were wrong?

    2. Are you married?

    Since the answer to #1 is clearly no, I’d say the answer to #2 is probably no also.

  245. avatar
    Suranis April 29, 2011 at 1:02 pm #

    Jes Beard:or respond to Lakin, and defended Obama by saying he was simply “too busy,

    Actually we defended him by saying he had better things to do, and Lakin would have gone to jail anyway.

    Thats not saying he was “too busy”

    Jes Beard: I can’t resist pointing out where Obama went immediately after the short White House statement he made when he released the long form….. off to Chicago for taping of the Oprah program with Michelle and for three fundraisers.

    Actually, you have it backwards. After doing something completely pointless and silly, went off to do something fare more important, like appearing on Oprah.

    You do remember during your smearing that George bush played so mych Golf during his terms that he put his knee out than had to give it up… then said in an interview that he was giving up his golf game for the troops.

  246. avatar
    Suranis April 29, 2011 at 1:14 pm #

    Oh you know the place Bush Jr was when planes hit the twin towers? He was at a primary school. Busy man, to borrow your phrase

  247. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 29, 2011 at 1:36 pm #

    Jes Beard: The same place it was with Obama. Non-existent.

    Really then why bring up the golf trips or NCAA brackets to begin with? The birther nonissue has no right even being in the news

  248. avatar
    Majority Will April 29, 2011 at 1:46 pm #

    Jes Beard: Defending Lakin?

    I never have.

    That is one of the problems you, and several others here seem to have. You want an echo chamber, and if anyone says anything which is not in perfect conformity with your echo, which might to any degree suggest that Obama is somehow less than saintly, or which asks a sincerely question or suggests that somehow those challenging Obama might be raising a legitimate issue, you feel compelled to attack. Forget about reasoning.

    You are every bit as bad as many on the other side.

    What a steaming load of crap. You are dancing like a possessed madman and moving goalposts faster than any birther I’ve ever seen.

    Jes Beard April 27, 2011 at 8:22 pm (Quote) #
    “Larkin (sic) raised his concern, and wrote Obama with it, well before he was to deploy. It was a concern Larkin would not even have had if Obama had made the long form available from the start. Larkin’s concern, whether misplaced or not, was in good faith. If Obama had sent a copy of the record to Larkin in response to Larkin’s letter, which was a perfectly respectful letter, there would not even have been a courts martial.”

    That is erroneous, inane drivel and filled with baseless speculation. And it reads like a pathetic defense of Lakin’s reprehensible actions. Good faith? According to whom? You?
    Respectful? To question the authority of your Commander in Chief without credible evidence and after your superiors have told you that you are wrong and that a political question has no bearing on disobeying lawful orders?

    There would not have been a courts martial for disobeying lawful orders? Really? Is that your legal opinion?

    The other side? You’ve chosen a side? Really? It’s damn near impossible to believe anything you write.

    And you can shove your sanctimonious b.s.

  249. avatar
    JoZeppy April 29, 2011 at 2:05 pm #

    Jes Beard: I have simply pointed out that those who contend Obama, the guy who can both walk and chew gum at the same time, did not have the time to do something are making absurdly lame apologies.

    Why would anyone need to make appoligies for Obama? You are operating from the presumption that the President owed Lakin any response or consideration, or that Lakin’s ultimate fate is the fault of anyone but himself. The fact of the matter is that the President owed Lakin no such response. Lakin didn’t deserve a response. It is not his place to decide whether the President is qualified or not, and as is obviously evident, he is not remotely to qualified or knowledgeble enough to make such a determination. He disobeyed a lawful direct order, a violation of the UCMJ. His reasons for ignoring that direct order are irrelevant. President Obama had nothing to do with that, nor is President Obama required to save Lakin from his own foolishness.

  250. avatar
    Wile E. April 29, 2011 at 2:52 pm #

    Jes Beard: You also said the law or the regulations would not allow it.

    Have you found those regulations, yet?

    Have you found the law or the regulations that would have required the DOH to furnish a so-called long form?

    Is it still your belief that President Obama has long been in possession of his so-called long form and was “simply waiting to present it at the most opportune moment” “in utter disregard to the polarization” produced because of his actions? Do you really think the recent release of his second fer real BC will solve the polarization that you feel he has caused?

    Is it still your position that “Hawaii is extremely lax in issuing birth certificates, and 338-16, which I also set out, makes that pretty clear. About all that was required was for a parent or grandparent to fill out a form and say baby Barrack was born at home on August 4th and ask for a birth certificate, and one was issued.”?

  251. avatar
    Suranis April 29, 2011 at 3:12 pm #

    Jes Beard: You also said the law or the regulations would not allow it.

    Have you found those regulations, yet?

    I showed you where the regulations were. You refused to read them.

  252. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 3:46 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Really then why bring up the golf trips or NCAA brackets to begin with?

    Read it in context. The purpose was clear. It was in response G’s contention that “the President is busy with much more important things.” Yes…. like filling in his NCAA brackets.

    I have never belittled him for that (though I have commented elsewhere that it was politically foolish) or his golf games or basketball games or any other leisure time activities. I have merely pointed out that they render lame the excuse many of his apologists give that he was “too busy” to do something.

  253. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 3:48 pm #

    Suranis: I showed you where the regulations were. You refused to read them.

    No. You provided links to regulations which did not even begin to support your position. But if you want to find that text, paste it here and provide the link, I would love to have you show me wrong.

  254. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 3:53 pm #

    Wile E.: Have you found the law or the regulations that would have required the DOH to furnish a so-called long form?

    Yes. HRS 338-18, taken together with 338-13.

    Wile E.: Is it still your belief that President Obama has long been in possession of his so-called long form and was “simply waiting to present it at the most opportune moment” “in utter disregard to the polarization” produced because of his actions?

    That is what he just did.

    Wile E.: Do you really think the recent release of his second fer real BC will solve the polarization that you feel he has caused?

    Not at this point. Obama has never been concerned about polarization, and has often acted to exacerbate it, not just on this issue, but many others. He could have avoided it on this issue if he had acted as I suggested he should have, addressing it quite openly and directly back in June of 2008.

    Wile E.: s it still your position that “Hawaii is extremely lax in issuing birth certificates, and 338-16, which I also set out, makes that pretty clear. About all that was required was for a parent or grandparent to fill out a form and say baby Barrack was born at home on August 4th and ask for a birth certificate, and one was issued.”?

    Yes. I am not certain of the code section, since I am not bothering to look it up, but, yes.

  255. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 3:54 pm #

    JoZeppy: Why would anyone need to make appoligies for Obama?

    Then stop making them. Particularly the lame ones like, he was too busy.

  256. avatar
    Scientist April 29, 2011 at 3:55 pm #

    Disbarred ex-attorney Jes Beard:

    The policy of the DOH was not to release certified copies of original records. This has been the policy since 2001 as specified by the current and former directors of the office.
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/hawaii-press-release-on-obama-long-form/

    Now that may not be good enough for you, but your opinion is irrelevant since you couldn”t even handle plain garden variety cases in Tennessee without royally f’ing them up. You don’t know your @$$ from your elbow.

    How do you have the chutzpah to propound on the law?

  257. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 29, 2011 at 3:57 pm #

    Jes Beard: Yes. I am not certain of the code section, since I am not bothering to look it up, but, yes.

    Well you better look it up, ’cause I’m not believing you.

  258. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 3:59 pm #

    Majority Will: There would not have been a courts martial for disobeying lawful orders? Really? Is that your legal opinion?

    The other side? You’ve chosen a side?

    There would have been no court martial for disobeying orders if they had not been disobeyed. And it is my belief that Lakin would have obey them had he seen a certified copy of a long form birth certificate.

    As to the other side, would you not agree that you are on a side? Would you not agree that those you call “birthers” are on the “other side”?

    Have I chosen a side?

    No. I haven’t. I think you are both out to lunch.

  259. avatar
    Scientist April 29, 2011 at 3:59 pm #

    Jes Beard: Obama has never been concerned about polarization, and has often acted to exacerbate it, not just on this issue, but many others. He could have avoided it on this issue if he had acted as I suggested he should have, addressing it quite openly and directly back in June of 2008.

    Oh, did you advise Obama in June 2008? I must have missed that. Now can you tell me why the President of the United States should take advice from a disbarred ex-attorney who couldn’t handle simple cases?

    You make Donald Trump look modest.

  260. avatar
    Ellen April 29, 2011 at 4:02 pm #

    Re: “it is my belief that Lakin would have obey them had he seen a certified copy of a long form birth certificate.”

    So US officers have the right to see the president’s birth certificate? Or, are you saying that whenever an officer is ordered to do something, she or he can say “not till I see a copy of the president’s birth certificate.”

  261. avatar
    Greg April 29, 2011 at 4:02 pm #

    Jes Beard: That is what he just did.

    So, he was lying when he said he requested it? And the DOH was lying when they said they provided it?

    Jes Beard: But if you want to find that text, paste it here and provide the link, I would love to have you show me wrong.

    Here’s what the Department of Hawaii says:

    In 2001, the Hawai’i State Department of Health began computer-generating vital statistics records. Since then, its longstanding policy and practice has been to issue and provide only the computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth, and to not produce photocopies of actual records to fulfill requests for certified copies of certificates.

    Director Fuddy made an exception for President Obama by issuing copies of the original birth certificate. The departmental policy to issue only computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth remains in effect for all birth records that have been computerized. Director Fuddy, in her capacity as Health Director, has the legal authority to approve the process by which copies of birth records are made.

    Are they lying, too?

    Why were you disbarred?

    Why should I take the opinion of a disbarred attorney over the Director of the Department of Health?

  262. avatar
    Scientist April 29, 2011 at 4:06 pm #

    Jes Beard: And it is my belief that Lakin would have obey them had he seen a certified copy of a long form birth certificate

    So what, Mr disbarred ex-attorney? It’s not the President’s job to cajole or placate members of the military into obeying orders. It’s their job to obey. This is an all-volunteer military and you join knowing that you may get orders you think are idiotic and have commanders that are incompetent. If you can’t handle that, you stay a civilian.

    You don’t have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

  263. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 4:08 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Well you better look it up, ’cause I’m not believing you.

    I don’t particularly care whether you do or not. I have not desire to persuade you on it. I was asked if I believed it. I answered the question. For me, that is the end of the issue. I don’t give a rat’s ass about the issue.

  264. avatar
    JoZeppy April 29, 2011 at 4:09 pm #

    Jes Beard: There would have been no court martial for disobeying orders if they had not been disobeyed. And it is my belief that Lakin would have obey them had he seen a certified copy of a long form birth certificate.

    And I’m sure there would be fewer bank robberies if banks just gave out money to people who asked….do you realize how fundamentally dumb your argument is? So now the President has to waste his time answering questions that have arelady been answered, to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that feel they need special treatment, and aren’t smart enough to recognize it? I’m sorry, we’re not in some special ed class were poor little Mr. Lakin needs to have his hand held and his bottom wiped after going to the potty. He was an office in the US Army. I really don’t care to speculate what Lakin could have or would have done if he had seen a certified copy of anything. It’s not the President’s job to save Lakin from his own ignorance. I thought conservative were all about personal responsibility?

    Jes Beard: As to the other side, would you not agree that you are on a side? Would you not agree that those you call “birthers” are on the “other side”?

    Yes, I’m on a side with facts, and birthers are living in the fact optional world.

    Jes Beard: Have I chosen a side?
    No. I haven’t. I think you are both out to lunch.

    And I think you are incompetent, and lack candor in your discussions with others…Oh wait…that was the Tennessee Supreme Court.

  265. avatar
    Greg April 29, 2011 at 4:10 pm #

    Jes Beard: I don’t particularly care whether you do or not. I have not desire to persuade you on it.

    Now you’re just fomenting polarization!

  266. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 4:10 pm #

    Scientist: Oh, did you advise Obama in June 2008? I must have missed that.

    What you did miss was me ever saying I had advised Obama of anything. The reason you missed it is because I never said it.

  267. avatar
    JoZeppy April 29, 2011 at 4:15 pm #

    Jes Beard: Then stop making them. Particularly the lame ones like, he was too busy.

    1) It is not an apology. An apology implies someone has done something wrong and has something to apologize for. That is not the case here.

    2) Even if the President is sitting at his desk, surfing for porn, I contend that is a better use of his time than answering the questions of someone not smart enough to recognize the answer when it’s given to them, particularly when they have no business asking the question in the first place, and even more so when they refuse to do the job they are being paid for until they get an answer to the question they have no business asking.

  268. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 29, 2011 at 4:19 pm #

    Jes Beard: Read it in context. The purpose was clear. It was in response G’s contention that “the President is busy with much more important things.” Yes…. like filling in his NCAA brackets.I have never belittled him for that (though I have commented elsewhere that it was politically foolish) or his golf games or basketball games or any other leisure time activities. I have merely pointed out that they render lame the excuse many of his apologists give that he was “too busy” to do something.

    I’d say Golfing and the NCAA was more important than a birth certificate nonissue that was solved over 2 years ago. You keep talking about it. It’s not a lame excuse the whole birther crap should never have been an issue in the first place. It just shows some people are still stuck in the 50s

  269. avatar
    JoZeppy April 29, 2011 at 4:19 pm #

    Jes Beard: Yes. I am not certain of the code section, since I am not bothering to look it up, but, yes.

    And that is why you are a former attorney.

  270. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 29, 2011 at 4:22 pm #

    Jes Beard: There would have been no court martial for disobeying orders if they had not been disobeyed. And it is my belief that Lakin would have obey them had he seen a certified copy of a long form birth certificate.

    We only have speculation on that question. It really depends on whether Lakiin was just trying to be a hero by resolving what he felt was a constitutional crisis, or he had bought into the whole birther mythology. There are certainly no shortage of birthers who remain so even after the long form was shown.

    To any reasonable person, the short form birth certificate is more than enough evidence to convince where the President was born. Any authority could have told Lakin the evidentiary value of the short form. So LTC Terry Lakin was not acting like a reasonable person (or not acting like a reasonably-informed person). Given his prior aberrant behavior, I don’t have confidence in an argument that he would have acted differently even having seen the long form birth certificate.

    Lakin can do the most damage to Barack Obama by saying “if he had just shown the long form sooner, I would not have disobeyed orders.” What will he actually say?

  271. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 29, 2011 at 4:24 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: We only have speculation on that question. It really depends on whether Lakiin was just trying to be a hero by resolving what he felt was a constitutional crisis, or he had bought into the whole birther mythology. There are certainly no shortage of birthers who remain so even after the long form was shown.

    To any reasonable person, the short form birth certificate is more than enough evidence to convince where the President was born. Any authority could have told Lakin the evidentiary value of the short form. So LTC Terry Lakin was not acting like a reasonable person (or not acting like a reasonably-informed person). Given his prior aberrant behavior, I don’t have confidence in an argument that he would have acted differently even having seen the long form birth certificate.

    Lakin can do the most damage to Barack Obama by saying “if he had just shown the long form sooner, I would not have disobeyed orders.” But since when does it make sense to say “I won’t follow orders until the President provides TWO birth certificates.” What will he actually say?

  272. avatar
    Scientist April 29, 2011 at 4:26 pm #

    JoZeppy: And that is why you are a former attorney

    Yes, he pronounces incorrectly on citizenship law and not only won’t look it up, but when given the actual law, won’t admit his error. He is shown what the policy of the DOH of Hawaii is in wriiting byy the Director, yet he knows better. Disbarred ex-attorney Jes Beard is the ultimate authority on everything.

  273. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 4:28 pm #

    Greg: Jes Beard: That is what he just did.

    So, he was lying when he said he requested it? And the DOH was lying when they said they provided it?

    I think Obama is lying most of the time he says anything, but I did not say either were lying in the post you were asking about. That post, with the question I was responding to and the response is immediately below.

    Jes Beard: Wile E.: Is it still your belief that President Obama has long been in possession of his so-called long form and was “simply waiting to present it at the most opportune moment” “in utter disregard to the polarization” produced because of his actions?

    That is what he just did.

    I never suggested that Obama did not also request a copy of the long form last week. I merely said I believe he has long been in possession of it, though releasing this week a copy which was certified in 2007 or 2008 likely would not have looked good or fit his narrative.

    Greg: Here’s what the Department of Hawaii says:

    In 2001, the Hawai’i State Department of Health began computer-generating vital statistics records. Since then, its longstanding policy and practice has been to issue and provide only the computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth, and to not produce photocopies of actual records to fulfill requests for certified copies of certificates.

    Director Fuddy made an exception for President Obama by issuing copies of the original birth certificate. The departmental policy to issue only computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth remains in effect for all birth records that have been computerized. Director Fuddy, in her capacity as Health Director, has the legal authority to approve the process by which copies of birth records are made.

    Are they lying, too?

    There are certified long form copies of Hawaiian Certificates of Life Birth which have been issued since the computerization began in 2001, so, yes, I believe the statement you quoted from the Department is inaccurate. For it to be a lie, the person making it would have to know that the statement was false. I don’t know that to be the case.

    As to Fuddy having the authority to approve the process, that is not quite what the Department rules and regulations state. I assume you have noticed that despite everyone contending that the “policy” of the Department is not to release copies of the original records, no one, not even once, has ever actually referred to such a policy by the rule or regulation number or quoting any language or referring to any document in existence before the fall of 2008.

  274. avatar
    misha April 29, 2011 at 4:30 pm #

    Scientist: Disbarred ex-attorney Jes Beard is the ultimate authority on everything.

    Just like Jensen is the ultimate authority on dog bites, and everything else.

  275. avatar
    Scientist April 29, 2011 at 4:31 pm #

    Jes Beard: I think Obama is lying most of the time he says anything

    Coming from one who “lacks candor in your discussions with others” that’s rich!!!

  276. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 4:33 pm #

    Scientist: He is shown what the policy of the DOH of Hawaii is in wriiting byy the Director, yet he knows better.

    State agencies do not get to determine policies such as access to vital records on an ad hoc basis without putting them in writing well in advance and having them available for review. The fact that the Director in a news release in April of 2009 said it was the policy is meaningless on the question of whether a valid policy or regulation to that effect existed.

    If it did, point it out to me. The link and a quote of the text would suffice.

  277. avatar
    Scientist April 29, 2011 at 4:36 pm #

    Jes Beard: There are certified long form copies of Hawaiian Certificates of Life Birth which have been issued since the computerization began in 2001,

    No, there have not. Miki Booth’s contains no proof that it was issued in 2010. Danae’s was not certified and I”m not convinced as too when it was issued.

    Jes Beard: I assume you have noticed that despite everyone contending that the “policy” of the Department is not to release copies of the original records, no one, not even once, has ever actually referred to such a policy by the rule or regulation number or quoting any language or referring to any document in existence before the fall of 2008

    Not every policy has a regulation number. The policy was made public when it went into effect in 2001. It is not a new policy.

  278. avatar
    y_p_w April 29, 2011 at 4:36 pm #

    Jes Beard:
    As to Fuddy having the authority to approve the process, that is not quite what the Department rules and regulations state.I assume you have noticed that despite everyone contending that the “policy” of the Department is not to release copies of the original records, no one, not even once, has ever actually referred to such a policy by the rule or regulation number or quoting any language or referring to any document in existence before the fall of 2008.

    The Hawaii Dept of Health just released the policy memo as part of the current release of the “long form”:

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/Policy_Memo_5_15_2001.PDF

    It’s dated May 15, 2001 and signed by then Director of Health Bruce Anderson. There is no rule or regulation number per se, but it does have some file code OHSM as a reference.

  279. avatar
    Scientist April 29, 2011 at 4:41 pm #

    Disbarred ex-attorney Jes Beard maintains his perfect record of being wrong. Incompetent and lacking in candor.

  280. avatar
    Thrifty April 29, 2011 at 4:43 pm #

    Jes Beard: There would have been no court martial for disobeying orders if they had not been disobeyed. And it is my belief that Lakin would have obey them had he seen a certified copy of a long form birth certificate.

    So soldiers have a right to choose which orders they feel like obeying, based on conditions of their own decinding? This is great! I should join the military, and disobey all orders, saying “I’m not following orders until the president gives me a pony!”

  281. avatar
    Suranis April 29, 2011 at 4:44 pm #

    Jes Beard: Suranis: I showed you where the regulations were. You refused to read them.

    No. You provided links to regulations which did not even begin to support your position. But if you want to find that text, paste it here and provide the link, I would love to have you show me wrong.

    THEN I quoted the actual laws (338-13 and 338-18) and explained what they meant. At which point you mysteriously dropped all mention of the issue in the thread. Then you come back with it here and pretend nothing had happened.

    And of course you read the law and get the opposite.

    Jes Beard: Wile E.: Have you found the law or the regulations that would have required the DOH to furnish a so-called long form?

    Yes. HRS 338-18, taken together with 338-13.

    So your citing the law that allows the department to issue A PART of the record as a response to someones request, and which tells the department that they MUST NOT release records UNLESS the person has a tangable interest AND the release agrees with the rules set down by the DOH, as actually supporting your position?

    No wonder your ass was disbarred. I would make a better Lawyer of American law than you and I don’t even live in the USA.

  282. avatar
    Greg April 29, 2011 at 4:46 pm #

    Jes Beard: I think Obama is lying most of the time he says anything

    I think you are a lawyer who was disbarred for, among other things, lack of candor.

    Are you now relying on Takes one to Know One when you claim that Obama is lying most of the time?

  283. avatar
    Wile E. April 29, 2011 at 4:49 pm #

    Jes Beard: I don’t particularly care whether you do or not.I have not desire to persuade you on it.I was asked if I believed it.I answered the question.For me, that is the end of the issue.I don’t give a rat’s ass about the issue.

    Well you certainly gave a rat’s ass about it when you cited it as “””one reason some of those wanting to see the long form contend it is relevant”””.

    You obviously don’t give a rat’s ass either about admitting when you are wrong about something…..anything. That’s why you come off as a jerk-vomit.

  284. avatar
    y_p_w April 29, 2011 at 5:19 pm #

    I used some online OCR tool to extract the text from the memo, and I had to shuffle the text around for correctness:

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/Policy_Memo_5_15_2001.PDF

    BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO
    GOVERNOR OF HAWAII

    BRUCE S. ANDERSON, Ph.D., M.P.H. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH

    In repIy, please refer to:
    File: OHSM

    STATE OF HAWAII
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
    PO. BOX 3378 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96801
    May 15, 2001

    MEMORANDUM

    TO: All OHSM Staff

    FROM: Bruce S. Anderson, Ph.D., M.P.H.
    Director of Health

    SUBJECT: CERTIFIED COPIES OF VITAL RECORDS ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

    This is to officially inform you that the Department of Health will henceforth issue and provide only computer-generated abstracts of birth and marriage records and cease to produce photocopies of actual records to satisfy requests for certified copies of certificates by individuals, private organizations, and government agencies. This change in Department of Health policy is made pursuant to statutory restrictions on the disclosure of certain items of information contained in vital records and the computerization of our birth and marriage records from 1909 to the present.

    Please direct all inquiries for further information or clarification of this policy to Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, State Registrar and Chief of the Office of Health Status Monitoring at (808) 586-4600.

  285. avatar
    Scientist April 29, 2011 at 5:20 pm #

    y_p_w: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/Policy_Memo_5_15_2001.PDF
    It’s dated May 15, 2001 and signed by then Director of Health Bruce Anderson. There is no rule or regulation number per se, but it does have some file code OHSM as a reference.

    So let’s review the situation so that even an ex-attorney disbarred for incompetence and lack of candor can understand:

    1. The Hawaii DOH had a written policy in effect since May 2001 that they would not produce photocopies of actual records.
    2. In May 2001, Barack Obama was an obscure Illinois State Senator. It would be pretty outlandish to suggest that Hawaii made a policy with the idea that he would be President some day and that there would be birthers in mind.
    3. Getting around the policy required an exception granted by the Director. No request for such an exception is on record prior to a few days ago
    4. There is thus no reason to believe that the President had a long form prior to a few days ago. Obviously he had a pre-2001 birth certiificate at some point since he had passports. There is no way to know what happened to it, but we know once he got his first passport he could renew it without a birth certificate and the passport would obviate the need for a birth certificcate, so it is not unreasonablle to speculate that he lost it.
    5. Could the President have requested an exception in 2008? I guess. Would it have been granted? We don’t know. The governorship was in Republican hands and he was not President at that time. Hawaii was not being inundated with requests at that time, so that motivation to grant the exception did not exist. So the answer to that is unclear.
    6. There was no reason in 2008 to think that the COLB would be insufficient. It certainly struck me as perfectly adequate to prove birth in Hawaii. But then I am not an ex-attorney disbarred for incompetence and lack of candor

  286. avatar
    y_p_w April 29, 2011 at 5:52 pm #

    Scientist:
    4. There is thus no reason to believe that the President had a long form prior to a few days ago.Obviously he had a pre-2001 birth certiificate at some point since he had passports.There is no way to know what happened to it, but we know once he got hisfirst passport he could renew it without a birth certificate and the passport would obviate the need for a birth certificcate, so it is not unreasonablle to speculate that he lost it.

    I came across an image of a typed transcript abstract Hawaii BC issued in 1973. The BC mentioned in Obama’s memoir could have been in that format.

    Yeah – I’ve found that a passport (or passport card) is extremely useful as proof of citizenship.

  287. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 7:18 pm #

    Scientist: No, there have not. Miki Booth’s contains no proof that it was issued in 2010. Danae’s was not certified and I”m not convinced as too when it was issued.

    Jes Beard: I assume you have noticed that despite everyone contending that the “policy” of the Department is not to release copies of the original records, no one, not even once, has ever actually referred to such a policy by the rule or regulation number or quoting any language or referring to any document in existence before the fall of 2008

    Not every policy has a regulation number. The policy was made public when it went into effect in 2001. It is not a new policy.

    You mean other than the date on the certification, the Booth COLB has no “prrof” as to when it was issued. You are sounding just like the nutjobs in the birther camp in doubting anything and everything coming from Obama.

    Remember, I am NOT contending that Obama was not born in Hawaii, just that that nation has been gamed on the issue of the availability of the long form. Obama has played the issue in such a way as to allow a claim of racism against anyone who opposes him.

    Without addressing the question of whether a policy needs a regulation number, it does need to be in writing…. I assume you are cutting and pasting the text of that policy, and the link to it right now…..

  288. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 7:23 pm #

    Scientist: y_p_w: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/Policy_Memo_5_15_2001.PDF
    It’s dated May 15, 2001 and signed by then Director of Health Bruce Anderson. There is no rule or regulation number per se, but it does have some file code OHSM as a reference.

    So let’s review the situation so that even an ex-attorney disbarred for incompetence and lack of candor can understand:

    1. The Hawaii DOH had a written policy in effect since May 2001 that they would not produce photocopies of actual records.

    That “policy” was not a regulation, and had no force of law. Hawaii sets out the procedure for adoption of regulations, which do have the force of law, and a memo to staff is not it. That policy was meaningless as a prohibition on the Department issuing long form birth certificates.

  289. avatar
    James M April 29, 2011 at 7:25 pm #

    Jes Beard: I am NOT contending that Obama was not born in Hawaii

    Of course not. To do so would necessarily come *after* a criminal conviction against Dr. Onaka for forgery.

  290. avatar
    Greg April 29, 2011 at 7:33 pm #

    Jes Beard: That “policy” was not a regulation, and had no force of law. Hawaii sets out the procedure for adoption of regulations, which do have the force of law, and a memo to staff is not it. That policy was meaningless as a prohibition on the Department issuing long form birth certificates.

    You can cite the Hawaiian APA that says such a policy has no force in law?

  291. avatar
    Scientist April 29, 2011 at 7:35 pm #

    Jes Beard: That “policy” was not a regulation, and had no force of law.

    A disbarred incompetent ex-attorney hasn’t a freaking clue what has and does not have force of law. You wouldn’t know the law if it knocked you in the head. Your credibiility is ZIP, Mr lack of candor.

    Jes Beard: That policy was meaningless as a prohibition on the Department issuing long form birth certificates

    No, what’s meaningless is the assinine spoutings of a disgraced hack, which is all you are.

  292. avatar
    G April 29, 2011 at 7:45 pm #

    Jes Beard: Read it in context. The purpose was clear. It was in response G’s contention that “the President is busy with much more important things.” Yes…. like filling in his NCAA brackets.I have never belittled him for that (though I have commented elsewhere that it was politically foolish) or his golf games or basketball games or any other leisure time activities. I have merely pointed out that they render lame the excuse many of his apologists give that he was “too busy” to do something.

    Jes Beard: Then stop making them. Particularly the lame ones like, he was too busy.

    Then you still FAIL to grasp the context…or are being dishonest in your defense at this point and trying to pull a straw-man argument to cover your tracks.

    The CONTEXT was explained and “made clear” to you when I answered you earlier:

    G: You are missing the point. No one isn’t saying that he can’t “walk and chew gum” at the same time or handle many things, both important and trivial.The point IS that he doesn’t need to waste spending ANY of his time on truly STUPID and CRAZY stuff at all. Such things are simply not worthy of serious attention. Even if he had all the free time in the world and nothing better to do, there is no point or value in his paying attention to it.

  293. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 8:06 pm #

    Suranis: Jes Beard: Suranis: I showed you where the regulations were. You refused to read them.

    No. You provided links to regulations which did not even begin to support your position. But if you want to find that text, paste it here and provide the link, I would love to have you show me wrong.

    THEN I quoted the actual laws (338-13 and 338-18) and explained what they meant. At which point you mysteriously dropped all mention of the issue in the thread. Then you come back with it here and pretend nothing had happened.

    And of course you read the law and get the opposite.

    Jes Beard: Wile E.: Have you found the law or the regulations that would have required the DOH to furnish a so-called long form?

    Yes. HRS 338-18, taken together with 338-13.

    So your citing the law that allows the department to issue A PART of the record as a response to someones request, and which tells the department that they MUST NOT release records UNLESS the person has a tangable interest AND the release agrees with the rules set down by the DOH, as actually supporting your position?

    Suranis, I have gone over this once before, I believe for your slow friend Scientist, but I will do it again for you, and I’ll type slowly so you can follow it.

    When the statute says the Department can release all or part of the record, it is not giving the Department the discretion, not as it is worded. It is giving the person requesting the record the discretion. How or why do I say this? Because interpreting it as giving the Department the discretion would be nonsense, it would give the Department the discretion to photocopy a portion of the record which was a blank page, or just a page number or just the certification number. The way the statute is worded leaves an ambiguity as to who has the discretion in choosing the full record or just a partial record, but an interpretation which leaves that discretion entirely with the Department is nonsensical, and is why the interpretation I have advanced is clearly the right interpretation.

    sfjeff: And what he released today has the same legal weight as what he released 2 years ago.

    And you are still doubting.

    Still doubting what? I have said clearly and repeatedly that I believe he was born in Hawaii. Is there something else the birth certificate is supposed to establish? I have made clear that I would believe he was born in Hawaii if there WERE no birth certificate.

  294. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 8:10 pm #

    G: The CONTEXT was explained and “made clear” to you when I answered you earlier:

    G: You are missing the point. No one isn’t saying that he can’t “walk and chew gum” at the same time or handle many things, both important and trivial.The point IS that he doesn’t need to waste spending ANY of his time on truly STUPID and CRAZY stuff at all. Such things are simply not worthy of serious attention.

    I know. Oprah interviews, NCAA picks, golf, basketball and fundraising are serious issues for a president’s attention.

    Look, if you were simply to say Obama didn’t want to do it, I can accept that. What I am disputing is the claim that he did not have the time. THAT is what is bullshit, and an extremely lame defense of the guy.

  295. avatar
    Scientist April 29, 2011 at 8:16 pm #

    Jes Beard: the interpretation I have advanced is clearly the right interpretation.

    No, Mr incompetent,lacking candor disbarred ex-attorney.your interpretation is wrong. You have no competency to interpret Hawaiian law or any other. The Dept of Health has been operating under the policies spelled out in the memo of May 15, 2001 for 10 years, whether you think they have the right to do so or not. They didn’t ask for your interpretation, they ACTED. Maybe they have acted illegally in your opinion, but that is how they have run their show. What are you going to do about it, big boy?

  296. avatar
    G April 29, 2011 at 8:27 pm #

    Jes Beard: Not at this point. Obama has never been concerned about polarization, and has often acted to exacerbate it, not just on this issue, but many others. He could have avoided it on this issue if he had acted as I suggested he should have, addressing it quite openly and directly back in June of 2008.

    Yeah, right… what an biased piece of dreck! If by “polarizing” you mean that he had the “audacity” to get elected and some bitter folks just can’t stand that and hold it against him for the mere fact that he exists….

    And if he pushes back at all when people attack him…how dare he, right? Puh-lease!

    I guess you want him to just roll-over and not point out ANY flaws he sees in his opponents legislation or priorities? Of course you would… you wish everyone would not point out your mistakes, flaws and errors too. So, I guess this is mere projection and gut-level bitterness on your behalf.

    I see a President who has, perhaps excessively bent over backwards in attempts of bipartisanship, only to have them thrown in his face at every attempt.

    Jes Beard: I think Obama is lying most of the time he says anything.

    Wow… a generalized ad hominem attack! Face it, you have some petty gut-level bias against the man that is purely a reflection of your internal issues with him/the world and not rational.

    You’ve made it clear that you suffer from ODS. The question is what drives yours? Is it mere ideological bigotry? Is it something more personal? Does it bother you knowing that you’re a failed and disbarred lawyer and here we have a man who reached one of the highest honors in law, becoming President of the Harvard Law Review and eventually President of the USA?

  297. avatar
    Suranis April 29, 2011 at 8:30 pm #

    Jes Beard: Suranis, I have gone over this once before, I believe for your slow friend Scientist, but I will do it again for you, and I’ll type slowly so you can follow it.

    When the statute says the Department can release all or part of the record, it is not giving the Department the discretion, not as it is worded.It is giving the person requesting the record the discretion.How or why do I say this?Because interpreting it as giving the Department the discretion would be nonsense, it would give the Department the discretion to photocopy a portion of the record which was a blank page, or just a page number or just the certification number.The way the statute is worded leaves an ambiguity as to who has the discretion in choosing the full record or just a partial record, but an interpretation which leaves that discretion entirely with the Department is nonsensical, and is why the interpretation I have advanced is clearly the right interpretation.

    No, because in COMBINATION with 338-18, which I remind you charges the DOH with protecting the privacy of its records “except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.”, it DOES give the department the power to give out whatever information it sees fit. Did you see something like “all or part of the records as requested by the petitioner” No! the petitioner is barely mentioned. It just has a list of the people that can access the data and that’s it. All the power is invested in the law and the rules of the DOH. that’s it.

    I mean even reading down the statute

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

    from 331-13

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

    I don’t see the petitioner anywhere. Its “as authorized by the Director of health” all the way through.

    In any case that’s the interpretation as used by the DOH for the past 10 years and no-one had a problem with it till a black guy whipped out his birth cert.

    And I didn’t see you bitch about Donalt Trumps “Certification of Birth” either.

  298. avatar
    Scientist April 29, 2011 at 8:42 pm #

    Let me try to be as clear as I can so that even the most incompetent ethically-challenged disbarred ex-attorney can understand. The clerks who process requests for documents don’t sit and read the statutes. They take their orders from the director who says “No long forms”. He not only says so, he has written a memo. So what do you think will happen if I go in and ask for a long form? The clerk will say no. Supposing I show the clerk the statute and tell them, “Incompetent, lacking candor disbarred ex-attorney Jes Beard says the law says you have to give me a long form”. Guess what the clerk STILL says? “No.” So, I don’t get the long form. If I hire an actual competent licensed attorney and sue, maybe I win and get a court order and get my long form. But if I decide suing is too much trouble, guess what? I don’t get a long form.

    That is the reality. That is how the world works.

  299. avatar
    y_p_w April 29, 2011 at 8:46 pm #

    Scientist: No, Mr incompetent,lacking candor disbarred ex-attorney.your interpretation is wrong.You have no competency to interpret Hawaiian law or any other.The Dept of Health has been operating under the policies spelled out in the memo of May 15, 2001 for 10 years, whether you think they have the right to do so or not. They didn’t ask for your interpretation, they ACTED.Maybe they have acted illegally in your opinion, but that is how they have run their show.What are you going to do about it, big boy?

    Well – here are the administrative rules for JB to sort through. Maybe they had public hearings or not. However – I agree that they’ve operated this way for almost 10 years, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Director of Health had the statutory authority to make executive decisions on the various policies.

    http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/admrules/default.aspx

    Of course JB is welcome to fly to Honolulu and file a request for documents relating to this policy under UIPA.

  300. avatar
    G April 29, 2011 at 8:52 pm #

    Jes Beard: As to the other side, would you not agree that you are on a side? Would you not agree that those you call “birthers” are on the “other side”?Have I chosen a side?No. I haven’t. I think you are both out to lunch.

    Well, that is like saying that there are two sides in the argument of heliocentricism vs. geocentricism.

    One is based on reality, facts and evidence and the other is based in a deep rooted need believe in delusional myths on utter faith alone.

    It is nothing but a false equivalency. In such comparisons, there is simply right and reality and the “other” argument is utter bunk.

    So yeah, I’m on the side of reality, facts and evidence. You – you’re a bit blinded by your ODS.

  301. avatar
    obsolete April 29, 2011 at 9:10 pm #

    Jes Beard: You mean other than the date on the certification, the Booth COLB has no “prrof” as to when it was issued.

    The first image of the Booth COLB was small, but it clearly gave the year of issue as 2001.
    Birthers have repeatedly forged and altered COLB’s and other documents, and then turn around and accuse the President of doing it.

  302. avatar
    G April 29, 2011 at 10:06 pm #

    Jes Beard: There are certified long form copies of Hawaiian Certificates of Life Birth which have been issued since the computerization began in 2001, so, yes, I believe the statement you quoted from the Department is inaccurate. For it to be a lie, the person making it would have to know that the statement was false. I don’t know that to be the case.

    Not CERTIFIED copies, NO.

    And your only examples consist of one mere “photocopy” and one document that is suspect of being from 2001, not 2011. Not that any of this really matters for squat, but keep crying over sour grapes and looking for meaningless tangents to nitpick.

    Jes Beard:
    As to Fuddy having the authority to approve the process, that is not quite what the Department rules and regulations state. I assume you have noticed that despite everyone contending that the “policy” of the Department is not to release copies of the original records, no one, not even once, has ever actually referred to such a policy by the rule or regulation number or quoting any language or referring to any document in existence before the fall of 2008.

    You’ve already been given this answer. In case you forgot:

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/Policy_Memo_5_15_2001.PDF

    Jes Beard: That “policy” was not a regulation, and had no force of law. Hawaii sets out the procedure for adoption of regulations, which do have the force of law, and a memo to staff is not it. That policy was meaningless as a prohibition on the Department issuing long form birth certificates.

    Yeah… read that memo again. It is pretty clear. If you are arguing that organizations don’t follow their written policies issued in memo’s, then you really have NO idea how both businesses and government agencies operate in the real world.

    It is called OPERATIONAL POLICY. Such things are internal regulations. That is how a business organization – whether public, private or non-profit operates on the ground on a day-to-day basis.

    Laws and larger regulations are a larger sized framework in which these policies operate. If you wish to “contest” the legality of those policies, then you would have to take them court. Good luck with that.

  303. avatar
    Rickey April 29, 2011 at 10:28 pm #

    Jes Beard:
    I also never disputed what you posted, but arguing over whether 12 days is “well before” or “at the last minute” is rather pointless.

    Seriously? You believe that if you write a letter to the President of the United States, you should expect to receive a response within two weeks? And not just a response, but a response which actually takes care of your request?

    Since I did not know it, I thought it best not to try to explain it.

    If you don’t know whether Obama ever saw Lakin’s letter, how can you accuse him of ignoring it? Doesn’t he have to see it, or at least become aware of it, before he can ignore it?

    So why bring it up?

    I didn’t bring up the issue of whether Lakin is a racist. It was already part of the conversation.

    But Lakin might not have understood the issue.

    Not understanding the issue is no excuse. Lakin was told repeatedly by his superiors, as well as by Army lawyers, that his orders were legal.

    We all know that the actions taken by Lakin were done by design, with the intention of giving him standing to challenge Obama’s legitimacy in court. The birthers tried it and failed with Stefan Cook and Connie Rhodes, and they somehow convinced Lakin to throw away his career and pension. He doesn’t get a do-over for his foolishness.

  304. avatar
    Joey April 29, 2011 at 10:42 pm #

    Fox News produces Illustrator expert who confirms legitimacy of the Obama Certificate of Live Birth:
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/?test=latestnews

  305. avatar
    gorefan April 29, 2011 at 10:56 pm #

    Rickey: it was actually 12 days

    When did his video’s come out?

  306. avatar
    Jes Beard April 29, 2011 at 11:16 pm #

    y_p_w: Well – here are the administrative rules for JB to sort through. Maybe they had public hearings or not. However – I agree that they’ve operated this way for almost 10 years, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Director of Health had the statutory authority to make executive decisions on the various policies.

    http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/admrules/default.aspx

    I already had…. and had even pointed out where you would find the language, as part of actual Department regulations and not an internal memo.

    Jes Beard: In fact not only is such restriction there, but if you look at Chapter 8B of the Regs, at 2.4(A)(1), it sure looks as it the regs even say that the copies WILL be provided.

    Joey: Fox News produces Illustrator expert who confirms legitimacy of the Obama Certificate of Live Birth:
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/?test=latestnews

    No document examiner worth a damn with authentic a document he has not personally seen and examined, the original, not an image on a computer screen. It is very unlikely anything but a very poor forgery could be detected without personal examination, but authentication? No.

    Rickey: Not understanding the issue is no excuse.

    I never suggested that it was.

    Scientist: The clerks who process requests for documents don’t sit and read the statutes. They take their orders from the director who says “No long forms”. He not only says so, he has written a memo. So what do you think will happen if I go in and ask for a long form? The clerk will say no. Supposing I show the clerk the statute and tell them, “Incompetent, lacking candor disbarred ex-attorney Jes Beard says the law says you have to give me a long form”. Guess what the clerk STILL says? “No.” So, I don’t get the long form. If I hire an actual competent licensed attorney and sue, maybe I win and get a court order and get my long form. But if I decide suing is too much trouble, guess what? I don’t get a long form.

    That is the reality. That is how the world works.

    Yes, and that is obviously what happened when Obama requested the form.

    Remember, I began my discussion here by saying Obama could get the long form and release it whenever he wanted to do so. Without dancing around what the statute says or what the regulations say or whether the Department was required or prohibited, what we ultimately saw is that Obama got the long form almost immediately on requesting it, and released it when he wanted to.

    Your protests to the contrary, and unending effort to defend any and all things Obama, does not alter the fact that he was able to get and release it on a simple request, and to get it almost immediately.

  307. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 29, 2011 at 11:22 pm #

    Jes Beard: Look, if you were simply to say Obama didn’t want to do it, I can accept that. What I am disputing is the claim that he did not have the time. THAT is what is bullshit, and an extremely lame defense of the guy.

    This is a stupid and pointless argument. Please end it NOW.

  308. avatar
    Greg April 29, 2011 at 11:25 pm #

    Jes Beard: That’s a good point, however, a soldier’s potential liability for conduct in a war theater is likely to be a bit higher than with stateside duty, and as a result concern over carrying out an illegal order might be a bit greater when stationed in areas where that duty might be more likely to result in deaths.

    The fact is that a soldier’s potential liability for prosecuting a war that has been ordered by a President who is ineligible is negligible. Soldiers are not liable for violations of jus ad bellum but for violations of jus in bello. Nothing Lakin was being ordered to do could, in any imaginable way, violate the laws of war (as opposed to the legal/just war doctrine) so his legal liability is the same whether he does it stateside or abroad.

    See Cap’t. Murdough’s article I won’t participate in an illegal war in the July 2010 volume of Army Lawyer.

    Lakin was told in no uncertain terms that disobeying orders would result in negative consequences, up to and including court martial. He chose court martial.

    When does the President have to kowtow to the demands of uncertain officers? If an officer had demanded that Bush prove that Cheney wasn’t really a resident of Texas when they were elected, would Bush have been morally obligated to do so? Was Michael New justified in demanding that he not be required to wear the UN insignia in Bosnia? Should Bush have been required to prove the legality of our Iraqi action to Ehren Watada?

  309. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 29, 2011 at 11:28 pm #

    Jes Beard: You mean other than the date on the certification, the Booth COLB has no “prrof” as to when it was issued. You are sounding just like the nutjobs in the birther camp in doubting anything and everything coming from Obama.

    That is hardly an honest or rational comparison. On the one hand we have a document that is contrary to the stated policy of the state, while in the other case we have a document that is corroborated by the State.

  310. avatar
    Greg April 29, 2011 at 11:40 pm #

    Jes Beard: Joey: Fox News produces Illustrator expert who confirms legitimacy of the Obama Certificate of Live Birth:
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/?test=latestnews

    No document examiner worth a damn with authentic a document he has not personally seen and examined, the original, not an image on a computer screen. It is very unlikely anything but a very poor forgery could be detected without personal examination, but authentication? No.

    It’s a good thing, then, that this document examiner didn’t say that. He was presented with the concerns of birthers about “layers” and dismissed those concerns.

    It’s a case of the headline writer getting ahead of what the article actually says.

    That being said, can you agree that the possibility of this document being a forgery is vanishingly small?

    We know that the Director watched the files being copied. She attested that they were accurate copies of files that were copied. The Registrar, Alvin Onaka, also signed his name certifying that they were true and accurate copies.

    If there was a forgery in the two days between when the documents were copied and when they were released, don’t you think the Director or Registrar would have noticed it? Certainly if it was important enough to require a forgery!

    I’m curious. In your practice, before you were a disbarred attorney, did you require a document examiner to verify every document that the state of Tennessee certified?

  311. avatar
    Wile E. April 30, 2011 at 12:12 am #

    Greg: Was Michael New justified in demanding that he not be required to wear the UN insignia in Bosnia?

    I’d say no, but I’ll probably keep that to myself at the next funeral, wedding, or family reunion…..just to keep the peace.

  312. avatar
    y_p_w April 30, 2011 at 1:54 am #

    Jes Beard:
    Remember, I began my discussion here by saying Obama could get the long form and release it whenever he wanted to do so.Without dancing around what the statute says or what the regulations say or whether the Department was required or prohibited, what we ultimately saw is that Obama got the long form almost immediately on requesting it, and released it when he wanted to.

    Your protests to the contrary, and unending effort to defend any and all things Obama, does not alter the fact that he was able to get and release it on a simple request, and to get it almost immediately.

    I always thought from the reading of the law that the Hawaii Director of Health had the authority to do this with an executive order. It remained to be seen if the previous director or her interim successor was going to do it.

    There were a lot of things that weren’t necessarily laid out in strict procedures. When the former Director of Health and her Registrar went to check the records and issued a public statement, they were obviously winging it. However – I think they were within their powers to do so.

    I don’t think that they would have done something that would have been strictly against the law. The current Director of Health made a one-time policy decision that would seem to mesh with the law as written. I’m thinking it would like sending an employee out to get a ream of copy paper if they were low, but where there needed to be an official order placed with a recognized vendor if they were ordering thousands of dollars worth of office supplies. For a one time thing, are they going to go through a public process? She made a waiver to the current policy. Perhaps the memo isn’t enough for you, but I’d be surprised if it weren’t issued by the book.

  313. avatar
    Lupin April 30, 2011 at 5:19 am #

    Jes Beard: This is a problem which those promoting Vattel as a basis for Obama no meeting the “natural born citizen” requirement fail to address

    No one is doing that, AFAIK — quite the contrary. You are.

    We’re the ones saying Vattel is either entirely irrelevant OR does not help the birther cause. Were not using Vattel is an affirmative fashion, applicable to the US context, to say that Obama is or is not an NBC — the birthers are.

    I can say with fair certainly that Vattel would have categorized Obama as a Swiss indigene, however. Whether or not that is relevant is up to you to decide.

    Re the English translation, someone stated here that it available to the Founders only AFTER the original clause had been drafted; if that is correct, then your argument is moot.

    Re the footnote, I did link to the scan of the French-language book on google books here a long long time ago. I don’t feel like spending the time again; you can look it up here. The second edition is from the 1800s. The usefulness of such a footnote is that it retroactively makes the thinking of the author more explicit.

  314. avatar
    Scientist April 30, 2011 at 6:53 am #

    Jes Beard: Remember, I began my discussion here by saying Obama could get the long form and release it whenever he wanted to do so. Without dancing around what the statute says or what the regulations say or whether the Department was required or prohibited, what we ultimately saw is that Obama got the long form almost immediately on requesting it, and released it when he wanted to.

    Just to be clear, I never said it was impossible for Obama to get the form in the sense of it’s impossible to raise the dead or travel back in time. I said it would require an exception to the normal policy, an exception granted on the basis of his being President/a friend of the Governor’s. I said that would set a bad precedent that could come back to bite future candidates, some of whom you might want to vote for, who could be denied an exception out of political or personal malice. I don’t know for certain that will happen, but I see ways it could. That is why I did not want Obama to do it and am unhappy he did.

    Now that everyone is clear, can we please, please drop the subject? Thank you.

  315. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 30, 2011 at 7:51 am #

    Scientist: Just to be clear, I never said it was impossible for Obama to get the form in the sense of it’s impossible to raise the dead or travel back in time. I said it would require an exception to the normal policy, an exception granted on the basis of his being President/a friend of the Governor’s. I said that would set a bad precedent that could come back to bite future candidates, some of whom you might want to vote for, who could be denied an exception out of political or personal malice. I don’t know for certain that will happen, but I see ways it could.

    I agree with you completely. I don’t think it’s right for special exceptions to be made to government policies only to powerful people … where does that stop?

    I don’t fault Obama, however. I think that once Trump started getting all the attention for going birther, Obama could see that the issue wasn’t going to go away by being ignored. And there is that middle segment of people who buy into the logic of: “why wouldn’t he release it unless he had something to hide” — or “this whole thing would go away if Obama would release the certificate.”

    I think there was simply a point where the balance shifted. After all, it’s not good for the country if the ability of a sitting president to govern are undermined by false allegations that can be easily disproven.

  316. avatar
    Sef April 30, 2011 at 9:09 am #

    Greg: That being said, can you agree that the possibility of this document being a forgery is vanishingly small?

    This is one of those very, very rare cases where the probability is actually negative. It doesn’t happen very often, and the math folks will tell you it’s impossible, but we now have an existence proof.

  317. avatar
    Sef April 30, 2011 at 9:21 am #

    Sef: This is one of those very, very rare cases where the probability is actually negative.It doesn’t happen very often, and the math folks will tell you it’s impossible, but we now have an existence proof.

    Or as they say in IT “NAN”.

  318. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2011 at 10:03 am #

    Expelliarmus: I agree with you completely. I don’t think it’s right for special exceptions to be made to government policies only to powerful people … where does that stop?

    While I agree with that, I think that the exception made for Obama was a reasonable response to a reasonable request accompanied by an argument that the exception was in the best interests of the state. I have no reason to believe that equally reasonable requests in the future made by the less powerful individuals will receive the same result, although not such a public and formal one.

  319. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 30, 2011 at 10:26 am #

    Sef: This is one of those very, very rare cases where the probability is actually negative.It doesn’t happen very often, and the math folks will tell you it’s impossible, but we now have an existence proof.

    As one of the ‘math folks’, I’m telling you that is impossible – the probability of the LFBC being a forgery is imaginary, not negative…

  320. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2011 at 10:34 am #

    Lupin: Re the footnote, I did link to the scan of the French-language book on google books here a long long time ago. I don’t feel like spending the time again; you can look it up here. The second edition is from the 1800s. The usefulness of such a footnote is that it retroactively makes the thinking of the author more explicit.

    This 1777 French edition, published 10 years after Vattel’s death, does not contain the footnote.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=D5hCAAAAcAAJ

    This 1863 edition has the footnotes:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=ElGJ5xQqOI0C

  321. avatar
    bjphysics April 30, 2011 at 11:16 am #

    Hawaii Birth Document Copy Law

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

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

    (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

    I think the wording in this statute is ambiguous and several interpretations are possible.

    Interpretation 1. clause (a): department of health must provide to a valid requestor a certified visual facsimile, or contents, or partial content but is up to the requestor (not the director of health) which form they want and shall receive.
    Clause (b): irrespective of the form, copies have the same legal standing as the original document on file. Clause (c): the director of health has the sole authority to decide what technology shall be employed to produce the copy. [Presumably subject to the reasonable interpretation that copies must fulfill their function, e.g., a visual facsimile can’t be done on a tee-shirt using silk screen]

    Interpretation 2. clause (a): department of health must provide to a valid requestor a certified visual facsimile, or contents, or partial content but is up to the director of health (not the requestor) which form they shall receive.
    Clause (b): irrespective of the form, copies have the same legal standing as the original document on file. Clause (c): the director of health has the sole authority to decide what type of copy shall be made and what technology shall be employed to produce the copy. [Presumably subject to the reasonable interpretation that copies must fulfill their function, e.g., a visual facsimile can’t be done using a magnification such that it is only viewable under a microscope]

    Personally, I’m inclined to go with 1 but the director of health seems to believe in 2 since a waiver letter was written for Big-O. I guess and until a person born in Hawaii asks for a photocopy, doesn’t get it, brings suit in state court and wins, that is the standing interpretation. There seem to be many posters that have embraced interpretation 2 and are invested in that interpretation because they used it to as an argument against the birthers “long form” demands. I don’t think this argument was ever required since clause (b) is unambiguous and any copy has the same legal standing as the original and birthers have no right, whatsoever, to demand anything and they previously received (CoLB) more than they were ever entitled too. Now they have seen the “long form” they demanded, are claiming it’s a forgery, and saying he should have shown what they had no right to demand in the first place sooner, and falling back on their Emmerich de Vattel poppycock.

    For the birthers this is not about any documentation whatsoever, it’s about their fundamental lack of commitment to basic democratic values, the democratic process, vis--vis, their attempt to unelect a Black+Democrat President. It’s about race and party affiliation; since Reagan handed the torch to Bush I, Republicans have operated on the crypto-belief that the Presidency is a quasi-hereditary office passed down from one Republican to the other and any Democrat presidency must be delegitimized. Recall the hunting of Clinton. Add Black to Democrat and in the minds of Republicans you have the making of the Hip-Hopalypse.

    That being said, I think many of the arguments in defense of either interpretation have been short on reason and long on ego. Those that sided with interpretation 2 have (for the moment) been vindicated by the waiver letter but they took their position before the letter. Somebody posted this link in another article: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney?page=1

    Here’s a quote from the link that sums up my perception of the arguments I referencing:

    > In other words, when we think we’re reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing. Or to use an analogy offered by University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt: We may think we’re being scientists, but we’re actually being lawyers (PDF). Our “reasoning” is a means to a predetermined end—winning our “case”—and is shot through with biases. They include “confirmation bias,” in which we give greater heed to evidence and arguments that bolster our beliefs, and “disconfirmation bias,” in which we expend disproportionate energy trying to debunk or refute views and arguments that we find uncongenial. <

    Sign me: Disgruntled Epistemologist

  322. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2011 at 11:54 am #

    Greg: It’s a case of the headline writer getting ahead of what the article actually says.

    I think this is what they call “yellow journalism.”

  323. avatar
    Suranis April 30, 2011 at 11:58 am #

    And that’s a reasonable argument BJPhysics. Taken on its own 338-13 is ambiguous. Its just that when taken in totality with the rest of hawai’in law ( and lord knows I had to go through it with a fine tooth comb debunking stuff in the last few weeks) especially 338-18, it is fairly clear to me that the DOH can select whichever of the three options it wants and any copy issued is legally valid. The problem is that people like Mr Beard focused totally on the word SHALL when that was never an issue. No-one doubted that anyone could get a certified copy on request or argued that they could not. And there was a reason for that

    The problem wasn’t a simple difference of opinion. In my view, Mr. Beard and co were not actually interested in interpreting Hawai’in law, what they were trying to get people to believe is that birtherism was actually the fault of the democrats, not republicans or right wingers. That the whole thing was a huge conspiracy i(somehow involving a republican administration and everyone else) to discredit republicans, and they were poor simple dupes that really wanted to follow the rule of law and that got them sucked into believing a deliberate lie. That’s why he refused to read any of the links that were provided to him, simply declaring there was nothing in them that related to the policy of only issuing short forms, and later denying that there were any links presented to him at all.

    You are correct that the rules have not been challenged and clarified in court, and in my view they really should be. Of course Miki Booth and Danae and other Hawai’in birthers had three years to issue such a challenge, but never actually did so. They had ample opportunity but never did. They contented themselves with just constantly claiming that long forms could be issued but never actually presented one. (Danae, very much to her credit in my view, never claimed the photocopy she received of the long form was a legal document AND she showed the short form she received with it) I’ll leave it to the reader to speculate why such a court challenge was never issued.

  324. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2011 at 11:59 am #

    bjphysics: Here’s a quote from the link that sums up my perception of the arguments I referencing:

    > … Our “reasoning” is a means to a predetermined end—winning our “case”—and is shot through with biases. They include “confirmation bias,” in which we give greater heed to evidence and arguments that bolster our beliefs, and “disconfirmation bias,” in which we expend disproportionate energy trying to debunk or refute views and arguments that we find uncongenial. <

    What I personally do is to periodically take time out to try to argue the other side to the best of my ability (in private, of course) to make sure I didn’t miss something. Having done that, I can feel good about my conclusions and not have anxiety about being blind-sided with a better argument.

  325. avatar
    Sef April 30, 2011 at 12:04 pm #

    Slartibartfast: As one of the math folks’, I’m telling you that is impossible – the probability of the LFBC being a forgery is imaginary, not negative…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTwnwbG9YLE

  326. avatar
    y_p_w April 30, 2011 at 12:06 pm #

    bjphysics:
    That being said, I think many of the arguments in defense of either interpretation have been short on reason and long on ego. Those that sided with interpretation 2 have (for the moment) been vindicated by the waiver letter but they took their position before the letter.

    I think a lot of people took this position because it meshed with the numerous statements by the Hawaii Department of Health that the computer-generated form was the only one they produced in certified form. It made sense because the vital records application form made no mention of what format, and people ordering certified BCs universally got the “short form”. We also had that CNN report on Monday where they had someone go in, and the reporter specifically asked the clerk if the abstract was all they could get. And finally we have (kind of late in the game as you indicate) a release of the 2001 memo stating this was in fact the policy of the DoH. Before this, we knew 2001 was the magic year, but didn’t necessarily have a good idea of the exact date.

    Also – from a practical standpoint, it wouldn’t make sense that they list formats that a certified copy could be produced with and allow the requestor to pick and choose which one from that long list. At this point in time, some sort of photographic process would probably be impractical (anyone remember when driver licenses were made by taking a composite photo of the driver and an information sheet?). A typed format would probably take too much resources and would require some sort of special form; I’ve seen one, but it’s way outdated.

  327. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 30, 2011 at 12:11 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: What I personally do is to periodically take time out to try to argue the other side to the best of my ability (in private, of course) to make sure I didn’t miss something. Having done that, I can feel good about my conclusions and not have anxiety about being blind-sided with a better argument.

    I do the same thing (I can put together a pretty good 9/11 truther argument [better than any truther's, in my opinion... {of course I can also completely demolish it}]). Every good scientist knows that they have to be a ruthless critic of their own objectivity – so that in the event that they make a mistake, they are the first one to find it…

  328. avatar
    Scientist April 30, 2011 at 1:21 pm #

    bjphysics-I mostly agree with you. I never said one or the other interpretation of the statute was the only possible one or even the one that would ultimately prevail in a court challenge. But, it was clear from the statements made by DOH officials and from the lack of credible certified long forms floating around that DOH took position #2 (again I’m not saying they would have been upheld in court). The memo does in fact confirm in writing what they said to various media, that they did not issue certified long forms. You are correct that only a court could decide which was correct. Such a case is unlikely to happen since no one actually needs a certified long form (as you point out, even the President had no need for one) so no one really has a motivation to go through the expense and trouble involved in such a suit. I will say that the State of Hawaii would probably have been wise to release the 2001 memo much earlier. It does not disclose any protected personal information, so there was no reason they couldn’t have made it public to support their position.

    In prinicple, I agree with your dictum to try to argue the other side. With birtherism it really leads down a rathole. Aside from the obvious foolishness of a story involving a round the world voyage to an unknown third world country by a pregnant 18 year old and the barriers to getting her baby back home, we have the COLB (a legally valid document) and the vouching for the COLB by state officials of both parties. There was simply no motiivation for any of them to lie. A huge conspiracy without any motive is siimplly a non-starter for me.

  329. avatar
    Jes Beard April 30, 2011 at 9:43 pm #

    Greg: It’s a good thing, then, that this document examiner didn’t say that. He was presented with the concerns of birthers about “layers” and dismissed those concerns.

    It’s a case of the headline writer getting ahead of what the article actually says.

    I was not responding to a headline writer. I was responding to Joey.

  330. avatar
    bjphysics May 1, 2011 at 10:09 am #

    obsolete: obsolete

    obs (can I call you obs?),

    Is it possible to get directions to this comment from Daily Kos?

    Thanks, call me BJ