Main Menu

Pen spills ink, makes mess

One of the more unpleasant tasks in running this web site is wading through very long articles full of of misdirection, misinformation, rhetorical fallacies, plain stupidity and bald-faced lies. They offend my sense of honesty, insult my intelligence, and I feel obligated to comment on all of the misinformation — a tedious and tasteless task particularly with a long article. Case in point: FINAL REPORT: Obama’s Birth Announcements Fail To Indicate “Natural Born” Status by Penbrook Johannson on The Daily Pen blog.

Here’s the short form story of the birth announcements to set the context: Two competing Honolulu newspapers carried birth announcements from the Hawaii Department of Health. The DoH released the lists to the Hawaii News Service Newspaper Agency, who in turn provided them to newspapers. This process was described in a Honolulu Advertiser article in November of 2008 and the Health Department confirmed that the newspaper listings came from the State Department of Health, who got them from the hospitals (the Hawaii Newspaper Agency is no longer operating and Honolulu Advertiser is no longer publishing). The announcements show that a son was born to Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama on August 4 [1961].

Such vital statistics, however, were not sent to the newspapers by the general public but by the Health Department, which received the information directly from hospitals, [DoH spokesperson Janice] Okubo said.

Now how does that simple story gets spun into this?

A new investigation of Obama’s birth announcements appearing in Hawaii’s two primary newspapers in August, 1961 shows, conclusively, they were the result of a registration record taken by the municipal health authority, not a medically verified “Live” birth documented as occurring at a Hawaiian hospital, per an officially defined “vital event” by the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division protocols.

The overall framework of the article is a straw man argument that attempts to impugn the newspaper announcements by saying that the newspapers didn’t verify the list of births from the Department of Health, that they were not “medically verified”. However, no one has claimed that the Health Department announcements in the newspaper were independent verifications by the newspaper, only that they were contemporary proof that the Health Department reported the birth in 1961, and didn’t just fabricate it when Barack Obama decided to run for President. The Heath Bureau Statistics are not newspaper announcements at all, but are rather Health Department announcements carried by the newspaper.

What follows in Johansson’s article can only be described as a recipe for converting hot air into bullshit. I’ll select comments from the article in quotes, and add my reply in bold type.

“For more than three years since Obama engaged his unvetted candidacy for the presidency, many of his supporters have lauded these blurbish announcements as the “holy grail” of proof that he was born in the state of Hawaii.” This sets up the straw man argument since no one describes them as the “holy grail.”The Certification of Live Birth is the “holy grail.”

“However, a detailed investigation of the history and procedures used by Hawaii’s municipal health department, and its relationship with the newspapers, shows that not only was it a matter of official policy that Obama’s birth would have been announced in the paper regardless of where he was born, the information used to publish the announcements is not even confirmed through any eye-witness medical authority or hospital in the state.” We’ll see further down why the words “regardless of where he was born” appear, and why they are false. This nastily worded section, when stripped of the spin, just says that hospital reports were funneled through local registrars to the State Department of Health, and then to the newspapers. The newspapers aren’t eye witnesses. However, all birth certificates in Hawaii are signed by a witness, and in the vast majority of births, that witness is the attending physician in a hospital.

“Also, in 1961, the two newspapers shared the same address and facility which means they received only one copy of the same vital records information from the Department of Health.” No evidence is presented to support this statement about shared facilities. Later on, Johannson says “The two newspapers have long since collaborated into one organization.” “Long since” hardly describes one paper merging with the other less than a year ago, June 7, 2010. The headquarters of the Star Bulletin was at “Restaurant Row, 7 Waterfront Plaza, Suite 210,500 Ala Moana, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813. The Advertiser’s HQ was at “605 Kapiʻolani Blvd.,Honolulu, Hawaii 96813. With no details, I can’t tell where Johannson gets the idea that the Star Bulletin and the Advertiser were buddy-buddy and shared feeds from the Hawaii Newspaper Agency and in any case, it hardly matters how may copies were sent. What’s the point of this?

“Now, however, collaborative information from the archive of the U.S. Department of Health’s [sic] 1961 Report on Vital Statistics of the U.S – Volume 1: Natality, and Hawaii’s Administrative rules governing the creation of vital records finally reveals the truth about how these announcements were published and why they are mistakenly used by pundits to promote a misguided message about Obama.” Vital Statistics of the U.S – Volume 1: Natality,  has nothing about publication of birth announcements and there are no details about who these “pundits” are, nor how they are misguided.

Supposedly somebody named Dan Crosby did a two-month “investigation.” Skipping to the meat of the following section we see:

“The birth announcements were printed from unconfirmed information provided to the Newspapers by the Department of Health without the DOH or newspaper editors confirming the actual location of the birth with any hospital in Hawaii,” says Crosby in a phone call from Oahu, “I found thousands of birth registration records of children born outside of Hawaii who have their announcements published in these two newspapers by cross referencing the announcements with the U.S. Department of Health Vital Records Report for Hawaii.” Again, stripping the spin off this, all it says is that the newspapers didn’t investigate the birth list from the Department of Health. Why should they?  They are not newspaper announcements but Health Department announcements. Calling the information “unconfirmed” is misleading. The information is confirmed, but just not by the newspapers. What follows an incredible claim, one for which Crosby gives an absurd explanation: he says he compared newspaper birth announcements to “US Department of Health” [sic] Vital Records Report. But there are no names in the report; the states don’t even send names to the federal government. So what did he compare? He certainly didn’t compare what he said he did.

Recall that Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows the state Health Department to register the foreign birth of any child as a native Hawaiian birth if the parents of that child can be proven to the satisfaction and criteria of the Director of the Department of Health only, they were residence of Hawaii within one year of the birth, regardless of the location of the birth. This law then mandates that the vital records registrar must register the birth with the vital records office in coordination with an official, original Hawaiian birth record. OK, here we see another transparent attempt to deceive the reader. The statue cited was not passed until 1982, (note “L-1982″ at the bottom of the law) 21 years after the newspapers carried the birth announcements. Further, inspection of the law in effect in 1961 (which is the 1959 revision) has no provision for the registration of out of state births. This is one of the oftenest cited, and most completely debunked claims in the birther repertoire. At this point a significant part of the article that follows relies on this non-existent law to suggest that an out-of-state birth could have been the source of the newspaper announcement; however, since there was no such law in 1961, the argument falls flat.

“The birth location is mistakenly implied by people because it appears in this newspaper. I also found several birth records in Japan for birth’s registered in Hawaii.” A review of all the birth announcements in Hawaii in 1961 reveals other evidence suggesting a disconnect between the Department of Health and Hawaii’s hospitals. First of all, as shown by Crosby, all the announcements show the parents as married and living at the same address. “This is not merely a majority of the announcements, this is actually all of them. Every single one! Approximately 16,000 in all!” Crosby said. I had to read that a few times, but basically what Crosby is saying is that all of the newspaper announcements indicate that the parents are married, and that both of the parents lived at the same address. This is not particularly surprising. When one looks at a hospital birth certificate from Hawaii, such as that of the the Nordyke twins, born the day after Barack Obama, one observes that only the Mother’s address is recorded. Since there is only one address recorded, the newspaper announcements can only have one address. Further, is extremely unlikely that the Department of Health disclosed the marital status of the mother to the newspapers, so the paper’s use of “Mr. and Mrs.” is just convention. So basically the observation is true, but it means nothing. Was this Japanese birth perhaps after 1982?

“Did anyone notice the announcements are not in any alphabetic order, or in order of birthdate [sic]? This is because, in 1961, birth registration numbers were issued based on the location of the local Vital Records office in which the registration was recorded. The hospital does not assign these numbers, the DOH does. It appears that Obama’s birth was registered in an office not used by any of the birth registrations offices who received birth certification from either Kapi-olani Medical Center [sic], or Queens Medical Center which use two local offices near those facilities,” said Crosby. There is no reason given for his claim of how records were sorted (or not sorted). There is nothing in the article to support its conclusion that Barack Obama’s certificate didn’t come through the same channel as other records from Kapi’olani. The writer doesn’t appear to have any knowledge of any specific office and no evidence of his claimed procedure, which suggests to me the whole thing is made up.

He continued, “It appears Obama’s birth was registered with the satellite office near his grandparent’s home some distance from the offices nearest to and most used by the hospitals. This particular office was commonly used by indigenous people of Hawaii wanting to record births of children outside of the city. This is why the U.S. Department of Health created the Certificate of Live Birth template in 1959 with a check box indicating whether or not the child was born in the city limits and if the residence of the mother was a farm or not. It appears Obama’s birth at least did not occur in the city of Honolulu and, at most, did not even occur in the state of Hawaii.” This is just so much made up bullshit about the satellite office and the grandparent’s home. Obama’s grandparents lived a mere 3.6 7.9 miles from Kapi’olani hospital! The Certificate of Live Birth does have a check box indicating whether the birth was inside the city limits, but the presence of that box tells us nothing about where births are registered. The Natality publication informs us that there were only 92 (out of 14,906 infants) not born in a hospital on the whole island. Obama’s grandparents lived near the city of Honolulu (specifically 7.9 miles from Kapi’olani hospital)  where only 14 non-hospital births were counted in 1961. A separate office in the city of Honolulu to accommodate just the 14 non-hospital births a year strains credulity.

Route: Kapi'olani hospital from Obama residence

His alleged “Certification of Live Birth” is not approved by any federal authority as an official source of demographic data or medical verification of his birth. It is merely a record of birth registration. Therefore, the order of printing of announcements in the local papers comes directly from the list which is ordered based on the birth registration office location, not the chronological or alphabetical order of the medically verified birth.” This is very confusing. The “Certification of Live Birth” is a modern form (since 2001) abstracted from the original Certificate of Live Birth. It is an official source of demographic data (as evidenced by the phrase “prima facie evidence” that makes is really official) and it is federally accepted as proof of citizenship. It is not a medical record — it just says when and where someone was born and who their parents are.  However, we aren’t talking about a form completed in 2001 (or 2007) but one filled out in 1961, which was called a Certificate of Live birth. That’s what is reported to the Health Department and listed in the newspapers. That form does have medical information. The text following “therefore” doesn’t follow from what precedes it, nor from any other argument in the article. It appears that a new strain in the birther mythology says that in 1961 there was a special form just for home births, and that form is here named a “Certification of Live Birth.” No one has ever seen such a form. From 2001 to 2009 all computer-generated birth certificates were called “Certification of Live Birth” so that provides no reason to think that the handful of non-hospital births in Hawaii had a special form.

Crosby’s says the difference between “medically verified” and “registration” are significant. He interviewed former Vital Records Adminstration [sic], Martin Hesch in order to gain understanding of the different procedures and authorities used to create vital records and public announcements in a medical verification process as opposed to merely registering a vital event with a municipal office. The bungled wording doesn’t tell us exactly who this Hesch character is supposed to be, what position he held and where he held it. A Google search for “martin hesch” hawaii just returns birther blogs and pages about folks not from Hawaii; his name isn’t in the phone book for Honolulu. What “Hesch” says indicates that he (if such a person even exists) is a birther as evidenced by his remark: “The media also wants Barack Obama’s natal circumstances and documentation to fit the traditional record model because it is too disturbing to them to think that they were so easily deceived… but we also now know they do not fit this model.” Most of what “Hesch” said is pretty dense, and of no actual consequence until he gets to:

“The birth announcement is automatically triggered by the creation of the registration through administrative process, when the municipal record is provided to the newspaper, not the creation of a medical verification record by a medical doctor or hospital,” he said. What’s misleading here is that while the birth announcement is triggered through an administrative process, the administrative process is triggered by the filing of a birth certificate, which is subject to verification. It’s like trying to argue that a car has no wheels because the dealer doesn’t put wheels on new cars. But cars do have wheels because the factory puts them on. I fail to see how this informs us about Obama’s birth information, nor how it individually was registered. Health Department birth announcements in the newspaper come from the Department of Health in the form of a list based on birth certificates they receive from hospital through local registrars, and in the case of a few rare home births, from certificates filed by parents. The announcements are actually Health Department announcements, and the health department registrations are directly based on an original birth certificate with witnesses.

As I said at the outset, newspaper ads are not primary evidence; they are secondary evidence. What they prove, as contemporary public testimony, is that the Hawaii Department of Health registered a birth for Barack Obama’s son in 1961 according to its rules and procedures. Since there was no provision for out of state registrations in 1961, one must conclude that that registration is for a birth in Hawaii. The primary evidence for us is the Certification of Live Birth, consistent with the newspaper announcements, that shows Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

The Daily Pen article mostly tries to refute an argument that does not exist and tries to make simple and normal things sound nefarious. In a few cases, it resorts to out and out lies.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

194 Responses to Pen spills ink, makes mess

  1. avatar
    Obsolete April 3, 2011 at 3:41 am #

    Birthers obsessed with confirmations of registration numbers like nc1 are going to feast on the massive plate of garbage known as ” THE FINAL REPORT”. Expect to see her here, exclaiming “I told you so!” without ever really being able to explain just what it is supposed to mean nor why it matters.

  2. avatar
    Sean April 3, 2011 at 8:10 am #

    The first part of this video might put things in perspective.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5ka-D5UMr0&feature=channel_video_title

  3. avatar
    kimba April 3, 2011 at 10:15 am #

    I think it reads like a work of dramatic fiction. One thing that jumped out at me was the assertion that the information for the birth announcements were taken from registration records not a medically verified live birth. This is supposed to be a “new” discovery in a story posted yesterday, yet Tim Adams said the same thing during his interview on RCR Thursday evening. How’d Tim know it two days before this article?

    “US Dept of Health Vital Records administrator” failed my reasonableness test too. It’s been the Dept of Health and Human Services for decades and before that it was the Dept of Health Education and Welfare back to the early 60s.
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/about/nchs_50th_brochure.pdf
    The Division of Vital Statistics has been part of the National Center for Health Statistics since 1960 and in the CDC since 1987, a division of the US Dept of Health and Human Services. It has a director and assistant directors. I think the title and the person, Martin Hesch are fictional because I believe a real person being interviewed, especially a former administrator in a public agency would have used the proper names for agencies and proper titles. A journo would have also made sure to get that right.

    There is no book for sale at Amazon or with an ISBN called “The Opacity of Otherness” or “The Mombosan Son” or any other work by Penbrook Johannson for that matter.

    I think this is a big ball of BS dreamed up for the faithful who aren’t inclined to believe anything that reinforces their preconceived notions. I’ve never read at this Daily Pen website, but the writing styles of Daniel Crosby and Penbrook Johannson is uncannily similar. The surety of the statements Crosby makes in his own article are oddly reminiscent of Tim Adams’ surety on RCR.

    Other resources, I think we’ve seen this before tell the history of vital statistics in the US. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/usvss.pdf

  4. avatar
    misha April 3, 2011 at 10:36 am #

    “He interviewed former Vital Records Adminstration [sic], Martin Hesch”

    I personally know Martin Hesch, who owns an auto parts store in New York. He told me the freight elevator operator in his building told the doorman, who told him.

    Anyway, I did some ‘net searching on my own, and found Obama’s authentic Kenya BC! Thank you, Mr. Hesch. And my ’68 Chevelle thanks you, too.

  5. avatar
    Majority Will April 3, 2011 at 10:46 am #

    And it’s no surprise that there’s a rogues’ gallery of demented, hardcore birthers in the comments section climaxing over this drivel.

  6. avatar
    MaryMitch April 3, 2011 at 11:31 am #

    This is so disgusting… the birthers will stop at nothing. No amount of evidence – REAL evidence – will satisfy them, because they don’t care about the truth.

  7. avatar
    Joey April 3, 2011 at 11:42 am #

    I sure hope Doc C. sends a copy of his article to the author of that garbage.

  8. avatar
    Monty April 3, 2011 at 11:44 am #

    Majority Will:
    And it’s no surprise that there’s a rogues’ gallery of demented, hardcore birthers in the comments section climaxing over this drivel.

    Yep, Butterdezillion is there trying to knit together her cat’s cradle of weird administrative analysis with Penbrooks’ nonsense.

  9. avatar
    Gregory April 3, 2011 at 12:17 pm #

    The author of the quoted confabulation would have done well to remember Occam’s razor. What we have here are two contemporaneous birth announcements in two local papers – and therefore one Hawaiian birth. It’s as simple as that.

  10. avatar
    Joey April 3, 2011 at 1:08 pm #

    It would be good to get some more non-birther rebuttals to this article. The usual cast of characters has already responded at the Daily Pen web site: Mario Puzo, Kerchner, Butterdezillion and Dr.Kate fans.

  11. avatar
    Judge Mental April 3, 2011 at 1:18 pm #

    There is no book for sale at Amazon or with an ISBN called “The Opacity of Otherness” or “The Mombosan Son” or any other work by Penbrook Johannson for that matter.

    ……..I fear the former book may be somewhat diificult read if the tortured prose in the LULU blurb is anything to go by…

    Opacity Of Otherness
    By Penbrook Johannson
    View this Author’s Spotlight

    Paperback, 625 pages This item has not been rated yet

    Preview Price: 16.55

    Ships in 3–5 business days
    We are imposed upon by the liberal’s anointed deceiver. The only evidence of his qualifications and intentions come to us after it has been strained and contrived through a chain of possession and his manipulators of interpretation. We only see the shiny, jewel-laden cloak, as the reprobation is subdued, and the vile cause is hastened that they might assume jurisdiction over the minds and bodies of vintage America while seeking to destroy those with the power to oppose them. Against decent people their leader now stands as a requisite tool possessing the characteristics endowed to him by invisible forces, constructing doctrinal architecture with insidious justifications, lost in ideology, and implementing damnable, desolate politics which will eventually serve the destruction of everything our father’s suffered to realize……..

    Aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!!!!!

  12. avatar
    GeorgetownJD April 3, 2011 at 1:38 pm #

    Monty: Yep, Butterdezillion is there trying to knit together her cat’s cradle of weird administrative analysis with Penbrooks’ nonsense.

    Butterdezillion:

    Right now my computer only works in safe mode and at least some of my e-mails in and out are being intercepted so they’re not received even though the person who sent them thinks they have been received. That started up again in earnest a few days ago. It’s a way of isolating me. Psychological operations to make me feel alone and to keep me from being able to network with critical people.”

    Her phone line is probably tapped, too, and a GPS locating device covertly installed on the undercarriage of her minivan.

  13. avatar
    DP April 3, 2011 at 2:06 pm #

    The sheer mendacity of it is rathr appalling.

  14. avatar
    misha April 3, 2011 at 2:18 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: Her phone line is probably tapped, too, and a GPS locating device covertly installed on the undercarriage of her minivan.

    It’s true, and I know who did it.

  15. avatar
    Tarrant April 3, 2011 at 2:44 pm #

    Butterdezillion’s savings about intercepted emails reminds me of Orly believing that her malware that resulted in the spam from her about being in Spain and needing money was somehow planted by the government.

    Here’s a clue, Orly/butterdezillion: Run antivirus/antimalware software and you’ll be amazed at what goes away.

    On the other hand they probably think that the scan said software does of their system must also send information to the government…

  16. avatar
    Mary Adams April 3, 2011 at 2:49 pm #

    Thanks for interpreting this long-winded non-nonsensical pile of gobbledygook.

    That is insanity piled on top of fantasy on top of outright lies, heavily padded with pompous-sounding but meaningless phrases.

    He should enter it in one of those worst writing ever contests.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 3, 2011 at 2:56 pm #

    Joey: It would be good to get some more non-birther rebuttals to this article. The usual cast of characters has already responded at the Daily Pen web site: Mario Puzo, Kerchner, Butterdezillion and Dr.Kate fans.

    So far, the only non-birther comment is from a fellow named Kevin who wrote:

    Your whole argument is predicated on a Hawaiian law about out of state registrations that was not passed until 1982, 21 years after the birth announcements. In 1961, there were no out of state registrations.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 3, 2011 at 3:01 pm #

    Mary Adams: Thanks for interpreting this long-winded non-nonsensical pile of gobbledygook.

    I frankly have a hard time understanding birther arguments. If they were real arguments with evidence, reason and a conclusion, then it probably would be easy, but when you have an absurd conclusions supported by assertion, and twisted, the argument is really hard to follow.

    I was up to 3 AM working on the first version of the article, and now after I’ve had time to sleep on it, I think I understand it better. As I added, the article makes a straw man argument. It says the newspaper announcements were unverified. But no one ever said that they were verified by the newspaper. They were actually verified by Health Department, whose announcements they were. The newspaper just published them.

  19. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 3, 2011 at 3:26 pm #

    kimba: There is no book for sale at Amazon or with an ISBN called “The Opacity of Otherness” or “The Mombosan Son” or any other work by Penbrook Johannson for that matter.

    Apart from the Obama stuff, Mr. Johannson (if that is a real name) has only one Internet appearance in a 2007 letter to the editor here:

    http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20070630/OPINION/70629008

    He claimed to be a forestry engineer from Portland Ore. There’s no one with his name in the Portland phone book today.

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

    kimba: This is supposed to be a “new” discovery in a story posted yesterday, yet Tim Adams said the same thing during his interview on RCR Thursday evening. How’d Tim know it two days before this article?

    Nice catch!

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 3, 2011 at 3:34 pm #

    After further reading, I have decided to move the Daily Pen from the Bad to the Ugly column.

  22. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 3, 2011 at 3:46 pm #

    Joey:
    It would be good to get some more non-birther rebuttals to this article. The usual cast of characters has already responded at the Daily Pen web site: Mario Puzo, Kerchner, Butterdezillion and Dr.Kate fans.

    Not ‘Dr. K[h]ate fans’ – Dr. K(h)ate herself. The poster ‘Catherine’ is clearly implying that she is the Harridan of Hate herself…

  23. avatar
    Joey April 3, 2011 at 3:54 pm #

    The latest epistle from Butterdeziillion, posted at FreeRepublic.com:
    “It’s both so simple and an incredible conspiracy.

    The requirement to provide a birth certificate is a very simple request.

    But the lengths to which Obama/Soros have gone to keep from doing that simple thing is incredible, including threats to media heads and at least one federal judge (with other judges seemingly deliberately violating ethics breaches as visibly as possible as if to raise red flags), online forgeries of a COLB and (almost certainly) birth announcements, law-breaking by the entire Hawaii government including illegal hiding of the HDOH Administrative Rules which show that anybody in the world should be able to get a non-certified COLB for Obama, a Selective Service registration forged by somebody in the Selective Service Administration, a social security number that the SSN verification service acknowledges was never issued to Barack Obama, a most-probably forged Dept of State “cable” claiming the destruction of millions of records without leaving any of the legally-required paper trail of the same, DHS political operatives doing illegal searches on requesters’ political backgrounds, superiors in John Brennan’s company specifically disabling the security protocols in the Passport Office so that Obama’s passport could be breached 3 different times, inspector general’s apparent refusal to check whether any of those 3 breaches resulted in information being altered in Obama’s passport file, the scrubbing of the web and of Google’s searches, etc ad nauseum.

    Our entire infrastructure has become totally lawless in order to prevent anybody from getting any information on that one little requirement that took Trump about 2 days to accomplish without any embarrassment at all.

    The requirement is simple. The lawless tantrum Obama and his handlers have thrown to hide everything is huge.”

  24. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 3, 2011 at 3:58 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I frankly have a hard time understanding birther arguments. If they were real arguments with evidence, reason and a conclusion, then it probably would be easy, but when you have an absurd conclusions supported by assertion, and twisted, the argument is really hard to follow.

    This is a necessity for any fallacious argument – if the logic were laid out in a rigorous and detailed manner the faults would be obvious. What gets me is not the construction of the unreasonable argument (there are plenty of reasoning-challenged people that can come up with similar nonsense…), but the people who try and pass that crap off as a well thought out argument. To me, that is where the ignorance starts to leave off and duplicity takes the wheel…

  25. avatar
    Majority Will April 3, 2011 at 4:47 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: So far, the only non-birther comment is from a fellow named Kevin who wrote:

    It looks like it’s up to four now. A few notes of truth and dissent in a sea of lies and bigotry.

    And it’s no surprise that Sun Yat-sen would show up in the comments eventually.

    Show much birther stupidity. More WND inbreeding.

    A suggestion for The Good column of links:

    Frequently Asked Questions About Vital Records of President Barack Hussein Obama II

    “Below are responses to frequently asked questions related to all records and documents maintained by the Hawaii State Department of Health (DOH) related to the vital records of President Barack Hussein Obama II. Frequently requested records and documents which can be released to the public are attached by electronic link below or, for those records and documents that are not available electronically, directions are provided for requesting copies.”

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

    P.S. Kevin should post here too. :-D

  26. avatar
    Judge Mental April 3, 2011 at 5:15 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Apart from the Obama stuff, Mr. Johannson (if that is a real name) has only one Internet appearance in a 2007 letter to the editor here:http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20070630/OPINION/70629008He claimed to be a forestry engineer from Portland Ore. There’s no one with his name in the Portland phone book today.

    I don’t think I made my last post clear. Though it’s unlikely to be on my reading blist the book “The Opacity of Otherness” by Penbrook Johannson does appear to exist and is listed on the internet at lulu.com…..see the follwing linked page….

    http://www.lulu.com/browse/search.php?&fKeywords=otherness

  27. avatar
    Suranis April 3, 2011 at 6:15 pm #

    Majority Will: It looks like it’s up to four now. A few notes of truth and dissent in a sea of lies and bigotry.

    Yeah, some of them were mine (I’m JJ, it used my google account) I’ve tried to do a bit of fighting the good fight over there but seriously dragging together the facts to counter their stream of BS claims is more than a little exhausting.

  28. avatar
    DP April 3, 2011 at 6:22 pm #

    Joey:
    The latest epistle from Butterdeziillion, posted at FreeRepublic.com:
    “It’s both so simple and an incredible conspiracy.

    The requirement to provide a birth certificate is a very simple request.

    But the lengths to which Obama/Soros have gone to keep from doing that simple thing is incredible, including threats to media heads and at least one federal judge (with other judges seemingly deliberately violating ethics breaches as visibly as possible as if to raise red flags), online forgeries of a COLB and (almost certainly) birth announcements, law-breaking by the entire Hawaii government including illegal hiding of the HDOH Administrative Rules which show that anybody in the world should be able to get a non-certified COLB for Obama, a Selective Service registration forged by somebody in the Selective Service Administration, a social security number that the SSN verification service acknowledges was never issued to Barack Obama, a most-probably forged Dept of State “cable” claiming the destruction of millions of records without leaving any of the legally-required paper trail of the same, DHS political operatives doing illegal searches on requesters’ political backgrounds, superiors in John Brennan’s company specifically disabling the security protocols in the Passport Office so that Obama’s passport could be breached 3 different times, inspector general’s apparent refusal to check whether any of those 3 breaches resulted in information being altered in Obama’s passport file, the scrubbing of the web and of Google’s searches, etc ad nauseum.

    Our entire infrastructure has become totally lawless in order to prevent anybody from getting any information on that one little requirement that took Trump about 2 days to accomplish without any embarrassment at all.

    The requirement is simple. The lawless tantrum Obama and his handlers have thrown to hide everything is huge.”

    For some time now, I have actually felt sorry for Butter. Unlike some of the cesspool stirrers you see elsewhere, she really, deep down, believes this nonsense. She’s gone down the rabbit hole.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 3, 2011 at 6:26 pm #

    Slartibartfast: but the people who try and pass that crap off as a well thought out argument. To me, that is where the ignorance starts to leave off and duplicity takes the wheel…

    I fully agree and that idea is behind the distinction I make between the Bad and the Ugly web site links, and why I moved The Daily Pen into the latter category.

    I must admit that I don’t quite have my arms around the duplicitous part of the birther movement. Orly and Phil Berg are true believers (at least that’s what I think) and I don’t have a problem with people speaking their mind. I suppose WorldNetDaily is out to make a buck, and I can understand that even though I don’t respect it. However, those web sites in the Ugly category baffle me for the most part. If someone actually believes in a cause, wouldn’t they believe that their arguments are sufficient without trying to fake them?

    I must admit that I have very little personal experience with liars of that type.

  30. avatar
    Majority Will April 3, 2011 at 6:41 pm #

    Judge Mental: I don’t think I made my last post clear. Though it’s unlikely to be on my reading blist the book “The Opacity of Otherness” by Penbrook Johannson does appear to exist and is listed on the internet at lulu.com…..see the follwing linked page….

    http://www.lulu.com/browse/search.php?&fKeywords=otherness

    Most likely a pen name for anonymity. And it’s self published making it as meaningless as I, Lucas Smith’s drivel.

    “At Lulu, it’s free to publish, and authors can create everything from hardcover books to eBooks, photo books to calendars. Authors keep all the rights to their works and retain 80 percent of the profit they set when their books sell.”

    http://www.lulu.com/en/about/index.php

  31. avatar
    Majority Will April 3, 2011 at 6:43 pm #

    Suranis: Yeah, some of them were mine (I’m JJ, it used my google account) I’ve tried to do a bit of fighting the good fight over there but seriously dragging together the facts to counter their stream of BS claims is more than a little exhausting.

    Kudos and thanks.

  32. avatar
    Majority Will April 3, 2011 at 6:45 pm #

    Suranis: Yeah, some of them were mine (I’m JJ, it used my google account) I’ve tried to do a bit of fighting the good fight over there but seriously dragging together the facts to counter their stream of BS claims is more than a little exhausting.

    P.S. I’m surprised that the dissenting posts weren’t censored and removed.

    Perhaps this blogger really likes the attention and page views.

  33. avatar
    thefarleftView April 3, 2011 at 6:56 pm #

    the most damning parts that the DEATHERS can not dispute

    1- a detailed investigation of the history and procedures used by Hawaii’s municipal health department, and its relationship with the newspapers, shows that not only was it a matter of official policy that Obama’s birth would have been announced in the paper regardless of where he was born, the information used to publish the announcements is not even confirmed through any eye-witness medical authority or hospital in the state.

    2 – the two newspapers shared the same address and facility which means they received only one copy of the same vital records information from the Department of Health. Therefore, the format and content of information used in public announcements were published identically by both papers, including any mistakes, omissions, order or context, and no investigation was carried out by the editors to determine if the information provided by the DOH was actually accurate. The two newspapers have long since collaborated into one organization.

    Now, however, collaborative information from the archive of the U.S. Department of Health’s 1961 Report on Vital Statistics of the U.S – Volume 1: Natality, and Hawaii’s Administrative rules governing the creation of vital records finally reveals the truth about how these announcements were published and why they are mistakenly used by pundits
    to promote a misguided message about Obama’s natal history.

    3- a two month long research project on location in Hawaii, to, once and for all, close the door on questions about the facts and bring the long-due invalidation of the authority of these fallow Hawaiian birth announcements, in quaint newspapers, to support Obama’s eligibility to be president.

    4- ***********Crosby in a phone call from Oahu, “I found thousands of birth registration records of children born outside of Hawaii who have their announcements published in these two newspapers by cross referencing the announcements with the U.S. Department of Health Vital Records Report for Hawaii.”****************

    5- *****************Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows the state Health Department to register the foreign birth of any child as a native Hawaiian birth*******************

    6- *********************** I also found several birth records in Japan for birth’s registered in Hawaii.” A review of all the birth announcements in Hawaii in 1961 reveals other evidence suggesting a disconnect between the Department of Health and Hawaii’s hospitals.*******************************

    7- ********all the announcements show the parents as married and living at the same address.

    “This is not merely a majority of the announcements, this is actually all of them. Every single one! Approximately 16,000 in all!” Crosby said.

    He continued, “This is a significant indication that the newspapers actually do not investigate the information provided by the DOH (Department of Health). If they did, they would have seen that there are more than 1000 births recorded in Hawaii in 1961 in which the parents were not married and/or only the mother is recorded as the parent, yet the papers still publish Mr. and Mrs. ‘Whoever’ in the announcement because>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is the information registered, not medically verified.” <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    8- ******It appears that Obama’s birth was registered in an office not used by any of the birth registrations offices who received birth certification from either Kapi-olani Medical Center, or Queens Medical Center which use two local offices near those facilities,” said Crosby.**** good bye fake green blob…….which was reported earlier that had NO REGISTRATION NUMBER behind the highlight crossed it out,now you know why.

    9- Crosby says the difference between a "medically verified” live birth and a “birth registration” are significant. A live birth is witnessed by a doctor, a birth registration is simply recorded by administrative authority without witnessing the birth.

    "Obama's birth registration announcement appears deeper in the column of the paper because his birth was not a medical certificate provided by a hospital like the births shown above his. Walk-in birth registrations are treated differently in the reporting process. They seem to get 'second billing' based on registration indexing," said Crosby

    10- ****As a final statement to Bill O’reilly, Chris Matthews and the remaining ignorant slew of media hacks DEATHERS and OBOTS, we would like to say this:

    Your failure to investigate these facts has undermined your profession and made you look pathetically wanton as journalists. If you would have taken just two more steps in your shallow observations, just one more level down into the actual truth, you have come to the same facts about Obama’s natal history as the internet community has. Instead, you chose to glance at the drive-by message and believe what some deceitful political animal told you about the matter. Now, Obama has made you look like a fool.

  34. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 3, 2011 at 7:06 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I fully agree and that idea is behind the distinction I make between the Bad and the Ugly web site links, and why I moved The Daily Pen into the latter category.

    It seems to me that there’s no bright line between the two, although the ‘Ugly’ sites are all certainly at or near the bottom of their tumble down the slippery slope… (and if this article is a typical example, the Daily Pen certainly belongs there).

    I must admit that I don’t quite have my arms around the duplicitous part of the birther movement.

    I think that if I understood the subtle blend of misinformation and lies that make up any conspiracy theorist, I wouldn’t find them so fascinating.

    Orly and Phil Berg are true believers (at least that’s what I think [I agree.]) and I don’t have a problem with people speaking their mind [Ditto – although I have a problem with the people who listen to them and with their continued pushing of long-debunked theories – ignorance is one thing, but willful ignorance is quite another…]. I suppose WorldNetDaily is out to make a buck, and I can understand that even though I don’t respect it [it is a pretty pathetic way to make money…]. However, those web sites in the Ugly category baffle me for the most part. If someone actually believes in a cause,wouldn’t they believe that their arguments are sufficient without trying to fake them?

    My take is that the true believers are such because of their extreme confirmation biases. This allows them not only to swallow lies that sound good to them hook, line, and sinker, but lets them believe that they are exercising rigorous logic when they classify lies as the truth and vice-versa…

    I must admit that I have very little personal experience with liars of that type.

    Nor have I.

  35. avatar
    Suranis April 3, 2011 at 7:08 pm #

    And a partridge in a pair tree!

  36. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 3, 2011 at 7:10 pm #

    Majority Will: P.S. I’m surprised that the dissenting posts weren’t censored and removed.

    Perhaps this blogger really likes the attention and page views.

    That would make it the second unmoderated birther site which I know of (ITookTheRedPill being the other). A 100% increase – pretty good… ;-)

  37. avatar
    kimba April 3, 2011 at 7:33 pm #

    Judge Mental: listed on the internet at lulu.com

    Good find, I didn’t even think of looking at lulu. But his website says it’s on amazon.

    Note to Doc: The thing I thought was “new” was the explanation that the birth announcements were triggered by a record being created for a birth registration, but not necessarily one that occurred in a hospital in Hawaii. Adams said it in the interview on Thursday, Saturday it’s in the Pen article. I thought we’d never heard that one before then poof it shows up in two places all of a sudden, that’s why I think Adams knew of the Pen article, helped with information for the Pen article, or wrote it.

  38. avatar
    G April 3, 2011 at 7:34 pm #

    thefarleftView: the most damning parts that the DEATHERS can not dispute

    Obviously, you’ve failed to read Dr. C’s article here. Learn to read & get your answers.

    Otherwise, keep barking in the wind. You’re a discredited nut whose brain is rotted by hate and who hasn’t been able to post anything credible nor worthwhile in listening to yet.

  39. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 3, 2011 at 7:51 pm #

    thefarleftView:
    the most damning parts that the DEATHERS can not dispute

    1- a detailed investigation of the history and procedures used by Hawaii’s municipal health department, and its relationship with the newspapers [No evidence that this ever happened], shows that not only was it a matter of official policy that Obama’s birth would have been announced in the paper regardless of where he was born [While the reporting of a birth (regardless of location) would have been standard procedure, I know of no ‘official policy’ regarding such announcements…], the information used to publish the announcements is not even confirmed through any eye-witness medical authority or hospital in the state [A stupid lie – you didn’t even read Doc’s article, did you?].

    2 – the two newspapers shared the same address and facility which means they received only one copy of the same vital records information from the Department of Health. [Another stupid lie (ASL)] Therefore, the format and content of information used in public announcements were published identically by both papers, including any mistakes, omissions, order or context [That’s funny – this directly contradicts another birther claim that the page in which President Obama’s birth announcement appeared was the only time the announcements in the two papers were identical. Which is it?], and no investigation was carried out by the editors to determine if the information provided by the DOH was actually accurate [Maybe because the DOH was responsible for verifying the information before it was sent to the papers…]. The two newspapers have long since collaborated into one organization. [ASL]

    Now, however, collaborative information from the archive of the U.S. Department of Health’s 1961 Report on Vital Statistics of the U.S – Volume 1: Natality, and Hawaii’s Administrative rules governing the creation of vital records finally reveals the truth about how these announcements were published and why they are mistakenly used by pundits
    to promote a misguided message about Obama’s natal history. [ASL]

    3- a two month long research project on location in Hawaii, to, once and for all, close the door on questions about the facts and bring the long-due invalidation of the authority of these fallow Hawaiian birth announcements, in quaint newspapers, to support Obama’s eligibility to be president. [No evidence exists that such a study was done (especially in any credible way…).]

    4- ***********Crosby in a phone call from Oahu, “I found thousands of birth registration records of children born outside of Hawaii who have their announcements published in these two newspapers by cross referencing the announcements with the U.S. Department of Health Vital Records Report for Hawaii.”**************** [ASL]

    5- *****************Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows the state Health Department to register the foreign birth of any child as a native Hawaiian birth******************* [ASL]

    6- *********************** I also found several birth records in Japan for birth’s registered in Hawaii.” A review of all the birth announcements in Hawaii in 1961 reveals other evidence suggesting a disconnect between the Department of Health and Hawaii’s hospitals.******************************* [No such evidence exists…]

    7- ********all the announcements show the parents as married and living at the same address.

    “This is not merely a majority of the announcements, this is actually all of them. Every single one! Approximately 16,000 in all!” Crosby said.

    He continued, “This is a significant indication that the newspapers actually do not investigate the information provided by the DOH (Department of Health). If they did, they would have seen that there are more than 1000 births recorded in Hawaii in 1961 in which the parents were not married and/or only the mother is recorded as the parent, yet the papers still publish Mr. and Mrs. ‘Whoever’ in the announcement because>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is the information registered, not medically verified.” <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< [ASL]

    8- ******It appears that Obama’s birth was registered in an office not used by any of the birth registrations offices who received birth certification from either Kapi-olani Medical Center, or Queens Medical Center which use two local offices near those facilities,” said Crosby.**** [ASL] good bye fake green blob…….which was reported earlier that had NO REGISTRATION NUMBER behind the highlight crossed it out,now you know why. [A stupid lie debunked elsewhere on this site.]

    9- Crosby says the difference between a “medically verified” live birth and a “birth registration” are significant. A live birth is witnessed by a doctor, a birth registration is simply recorded by administrative authority without witnessing the birth.

    “Obama’s birth registration announcement appears deeper in the column of the paper because his birth was not a medical certificate provided by a hospital like the births shown above his. Walk-in birth registrations are treated differently in the reporting process. They seem to get ‘second billing’ based on registration indexing,” said Crosby [ASL]

    10- ****As a final statement to Bill O’reilly, Chris Matthews and the remaining ignorant slew of media hacks DEATHERS and OBOTS, we would like to say this:

    Your failure to investigate these facts has undermined your profession and made you look pathetically wanton as journalists [I would note that his stance on the birthers is one of the few areas where Bill O’Reilly demonstrates any journalistic integrity whatsoever…]. If you would have taken just two more steps in your shallow observations, just one more level down into the actual truth, you have come to the same facts about Obama’s natal history as the internet community has. [That President Obama is a natural born citizen.] Instead, you chose to glance at the drive-by message and believe what some deceitful political animal told you about the matter. Now, Obama has made you look like a fool. [There is certainly a fool here, but you are mistake as to their identity…]

    Wow, 19 lies – almost two lies for every point you made…

  40. avatar
    kimba April 3, 2011 at 7:57 pm #

    thefarleftView: Your failure to investigate these facts has undermined your profession and made you look pathetically wanton as journalists.

    What’s interesting is that Larry O”Donnell had enough facts to shred the birth certificate myth in a 4 minute explanation. He even showed the full newspaper pages with the birth announcements. This tells me the networks, including FoxNews, were telling the truth back in 2008 when they said they had investigated and could find no evidence that Barack Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii. I think they all found and possess as much birther debunking facts as Doc and fogbow, they’ve just chosen not to present it. Birtherism is a controversy. Controversy brings eyeballs to watch the TV box. The networks make ad money based on eyeballs on their channel. They don’t want to kill birtherism until they’ve milked it for alll it’s worth, like Trump did. Trump used birtherism and birthers as a publicity stunt to generate interest for his new Fox show. Used you and threw you aside like Michelle Bachmann and Scott Brown.

  41. avatar
    Joey April 3, 2011 at 8:09 pm #

    thefarleftView:
    the most damning parts that the DEATHERS can not dispute

    1- a detailed investigation of the history and procedures used by Hawaii’s municipal health department, and its relationship with the newspapers, shows that not only was it a matter of official policy that Obama’s birth would have been announced in the paper regardless of where he was born, the information used to publish the announcements is not even confirmed through any eye-witness medical authority or hospital in the state.

    2 – the two newspapers shared the same address and facility which means they received only one copy of the same vital records information from the Department of Health. Therefore, the format and content of information used in public announcements were published identically by both papers, including any mistakes, omissions, order or context, and no investigation was carried out by the editors to determine if the information provided by the DOH was actually accurate. The two newspapers have long since collaborated into one organization.

    Now, however, collaborative information from the archive of the U.S. Department of Health’s 1961 Report on Vital Statistics of the U.S – Volume 1: Natality, and Hawaii’s Administrative rules governing the creation of vital records finally reveals the truth about how these announcements were published and why they are mistakenly used by pundits
    to promote a misguided message about Obama’s natal history.

    3- a two month long research project on location in Hawaii, to, once and for all, close the door on questions about the facts and bring the long-due invalidation of the authority of these fallow Hawaiian birth announcements, in quaint newspapers, to support Obama’s eligibility to be president.

    4- ***********Crosby in a phone call from Oahu, “I found thousands of birth registration records of children born outside of Hawaii who have their announcements published in these two newspapers by cross referencing the announcements with the U.S. Department of Health Vital Records Report for Hawaii.”****************

    5- *****************Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows the state Health Department to register the foreign birth of any child as a native Hawaiian birth*******************

    6- *********************** I also found several birth records in Japan for birth’s registered in Hawaii.” A review of all the birth announcements in Hawaii in 1961 reveals other evidence suggesting a disconnect between the Department of Health and Hawaii’s hospitals.*******************************

    7- ********all the announcements show the parents as married and living at the same address.

    “This is not merely a majority of the announcements, this is actually all of them. Every single one! Approximately 16,000 in all!” Crosby said.

    He continued, “This is a significant indication that the newspapers actually do not investigate the information provided by the DOH (Department of Health). If they did, they would have seen that there are more than 1000 births recorded in Hawaii in 1961 in which the parents were not married and/or only the mother is recorded as the parent, yet the papers still publish Mr. and Mrs. ‘Whoever’ in the announcement because>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is the information registered, not medically verified.” <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    8- ******It appears that Obama’s birth was registered in an office not used by any of the birth registrations offices who received birth certification from either Kapi-olani Medical Center, or Queens Medical Center which use two local offices near those facilities,” said Crosby.**** good bye fake green blob…….which was reported earlier that had NO REGISTRATION NUMBER behind the highlight crossed it out,now you know why.

    9- Crosby says the difference between a “medically verified” live birth and a “birth registration” are significant. A live birth is witnessed by a doctor, a birth registration is simply recorded by administrative authority without witnessing the birth.

    “Obama’s birth registration announcement appears deeper in the column of the paper because his birth was not a medical certificate provided by a hospital like the births shown above his. Walk-in birth registrations are treated differently in the reporting process. They seem to get ‘second billing’ based on registration indexing,” said Crosby

    10- ****As a final statement to Bill O’reilly, Chris Matthews and the remaining ignorant slew of media hacks DEATHERS and OBOTS, we would like to say this:

    Your failure to investigate these facts has undermined your profession and made you look pathetically wanton as journalists. If you would have taken just two more steps in your shallow observations, just one more level down into the actual truth, you have come to the same facts about Obama’s natal history as the internet community has. Instead, you chose to glance at the drive-by message and believe what some deceitful political animal told you about the matter. Now, Obama has made you look like a fool.

    Whew, that’s a lot of (mis)information about a couple of newspaper entries!

    President Barack Hussein Obama II is very fortunate then that he has a certified copy of his Hawai’i Certification of Live Birth which states that he was born at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961 in the City of Honolulu, in the County of Honolulu, on the Island of Oahu, in the state of Hawai’i. Our President is also fortunate that his birth was registered with the state of Hawaii on August 8, 1961.
    The President is also fortunate that his Certification of Live Birth has been verified by the Registrar of Vital Statistics for the state of Hawaii, and by the Director of Health for the state of Hawaii. He is even more fortunate that the former Republican Governor of Hawai’i, Linda Lingle took it upon herself to name the President’s birth hospital when she stated that “the President was, in fact born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, and that’s just a fact. It’s been established, he was born here.”–Governor Linda Lingle, May 2, 2010.
    There have now been 92 adjudications of lawsuits concerned with the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II to be the 44th President of the United States heard at the local, county, state, state appeals, state Supreme Court, federal, federal appeals and US Supreme Court levels. No Court and not one single judge or justice in a multi-judge panel has ruled that Barack Hussein Obama II is ineligible for not being a natural born citizen.

    I’ll conclude with the words of a conservative Republican US District Court Judge, appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush upon the recommendation of Republican former Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional eligibility may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is SO LACKING IN FACTUAL SUPPORT THAT IT IS FRIVOLOUS would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”– U.S. District Court Judge Clay R. Land, in dismissing Rhodes v MacDonald, US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
    Judge Land then went on to impose a $20,000 sanction against Captain Connie Rhodes’ attorney, Orly Taitz for wasting his time with nonsense. Ms. Taitz appealed the impostion of the sanction to the US Supreme Court which rejected her appeal. Ms. Taitz paid the fine for having wasted the Court’s time with nonsense.

  42. avatar
    Daniel April 3, 2011 at 8:11 pm #

    thefarleftView: the most damning parts that the DEATHERS can not dispute

    Really? We cannot dispute them? Are you sure?

    Hang on, let me check.

    Ahem….

    I dispute those parts.

    Well that wasn’t hard. Odd that you would say we cannot dispute them when it’s quite obvious I had no difficulty whatsoever in disputing them.

    Looks like you were completely and utterly wrong about that.

    I wonder how many other things you are wrong about?

  43. avatar
    Sef April 3, 2011 at 8:15 pm #

    Joey: Ms. Taitz paid the fine for having wasted the Court’s time with nonsense.

    And she has the audacity to expect that the public contribute to paying her fine. (She and her hubby are quite wealthy.)

  44. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 3, 2011 at 8:18 pm #

    Judge Mental:
    There is no book for sale at Amazon or with an ISBN called “The Opacity of Otherness” or “The Mombosan Son” or any other work by Penbrook Johannson for that matter.

    ……..I fear the former book may be somewhat diificult read if the tortured prose in the LULU blurb is anything to go by…

    Opacity Of Otherness
    By Penbrook Johannson
    View this Author’s Spotlight

    Paperback, 625 pages This item has not been rated yet

    Preview Price: 16.55

    Ships in 3–5 business days
    We are imposed upon by the liberal’s anointed deceiver. The only evidence of his qualifications and intentions come to us after it has been strained and contrived through a chain of possession and his manipulators of interpretation. We only see the shiny, jewel-laden cloak, as the reprobation is subdued, and the vile cause is hastened that they might assume jurisdiction over the minds and bodies of vintage America while seeking to destroy those with the power to oppose them. Against decent people their leader now stands as a requisite tool possessing the characteristics endowed to him by invisible forces, constructing doctrinal architecture with insidious justifications, lost in ideology, and implementing damnable, desolate politics which will eventually serve the destruction of everything our father’s suffered to realize……..

    Aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!!!!!

    Wow that is one way to say I’m a birther while saying nothing at all. Does he think he’s creative?

  45. avatar
    Joey April 3, 2011 at 8:27 pm #

    Sef: And she has the audacity to expect that the public contribute to paying her fine. (She and her hubby are quite wealthy.)

    That’s because birtherism is, first and foremost, an internet-based profit center for ambulance chasing attorneys and their far right wing racist dupes.

    A normal person (albeit a little weird): “The state of Hawai’i says that the president was born there. That’s good enough for me.”–Representative John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives (R-OH).

  46. avatar
    oaka April 3, 2011 at 8:41 pm #

    >> the Hawaii Department of Health registered a birth for Barack Obama’s son in 1961 according to its rules and procedures.<<

    Doc,
    I have this from a long time ago. Are these part of the rules and procedures in 1961?

    Chapter 8, Section 2 of the Public Health Regulations
    “(a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is
    unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth
    certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary
    information from any person having knowledge of the
    birth and prepare and file the certificate.”

    If so, would this generate the Newspaper Ads?

  47. avatar
    misha April 3, 2011 at 8:52 pm #

    oaka: Chapter 8, Section 2 of the Public Health Regulations “(a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is
    unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the
    birth and prepare and file the certificate.”
    If so, would this generate the Newspaper Ads?

    Yes it would. That’s how Obama, who was born in Kenya, got those newspapers ads.

  48. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 3, 2011 at 9:07 pm #

    I just love how jj utterly destroys everyone on that page. They come back with regulations that wouldn’t even apply to Obama and as a last resort they bring up sun yet sen

  49. avatar
    James M April 3, 2011 at 9:39 pm #

    DP:

    For some time now, I have actually felt sorry for Butter.

    Yesterday, in the parking lot of a strip mall, a guy pulled up next to me with his dog in the car. He rolled up the windows and went to a store or something. He had various anti-Obama bumper stickers on his car, which I didn’t bother to look too closely at (one was “Impeach Obama”)

    I felt very, very sorry for his dog.

  50. avatar
    Suranis April 3, 2011 at 9:40 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    I just love how jj utterly destroys everyone on that page.They come back with regulations that wouldn’t even apply to Obama and as a last resort they bring up sun yet sen

    Thanks. I think I did ok, probably could have been better, but it was mainly down to the fine research on this blog and NBCs that I did as well as i did at all.

  51. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 3, 2011 at 9:50 pm #

    Suranis: Thanks. I think I did ok, probably could have been better, but it was mainly down to the fine research on this blog and NBCs that I did as well as i did at all.

    Come on when you have birthers who just do continuous copy and paste jobs instead of giving their own actual opinions you know theyre backed in a corner

  52. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 3, 2011 at 10:01 pm #

    Suranis: Yeah, some of them were mine (I’m JJ, it used my google account) I’ve tried to do a bit of fighting the good fight over there but seriously dragging together the facts to counter their stream of BS claims is more than a little exhausting.

    Debunking is much harder work that the original lies – especially given the birthers’ penchant for jumping on any tiny error you might make to distract from the whoppers they’ve been telling…

    Suranis: Thanks. I think I did ok, probably could have been better, but it was mainly down to the fine research on this blog and NBCs that I did as well as i did at all.

    You did fine. You don’t get extra points for doing original debunking – there’s no need to reinvent the wheel. And I agree with Bob Ross about forcing your opponents into cut-and-paste mode…

    p.s. The DHHL is concerned with people with native Hawai’ian ancestry – the COLB (on its own) doesn’t provide the information they need to determine if someone is of native descent or not, therefore it isn’t sufficient for their uses. I think that this is one of the birthers’ most subtle red herrings – they don’t say much that’s untrue, but leave the impression that the DHHL doesn’t accept the COLB as valid (which is, of course, complete BS). A standard birther tactic would be to assume that you are admitting that the COLB is invalid to the DHHL because you debunked a different aspect of the argument – I’ll be interested to see if Mr. Sewell takes this tack…

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 3, 2011 at 10:11 pm #

    oaka: I have this from a long time ago. Are these part of the rules and procedures in 1961?

    Chapter 8, Section 2 of the Public Health Regulations
    “(a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is
    unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth
    certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary
    information from any person having knowledge of the
    birth and prepare and file the certificate.”

    If so, would this generate the Newspaper Ads?

    The regs in 1961 say about the same thing. And yes, if the state was satisfied that the report was legitimate, then it should included in the Health Department birth list published in the newspaper. Of course that presumes that at least one of the parents were known.

    If an unidentified newborn were found at the hospital, that’s what is called a “foundling” and I don’t know what if anything they put on the list. In that case, however, the newspaper might actually run a story: “mystery infant found in hospital hamper.”

  54. avatar
    misha April 3, 2011 at 10:16 pm #

    James M: I felt very, very sorry for his dog.

    “Woof, woof, growl, growl.” Translation: don’t leave the radio on with Rush Limbaugh.

  55. avatar
    Joey April 3, 2011 at 10:31 pm #

    In case anyone thinks that the birthers against Obama is something new and different in American politics:

    Negative campaigning in America was sired by two lifelong friends, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Back in 1776, the dynamic duo combined powers to help claim America’s independence, and they had nothing but love and respect for one another. But by 1800, party politics had so distanced the pair that, for the first and last time in U.S. history, a president found himself running against his vice president.

    Things got ugly fast. Jefferson’s camp accused President Adams of having a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”

    In return, Adams’ men called Vice President Jefferson “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”

    As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward.

    Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was “one of the most detestable of mankind.”

    Jefferson hires a hatchet man

    Back then, presidential candidates didn’t actively campaign. In fact, Adams and Jefferson spent much of the election season at their respective homes in Massachusetts and Virginia.

    But the key difference between the two politicians was that Jefferson hired a hatchet man named James Callendar to do his smearing for him. Adams, on the other hand, considered himself above such tactics. To Jefferson’s credit, Callendar proved incredibly effective, convincing many Americans that Adams desperately wanted to attack France. Although the claim was completely untrue, voters bought it, and Jefferson stole the election.

    Jefferson paid a price for his dirty campaign tactics, though. Callendar served jail time for the slander he wrote about Adams, and when he emerged from prison in 1801, he felt Jefferson still owed him.

    After Jefferson did little to appease him, Callendar broke a story in 1802 that had only been a rumor until then — that the President was having an affair with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings. In a series of articles, Callendar claimed that Jefferson had lived with Hemings in France and that she had given birth to five of his children.
    The Above is From CNN

  56. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 3, 2011 at 10:40 pm #

    misha: “Woof, woof, growl, growl.” Translation: don’t leave the radio on with Rush Limbaugh.

    So I was reading some of the other articles on that site. The author claims that Fox news viewership went down when they didn’t cover Lakin or the birther whines

  57. avatar
    Rickey April 3, 2011 at 11:13 pm #

    Majority Will: Most likely a pen name for anonymity. And it’s self published making it as meaningless as I, Lucas Smith’s drivel.

    When I clicked on it for more information, I received a “You may also like” prompt which took me to a book to Rick A Hyatt. Regulars here may remember Hyatt as a wacko who paid a visit here last year, proclaiming that he and Obama are both the sons of East German General Markus Misha Wolf.

    As you say, “Penbrook Johannson” almost certainly is a pseudonym.

  58. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 3, 2011 at 11:25 pm #

    thefarleftView: the most damning parts that the DEATHERS can not dispute

    I would appreciate people reading the article before commenting on it, which thefarleftView obviously hasn’t.

  59. avatar
    Majority Will April 3, 2011 at 11:53 pm #

    Rickey: As you say, “Penbrook Johannson” almost certainly is a pseudonym.

    Which anagrams to “Oh No! Pan on jerk snob”.

  60. avatar
    LMK April 4, 2011 at 12:46 am #

    GeorgetownJD: Butterdezillion:

    Right now my computer only works in safe mode and at least some of my e-mails in and out are being intercepted so they’re not received even though the person who sent them thinks they have been received. That started up again in earnest a few days ago. It’s a way of isolating me. Psychological operations to make me feel alone and to keep me from being able to network with critical people.”

    Her phone line is probably tapped, too, and a GPS locating device covertly installed on the undercarriage of her minivan.

    Shhhhhhhhh!

  61. avatar
    DP April 4, 2011 at 1:05 am #

    GeorgetownJD: Butterdezillion:Right now my computer only works in safe mode and at least some of my e-mails in and out are being intercepted so they’re not received even though the person who sent them thinks they have been received. That started up again in earnest a few days ago. It’s a way of isolating me. Psychological operations to make me feel alone and to keep me from being able to network with critical people.”Her phone line is probably tapped, too, and a GPS locating device covertly installed on the undercarriage of her minivan.

    That is so sad. This woman has children and she’s mentally disturbed.

    I hope she gets the help she needs.

  62. avatar
    Keith April 4, 2011 at 1:50 am #

    oaka:
    >> the Hawaii Department of Health registered a birth for Barack Obama’s son in 1961 according to its rules and procedures.<<

    Doc,
    I have this from a long time ago.Are these part of the rules and procedures in 1961?

    Chapter 8, Section 2 of the Public Health Regulations
    “(a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is
    unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth
    certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary
    information from any person having knowledge of the
    birth and prepare and file the certificate.”

    If so, would this generate the Newspaper Ads?

    Of course.

    I don’t know if it is still true, but once upon a time Governments were required to publish stuff in the ‘paper of record’. Stuff like, bankruptcy notices, intention to take a piece of land for a right-of-way, sell off an existing right-of-way, election dates, birth notices, death notices.

    Often these were listed in the newspaper classified ad space under ‘Public Notices’ or some such similar heading. Such a notice is a paid advertisement, paid for by the Government at whatever rate the government has negotiated with the paper, probably at a discount to the normal classified rates.

    If a birth was registered, no matter what procedure/circumstance caused that registration, it was required by law to be published as a public notice.

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2011 at 2:04 am #

    Keith: If a birth was registered, no matter what procedure/circumstance caused that registration, it was required by law to be published as a public notice.

    I am not aware of such a law in Hawaii.

  64. avatar
    LMK April 4, 2011 at 2:09 am #

    thefarleftView:
    the most damning parts that the DEATHERS can not dispute

    What the heck is a deather?

    1- a detailed investigation of the history and procedures used by Hawaii’s municipal health department, and its relationship with the newspapers, shows that not only was it a matter of official policy that Obama’s birth would have been announced in the paper regardless of where he was born, the information used to publish the announcements is not even confirmed through any eye-witness medical authority or hospital in the state.
    Perhaps you could tell me the names of newspapers that DO contact eyewitnesses of a birth before announcing the birth in their newspaper?

    2 – the two newspapers shared the same address and facility which means they received only one copy of the same vital records information from the Department of Health. Therefore, the format and content of information used in public announcements were published identically by both papers, including any mistakes, omissions, order or context, and no investigation was carried out by the editors to determine if the information provided by the DOH was actually accurate. The two newspapers have long since collaborated into one organization.
    And you can provide that the addresses for the two newspapers were the same in 1961, right?

    Might it be possible that when the DoH sends birth announcements to newspapers, they send each paper a photocopy of the announcement? Thus, each newspaper receives an identical piece of paper? It would be a little like writing your Christmas card letter, photocopying that letter and then sending photocopies of that letter to several addresses.

    1961 wasn’t the dark ages, even in Hawaii. They had copiers then.

    Now, however, collaborative information from the archive of the U.S. Department of Health’s 1961 Report on Vital Statistics of the U.S – Volume 1: Natality, and Hawaii’s Administrative rules governing the creation of vital records finally reveals the truth about how these announcements were published and why they are mistakenly used by pundits
    to promote a misguided message about Obama’s natal history.

    Huh? Show me the “collaborative information from the archive of the U.S. Department of Health’s 1961 Report on Vital Statistics of the U.S – Volume 1: Natality, and Hawaii’s Administrative rules.

    Truly. I would love to read this info and report.

    3- a two month long research project on location in Hawaii, to, once and for all, close the door on questions about the facts and bring the long-due invalidation of the authority of these fallow Hawaiian birth announcements, in quaint newspapers, to support Obama’s eligibility to be president.

    More ethnocentrism by Mr. Pen? Hawaii could only have “quaint newspapers” in 1961. After all, Hawaii is on the edge of nowhere.

    4- ***********Crosby in a phone call from Oahu, “I found thousands of birth registration records of children born outside of Hawaii who have their announcements published in these two newspapers by cross referencing the announcements with the U.S. Department of Health Vital Records Report for Hawaii.”****************

    I would love to see an affidavit from Crosby, along with documentation verifying that Crosby IS NOT Tim Adams or Johansson.

    Certainly Crosby has some documentation, some actual evidence to support this assertion?

    5- *****************Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows the state Health Department to register the foreign birth of any child as a native Hawaiian birth*******************

    Yawn. Prove it. Show me a single COLB for a child born before 1981 that supports this nonsense. Birfers have been asked to meet this challenge for 2 years now, and they can’t find a single COLB/BC that pre-dates 1981 and shows a foreign-born child listed as being born in Hawaii.

    Actually, they haven’t been able to find a single Hawaiian COLB/BC for a child born after 1981 showing that that foreign-born child was born in Hawaii.

    6- *********************** I also found several birth records in Japan for birth’s registered in Hawaii.” A review of all the birth announcements in Hawaii in 1961 reveals other evidence suggesting a disconnect between the Department of Health and Hawaii’s hospitals.*******************************

    Excellent! Let’s see them!

    7- ********all the announcements show the parents as married and living at the same address.

    “This is not merely a majority of the announcements, this is actually all of them. Every single one! Approximately 16,000 in all!” Crosby said.

    He continued, “This is a significant indication that the newspapers actually do not investigate the information provided by the DOH (Department of Health). If they did, they would have seen that there are more than 1000 births recorded in Hawaii in 1961 in which the parents were not married and/or only the mother is recorded as the parent, yet the papers still publish Mr. and Mrs. ‘Whoever’ in the announcement because>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is the information registered, not medically verified.” <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    So? Your point? And this is relevant to Obama how? And you can prove your assertion how?

    8- ******It appears that Obama’s birth was registered in an office not used by any of the birth registrations offices who received birth certification from either Kapi-olani Medical Center, or Queens Medical Center which use two local offices near those facilities,” said Crosby.**** good bye fake green blob…….which was reported earlier that had NO REGISTRATION NUMBER behind the highlight crossed it out,now you know why.

    Proof, please.

    9- Crosby says the difference between a “medically verified” live birth and a “birth registration” are significant. A live birth is witnessed by a doctor, a birth registration is simply recorded by administrative authority without witnessing the birth.

    “Obama’s birth registration announcement appears deeper in the column of the paper because his birth was not a medical certificate provided by a hospital like the births shown above his. Walk-in birth registrations are treated differently in the reporting process. They seem to get ‘second billing’ based on registration indexing,” said Crosby

    Ok, I admit it. This one made me giggle out loud. This is so irrelevant.

    Then there is the “Huh?” factor.

    10- ****As a final statement to Bill O’reilly, Chris Matthews and the remaining ignorant slew of media hacks DEATHERS and OBOTS, we would like to say this:

    Your failure to investigate these facts has undermined your profession and made you look pathetically wanton as journalists. If you would have taken just two more steps in your shallow observations, just one more level down into the actual truth, you have come to the same facts about Obama’s natal history as the internet community has. Instead, you chose to glance at the drive-by message and believe what some deceitful political animal told you about the matter. Now, Obama has made you look like a fool.

    Interestingly, McCain’s lawyers researched this thoroughly. I hope you send them a scathing “tut-tut” as well. I am certain that they will feel absolutely crushed by the knowledge that they could have, with due diligence, prevented a black man from becoming POTUS and guaranteed that McCain would have been elected POTUS. Especially since this research occurred AFTER the Dem and Repub National Conventions.

    http://washingtonindependent.com/52474/mccain-campaign-investigated-dismissed-obama-citizenship-rumors

    In the final months of the 2008 presidential race, Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) campaign learned of a lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania that asked the state to strip Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) of the Democratic nomination on suspicion that he was not an American citizen.

    snip…..

    While they ruled out any chance of the “birther” lawsuits holding up in court, lawyers for the McCain campaign did check into the rumors about Obama’s birth and the assertions made by Berg and others. “To the extent that we could, we looked into the substantive side of these allegations,” said Potter. “We never saw any evidence that then-Senator Obama had been born outside of the United States. We saw rumors, but nothing that could be sourced to evidence. There were no statements and no documents that suggested he was born somewhere else. On the other side, there was proof that he was born in Hawaii. There was a certificate issued by the state’s Department of Health, and the responsible official in the state saying that he had personally seen the original certificate. There was a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser, which would be very difficult to invent or plant 47 years in advance.”

    Emphasis mine. Links not carried over.

    TheFarLeftView, you have done exactly what other birfers have done; you have babbled but provided absolutely no proof.

  65. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 4, 2011 at 2:17 am #

    LMK: What the heck is a deather?

    It’s thefarleftView’s attempt at making up a name to shame Obots – pretty pathetic, isn’t it?

  66. avatar
    LMK April 4, 2011 at 2:41 am #

    Doc C,

    I appreciated your participation on RCRadio on Thur night. You asked excellent questions and made some excellent observations.

    How is it that you didn’t shoot yourself in the head while reading and researching this article?

    I hope you are receiving hazard pay.

  67. avatar
    LMK April 4, 2011 at 2:43 am #

    Slartibartfast: It’s thefarleftView’s attempt at making up a name to shame Obots – pretty pathetic, isn’t it?

    It doesn’t even make sense. How can I be shamed by something I don’t even understand? Or am I supposed to be shamed because I don’t know what I should feel shame over?

    It’s a pickle.

  68. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 4, 2011 at 2:52 am #

    LMK: It doesn’t even make sense.How can I be shamed by something I don’t even understand?Or am I supposed to be shamed because I don’t know what I should feel shame over?

    It’s a pickle.

    That’s just my opinion of what they are trying to do – I can’t explain how it is supposed to work (at least not without a pre-frontal lobotomy and enough drugs to turn my brain to tapioca…). My best understanding is that the birhters are devotees of ‘Underpants Gnome’-type reasoning:

    1. Call people names they don’t understand

    2. ???????

    3. Shame

    I guess it’s not surprising that the birthers don’t understand how to make people feel shame since they seem totally incapable of feeling appropriate shame themselves…

  69. avatar
    The Magic M April 4, 2011 at 3:55 am #

    > It’s thefarleftView’s attempt at making up a name to shame Obots – pretty pathetic, isn’t it?

    It doesn’t even make sense since an “anti-birther” is as much a “deather” as an anti-Democrat is a Marxist (an “anti-Democrat” could be a Republican, a Tea Partier, an Independent, a royalist, an anarchist or even someone totally apolitic).

    Dem fools dun even knows dem own langwich!

  70. avatar
    Keith April 4, 2011 at 3:55 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Keith: If a birth was registered, no matter what procedure/circumstance caused that registration, it was required by law to be published as a public notice.

    I am not aware of such a law in Hawaii.

    Perhaps not. I cannot speak for every state jurisdiction, of course.

    Are you saying you doubt that there has never been such a ‘law’ in Hawai’i?

    I notice that the Wikipedia page on “Public Notice” makes no mention of vital statistic events as one of the common notices. I can buy that, I suppose, but then what would the DoH use as justification for the practice then?

  71. avatar
    Keith April 4, 2011 at 4:12 am #

    In Oregon, the current procedure is not like the Hawai’ian procedure in 1961.

    Birth announcements run Thursdays

    So there is plenty of room for me to be wrong on the general applicability, however, it is clear that in Hawai’i in 1961 the DoH sent the notices to the papers for each registered birth. How that birth entered the system should be irrelevant to that fact. Births registered with the DoH were reported.

  72. avatar
    Judge Mental April 4, 2011 at 5:26 am #

    Sorry for the slight deviation from the current discussion of public notice announcement procedures in various states. I’m going back for a moment to 338-17.8 itself.

    Do we know if any other states in USA have similar statutes to Hawaii’s 338-17.8 in which they provide recourse to residents of those states to carry out birth registration and obtain birth certificates from other states for children that may have been born to them while they were overseas or in another state?

  73. avatar
    Judge Mental April 4, 2011 at 5:40 am #

    Majority Will: Most likely a pen name for anonymity. And it’s self published making it as meaningless as I, Lucas Smith’s drivel.“At Lulu, it’s free to publish, and authors can create everything from hardcover books to eBooks, photo books to calendars. Authors keep all the rights to their works and retain 80 percent of the profit they set when their books sell.”http://www.lulu.com/en/about/index.php

    I understand that. I was simply pointing out that Mr Johansson was mentioned on the internet in a place other than the place which had been referred to in an earlier post as being the ‘only’ internet entry. As a bonus the entry concerning Johannson happened to also involve one of the two books. I also understand that the Lulu listing does not necessarily confirm the actual existence of the book….perhaps the nutter was waiting for orders to be placed before writing it….if the text content on Lulu is anything to go by, reading the book may rival being waterboarded.

  74. avatar
    Judge Mental April 4, 2011 at 5:44 am #

    Please ignore my first post on 338-17.8, aliens seem to have taken over my keyboard word insertion functions. It should have read….

    “Sorry for the slight deviation from the current discussion of public notice announcement procedures in various states. I’m going back for a moment to 338-17.8 itself.

    Do we know if any other states in USA have similar statutes to Hawaii’s 338-17.8 in which they provide recourse to residents of those states to carry out birth registration and obtain birth certificates for children that may have been born to them while they were overseas or in another state?”

    Sorry about any confusion. Any plans to introduce a self edit function Doc?

  75. avatar
    Majority Will April 4, 2011 at 6:40 am #

    Judge Mental: I understand that. I was simply pointing out that Mr Johansson was mentioned on the internet in a place other than the place which had been referred to in an earlier post as being the only’ internet entry.

    Hopefully, I was backing you up with more pieces to the puzzle.
    There’s a connection among neo-Nazi Adams, Aputzo the losing lawyer and this anonymous, self-important blog scribbler. Sam Sewer, the OCD anti-Mensa is still taking his squat. The most deranged birthers are the most desperate for attention.

  76. avatar
    Thrifty April 4, 2011 at 11:24 am #

    The Daily Pen article mostly tries to refute an argument that does not exist and tries to make simple and normal things sound nefarious. In a few cases, it resorts to out and out lies.

    Which is birtherism in a nutshell.

    Terrific article, Doc.

  77. avatar
    Thrifty April 4, 2011 at 11:46 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I frankly have a hard time understanding birther arguments. If they were real arguments with evidence, reason and a conclusion, then it probably would be easy, but when you have an absurd conclusions supported by assertion, and twisted, the argument is really hard to follow.

    Thank God. I thought it was just me, and I felt like a bit of an idiot for getting lost in it.

  78. avatar
    JohnC April 4, 2011 at 12:48 pm #

    One document birthers love to point to in arguing that Obama is not a natural born citizen in his now-famous Indonesian school registration document – the one which lists his last name as “Soetoro.”

    That same document, however, also states that Obama was born in “Honolulu” on “4-8-61″ (i.e. August 8, 1961) which is exactly what the COLB says and the newspaper announcements imply.

    No birther has yet come up with an explanation for why Obama’s mother or step-father would lie about Obama’s place of birth to Indonesian authorities. Their best line of defense is what it always is – changing the subject to some irrelevant detail or mistake (like “accepted” versus “filed,” or “Certification” versus “Certificate,” etc.).

  79. avatar
    Granite April 4, 2011 at 2:05 pm #

    Has anyone a comment on this part of the pen article: “More than 1200 birth announcements between 1960 and 1965 were shown to contain Hawaiian addresses for registrants of births outside of the state of Hawaii, including more than three hundred in which the child was born outside of the United States. ”

    I assume that that must refer to Hawaii newspapers. Not one example is shown, but then the site may just be saving that for another day.

    One way to check it out, of course, would be to ask the Hawaiian newspapers whether it is true or false. But, they may be busy. Any other way?

  80. avatar
    Thrifty April 4, 2011 at 2:11 pm #

    I guess the most glaring thing about birthers is that they never actually produce their own narrative. Rather, they seem to be all about undermining the official narrative by finding deviousness in innocent details, diverting discussion over to irrelevant details, or outright lying. In short, it’s never “This is the story of Barack Obama’s birth and life.” but rather “I don’t like your story about Barack Obama’s birth and life.”

    Am I off base in this analysis? Does anyone else get the same vibe out of birthers?

  81. avatar
    Thrifty April 4, 2011 at 2:16 pm #

    Granite: Has anyone a comment on this part of the pen article: “More than 1200 birth announcements between 1960 and 1965 were shown to contain Hawaiian addresses for registrants of births outside of the state of Hawaii, including more than three hundred in which the child was born outside of the United States. ”I assume that that must refer to Hawaii newspapers. Not one example is shown, but then the site may just be saving that for another day.One way to check it out, of course, would be to ask the Hawaiian newspapers whether it is true or false. But, they may be busy. Any other way?

    I would put the burden of proof on the birthers to present some of these 1200 birth announcements. Show proof that the births happened outside of Hawaii, and that the births were then reported in the newspapers.

    The Pen could have made this entirely out of whole cloth. I wouldn’t put it past them. Or they could be repeating something someone else made up.

  82. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 4, 2011 at 3:12 pm #

    Thrifty:
    I guess the most glaring thing about birthers is that they never actually produce their own narrative.Rather, they seem to be all about undermining the official narrative by finding deviousness in innocent details, diverting discussion over to irrelevant details, or outright lying.In short, it’s never “This is the story of Barack Obama’s birth and life.” but rather “I don’t like your story about Barack Obama’s birth and life.”

    Am I off base in this analysis?Does anyone else get the same vibe out of birthers?

    No – I think you’re exactly right. Whether or not individual birthers know it, one of the biggest weaknesses in their argument is that they can’t put together any scenario that accounts for all the facts – that’s why they play small ball all the time – none of their theories can account for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth…

  83. avatar
    oaka April 4, 2011 at 5:48 pm #

    Doc,
    I agree with 99% of your logic and I think you’re a very moral guy but i’m still missing something (maybe my brains). If anyone could register a birth (such as a grandparent) and that would generate the newspaper ads, what evidence is there that Obama was born in a hospital? Are you believing that because there were so few home births? (so the odds are really great he was born in a hospital)… or are you believing it because some government official statements? or both? or is there physical evidence that I’m not aware of?

  84. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2011 at 6:08 pm #

    oaka: If anyone could register a birth (such as a grandparent) and that would generate the newspaper ads, what evidence is there that Obama was born in a hospital?

    I’m glad that you used the word “evidence” rather than proof because I couldn’t prove with certainty that Barack Obama was born in a hospital.

    Barack Obama says he was born at Kapi’olani, and I’ve never seen anything to cause me to doubt that. The hospital was only 3.6 miles from her official address and the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper said that Obama was born at Kapi’olani according to “family sources.” From this there is a strong presumption of a hospital birth.

    If you want to add to that, the letter from Barack Obama congratulating the hospital on its 100 anniversary was read before the gala celebration (video) in front of the hospital officials and local dignitaries and even the Governor of Hawaii. They all applauded. A facsimile of the Obama letter was included in a monthly publication of the hospital foundation.

    You might also add the newspaper article from the Buffalo News where Barbara talked about a 1961 conversation between her and Dr. Rodney T. West where he mentions the unusual names of the mother and son (“Stanley had a baby”). Dr. West was delivering babies at Kapi’olani in 1961. I’m not saying that Dr. West delivered Barack Obama (and he’s dead so we can’t ask him) but a doctor at the hospital was at least aware of the birth, which is something unlikely of Obama wasn’t born at the hospital.

    If you go to Honolulu today and take a guided Obama tour, Kapi’olani will be where the guide will tell you Obama was born. And knowing nothing else, the statistical probability of Obama being born outside a hospital is less than one percent.

    Of course Nelson, an Obama family friend, could have been lying about her conversation with West, and Kapi’olani could have gone along with a false Obama letter just to help with their fund raising, the tour companies could be wrong, and improbable events do happen, but there’s no reason to think any of them did.

  85. avatar
    NoE April 4, 2011 at 6:09 pm #

    Her phone line is probably tapped, too, and a GPS locating device covertly installed on the undercarriage of her minivan.

    Shhhhh – that’s NOT where we put the GPS.

  86. avatar
    Judge Mental April 4, 2011 at 7:59 pm #

    JohnC: One document birthers love to point to in arguing that Obama is not a natural born citizen in his now-famous Indonesian school registration document – the one which lists his last name as “Soetoro.”That same document, however, also states that Obama was born in “Honolulu” on “4-8-61‘ (i.e. August 8, 1961) which is exactly what the COLB says and the newspaper announcements imply.No birther has yet come up with an explanation for why Obama’s mother or step-father would lie about Obama’s place of birth to Indonesian authorities. Their best line of defense is what it always is – changing the subject to some irrelevant detail or mistake (like “accepted” versus “filed,” or “Certification” versus “Certificate,” etc.).

    I don’t get it John.

    I’m the antithesis of a birther but can’t fail to notice that his parents had no objection to lying to the Indonesian school about him being Indonesian (or at the very least they felt no need to correct an assumption of Indonesian nationality that the school may have made) so it’s not exactly a giant step from there to accept that they might also lie about his birth date…in the hypothetical situation that 8/4/61 wasn’t his real birth date and was just the birth date that had been registered in USA fraudulently.

    If they’d already lied about his birth date in USA the child was prior to arrival in Indonesia already living a life genuinely believing his birth date was 8/4/61 so it would make perfect sense to continue with that fake birth date in Indonesia. Some school projects about birthdays or birthday parties etc might give away the lie if they did anything else but continue with the same date lie. In fact it would be far more strange not to continue to lie about 8/4/61 being his birth date while in Indonesia.

    Maybe I should join the birthers!

  87. avatar
    JohnC April 4, 2011 at 8:07 pm #

    Thrifty: I guess the most glaring thing about birthers is that they never actually produce their own narrative. Rather, they seem to be all about undermining the official narrative by finding deviousness in innocent details, diverting discussion over to irrelevant details, or outright lying. In short, it’s never “This is the story of Barack Obama’s birth and life.” but rather “I don’t like your story about Barack Obama’s birth and life.”
    Am I off base in this analysis? Does anyone else get the same vibe out of birthers?

    That has been the main thing I’ve taken away from my interactions with birthers. One thing that annoys me is that they often claim to have “questions” about Obama’s birth but then can’t seem to get past that.

    Here’s the standard conversation with birthers:

    Birther: I am skeptical about Obama because there are many unanswered questions about his birth.

    JohnC: Like what?

    B: What is he hiding?

    J: You said “questions” – i.e. more than one. What are your other questions?

    B: He must be hiding something.

    J: That’s not a question. Let me put it another way. What do you think he is hiding?

    B: I don’t know. But I shouldn’t have to guess – he should show his birth certificate.

    J: But why should he show his birth certificate if you can’t tell me what you think he’s hiding?

    B: Because there are lots of unanswered questions about his birth.

    J: [Bangs head on table.]

  88. avatar
    Judge Mental April 4, 2011 at 8:13 pm #

    Doc (or indeed anyone else)….given that there was no equivalent predecessor to the 1982 statute 338.17.8 in 1961, and given that there must have been some children born to Hawaian parents out of state or overseas between 1961 and 1982, perhaps on holiday or business or family visit etc, how do you think those parents actually went about registering their childrens’ births and obtaining birth certificates?

    Presumably they couldn’t have just fallen into a 21 year long documentation black hole?

  89. avatar
    gorefan April 4, 2011 at 8:22 pm #

    oaka: there physical evidence that I’m not aware of?

    It’s not like they lived on the far end of the island, they lived in Honolulu within walking distance to the hospital.

  90. avatar
    JohnC April 4, 2011 at 8:34 pm #

    Judge Mental: I’m the antithesis of a birther but can’t fail to notice that his parents had no objection to lying to the Indonesian school about him being Indonesian (or at the very least they felt no need to correct an assumption of Indonesian nationality that the school may have made) so it’s not exactly a giant step from there to accept that they might also lie about his birth date…in the hypothetical situation that 8/4/61 wasn’t his real birth date and was just the birth date that had been registered in USA fraudulently.

    I can understand the theory that if you’re willing to lie or deceive once, you’re perfectly capable of doing it repeatedly. But here the juxtaposition of these lies doesn’t make sense.

    According to birthers, Obama was probably born in Kenya. They themselves claim Obama has a Kenyan birth certificate. The only reason Stanley “lied” about Obama’s birth to Hawaiian officials, they claim, is so Obama would have documentation supporting his “false” claim to U.S. citizenship.

    But in Indonesia, Stanley and Lolo had no need to demonstrate U.S. citizenship – they apparently didn’t even claim he was a U.S. citizen. So why not dispense with the “lie” of his Hawaiian birth and just show Obama’s “original” Kenyan birth certificate?

  91. avatar
    JohnC April 4, 2011 at 8:42 pm #

    Judge Mental: Doc (or indeed anyone else)….given that there was no equivalent predecessor to the 1982 statute 338.17.8 in 1961, and given that there must have been some children born to Hawaian parents out of state or overseas between 1961 and 1982, perhaps on holiday or business or family visit etc, how do you think those parents actually went about registering their childrens’ births and obtaining birth certificates?

    I would assume they simply obtained the records from the birth jurisdiction. I was born in Illinois, but live in California. When I need my birth certificate, I contact the Illinois Department of Public Health and have a copy sent to me. It has never crossed my mind to register my birth in California. Likewise, my father was born in the UK, and he has never made any effort to register his birth anywhere in the U.S.

    My guess is that the law was revised in 1982 precisely because, with its diverse population, Hawaii was innundated with birth certficiates from exotic locations which were difficult to verify for legitimacy, especially in the pre-internet era. The state therefore may have sought to encourage a certain standardization by permitting people to register foreign births in Hawaii.

  92. avatar
    JohnC April 4, 2011 at 8:45 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Of course Nelson, an Obama family friend, could have been lying about her conversation with West, and Kapi’olani could have gone along with a false Obama letter just to help with their fund raising, the tour companies could be wrong, and improbable events do happen, but there’s no reason to think any of them did.

    Why does it strike me that birthers are more likely to play the lottery than the rest of us?

  93. avatar
    Scientist April 4, 2011 at 8:51 pm #

    Judge Mental: I’m the antithesis of a birther but can’t fail to notice that his parents had no objection to lying to the Indonesian school about him being Indonesian (or at the very least they felt no need to correct an assumption of Indonesian nationality that the school may have made)

    I think it’s a stretch to say they lied. Lied implies a deliberate deception. There is no way to know if it was a lie or an error. Everyone here is or claiims to be an expert on the citizenship laws of multiple countries. Most people, even people in binational marriages, aren’t necessarily experts. Here’s a possibility-his step-father assumed that when he married Ms Dunham she and her child acquired Indonesian citizenship. We know this is wrong, but we don’t know HE (or she) knew it was wrong. Since young Barack had the US passport on which he travelled to indonesia he didn’t need an Indonesian passport, so they never applied for one and thus never found out that he wasn’t a citizen. The school didn’t care, so they wrote what was simplest, which was Indonesian.

  94. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 4, 2011 at 8:57 pm #

    Scientist: I think it’s a stretch to say they lied.Lied implies a deliberate deception.There is no way to know if it was a lie or an error.Everyone here is or claiims to be an expert on the citizenship laws of multiple countries.Most people, even people in binational marriages, aren’t necessarily experts.Here’s a possibility-his step-father assumed that when he married Ms Dunham she and her child acquired Indonesian citizenship.We know this is wrong, but we don’t know HE (or she) knew it was wrong.Since young Barack had the US passport on which he travelled to indonesia he didn’t need an Indonesian passport, so they never applied for one and thus never found out that he wasn’t a citizen.The school didn’t care, so they wrote what was simplest, which was Indonesian.

    A plausible hypothesis – if the birthers could come up with any of these they’d be a lot better off…

  95. avatar
    JohnC April 4, 2011 at 9:12 pm #

    Doc,

    The following passage from the Daily Pen article has me scratching my head:

    “Recall that Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows the state Health Department to register the foreign birth of any child as a native Hawaiian birth if the parents of that child can be proven to the satisfaction and criteria of the Director of the Department of Health only, they were residence of Hawaii within one year of the birth, regardless of the location of the birth.”

    Note the bolded section. In fact, when you read 338-17.8, it states:

    “Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.”

    Here is yet another classic example of flawed logic (I’ll be charitable and not call it a “lie”) passing for birther “analysis.” Nowhere in that law does it provide that a birth certificate issued to a child “born out of State” pursuant to 338-17.8 would state that the child had a “native Hawaiian birth,” in the words of Penbrook Johannson. Johannson just infers that the certificate will state a Hawaiian birth because… well he just thinks it should. But if you can officially fake the location of your birth on the certificate, can you pick what island you were born on? Can you choose between a morning birth and an evening birth? How nice of the State of Hawaii to allow you to personalize your certificate!

    I’m still undecided as to whether birtherism is just a deliberate hoax intended to drive non-birthers crazy until they give in and demand the long-form, or whether birthers are actually so dense as to not understand what they are talking about. Either way, it’s pretty sad.

  96. avatar
    Judge Mental April 4, 2011 at 9:23 pm #

    JohnC: I can understand the theory that if you’re willing to lie or deceive once, you’re perfectly capable of doing it repeatedly. But here the juxtaposition of these lies doesn’t make sense.According to birthers, Obama was probably born in Kenya. They themselves claim Obama has a Kenyan birth certificate. The only reason Stanley “lied” about Obama’s birth to Hawaiian officials, they claim, is so Obama would have documentation supporting his “false” claim to U.S. citizenship.But in Indonesia, Stanley and Lolo had no need to demonstrate U.S. citizenship – they apparently didn’t even claim he was a U.S. citizen. So why not dispense with the “lie” of his Hawaiian birth and just show Obama’s “original” Kenyan birth certificate?

    But you didn’t introduce this as being about continuing the lie nationality-wise and date-wise, you only mentioned that in your experience birthers were never able to rationalise a good reason for continuing the lie about the birth “date” . You didnt say anything about continuing the Kenyan lie. That’s why my reply comments were obviously about just the date. Sorry for the misunderstanding but I can only reply to what’s written, not to something different that the writer may have meant to post.

    In the fraud scenario, young Obama grows up (as far as he’d got age wise anyway) thinking he is American and arrives in Indonesia thinking his birth day is 8/4/61…presumably he knows nothing about being born in Kenya…..why confuse him by introducing a different birth date and a different birth country at that point is the question that strikes me as a potential reason for continuing the lie…but no problem if you don’t see it that way, it’s not an issue.

  97. avatar
    JohnC April 4, 2011 at 9:40 pm #

    One further observation about 338-17.8…

    Penbrook Johannson claims that the statute allows parents to register their children as Hawaiian-born as long as the parents were residents of Hawaii within one year of the birth, regardless of where the child was born.

    In fact, the statute doesn’t apply “regardless” of where the child was born. The title of section specifically refers to children “born out of State” – which necessarily implies circumstances in which the location of the child’s birth can be factually determined – and those facts indicate an out-of-state birth.

    So what is the purpose of such a statute? Apparently, a person born in one jurisdiction cannot just move to another jurisdiction and register his or her birth there. That makes sense. Such “convenience” registrations would be a logistical nightmare for vital records departments everywhere.

    However, states are supposed to provide certain basic services for their residents, including vital services. This presents a conundrum for parents who have established residency in a state, but wind up giving birth in another state or country for some reason. Is the state supposed to provide vital records services for its residents in such a situation? Under Section 338-17.8, the answer is “yes.”

    Once the birthers get involved, up becomes down and right becomes left. A statute which was designed to assist its residents and their foreign-born children becomes in birther logic a vehicle by which the underlying facts of birth can be altered to suit one’s needs – and enable one to legally circumvent U.S. naturalization law.

  98. avatar
    JohnC April 4, 2011 at 9:50 pm #

    Judge Mental: In the fraud scenario, young Obama grows up (as far as he’d got age wise anyway) thinking he is American and arrives in Indonesia thinking his birth day is 8/4/61…

    This is where I think we need to separate what we understand from having explored U.S. naturalization law from what Obama and his parents would have understood based on their relatively limited level of knowledge and interest in such law. There is no reason Stanley Dunham would have believed Obama wasn’t a U.S. citizen just because he was born in Kenya (if that were true). In fact, had she given birth just three months later, had she made such an assumption, she would have been correct under U.S. law.

    So the hypothesis that Dunham would have felt the need to lie about her son’s place of birth wrongly assumes that she would have had any reason to believe this made a difference in her son’s U.S. citizenship. In fact, given Stanley Dunham’s nature, she probably would have celebrated both Obama’s Kenyan birth and his U.S. citizenship.

  99. avatar
    JohnC April 4, 2011 at 10:01 pm #

    Let me be a little clearer… Had Obama been born in Kenya just after Stanley Dunham turned 19, she would have been fully correct in assuming that Obama was still a U.S. citizen. Why would she have thought that giving birth at age 18 would have made any difference?

    As it turns out, at the time there was a law which did not allow an unmarried mother to confer her U.S. citizenship on her foreign-born child unless she had lived at least four years after age fifteen in the United States. The purpose of the law was simple – to ensure that mothers giving birth outside the U.S. had substantial adult contact with the United States before they conferred citizenship to their children.

    However, under U.S. law, Congress has plenary (i.e. total) control in setting naturalization law. As a result, courts as a rule do not second-guess the wording of naturalization laws, even if they lead to anomalous results. So here you have a law which is supposed to ensure adult contacts with the United States. But in the process, it mathematically eliminates children from conferring citizenship overseas – even if they have lived their entire lives in the U.S. This is a ridiculous result, but courts have not challenged it, because that is the technical result of such a law.

    We as lawyers and students of this issue may be aware of this now in the age of the internet. I highly doubt Stanley Dunham – or any attorneys she may have known – would have known about it.

  100. avatar
    Sef April 4, 2011 at 10:15 pm #

    JohnC: My guess is that the law was revised in 1982 precisely because, with its diverse population, Hawaii was innundated with birth certficiates from exotic locations which were difficult to verify for legitimacy, especially in the pre-internet era. The state therefore may have sought to encourage a certain standardization by permitting people to register foreign births in Hawaii.

    I think someone said that because there were so many people of Japanese extraction and people in HI having difficulty reading the Japanese writing they wanted to have a certificate in English which would show the birth location.

  101. avatar
    Judge Mental April 4, 2011 at 10:24 pm #

    JohnC: Doc,The following passage from the Daily Pen article has me scratching my head:“Recall that Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows the state Health Department to register the foreign birth of any child as a native Hawaiian birth if the parents of that child can be proven to the satisfaction and criteria of the Director of the Department of Health only, they were residence of Hawaii within one year of the birth, regardless of the location of the birth.”Note the bolded section. In fact, when you read 338-17.8, it states:“Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.”Here is yet another classic example of flawed logic (I’ll be charitable and not call it a “lie”) passing for birther “analysis.” Nowhere in that law does it provide that a birth certificate issued to a child “born out of State” pursuant to 338-17.8 would state that the child had a “native Hawaiian birth,” in the words of Penbrook Johannson. Johannson just infers that the certificate will state a Hawaiian birth because… well he just thinks it should. But if you can officially fake the location of your birth on the certificate, can you pick what island you were born on? Can you choose between a morning birth and an evening birth? How nice of the State of Hawaii to allow you to personalize your certificate!I’m still undecided as to whether birtherism is just a deliberate hoax intended to drive non-birthers crazy until they give in and demand the long-form, or whether birthers are actually so dense as to not understand what they are talking about. Either way, it’s pretty sad.

    Good catch!

  102. avatar
    Scientist April 4, 2011 at 10:29 pm #

    JohnC: We as lawyers and students of this issue may be aware of this now in the age of the internet. I highly doubt Stanley Dunham – or any attorneys she may have known – would have known about it.

    I bet you could ask 10,000 18 year olds today or in 1961 and not 1 would know the obscure provisions of the laws concerning the citiizenship of someone born to a married vs unmarried citizen overseas. In fact you could ask 100,000 non-readers of blogs such as this in any age group and it would surprize me if any of them knew.

    I’ll go further and say the following. There may be a lot of lawyers (and pseudo lawyers) who think that courts would be willing to overturn an election based on these obscure provisions. I am very doubtful that they would do so.

  103. avatar
    Judge Mental April 4, 2011 at 10:53 pm #

    JohnC: This is where I think we need to separate what we understand from having explored U.S. naturalization law from what Obama and his parents would have understood based on their relatively limited level of knowledge and interest in such law. There is no reason Stanley Dunham would have believed Obama wasn’t a U.S. citizen just because he was born in Kenya (if that were true). In fact, had she given birth just three months later, had she made such an assumption, she would have been correct under U.S. law.So the hypothesis that Dunham would have felt the need to lie about her son’s place of birth wrongly assumes that she would have had any reason to believe this made a difference in her son’s U.S. citizenship. In fact, given Stanley Dunham’s nature, she probably would have celebrated both Obama’s Kenyan birth and his U.S. citizenship.

    There’s still a misunderstanding here. i don’t think for a nanosecond that she would have believed that either. The entire Kenyan thing is utter nonsense. That doesn’t matter.

    Go back to your first post. What was being described by you originally, as i understood it, was a question that you always found birthers couldn’t cope with when for the sake of argument you went along with their bizarre “Kenyan birth then return to US with the accompnying fraud to pretend US birth” scenario then popped that question to them in a “ok, let’s asume that happened… why would they lie about the date?” way.

    My suggested birther answer was obviously set in the same hypothetical scenario. You introduced that hypothetical scenario yourself, not me lol….there’s no point in telling me now that it’s a far fetched one to start with, I knew that from the start lol.

    I just gave you a potential answer a smart birther might give to the question you said they had never before been able to answer when you asked the question of them in the hypothetical scenario circumstances you described.

  104. avatar
    The Magic M April 5, 2011 at 4:49 am #

    > >improbable events do happen, but there’s no reason to think any of them did.

    > Why does it strike me that birthers are more likely to play the lottery than the rest of us?

    And even that logic would be a FAIL for them – because a birther winning the lottery is just as improbable as any other randomly picked person winning the lottery. So even if “improbable events happen a lot”, it wouldn’t increase their chance of winning the slightest bit.
    And if the improbable becomes probable, everyone would win so the jackpot would be reduced to a few cents (some 30 years ago, a couple hundred people won the jackpot in my country’s national lottery because they had chosen the same numbers as had won the jackpot in the Netherlands the week before – every winner got like 40,000 instead of
    3,000,000, what a disappointment…).

    So either way, the birthers are bound to come up short again. ;)

  105. avatar
    JohnC April 5, 2011 at 11:41 am #

    Judge Mental: Go back to your first post. What was being described by you originally, as i understood it, was a question that you always found birthers couldn’t cope with when for the sake of argument you went along with their bizarre “Kenyan birth then return to US with the accompnying fraud to pretend US birth” scenario then popped that question to them in a “ok, let’s asume that happened… why would they lie about the date?” way.

    My focus was on the location listed on Obama’s Indonesian school application, not necessarily the date. To go back to my original point, I find it striking that birthers love to point to the Indonesian registration as evidence that Obama somehow lost his U.S. citizenship, but ignore the fairly blatant fact that the registration says he was born in Honolulu. If Obama’s Honolulu’s birth was faked for purposes of obtaining U.S. citizenship, why would his parents go through the effort to keep up the ruse for authorities who couldn’t care less if he was a U.S. citizen?

  106. avatar
    Bob Weber April 5, 2011 at 9:44 pm #

    Scientist: I bet you could ask 10,000 18 year olds today or in 1961 and not 1 would know the obscure provisions of the laws concerning the citiizenship of someone born to a married vs unmarried citizen overseas.In fact you could ask 100,000 non-readers of blogs such as this in any age group and it would surprize me if any of them knew.

    I’ll go further and say the following.There may be a lot of lawyers (and pseudo lawyers) who think that courts would be willing to overturn an election based on these obscure provisions.I am very doubtful that they would do so.

    *************************
    Crackpot conspiracy fantasies typically assume both great brilliance and gross stupidity in the same person. The birther fantasists assume that Stanley Ann knew that if she gave birth in Kenya, baby Obama wouldn’t have U.S. citizenship at birth. (So why would she go there, then?) Ergo, she somehow smuggled him into the U.S. past Customs and Immigration, and she and her parents falsely attested to his being the one-and-only unattended home birth in Honolulu, while living within walking distance of Kapiolani Hospital. (Why would anyone at the DOH be suspicious of that?) Thus, risking a charge of perjury!

    They also must assume that Stanley Ann and her parents, though aware of a technicality in U.S. law, were somehow unaware that the same law would have granted automatic permanent legal resident alien status to baby Obama, with naturalization coming before he’d be out of first grade. As I said, they must assume that they were both well-informed and ignorant, brilliant and stupid, all at the same time.

  107. avatar
    Granite April 5, 2011 at 9:52 pm #

    Re: “I’m still undecided as to whether birtherism is just a deliberate hoax intended to drive non-birthers crazy until they give in and demand the long-form, or whether birthers are actually so dense as to not understand what they are talking about.”

    If those were the real reasons, professional birthers would merely be fools. They are NOT fools. They are deliberately lying. Their motives can only be that they are hoping that some violent fool believes their crap. This is a truly evil motive.

  108. avatar
    misha April 5, 2011 at 10:17 pm #

    Granite: Their motives can only be that they are hoping that some violent fool believes their crap. This is a truly evil motive.

    That is exactly what Orly and her coterie are trying to do – incite a lone wolf.

    Orly should go live in a West Bank settlement with her landsman Lieberman. To think I got myself arrested at a Soviet Embassy demonstration for that crowd.

  109. avatar
    G April 5, 2011 at 11:11 pm #

    Granite: If those were the real reasons, professional birthers would merely be fools. They are NOT fools. They are deliberately lying. Their motives can only be that they are hoping that some violent fool believes their crap. This is a truly evil motive.

    misha: That is exactly what Orly and her coterie are trying to do – incite a lone wolf.

    AGREED.

    Most of this nonsense is intentional. It is all about ginning up fear, doubt and hate and hoping someone will act on it.

  110. avatar
    Judge Mental April 6, 2011 at 4:22 am #

    JohnC: My focus was on the location listed on Obama’s Indonesian school application, not necessarily the date. To go back to my original point, I find it striking that birthers love to point to the Indonesian registration as evidence that Obama somehow lost his U.S. citizenship, but ignore the fairly blatant fact that the registration says he was born in Honolulu. If Obama’s Honolulu’s birth was faked for purposes of obtaining U.S. citizenship, why would his parents go through the effort to keep up the ruse for authorities who couldn’t care less if he was a U.S. citizen?

    Obviously the Indonesian authorities wouldn’t care, nobody is disputing that. My point was basically that there was more than the matter of whether the Indonesian authorites cared for the parents to take into consideration when deciding if to stick with the ruse. Most important of these is their child himself was already leading a life thinking he was born in USA..Why invite potential confusion/questions during his school attendance by NOT sticking with the ruse consistently? “Mommy….the shool project teacher asked me to write a story of what it was like for someone born in Africa who moved to America, why do they think I was born in Africa”? There may be better examples but that’s the first situ that came to mind. See what I mean

  111. avatar
    Northland10 April 6, 2011 at 7:00 am #

    Obsolete: Birthers obsessed with confirmations of registration numbers like nc1 are going to feast on the massive plate of garbage known as ” THE FINAL REPORT”. Expect to see her here, exclaiming “I told you so!”

    This is odd… we seem to be missing a troll on her favorite subject.

  112. avatar
    Suranis April 6, 2011 at 8:12 am #

    Northland10: This is odd… we seem to be missing a troll on her favorite subject.

    I blame myself.

  113. avatar
    nc1 April 6, 2011 at 8:39 am #

    JohnC: My focus was on the location listed on Obama’s Indonesian school application, not necessarily the date.To go back to my original point, I find it striking that birthers love to point to the Indonesian registration as evidence that Obama somehow lost his U.S. citizenship, but ignore the fairly blatant fact that the registration says he was born in Honolulu.If Obama’s Honolulu’s birth was faked for purposes of obtaining U.S. citizenship, why would his parents go through the effort to keep up the ruse for authorities who couldn’t care less if he was a U.S. citizen?

    If you accept Indonesian document as proof of Obama’s birthplace it would be logical that you think of Obama as an Indonesian muslim, right?

    More important question is: Where is the long form birth certificate? What is your explanation about Abercrombie’s comment that Obama’s birth registration was something “actually written”?

  114. avatar
    Thrifty April 6, 2011 at 10:23 am #

    nc1: More important question is: Where is the long form birth certificate? What is your explanation about Abercrombie’s comment that Obama’s birth registration was something “actually written”?

    Does this blog have some sort of provision for automatically adding signature lines that I’m not aware of? I swear, NC1 adds this comment about the nefariousness of the phrase “actually written” to every single post.

    From dictionary.com:

    “write down,
    a. to set down in writing; record; note.
    b. to direct one’s writing to a less intelligent reader or audience: He writes down to the public.”

    The explanation that any sane person would draw from Abercrombie’s statement is that further heretofore unreleased to the public information that proves Obama’s birthplace in Hawaii is set down in writing (as opposed to, say, recorded on video or tape, or in an electronic record).

    The reason that the heretofore unreleased information is unreleased is because doing so would be illegal without Barack Obama’s consent.

    The reason Barack Obama does not give consent is because there is nothing to gain from it. Enough evidence exists to point to his birth in Hawaii (a legal birth certificate available for public viewing, 1961 birth announcements, statements by leading state officials who know a thing or two about health statistics and vital records keeping), that every sane person believes he was born in Hawaii.

    The only people not convinced by the current available evidence would not be convinced by any new evidence. The COLB is already decried as a forgery; why should we believe that a long form birth certificate would not? You birthers are like 419 (Nigerian advance fee mail fraud) scammers. 419 scammers tell you that your multimillion dollar payday is yours, right after you pay this one fee. But you pay that fee, and another one comes up. You pay THAT fee, and still another comes up. Then another and another. The payoff is always one fee away.

    Even if by some miracle every birther took a sanity pill and said “We were wrong all along, he is fully eligible to be President!”, they’re not gonna vote for him.

    So what does Barack Obama gain by appeasing people who will never support him anyway?

  115. avatar
    Majority Will April 6, 2011 at 10:36 am #

    Thrifty: Does this blog have some sort of provision for automatically adding signature lines that I’m not aware of?I swear, NC1 adds this comment about the nefariousness of the phrase “actually written” to every single post.

    From dictionary.com:

    “write down,
    a. to set down in writing; record; note.
    b. to direct one’s writing to a less intelligent reader or audience: He writes down to the public.”

    The explanation that any sane person would draw from Abercrombie’s statement is that further heretofore unreleased to the public information that proves Obama’s birthplace in Hawaii is set down in writing (as opposed to, say, recorded on video or tape, or in an electronic record).

    The reason that the heretofore unreleased information is unreleased is because doing so would be illegal without Barack Obama’s consent.

    The reason Barack Obama does not give consent is because there is nothing to gain from it.Enough evidence exists to point to his birth in Hawaii (a legal birth certificate available for public viewing, 1961 birth announcements, statements by leading state officials who know a thing or two about health statistics and vital records keeping), that every sane person believes he was born in Hawaii.

    The only people not convinced by the current available evidence would not be convinced by any new evidence.The COLB is already decried as a forgery; why should we believe that a long form birth certificate would not?You birthers are like 419 (Nigerian advance fee mail fraud) scammers.419 scammers tell you that your multimillion dollar payday is yours, right after you pay this one fee.But you pay that fee, and another one comes up.You pay THAT fee, and still another comes up.Then another and another.The payoff is always one fee away.

    Even if by some miracle every birther took a sanity pill and said “We were wrong all along, he is fully eligible to be President!”, they’re not gonna vote for him.

    So what does Barack Obama gain by appeasing people who will never support him anyway?

    The idiot birther troll actually thinks she smarter than everyone else while proving the opposite ad nauseam.

    She also has goalposts tied to her cheap pair of bright red pumps for convenience.

  116. avatar
    Majority Will April 6, 2011 at 10:38 am #

    Thrifty: . . . that every sane person believes he was born in Hawaii.

    Bingo.

  117. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 6, 2011 at 10:44 am #

    nc1: If you accept Indonesian document as proof of Obama’s birthplace it would be logical that you think of Obama as an Indonesian muslim, right?More important question is: Where is the long form birth certificate? What is your explanation about Abercrombie’s comment that Obama’s birth registration was something “actually written”?

    Considering that is the only documentation birthers have saying he was a “muslim indonesian” and it is not an official state document but rather what seems like Obama’s mother’s husband trying to get him preferential treatment as citizens got preferential treatment for schools. What do you have that backs up the muslim indonesian thing?

  118. avatar
    misha April 6, 2011 at 11:22 am #

    nc1: What is your explanation about Abercrombie’s comment that Obama’s birth registration was something “actually written”?

    Here’s something that was written:

    In his January 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush said, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

    So where is it, and where are the WMDs?

  119. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 6, 2011 at 2:04 pm #

    Thanks to a contributor who pointed out that I had the wrong Obama address (misread a 9 as a 0 and ended up in Danbury, Connecticut). Actually I misread a 6 for a 4 and ended up down the street. In any case it’s 7.9 miles between Kapi’olani and the birth announcement address.

  120. avatar
    Granite April 6, 2011 at 3:33 pm #

    The author of this: “More than 1200 birth announcements between 1960 and 1965 were shown to contain Hawaiian addresses for registrants of births outside of the state of Hawaii, including more than three hundred in which the child was born outside of the United States. ” was challenged to provide proof of this allegation on his blog two days ago, and there has not been a response yet.

  121. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 6, 2011 at 3:36 pm #

    Granite:
    The author of this: “More than 1200 birth announcements between 1960 and 1965 were shown to contain Hawaiian addresses for registrants of births outside of the state of Hawaii, including more than three hundred in which the child was born outside of the United States. ” was challenged to provide proof of this allegation on his blog two days ago, and there has not been a response yet.

    If you’re going to wait, then I think you’ll need the patience of a real piece of granite…

  122. avatar
    Majority Will April 6, 2011 at 4:02 pm #

    Slartibartfast: If you’re going to wait, then I think you’ll need the patience of a real piece of granite…

    But that sounds real gneiss.

  123. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 6, 2011 at 10:34 pm #

    Judge Mental:
    Doc (or indeed anyone else)….given that there was no equivalent predecessor to the 1982 statute 338.17.8 in 1961, and given that there must have been some children born to Hawaian parents out of state or overseas between 1961 and 1982, perhaps on holiday or business or family visit etc, how do you thinkthose parents actually went about registering their childrens’ births and obtaining birth certificates?

    Presumably they couldn’t have just fallen into a 21 year long documentation black hole?

    I am not a lawyer, but this is not just American law. Most, if not all, countries in the world have birth regsitration and issue birth certificates. To use it in another country, you have it translated by a translator who is licensed to do that and can get his/her translation “legalized”, made in to an official document.
    The disadvantage of having one official document, so in the old days , translators would make up more than one document and have them all legalized. The end user only had to pay slightly more. If you had reached your last copy, you could try making a copy and having it verified by a legal entity such as a town mayor as a 100% copy of the original (meaning the legalized translation).

    Today, most administrations around the world that register births will also register a foreign birth on the basis of the one legalized translation of the foreign birth certificate – which is then kept by the birth registration administration in replacement of the paper trail that was necessary for local births. Only, today, local births are often dealt with electronically with the hospital sending the data to the DOH – meaning only foreign births will continue to have a paper trail. Advantage for the end user: if he or she loses the certificate of foreign birth, they can get a new copy easily and locally without having to pay for a trip abroad (or to the foreign embassy) and a translation and legalization afterwards.

    Most of the birther bills going through the state legislatures do not take into account that in 30 years’ time no candidate BORN IN THE USA will have what the birthers think is a long form.

    Note that to get foreign births registered, sometimes the receiving country may need data that is not on the birth certicate issued by the foreign country – that may then involve a trip to the foreign embassy, getting an additional document with apostille and having both document and apostille translated and legalized, but that is just a (sometimes costly) detail.

  124. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 6, 2011 at 10:37 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: The disadvantage of having one official document, so in the old days ,

    Make that:
    The disadvantage of having ONLY one official document IS OBVIOUS, so in the old days…

    Too late (or too early in the morning) but I felt I needed to answer that, because it used to be my job. (and got me interested in birferism)

  125. avatar
    nc1 April 7, 2011 at 1:53 am #

    misha: Here’s something that was written:

    In his January 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush said, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

    So where is it, and where are the WMDs?

    Thank you for making my point – we should not blindly accept politician’s words as a Gospel. This is particularly true in case where the verification of the claim is supposed to be trivial (birth in a US hospital).

  126. avatar
    Suranis April 7, 2011 at 9:12 am #

    Of course, there is a slight difference NC1

    We have seen Obama’s Birth Certificate, which is just as legal as Trumps CertificATION of Birth.

    We haven’t seen any WMDs.

    Now when you handwave that, try and make it stylish with a slightly bent wrist.

  127. avatar
    Greg April 7, 2011 at 9:28 am #

    nc1: This is particularly true in case where the verification of the claim is supposed to be trivial (birth in a US hospital).

    Birth in a US hospital is not a requirement to being president.

    Here’s how you prove the ONLY claim that is important – natural born citizenship!

    Step 1: Write the DOH to get a copy of your birth certificate, include $20
    Step 2: Receive what the DOH sends you – the COLB
    Step 3: Post the COLB online.
    Step 4: 69 million people vote for you, the most in the history of the United States
    Step 5: Laugh at the losers who demand more

    The verification of the claim WAS trivial.

    Now, tell us what form you’d fill out to get the original birth certificate, nc?

  128. avatar
    Judge Mental April 7, 2011 at 9:35 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: I am not a lawyer, but this is not just American law. Most, if not all, countries in the world have birth regsitration and issue birth certificates. To use it in another country, you have it translated by a translator who is licensed to do that and can get his/her translation “legalized”, made in to an official document.The disadvantage of having one official document, so in the old days , translators would make up more than one document and have them all legalized. The end user only had to pay slightly more. If you had reached your last copy, you could try making a copy and having it verified by a legal entity such as a town mayor as a 100% copy of the original (meaning the legalized translation).Today, most administrations around the world that register births will also register a foreign birth on the basis of the one legalized translation of the foreign birth certificate – which is then kept by the birth registration administration in replacement of the paper trail that was necessary for local births. Only, today, local births are often dealt with electronically with the hospital sending the data to the DOH – meaning only foreign births will continue to have a paper trail. Advantage for the end user: if he or she loses the certificate of foreign birth, they can get a new copy easily and locally without having to pay for a trip abroad (or to the foreign embassy) and a translation and legalization afterwards.Most of the birther bills going through the state legislatures do not take into account that in 30 years’ time no candidate BORN IN THE USA will have what the birthers think is a long form.Note that to get foreign births registered, sometimes the receiving country may need data that is not on the birth certicate issued by the foreign country – that may then involve a trip to the foreign embassy, getting an additional document with apostille and having both document and apostille translated and legalized, but that is just a (sometimes costly) detail.

    Thanks Paul….your points are clear and well understood.

    Seems to me that if there was no broadly equivalent predecessor to 338-17.8 there must indeed be at least hundreds, possibly thousands, of people still alive who were born outside USA between 1961 and 1982 to Hawaian parents and whose births were never ‘registered’ in Hawaii, some because there was no statute providing them the opportunity to and some because they had no inclination to and wouldn’t have done so even if there had been a statute enabling them to.

    Out of that first group, clearly there must be many (certainly at least a few in such a long period as 21 years) who would have liked to register the overseas birth with Hawaii and who tried to do so but had their request refused by Hawaii, there being no statutory provision for that.

    Instead of our sticking to our usual response to the birthers to “go find someone born overseas who has a birth certificate stating birth in Hawaii”, a response which has now in the context of this questionable Pen ‘report’ been refined further by us to “go find someone born overseas between 1961 and 1982 who even had their overseas birth ‘registered’ in Hawaii”…..perhaps we should also be proactively trying to find someone who was born overseas between 1961 and 1982 and whose parents did attempt to ‘register’ the fact of overseas birth with Hawaii and who were declined that facility.

    I’m not sure how we’d go about it right enough lol…..and I really am laughing out loud at this time!

    I realise there can be an over-supply of evidence debunking this claim and that by far the most telling factor will be if the author cannot come up with any evidence re these alleged several hundred names, but it would nevertheless be interesting if anyone did come out of the woodwork saying that they tried to ‘register’ an overseas birth in Hawaii between 1961 and 1982 and were denied. I suppose while we’re on the general subject it would also be interesting if anyone came out of the woodwork saying that they tried to commit fraudulent birth registration of an overseas born child by pretending the child was born in Hawaii (of the sort that is suggested re Obama) and were foiled by the Hawaian authorities. Indeed I wonder if anyone was caught and prosecuted attempting that and if there are relevant historical crime statistics in that respect.

    I better stop at that, this is taking on a life of its own.

  129. avatar
    nc1 April 7, 2011 at 9:58 am #

    Suranis:
    Of course, there is a slight difference NC1

    We have seen Obama’s Birth Certificate, which is just as legal as Trumps CertificATION of Birth.

    We haven’t seen any WMDs.

    Now when you handwave that, try and make it stylish with a slightly bent wrist.

    In WMD case we have seen a very persuasive presentation by Colin Powell, photos of sites that were allegedly housing these weapons. We had to invade a foreign country to come to the conclusion that information presented to us was not true.

    In Obama’s case there is no need to invade a foreign country to find out whether he said truth about his birthplace.

    In his case we have seen a COLB FORGERY – not an official document. No Hawaii official would confirm that they issued that document on June 6, 2007.

    Why do you care – you should be more worried about Irish economy and failed banks.

  130. avatar
    nc1 April 7, 2011 at 10:01 am #

    Greg: Birth in a US hospital is not a requirement to being president.

    Here’s how you prove the ONLY claim that is important – natural born citizenship!

    Step 1: Write the DOH to get a copy of your birth certificate, include $20
    Step 2: Receive what the DOH sends you – the COLB
    Step 3: Post the COLB online.
    Step 4: 69 million people vote for you, the most in the history of the United States
    Step 5: Laugh at the losers who demand more

    The verification of the claim WAS trivial.

    Now, tell us what form you’d fill out to get the original birth certificate, nc?

    Why do you expect a private citizen to publish this information – I was not a presdential candidate. Obama cannot get an offical COLB that would be identical to the forgery presented by Factcheck, let alone the long form.

  131. avatar
    Suranis April 7, 2011 at 10:23 am #

    nc1: In WMD case we have seen a very persuasive presentation by Colin Powell, photos of sites that were allegedly housing these weapons.We had to invade a foreign country to come to the conclusion that information presented to us was not true.

    In Obama’s case there is no need to invade a foreign country to find out whether he said truth about his birthplace.

    In his case we have seen a COLB FORGERY – not an official document. No Hawaii official would confirm that they issued that document on June 6, 2007.

    Why do you care – you should be more worried about Irish economy and failed banks.

    Colin Powel was fed bad information and he persuaded no-one that mattered, That’s why the US and Britain failed to persuade anyone to vote for a new UN Resolution, apart from Bulgaria. A good mans honour was sacrificed

    Hanz Blix was reporting credible evidence that Irag had no more WMDs in January 2003 as his UN inspectors was allowed total access in Iraq for the first time. This resulted in total panic in the Bush administration and Blix was demonized and sidelined. And then the army went in and after 2 years of searching found no WMDs

    Basically, there was no credible evidence of anything.

    to date you have not gotten one scrap of evidence that Obama forged the BC, the DOH has said its a valid birth certificate, it looks exactly the same as other Hawai’in birth certs,The DOH have stated that they have viewed his vital records and the information on the published COLB matches the information on the vital records.

    Much like the UN inspectors, the people who’s job it is to verify this information have given their answer, and you have demonized and sidelined them because you don’t like what they are saying.

    There were no WMDs in Iraq. Barrack Obama was born in Hawai’i. President Bush was a lying sack of… Polarik, or Dr. Ron Pollard, has no expertise in document analysis.

    Slan go foill.

  132. avatar
    misha April 7, 2011 at 10:32 am #

    nc1: In WMD case we have seen a very persuasive presentation by Colin Powell, photos of sites that were allegedly housing these weapons.

    A presentation made from whole cloth.

    nc1: We had to invade a foreign country to come to the conclusion that information presented to us was not true.

    The case of WMDs, made from whole cloth, was a pretext so Cheney’s coterie could get their paws on oil.

    Hamid Karzai? I’ve seen this movie before, with his part played by Diem.

  133. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 7, 2011 at 10:41 am #

    nc1: In WMD case we have seen a very persuasive presentation by Colin Powell, photos of sites that were allegedly housing these weapons. We had to invade a foreign country to come to the conclusion that information presented to us was not true. In Obama’s case there is no need to invade a foreign country to find out whether he said truth about his birthplace.In his case we have seen a COLB FORGERY – not an official document. No Hawaii official would confirm that they issued that document on June 6, 2007. Why do you care – you should be more worried about Irish economy and failed banks.

    Wow you just misread every situation. Even Colin Powell knew he was shoveling sh*t. There were drawings they showed but I guess you thought that was conclusive. You had conflicting reports, the weapons inspectors all saying there were no WMDs. You had the Downing Street memos showing that everything was being fit around the policy. You had Joe Wilson showing there was no Niger yellow cake sale.

    There was no COLB forgery. It is an official document that has been confirmed 3 separate times. Why do you care about the birth certificate? You’ve already made other excuses saying he’s not eligible because of his father. Why even talk about the birth certificate if you’ve already given yourself an out.

  134. avatar
    Granite April 7, 2011 at 11:54 am #

    Birthers who concentrate on the birth certificate, alleging that it has been forged or that the Certification of Live Birth is not the official birth certificate, or that it is insufficient evidence, are all trying to deliberately mislead. In fact, all of these things could be true, and Obama could still be born in the USA. Say that George Bush’s birth certificate had been found to be missing. Would that prove that he was born in a foreign country? No, it wouldn’t. Birthers have to show that Obama was born in a foreign country. That is what counts.

    In fact, the long-form birth certificate would be no better than the short-form birth certificate in proving birth in the USA, and the short-form birth certificate is the official birth certificate, and it is sufficient proof—especially with the repeated confirmation of the officials in Hawaii. And the short-form birth certificate was not forged (the McCain campaign checked that, and there was a Conservative Republican attorney general in Hawaii at the time).

    But, say that this all were false. The fact is that there has been no proof that Obama was born in a foreign country. Yes, there have been false allegations that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born there (she didn’t, and she actually said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii). Yes, there have been forged birth certificates, one of which was by a former felon, who was asked repeatedly to prove that he had been to Kenya, but he never answered).

    There are, however, documents that could prove that Obama was born in Kenya, if they existed. Or, for that matter, they could prove that he was born in any other country than the USA. And those documents would be the applications for US travel documents issued in 1961. IF Obama were born in Kenya or any other country than the USA, he would need to have a US visa on a foreign passport or to be entered on his mother’s US passport to be allowed to enter the USA. This is true now, and it was true in 1961, and it was especially true for obvious reasons for infants carried into the USA from Africa.

    Sensible birthers know that IF Obama were born in Kenya or any other country than the USA, his parents would have had to have applied for the visa or for the change to his mother’s passport to get him into the USA. Yet they gloss over the fact that no such document has been found. Surely, with all the allegations of birth in Kenya, it would have been looked for by the US State Department while the Republicans were in charge of it, or by the CIA, or both—but no document has been found.

    When I raise this point, I have had some birthers reply that Obama have been born in Kenya, taken to Mexico or Canada, and then smuggled across the border. This indicates desperation, I think.

  135. avatar
    Thrifty April 7, 2011 at 11:57 am #

    nc1: In his case we have seen a COLB FORGERY – not an official document. No Hawaii official would confirm that they issued that document on June 6, 2007.

    A document is not a forgery just because you say it is.

  136. avatar
    Sef April 7, 2011 at 12:16 pm #

    nc1: Obama cannot get an offical COLB that would be identical to the forgery presented by Factchec

    That is true, for the simple reason that HI has changed the name of their document from “Certification” to “Certificate”. Also a new one wouldn’t be identical because stamps would be in different positions, probably a different person would sign it, the creation date would be different. The relevant information, however, would be the same. Also, the one on Factcheck.org is not a forgery. What IS your point???

  137. avatar
    aarrgghh April 7, 2011 at 12:20 pm #

    Granite:
    … I have had some birthers reply that Obama have been born in Kenya, taken to Mexico or Canada, and then smuggled across the border. This indicates desperation, I think.

    birtherism is in itself desperation. it is a desperate attempt to explain how a black man with a scary name managed to sneak into the white house, where he clearly does not belong.

  138. avatar
    Scientist April 7, 2011 at 12:23 pm #

    Granite: Good post. I have challenged the birthers many times to tell me how baby Obama got from Kenya to the US. There are even more holes in this than there are with the story of Stanley Ann going to Kenya in the first place.

    First on the idea of flying to Mexico or Canada, both countries required (and always required) passports for those arriving from overseas British colonial citizens may well have required visas also (I don’t know for sure).

    So which passport could Ms Dunham have gotten for her baby:

    1. An endorsement in her US passport at the consulate in Kenya. That means the baby was recognized as a US citizen by virtue of birth to a US citizen abroad and is almost certainly eligible to be President, so why are we discussing this?

    2. A US passport for the infant obtained by the grandparents in the US based on a false Hawaiian birth registration and sent to Kenya. Aside from the fact that this would take a few months between obtaining the b.c., getting the passport and sending it to Kenya, there is a big problem with this. How does Ms Dunham explain her baby’s entering the US from Kenya with a brand-new unused (no entry stamps) US passport that says he was born in Hawaii? This doesn’t work.

    3. A UK and Colonies passport. Aside from the fact that this probably takes considerable time as well, there is the problem of US visas, which you have ably discussed.

    I challenge any of the birthers to come up with a story that passes the laugh test. If you can, you may have a future in Hollywood screenwriting.

  139. avatar
    misha April 7, 2011 at 12:35 pm #

    aarrgghh: birtherism is in itself desperation.

    Which is why they came up with some ludicrous theory that both parents have to be US citizens to be NBC, versus ‘native born.’

    I don’t know when the Donald is going to crash and burn.

  140. avatar
    Majority Will April 7, 2011 at 12:38 pm #

    Scientist: I challenge any of the birthers to come up with a story that passes the laugh test. If you can, you may have a future in Hollywood screenwriting.

    And if not, you have a guaranteed future with Fox News.

  141. avatar
    Greg April 7, 2011 at 3:50 pm #

    nc1: Why do you expect a private citizen to publish this information

    I’m sorry, you can’t even hint at the form a person would use to request a long form?

    nc1: In his case we have seen a COLB FORGERY – not an official document. No Hawaii official would confirm that they issued that document on June 6, 2007.

    Forgery is a crime.

    The Governor of Hawaii was a Republican. The Governor of Hawaii appoints the Attorney General. The Governor of Hawaii appoints the head of the Department of Health.

    No Hawaii official has ever suggested that Obama committed the crime of forgery. That anyone in his campaign committed the crime of forgery. That any forgery occurred.

    Yes, I know, it’s all part of the vast Right/Left-Wing Conspiracy – the one where Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck join together to hide the fact that their sworn nemesis, Barack Obama, is considered eligible.

  142. avatar
    Granite April 7, 2011 at 4:42 pm #

    The author of this: “More than 1200 birth announcements between 1960 and 1965 were shown to contain Hawaiian addresses for registrants of births outside of the state of Hawaii, including more than three hundred in which the child was born outside of the United States. ” was challenged to provide proof of this allegation on his blog three days ago, and there has not been a response yet.

  143. avatar
    obsolete April 7, 2011 at 4:45 pm #

    nc1- why does Hawaii’s government have an entire web page devoted to Obama’s Hawaiian vital records if he was not born there?
    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    They vouch for his birth in Hawaii. That is a tall hurdle for you to climb. Pretty much impossible, I’m guessing.

  144. avatar
    gorefan April 7, 2011 at 6:49 pm #

    Scientist: I challenge any of the birthers to come up with a story that passes the laugh test.

    You are obviously not familiar with the testimony of A’ala Kekoa.

    May, 2009

    “My name is A’ala Kekoa, in 1961, I was 18 years old. The following events occurred in mid August, 1961. It was the summer after my senior year in high school and it was at the time of Qi Xi Festival. I remember my mom (who was Chinese) had gone to the local bakery to buy moon cakes that morning. This festival was always a big deal in our house.”

    “I also remember it was a typical hot August night, and I could not sleep. So I did what we had been doing since we were kids. I went down to the beach to sleep on the sand. Around midnight, I was woken up by the sounds of a car moving across the gravel of the parking lot. The car stopped facing the ocean, and I assumed it was a couple of lovers looking for some time alone. But then something unusual happened, the driver flashed his headlights several times. I looked out to sea and for the first time I noticed a freighter anchored close to shore. I was use to seeing ships passing the islands, but this one was only a few hundred yards from shore. And it was stopped. It was so close; I could see silhouettes moving on the decks. And then, something happened, I will never forget, a light on the ship flashed several times. They were signaling back to the car.”

    “I watched as the ship began to move and head out to sea. It was then that I heard voices. I looked up and there were two figures coming out of the surf. One figure was big and the other slight. The bigger one was carrying an inner tube and slighter one was holding some type of bundle. They moved up the beach, heading towards the parked car. The car’s passenger opened the car door and it was then that I could see the occupants, highlighted by the car’s dome light. The driver was an older white man maybe in his forties, while the woman was also white and in her forties. As the two figures from the beach approached the car, they handed the bundled to the female passenger. And she handed them towels. As the two people climbed into the backseat of the car, I could finally make out their faces. The bigger figure was a dark skinned man and the slighter person was a woman. It was a white woman. As the car door closed and it pulled out of the parking lot, I remember a sound that was burned into my brain; it was the sound of a baby crying.”

    “I always assumed that this had been a strange dream, but then many years later, I was making a deposit at the Bank of Hawaii, when I noticed a woman sitting at a desk. It was the same woman, the passenger of that car, the one that had been handed the bundle, all those years ago.”

    Two days after giving this testimony, A’ala Kekoa was killed by a hit and run driver at the corner of Ward and Queen Streets in Honolulu. The private investigator, who took the testimony, has since disappeared.

    Postscript:
    In 1961, the CIA used Liberian flagged freighters to transport troops for the Bay of Pigs invasion.

  145. avatar
    misha April 7, 2011 at 7:08 pm #

    gorefan: You are obviously not familiar with the testimony of A’ala Kekoa.

    OMG!! I read it, and I’m going to look for the communist under my bed tonight. I cannot believe this has not been invest…..aieeeeeeeeeeeee

  146. avatar
    Majority Will April 7, 2011 at 7:56 pm #

    misha: aieeeeeeeeeeeee

    That’s really funny! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA . . ack . aieeeeeeeeeeeee

  147. avatar
    Keith April 7, 2011 at 9:57 pm #

    misha: I don’t know when the Donald is going to crash and burn.

    When his TV show is finished.

  148. avatar
    Keith April 7, 2011 at 10:04 pm #

    nc1: No Hawaii official would confirm that they issued that document on June 6, 2007.

    For the bazillionth time: the date the document was issued is immaterial.

    For the bazillion times a bazillionth time: An Hawai’ian official confirmed under oath in testimony in front of the Hawai’ian State Senatethat it was a genuine document. And several have confirmed the information on it.

    You know it is a lie, you have been called out on it innumerable times, and yet continue to repeat it over and over. STOP IT NOW

  149. avatar
    nc1 April 7, 2011 at 11:52 pm #

    obsolete:
    nc1- why does Hawaii’s government have an entire web page devoted to Obama’s Hawaiian vital records if he was not born there?
    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    They vouch for his birth in Hawaii. That is a tall hurdle for you to climb. Pretty much impossible, I’m guessing.

    His birth was fraudulently registered in Hawaii based on a statement from a relative. DoH statements are not based on the long form birth certificate, the one issued for births at Kapiolani hospital.

    Remember Sun Yat Sen’s birth registration:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

  150. avatar
    G April 8, 2011 at 12:05 am #

    nc1: His birth was fraudulently registered in Hawaii based on a statement from a relative. DoH statements are not based on the long form birth certificate, the one issued for births at Kapiolani hospital.Remember Sun Yat Sen’s birth registration:http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

    For the milliionth time, you’ve posted this debunked nonsense, knowing better.

    In simple terms, YOU LIE. You are nothing but a sham con artist NC1. And a fairly dumb one at that. Sorry, but you repeating the same tired old lies over and over again, long after they’ve endlessly been debunked, doesn’t make them any more real.

    Go peddle your fiction somewhere else and seek medical help.

  151. avatar
    Suranis April 8, 2011 at 12:08 am #

    nc1: His birth was fraudulently registered in Hawaii based on a statement from a relative.DoH statements are not based on the long form birth certificate, the one issued for births at Kapiolani hospital.

    That would only have been possible at all for a delayed birth registration, and we know Obama’s was not delayed because his registration was only a few days after his birth (delayed by the weekend) not the months that a sworn affidavit and a hearing would have taken.

    Sun Yet San died in 1912, and was a powerful politician and a hero in Britain, not the mother of a halfbreed with a father from Kenya. Considering the THOUSANDS of foreigners that you CLAIM to have Hawai’in Birth certs, its strange that the only one you have ever been able to dig up is a century old and not subject to any Hawai’in law enacted in the past 100 years.

    Seriously, get help.

  152. avatar
    obsolete April 8, 2011 at 12:11 am #

    nc1: His birth was fraudulently registered in Hawaii based on a statement from a relative. DoH statements are not based on the long form birth certificate, the one issued for births at Kapiolani hospital.

    Remember Sun Yat Sen’s birth registration:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

    So you claim, without a shred of evidence. In fact, evidence proves you wrong on your pet theory.
    And please, try to find a false Hawaiian registration since Hawaii became a state. If they were so easy to do, how come only Obama did it?

  153. avatar
    Greg April 8, 2011 at 12:14 am #

    nc1: His birth was fraudulently registered in Hawaii based on a statement from a relative.

    Repeat: The State of Hawaii vouches for his birth within the state.

    You = anonymous internet troll.
    Hawaii = fully recognized state of the union.

    Anonymous internet troll v. fully recognized state of the union? Who wins?

    This isn’t pirates versus ninjas, nc1, it’s not even close. It wouldn’t even be close if you weren’t relying entirely and completely on speculation and hypothesis as opposed to real evidence.

    At this point, one wonders what sort of mental defect is required to ellide over the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence of a fraudulently obtained birth certificate based on familial testimony.

  154. avatar
    nc1 April 8, 2011 at 12:25 am #

    Keith: For the bazillionth time: the date the document was issued is immaterial.

    For the bazillion times a bazillionth time: An Hawai’ian official confirmed under oath in testimony in front of the Hawai’ian State Senatethat it was a genuine document. And several have confirmed the information on it.

    You know it is a lie, you have been called out on it innumerable times, and yet continue to repeat it over and over. STOP IT NOW

    The issuing date is very important – without it one cannot independently confirm authenticity of the IMAGE presented by Obama campaign. We cannot trust Obama telling the truth about it. His words must be independently verified. Factcheck did not ask DoH any questions that would allow them the right to claim that they saw an authentic document. DoH could confirm the date of issuing and the registration number in an official response to UIPA request. They refuse to do that.

    Don’t blame me for being skeptical.

    Let me also remind you how prosecution got to Lewis (Scooter) Libby – they had him testify under oath, not once but multiple times. Acording to you they should have stopped asking him questions after the first testimony. Being under oath means people will always tell the truth and there is no reason for verifying their words, right?

  155. avatar
    Greg April 8, 2011 at 12:35 am #

    nc1: His words must be independently verified.

    Obama: I was born in Hawaii.
    Hawaii: Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.

    See, independently verified. Unless you think Obama IS Hawaii!

  156. avatar
    Greg April 8, 2011 at 12:38 am #

    nc1: DoH could confirm the date of issuing and the registration number in an official response to UIPA request.

    They cannot confirm the date of issuing and the registration number in an official response to UIPA request.

    I know this because they have received such a UIPA request, according to you, and have not confirmed it.

    You have not sued them. The requesters have not sued them. They have not lost in court.

    Therefore, their interpretation of Hawaii law, that they cannot release such information, STANDS and it is uncontrovertible by any method OTHER THAN SUCCESS IN COURT!

  157. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 8, 2011 at 12:41 am #

    nc1: Let me also remind you how prosecution got to Lewis (Scooter) Libby – they had him testify under oath, not once but multiple times. Acording to you they should have stopped asking him questions after the first testimony. Being under oath means people will always tell the truth and there is no reason for verifying their words, right?

    They had plenty of evidence that Scooter (or his bosses) had done something wrong (a CIA agent’s cover had been blown – a criminal act). The prosecutors in his case had no problem satisfying their burden of proof. You… not so much.

    Anyway, thanks for all of the good work you’re doing to get President Obama reelected…

  158. avatar
    nc1 April 8, 2011 at 12:54 am #

    Suranis: That would only have been possible at all for a delayed birth registration, and we know Obama’s was not delayed because his registration was only a few days after his birth (delayed by the weekend) not the months that a sworn affidavit and a hearing would have taken.

    Sun Yet San died in 1912, and was a powerful politician and a hero in Britain, not the mother of a halfbreed with a father from Kenya. Considering the THOUSANDS of foreigners that you CLAIM to have Hawai’in Birth certs, its strange that the only one you have ever been able to dig up is a century old and not subject to any Hawai’in law enacted in the past 100 years.

    Seriously, get help.

    You are still debating internal US political issue? Aren’t there any blogs debating bank crises in Ireland – you should be focused on issue closer to your home.

  159. avatar
    Greg April 8, 2011 at 1:10 am #

    nc1: You are still debating internal US political issue? Aren’t there any blogs debating bank crises in Ireland – you should be focused on issue closer to your home.

    Does the fact that Suranis is from Ireland change the fact that Sun Yat Sen died in 1912?

    I was born in Kansas. I also think that Sun Yat Sen died in 1912. I also think that it’s pretty stupid to cite him when you are arguing about a law that was passed long after he died.

    Since your mind is too feeble to address any argument that doesn’t come from the keyboard of a US citizen, let me help you out and adopt and resubmit everything Suranis and Lupin and the other foreigners who are eating your lunch.

    There, now a citizen has said them.

    Do you think you could respond to the actual arguments as opposed to trotting out a stupid ad hominem?

  160. avatar
    Keith April 8, 2011 at 2:35 am #

    Greg: I also think that Sun Yat Sen died in 1912. I also think that it’s pretty stupid to cite him when you are arguing about a law that was passed long after he died.

    Especially when oart of the rationale for that law was to prevent a similar event occurring.

  161. avatar
    Scientist April 8, 2011 at 7:20 am #

    gorefan: You are obviously not familiar with the testimony of A’ala Kekoa.

    gorefan-i think you have the makings of a blockbuster, but the Studiio would llike you to incorporate one more elemennt into the story. Elvis was in Hawaii iin 1961, filming “Blue Hawaii”. Let’s do lunch…

  162. avatar
    The Magic M April 8, 2011 at 9:48 am #

    > Being under oath means people will always tell the truth and there is no reason for verifying their words, right?

    Well isn’t that what you birfer claim about Tim Adams’ “affidavit” and Lucas Smith?

    Besides, you still haven’t made clear what a “verification” would look like that you would accept. Since you’re assuming that world+dog is “in on the conspiracy”, you wouldn’t trust either the FBI or the Hawaiian police raiding the DoH for documents, would you?
    Then who, in your big conspiracy universe, would be “independent” and “trustworthy” enough to carry out such an investigation? You know, after you’ve labeled Congress, all courts, the military, all states and all government agencies as “traitors”? How about a delegation of your own militia? Or the Hondurian army? Tell us, nc1, who would you trust with such a task?

  163. avatar
    nc1 April 8, 2011 at 10:27 am #

    The Magic M:
    > Being under oath means people will always tell the truth and there is no reason for verifying their words, right?

    Well isn’t that what you birfer claim about Tim Adams’ “affidavit” and Lucas Smith?

    Besides, you still haven’t made clear what a “verification” would look like that you would accept. Since you’re assuming that world+dog is “in on the conspiracy”, you wouldn’t trust either the FBI or the Hawaiian police raiding the DoH for documents, would you?
    Then who, in your big conspiracy universe, would be “independent” and “trustworthy” enough to carry out such an investigation? You know, after you’ve labeled Congress, all courts, the military, all states and all government agencies as “traitors”? How about a delegation of your own militia? Or the Hondurian army? Tell us, nc1, who would you trust with such a task?

    Are you a US citizen?

  164. avatar
    Majority Will April 8, 2011 at 11:48 am #

    nc1: Are you a US citizen?

    Are you a Serbian war criminal hiding from extradition and prosecution?

  165. avatar
    Bovril April 8, 2011 at 11:58 am #

    Guess what Nancy, he can say yes or no and yet in both circumstances Obama will still be President and you will still be full of poo.

  166. avatar
    Daniel April 8, 2011 at 12:06 pm #

    nc1: Don’t blame me for being skeptical.

    I don’t blame you for being skeptical. I blame you for being foolish.

  167. avatar
    Daniel April 8, 2011 at 12:10 pm #

    nc1: Are you a US citizen?

    Was de Vattel a US Citizen?

  168. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 8, 2011 at 12:49 pm #

    Majority Will: [is nc1] a Serbian war criminal hiding from extradition and prosecution?

    No, nc1 is a liar and an idiot…

  169. avatar
    Majority Will April 8, 2011 at 1:16 pm #

    Is Kenyan MP and Minister of Lands James Orengo a U.S. citizen?

    How about former DOH Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino?

    Registrar of Vital Statistics, Dr. Alvin Onaka?

    Janice Okubo, Director of Communications?

    Former Lt. Governor James Aiona?

    Former Governor Linda Lingle?

  170. avatar
    Suranis April 8, 2011 at 1:30 pm #

    nc1: You are still debating internal US political issue?

    Yep

    Aren’t there any blogs debating bank crises in Ireland

    Yep

    – you should be focused on issue closer to your home.

    What, like the Fukoshima Nuclear Plant? The Gulf Oil Spill? Chernobyl?

    So, Sun Yet Sen getting a Hawai’in Birth cert 109 years ago under laws that were repealed 100 years ago is relevant how?

  171. avatar
    Sef April 8, 2011 at 3:47 pm #

    nc1: You are still debating internal US political issue?

    A birther says this and also thinks that foreign laws should control who our citizens should be? Good thing I stocked up on irony meters. BTW, are they recyclable, and are they ROHS compliant?

  172. avatar
    Granite April 8, 2011 at 4:53 pm #

    The author of this statement “More than 1200 birth announcements between 1960 and 1965 were shown to contain Hawaiian addresses for registrants of births outside of the state of Hawaii, including more than three hundred in which the child was born outside of the United States” was asked to provide evidence that confirmed its truth four days ago.

    He has not responded.

  173. avatar
    obsolete April 8, 2011 at 11:36 pm #

    I am a US Citizen and also want to know who’s confirmation would satisfy nc1 at this point, considering this is the largest conspiracy in world history at this point….
    Who hasn’t become a part of it? Has the end of the rabbit hole been found?

  174. avatar
    gorefan April 9, 2011 at 12:54 am #

    nc1: Remember Sun Yat Sen’s birth registration:

    He got the “certificate” in 1904 (note: the link you gave erroneously calls it a “certification”). 1904, for pete’s sake. You really believe that’s a fair comparison.

  175. avatar
    gorefan April 9, 2011 at 1:45 am #

    nc1: Remember Sun Yat Sen’s birth registration:

    Sen’s Hawaiian BC was obtained when he was in his 30’s. An adult. As noted on his birth ceritificate. It claims a birth date in 1870. The oldest Hospital on Maui was opened in 1884. So officaials would have no choice but to accept witness statements.

    What a lame example.

    Couldn’t you find an example from someone born after the Victorian era or even post World War I?

  176. avatar
    nc1 April 9, 2011 at 1:54 am #

    gorefan: He got the “certificate” in 1904 (note:the link you gave erroneously calls it a “certification”).1904, for pete’s sake.You really believe that’s a fair comparison.

    Are you telling me that the law in 1961 did not allow birth registration using a statement from a “witness” or a statement from a relative as a proof?

  177. avatar
    nc1 April 9, 2011 at 1:58 am #

    Suranis: Yep

    Yep

    What, like the Fukoshima Nuclear Plant? The Gulf Oil Spill? Chernobyl?

    So, Sun Yet Sen getting a Hawai’in Birth cert 109 years ago under laws that were repealed 100 years ago is relevant how?

    Did Obama have any girlfriend(s) before meeting his wife?

  178. avatar
    BatGuano April 9, 2011 at 2:06 am #

    nc1: Did Obama have any girlfriend(s) before meeting his wife?

    more than likely. do you have any articles/links to any presidents girlfriends? ( please exclude mistresses and ex-wives ).

  179. avatar
    obsolete April 9, 2011 at 3:30 am #

    nc1: Are you telling me that the law in 1961 did not allow birth registration using a statement from a “witness” or a statement from a relative as a proof?

    There usually had to be a baby as well, which would be hard to show if Obama was all the way in Kenya while his family jump-started the world’s most massive conspiracy and cover-up.

  180. avatar
    Northland10 April 9, 2011 at 8:36 am #

    nc1: In his case we have seen a COLB FORGERY – not an official document.

    In the real world, a prosecutor may try to get an alibi from a suspect in an actual crime. In the birther world, they expect an alibi and evidence from and for a suspect in a “crime” for which they have no evidence that it actually happened. It’s like demanding an alibi (or admission) from a person for a murder when the accuser provides no evidence on who was murdered, or if any murder actually happened. Since the person did not provide evidence that he did not murder anybody, he is therefore, guilty.

    Our troll would save pixels if it would just state that Obama is guilty because he is Obama. This is their evidence and only true belief. Of course, for all of its screaming about foreigners, this guilt by being Obama is amazingly un-American.

  181. avatar
    Suranis April 9, 2011 at 8:55 am #

    nc1: Did Obama have any girlfriend(s) before meeting his wife?

    What the heck does that have to do with Sun Yet Sen? I hope you are not implying that President Obama is into having sex with 70 year old corpses.

    Though if you thought you could make it stick I’m sure you would be all over that.

    “How do you know he isn’t into necrophilia? I think I heard some rumours about a tall black guy hanging around graveyards while Omaba was in Hawai’i. How do you know that wasn’t him. Surely if it wasn’t him we would have seen proof. After all his children could have been adopted. And I don’t see the resemblance between him and his kids.I wonder who could have been his childrens real dad. Who else could have Michelle have been with…”

    Etc etc etc. The sad thing about you stupid trolls is that you are so compleaty uncreative in your smearing.

    The sad thing I’m expecting what I just said to be all over the right wing websites as a new scandal in the nect few days.

  182. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 9, 2011 at 9:37 am #

    nc1: Are you telling me that the law in 1961 did not allow birth registration using a statement from a “witness” or a statement from a relative as a proof?

    In every state, a birth can be registered based on secondary evidence, which might include testimony of a relative. In the case of Sun Yat-Set there were sworn statements of two witnesses.

    To answer your direct question, no one has presented administrative rules from ’61 as to what the evidentiary requirements were. However, falsely registering a birth was a crime.

  183. avatar
    gorefan April 9, 2011 at 11:51 am #

    nc1: Did Obama have any girlfriend(s) before meeting his wife?

    Yes, one of his high school girlfriends was interviewed. She still has a love note he sent her.

  184. avatar
    G April 9, 2011 at 12:25 pm #

    nc1: Did Obama have any girlfriend(s) before meeting his wife?

    gorefan: Yes, one of his high school girlfriends was interviewed. She still has a love note he sent her.

    If this isn’t the perfect example of why people are entitled to personal privacy, I don’t know what is.

    I view a personal love letter between two people to be a very private and intimate thing. It is one thing to read touching collections of such letters compiled from soldiers who died during some past war or other illuminaries after ever one has passed, but it is another thing to think that such an initmate and personal moment be laid bare to the world by nosy people while both parties are still alive.

    The thought of personal love letters I may have written some former girlfriend being made public to the world just rubs me the wrong way – almost the ultimate violation of my privacy and a completely antiethical to the whole point of personal intimacy.

    Such things affect not just the two people who wrote it, but also the other relationships currently in those people’s lives. My wife is fairly aware of the women that were in my life before her. It is one of those things that gets discussed/revealed early on but not something that one continues to bring up repeatedly over time. Once you’ve covered that territory, there would be no point in rubbing anyone’s face in the initimate details of the past. That is just very, very poor taste. I can’t see my wife being thrilled with some former girlfriend passing around intimate and romantically private communications we used to share in public either.

    *ugh*. I felt I had to say something. Some things are just meant to be private and if anything shows how sick and excessively nosy birthers are getting and WHY privacy laws should protect us, this does.

    It is quite obvious that NC1 hates the president. Why would she care about prior personal relationships and want to see any intimate personal writings like that? Definitely not because she’s looking for heartfelt moments to touch her heart.

    More like some bizarre sick stalker or obsessed immoral predator that needs to get a life. Shame on you NC1 for even suggesting such things. Keep your nose out of other people’s lives and seek help. There is something very disturbingly wrong with you!

  185. avatar
    gorefan April 9, 2011 at 1:23 pm #

    G: If this isn’t the perfect example of why people are entitled to personal privacy, I don’t know what is.

    I agree completely with you. I only mention the girlfriend and the note to refute NC1’s unspoken allegation. NC1 doesn’t just hate the President, It hates everyone. It is a despicable excuse for a human being.

    Here is the quote:

    “The number at Dunham’s apartment in a nondescript Honolulu high rise has not changed in more than a quarter-century. It is the same one that a young Obama wrote in the yearbook of a petite black-haired beauty named Kelli Furushima — the object of his high school crush.”

    “She wistfully showed a reporter the love note Obama wrote in June 1979.”

    “Furushima paused, then sighed, pointing out how the potential president was prone to drawing a little Afro atop the “B” and the “O” on his signature. “Isn’t that sweet?” she asked. “You can see how he was much more sensitive than the other guys, even back then.”

    “But Furushima, too, is learning to be on guard around the press. She said a woman from People came to visit with her and then walked away with the Punahou reunion list and all its phone numbers. “I don’t want to accuse her of stealing it, but it was on the table when she arrived and it wasn’t when she left,” said Furushima.”

  186. avatar
    The Magic M April 9, 2011 at 1:50 pm #

    > Are you a US citizen?

    Are you an adult? In my childhood, I learned not to answer a question with a question.

    Besides, what would my citizenship have to do with the validity of my questions?

    I think we’ve reached the end of your small brain now, haven’t we? You can’t even move goalposts anymore, you have to dance around arguments with “who are you anyway?” types of reactions. Like a 3-year-old who sees he cannot win an argument against an adult, you stubbornly mutter “adults shouldn’t mingle into children’s business” as some dumb kids did when I was young.

    NC1, you lose. Again. Big time. EPIC FAIL. Time to start ignoring you. Sleep well in your rubber cell.

  187. avatar
    nc1 April 9, 2011 at 5:38 pm #

    The Magic M:
    > Are you a US citizen?

    Are you an adult? In my childhood, I learned not to answer a question with a question.

    Besides, what would my citizenship have to do with the validity of my questions?

    I think we’ve reached the end of your small brain now, haven’t we? You can’t even move goalposts anymore, you have to dance around arguments with “who are you anyway?” types of reactions. Like a 3-year-old who sees he cannot win an argument against an adult, you stubbornly mutter “adults shouldn’t mingle into children’s business” as some dumb kids did when I was young.

    NC1, you lose. Again. Big time. EPIC FAIL. Time to start ignoring you. Sleep well in your rubber cell.

    I have asked you this question three times and you avoided answering it. The first time I asked you about it, it was in response to your statement saying “In German we have a word …”

    I did not insult you just asked a simple question. It is interesting to see how people become agitated by a simple question.

  188. avatar
    nc1 April 9, 2011 at 5:47 pm #

    Suranis: What the heck does that have to do with Sun Yet Sen? I hope you are not implying that President Obama is into having sex with 70 year old corpses.

    Though if you thought you could make it stick I’m sure you would be all over that.

    “How do you know he isn’t into necrophilia? I think I heard some rumours about a tall black guy hanging around graveyards while Omaba was in Hawai’i. How do you know that wasn’t him. Surely if it wasn’t him we would have seen proof. After all his children could have been adopted. And I don’t see the resemblance between him and his kids.I wonder who could have been his childrens real dad. Who else could have Michelle have been with…”

    Etc etc etc. The sad thing about you stupid trolls is that you are so compleaty uncreative in your smearing.

    The sad thing I’m expecting what I just said to be all over the right wing websites as a new scandal in the nect few days.

    I asked an innocent question and you unloaded your dirty imagination for everyone to see.

  189. avatar
    Bovril April 9, 2011 at 6:14 pm #

    Nancy, just what PRECISELY would satisfy you as to the President passing Constitutional muster..?

    Exactly, precisely, articulated.

    Forget the rest of your nonsensical cack, what is it that will be required to make you shut up and sod off?

  190. avatar
    G April 9, 2011 at 7:41 pm #

    nc1: I asked an innocent question and you unloaded your dirty imagination for everyone to see.

    You mean like your question about Obama’s past girlfriends? Gee…was that innocent or evidence of your own warped and dirty imagination….

    Seek help and as Borvril said, sod off.

  191. avatar
    ellid April 9, 2011 at 7:52 pm #

    Given that NC has repeatedly refused to confirm that she is not Orly Taitz, her demanding answers from anyone is quite amusing.

  192. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 9, 2011 at 8:20 pm #

    The article has been updated to change the “Hawaii News Service” to the “Hawaii Newspaper Agency.”

  193. avatar
    Northland10 April 9, 2011 at 9:40 pm #

    Bovril: Nancy, just what PRECISELY would satisfy you as to the President passing Constitutional muster..?

    Exactly, precisely, articulated.

    A white man named Steve Dunham….

  194. avatar
    Granite April 12, 2011 at 12:48 pm #

    Regarding this allegation: “More than 1200 birth announcements between 1960 and 1965 were shown to contain Hawaiian addresses for registrants of births outside of the state of Hawaii, including more than three hundred in which the child was born outside of the United States.”

    The author was challenged on his blog to show the facts that confirm this statement about a week ago. He has now had a week to show the facts on which the 1200 claim is based on his blog, if there ARE any facts, and there has not been any response.