Main Menu

The Woodman challenge

John Woodman is the author of the meticulous post mortem examination of birther claims that President Obama’s long-form birth certificate is a fake. Woodman’s book, Is Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate a Fraud? is a must-read for anyone interested in the dissection of the analyses by WorldNetDaily’s volunteer document experts.

Despite Woodman’s crushing criticism, WorldNetDaily continues to play their propaganda game to some effect on the weak-minded birthers. Now Woodman has challenged the self-appointed experts to a debate. According to an article on Woodman’s web site, Mara Zebest, Karl Denninger, and Tom Harrison have accepted; however, the big fish, Jerome Corsi, is staying away from the January 21 on Mark Gillar’s Tea Party Power Hour debate.

Corsi’s reluctance is understandable. Shortly after Obama released his long form birth certificate, WorldNetDaily commissioned three credentialed experts to examine it. A source at WND (whose name you would probably recognize) told me that all of these experts concluded that the certificate was not inconsistent with an authentic document. WND didn’t publish any of the three reports they received. I obtained one report directly from Ivan Zatkovich and published it in full here – something WND never did, even though the report was commissioned by them.

I think debating birthers is a waste of time, but if it helps book sales, John, go for it.

Print Friendly

81 Responses to The Woodman challenge

  1. avatar
    John Woodman December 18, 2011 at 11:30 pm #

    Thanks for covering the debate challenge, Dr. Conspiracy!

    I don’t necessarily have any expectations of the debate helping book sales, although it would of course be nice if it did.

  2. avatar
    JPotter December 19, 2011 at 12:43 am #

    Gillar’s dream has come true! Sic’em, John. I’m glad someone has the time.

  3. avatar
    richCares December 19, 2011 at 1:10 am #

    Tom Harrison is the least qualified expert based on his comments here, he trolled Doc’ s site a lot lately and displayed his silliness, so I will defintely tune in, though I doubt most of those you challeged will show up.

  4. avatar
    John Woodman December 19, 2011 at 1:30 am #

    richCares:
    Tom Harrison is the least qualified expert based on his comments here, he trolled Doc’ s site a lot lately and displayed his silliness, so I will defintely tune in, though I doubt most of those you challeged will show up.

    I’m curious — what silliness do you have reference to?

  5. avatar
    Keith December 19, 2011 at 1:35 am #

    John Woodman:
    Thanks for covering the debate challenge, Dr. Conspiracy!

    I don’t necessarily have any expectations of the debate helping book sales, although it would of course be nice if it did.

    Count me in the ‘this is gonna be counterproductive’ camp.

    For the same reason that sane scientists don’t debate anti-evolutionists, and Al Gore doesn’t debate Lord Ha-Ha Monckton.

    There is just nothing to gain for ‘our side’ and nothing to lose for the ‘other side’.

    Your “opponents” will spout nothing but unfounded assertions and bull feces. Even if your only assertion is that the Sun will rise in the east tomorrow, they will deny it to their last dying breath, just like the 9/11 ‘truther’ who, when confronted with a photo showing a 90 foot hole in the Pentagon insisted that it was only 12 foot wide, and how could a 757 fit through that. They are willfully ignorant, blind, and deaf.

    I just don’t see it ending well, especially considering the venue..

    Good luck and more power to you.

  6. avatar
    richCares December 19, 2011 at 2:13 am #

    John Woodman
    (Doc C) The latest in the string of birthers at WorldNetDaily pretending to be document experts is Tom Harrison, someone whose “credentials” indicate no experience with the technical internals of graphic formats or document forensics. His expertise is claimed in graphic design and other non-graphic computer-related topics. What struck me personally about Mr. Harrison’s report was this:
    Grabbed and moved around as objects, the two groups of dots can be placed at the top of the document, giving the appearance of a large butterfly chasing a smaller butterfly, as seen in Exhibit 14.
    What Harrison says, in a very round about way, is that it’s not just white space under the text, that the following is impossible:
    two opaque colors cover each other, something that cannot be the result of a scanned piece of paper, where there can only be one color at any one pixel position.

    There were a bunch of silly comments by Tom Harrison that are no longer here. His extremely long essay answers were without adequate support, more than likely he was banned and his comments gone, see thread :
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/07/wnd-trots-out-another-birther-document-expert/#more-14019)
    .
    Keith said “Your “opponents” will spout nothing but unfounded assertions and bull feces.” I agree!

  7. avatar
    misha December 19, 2011 at 2:18 am #

    John Woodman: I’m curious — what silliness do you have reference to?

    Mr. Woodman: I have found a Kenya BC (Obama’s?). It would be worth your time to examine it.

  8. avatar
    Majority Will December 19, 2011 at 6:09 am #

    Harrison displays typical birther confirmation bias and blind bigotry. Like the others, he pretends to be a credible, certified document expert to support his hate driven political motives. Like the others, he conveniently ignores the fact that the State of Hawaii confirms the President’s birth there on August 4th, 1961. They create and maintain official Hawaiian birth records. Could the Treasury Department ever be accused of forging U.S. currency? Birthers are ridiculous, often puerile and fringe fanatics.

    From Loren (July 27, 2011 at 1:42 pm)
    To the surprise of no one, Tom Harrison is a pre-existing Birther:

    http://twitter.com/#!/ts4tomh

    Specifically:

    http://twitter.com/#!/ts4tomh/status/13159129199681538
    http://twitter.com/#!/ts4tomh/status/72743387538788352
    http://twitter.com/#!/ts4tomh/status/86477066148651008
    http://twitter.com/#!/ts4tomh/status/89897673938845696

    (http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/07/wnd-trots-out-another-birther-document-expert/#more-14019)

  9. avatar
    Claude Stapleton December 19, 2011 at 6:56 am #

    It’s too bad you didn’t mention Irey’s response. It’s a good one.

    John,

    Why didn’t you mention the venue for this debate? The last time we spoke you were having the fantasy that Hannity on Fox would host the debate.

    Again I must explain to you that any bad news about Obama is blacked out on major media. When I say bad news … I am talking about the crimes he committed or his bi-sexual history … etc. The media controls existed long before Obama came on the scene and until he did … I never would have believed that major media would protect anyone in politics like they have with Obama.

    This is not bias. It is daily media control by wire. Editors must wire in daily for approval … to the fed … any story the public reads or views on major media TV or print. The public will never be allowed to hear any debate that we might have on any major media venue. Ask Lou Dobbs who now gives us only financial news on FOX … was fired from CNN … and got a settlement for that. If he quit … as claimed … CNN would not have had to give him a dime. Who took the shot at his house? Three days later the report was that he resigned. Why can’t FOX use him for political news … since that was his 30 year experience? Of course all this happened to him because he brought up the subject of Obama’s birth certificate on his show. The U.S. government fired him John … and prevents him from being a political reporter now.

    What I’m saying is that the best proof of Obama’s forged birth certificate is the major media blackout of any discussion of the matter. Herman Cain got roasted for an old affair and inappropriate remarks made to women years ago. That served two purposes for the controlled media. It makes us think that no one can run for president if they have a checkered past … because of the “free to print whatever they like media” and it pretends that Obama is clean as a whistle because no such scandals were published when he ran.

    When Phillip Berg filed the first legal challenge to Obama’s eligibility in court … media said not a word. This was just before the Democratic national convention. Phillip Berg was the head of the Democratic party in his Philadelphia district … had held public office in Pa. and was a licensed lawyer to practice before the Supreme Court. Never the less … the media blacked out his challenge and did not mention it until the judge threw it out because of “standing” … not the issues. And the headline was … “Proof Obama born in Hawaii … Judge throws out case.” However FOX news did run the story full bore on TV in Toronto, Canada. We were having an election … not Canada. FOX should have ran the story in the U.S. … but they could not because of the “Wire”.

    Just like you … I could write a book about the government controlled media … and as I said before … my concerns were never a punk commie with a fraudulent birth certificate … but a controlled media. Proving the birth certificate is a forgery is just going to pound another nail into the coffin for the controlled media’s demise.

    If you defend the media’s integrity … just get them to print the attached poster that raises a question that is not allowed to be raised to this day. Media can never admit that the governments own evidence contradicts itself in the assassination of JFK.

    This I would love to debate on any major media … but of course it will never be allowed. Maybe you can explain why John.

    Now show your integrity and post this answer … and the JFK proof … on your comments section … unless you have a good reason as to why my contentions on JFK are not allowed to be shown on major media.

    By the way … congratulations on your findings of the distortion zone on the White House copier. Who knew? Better your findings in a book than to find it out in court … so I never filed that evidence with the FBI and now don’t intend to because of the doubts you raised. I think some of the letters are still different regardless … but I won’t hang my hat on a few.

    When WND releases the next story soon … about evidence that Doug and I collaborated on … I expect and hope for you to challenge it. I don’t mind critics at all. Originally I though major media would throw my evidence out there and forensic people from the 2,000 available in this country … would come forward to deny or verify it … but that never happened did it? It’s all been left to amateurs like you and I … and that’s just not right.

    Nor is it right that a birth certificate that the world has seen … should not be revealed for an examination of the original. What is there to hide? It should look just like the copy … no?

    Maybe it’s only a computer-created file and they have nothing to show us?

    I am now working on the third study.

    Paul Irey

  10. avatar
    Majority Will December 19, 2011 at 7:16 am #

    Claude Stapleton: It’s too bad you didn’t mention Irey’s response. It’s a good one.

    You’re right.

    It’s an excellent example of birther paranoia, false entitlement, narcissism, extreme delusions, moving goalposts, flat out lies and baseless speculation.

    That is seriously deluded and paranoid. At least he admits he’s an unqualified expert.

    Was JFK present at Obama’s birth?

    Idiot.

  11. avatar
    Majority Will December 19, 2011 at 8:09 am #

    Let these self-qualified birther bigots know that showusyourpapersboy.com, showusyourpapersboy.net, showusyourpapersboy.org, showusyourpapersboy.biz and more are still available.

  12. avatar
    Claude Stapleton December 19, 2011 at 8:11 am #

    Did you write this, or did Loren?

    Majority Will:

    Like the others, he conveniently ignores the fact that the State of Hawaii confirms the President’s birth there on August 4th, 1961. They create and maintain official Hawaiian birth records.

    From Loren (July 27, 2011 at 1:42 pm)

    It’s important. The State of Hawaii has created, maintained and confirmed Obama’s birth in Hawaii.

    And it’s been an evolutionary process. Allegedly, the original birth certificate had a doctor’s original signature and date, a hospital administrators original signature and date, and his mother’s original signature and date.

    And now the birth certificate has a date filed and not a date accepted with the doctor’s signature, hospital administrator’s signature and mother’s signature removed. The signatures are attestations under penalty of perjury of the birth event. In other words, they are eye witnesses declaring their willingness to testify and swear under oath the birth event took place. Why did the State of Hawaii remove witnesses declarations?

    When witnesses remove their signed and declared statements from a documented event or the custodian removes their signed and declared statements from a documented event, it’s not bigotry or paranoia to want an examination of the complete birth record and interview the custodians of the record.

    When a date accepted turns into a date filed, it’s not bigotry or paranoia to want an examination of the complete record and interview the custodians of the record.

  13. avatar
    Keith December 19, 2011 at 8:41 am #

    Keith: I just don’t see it ending well,

    Claude’s rants more than justify my feeling of unease about the usefullness of this so-called ‘debate’.

  14. avatar
    Northland10 December 19, 2011 at 9:01 am #

    Maybe Claude can explain how his rant fits with the full faith and credit clause in the constitution. It does not later if it says date filed, date accepted or date folded into oragami, but only that Hawaii’s states he is born there. Why do the birthers reject the Constitution?

  15. avatar
    The Magic M December 19, 2011 at 9:03 am #

    > And now the birth certificate has a date filed and not a date accepted with the doctor’s signature, hospital administrator’s signature and mother’s signature removed.

    What the freak are you talking about? Are you regurgitating the old birfer talking point that deliberately confounds the official birth certificate (the COLB released in 2008) with the vault document (the LFBC released in 2011)?
    Of course the former does not have all the stuff you mention, but nothing has been “removed” from it.

    > and swear under oath the birth event took place

    No, a mother signing a birth certificate is not the same as “swear under oath”.

    > When a date accepted turns into a date filed

    … it shows the sudden willingness to bend and twist words until they say the opposite of what they really say.

    Koothrappali: “We didn’t have sex in the …. conventional way.”
    Penny: “Oh my god, you pulled some crazy Indian sex tricks on me??”
    Koothrappali [paraphrased]: “No, what I mean is – we didn’t have any at all.”

    > it’s not bigotry or paranoia to want an examination of the complete birth record

    If a Hawaiian birth certificate (COLB) is not enough because the candidate is black and state records suddenly become “not reliable” and an entire state becomes “complicit in a conspiracy”, it is both bigotry and paranoia.

    > a hospital administrators original signature and date

    Whoever said that? You seem to confuse the real Hawaiian documents with the poor forgery of a Kenyan BC that Lucas Smith was touting as the real thing.

  16. avatar
    Northland10 December 19, 2011 at 9:04 am #

    I meant, it does not matter. Must be more careful posting with an Android phone using swype.

  17. avatar
    The Magic M December 19, 2011 at 9:09 am #

    Claude Stapleton [citing Paul Irey]: When WND releases the next story soon … about evidence that Doug and I collaborated on … I expect and hope for you to challenge it. I don’t mind critics at all.

    Another irony meter just exploded. When I challenged his findings on WND, all I got from him was ridicule and a patronizing tone. He wouldn’t even look at the images I made that refuted his points and instead claimed he wouldn’t “go to a liberal site” for fear of “catching malware”.

    May we at least hope Paul will motion WND to stop deleting dissenting opinions? Or will he take the lack of refutation on the WND comments section as “proof that this time my findings are irrefutable”? My bet is on the latter.

  18. avatar
    The Magic M December 19, 2011 at 9:10 am #

    The Magic M: claimed he wouldn’t “go to a liberal site” for fear of “catching malware”.

    May I add the “liberal site” was imageshack…

  19. avatar
    J. Potter December 19, 2011 at 9:32 am #

    Counterproductive? That assumes anything here could ever be productive, as in somehow “winning”. Whatever happens here, in this debate, and at every other forum related to this topic, will be spun by WND and others into fuel for new articles. It’s both frustrating and hysterical to see my own points appearring in their stories. As it must be for birthers to see their memes roasted here. As in our larger political process, there is no debate between the forces arrayed around birtherism, much less discussion; both sides are fundamentally oppsed to the goals fo the other, thus no interest in or possibility of compromise, much less submission. Both sides are speaking past each other to their bases. So long as educating that base is worthwhile, then these engagements have value, and can be very productive.

    Again I say, go, John, go!

  20. avatar
    Claude Stapleton December 19, 2011 at 9:52 am #

    Northland10:
    I meant,it does not matter. Must be more careful posting with an Android phone using swype.

    Just like the State of Hawaii. They have been editing and revising Obama’s record of his birth event since 1961.

    The problem is that they will continue to edit and revise his record after his Presidential term has ended. Only then will we find out the real story.

  21. avatar
    Thomas Brown December 19, 2011 at 10:09 am #

    Claude Stapleton: Just like the State of Hawaii. They have been editing and revising Obama’s record of his birth event since 1961.

    The problem is that they will continue to edit and revise his record after his Presidential term has ended. Only then will we find out the real story.

    We already know the real story. The BC has never been altered. O is a NBC and completely eligible. Birfers are drooling, knuckle-dragging morons. The previously-smart ones have been made into morons by their desperately wanting to believe there is a Conspiracy, when actually, you know, none exists.

  22. avatar
    J. Potter December 19, 2011 at 10:11 am #

    Claude, if “they” are going to “continue to edit and revise”, why would we then “find out the real story”? Why would we ever be allowed to find out the “real” story? Why not go with the assumption that the records were sealed by a gov’t black writ issued by the inner council for a term of some arbitrary-suspiciously round number of years … say 100. Or until the chosen future President’s death. Whichever comes first. Or perhaps “they” sealed “them” FOREVER. Boogeddy.

    Or would that just be silly?

  23. avatar
    Majority Will December 19, 2011 at 10:14 am #

    Keith: Claude’s rants more than justify my feeling of unease about the usefullness of this so-called debate’.

    You’re right. Obstinate birther stupidity is truly pathetic.

  24. avatar
    Majority Will December 19, 2011 at 10:17 am #

    The Magic M:
    > And now the birth certificate has a date filed and not a date accepted with the doctor’s signature, hospital administrator’s signature and mother’s signature removed.

    What the freak are you talking about? Are you regurgitating the old birfer talking point that deliberately confounds the official birth certificate (the COLB released in 2008) with the vault document (the LFBC released in 2011)?
    Of course the former does not have all the stuff you mention, but nothing has been “removed” from it.

    > and swear under oath the birth event took place

    No, a mother signing a birth certificate is not the same as “swear under oath”.

    > When a date accepted turns into a date filed

    … it shows the sudden willingness to bend and twist words until they say the opposite of what they really say.

    Koothrappali: “We didn’t have sex in the …. conventional way.”
    Penny: “Oh my god, you pulled some crazy Indian sex tricks on me??”
    Koothrappali [paraphrased]: “No, what I mean is – we didn’t have any at all.”

    > it’s not bigotry or paranoia to want an examination of the complete birth record

    If a Hawaiian birth certificate (COLB) is not enough because the candidate is black and state records suddenly become “not reliable” and an entire state becomes “complicit in a conspiracy”, it is both bigotry and paranoia.

    > a hospital administrators original signature and date

    Whoever said that? You seem to confuse the real Hawaiian documents with the poor forgery of a Kenyan BC that Lucas Smith was touting as the real thing.

    Well said.

  25. avatar
    Majority Will December 19, 2011 at 10:20 am #

    Northland10:
    Maybe Claude can explain how his rant fits with the full faith and credit clause in the constitution.It does not later if it says date filed, date accepted or date folded into oragami, but only that Hawaii’s states he is born there.Why do the birthers reject the Constitution?

    Birthers have no respect for the law but only their hate filled, bigotry driven political agendas.

    Birthers spot a non-existent plastic pine needle in a forest of oak trees and from then on shriek uncontrollably that there must be a vast conspiracy.

  26. avatar
    J. Potter December 19, 2011 at 10:25 am #

    Majority Will: Let these self-qualified birther bigots know that showusyourpapersboy.com, showusyourpapersboy.net, showusyourpapersboy.org, showusyourpapersboy.biz and more are still available.

    Branding that awesome simply must be used. I mean, for a domain name to capture all aspects of a topic so succinctly! Time to take up my digital bedsheets and go a’birthin’.

    Great post, Maj. Will!

  27. avatar
    Claude Stapleton December 19, 2011 at 10:28 am #

    J. Potter:
    Claude, if “they” are going to “continue to edit and revise”, why would we then “find out the real story”? Why would we ever be allowed to find out the “real” story? Why not go with the assumption that the records were sealed by a gov’t black writ issued by the inner council for a term of some arbitrary-suspiciously round number of years … say 100. Or until the chosen future President’s death. Whichever comes first. Or perhaps “they” sealed “them” FOREVER. Boogeddy.

    Or would that just be silly?

    After death, the right to privacy dissipates, i.e. State Department, SSA and USCIS records become publicly accessible.

    So, I’m sure the State of Hawaii will want to revise, edit, correct, extend, redact, etc … to ensure the integrity of their record’s department.

    Year 2049, a records clerk in that State of Hawaii … “Hey, what is this? It looks like a note from 1961 that says Barack Obama’s grandmother came in and declared her daughter, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, gave birth to a baby in Mombasa, Kenya.

    Senior Supervisor Records Department State of Hawaii …”Uhhhh, just “correct” the birth certificate on file. Don’t worry about it. We do this all the time. ”

  28. avatar
    The Magic M December 19, 2011 at 10:58 am #

    Claude Stapleton: It looks like a note from 1961 that says Barack Obama’s grandmother came in and declared her daughter, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, gave birth to a baby in Mombasa, Kenya.

    And the really silly and ironic (and bigoted and …) thing is that birthers would take such a note, if it existed, as proof of Kenyan birth while at the same time rejecting another hypothetical note that says “Barack Obama’s grandmother came in and declared her daughter, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, gave birth to a baby in Hawaii” as unreliable and possibly a lie.

    Claude Stapleton:They have been editing and revising Obama’s record of his birth event since 1961.

    And what would “they” have possibly edited in 1961? The records of a baby for whom “they” had decided it would make the perfect President 50 years later?
    Dude, such a conspiracy would be the stupidest ever, considering it could’ve been thwarted by such basic problems as a fatal accident during those 50 years.
    If I actually believed in such a conspiracy, I’d try to find out if “they” had a hundred “backup babies” from Kenya they could’ve swapped in if one of them failed for some reason.

    And who are “they” anyway? Marshall Law, General Failure, Major Problems and Private Parts?

  29. avatar
    Bob December 19, 2011 at 11:04 am #

    The “real story’ is how much money Corsi and Farah have fleeced people (the sad, loony, fringe of the fringe Wingnuts who trust them) out of.

  30. avatar
    richCares December 19, 2011 at 11:13 am #

    John Woodman, play close attention to Claude Stapleton’s posts, his silly rants are hints of what you will facing in that debate. Good Luck with debating people that make up stuuf.

  31. avatar
    Judge Mental December 19, 2011 at 11:13 am #

    Claude Stapleton: After death, the right to privacy dissipates, i.e. State Department, SSA and USCIS records become publicly accessible.

    So, I’m sure the State of Hawaii will want to revise, edit, correct, extend, redact, etc … to ensure the integrity of their record’s department.

    What could be the possible purpose or advantage to anyone in the Obama/Dunham family for the grandmother to have “came in and declared her daughter gave birth to a baby in Mombasa” in 1961?

    What exactly do you imagine that such a declaration would have instigated in 1961 by way of a birth record for the baby in Hawaii?

  32. avatar
    Feinne December 19, 2011 at 11:30 am #

    I can’t help but be reminded of this.

    #8 in specific, the idea that enemies are both insurmountable and yet also easily beaten.

    Birthers believe in a massive conspiracy that has placed an ineligible president in the white house yet said conspiracy somehow is so incompetent as to be easily detected by random people no matter how little sense that makes.

  33. avatar
    Feinne December 19, 2011 at 11:31 am #

    The link appears to have failed, apologies. It’s http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

  34. avatar
    J. Potter December 19, 2011 at 11:39 am #

    i can’t believe Claude posted a serious response to my jest. Claude is playing a part right? A bravura performance! What kind of conspiracy would up and say, “well, poop, right to privacy gone. have to toss all the altered documents and come clean now.” LOL! A conspiracy with a conscience.

    Hey, I know, they’ll do just that. “Hey folks, we sure pulled a good one back there in the 20-aughts. Slipping a black kid from Africa into high office in America via some funny papers from Hawaii! Whooo! It all began on a dare, back in the acid-dropping days at the CIA. We were playing a game “I bet you”, seeing who could dream up the most unklikely coup d’etat. Higher and higher the stakes went, reaching the zenith: a bloodless takeover of a superpower with a popularly elected Manchurian candidate! What brilliance! Finally Smith saw Johnson’s offer of a poor Mexican field hand from San Jose and raised him a poor black child from New Orleans. Not to be outdone, Johnson countered with a ‘”real” black kid, from AFRICA!’ Obviously ludicrous we all said, and the game broke up. 50 years later, mud was all our names as Johnson pulled it off. Good show! Well, now that the ‘President’ in question is deceased, here you go. All the details of Johnson’s masterstroke! Oh, and sorry about all the bailouts, got to pay the mortgage, you know.”

    Seriously, how would expiration of privacy compel a coverup to come clean? The doctored docs would stay in place, if they even exists *gasp!*. A competent conspiracy would hold the dirt for leverage.

    Hey, there’s that word, ‘competance’ again!

  35. avatar
    J. Potter December 19, 2011 at 11:44 am #

    Feinne: The link appears to have failed, apologies. It’s http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

    Classic essay, Feinne! I first came across it in American Fascists, which I highly recommend!

  36. avatar
    Judge Mental December 19, 2011 at 11:46 am #

    Granny Dunham walks into the Hawaii Health Dept Records Office on 6th August 1961.

    “I’d like to advise you that my daughter has given birth to a baby boy in Mombasa Kenya two days ago. Mother and baby are doing well, though his neck measurements seem a bit strange”

    “Congratulations Granny Dunham…..but why are you telling us?”

    “I’m not sure, I guess I’m just telling everyone I’m so excited. His dad’s black you see and he’s going to be the first half-caste President of the USA”

    “Well that’s certainly ambitious……him being able to get a seat at the front of the bus might be the best you can realistically hope for. Any way, I suggest you tell your daughter to visit the nearest US Consulate in Kenya with the Kenyan birth documents and they will help issue a document to ease her child’s entry through US Immigration when she returns with him. Her point of entry won’t be Hawaii and all states have their own procedures but it’s obvious that she will need documents for him wherever she enters. If she wants US citizenship for him the naturalization process for him should be very simple after she gets back and applies.”

    “Ok thanks for your help and advice. Oh by the way do you think you could add the child’s name to the list of babies born in Hawaii on 4th August that you guys send to the newspapers? Just so’s our friends all know about the happy event”

    “Well ok Granny Dunham, I’ll get on that right away….but only because we belong to the same secret Communist society…see you at the meeting next week…you take care now”

  37. avatar
    G December 19, 2011 at 11:46 am #

    False equivocation.

    Therefore, I take issue with your entire premise here, as you have stated it.

    Of course birther memes are roasted here. They are simply WITHOUT merit and therefore deserving of ridicule.

    More importantly, their claims have been first looked into and found utterly lacking, so they are not just being glibly dismissed, they are dismissed and dismantled after they have been checked into and found to bogus.

    One side (birthers) has only rumours, innuendo, biased and unsubstantiated speculation, spurrious accusations, outright lies, extreme paranoia and intentionally mangled interpretive parsings of documents.

    The other side has all facts, law, evidence and reality on its side.

    This is not some game, despite they try to play one constantly. They only have propoganda. We simply deal with reality. There is no comparison between the two.

    It is not speaking “past someone’s base” to discuss that the world is round, despite that there are delusional folks out there that still insist it is flat. Their arguments are utterly without merit and worthy of only derision and mockery. Same with Birtherism.

    J. Potter: It’s both frustrating and hysterical to see my own points appearring in their stories. As it must be for birthers to see their memes roasted here. As in our larger political process, there is no debate between the forces arrayed around birtherism, much less discussion; both sides are fundamentally oppsed to the goals fo the other, thus no interest in or possibility of compromise, much less submission. Both sides are speaking past each other to their bases. So long as educating that base is worthwhile, then these engagements have value, and can be very productive.

  38. avatar
    richCares December 19, 2011 at 11:46 am #

    John Woodman
    read Tom Harrison’s posts at the thread below but don’t hold a coffee cup (you will need a new keyboard)
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/07/wnd-document-expert-says-not-quite-accurate/

  39. avatar
    G December 19, 2011 at 12:02 pm #

    Thank you for sharing that! That was a most excellent article and I hope everyone takes the time to clink the link and read it. It is a fairly short synopsis and quick read.

    Birtherism definitely fits the mold here as a form of Ur-Fascism, as defined in this article. In particular, I found the following 3 paragraphs to be especially relevent:

    7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.

    This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the United States, a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson’s The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.

    8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.

    When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.

    9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.

    Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such “final solutions” implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.

    In followers of such Ideology, I contend that #9 is really driven by an insecurity based persecution/martyr complex. We see this evident all the time in various Birther rants. Heck, Orly is about as textbook of a case as you can get on this front.

    Anyways, excellent article. Thank You.

    I really hope that Dr. Conspiracy has a chance to read it and comment on it as well.

    Feinne: The link appears to have failed, apologies. It’s http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

  40. avatar
    G December 19, 2011 at 12:10 pm #

    Well said. Agreed.

    Majority Will: You’re right.It’s an excellent example of birther paranoia, false entitlement, narcissism, extreme delusions, moving goalposts, flat out lies and baseless speculation.That is seriously deluded and paranoid. At least he admits he’s an unqualified expert.Was JFK present at Obama’s birth?Idiot.

  41. avatar
    G December 19, 2011 at 12:12 pm #

    Agreed! Well said.

    Thomas Brown: We already know the real story. The BC has never been altered. O is a NBC and completely eligible. Birfers are drooling, knuckle-dragging morons. The previously-smart ones have been made into morons by their desperately wanting to believe there is a Conspiracy, when actually, you know, none exists.

  42. avatar
    J. Potter December 19, 2011 at 12:46 pm #

    G: False equivocation.Therefore, I take issue with your entire premise here, as you have stated it…

    The premise was that these debates are worthwhile, despite that no converts will be made. Both sides preaching to their respective choirs. Does Woodman expect to convince any birther listening birthers, much less Gillar and the WND-endorsed shills? He shouldn’t; even if their faith shakes, they won’t admit it. Conversely, do they expect to convert and rational listeners or Woodman? No. It’s reinforcement and entertainment for both sides.

    Perhaps above it was meant these events are counterproductive in that they breathe new life and interest (and possibly draw more donations into) a cause that is a waste of time. But again I disagree. It doesn’t matter what we do, it will live on anyway. It’s lifeblood is mutual projection of various flaws in the each birthers’ brain onto a common fetish, in this case a President they object to. Some choose to exploit this phenomena, and as long as the fixated concept exists, the phenomena will continue. Some try to exploit it for financial a/o political gain, others for amusement.

    It sounds to me, G, as if you are agreeing with me, that the truth must be defended, and you may as well get your kicks while you can!

    Perhaps you’re not willing to entertain the idea that the some on the other side truly believe, and thus are, on the issue of birtherism, truly our mirror opposites, and that such believers would hold you in equal contempt. And you may not care. I am ultimately with you, that we can appeal to science, logic, common sense, reduction ad absurdum, whatever you want, to make a case for commonly perceived reality. But to a true believer in a desired reality, that doesn’t penetrate. As Doc notes often, they may in every other respect be perfectly rational and functional, but on this subject, their desires have driven them off the rails!

  43. avatar
    Feinne December 19, 2011 at 12:54 pm #

    J. Potter: Classic essay, Feinne! I first came across it in American Fascists, which I highly recommend!

    Yeah, I first saw it linked quite a while ago in a discussion on the far right on the internet and the worrying sorts of things they advocate and it’s been a favorite of mine since.

  44. avatar
    Rickey December 19, 2011 at 1:02 pm #

    Claude Stapleton:

    So, I’m sure the State of Hawaii will want to revise, edit, correct, extend, redact, etc … to ensure the integrity of their record’s department.

    Oh, sure. In 40 years the State of Hawaii is going to “ensure the integrity” of its records by admitting that for decades it was falsifying records.

    The one thing that that is consistent about birthers is that your theories and your predictions invariably fail the plausibility test.

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 19, 2011 at 1:05 pm #

    Mr Irey keeps ignoring the fact that NBC News Correspondent Savannah Guthrie stated that she saw the paper document and felt the raised seal.

    Claude Stapleton: (Quoting Paul Irey) Maybe it’s only a computer-created file and they have nothing to show us?

  46. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 19, 2011 at 1:09 pm #

    Could you be more specific? I am unaware of any “revision” coming from Hawaii. The state released more information over time (such as Dr. Funkino’s revelation that the certificate was signed by a doctor) but nothing revised.

    Claude Stapleton: Just like the State of Hawaii. They have been editing and revising Obama’s record of his birth event since 1961.

  47. avatar
    Claude Stapleton December 19, 2011 at 1:20 pm #

    Rickey: Oh, sure. In 40 years the State of Hawaii is going to “ensure the integrity” of its records by admitting that for decades it was falsifying records.

    The one thing that that is consistent about birthers is that your theories and your predictions invariably fail the plausibility test.

    At some point in time, Obama’s personal records will be made public after his death. For example, his naturalization papers on file with USCIS will be publicly available. So, the State of Hawaii will have to revise their records again to ensure the integrity of those records, i.e. it would be embarrassing for them to have a birth record indicating he was born in Hawaii and an immigration file stating he was born in Mombasa, Kenya.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Could you be more specific? I am unaware of any “revision” coming from Hawaii. The state released more information over time (such as Dr. Funkino’s revelation that the certificate was signed by a doctor) but nothing revised.

    The original birth record has a date accepted because the paperwork signed by the hospital admin, delivery doc and mother attesting to witnessing the birth event was accepted by the Hawaii Department of Records.

    Currently, any abbreviated birth record or COLB has the same date accepted as the original long form birth certificate.

    Obama’s original long form birth certificate has a date accepted, while his COLB has a date filed. The difference in the date is indicative of a revision after the original long form birth certificate was filed, i.e. an adoption.

  48. avatar
    richCares December 19, 2011 at 1:36 pm #

    “Mr. Harrison has not been banned”
    sorry Doc, that thread went out of sight, I found it later
    you have to admit Tom Harrison’s comments are really silly
    as are Claude Stapleton’s comments
    .
    it Claude a sockpuppet of Tom?

  49. avatar
    Daniel December 19, 2011 at 1:38 pm #

    Claude Stapleton: What I’m saying is that the best proof of Obama’s forged birth certificate is the major media blackout of any discussion of the matter.

    Sooooo…. let me get this straight, if I can, without breaking up…..

    You’re actually agreeing with Irey, who is actually suggesting….. I mean really suggesting…. with a straight face, no less…. that the best proof of the veracity of your nutbag conspiracy theory, is that the media doesn’t find it important enough to waste copy or air time.

    Really?

    Seriously?

    Well that explains the Pulitzer nomination I received this morning for the complete lack of coverage of my infected hangnail…..

  50. avatar
    J. Potter December 19, 2011 at 1:40 pm #

    Claude, why didn’t the imaginary conspiracy take care of all of the imaginary papers? Again, an inconsistency. The existence of immigration / naturalization is not protected by privacy, thought the contents thereof may be. If your desired conspiracy has covered up their existence, why did they not destroy / alter / suppress them in addition to all their good work in Hawaii?

    This is a new twist … an incomplete / incompetent conspiracy with limited powers. Is not Claude not a super-conspiracist? Does he not see Obama as a tool of some shadowy world gov’t or another? If not, that’s refreshing.

  51. avatar
    Daniel December 19, 2011 at 1:44 pm #

    J. Potter: Does he not see Obama as a tool of some shadowy world gov’t or another?

    Careful J, you almost let slip the part about our invisible polka-dot unicorn overlords from Betelguese IV….

    DOAH!!!

  52. avatar
    Rickey December 19, 2011 at 1:46 pm #

    richCares:

    .
    it Claude a sockpuppet of Tom?

    My guess is that Claude is another of Sven’s sock puppets.

  53. avatar
    richCares December 19, 2011 at 1:53 pm #

    Claude: “Obama’s original long form birth certificate has a date accepted, while his COLB has a date filed”
    Clude, Claude, Claude this so easy to check out, my daughter was born in 1965 at Kapi’olani, guess what her COLB states? Or the original long form. This an old and failed birther point, catch up will ya!
    Doc C covered this extensively, http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/06/date-filed-v-date-accepted-appealed/

  54. avatar
    Rickey December 19, 2011 at 1:53 pm #

    Claude Stapleton:
    Currently, any abbreviated birth record or COLB has the same date accepted as the original long form birth certificate.

    Obama’s original long form birth certificate has a date accepted, while his COLB has a date filed. The difference in the date is indicative of a revision after the original long form birth certificate was filed, i.e. an adoption.

    There is no difference in the date. Both documents show August 8, 1961.

  55. avatar
    Majority Will December 19, 2011 at 1:54 pm #

    Claude Stapleton: Just like the State of Hawaii. They have been editing and revising Obama’s record of his birth event since 1961.

    More accurately:

    Just like the birthers. They have been editing and revising their misconceptions of Obama’s record of his birth event to comfortably fit their confirmation bias since 2008.

  56. avatar
    G December 19, 2011 at 2:02 pm #

    Yes, on this point, I agree.

    J. Potter: It sounds to me, G, as if you are agreeing with me, that the truth must be defended, and you may as well get your kicks while you can!

    I completely disagree with you here…in terms of how you seem to be implying “mirror opposities”. Again, this comes across as more false equivocation, as if they are simply expressing some opposite “opinion”.

    And that is the problem in your rationale here – equating mere “opinions” or faith-based belief structures with empirical evidence and fact-based reality.

    I completely *get* that many of these deluded fools completely and sincerely believe in their own BS & hype. That they believe it is really irrelevent in the bigger picture of the real world. Trust me, most members of the Flat Earth Society are “true believers” and “sincere” in their false beliefs as well. That doesn’t make the world any less round. Nor does it put them deserving of respect or attention for their views, just because they “sincerely believe” such nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidence proving them wrong.

    My argument isn’t necessarily about “winning them over”. I really don’t care about that at all, as I’ve concluded that many of them are beyond reach of reality.

    Nor am I trying to “win their vote”, as they are simply free to vote for whomever they want, without having to stoop to slander, lies and excuses to justify it.

    I have NO expectations of them becoming rational or reasonable, nor do I feel the need to “save” them from their own stupidity. Words and actions have consequences and if they are going to make the mistake of spouting such filth and nonsense, then they’ve earned a reaction and a response to point out that they are nothing but delusional loons. That in and of itself is a simple and justified response and nothing more than the result of the consequence of their own actions being brought to bare on them.

    I care about countering nonsense and feel that is ALWAYS important…as ignorance breeds and spreads like a cancer; particularly when it is allowed to run rampant via repetition without rebuttal.

    My reactions are simply not based on trying to “appeal” or persuade” those that are clearly beyond reach – which simply accounts for most of the hard-core Birthers that remain.

    That being said, there will always tend to be a small segment of just low-information folks that are easily susceptible or gullible to buying into their nonsense without thinking it through. These folks are still on the right edge of sanity and are potentially open to rational conversation and facing reality, when confronted with facts and logic. They are worthy of trying to reach – not for the point of persuading them as much as for the more important point – informing them of the objective truth. They don’t have to be happy about it, just aware of it and not so obstinantly and emotionally committed to denial as to reject reality.

    J. Potter: Perhaps you’re not willing to entertain the idea that the some on the other side truly believe, and thus are, on the issue of birtherism, truly our mirror opposites, and that such believers would hold you in equal contempt. And you may not care. I am ultimately with you, that we can appeal to science, logic, common sense, reduction ad absurdum, whatever you want, to make a case for commonly perceived reality. But to a true believer in a desired reality, that doesn’t penetrate. As Doc notes often, they may in every other respect be perfectly rational and functional, but on this subject, their desires have driven them off the rails!

  57. avatar
    J. Potter December 19, 2011 at 2:18 pm #

    G.,

    I don’t “[equate] mere “opinions” or faith-based belief structures with empirical evidence and fact-based reality” … rather, I keep in mind that the birthers–at least in regards to birtherism–do. If they really believe, then those are their facts, supported by their own theories and evidence. You have your reality, they have theirs. Each knows it to be right, even if only one is demonstrable, and one has many more adherents than the other. It sounds as thought you have no sympathy or pity for their plight. Does their birtherism invaidate their entire existence? Are they, due to what you see as a flaw, entirely w/o worth? Can you not say, “In this regard, we disagree. Please keep this delusion to yourself. Hey, seen any good movies lately?”

    Thanks for re-emphasizing that there are those listening in who haven’t been completely shielded against birtherism. Other than the entertainment, that’s why I say go Woodman go. The birther spew must be countered.

  58. avatar
    G December 19, 2011 at 2:33 pm #

    <I highly recommend that Mr. Woodman reads that entire thread, so he can see the full context and evolution of such a back & forth exchange with Mr. Harrison and how he is completely stuck on starting with making conclusions based on his own pre-conceived biases and then coming up with garbage to try to justify those conclusions.

    Another take away from reading the entire thread is noticing how Mr. Harrison “suddenly” appears, spouting similar talking points, “conveniently” at the point when the previous birther “suddenly disappears” from the thread. (A poster going by “arnash”…who was outed as a well-known and long-time birther who goes by “straight-shooter” who spends a lot of time posting Birther propoganda all over various internet sites and boards).

    I point this out to Mr. Woodman, because it is an important clue as to what I suspect are the true motives of Mr. Harrison and his ilk and is strong evidence for someone with a well-established history and link to “birtherism”. Since this site has existed, we’ve seen this “tag-team” approach between “dedicated” hard-core birther propogandists on countless occassions.

    The pattern is always the same – one appears, often initially “pretending” to be more level-headed and only looking for “answers”…and then becomes more and more dug-in to denialism and to reguritate pre-set “birther talking points” when confronted with the facts and evidence which debunks their initial (and follow-up) “concerns”. At some point, they’ve lost all their talking points and “disappear” from the site…to suddenly be “replaced” with a “new” poster showing up and starting the whole schtick over again… etc, etc. Rinse & repeat. In summary, it appears to be an insincere, intentional and coordinated trolling propoganda tactic from the get-go.

    As this thread clearly demonstrates, Mr. Harrison will dodge and steer away from evidence which refutes his nonsense and twist the conversation to some other made up convoluted story as justification for his biases or ignore the rebuttal and refocus on quibbling over some irrelevant bit of minutae.

    Fairly typical behavior for those with such an irrational mindset.

    So I do wish you well on your radio “debate” and support your doing this…but I have no expectations of his responses to you to be anything close to an actual debate in good faith. He will merely try to keep chainging the “goal posts” on you to dodge away from your points.

    So my strong advice to Mr. Woodman is to not let him get away with that and fall for his tactics. When you’ve got him on a critical point that discredits his premise, don’t let him distract you and try to move the topic. Sharply keep bringing the conversation back to that critical point and harp on it until he addresses it or concedes. Then continue to follow that approach to steadfastly knock down every additional myth he tries to pull out of his rear…but be patient and focused on tackling them one by one and not concede to his distraction tactics of moving the conversation elsewhere, until a particular point of contention has been settled. Best of luck to you John!

    Dr. Conspiracy: Mr. Harrison has not been banned and his comments can be found here:http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/07/wnd-document-expert-says-not-quite-accurate/#comment-129813http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/07/wnd-document-expert-says-not-quite-accurate/#comment-129804http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/07/wnd-document-expert-says-not-quite-accurate/#comment-129542http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/07/wnd-document-expert-says-not-quite-accurate/#comment-129414http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/07/wnd-document-expert-says-not-quite-accurate/#comment-129384

  59. avatar
    Claude Stapleton December 19, 2011 at 2:48 pm #

    Rickey: There is no difference in the date. Both documents show August 8, 1961.

    According to Doc’s article on “date accepted” vs. “date filed”,

    There is no“Date filed by the State Registrar” on an original Hawaiian birth certificate from the 1960′s. Check out the Alan certificate from 1963. Whatever date was abstracted from Barack Obama’s original birth certificate and printed on the COLB, it was NOT the date filed; there is no date filed.

    So, the date filed on the COLB, August 8, 1961, was not on Obama’s original birth certificate. We can only conclude additional information was provided the State of Hawaii because they printed “date filed” on the COLB that was not abstracted from the original birth record.

    In other words, a revision was made after the original had been created. The “date filed” wasn’t there and then it appeared on the COLB. The State of Hawaii reserves the right to edit, revise, extend, redact, etc … their records to ensure the integrity of their records.

    The State of Hawaii may have to revise their record for Obama after his immigration files are released. Or, maybe not.

  60. avatar
    Majority Will December 19, 2011 at 2:49 pm #

    “For example, his naturalization papers . . .

    And birther buffoons actually wonder why no one takes their crap seriously.

  61. avatar
    Majority Will December 19, 2011 at 2:51 pm #

    Claude Stapleton: We can only conclude

    Who is we? Isn’t it real crowded in there already, Sven?

  62. avatar
    G December 19, 2011 at 2:59 pm #

    On this point, we agree.

    J. Potter: Thanks for re-emphasizing that there are those listening in who haven’t been completely shielded against birtherism. Other than the entertainment, that’s why I say go Woodman go. The birther spew must be countered.

    However, I vehemently disagree with you on what you said here..on just about every point. What you are doing is the epitome of false eqivocation.

    1. There is only one “reality”. Perceptions do NOT equal reality. “Belief structures” can be linked to perceptions, but they do not necessarily equate to reality.

    2 Utilizing terms such as evidence, truth and facts as anything other than their proper, objective meanings is nothing but a false equivocation trope.

    3. There is NO actual evidence on the Birther side that stands up to scrutiny. Their entire structure of beliefs is nothing but lies, myths and unsubstantiated or disconnected speculation. *Therefore* ALL actual evidence and reality is ONLY one sided on this matter.

    4. I never said I had no sympathy for them as human beings. If you were actually familiar with my various dialogs on this post (which includes numerous birthers and birther sympathizers), you would understand that I’m very empathetic of the human condition and only challenge people on those particular points I feel they are being wrong-headed about.

    5. Therefore, wherever you came up with this “invalidate their entire existence” and “entirely w/o worth” nonsense is an excessively hyperbolic strawman argument of your own creation and has no connection to anything I’ve actually said or how I treat these people.

    On the specific issues of birtherism, I will strongly correct or condemn what they say, based on how they say it. That does not translate to condemning them as a whole… only on the particular aspects of wrongheadedness or ugly behavior which they’ve displayed. My tone in doing so will also differ, based on how they approach making the argument. Respectful dialogue from others garnishes usually garnishes a respectful response from me as well. Admittedly, there are times I’ve misjuded or lost patience too quickly, but I do try to be fair and I apologize when I overreact and have no problems admitting when I am in the wrong.

    I’ve had numerous conversations with posters such as Charo and the infamous Lucas Smith on here, which are quite cordial and even enjoyable and which are able to touch upon and address many other topics and aspects of their lives or mine in which we might share some common areas of appreciation.

    J. Potter: You have your reality, they have theirs. Each knows it to be right, even if only one is demonstrable, and one has many more adherents than the other. It sounds as thought you have no sympathy or pity for their plight. Does their birtherism invaidate their entire existence? Are they, due to what you see as a flaw, entirely w/o worth? Can you not say, “In this regard, we disagree. Please keep this delusion to yourself. Hey, seen any good movies lately?”

  63. avatar
    G December 19, 2011 at 3:14 pm #

    *sigh* Claude, you really like to focus on meaningless points of bureaucratic procedure on irrelevant issues such as date stamping, don’t you?

    Face it Claude, your meaningless rant has NOT ONE BIT to do with the ONLY data on the birth certificate that matters to the issue of eligibility here:

    Born in Honolulu, HI in 1961.

    Therefore: check and check for both NBC by being born on US soil and being over 35. (The ONLY two aspects of data on a Birth Certificate relevant to requirements set forth under the Constitution).

    NOTICE: This info is the SAME on BOTH the LFBC & the standard issue Short Form.

    Your arguments are hollow and without meaning, as they fail to deal with ANY actual DATA on the actual fields of the form that are about OBAMA HIMSELF.

    In summary, your whole fake argument is a meaningless waste of time and has no connection to anything relevant to the issue. How or when some bureaucrat stamped or filed a document later on doesn’t change the actual content of the document one bit.

    More importantly, NOR is any such action “revising” the actual CONTENT of the records. The State of HI can choose to change the form they print information on, the types of paper, the color of it, the number of fields of DATA they display, etc. as much as they like and that still has NO IMPACT on the underlying DATA of the relevant fields dealing with the actual person described on that form.

    Sorry, but those bureaucratic “changes” do NOT change anything. After Obama’s passing, the records will CONTINUE to show the SAME information that they ALWAYS do about him – name, birthdates, birth location, info on parents, etc. Doesn’t matter how they are “stamped” or what “format” the form is displayed in at all. The ACTUAL DATA on OBAMA remains the same.

    So far, you’ve utterly FAILED to make *ANY* cogent argument whatsoever, with *any* actual relevance of consequence.

    Claude Stapleton: According to Doc’s article on “date accepted” vs. “date filed”, So, the date filed on the COLB, August 8, 1961, was not on Obama’s original birth certificate. We can only conclude additional information was provided the State of Hawaii because they printed “date filed” on the COLB that was not abstracted from the original birth record.In other words, a revision was made after the original had been created. The “date filed” wasn’t there and then it appeared on the COLB. The State of Hawaii reserves the right to edit, revise, extend, redact, etc … their records to ensure the integrity of their records.The State of Hawaii may have to revise their record for Obama after his immigration files are released. Or, maybe not.

  64. avatar
    misha December 19, 2011 at 3:30 pm #

    Claude Stapleton: The State of Hawaii may have to revise their record for Obama after his immigration files are released. Or, maybe not.

    Mr. Stapleton: since you are a Semite, I’m sure you will understand this. I’m writing it in the Roman alphabet, to make it easier:

    Vahksin zuls du vi a tsibeleh, mitten kup in drerd.

    Thank you for the opening.

  65. avatar
    John Woodman December 19, 2011 at 3:32 pm #

    It’s official: Dr. Jerome Corsi has refused to show up for the debate.

    I have challenged Joseph Farah as well, and am waiting to hear back from him.

  66. avatar
    Majority Will December 19, 2011 at 3:37 pm #

    Only a birther would think someone has to immigrate from the state of Hawaii.

  67. avatar
    Rickey December 19, 2011 at 3:44 pm #

    Claude Stapleton:
    So, the date filed on the COLB, August 8, 1961, was not on Obama’s original birth certificate.

    Is that news to anyone?

    Obama’s original birth certificate says “Date Accepted Local Reg. Aug 8 1961″ and “Date Accepted by Reg General Aug 8 1961.”

    Obama’s COLB says “Date Filed by Registrar August 8 1961.”

    So the birth certificate was accepted and filed on the same day. There is something sinister about that? The registrar accepts the birth certificate and then files it. That pretty much sounds like the order in which I would do it.

  68. avatar
    G December 19, 2011 at 4:12 pm #

    Not surprised at all. I expect Farah to be too much of a coward to face you as well.

    Mr. Woodman, I hope you get a chance to read through the rest of this thread and see the references and links to Mr. Harrison’s prior postings that others have posted here for you.

    Best of luck and keep us posted. Thanks.

    John Woodman: It’s official: Dr. Jerome Corsi has refused to show up for the debate. I have challenged Joseph Farah as well, and am waiting to hear back from him.

  69. avatar
    sfjeff December 19, 2011 at 5:11 pm #

    John Woodman: It’s official: Dr. Jerome Corsi has refused to show up for the debate. I have challenged Joseph Farah as well, and am waiting to hear back from him.

    Well we have all learned from Birthers, if anyone refuses to respond, then they must be guilty of something.

    And in Corsi’s case- that might even be true.

  70. avatar
    Joey December 19, 2011 at 5:54 pm #

    Is Claude Stapleton a pathological liar or is he just plain ignorant?
    Can’t Claude Stapleton figure out that the short form COLB is an abstract of the information that is on the long form?
    Every copy of a birth record issued by the state of Hawaii says: “I certify that this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file at the Hawaii State Department of Health,” Alvin T. Onaka, State Registrar.
    The information on a long for is a copy. The information on a short form is an abstract. The format of short form COLBs has changed over the years since the state of Hawaii went paperless in 2001.

    Since July, 2009, the state of Hawaii stated “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”

  71. avatar
    misha December 19, 2011 at 6:59 pm #

    sfjeff: Well we have all learned from Birthers, if anyone refuses to respond, then they must be guilty of something.

    Absolutely correct! Just like Glenn Beck has never responded to the allegations swirling around him, about the demise of that poor girl:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/11/glenn-beck-accidentally-not-put-down.html

    If anything, he has spent millions trying to shut down web sites asking legitimate questions.

  72. avatar
    JPotter December 19, 2011 at 8:11 pm #

    G,

    Since we agree on all practical points related to this thread, I say, “great!” Regarding your 4 and 5, questions aren’t accusations. You were sounding more militant than usual, just checking, hoping overexposure to birtherism wasn’t getting to you. I do find what you’re typing in this thread disturbing, but also suspect we’re not communicating clearly. Write me at john.david.potter@gmail.com if you’d like to discuss farther. Unless Doc is interested in a new thread or two on broad philosophical topics, this isn’t the place for it!

    John

  73. avatar
    G December 19, 2011 at 11:30 pm #

    JPotter,

    Yeah, somewhere we must really be not connecting here, because I don’t see where you are coming from here.

    I’ve taken you up on your kind offer and have sent you a proper response at the address you provided and agree that we can continue the conversation there and not clutter Dr. C’s blog thread further with it. So don’t forget to check over there and I look forward to hearing back from you on that forum. Thanks.

    JPotter: G,Since we agree on all practical points related to this thread, I say, “great!” Regarding your 4 and 5, questions aren’t accusations. You were sounding more militant than usual, just checking, hoping overexposure to birtherism wasn’t getting to you. I do find what you’re typing in this thread disturbing, but also suspect we’re not communicating clearly. Write me at john.david.potter@gmail.com if you’d like to discuss farther. Unless Doc is interested in a new thread or two on broad philosophical topics, this isn’t the place for it!John

  74. avatar
    The Magic M December 20, 2011 at 8:51 am #

    Rickey: The registrar accepts the birth certificate and then files it. That pretty much sounds like the order in which I would do it.

    Yup. But in the mindset of a birther, it makes much more sense to substitute fiction for reality, i.e. switch it around and claim “filing” comes first, so knowing “filed” doesn’t imply “accepted”. (Not that they can argue why a BC that was “filed” with the registrar would somehow be “not accepted” or even “rejected” and if they can show such a thing ever happened.)

    misha: Vahksin zuls du vi a tsibeleh, mitten kup in drerd.

    I had to read that aloud to understand it since Yiddish only *sounds* like German (in German you’d write it “Wachsen sollst du wie eine Zwiebel, mit dem Kopf in der Erde”) – “you shall grow like an onion, with your head in the ground”. ;-)

  75. avatar
    Sally HIll December 20, 2011 at 1:49 pm #

    “weak-minded birthers” Resorted to name-calling again, eh?

    And here is what I found particularly funny – debating the birthers is a waste of time.

    So, this blog exists solely to appease the “Group Think Tank”?
    Because if it were here to dispute the birthers – then your words would contradict your actions. :)

    Dr. C….you are too funny!

  76. avatar
    G December 20, 2011 at 3:27 pm #

    Sally Hill -

    Apparently, you suffer from selective reading and limited comprehension.

    If you actually took the time to read though the debate on the issue, you will see that the main point here is to analyze and monitor the conspiracies and when they fall short of being true (which so far, for Birtherism mythology is pretty darn near 100% on the side of being false), to provide the reasoning, efforts, logic, history, law, facts and evidence explaining WHY these myths are just that.

    Such is the nature of actual debunking. You seek to find out the answer to a question and when the question turns out to illegitimate, you debunk it and show your work. The primary goal here is to inform and correct misinformation, not to persuade.

    Birtherism has simply turned out to be nothing but a bunch of emotional hate-based mudslinging, false propaganda, intentional misinterpretations and outright lies. All to justify and prop up a pre-set worldview that can’t handle and accept that Obama actually got elected. The primary goal of birtherism is propaganda – to mask and convolute the truth in order to brainwash the gullible in a futile attempt to try to control and conform a world that is bigger, more complex and simply different from your emotional desires.

    The problem with you Birthers is that you can only see the world through the prism of your own myopic fears and hate and you can’t comprehend how the rest of the world thinks and acts outside of your own petty limitations.

    Your entire way of thinking starts with jumping to a conclusion that you emotionally wish were true (i.e. “he can’t *really” have been elected) and so you desperately cling to any excuses or trash-talking garbage that you come across to prop up and “justify” your pre-conceived reactions to yourself.

    You simply lie to yourself to protect your fantasy and ignore and shut out every bit of objective information that contradicts your emotional desires.

    In other words, you simply can’t handle the truth and have built up a wall of defense mechanisms it order to shut out the realities of the real world and try to live in the easy “comfort” of the bizarre fantasy world you’ve come up with in your own head.

    You can stomp your feet and shout at the top of the lungs that you demand a live unicorn for Christmas all you want. Reality is, unicorns don’t exist so you’ll never get your wish, no matter how passionately you want one, nor how loud, long and obnoxiously you carry on with making that demand and refusing to take “not gonna happen” as an answer. Closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “lalalalalala can’t hear you” may be a tactic that young children use to avoid dealing with the truth.

    However, most people grow up and learn to deal with the complexities of our modern world and are not to fragile to understand and accept that the objective truth isn’t always what we thought it was or wished it to be and life with always be a mixed bag of good news and bad.

    Look, we are well over 3 years into this whole charade of Birtherism. Early on, when questions were first being asked, there were many legitimate seekers of the truth who were just confused and wanted to know what was really going on and how our laws really work and are applied.

    All of those reasonable questions have been decisively answered…and most of those have been resolved a long time ago as well. There remain a few legitimate hypothetical questions…but that is the whole point – such things are hypotheticals and are irrelevant to the actual reality on the ground and would only matter in some future situation in which they might be applicable and not have any change to the past at all. Such speculation might be temporarily entertaining, but it has no practical connection nor impact to current reality. (e.g. – Speculating and fantasizing about how the world might differ if Lincoln wasn’t assassinated or if John McCain had won the election or if someone who was born here as an “anchor baby” ran for president in the future…etc.). If the purposes of such speculation are simple light hearted fun or an academic excerise or a desire to become a fantasy fiction novelist, that’s all fine and dandy. However, in terms of impacting the reality of the past and present world we live in – NONE.

    Therefore, if you were capable of objectively looking at it, all the myths of Birtherism have been sufficiently put to rest a long time ago. Legitimate questioners have pretty much faded away and it seems that only a few loud die-hard denialists, such as yourself remain. The pool of people who haven’t been exposed to this issue by now in some sense is fairly small…and for those who might come across it naively and innocently have a deep body of compiled facts & evidence available to set them straight.

    Those of you that remain have had to build up such a complex wall of denial woven of convoluted conspiracy excuses that you’ve only damaged yourselves to the point of being incapable of connecting with actual reality anymore at all.

    So yes, for you hard-core birthers, conversation is primarily a waste of time. You refuse to accept anything other than what you fantasize about, only care about spreading false propaganda instead of dealing with actual results and evidence and therefore are unwilling to have an honest and two way conversation, which is what an actual debate is…not just repeating your mindless talking points over and over again, regardless of the answers you get back in response.

    You just come here to shout and be angry and have no actual interest in objective conversation. Just because you are “devout” in your “beliefs” does not make them nor your intentions sincere or worthy of being treated seriously. Therefore, yes, it is a waste of time to entertain such foolishness and disingenuous motives.

    Sally HIll: “weak-minded birthers” Resorted to name-calling again, eh?And here is what I found particularly funny – debating the birthers is a waste of time.So, this blog exists solely to appease the “Group Think Tank”?Because if it were here to dispute the birthers – then your words would contradict your actions. Dr. C….you are too funny!

  77. avatar
    bernadine ayers December 22, 2011 at 6:50 pm #

    john, you are sort of new at this and you are asking to sit with the generals.

    do the radio debate then take it from there.

    i think you are on the right path, one debate at a time mate…

  78. avatar
    JPotter December 22, 2011 at 7:17 pm #

    Dear “Bernadine” …

    Your use of the word “mate” is overplaying it a little. ;-P

  79. avatar
    G December 22, 2011 at 8:15 pm #

    Well, John Woodman was curious and had doubts and took the time to actually do the work of investigating and testing all those claims himself… I think he can handle the cranks just fine.

    What have you done? Seriously, you stick your neck out there and make such a bold claim, let’s hear your credentials… go on, we’re waiting….

    You are just some random person spouting off and coming across like a fool. If you are so smart, then why do you have so many simplistic questions and concerns that could have been answered by merely taking a little bit of time to do your own research? For someone coming across as so “unsure” in all these other posts…all of a sudden, you seem to have developed a high sense of confidence….

    bernadine ayers: john, you are sort of new at this and you are asking to sit with the generals.do the radio debate then take it from there.i think you are on the right path, one debate at a time mate…

  80. avatar
    bernadine ayers December 22, 2011 at 8:27 pm #

    JPotterDecember 22, 2011 at 7:17 pm (Quote)#

    Dear “Bernadine” …

    Your use of the word “mate” is overplaying it a little. ;-P

    thanks potter i actually know and like the guy (another clue)

333333 44444
5555555
6666666