Main Menu

Birth certificate is a clumsy forgery

Take a look at the images below taken from a birth certificate, and in particular at the numbers “3,” “6” and “9.” Unless you already know where these came from, you can make your own decision, free from any confirmation bias, as to whether this looks fishy.

image

image

Could any reasonable person argue against two different typewriters and/or digital fonts being used? Believe it or not, the document from which these images came was offered in court as authentic. I call it a clumsy forgery.

The reason I bring this up is that birthers, perhaps millions of them, believe that this document is authentic. Birthers say, “John McCain released his birth certificate” and what you see above is that birth certificate, one of the exhibits Fred Hollander submitted in the Hollander v. McCain lawsuit. Birthers strain a gnat from blotchy, low-resolution images on Obama’s certified long form, vouched for by the State of Hawaii, yet they swallow a camel in this obviously faked document that came from a conman in Panama.

, ,

237 Responses to Birth certificate is a clumsy forgery

  1. avatar
    The Magic M March 26, 2012 at 11:54 am #

    Actually, I found that “McCain BC” in my early days of discovering the birther issue when I looked for the original on the internet and immediately found a couple fishy things, so I thought “hey, this can’t be right…”.

    Then again, you still have birthers who can, in one sentence, claim Obama’s BC is a forgery and point to the obviously edited spoof video where he “says” that he was born in Kenya.
    Pixel-peepers who can’t hear obvious cuts? That convinced me these people weren’t *playing* dumb (as I initially assumed when I stumbled upon birtherism), they had a condition.

  2. avatar
    donna March 26, 2012 at 12:48 pm #

    from kos update:

    “I can still find no evidence that McCain released his birth certificate to the public during his 2008 campaign. He did provide it to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire in the case of Hollander v. McCain (2008), which challenged his eligibility to serve.”

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/28/970884/-Birtherism-2008-smokescreen-for-McCain-s-birth-in-Panama

    wapo fact checker: John McCain’s Birthplace

    “As I reported earlier, the McCain campaign has declined to publicly release the senator’s birth certificate. But a senior campaign official showed me a copy of his birth certificate issued by the “family hospital” in the Coco Solo submarine base. (McCain’s grandfather commanded the Coco Solo Naval Air Station in 1936; his father was the executive officer of a submarine based in Coco Solo.) ”

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html

  3. avatar
    Daniel March 26, 2012 at 1:00 pm #

    No need to question. McCain was white and Protestant…ish

  4. avatar
    Andrew Rei March 26, 2012 at 2:27 pm #

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/born-in-africa-myth-crushed-under-weight-of-complexity/

    Hey, Birther Idiots! Choke on this link because it destroys your argument completely! 🙂

  5. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 26, 2012 at 4:28 pm #

    Anyone have any idea what Andrew is responding to? He posted a link that links back to one of doc’s posts.

  6. avatar
    A Patriot March 26, 2012 at 4:30 pm #

    Is this posting to deflect attention from the forged “Obama” “birth certificate” place on Whitehouse.gov on 4-27-11? If so, it’s not working with most people.

  7. avatar
    JPotter March 26, 2012 at 4:39 pm #

    A Patriot: Is this posting to deflect attention from the forged “Obama” “birth certificate” place on Whitehouse.gov on 4-27-11?

    No. Try again. It is offered as an example of a forgery, which is accepted w/o question by people who claim certain other document(s) are forgeries. As you are doing here.

  8. avatar
    DP March 26, 2012 at 4:50 pm #

    A Patriot:
    Is this posting to deflect attention from the forged “Obama” “birth certificate” place on Whitehouse.gov on 4-27-11?If so, it’s not working with most people.

    If by “most people” you mean “most people paranoid about certain cultural changes in America,” then I guess the answer would be “yes.”

    If by “most people” you mean “most normal American patriots just trying to live their lives with respect for others,” then your presumption is silly in the extreme.

  9. avatar
    bovril March 26, 2012 at 5:02 pm #

    Dear “A Patriot”,

    Do tell, why do you hate the Constitution, the Republic, the American people and the forms of government we have so…?

    The State of Hawai’i has stated on the record multiple times that the TWO BC’s provided are good and full and prove the place of birth of the President

    The President won the majority of the popular vote and the majority of Electoral College votes

    The Presidents EC votes were collated and passed by Congress with no objections

    The President was sworn in and assumed office following all the legal and Constitutional forms.

    What gives you and the small but loud coterie of birthers the right to overturn the will of the people, the law, Congress, the Constitution and our Republican form of government..?

    If you were a true supporter of this fine coutry and its institutions you would avail yourself of the mechanisms you are granted to vote him from office, not act like some childish, petulant fool

  10. avatar
    bovril March 26, 2012 at 5:20 pm #

    This is what the idiocy of Bithism leads to…

    A post by “No Nonsense Nancy” a regular poster at Dr K(H)ates, turns out at the birfoon rallies on a regular basis a regualr foot soldier.

    no-nonsense-nancy
    March 19, 2012 at 3:45 pm
    Jane, I feel for you. My children and their spouses don’t agree with me, nor do my other family members. I can’t even talk about the state of the country with them. I don’t have any friends who I can talk either, except those I have met through the grass roots work. My best friend probably won’t speak to me for at least a couple of months, if even then, after an argument a couple of weeks ago which she started. I feel for my poor, innocent grandchildren but my hands are tied.

    This is not an isolated refrain but one heard time and again.

    Birtherism leads to estrangement from the practicioners loved ones, colleagues and friends. It has lead to the loss of jobs, it leads some to crimes and jail time, it is a festering sore and a cult that will, in a Darwinian manner cull its own followers.

  11. avatar
    JPotter March 26, 2012 at 5:40 pm #

    bovril: “… but my hands are tied.”

    And an insidiously self-reinforcing sore at that. The severely afflicted become very dysfunctional.

    A Jehovah’s Witness came by Saturday. After birtherism, that encounter seemed so tame.

  12. avatar
    nbc March 26, 2012 at 5:49 pm #

    A Patriot: Is this posting to deflect attention from the forged “Obama” “birth certificate” place on Whitehouse.gov on 4-27-11? If so, it’s not working with most people.

    Let’s for the moment assume that the scan of the long form birth certificate was ‘forged’, although no evidence for such exists, we do know the following:

    That Hawaii has more than once declared officially that President Obama was born in Hawaii (and thus a natural born citizen). This has been supported by a certified COLB and more recently by a certified long form birth certificate which shows our President born in a Hawaiian hospital as certified by the attending physician.

    So what now? Continue a poorly argued claim that somehow the document on the website is forged?

    What a silly proposition…

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 26, 2012 at 6:03 pm #

    Heh! This blog isn’t big enough to divert anybody from anything. I just write about what interests me. It’s a blog after all.

    A Patriot: Is this posting to deflect attention from the forged “Obama” “birth certificate” place on Whitehouse.gov on 4-27-11? If so, it’s not working with most people.

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 26, 2012 at 6:04 pm #

    No, but I changed the link not to go through Facebook. It may be that he had a Facebook URL on the clipboard when he thought it was something else.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Anyone have any idea what Andrew is responding to?

  15. avatar
    BillTheCat March 26, 2012 at 6:27 pm #

    A Patriot: Is this posting to deflect attention from the forged “Obama” “birth certificate” place on Whitehouse.gov on 4-27-11? If so, it’s not working with most people.

    And by “most people” you mean the inbred circle of conspiracy nutjobs who are unable or mentally unequipped to accept the reality that most of the rest of the world has accepted?

  16. avatar
    G March 26, 2012 at 6:41 pm #

    Agreed.

    bovril: Birtherism leads to estrangement from the practicioners loved ones, colleagues and friends. It has lead to the loss of jobs, it leads some to crimes and jail time, it is a festering sore and a cult that will, in a Darwinian manner cull its own followers.

  17. avatar
    traderjack March 27, 2012 at 2:57 am #

    OK, I will act as an anti-birther and support the above posted BC.

    You are confusing two things, or more, It is obvious from looking at the section of the bC that it is completely genuine, and you have misunderstood how the document was handled.
    Now without seeing the rest of the document it must be correct because a court qualified expert witness testified to its authenticiity.
    Besides the difference in fonts is simply explained.
    The interior informatiion was completed by the nurses at their station, it was then sent to the doctor who signed it , and after signing it a new date was typed in with a new typewriter. it was then sent for the final signature, signed and given back to the clerk the next day, held for a day and a new date was typed in using the same typewriter used for the final signature.

    No problem at all confirming this BC is just as good as Obama’s, so accept it , the court did.

  18. avatar
    The Magic M March 27, 2012 at 4:17 am #

    > It is obvious from looking at the section of the bC that it is completely genuine

    No, you are misrepresenting the “anti-birther” position.

    The Obama LFBC isn’t genuine because it doesn’t show no traces of forgery, it is genuine because it is supported by the official statements from the Hawaiian DoH. *That’s* what makes it genuine, even if it had been handwritten on a paper napkin.

    Nobody makes claims based on the LFBC scan alone, simply because it’s impossible to judge the authenticity of the original based on looking at a scan. Just as any forensics expert will tell you.

    > it must be correct because a court qualified expert witness testified to its authenticiity

    Who?

    > this BC is just as good as Obama’s

    No, it is much much worse. And actually forged.

  19. avatar
    G March 27, 2012 at 4:25 am #

    Agreed!

    The Magic M: No, you are misrepresenting the “anti-birther” position.
    The Obama LFBC isn’t genuine because it doesn’t show no traces of forgery, it is genuine because it is supported by the official statements from the Hawaiian DoH. *That’s* what makes it genuine, even if it had been handwritten on a paper napkin.
    >b>Nobody makes claims based on the LFBC scan alone, simply because it’s impossible to judge the authenticity of the original based on looking at a scan. Just as any forensics expert will tell you.

  20. avatar
    Scientist March 27, 2012 at 6:33 am #

    traderjack: No problem at all confirming this BC is just as good as Obama’s, so accept it , the court did.

    The court did not “accept it”. The case was dismissed on legal grounds that had nothing to do with the birth certificate. The issuing authority did not confirm it. In Obama’s case they did. A dollar bill confirmed as real by the Federal Reserve and Seccret service IS real.

  21. avatar
    traderjack March 27, 2012 at 3:32 pm #

    Ah, Now what I did was solely take the words in the original posting, which said that it offered in court and not that it had been authenticated. Just like the HDOH which may have been offered in court as evidence , but never authenticated by expert qualified witnesses, which was why the court did not accept such evidence.
    e
    As to the rest of my explanation it is just as plausible as not.

    You may offer a copy of a HDOH bc as evidence, and it may be certified by the State of Hawaii, but the copy can be challenged as not being authentic for reasons disclosed during expert witness testimony.

    California had to stop copys of BC because of the usage of fraudulent COLB so now they issue photos

    Take Pollands claim that he manufactured a copy of O’s bc that copied exactly including the certification. Would his copy be accepted by the courts if it had the certification on it.
    According to some here they would have to because the certification means that it is a true copy of the information in the records.

    They would have to accept it as evidence, would they not, and then it could be challenged in court

    Same as the subject BC, accept as evidence, challenge for cause.

  22. avatar
    traderjack March 27, 2012 at 3:40 pm #

    G: Agreed!

    And you really believe that a HDOH certified a document on a web page that is claimed that it is the original document that the HDOH sent to the poster?.

    I would not certify anything I sent to another person, other than to say I sent him something that was certified when I sent it. Soon as it gets into other hands I can make no statements about it.

    You send me a good check in the amount of X dollars and then I post a check showing that check endorsed and sent to bank, and you tell bank you are good for the money in writing? And I hve copied that check and used 10 copies at different banks to get that amount of money from each bank!

  23. avatar
    Daniel March 27, 2012 at 3:54 pm #

    “I would not certify anything I sent to another person, other than to say I sent him something that was certified when I sent it. Soon as it gets into other hands I can make no statements about it.”

    If I send you a certified copy of my laundry list, and you post a scan of it on a web page, I can certainly say that the information on that scan is the same as the information on the certified copy I sent you.

    If you had changed the information, I wouldn’t link to it, because it is not a correct representation of what I sent you.

    That the Hawaii DOH includes a link to that scan of Obama’s BC, is a reasonable indication that what is on there is the same as what they sent him.

    Which is all irrelevant anyways, since Hawaii has certified ten ways from Sunday that Obama was born there. IN essence Obama could have copied the LFBC onto wax paper in crayon, and ironed it to the whitehouse window, and it still would not have mattered one iota.

    IN the end, you are no authorized to vet the President, Congress is. Congress is satisfied. The State of Hawaii certifies. You are SOL. End of story.

  24. avatar
    G March 27, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

    Agreed.

    Daniel: “I would not certify anything I sent to another person, other than to say I sent him something that was certified when I sent it. Soon as it gets into other hands I can make no statements about it.”

    If I send you a certified copy of my laundry list, and you post a scan of it on a web page, I can certainly say that the information on that scan is the same as the information on the certified copy I sent you.If you had changed the information, I wouldn’t link to it, because it is not a correct representation of what I sent you.That the Hawaii DOH includes a link to that scan of Obama’s BC, is a reasonable indication that what is on there is the same as what they sent him.

    Which is all irrelevant anyways, since Hawaii has certified ten ways from Sunday that Obama was born there. IN essence Obama could have copied the LFBC onto wax paper in crayon, and ironed it to the whitehouse window, and it still would not have mattered one iota.IN the end, you are no authorized to vet the President, Congress is. Congress is satisfied. The State of Hawaii certifies. You are SOL. End of story.

  25. avatar
    nbc March 27, 2012 at 4:18 pm #

    traderjack: I would not certify anything I sent to another person, other than to say I sent him something that was certified when I sent it. Soon as it gets into other hands I can make no statements about it.

    They may not certify the document but they have certified the facts on the document that show President Obama to be natural born.

    What now?

  26. avatar
    nbc March 27, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    Btw the DOH mentions that

    On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.

    For information go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate

    Hawaii Health Department Grants President Obama’s Request for Certified Copies of ‘Long Form’ Birth Certificate

    President Obama’s letter to the Hawaii State Department of Health and the Director of Health’s response

    Department of Health’s policy on the issuance of certified copies of vital records

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 27, 2012 at 4:46 pm #

    The point is that not only has no qualified expert witness authenticated the certificate, no qualified expert witness has criticized the copy that has been released. That means, in my book, that criticism of the certificate is irresponsible.

    traderjack: but never authenticated by expert qualified witnesses, which was why the court did not accept such evidence.

  28. avatar
    Scientist March 27, 2012 at 5:06 pm #

    traderjack: Please tell us where you think Barack Obama was born. Then tell us where every previous President and current candidate was born. Please apply the EXACT SAME standard for all cases.

    I will wait…..No hurry… I’m not holding my breath…Really, I’m not….

  29. avatar
    traderjack March 27, 2012 at 5:17 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy, with due respeet,and I say, is there any qualified witness that would certify that the document was a forgery, that you would accept as being a qualified witness?
    You see the problem, don’t you?

    I will accept any qualified witness , testifying in court, subject to cross, and stating that the BC is not a forgery.

    Will you accept the same witness , under the same conditions, testifying that it is fake?

    You see, I have no inherent bias towards either side!

    But, there have been more witnesses, qualified or not, that have been testifing as to the accuracy of the LFBC , stating that there appears to be alterations, than there have been showing that the information is accurate..

    Testifying for the document the only claim being made is that the HDOH stated that the BC issued by HDOH is an abstract or copy of the document on file.

    So, that side is hampered by not challenging, specifically, each and every claim of falsehoods by the opposition.

    Were I to take a side on the BC I would go through all of Corsi’s claims , and , one by one, dispute, and provide evidence, of some sort, that the Corsi claim can not be accurate and not depend upon the HDOH blanket statement that what they sent out was correct and accurate.

    But, then again, , i could be in error about the intent of either side.

  30. avatar
    JPotter March 27, 2012 at 5:39 pm #

    traderjack: You see, I have no inherent bias towards either side!

    Jack, I have to take back the optimistic note I left regarding your potential. It’s just the same old Jack!

  31. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 27, 2012 at 5:42 pm #

    JPotter: Jack, I have to take back the optimistic note I left regarding your potential. It’s just the same old Jack!

    He’s starting to sound like the Jack on Amazon forums who tried to start off as if he didn’t support one side but continued to take birther positions until it was no longer ambiguous.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 27, 2012 at 5:44 pm #

    traderjack: Dr. Conspiracy, with due respeet,and I say, is there any qualified witness that would certify that the document was a forgery, that you would accept as being a qualified witness?You see the problem, don’t you?I will accept any qualified witness , testifying in court, subject to cross, and stating that the BC is not a forgery.Will you accept the same witness , under the same conditions, testifying that it is fake?You see, I have no inherent bias towards either side!But, there have been more witnesses, qualified or not, that have been testifing as to the accuracy of the LFBC , stating that there appears to be alterations, than there have been showing that the information is accurate..Testifying for the document the only claim being made is that the HDOH stated that the BC issued by HDOH is an abstract or copy of the document on file.So, that side is hampered by not challenging, specifically, each and every claim of falsehoods by the opposition.Were I to take a side on the BC I would go through all of Corsi’s claims , and , one by one, dispute, and provide evidence, of some sort, that the Corsi claim can not be accurate and not depend upon the HDOH blanket statement that what they sent out was correct and accurate.But, then again, , i could be in error about the intent of either side.

    Again a document certified and issued by the issuing authority cannot be a forgery or fake as they own the means of production. No expert can overrule the issuing authority when it comes to claims of authenticity.

  33. avatar
    nbc March 27, 2012 at 5:47 pm #

    traderjack: But, there have been more witnesses, qualified or not, that have been testifing as to the accuracy of the LFBC , stating that there appears to be alterations, than there have been showing that the information is accurate..

    Testifying for the document the only claim being made is that the HDOH stated that the BC issued by HDOH is an abstract or copy of the document on file.

    Uh… Nope…

    “We hope that issuing certified copies of the original Certificate of Live Birth to President Obama will end the numerous inquiries related to his birth in Hawai„i,” Hawai„i Health Director Loretta Fuddy said. “I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to the authenticity of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawai„i.”

    Time to get familiar with the facts my friend.. Has it occurred to you to even spend the time to familiarize yourself with them?

  34. avatar
    nbc March 27, 2012 at 5:49 pm #

    traderjack: Were I to take a side on the BC I would go through all of Corsi’s claims , and , one by one, dispute, and provide evidence, of some sort, that the Corsi claim can not be accurate and not depend upon the HDOH blanket statement that what they sent out was correct and accurate.

    You must have missed my contributions on the SSN or the layers in the document? I do understand that you may not have done much of a diligent analysis of these issues so you may take some time to show some familiarity here with the facts and the findings.

    That you have to ignore pure speculations based on a copy of the original and ignore the official statements by the DOH is quite telling….

  35. avatar
    nbc March 27, 2012 at 5:50 pm #

    traderjack: But, then again, , i could be in error about the intent of either side.

    Some introspection may be in order, don’t you think?

  36. avatar
    Rickey March 27, 2012 at 6:04 pm #

    traderjack:

    You send me a good check in the amount of X dollars and then I post a check showing that check endorsed and sent to bank, and you tell bank you are good for the money in writing? And I hve copied that check and used 10 copies at different banks to get that amount of money from each bank!

    That is a false analogy.

    The posting of Obama’s LFBC on the Internet is analogous to your bank providing you with a photocopy of your cancelled check after it has cleared. It is not analogous to someone trying to pass off a photocopy of your check as the original. The photocopy of your cancelled check is proof that it cleared, although it would not be admissible in court without certification from your bank. The pdf copy of Obama’s LFBC is proof that he was born in Hawaii, although like your check it would not be admissible in court (although the certified copy which he has would be admissible).

    Think about it for a second. Obama posted a copy of his LFBC on the Internet. Hawaii DOH then posted a press release about it on its website and linked to the copy which Obama had posted.

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf

    If the pdf copy which Obama posted did not match what he had received from Hawaii DOH, wouldn’t someone at Hawaii DOH have noticed? Would not Hawaii DOH have declined to link to it if it had been altered?

  37. avatar
    G March 27, 2012 at 6:31 pm #

    Ok then, how about: Alvin T. Onaka?

    That would be the best qualified expert witness one can get. Give us your answer, “traderjack” – will YOU accept HIM? There is simply NO “witness” that could trump his testimony on the issue.

    I certainly would. Considering that he *IS* the key official in charge of certifying such documents for the state of HI, there is no higher expert authority.

    Do you seriously think that the HI DOH would issue statements validating Obama’s BC and linking to what is on the White House website as a representation of that, if it wasn’t an ACCURATE representation?

    Do you seriously think that they would do that on their official site if their own Registrar of Vital Statistics for the State of Hawaii, who’s name is shown on that certification, wasn’t endorsing it as accurate and correct?

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

    So, by any reasoned conclusion, Mr. Onaka’s personal validation attesting to that document and its creation is backed NOT ONLY by his signature stamp of approval on it, but ALSO by his own official organization publically stating such and pointing to the image as an accurate representation. If Mr. Onaka wasn’t personally backing it, his organization wouldn’t put out those public postings. So, you don’t even require his court testimony…he has de facto, publically testified to its authenticity and accuracy. Full stop & end of story right there.

    traderjack:

    Dr. Conspiracy, with due respeet,and I say, is there any qualified witness that would certify that the document was a forgery, that you would accept as being a qualified witness?
    You see the problem, don’t you?
    I will accept any qualified witness , testifying in court, subject to cross, and stating that the BC is not a forgery.

    Will you accept the same witness , under the same conditions, testifying that it is fake?

    Oh, spare us your disingenuous claim here. Your bias is clearly evident. If you were truly unbiased, you would be satisfied at the HI DOH’s multiple statements, answers and documents provided at this link:

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

    That you continue to cling to such irrational doubts and delusions after this demonstrates how blinded by BIAS you are.

    If *THE* official authorized agency responsible for creation, maintenance and issuance of any vital record comes out and not only BACKS it, but confirms that they created it, then that is END OF STORY right there – no ifs, ands or buts about it. To believe otherwise is to go off the rails into the black hole of paranoid conspiracy delusion that is so vast, that it becomes pointless on its face. HINT: If you think the “whole government” is in on it, then you’ve LOST already. If they are “all in on it”, then there is NO conspiracy, there is simply REALITY…one which you personally are merely unhappy with and have personal emotional problems coming to grips accepting. THAT is the very definition of *extreme* bias on your part.

    As others have mentioned as a comparative example, the Federal Reserve can print whatever it wants and call it legal tender and it DE FACTO is, by their very act of both printing it and standing behind it.

    They could print the notes on leaves if they chose and call it legal tender if they wish and it would have to be accepted as such. You can have an opinion that doing such would either be foolish or argue about how irresponsible printing of notes can devalue a currency, but you cannot claim FRAUD.

    Bottom line again, since your bias blinders make you so extremely dense on this simple fact – if THE official authoritative agency backs a document – it CANNOT be fraud. It is official BECAUSE they back it.

    traderjack:
    You see, I have no inherent bias towards either side!

    Again, your answer is simply PROOF of your own BIAS on the issue and how you apply completely different standards of evidentiary weight to sources.

    You remain endlessly skeptical of official authority resources – the ONLY ones who have the ability to actually create and attest to such documents…

    …Yet you accept without question any random person on the internet who calls themselves a “witness”, simply because you prefer the line of BS they wish to peddle to you over the truth.

    Sorry, but UNQUALIFIED “witnesses” have ZERO value or relevance, especially when their mere blowhard claims fly in the face of what ALL actual officials in authority say.

    You certainly do not hold up any of these “witnesses” up to the same level of scrutiny as you wish to apply to Obama and all the authority officials and documents that back him up.

    Basically, you are effectively admitting that you are gullible to take at face value whatever some random person boasts about, as long as it appeals to your personal internal confirmation bias. That is the very definition of gullible. These folks have ZERO accountability or responsibility for BC records and therefore are free to make up wild stories and lies with very little consequence, except to their own credibility. Yet YOU slurp up whatever fanciful notions they spew, without holding them to the same critical standards you profess to demand from others…

    traderjack:
    But, there have been more witnesses, qualified or not, that have been testifing as to the accuracy of the LFBC , stating that there appears to be alterations, than there have been showing that the information is accurate..

    *duh* What a pointless whiney argument you are making here. OF COURSE agencies official abstracts OR copies of documents on file. If they foolishly gave out the original, they would NO LONGER have custody of that original. Their primary charge is to protect and maintain those original records, so they cannot ever give the original out – ONLY copies or abstracts representing selective data from those originals. *DUH*

    An abstract or copy of an original PROVIDES the same underlying DATA as the original. It does not matter if you don’t see EVERY field captured on an original, as long as that copy provides the fields of data that are required. The underlying data does not change.

    The HDOH is NOT hampered at all. They ARE the ONLY official authority on this matter, and they have no problems publically devoting an entire page, with multiple references, on their website to backing Obama’s BC and the information it presents. They did NOT need to even do that much. They certainly don’t have to bother responding to any more foolish nonsense.

    Any random blowhard can pull an endless number of made up charges and wild-@ss claims out of their butt at any time. Doing so simply does NOT entitle anyone to pay attention to those blowhards or respond to them at all. They have ZERO authority to speak on these matters and are just an inconsequential waste of time.

    traderjack:
    Testifying for the document the only claim being made is that the HDOH stated that the BC issued by HDOH is an abstract or copy of the document on file.
    So, that side is hampered by not challenging, specifically, each and every claim of falsehoods by the opposition.

    Mr. John Woodman did just that with all of Corsi’s PDF claims months ago and debunked ALL of them. Sites like this one and others have spent considerable time addressing the crazy claims of Birtherism, including WND. So far, everything looked at has been DEBUNKED and does NOT stand up under scrutiny. Just because some con artists and blowhards will continue to come up with an endless list of fantasy smears does NOT mean that any of them “magically” become real, if no one bothers to waste time on having to respond to them.

    No, until any credible solid evidence comes forth that can present a legitimate challenge to the overwhelming and completely corroborating mountain of evidence that backs up Obama’s NBC status, there is simply ZERO real issue or concern being presented by Birthers at all.

    traderjack:
    Were I to take a side on the BC I would go through all of Corsi’s claims , and , one by one, dispute, and provide evidence, of some sort, that the Corsi claim can not be accurate and not depend upon the HDOH blanket statement that what they sent out was correct and accurate.
    But, then again, , i could be in error about the intent of either side

  38. avatar
    J. Potter March 27, 2012 at 6:39 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): He’s starting to sound like the Jack on Amazon forums who tried to start off as if he didn’t support one side but continued to take birther positions until it was no longer ambiguous.

    that’s because he is “that” jack.

  39. avatar
    Scientist March 27, 2012 at 6:42 pm #

    traderjack: I will accept any qualified witness , testifying in court, subject to cross, and stating that the BC is not a forgery.
    Will you accept the same witness , under the same conditions, testifying that it is fake?

    Let me give my perspective as a professional who has published many scientific experiments. No “analysis” of a pdf is worth anything, unless you know the exact conditions under which it was created. If I attempt to reproduce someone else’s results and fail, it isn’t meaningful unless i use exactly the same methods and starting as they did. Even then, it isn’t necessaroly meaningful. After a couple of failed attempts, I would contact the person who published the article and ask them detailed questions. maybe visit their lab, if they were open to it and it were practical. What I would certainly NOT do (nor would any scientist) is to conduct an experiment under random conditions that might differ greatly from those published and then scream, “Fraud!” I would be laughed out of the profession and probably sued for everything I own if I did that. Scientific fraud allegations are the last stop on a very long road.

    Now, someone might say-“Well, then the White House should disclose the exact conditions they used”. First, the person who scanned the document may not remember them (this is actually quite likely). Second, and perhaps more importantly, why should they? None of the critics to my knowledge made any effort to contact the White House and get their input. They yelled “Fraud!” within a couple of hours of the release. No competent person acting in good faith would do that. So, the White House is quite justified in ignoring the baying of Arpaio and traderjack and anyone else, because they are NOT acting in good faith. And they don’t matter. Who cares what they think? The answer is almost no-one and especially no-one who would ever vote for the President no matter what. So, the middle finger is what the critics have earned and the middle finger is what they get.

  40. avatar
    Keith March 27, 2012 at 6:42 pm #

    traderjack: And you really believe that a HDOH certified a document on a web page that is claimed that it is the original document that the HDOH sent to the poster?.

    Of course not. It is the paper document that carries the certification (words and seal), not the image of the document.

    But they can, and have, verified that the information on the images is exactly the same as the information on the original form bound into the archive volume. Several times. At least once under oath.

    Attacking the image of the document is completely pointless. The authorized custodian of the records says the birth event information relating to the President that has been published is correct. End of story.

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 27, 2012 at 6:51 pm #

    Actually, there was no testimony about this certificate. It was filed with a motion and shortly afterwards the case was dismissed for lack of standing.

    I appreciate where you’re trying to go with the argument, but it wouldn’t make sense for the date of birth to be typed on one machine and the time of birth on another. Looking at the full document provides more reasons that rule out that scenario.

    I have no idea where you stand on anything, but this is as good a time as any to say that two argument that superficially look alike do not necessarily have equal value. Not all oddities are equally probative.

    traderjack: Now without seeing the rest of the document it must be correct because a court qualified expert witness testified to its authenticiity.

  42. avatar
    Keith March 27, 2012 at 6:51 pm #

    traderjack: Testifying for the document the only claim being made is that the HDOH stated that the BC issued by HDOH is an abstract or copy of the document on file.

    Incorrect.

    HDOH certified (not claimed) that the BC issued by HDOH is a TRUE “abstract or copy of the document on file”.

    Furthermore, they have testified under oath that the information published by the President about his birth event is correct.

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 27, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    It is somewhat ironic that the fake McCain birth certificate came with an affidavit of authenticity from the custodian of records too.

    What was wrong with that picture is that that custodian of records , Don Lamb, says that he is the president of the Panama Canal Railroad Company, which had jurisdiction within the Panama Canal back in 1936. However, there is no successor Panama Canal Railroad Company. Also, the birth certificate shows McCain being born in Colon Panama, not in the Canal Zone where the original Railroad Company had jurisdiction. Lamb has a local reputation in Panama for filing nuisance lawsuits on behalf of the non-existent company.

    One can make the superficial argument that the McCain birth certificate and the Obama birth certificate are equally reliable because both were certified by the custodian of records. That’s a birther-style equivalence. However, the authenticity of the custodian makes the difference.

    Keith: Attacking the image of the document is completely pointless. The authorized custodian of the records says the birth event information relating to the President that has been published is correct. End of story.

  44. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 27, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

    The scientific method is what the birthers lack. It is a good thing that the courts have recognized the dangers of junk science and have rules in pace to prevent it’s admission as evidence.

    Scientist: Let me give my perspective as a professional who has published many scientific experiments.

  45. avatar
    Scientist March 27, 2012 at 8:19 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The scientific method is what the birthers lack

    Unless they analyze a similar document; i.e., another typed birth certificate (preferably Hawaiian from the same era) copied onto security paper and scanned into a pdf by the same model of scanner with the same settings and software, the “analysis” is invalid. It wouldn’t matter if those testifying were the foremost certified document analysists on the planet. Invalid science is invalid, no matter who does it.

    So my answer to traderjack is-no, I would not simply accept “any qualified witness” testifying under oath. Not unless they did a proper experiment with all of the proper parameters and controls as described above. The how and what are just as important as the who. Not to mention the why (for forgery) which has been lacking from the start.

    The fact that none of this was done makes the cries of “Forgery!” unworthy of any notice or further investigation.

  46. avatar
    Daniel March 27, 2012 at 8:45 pm #

    traderjack: Dr. Conspiracy, with due respeet,and I say, is there any qualified witness that would certify that the document was a forgery, that you would accept as being a qualified witness?
    You see the problem, don’t you?

    I will accept any qualified witness , testifying in court, subject to cross, and stating that the BC is not a forgery.

    Will you accept the same witness , under the same conditions, testifying that it is fake?

    You see, I have no inherent bias towards either side!

    Any person certified by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners would be sufficient. In fact you would be hard pressed to get a court to accept testimony from any person not so certified.

    Unfortunately for the birthers, they don’t appear to have anyone so certified. The best that Orly could come up with is a scanner salseman, and a guy who often uses photoshop.

    That would be kind of like allowing me to testify on autopsy results because I’ve been to many funerals.

    Until birthers get actual, credentialed experts to testify, they won’t get anyone to listen to them, and rightly so. The fact that they cannot get actual, credentialed experts on their side speaks volumes.

  47. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater March 27, 2012 at 9:46 pm #

    J. Potter: that’s because he is “that” jack.

    ah yes I figured as much. Old bigoted Jack

  48. avatar
    traderjack March 27, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

    Oh, I be not bigoted as you are just as entitled to your opinions as the birthers are to theirs

    you base you believe on the fact that Onaka certified the document as being an abstract or copy of the documents in the file.

    No where in the world has Onaka certified that the information on the records is correct!

    He has no ability to do that!

    A completely false document can be recorded in the records, as is evidence by the filing of quit claim deeds in Florida for house in repossession, and then the filer gets a certified copy of the quit claim deed, turns around and sells the property.

    those documents are certified to be copies of the information on file and nothing else.

    You want more you get title insurance, or your attorney to check the validity of the documents on record in the Court House,

    And, if there is a doubt about the validity of the documents then it affects all documents filed in the court house. If it is important enough you have to go trace all of the documents to make sure that there were no fraudulent filings.

    Which , of course, is why California had to cease issuing COLB as there were too many faked BC recorded.

    I have a $100 bill in my hand , it says it is legal tender for all debts, does it not. Except for the fact it might be a fake $100 bill and it would be worth nothing.

    Oh, well, those who will see , will see, and those that don’t won’t!

  49. avatar
    traderjack March 27, 2012 at 10:57 pm #

    is this true?

    “5) Upon request of a law enforcement agency certifying that a new birth certificate showing different information would provide for the safety of the birth registrant; provided that the new birth certificate shall contain information requested by the law enforcement agency, shall be assigned a new number and filed accordingly, and shall not substitute for the birth registrant’s original birth certificate, which shall remain in place.

    (b) When a new certificate of birth is established under this section, it shall be substituted for the original certificate of birth. Thereafter, the original certificate and the evidence supporting the preparation of the new certificate shall be sealed and filed. Such sealed document shall be opened only by an order of a court of record. [L 1973, c 39, 1; am L 1975, c 66, 2(3); am L 1979, c 130, 1 and c 203, 1; am L 1982, c 4, 1; am L 1983, c 65, 1; am L 1984, c 167, 1; am L 1993, c 131, 2]

    “http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/histatutes/1/19/338/I/338-17.7

  50. avatar
    Stanislaw March 27, 2012 at 11:09 pm #

    traderjack:

    you base you believe on the fact that Onaka certified the document as being an abstract or copy of the documents in the file.

    No where in the world has Onaka certified that the information on the records is correct!

    He has no ability to do that!

    And in true birther fashion, the goalposts get moved yet again…

  51. avatar
    G March 27, 2012 at 11:47 pm #

    What utter nonsense!

    You’ve already been answered on this.

    G:
    Do you seriously think that the HI DOH would issue statements validating Obama’s BC and linking to what is on the White House website as a representation of that, if it wasn’t an ACCURATE representation?

    Do you seriously think that they would do that on their official site if their own Registrar of Vital Statistics for the State of Hawaii, whose name is shown on that certification, wasn’t endorsing it as accurate and correct?

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

    So, by any reasoned conclusion, Mr. Onaka’s personal validation attesting to that document and its creation is backed NOT ONLY by his signature stamp of approval on it, but ALSO by his own official organization publically stating such and pointing to the image as an accurate representation. If Mr. Onaka wasn’t personally backing it, his organization wouldn’t put out those public postings. So, you don’t even require his court testimony…he has de facto, publically testified to its authenticity and accuracy. Full stop; end of story right there.

    So please stop being obtuse and restating false Concern Troll questions that have already been addressed. Instead, why don’t you clearly answer the direct questions I posed to you in that post.

    traderjack: you base you believe on the fact that Onaka certified the document as being an abstract or copy of the documents in the file.
    No where in the world has Onaka certified that the information on the records is correct!
    He has no ability to do that!
    A completely false document can be recorded in the records, as is evidence by the filing of quit claim deeds in Florida for house in repossession, and then the filer gets a certified copy of the quit claim deed, turns around and sells the property.

  52. avatar
    J. Potter March 27, 2012 at 11:49 pm #

    traderjack: Oh, well, those who will see , will see, and those that don’t won’t!

    See …… what? That a society based on suspicion would be a dystopia at best? Yes, yes I see that. Thanks, Jack.

    And thanks for more cherry-picked irrelevancies, the stock-in-trade of the Sincerely Concerned Troll.

  53. avatar
    G March 27, 2012 at 11:54 pm #

    No, your examples fail to be proper comparisons for this scenario, as already explained to you:

    G: Oh, spare us your disingenuous claim here. Your bias is clearly evident. If you were truly unbiased, you would be satisfied at the HI DOH’s multiple statements, answers and documents provided at this link:
    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    That you continue to cling to such irrational doubts and delusions after this demonstrates how blinded by BIAS you are.

    If *THE* official authorized agency responsible for creation, maintenance and issuance of any vital record comes out and not only BACKS it, but confirms that they created it, then that is END OF STORY right there – no ifs, ands or buts about it. To believe otherwise is to go off the rails into the black hole of paranoid conspiracy delusion that is so vast, that it becomes pointless on its face. HINT: If you think the “whole government” is in on it, then you’ve LOST already. If they are “all in on it”, then there is NO conspiracy, there is simply REALITY…one which you personally are merely unhappy with and have personal emotional problems coming to grips accepting. THAT is the very definition of *extreme* bias on your part.

    As others have mentioned as a comparative example, the Federal Reserve can print whatever it wants and call it legal tender and it DE FACTO is, by their very act of both printing it and standing behind it. They could print the notes on leaves if they chose and call it legal tender if they wish and it would have to be accepted as such. You can have an opinion that doing such would either be foolish or argue about how irresponsible printing of notes can devalue a currency, but you cannot claim FRAUD. Bottom line again, since your bias blinders make you so extremely dense on this simple fact – if THE official authoritative agency backs a document – it CANNOT be fraud. It is official BECAUSE they back it.

    Also, the particular issues leading to concerns of BCs in certain specfic states, such as TX and CA have ZERO relevance to the BC issuance process in the state of HI. You are simply Concern Trolling to distract focus to an irrelevant “red-herring” issue.

    traderjack: A completely false document can be recorded in the records, as is evidence by the filing of quit claim deeds in Florida for house in repossession, and then the filer gets a certified copy of the quit claim deed, turns around and sells the property.
    those documents are certified to be copies of the information on file and nothing else.
    You want more you get title insurance, or your attorney to check the validity of the documents on record in the Court House,
    And, if there is a doubt about the validity of the documents then it affects all documents filed in the court house. If it is important enough you have to go trace all of the documents to make sure that there were no fraudulent filings.
    Which , of course, is why California had to cease issuing COLB as there were too many faked BC recorded.
    I have a $100 bill in my hand , it says it is legal tender for all debts, does it not. Except for the fact it might be a fake $100 bill and it would be worth nothing.
    Oh, well, those who will see , will see, and those that don’t won’t!

  54. avatar
    J. Potter March 27, 2012 at 11:55 pm #

    Scientist: They yelled “Fraud!” within a couple of hours of the release.

    Quite right …. the first entries in the blogosphere are dated within two hours of that press conference. They stated a conclusion and went brainstorming crowd-source style for supporting statements. And it had been declared all along from the first calls for the ‘long-form’ that any document appearing to be an Obama BC would be default be fraudulent.

    Good faith. Heh.

  55. avatar
    traderjack March 28, 2012 at 4:04 am #

    Here is a statement from a posting here;”Again a document certified and issued by the issuing authority cannot be a forgery or fake as they own the means of production. No expert can overrule the issuing authority when it comes to claims of authenticity.”

    So, I call your attention to Ron Polland copy of Obama’s LFBC, where it also has Onaka’ signature stamp on it, and the same certification.!

    And if Polland had not told everyone that he created it , and explained how he did it, it would have been believed just like the original one.

    the certification stamp on a document means nothing in that case does it?

    But , somehow or another , everyone believes that the certification stamp alone, is enough to satisfy everyone.

    Are you satisfied Polland showed it could be done, and that the certification stamp and signature are useless in that case.

    by the way

    A certified copy of a birth, death, civil union, marriage, or divorce certificate issued by the State of Hawaii may need to be officially authenticated in order that it be recognized and accepted by government officials of foreign countries

    another little strange quirk about what a certification really does.

  56. avatar
    The Magic M March 28, 2012 at 4:19 am #

    > the certification stamp on a document means nothing in that case does it?

    Polland’s forgeries lack two important traits:

    1. There is no paper original, whereas the actual paper certified copy of Obama’s LFBC was shown at the press conference, touched and photographed by Savannah Guthrie.

    2. The Hawaiian authorities do not confirm his self-made stuff, whereas they have confirmed the Obama LFBC as genuine.

    You’re clinging to the same delusion as the Cold Case Posse, namely that it is enough to be able to forge a document to prove another document is forged, or to claim that no document can be trusted because it can be forged. Then again, what *can* be trusted if you birthers consider all documents (potential) forgeries and all witnesses liars?

    > certificate issued by the State of Hawaii may need to be officially authenticated in order that it be recognized and accepted by government officials of foreign countries

    Which foreign country is required to accept Obama’s birth certificate? Are we moving goalposts again? “An official certified stamped sealed copy from Hawaii isn’t enough, we need to see one that would be accepted by China or Iran”? Really now??

  57. avatar
    G March 28, 2012 at 4:43 am #

    BINGO! You’ve fully addressed all the points I was going to make, so I’ll just echo and restate you:

    The Magic M: > the certification stamp on a document means nothing in that case does it?

    Polland’s forgeries lack two important traits:1. There is no paper original, whereas the actual paper certified copy of Obama’s LFBC was shown at the press conference, touched and photographed by Savannah Guthrie.2. The Hawaiian authorities do not confirm his self-made stuff, whereas they have confirmed the Obama LFBC as genuine.

    You’re clinging to the same delusion as the Cold Case Posse, namely that it is enough to be able to forge a document to prove another document is forged, or to claim that no document can be trusted because it can be forged. Then again, what *can* be trusted if you birthers consider all documents (potential) forgeries and all witnesses liars?

    > certificate issued by the State of Hawaii may need to be officially authenticated in order that it be recognized and accepted by government officials of foreign countries

    Which foreign country is required to accept Obama’s birth certificate? Are we moving goalposts again? “An official certified stamped sealed copy from Hawaii isn’t enough, we need to see one that would be accepted by China or Iran”? Really now??

  58. avatar
    Keith March 28, 2012 at 6:12 am #

    traderjack: A certified copy of a birth, death, civil union, marriage, or divorce certificate issued by the State of Hawaii may need to be officially authenticated in order that it be recognized and accepted by government officials of foreign countries

    Yes. That is because there is no “full faith and credit” provision between nations unless a treaty has been made with such provisions in it.

  59. avatar
    Scientist March 28, 2012 at 6:37 am #

    traderjack: I have a $100 bill in my hand , it says it is legal tender for all debts, does it not. Except for the fact it might be a fake $100 bill and it would be worth nothing.

    If the Secret Service says it’s real, then it is and any bank must accept it. Similarly, when the State of Hawaii says one of its birth certificates is real, then it is and any court in the US must accept it.

    Even a child could understand that.

  60. avatar
    Northland10 March 28, 2012 at 7:04 am #

    traderjack: A completely false document can be recorded in the records, as is evidence by the filing of quit claim deeds in Florida for house in repossession, and then the filer gets a certified copy of the quit claim deed, turns around and sells the property.

    So now, you are stating that the actual record is false and not just the PDF? So, what evidence do you have that the original would be false. Even on a quit claim deed issue, you can’t just claim you think it is false. You have to have actual evidence stating that shows it to be false.

    Without a shred of evidence, you make the claim the document could have been false. Your bias is showing brighter than the sun.

    Nice job moving the goal posts.

  61. avatar
    Scientist March 28, 2012 at 7:14 am #

    Simple question for traderjack: Is Mitt Romney’s birth certificate (you know, the one he hasn’t posted on his web site) real or fake? As a fair-minded non-birther you will answer this unequivocally, right?

  62. avatar
    Paper March 28, 2012 at 7:43 am #

    A corollary to that statement is that *someone else* can forge such a document.

    My signature can be forged, just not by me.

    As Ron Polland is not Hawaii, not a Hawaiian official in charge of such matters, *he* can forge it.

    The question is the same as always: how do you tell it is my signature and not someone else’s? If I say it is my signature and it is not, I myself am not committing forgery.

    Thus, as Hawaii has affirmed the b.c. (note: they have not affirmed Polland’s forgery), you would need to prove fraud to make any issue of it. Someone planted fake records, for example. I personally have been told by a birther I know that there is a video of the fake records being planted, which video will be released…soon.

    I mean, if we are going to have a conspiracy, let’s do it right, a real conspiracy with all the trimmings. Let’s not mealy-mouth it.

    traderjack:
    Here is a statement from a posting here;”Again a document certified and issued by the issuing authority cannot be a forgery or fake as they own the means of production. No expert can overrule the issuing authority when it comes to claims of authenticity.”

    So, I call your attention to Ron Polland copy of Obama’s LFBC, where it also has Onaka’ signature stamp on it, and the same certification.!
    .

  63. avatar
    The Magic M March 28, 2012 at 8:32 am #

    Paper: I personally have been told by a birther I know that there is a video of the fake records being planted, which video will be released…soon.

    Another OMG moment coming? 😉

    Essentially, what “traderjack” really is saying is that he’s already beyond the actual forgery question but at a point where he would claim that the original vault BC has been fraudulently filled out in the first place. Which is of course where birthers would move the goalposts if they ever got to see the vault document.

    And which brings me back to my point of the more philosophical question “at what point do you consider something ‘proven’?”. For all intents and purposes, the *legal* definitions are (I may forget some):

    – “beyond reasonable doubt” (and the claim “they are all in on it” is not reasonable, nor is any other birther theory)
    – “prima facie” (which means you would need actual proof to attack it, not conjecture, allegations and speculations of “what would’ve been possible”)
    – “full faith and credit” (which means only the respective state gets to decide what it considers ‘proven’)

    And only the *legal* definitions matter; personal opinions of “I’m still not convinced” may be taken to the ballot box but don’t generate a right to legal recourse (as in “because I still have doubts, I am entitled to see X”).

  64. avatar
    Paper March 28, 2012 at 8:59 am #

    I see now, that he also made a separate point about fraud/planting fake records. Missed that at first.

    Come on guys (I mean birthers), let’s get with the program. Stop wasting your time with forgery blather. Move on to the sweet stuff; stop getting distracted. I want to know: who planted those fake records? Why? I already have the answers, but I want to see you guys run with it. Stop pussyfooting around already.

    The Magic M: Another OMG moment coming?

    Essentially, what “traderjack” really is saying is that he’s already beyond the actual forgery question but at a point where he would claim that the original vault BC has been fraudulently filled out in the first place. Which is of course where birthers would move the goalposts if they ever got to see the vault document.

    And which brings me back to my point of the more philosophical question “at what point do you consider something proven’?”. For all intents and purposes, the *legal* definitions are (I may forget some):

    – “beyond reasonable doubt” (and the claim “they are all in on it” is not reasonable, nor is any other birther theory)
    – “prima facie” (which means you would need actual proof to attack it, not conjecture, allegations and speculations of “what would’ve been possible”)
    – “full faith and credit” (which means only the respective state gets to decide what it considers proven’)

    And only the *legal* definitions matter; personal opinions of “I’m still not convinced” may be taken to the ballot box but don’t generate a right to legal recourse (as in “because I still have doubts, I am entitled to see X”).

  65. avatar
    Whatever4 March 28, 2012 at 12:56 pm #

    traderjack:
    is this true?

    “5) Upon request of a law enforcement agency certifying that a new birth certificate showing different information would provide for the safety of the birth registrant; provided that the new birth certificate shall contain information requested by the law enforcement agency, shall be assigned a new number and filed accordingly, and shall not substitute for the birth registrant’s original birth certificate, which shall remain in place.

    (b) When a new certificate of birth is established under this section, it shall be substituted for the original certificate of birth. Thereafter, the original certificate and the evidence supporting the preparation of the new certificate shall be sealed and filed. Such sealed document shall be opened only by an order of a court of record. [L 1973, c 39, 1; am L 1975, c 66, 2(3); am L 1979, c 130, 1 and c 203, 1; am L 1982, c 4, 1; am L 1983, c 65, 1; am L 1984, c 167, 1; am L 1993, c 131, 2]

    “http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/histatutes/1/19/338/I/338-17.7

    Are you alleging that Obama was in the Witness Protection Program? That’s what #5 refers to. And “b” came into law in 1973.

  66. avatar
    traderjack March 28, 2012 at 3:24 pm #

    Ah. Changing the goal posts instead of comment in the statement.

    As to the law I posted, much to your dismay, hell, I know it does not apply to Obama, or any one else I can think of,

    BUT, it does show that you can not believe a Birth Certificate and certification from Hawaii as they do allow fake birth certificates to be issued at the request of other jurisdications,.

    Deny y it as you will, I care not!

    It is a fact, and you can change the goal posts again, if you wish,

    I have never , ever , contended the the BC does not reflect the information in the records.
    My contention is that the records may contain errors, and falsehoods, and the act of certifiying the document does not say that the information contained on the document is true!

    And the fake birth certificates law proves that, does it not

  67. avatar
    Sef March 28, 2012 at 3:48 pm #

    traderjack:
    Ah.Changing the goal posts instead of comment in the statement.

    As to the law I posted, much to your dismay, hell, I know it does not apply to Obama, or any one else I can think of,

    BUT, it does show that you can not believe a Birth Certificate and certification from Hawaii as they do allow fake birth certificates to be issued at the request of other jurisdications,.

    Deny y it as you will, I care not!

    It is a fact, and you canchange the goal posts again, if you wish,

    I have never , ever , contended the the BC does not reflect the information in the records.
    My contention is that the records may contain errors, and falsehoods, and the act of certifiying the document does not say that the information contained on the document is true!

    And the fake birth certificates law proves that, does it not

    And you are going to disprove what HI DOH says are in the records how?

  68. avatar
    Whatever4 March 28, 2012 at 3:52 pm #

    traderjack:
    Ah.Changing the goal posts instead of comment in the statement.

    As to the law I posted, much to your dismay, hell, I know it does not apply to Obama, or any one else I can think of,

    BUT, it does show that you can not believe a Birth Certificate and certification from Hawaii as they do allow fake birth certificates to be issued at the request of other jurisdications,.

    Deny y it as you will, I care not!

    It is a fact, and you canchange the goal posts again, if you wish,

    I have never , ever , contended the the BC does not reflect the information in the records.
    My contention is that the records may contain errors, and falsehoods, and the act of certifiying the document does not say that the information contained on the document is true!

    And the fake birth certificates law proves that, does it not

    I bet all states have similar laws. These aren’t unique to Hawaii. I still have no idea what your theory is, other than any birth record from any state is meaningless.

  69. avatar
    Sef March 28, 2012 at 4:03 pm #

    Whatever4: I bet all states have similar laws. These aren’t unique to Hawaii. I still have no idea what your theory is, other than any birth record from any state is meaningless.

    What our friend, tj, does not understand is that the DOH is not the arbiter of truth, but rather the custodian of records. When the original records were filed they followed their policies and procedures to ascertain their validity. Since then, they have followed policies and procedures to maintain the reliability of these records. They also produce certified copies when proper requests are received. If Orly or Sunahara had been allowed access to the vault this chain of custody could be questioned, so the failure of their suits is absolutely necessary.

  70. avatar
    Scientist March 28, 2012 at 4:07 pm #

    traderjack: Deny y it as you will, I care not!

    Nor I.

    Obama was born in Hawaii. Not because the records say so, but because he WAS. that is a simple FACT.

  71. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 28, 2012 at 4:13 pm #

    Scientist: Nor I.

    Obama was born in Hawaii.Not because the records say so, but because he WAS.that is a simple FACT.

    Well… and also because of the complete and utter absence of any evidence that he wasn’t.

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 28, 2012 at 4:15 pm #

    Yes. That’s true. In fact, I wrote an article that included that in December of 2008!

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/not_born_in_hawaii/

    I’ll insert here, what I wrote then:

    This is what we call the “witness protection program”. Since Stanley Ann Dunham has a history prior to Barack’s birth, it is evident that she was not in the witness protection program, and hence that her son wasn’t either. There is one other small problem with this theory: the law cited was not passed until 1973, when Barack Obama was 12 years old.

    That’s what that little “L 1973” means in the text you cited, law passed in 1973. Also the provision for the assignment of a “new number” precludes the Obama certificate from being part of this program later on, since his certificate number appears smack dab in the middle of other certificates issued August 1961.

    Other states have similar laws. I’m somewhat familiar with this because my former company developed vital records software with a witness protection feature.

    traderjack: is this true?

    “5) Upon request of a law enforcement agency certifying that a new birth certificate showing different information would provide for the safety of the birth registrant; provided that the new birth certificate shall contain information requested by the law enforcement agency, shall be assigned a new number and filed accordingly, and shall not substitute for the birth registrant’s original birth certificate, which shall remain in place.

    (b) When a new certificate of birth is established under this section, it shall be substituted for the original certificate of birth. Thereafter, the original certificate and the evidence supporting the preparation of the new certificate shall be sealed and filed. Such sealed document shall be opened only by an order of a court of record. [L 1973, c 39, 1; am L 1975, c 66, 2(3); am L 1979, c 130, 1 and c 203, 1; am L 1982, c 4, 1; am L 1983, c 65, 1; am L 1984, c 167, 1; am L 1993, c 131, 2]

    “http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/histatutes/1/19/338/I/338-17.7

  73. avatar
    Paper March 28, 2012 at 4:36 pm #

    So? Meaningless unless you have specific evidence of wrong-doing by someone behind the scenes. These documents are about managing a society, not about proving you found the Higgs Boson particle.

    Consider the law that makes orphans citizens. Found in our country without any knowledge of their parentage, they are considered citizens at birth if no one contestsand shows otherwise before they reach their majority.

    What is true? The law basically says after the age of 21, who cares?

    A b.c. says this is what our records show to be true. Unless you have real and specific evidence of fraud, don’t waste our time and tax dollars. “Primae facie” evidence, which a b.c. is, translates after all into “get a life.”

    traderjack:
    I have never , ever , contended the the BC does not reflect the information in the records.
    My contention is that the records may contain errors, and falsehoods, and the act of certifiying the document does not say that the information contained on the document is true

  74. avatar
    Scientist March 28, 2012 at 4:48 pm #

    Thomas Brown: Well… and also because of the complete and utter absence of any evidence that he wasn’t.

    Exactly. The birther focus on fonts and pieces of paper is an attempt to divert attention from their complete lack of contrary facts.

    A simple gedanken experiment-suppose that a monster tsunami inundated Oahu and totally destroyed all birth records,while, miraculously, killing no-one (it’s a thought experiment). What would happen to all those folks born in Hawaii? Would they be stateless? Of course not. There would be a default setting-those whose parents lived in Hawaii at the time they were born, where there was no credible evidence that they were born elsewhere would be considered to have been born in Hawaii. So, Barack Obama, whose parents lived in Hawaii at the time he was born, and for whom there is no credible evidence of birth elsewhere is considered to have been born in Hawaii. The fact that the records indicate the same is, of course, strongly supportive of that FACT, but the FACT of a Hawaiian birth would exist even in the absence of such records.

  75. avatar
    traderjack March 28, 2012 at 8:15 pm #

    My goodness, you really switch around! First things , first.

    No evidence is proof of fact?

    Because you don’t know my weight, if it say it is 200 pounds, it must be true, because there is no evidence available to you to disprove it.

    So, anything I do or say, is by virtue of the fact that you can not disprove it means it must be true.

    So, if that quit claim in the court house can not be proven by you to be true, you can not challenge it, right?

    And anything you guys say must be truth because you say it , and I cannot access the information to verify the facts, ergo, I have no evidence it is not true, so it must be true!

    Amazing

  76. avatar
    traderjack March 28, 2012 at 8:20 pm #

    Thomas Brown: Well… and also because of the complete and utter absence of any evidence that he wasn’t.

    Amazing, I have evidence that Obama was born in Africa, absolute postive evidence of that fact, now let you disprove that fact!

    You can’t, because there is no evidence to deny the factis that are in my possession.

    Now if I record that document in the court records, you still can not prove otherwise, as I have not stated what the evidence is , and you can not disprove prove it!

    Watch out for the catch!

  77. avatar
    traderjack March 28, 2012 at 8:25 pm #

    there is no proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, there is evidence of such a statement, but no one was there and saw the child born in the hospital of record, so everything else is hearsay.

    Just as though it happened in Texas and California, the BCs were faked.

    Ah the beauty of words.

    And remember what Bill Ayers said about establishing false idenities. Of course that is hearsay also.

  78. avatar
    Scientist March 28, 2012 at 8:29 pm #

    traderjack: So, anything I do or say, is by virtue of the fact that you can not disprove it means it must be true.

    In Presidential history, the clear precedent is that Presidents were considered born where their parents lived. Most never had a birth certificate. When I lived in Charlottelsville, VA they told me Thomas Jefferson was born there, where his parents lived. Yet he had no birth certificate. Could his Mom have taken a quick jaunt to Jamaica, given birth to him and returned with him hidden in her cloak? Sure. It’s no sillier than the birther nonsense regarding Ms Dunham going to Kenya. Where was Abe Lincoln born? How do you know? What about McKinley? How do you know? Or Reagan? His birth certificate was issued more than 30 years after he was born. The people signing it almost certainly had a very dim memory of the event at best.

    Presidents are not quit claim deeds. There is a long and storied history. If you ran for President, you would fall under the same rules-born where your parents lived. As for whether you weighed 200 pounds, I could look at you, judge your build and height and come pretty close.

    These are the rules. We don’t invent new ones after 220 years because someone we don’t like is in office.

    Now go away, sir. You have lost. >100 court cases. Goodbye.

  79. avatar
    Scientist March 28, 2012 at 8:31 pm #

    traderjack: there is no proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, there is evidence of such a statement, but no one was there and saw the child born in the hospital of record, so everything else is hearsay.

    I was present and saw it with my own eyes, as I have posted here before. He was a beautiful baby and I knew he would be special. You have lost >100 court cases. Obama will be re-elected (though I disagree with misha that Cory Booker will follow). Winners win and losers lose.

  80. avatar
    James M March 28, 2012 at 8:42 pm #

    traderjack: My contention is that the records may contain errors, and falsehoods

    There is a world of difference between “may contain” and “does contain.” Unless you mean to say the latter, and can show something that would meaningfully persuade a majority of the Congress, your contention remains exclusively your own.

  81. avatar
    Scientist March 28, 2012 at 8:56 pm #

    traderjack: I cannot access the information to verify the facts

    Life’s a bitch and then you die…

  82. avatar
    JPotter March 28, 2012 at 9:24 pm #

    I see the infestation continues. Jack is adamant about contorting standards of proof. Suspect all you want as always, Jack, but it means nothing w/o proof. Or at least enough of a case to provide reasonable cause for action. Acting on mere suspicion / paranoia / theoretical possibility is dysfunctional. But, hey, no one stopping ya, research away, report back when you have more.

  83. avatar
    Majority Will March 28, 2012 at 9:28 pm #

    “My contention is that the records may contain errors, and falsehoods

    traderjack: Amazing, I have evidence that Obama was born in Africa, absolute postive evidence of that fact, now let you disprove that fact!

    If I have to choose between an anonymous, anger filled schmo with no authority who has admitted to bigoted motivations and makes bizarre, illogical, nonsensical, delusional and irrelevant claims based on ludicrous generalizations of corruption and reprehensible accusations of malfeasance with zero credible evidence and the state of Hawaii backed by the U.S. Constitution, I’ll stick with Hawaii.

    It’s really not a choice at all.

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

    “My contention deepest, irrational fantasy is that the records may contain errors . . .”

    FIFY

  84. avatar
    Majority Will March 28, 2012 at 9:40 pm #

    “Just as though it happened in Texas and California, the BCs were faked”

    Many birthers seem to struggle with the concept of false analogies. Every time I read one it’s like Taitz mindlessly shrieking “Watergate!”.

  85. avatar
    JPotter March 28, 2012 at 9:48 pm #

    Majority Will: Many birthers seem to struggle with the concept of false analogies.

    Well, where’s there’s smoke, there’s a birther’s pants on fire. 😉

  86. avatar
    nbc March 28, 2012 at 9:53 pm #

    traderjack: My contention is that the records may contain errors, and falsehoods, and the act of certifiying the document does not say that the information contained on the document is true!

    True but then why bother about the DOH and the birth certificate? The answers to your questions are to be found elsewhere.
    This does not make much sense to me.

  87. avatar
    G March 28, 2012 at 10:21 pm #

    Wow, way to set up a made-up straw man that only you are arguing and then proceed to rant off the rails for three entire posts without meaning.

    Sorry, but no matter how much you wail and stomp your feet, you can’t take away that there is a LOT of actual evidence that has come forward and it ALL corroborates each other and says the EXACT SAME THING – Born in Honolulu, HI.

    No matter how much you twist in the wind and foam at the mouth, you can’t trump or get around that the OFFICIAL agency in charge of HI BCs has repeatedly vouched for and confirmed it to be true.

    Sucks to be you. Your game has been over for a long time. While you continue to shed bitter tears in denial, the world continues to go on just fine, without you…

    traderjack: No evidence is proof of fact?

  88. avatar
    Majority Will March 28, 2012 at 10:29 pm #

    G:
    Wow, way to set up a made-up straw man that only you are arguing and then proceed to rant off the rails for three entire posts without meaning.

    Sorry, but no matter how much you wail and stomp your feet, you can’t take away that there is a LOT of actual evidence that has come forward and it ALL corroborates each other and says the EXACT SAME THING – Born in Honolulu, HI.

    No matter how much you twist in the wind and foam at the mouth, you can’t trump or get around that the OFFICIAL agency in charge of HI BCs has repeatedly vouched for and confirmed it to be true.

    Sucks to be you.Your game has been over for a long time.While you continue to shed bitter tears in denial, the world continues to go on just fine, without you…

    Well said.

  89. avatar
    Majority Will March 28, 2012 at 10:31 pm #

    JPotter: Well, where’s there’s smoke, there’s a birther’s pants on fire.

    We/re going to lose a few telephone wires.

  90. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 28, 2012 at 11:08 pm #

    traderjack: Amazing, I have evidence that Obama was born in Africa, absolute postive evidence of that fact, now let you disprove that fact!

    You can’t, because there is no evidence to deny the factis that are in my possession.

    Now if I record that document in the court records, you still can not prove otherwise, as I have not stated what the evidence is , and you can not disprove prove it!

    Watch out for the catch!

    Wow. That was the closest thing I have ever read to the literal ravings of a madman.

  91. avatar
    traderjack March 28, 2012 at 11:15 pm #

    JPotter: I see the infestation continues. Jack is adamant about contorting standards of proof. Suspect all you want as always, Jack, but it means nothing w/o proof. Or at least enough of a case to provide reasonable cause for action. Acting on mere suspicion / paranoia / theoretical possibility is dysfunctional. But, hey, no one stopping ya, research away, report back when you have more.

    Jay Potter , as usual you miss the point completely. No individual can prove any darn thing at all.

    you can not prove Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or South Dakota,

    You can only present evidence as to the event!

    you present evidence that you think , again , not proof, that the HDOH was accurate in their description of the records.
    Corsi presents evidence that he thinks, again, not proof, that the HDOH was inaccurate in their description on the records.

    They are both evidence that should be considered equally, until the reader, decider, jurist, court , or whatever states that after consideration of the evidence they, and only they, think that one side or the other has submitted evidence that proves their side is correct.

    And, sad to state, we will still have cases like OJ which leaves everyone wondering what the proof was.based upon.

    And like the Trevon thing it Florida it all gets mixed up with personal views.

  92. avatar
    Majority Will March 28, 2012 at 11:17 pm #

    Thomas Brown: Wow.That was the closest thing I have ever read to the literal ravings of a madman.

    It’s like there’s a secret pact among birthers to see who can come up with the most asinine drivel.

  93. avatar
    JPotter March 28, 2012 at 11:36 pm #

    traderjack: Jay Potter , as usual you miss the point completely. No individual can prove any darn thing at all.

    Jackie-me-boyo, I completely understand that that’s your position. I also understand no progress can be made on such a foundation of hopelessness and futility. It’s called epistemological nihilism, Jack. Look into it. You’re regressing to the primordial void, Chaos itself.

    I recommed the works of Camus. If still unable to snap out of it, start over again with Plato. Whether you intend to or not, whether sincere (haha! of course he isn’t!), you’re toying with some fundamental conflicts. If you’re going to participate meaningfully in society, you’ve got to come to grips with them.

  94. avatar
    JPotter March 28, 2012 at 11:43 pm #

    JPotter: I recommed the works of Camus

    Ach, and Bertrand Russell. Many other greats but Camus and Russell are very accessible. And Camus particularly suited to birtherism and others woolly aspects of post-modern life.

    There are plenty of resources on/for epistemology … i see a small but critical need for something tailored for birthers. A core of a recovery program.

    I would posit that while birther beliefs are in the minority, the thinking that allows for birther beliefs is far more common. Again I call for the reintegration of philosophy into all levels of our education system.

  95. avatar
    traderjack March 28, 2012 at 11:46 pm #

    I, seriously, don’t understand how Americans can’t see that anyone’s statement is not subject to questioning.
    You , perhaps all of you , do not want to accept the fact that Bush thought that WND were in Iraq!
    Even thought the Government agencies said you, You were willing , for some reason to accept the facts that because someone else thought he was lying, and you were willing to accept the fact that someone thought the government was lying and looked to see what the evidence was and whether the evidence was good enought to convince you that the Bush was lying.

    Yet, you refuse to accept the possibility that the Democratic Campaign Committee was lying when they presented a COLB from HDOH and swearing that it must be true because the government said it was true.

    if you don’t look at the evidence you are jumping to conclusions. Ok, what made you reach the conclusion that the Corsi evidence was in error on any one specific claim.

    Was the R in Barack a pixilated letter as shown by critics, or not, and what mad you think it was not a pixilad letter , that could not have been typed by the original typewriter.

    I have suggested that the kerining could have been caused by modern electric typewriters when the info from the BC was typed in the Copy of the document as it is obvious that what has been produced is not a photo copy , specifically, because of the kerning., or pixilating of letters.

    What is your solution for the R in Barack

  96. avatar
    G March 28, 2012 at 11:55 pm #

    Indeed! Spot on analysis of TraderJack’s latest hysterical rantings. When someone has gone that far over the hyperbolic edge, they have completely ceded reality. They’ve immediately lost their argument right there.

    JPotter: Jackie-me-boyo, I completely understand that that’s your position. I also understand no progress can be made on such a foundation of hopelessness and futility. It’s called epistemological nihilism, Jack. Look into it. You’re regressing to the primordial void, Chaos itself.

  97. avatar
    JPotter March 29, 2012 at 12:02 am #

    G: They’ve immediately lost their argument right there.

    Not that they have lost, but are incapable of participating constructively, much less enahnce their own knowledge or that of others by contributing, testing, proving, or refuting lasting insight.

    Winning or losing, hell, those are comparatives, value judgments. He isn’t ready for knowing yet! Poor guy.

  98. avatar
    JPotter March 29, 2012 at 12:05 am #

    traderjack: I

    Jack, you’re repesting yourself. Your questions have been addressed, by myself and others. You’re not discussing, merely wasting your own time and that of others by going in circles and ignoring all input.

  99. avatar
    Arthur March 29, 2012 at 12:06 am #

    traderjack: What is your solution for the R in Barack

    The voting booth. I suggest you use it in November. Until then, take a strong dose of reality three times daily.

  100. avatar
    G March 29, 2012 at 12:08 am #

    None of us can truly know what was in GWB’s mind or heart. All we can go on is how his administration made his case to the public and to the world and the claims they based as their evidence in support of that case.

    What we have learned is that the underlying claims have turned out not to be true and that there were numerous staff and officials in the administration that tried to point out these same questions during that time frame and who were simply ignored. Whether through incompetence or intent, the end result is the same – he and his administration presented these rationale for war as if they were FACT, instead of what turned out to be nothing more than flawed conjecture and speculation. So YES, in doing so, he LIED. Suspicions simply do not equal solid evidence and mere feelings do not equate to facts.

    In the end, what we know is that GWB’s administration made the same mistake in failed thinking as folks like you Birthers display all the time – you are hopelessly blinded by your preconceptions and therefore leap to conclusions that merely conform to your desired confirmation bias and IGNORE all the evidence and questions that show that your pre-conceived conclusions were hollow and baseless in the first place….

    For someone who wasted a lot of time earlier trying to proclaim how “unbiased” you are, you continue to jump to irrelevant political issues that only reveal how desperately stuck in a particular partisan mindset of bitterness you are. You clearly suffer from much more than just ODS. You clearly have Ideological Mindset Derangement Syndrome as well…

    traderjack: You , perhaps all of you , do not want to accept the fact that Bush thought that WND were in Iraq!
    Even thought the Government agencies said you, You were willing , for some reason to accept the facts that because someone else thought he was lying, and you were willing to accept the fact that someone thought the government was lying and looked to see what the evidence was and whether the evidence was good enought to convince you that the Bush was lying.

  101. avatar
    Majority Will March 29, 2012 at 12:13 am #

    Arthur: The voting booth. I suggest you use it in November. Until then, take a strong dose of reality three times daily.

    I’m still trying to figure out how to solve a problem like Maria.

  102. avatar
    JPotter March 29, 2012 at 12:16 am #

    JPotter: Jack, you’re repesting yourself. Your questions have been addressed, by myself and others. You’re not discussing, merely wasting your own time and that of others by going in circles and ignoring all input.

    …. and repeatedly outputting identical queries. In every field I know of, except perhaps comedy, the same output regardless of input indicates a system failure of some kind, and a need for analysis and correction.

  103. avatar
    G March 29, 2012 at 12:16 am #

    *duh* Because if the OFFICIAL agency (HI DOH) says it is true, it IS. That is how the law works. Every state and government agency has to accept a certified BC that the HI DOH issues and certifies on its face. No ifs, ands or butts about it.

    I don’t care that reality makes you happy, but that is how our laws work. Look up FFAC in the Constitution. Get a grasp of what prima facie means in terms of a legal document and how that works.

    The COLB and the LFBC say the same thing – born in HONOLULU, HI. ALL qualfied officials that have weighed in on the matter have backed it That matches the very same birth story that Obama has always said. Two contemporary local newspaper birth notices also corroborate that. Every bit of information that has come back from FOIA requests on his family have provided further evidence that ALSO backs that same HONOLULU, HI birth for Obama. ZERO actual evidence has come forward that says otherwise.

    Only the most desperately obtuse denialists (such as YOU) cannot accept this reality.

    traderjack: Yet, you refuse to accept the possibility that the Democratic Campaign Committee was lying when they presented a COLB from HDOH and swearing that it must be true because the government said it was true.
    if you don’t look at the evidence you are jumping to conclusions. Ok, what made you reach the conclusion that the Corsi evidence was in error on any one specific claim.

  104. avatar
    G March 29, 2012 at 12:26 am #

    It is a completely meaningless and irrelevant argument. I don’t care about the R in Barack, because it does NOT require a solution in order to accept his BC as valid.

    Although others like Doc C and Mr. John Woodman have spent lots of time investigating the rabbit hole arguments of PDFs and debunking the nonsense claims they found there, I have consistently viewed that entire line of inquiry as an utterly IRRELEVANT distraction.

    The bottom line is there is ZERO relevance to arguing about and analyzing scanned images.

    ALL that matters is the PHYSICAL certified document from which it was based and the chain of authority and custody which have repeatedly and steadfastly backed and verified it. We KNOW these physical documents exist because we have SEEN pictures of them (the COLB on FactCheck.org, the LFBC from Savannah Gunthrie.) Even if we hadn’t seen the pictures of them, we KNOW they exist and match what we see online, because the HI DOH which oversees and issues them TELLS us so and have gone to great lenghts repeatedly and publically to consistently back them as real, valid and accurate.

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

    READ the links and all their words and documents they have to say on the matter there. But a desperate denialist like you won’t – because you simply cannot accept the truth…and their statements END THE STORY on the whole legitimacy of the BC issue definitively.

    You and your ilk simply have NOTHING that can stand up and trump the HI DOH or the certified documents they issue. Until you do, you have ZERO case… just bitter tears and hollow excuses.

    traderjack: Was the R in Barack a pixilated letter as shown by critics, or not, and what mad you think it was not a pixilad letter , that could not have been typed by the original typewriter.
    I have suggested that the kerining could have been caused by modern electric typewriters when the info from the BC was typed in the Copy of the document as it is obvious that what has been produced is not a photo copy , specifically, because of the kerning., or pixilating of letters.
    What is your solution for the R in Barack

  105. avatar
    G March 29, 2012 at 12:28 am #

    😉 The Sound of Music is one of my favorite Disney musicals – along with Mary Poppins and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. 🙂

    Majority Will: I’m still trying to figure out how to solve a problem like Maria.

  106. avatar
    Keith March 29, 2012 at 1:52 am #

    traderjack: I, seriously, don’t understand how Americans can’t see that anyone’s statement is not subject to questioning.

    A statement can be questioned when there are good faith questions to be asked.

    But the way the adult world works is, that if you ask a good faith question, you listen to the good faith answer, act on it and go forward from there.

    Of course the key words are “good faith” and “adult world”. We all know that 3 year olds don’t have the concept of “good faith” down so well yet and respond to anything and everything with “why” over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over…

    just like the Birthers.

  107. avatar
    Rickey March 29, 2012 at 2:45 am #

    traderjack:
    there is no proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, there is evidence of such a statement, but no one was there and saw the child born in the hospital of record, so everything else is hearsay.

    That’s one of the dumbest things I have heard from you to date, and that is saying a lot.

    I was born nearly 64 years ago. According to you, the fact of my birth is mere hearsay. My parents are deceased, so they can’t testify to the circumstances of my birth. I do have an older brother who was eight years old when I was born, but he wasn’t present when I was born and he didn’t see me until my mother came home from the hospital several days after my birth. The doctor who delivered me almost certainly is deceased. Any nurses who were present would, if still living, be at a minimum in their late 80s now. The hospital records were destroyed decades ago.

    So my proof is my birth certificate. And guess what? It is proof. It was sufficient for me to obtain a Social Security Card, a driver’s license, enlist in the U.S. Navy, register to vote, and obtain a U.S. passport. None of the issuing entities demanded to see my original long-form birth certificate.

  108. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 29, 2012 at 3:03 am #

    I think what traderjack is getting at is that nobody can actually prove that they were born anywhere, therefore nobody is able to prove to the constitution standard that they are eligible for the Presidency. I think that’s what they’re getting at…

    Therefore, if nobody can prove that they were eligible for the Presidency, they should have no problem voting for nobody, and therefore letting the real adults actually decide the election…

  109. avatar
    traderjack March 29, 2012 at 3:13 am #

    OK, you are a group of good american citizen who have made up your mind that the government of Hawaii has looked at the Hawaiian Birth Certificate of Barak Hussein Obama, and the HDOH has checked and verified that even letter, dot, comma, semicoln, word, has been attested to by the originall signers of the original birth certificate, and have verified their statements by looking at all evidence, including the birth at the claimed hospital , and can provide evidence it is all 100% valid and correct, and that are prepared to defend it in court.

    You are deluded , aren’t you?

    Full faith and credit applies”?

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1738

    “The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.
    The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.
    Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken”

    See anything in there about birth certificates?

  110. avatar
    Keith March 29, 2012 at 4:33 am #

    traderjack: OK, you are a group of good american citizen who have made up your mind…

    You are deluded , aren’t you?

    No you are the delusional one. How is it that you can argue how “even letter, dot, comma, semicoln, word,” has anything to do with anything and ignore the only thing that is important to any of this: the birth date and location. That is what is being certified by the Birth Certificate, not “even letter, dot, comma, semicoln, word”.

    ” the originall signers of the original birth certificate,” have, by affixing their signature, attested to the accuracy of the information on the document relating to the birth event.

    Yes, we ” have verified their statements by looking at all evidence, including the birth at the claimed hospital “. Such evidence includes observing the chain of possession of the original records and the contemporary corroborating evidence including birth announcements in the local newspapers.

    Yes, we “can provide evidence it is all 100% valid and correct”. That evidence is the birth certificate, which is a self-validating document containing all the security icons required by State and Federal law to ensure that it is what it says it is.

    “, and that are prepared to If there is ever any reason to “defend it in court.” it will defend it self. It is a self-validating document containing all the security icons required by State and Federal law to ensure that it is what it says it is.

  111. avatar
    Lupin March 29, 2012 at 6:09 am #

    traderjack: See anything in there about birth certificates?

    Yes. It falls under “records”.

    You’re one of those who couldn’t get out of the house if velcro hadn’t been invented, are you?

  112. avatar
    Majority Will March 29, 2012 at 6:27 am #

    It’s time to apply The Jablonski Empty Chair Technique here.

  113. avatar
    Northland10 March 29, 2012 at 7:04 am #

    DNFTT

  114. avatar
    Keith March 29, 2012 at 7:35 am #

    Lupin: Yes. It falls under “records”.

    You’re one of those who couldn’t get out of the house if velcro hadn’t been invented, are you?

    Yeah-butt, in TJ’s world this isn’t a record.

    THIS is a record (or lots of ’em actually)

  115. avatar
    bovril March 29, 2012 at 8:09 am #

    Classic line of stupidity by “Trading with Jack”

    there is no proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, there is evidence of such a statement, but no one was there and saw the child born in the hospital of record, so everything else is hearsay.

    So,

    The great legal mind of the todger says that he needs “evidence”
    Said “evidence” needs to come from someone who was there at the time of the birth
    Said “evidence” needs to be a statement from said individuals
    Everything else is “hearsay”

    Yo Todger, minor problems, the largest and one that demonstartes your rank idiocy and failure to grasp the concepts a 5 year old would….

    ANY SUCH STATEMENTS WOULD BE HEARSAY……..

    The ONLY LEGAL exception to the hearsay rule in this specific case is the record.

    Prat.

  116. avatar
    Scientist March 29, 2012 at 8:29 am #

    traderjack: See anything in there about birth certificates?

    See anything here about birth certificates?

    “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    Not a word. Demands to see a presidential birth certificate are unconstitutional. The only documentation that can be demanded of a President is that demanded of George Washington, which was-NOTHING.

  117. avatar
    The Magic M March 29, 2012 at 8:40 am #

    Keith: Yeah-butt, in TJ’s world this isn’t a record.

    THIS is a record (or lots of em actually)

    I am so waiting for birthers to claim they want to know the singer and audio technician responsible for Obama’s “vital records”. It’s not a stretch since most of them already believe “Ukulele” signed off as registrar on the BC…

    “Your honour, the fact that Ms Nagamine refuses to take the stage proves the vital records were sung by somebody else than the DoH (Department of Hits) claims!

    And Govertenor Luciano Pavacrombie said he cannot find the original score! And Loretta Fuddy obviously is not related to Fuddy Waters! It’s all a cover-up by EMI – they’re British, y’know?”

    😉

  118. avatar
    The Magic M March 29, 2012 at 8:41 am #

    Majority Will:
    It’s time to apply The Jablonski Empty Chair Technique here.

    It’s the only known counter-defense against the Chewbacca Defense.

  119. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 29, 2012 at 8:51 am #

    Dr. Sinclair signed the birth certificate stating that he witnessed the birth and Barack Obama showed the press a certified copy of the certificate which amounts to an affidavit. Obama’s mother also signed the certificate.

    So nobody witnessed the birth, except two people who signed statements to that effect.

    bovril: but no one was there and saw the child born in the hospital of record, so everything else is hearsay.

  120. avatar
    Northland10 March 29, 2012 at 9:04 am #

    TJ, does enjoy quoting the incorrect law. 1738 regards records from proceedings. 1739 is the one for records such as BCs.

  121. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 29, 2012 at 9:08 am #

    Yipes! Not a word about birth certificates! Not a hint about birth certificates! Not a reference to birth certificates even by implication!

    But then, one would not expect to find anything about birth certificates in the section of the US Code on JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. What fool would look for it there?

    Maybe look for it under NONJUDICIAL RECORDS?

    28 USC 1739 – State and Territorial nonjudicial records; full faith and credit

    All nonjudicial records or books kept in any public office of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in any other State, Territory, or Possession by the attestation of the custodian of such records or books, and the seal of his office annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of a judge of a court of record of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State, Territory, or Possession that the said attestation is in due form and by the proper officers.

    If the certificate is given by a judge, it shall be further authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary of the court, who shall certify, under his hand and the seal of his office, that such judge is duly commissioned and qualified; or, if given by such Governor, secretary, chancellor, or keeper of the great seal, it shall be under the great seal of the State, Territory, or Possession in which it is made.

    Such records or books, or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court and office within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts or offices of the State, Territory, or Possession from which they are taken.

    Birthers are so easy.

    traderjack: You are deluded , aren’t you?

    Full faith and credit applies”?

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1738

    See anything in there about birth certificates?

  122. avatar
    Paper March 29, 2012 at 9:22 am #

    If a baby is born without anyone around to hear, does it still make a sound?

    If a baby is born with no one around to see, did the baby have a mother?

    If someone is born in the country and no birthers are around to see, do birth certificates exist?

    If a president is born in the country and no birthers are around to see, do birthers cry like babies?

    traderjack:
    there is no proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, there is evidence of such a statement, but no one was there and saw the child born in the hospital of record, so everything else is hearsay.

  123. avatar
    JPotter March 29, 2012 at 9:31 am #

    Majority Will: It’s time to apply The Jablonski Empty Chair Technique here.

    Called that days ago! But he does serve up such fat, tempting morsels.

  124. avatar
    Scientist March 29, 2012 at 10:01 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Dr. Sinclair signed the birth certificate stating that he witnessed the birth and Barack Obama showed the press a certified copy of the certificate which amounts to an affidavit. Obama’s mother also signed the certificate.
    So nobody witnessed the birth, except two people who signed statements to that effect.

    Those don’t count! Dr Sinclair was paid off by a very young George Soros! And we have all read of crooked doctors, right? Ergo, Sinclair was a crook (even though no one ever accused him of any improprieties). And Obama’s mother was part of the Dunham gang, which terrorized Hawaii for decades, right? Well, even if she wasn’t and never was accused of lying in her whole life, it still doesn’t count.

    No, the only valid signature on a birth certificate is Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. An attorney and a dentist. Actually, I knew a dentist/attorney. He pled guilty to insuurance fraud and lost both licenses (that is 100% true). But Orly is honest as the day is long…

  125. avatar
    Sef March 29, 2012 at 11:01 am #

    Scientist: And Obama’s mother was part of the Dunham gang, which terrorized Hawaii for decades, right?

    At least we haven’t seen Wo Fat show up in the birtherpalooza, yet.

  126. avatar
    G March 29, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

    Strongly agreed! That really is the whole point and all that matters on this specific issue.

    A certified birth certificate IS protected and maintained by state government regulations and IS used for verification in state and federal identification purposes of individuals and can be used as a requirement for issuance of further documents or privileges, which are also granted by the government. That authority comes from acts of law and the document is used for official purposes as a validation record in accordance with that act. Therefore yes, it is a state certified record entitled to those protections and required to be accepted as “self-evident”.

    Keith: traderjack: OK, you are a group of good american citizen who have made up your mind…
    You are deluded , aren’t you?

    No you are the delusional one. How is it that you can argue how “even letter, dot, comma, semicoln, word,” has anything to do with anything and ignore the only thing that is important to any of this: the birth date and location. That is what is being certified by the Birth Certificate , not “even letter, dot, comma, semicoln, word”.

    Keith: Yes, we ” have verified their statements by looking at all evidence, including the birth at the claimed hospital “. Such evidence includes observing the chain of possession of the original records and the contemporary corroborating evidence including birth announcements in the local newspapers.

    Yes, we “can provide evidence it is all 100% valid and correct”. That evidence is the birth certificate, which is a self-validating document containing all the security icons required by State and Federal law to ensure that it is what it says it is.

    “, and that are prepared to If there is ever any reason to “defend it in court.” it will defend it self. It is a self-validating document containing all the security icons required by State and Federal law to ensure that it is what it says it is.

  127. avatar
    traderjack March 29, 2012 at 2:59 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy, From your post:”All nonjudicial records or books kept in any public office of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in any other State, Territory, or Possession by the attestation of the custodian of such records or books, and the seal of his office annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of a judge of a court of record of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State, Territory, or Possession that the said attestation is in due form and by the proper officers

    perhaps you can interpet this section of that law:
    ” together with a certificate of a judge of a court of record of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State, Territory, or Possession that the said attestation is in due form and by the proper officers”

    And, as you quoted this section of the law, I will ask you where is that certificate of a judge of a court of record on Obama’a BC

    Or is it that the law does not really require that the said certificate of a judge has to be attested to by the proper officers

    I am waiting, folk, I am waiting.

  128. avatar
    traderjack March 29, 2012 at 3:55 pm #

    Now given the apparent meaning of that section of the law, do you think any court has seen the BC with the proper certificate that seems to be required.

    And, would that no seem to indicate that the mere certification is not suffiecient to establish the veritiy of the document, as it requires certification by a judge of a court of the county to be considered to have enough merit to meet the full faith and credti requiements of the law

  129. avatar
    Paper March 29, 2012 at 4:07 pm #

    No need to wait. You can acknowledge the president was born in Hawaii anytime you want. Otherwise, I suppose, Godot will get to you b and by.

    traderjack: I am waiting, folk, I am waiting.

  130. avatar
    nbc March 29, 2012 at 4:14 pm #

    traderjack: Now given the apparent meaning of that section of the law, do you think any court has seen the BC with the proper certificate that seems to be required.

    And, would that no seem to indicate that the mere certification is not suffiecient to establish the veritiy of the document, as it requires certification by a judge of a court of the county to be considered to have enough merit to meet the full faith and credti requiements of the law

    Are you familiar with the rules of evidence? The courts so far have not been presented with any such form although some plaintiffs foolishly introduced evidence that showed President Obama to be natural born by prima facia evidence.

    President Obama’s birth on US soil is by now commonly known fact, getting courts to take the musings about the birth certificate seriously requires one to overcome a significant hurdle. So far there is nothing to suggest that there is any such foundation.

    Sure, the document could be a fake, the document could truthfully represent an underlying false registration document but such implausible claims require a bit more evidence than just hand waving.

  131. avatar
    nbc March 29, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    traderjack: OK, you are a group of good american citizen who have made up your mind that the government of Hawaii has looked at the Hawaiian Birth Certificate of Barak Hussein Obama, and the HDOH has checked and verified that even letter, dot, comma, semicoln, word, has been attested to by the originall signers of the original birth certificate, and have verified their statements by looking at all evidence, including the birth at the claimed hospital , and can provide evidence it is all 100% valid and correct, and that are prepared to defend it in court.

    You are deluded , aren’t you?

    Ironic isn’t it… But yes, the DOH has released two documents both of which attest to the fact of President Obama’s birth and the signature certifies the document to be true copy or abstract. In addition, the Governor has released a statement

    “We hope that issuing certified copies of the original Certificate of Live Birth to President Obama will end the numerous inquiries related to his birth in Hawai„i,” Hawai„i Health Director Loretta Fuddy said. “I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to the authenticity of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawai„i.”

    It’s so simple… What are you missing?

  132. avatar
    traderjack March 29, 2012 at 4:33 pm #

    Ah, just as I thought. When I show you that the BC doesn’t meet the standards for having the full faith and credit of the state behind it, you ignore that and just claim everyone knows that Obama was born there, and the HDOH have certified it!

    But when the law says the certification is not sufficient to meet the standards of the law as it does have have the judicial approvall of it, it means nothing to you.

    Why do you think it requires a judge and certification by state to meet the standards?

    Oh, that is just legal stuff , and we don’t believe the laws have to be met in all circumstances.

    And you probably are willing to say Zimmerman should be on death row

  133. avatar
    bovril March 29, 2012 at 4:53 pm #

    No Jackie you haven’t “show you that the BC doesn’t meet the standards for having the full faith and credit of the state behind it,

    Both the documents are certified
    Both the documents are sealed (as in have a seal)
    Both documents were issued by the appropriate and competent authority in Hawai’i
    Both documents and theior provenance have been attested to by said appropriate and competent authorities

    They’re good to go, you’re full of the brown and odorous

  134. avatar
    bovril March 29, 2012 at 4:56 pm #

    Oh and Jackie dear,

    Still waiting on a rebuttal to this

    ========================
    Classic line of stupidity by “Trading with Jack”

    there is no proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, there is evidence of such a statement, but no one was there and saw the child born in the hospital of record, so everything else is hearsay.

    So,

    The great legal mind of the todger says that he needs “evidence”
    Said “evidence” needs to come from someone who was there at the time of the birth
    Said “evidence” needs to be a statement from said individuals
    Everything else is “hearsay”

    Yo Todger, minor problems, the largest and one that demonstartes your rank idiocy and failure to grasp the concepts a 5 year old would….

    ANY SUCH STATEMENTS WOULD BE HEARSAY……..

    The ONLY LEGAL exception to the hearsay rule in this specific case is the record.

    Prat.
    ===========================

  135. avatar
    G March 29, 2012 at 5:01 pm #

    Agreed. That says it all.

    bovril: No Jackie you haven’t “shown you that the BC doesn’t meet the standards for having the full faith and credit of the state behind it,
    Both the documents are certified
    Both the documents are sealed (as in have a seal)
    Both documents were issued by the appropriate and competent authority in Hawai’i
    Both documents and theior provenance have been attested to by said appropriate and competent authorities

    They’re good to go, you’re full of the brown and odorous

  136. avatar
    G March 29, 2012 at 5:05 pm #

    A completely irrelevant issue which has ZERO connection to the topic at hand or this blog in total.

    What a bogus strawman, made up of only words that you yourself have uttered as a position, in response to absolutely no one at all.

    traderjack: And you probably are willing to say Zimmerman should be on death row

  137. avatar
    Scientist March 29, 2012 at 5:14 pm #

    traderjack: just claim everyone knows that Obama was born there,

    I know he was born in Hawaii. I was present. You can try and ignore the truth, but the truth shines through your ignorance.

  138. avatar
    JPotter March 29, 2012 at 6:26 pm #

    Scientist: I know he was born in Hawaii. I was present. You can try and ignore the truth, but the truth shines through your ignorance.

    I saw the birth video, so did Trump, Seth Meyer, and a room full of press 😉

  139. avatar
    traderjack March 29, 2012 at 6:43 pm #

    bovril: All nonjudicial records or books kept in any public office of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in any other State, Territory, or Possession by the attestation of the custodian of such records or books, and the seal of his office annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of a judge of a court of record of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State, Territory, or Possession that the said attestation is in due form and by the proper officers

    I knew you would all ignore the fact that the certified document has to with the certification a certificate of a judge of a court of record of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State, Territory, or Possession that the said attestation is in due form and by the proper officers</blockquote

    Now, that is the way full faith and credit is established for the BC. Has it been done? Not that I have seen and most of the posters did not know that it required something more than Onaka's certification to have the "full faith and credit" of the state of Hawaii behind it.

    And , you refuse to believe it now.

    How much are you paid ot be this dishonest.

  140. avatar
    Northland10 March 29, 2012 at 6:45 pm #

    Thr statute said a judge,or the governor,or theSOS, or ….

    Jack, you read it wrong or your lying. Which?

  141. avatar
    Scientist March 29, 2012 at 6:47 pm #

    traderjack: How much are you paid ot be this dishonest.

    Let’s test your honesty. Where was Mitt Romney born? How do you know? I will take your refusal to answer as evidence that you are a paid Republican shill. Do they pay better than the Dems?

  142. avatar
    traderjack March 29, 2012 at 7:17 pm #

    Scientist: Let’s test your honesty. Where was Mitt Romney born? How do you know? I will take your refusal to answer as evidence that you are a paid Republican shill. Do they pay better than the Dems?

    I don’t know when he was born, I don’t know who I will vote for on the Republican side, and I have been retired for 30 years, and I don’t even know who I will vote for in the Primary Election.

    Bachman was my favorite candidate and since then I pay little attention to the political rhetoric.

  143. avatar
    traderjack March 29, 2012 at 7:20 pm #

    Northland10: Thr statute said a judge,or the governor,or theSOS, or ….Jack, you read it wrong or your lying. Which?

    i don’t lie for political purposes or in discussions.

    It says , if you read it, the certified document with the seal must be accompanied with a another certification from a judge , and the others referred to in the law

  144. avatar
    Majority Will March 29, 2012 at 8:04 pm #

    traderjack: Bachman was my favorite candidate and since then I pay little attention to the political rhetoric.

    The same Michele Bachmann who received taxpayer provided farm subsidies but railed against bailouts destructive, greedy socialism? Did you ever see her farming? The same Michele Bachmann that suspended her campaign rather than end it so she could receive taxpayer provided federal funds for campaign debts on the very same day she shrieked about the evils of socialism to her faithful sycophants?

    You did demand to see her certified birth records too, right?

  145. avatar
    Majority Will March 29, 2012 at 8:05 pm #

    traderjack: i don’t lie for political purposes or in discussions.

    I don’t believe you.

  146. avatar
    Scientist March 29, 2012 at 8:41 pm #

    traderjack: I don’t know when he was born, I don’t know who I will vote for on the Republican side, and I have been retired for 30 years, and I don’t even know who I will vote for in the Primary Election.
    Bachman was my favorite candidate and since then I pay little attention to the political rhetoric.

    You don’t know where any of the Republicans was born at least by the standards you apply to Obama. That seems not to bother you. Yet you seem to think where Obama was born is of major consequence. Do you see the extreme bias in that position or do you need an explanation?

    Retired for 30 years? Are you 95? Are there any birthers under 80? Perhaps you should take up a better hobby. Birthin doesn’t seem to be getting you anywhere.

  147. avatar
    y_p_w March 29, 2012 at 8:50 pm #

    traderjack: I knew you would all ignore the fact that the certified document has to with the certification a certificate of a judge of a court of record of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State, Territory, or Possession that the said attestation is in due form and by the proper officers</blockquoteNow, that is the way full faith and credit is established for the BC. Has it been done? Not that I have seen and most of the posters did not know that it required something more than Onaka’s certification to have the “full faith and credit” of the state of Hawaii behind it.And , you refuse to believe it now.How much are you paid ot be this dishonest.

    While yes – you quoted 28 USC 1739 in its entirety, that complex turns of phrase aren’t how it works in the real world. Having a judge sign off on a birth certificate every time it needs to be used to get a driver license or for any other governmental purposes just isn’t practical. He’s the code by the way for anyone who doubts this is the law:

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title28/pdf/USCODE-2009-title28-partV-chap115-sec1738C.pdf

    However, the way it works in the real world is that the US government publishes the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to clarify what the law means in the real world. Official records are covered by Rule 44 (page 62 of the following) which is in fact mentioned in the GPO’s annotations of 28 USC 1739 :

    http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/2010%20Rules/Civil%20Procedure.pdf

    Rule 44. Proving an Official Record

    (a) MEANS OF PROVING.

    (1) Domestic Record. Each of the following evidences an official
    record—or an entry in it—that is otherwise admissible
    and is kept within the United States, any state, district, or
    commonwealth, or any territory subject to the administrative
    or judicial jurisdiction of the United States:
    (A) an official publication of the record; or
    (B) a copy attested by the officer with legal custody of
    the record—or by the officer’s deputy—and accompanied
    by a certificate that the officer has custody. The certificate
    must be made under seal:
    (i) by a judge of a court of record in the district or
    political subdivision where the record is kept; or
    (ii) by any public officer with a seal of office and
    with official duties in the district or political subdivision
    where the record is kept.

  148. avatar
    y_p_w March 29, 2012 at 9:14 pm #

    The way that 28 USC 1739 has worked in the real world is rather interesting. Here’s a book from 1949 It mentions that state law doesn’t require that level of authentication in order to be recognized as official by a state.

    http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1342&context=flr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddoes%2520usc%252028%25201739%2520mean%2520that%2520i%2520have%2520to%2520get%2520a%2520judge%2520to%2520sign%2520off%2520on%2520a%2520birth%2520certificate%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D9%26ved%3D0CFQQFjAI%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fir.lawnet.fordham.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1342%2526context%253Dflr%26ei%3DWQR1T7miC6bjiAL3xcmnDg%26usg%3DAFQjCNFYfFFGew6ME0hPtZFi7UYu7wNQuw#search=%22does%20usc%2028%201739%20mean%20have%20get%20judge%20sign%20off%20birth%20certificate%22

    Nonjudicial Records. Section 1739 covers the authentication of nonjudicial
    records of states, territories and possessions of the United States.
    Copies of such records are authenticated by the attestation of the custodian
    under the seal of his office, if any, together with a certificate of
    a judge of a local court of record that the attestation is in due form and
    by the proper officer. The certificate may also be made under the great
    seal by the Governor, Secretary of State, Chancellor or keeper of such
    seal. If made by a judge, the certificate must itself be authenticated
    by the clerk of the court, who is to certify under the seal of the court
    that the judge is duly commissioned and qualified.

    This section does call for a dual certificate where the authentication
    is made by a judge. The certificate is not, however, reciprocal. The
    judge does not certify the authority of the clerk by whom his own
    authority is certified. The judge authenticates the certification made by
    the nonjudicial custodian. The clerk of the court authenticates, under
    the seal of that court, the certificate of the judge. Thus the seal of the
    court is enough by way of ultimate authentication in the case of judicial
    records from states, territories and possessions of the United States.
    In the case of nonjudicial records so originating, either the seal of the
    court or the great seal is enough.
    In Nolan v. Nolan, 35 App. Div. 339
    (2d Dep’t 1898), the court excluded a copy of an Illinois death certificate
    because the certification was insufficient in form under C.C.P. 957,
    now C.P.A. 329. The court also observed, however, that the authentication
    was insufficient under the federal statute.

  149. avatar
    traderjack March 29, 2012 at 10:11 pm #

    Ah, well, it is good that some of you are honest enough to see that there is a problem, and that the mere certification by the recorder may not be sufficient in the federal courts.

    Are the rest of you prepared to drop the “full faith and credit” stuff as being sufficient to establish , in toto, the validity of any birth certificate.

    Why did you think California had to drop the COLB if the feds would not accept it for residency, if the document carried the full faith and credit of the State with it?

    That is not to say that everything on Obama’s BC is not correct, in may, in fact, be correct!

    I don’t know?

    And no one will let anyone see the original to verify the accuracy, it that is at all possible.

  150. avatar
    y_p_w March 29, 2012 at 10:15 pm #

    traderjack: i don’t lie for political purposes or in discussions.
    It says , if you read it, the certified document with the seal must be accompanied with a another certification from a judge , and the others referred to in the law

    And what would be the interpretation be of who is a “secretary of state”, “chancellor”, or “keeper of the great seal”? For that matter, what’s the definition of “the great seal”?

    Besides all that, it one insists on being literal, it would be a simple matter of a judge (is Judge Nishimura available?) signing a statement that the signatures of certain Hawaii government officials (namely one Alvin T. Onaka) is sufficient for attestation. Or perhaps Governor Abercrombie. Since Hawaii doesn’t have a Secretary of State, those responsibilities go to the Lietenant Governor (currently Brian Schatz). His office handles Apostilles, which are general a Secretary of State function in most states.

    As a practical matter, the vast majority of government offices or courts don’t really care, because they don’t invoke FF&C. They accept sealed documents as a matter of course, whether it’s the local DMV or the State Dept’s Bureau of Consular Affairs. There’s no requirement that a document accepted by a government office or a court must meet all the stipulations of 28 USC 1739. As a practical matter, most local, state, and federal offices follow Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I guess if there were some case where an office or court would refuse such a document, then one could go back to the state and ask a judge in the county, the Governor, or the Secretary of State (Lt. Governor for Hawaii) to sign a certification that the attestation is in the correct form and by the correct people, then attach it as they would an Apostille.

    The State of Hawaii does have a procedure for certifications. Apparently they do make it a little bit more interesting, as they require an original signature on any document to be certified and not a reproduction. So if this came down to the point where he legally needs this, Obama writes another letter to the Director of Health asking that Onaka personally sign the BC, then the Lt. Governor can handle the certification.

    http://hawaii.gov/ltgov/office/apostilles

    2. Persons born, married or divorced in the State of Hawaii, must request a certified copy
    that displays the ORIGINAL SIGNATURE (not a stamped signature) from the State
    Registrar of the Department of Health. Submit your request and specify what country your document(s) are bound for, along with a check, money order or cashier’s check for $10.00 per document to the Department of Health, Vital Records, P.O. Box 3378, Honolulu, Hawaii 96801, (808) 586-4539.(Birth Certificates and Marriage Certificates can only be notarized by the Dept.of Health,Vital Records).

  151. avatar
    G March 29, 2012 at 10:28 pm #

    You are truly delusional. You have completely ignored what all the responses you’ve been given have told you, especially y_p_w’s posts.

    There is nothing for us to drop. The citations and examples given to you clearly demonstrate that these certified documents are accepted between states at face value.

    If you want to challenge them in a court, you had better have sufficient evidence BEFOREHAND to contest their credibility. Otherwise, these certified BC documents HAVE to be accepted at FACE VALUE in EVERY state in this nation.

    You are the one who has lost all arguments here and simply keeps ignoring the answers you are given. All you do is pretend you didn’t hear anything and either make the same incorrect statement over again or shift the goalposts to something irrelevant.

    You are in deep and irrevocable denial and a flimsy Concern Troll to boot. No one is falling for your shams and your insincerity is as transparent as it gets.

    traderjack: Ah, well, it is good that some of you are honest enough to see that there is a problem, and that the mere certification by the recorder may not be sufficient in the federal courts.
    Are the rest of you prepared to drop the “full faith and credit” stuff as being sufficient to establish , in toto, the validity of any birth certificate.
    Why did you think California had to drop the COLB if the feds would not accept it for residency, if the document carried the full faith and credit of the State with it?

  152. avatar
    Majority Will March 29, 2012 at 10:29 pm #

    traderjack: honest enough

    What kind of nicknames did people have for minorities when you were growing up in the 20s and 30s?

  153. avatar
    JPotter March 29, 2012 at 10:31 pm #

    traderjack: Are the rest of you prepared to drop the “full faith and credit” stuff

    Always this dismissive of the Constitution, Jack?

    traderjack: Why did you think California had to drop the COLB if the feds would not accept it for residency, if the document carried the full faith and credit of the State with it?

    Because federal authority supersedes state authority. If a state document is problematic to another state, make a federal case out of it. If the federal gov’t has a problem with a state, they’ll make a federal case out of it.

    traderjack: And no one will let anyone see the original to verify the accuracy, it that is at all possible.

    Get a court order. All you have to do is provide a proper authority with a compelling cause and a well-built case.

  154. avatar
    y_p_w March 29, 2012 at 10:35 pm #

    traderjack: Ah, well, it is good that some of you are honest enough to see that there is a problem, and that the mere certification by the recorder may not be sufficient in the federal courts.Are the rest of you prepared to drop the “full faith and credit” stuff as being sufficient to establish , in toto, the validity of any birth certificate.Why did you think California had to drop the COLB if the feds would not accept it for residency, if the document carried the full faith and credit of the State with it?That is not to say that everything on Obama’s BC is not correct, in may, in fact, be correct!I don’t know? And no one will let anyone see the original to verify the accuracy, it that is at all possible.

    The federal courts don’t invoke FF&C. FF&C is only applied to states. The admissability of a “self-authenticating document” in the federal courts is governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 902:

    http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/112th/evidence2011.pdf

    Rule 902. Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating

    The following items of evidence are self-authenticating; they require
    no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted:

    (1) Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed. A
    document that bears:

    (A) a seal purporting to be that of the United States; any
    state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession
    of the United States; the former Panama Canal Zone;
    the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; a political subdivision
    of any of these entities; or a department, agency,
    or officer of any entity named above; and

    (B) a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation.

    California dropped their Certified Abstract of Birth because it was getting forged left and right. It didn’t even contain an embossed seal.

    As I said before FF&C and a requirement that a judge of state constitutional officer sign a certificate isn’t required when a government office accepts a record from a state or local government office. If it were, then the State Dept would never have accepted my kid’s California Certificate of Live Birth for a passport application. Somehow they issued a passport without a separate certificate from a judge, the Governor, or the SoS. As a practical matter, no government agency cares, and Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are generally what’s followed.

  155. avatar
    Northland10 March 29, 2012 at 10:37 pm #

    Well, here is a judge who does not appear to have a problem with the President’s birthplace. He even completes an official act with the President.

    http://youtu.be/knVOAr4U8l0

  156. avatar
    y_p_w March 29, 2012 at 10:52 pm #

    G: If you want to challenge them in a court, you had better have sufficient evidence BEFOREHAND to contest their credibility. Otherwise, these certified BC documents HAVE to be accepted at FACE VALUE in EVERY state in this nation.

    Which courts though? I noted that federal courts (or agencies) aren’t subject to FF&C or 28 USC 1739, and apply Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

    I guess someone could get hypertechnical and ask that a state court apply the exact requirements of 28 USC 1739 to admit a vital record into evidence. However, it occurs to me that 28 USC 1739 doesn’t say that it’s the only way that a non-judicial record is authenticated, but that the outlined procedure would guarantees that a vital record would be accepted under FF&C. I don’t know how often it comes up that a government agency refuses a certified vital record like a birth certificate just because it didn’t come with a certificate from a judge, Governor, or SoS. You know – I’ve seen plenty of driver license applications from different states, and I’ve never seen it required.

    I for one sure as heck don’t want to have to write to the California SoS every time I need to submit my marriage certificate to a government agency. If it’s a California, then FF&C probably doesn’t apply because a state will inherently trust its own documents.

  157. avatar
    traderjack March 29, 2012 at 11:59 pm #

    Well, damn, that there is some good discussion VPW, it sees the problem explains the postions held, and does not automatically assume that everything that everyone else believs in is completely accurate.

    I have no complaints about your discussion of the situation.

    I agree with your discussion.

    I just want people to realize that because the constitution has words in it, those words do not cover those things that are relatively unimportant to the society.

    and, in effect, says that if there are disputible facts about the document being sealed and certified ,that sometimes it is necessary to have a judge, and the government agree that the document may be properly admitted and considered as evidence without discussion of its merits.

    I have said before that the object of the words is to get the information before the court easily, and let it be tested in the court , if necessary.

    For instance, a certified death certificate will be entered , but the opponents can challenge the information in the death certificate, can they not.

  158. avatar
    JPotter March 30, 2012 at 12:23 am #

    traderjack: I just want people to realize that because the constitution has words in it, those words do not cover those things that are relatively unimportant to the society.

    Thankfully, courts do not agree. What a dangerous precedent you have in mind there, Jackie-me-boy!

    You’re continuing along in theoreticals. Which don’t apply to the specific case you would like it to. And thereby going in circles.

    You’re describing just what birthers have done, are doing, and will continue to do. What’s missing? Any sort of probable cause or reasonable doubt.

  159. avatar
    y_p_w March 30, 2012 at 12:45 am #

    traderjack: For instance, a certified death certificate will be entered , but the opponents can challenge the information in the death certificate, can they not.

    Perhaps the opinions of a coroner on cause of death. However, a birth certificate generally deals with facts. I could imagine a legitimate challenge that a death was ruled a suicide, but it’s going to be much harder to challenge a birth certificate on facts such as place of birth or time of birth.

    The fact is that government agencies accept birth certificates at face value almost all the time. If the State Dept had to get detailed on every birth certificate submitted for passports, they would have issues getting people to apply, and/or they would spend way too much time adjudicating birth certificates.

    To myself, all the official statements of the Hawaii Dept of Health and the two governors is sufficient to establish that Obama was born in Hawaii. Obama’s birth certificate is not currently before a court. Even so, most courts aren’t going to ask for the strict language of the US statute. A state is allowed to make its own criteria for accepting authenticated records, as long as they also comply with the mandates of FF&C.

  160. avatar
    traderjack March 30, 2012 at 2:34 am #

    there are 10,000 people swimming in the water and one white shark is seen, 10,000 people leave the water, even though they don’t know if the shark is hungry or not.

    there is one chance in 10,000 that some bad will happen to one of them , and they ll flee.

    There is a chance, that the Obama BC was a filing for an out-of-country birth that would affect his eligibility to be president, And no one except birthers care about that possiblitiy!

    Why, because they don’t think it will affect them personally, so what difference does it mke?

  161. avatar
    y_p_w March 30, 2012 at 2:48 am #

    traderjack: There is a chance, that the Obama BC was a filing for an out-of-country birth that would affect his eligibility to be president, And no one except birthers care about that possiblitiy!

    Yeah – and there’s a chance that Mitt Romney was born in Canada. Or that Santorum was born in the land of his ancestors – Italy. If they produce their birth certificates detailing their birth in the US, I’ll believe it.

    However, the White House has issued several scans of Obama’s LFBC, and the Hawaii Dept of Health has linked to that scan. That’s pretty convincing to me.

    In the absence of credible evidence that Obama was born somewhere else (and I haven’t seen it) then the default position is that the birth certificate image on the WH servers is accurate. in addition to that, many of the birther fishing expeditions for dirt on Obama have revealed government agencies that determined that BHO II was indeed born in Honolulu.

  162. avatar
    JPotter March 30, 2012 at 3:24 am #

    traderjack: there are 10,000 people swimming in the water and one white shark is seen, 10,000 people leave the water, even though they don’t know if the shark is hungry or not.

    Jack, your water keeps getting more crowded. Last time it was 1,000 people.

    Your indulging in the same error that drives the sale of lottery tickets. The type of flawed reasoning that would let anything go. If someone can imagine it, then it must be investigated. Rights, reason, sanity, decorum, decency, procedure, damn them all!

    There is no reasonable cause to suspect the possibility or to pursue it.

    No one questions your right to conjecture, to research, to file lawsuits, FOIA requests, whatever, knock yourself out. I would defend your right to do so and indulge in my own right to do so if i felt the need.

  163. avatar
    The Magic M March 30, 2012 at 4:36 am #

    JPotter: You’re indulging in the same error that drives the sale of lottery tickets.

    I think birther logic rather works like the guy who always takes a bomb with him when traveling by plane since the odds of having TWO bombs on the same plane are astronomically small. 😉

    (and fixed the birther grammar, don’t get infected by them ;))

  164. avatar
    The Magic M March 30, 2012 at 4:42 am #

    traderjack: There is a chance, that the Obama BC was a filing for an out-of-country birth that would affect his eligibility to be president

    You are free to “investigate” any random issue, as low as the probability of your opinion being true may be.
    The point however is that birthers still don’t have a shred of evidence that an alternative to the Obama birth story is true.
    All you do is keep piling up atoms in the hope one day you can see the hill with your naked eye.
    Because all birthers have been able to do so far is make the remote chance that Obama was born in Kenya appear even less probable than at the beginning.

    traderjack: And no one except birthers care about that possiblitiy!

    I don’t have a problem with birthers “caring about that possibility”. What I do have a problem with is that obviously none of them is able to care in an even remotely truthful way. Each and every one of them keeps telling lies, obfuscating the truth, making wild allegations combined with an attempt to shift the burden of proof etc.
    It’s not without reason that birthers used to love the term “intellectual dishonesty” (applied to non-birthers) – since they are all excellent at projection, they knew very well how it applied to them

    As I’ve always said: if your movement were about honestly uncovering the truth, you wouldn’t have to lie, lie, then lie again in the process.

    And you wonder why sane people don’t take you seriously.

  165. avatar
    Paper March 30, 2012 at 5:07 am #

    The actual analogy appropriate to this situation though is that no white shark has been seen, but some practical jokers start screaming shark, shark! Most importantly, they are not at the beach; they are in a swimming pool in the suburbs of Chicago.

    So that is how much chance there is that Obama was born out of country. I mean, if you want to be precise, using odds appropriate to the most unlikely of quantum level events.

    traderjack:
    there are 10,000 people swimming in the water and one white shark is seen,10,000 people leave the water, even though they don’t know if the shark is hungry or not.

    there is one chance in 10,000 that some bad will happen to one of them , and they ll flee.

    There is a chance, that the Obama BC was a filing for an out-of-country birth that would affect his eligibility to be president, And no one except birthers care about that possiblitiy!

    Why, because they don’t think it will affect them personally, so what difference does it mke?

  166. avatar
    J. Potter March 30, 2012 at 5:26 am #

    The Magic M: (and fixed the birther grammar, don’t get infected by them 😉 )

    Like it or not, birthers are a subset humans, too. We all err away. Esp when assisted by any sort of “autocorrect”! To be safe, I Purel’d my monitor 😀

    This shark thing is Jackie’s most blatant concern trope. So kind of him to share it will all of you. I know I always enjoy it. I would correct his logic by pointing out that, while it is common knowledge that sharks live in the ocean, people still get in the water. Beaches are still top destinations. Hell, people watch Jaws and then swim in the ocean. Are you going to move to the mountains because there are sharks in the ocean?

    Do you spend the day in a bomb shelter when there’s a report of falling space debris?

  167. avatar
    Scientist March 30, 2012 at 7:01 am #

    traderjack: There is a chance, that the Obama BC was a filing for an out-of-country birth that would affect his eligibility to be president, And no one except birthers care about that possiblitiy!

    Why does it matter? Most historians rate Lincoln one of the greatest, if not the greatest President. Suppose someone came forward tomorrow with incontrovertible evidence that he had been born in Norway, came to the US as a young child and was adopted by the Lincoln family and therefore had been, technically, ineligible. So what? Would it change any of the things he did as President? Nope. Same is true of Obama. Most people, myself included, actually don’t care about the legal ins and outs of eligibility, especially with an incumbent. If the guy did a good job in his first term, what difference does it make if there was a 0.0001% chance that he was born somewhere else and entered the country as a 2-day old baby? Can I be absolutely sure any of the challengers weren’t born outside the US? No, not by your standards.

    If the choice is: Obama with a 0.0001% chance of being born in Kenya vs Romney with a 25% chance of having been born in Canada (given that it is right across the river from Detroit), the choice is easy. Especially since the public has now come to accept that Obama did a reasonably good job given the really, really bad situation when he took over.

    So, you are right, no one cares. Let’s move on.

  168. avatar
    Northland10 March 30, 2012 at 7:23 am #

    traderjack: For instance, a certified death certificate will be entered , but the opponents can challenge the information in the death certificate, can they not.

    Only if they have credible evidence that something, beyond what is on the certificate actually happened. If the certificate states cause was one thing, but, somebody could show proof that the primary cause was something different, then it might be possible to challenge.

    traderjack: There is a chance, that the Obama BC was a filing for an out-of-country birth that would affect his eligibility to be president, And no one except birthers care about that possiblitiy!

    The Birthers want to inspect the document on suspicion only with no proof that there was an out-of-country birth. In terms of law, believing something happened is not sufficient. You must actually have hard evidence that it indeed happened. Only then would there be enough to potentially create a need to inspect the document further. For now, though, the DOH word is final.

    PDF parlor tricks and doubt will never work. Only physical proof to the contrary will allow the Birthers to get close to their holy grail of discovery.

  169. avatar
    Keith March 30, 2012 at 10:29 am #

    traderjack: There is a chance, that the Obama BC was a filing for an out-of-country birth that would affect his eligibility to be president, And no one except birthers care about that possiblitiy!

    Incorrect. There is NO chance that “the Obama BC was a filing for an out-of-country birth”.

    None.

    Not 1 in 10,000. Not 1 in a million. Not 1 in a googleplex cubed.

    Zero.

    Nada.

    Zip.

    Naught.

    Hawai’i didn’t allow such “out of country” registrations in 1961. It didn’t happen.

    Even if Hawai’i had allowed such registrations, it would have been called “Certificate of Foreign Birth” (or some such wording) not “Certificate of Live Birth”. AND it would have listed the ACTUAL foreign birth location; if he was born in Mombasa it would say Mombasa, NOT Honolulu.

    There is not possibility what-so-ever.

  170. avatar
    Keith March 30, 2012 at 10:32 am #

    Scientist: Suppose someone came forward tomorrow with incontrovertible evidence that he had been born in Norway, came to the US as a young child and was adopted by the Lincoln family and therefore had been, technically, ineligible.

    How silly is that strawman? Lincoln had dark hair.

  171. avatar
    The Magic M March 30, 2012 at 11:19 am #

    Northland10: If the certificate states cause was one thing, but, somebody could show proof that the primary cause was something different, then it might be possible to challenge.

    Maybe birthers misunderstand one important thing.

    The birth certificate is prima facie evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    To tackle prima facie evidence, you have two options:

    (1) Provide evidence that the information on the document is incorrect.

    (2) Provide evidence that the document has been forged.

    Birthers cannot do either. All they have is “I suspect it might be a forgery so I’m entitled to look at it”, backed up by speculation that it is not impossible the information is incorrect. This will get them laughed out of every court in every country in the world in every case they build upon such arguments.

    The one thing birthers don’t get, simply because they don’t like it, is this:
    Even if a government document was actually forged, the only way to tackle its credibility would be to bring evidence that points to forgery in the first place.

    And even if, arguendo, the White House PDF was forged, that doesn’t magically consist evidence the original was forged, too.
    Otherwise I could forge a scan of Jerome Corsi’s birth certificate, put it somewhere on the internet and then claim this constitutes “probable cause” that his original documents are forgeries and his birth state is not to be trusted and I need to see the original.

  172. avatar
    Scientist March 30, 2012 at 11:24 am #

    Keith: How silly is that strawman? Lincoln had dark hair.

    Now, come on Kieth, stop with the stereotypes. Not all Norwegians are blond-I give you Eric the Red.

    Anyway, let’s use Grade A Birther Logic here. We’ve all heard about the Obama Monument in Nairobi, but no one has actually seen it. But, in Oslo, there is a Lincoln Monument in the main city park, Frogner Park, and it is very well known http://digitalhorizonsonline.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/uw&CISOPTR=1650&CISOBOX=1&REC=2

    So, there can be no Birther Doubt that Lincoln was born in Norway. And where is his US birth certificate to show otherwise? Where are the living eyewitnesses to his supposed US birth? I rest my case.

    But as a non-Birther, I don’t care where Lincoln was born; eligible or not, he was a great President and a fine human being.

  173. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 30, 2012 at 11:25 am #

    Keith: How silly is that strawman? Lincoln had dark hair.

    Maybe he was Black Norwegian? That would explain the sallow complexion, too: he was pining for the fjords!

  174. avatar
    The Magic M March 30, 2012 at 11:26 am #

    And one final thing:

    Let’s suppose in a parallel universe birthers are right and it ultimately turns out Obama isn’t eligible, his BC is forged and Hawaii is part of a conspiracy to cover up that fact.
    Would that mean I’d change anything I’ve said during my years here and elsewhere? No, because that still wouldn’t make birther arguments as to what they are “entitled to” correct.

    There is in fact *no* way of properly preventing the scenario that birthers claim to be reality. And the only way to tackle such a “conspiracy” would be to find hard evidence to the contrary, not simply piling doubt upon doubt upon doubt.

    For what it’s worth, I could doubt every other President’s documentation the same way, but I would never know for sure at what point I could actually trust data if I’m convinced the conspiracy can cook up and lie about just about everything.
    The ONLY way to crack the conspiracy would be hard evidence to the contrary.

    So if I were a birther, I’d start looking for it. Being a non-birther, I stand and will stand by everything I have ever said about the issue, even if magically birthers were right. Not because I couldn’t “face the truth” but because everything I’ve said is still logical and sensible and practical.

  175. avatar
    Scientist March 30, 2012 at 11:27 am #

    Thomas Brown: Maybe he was Black Norwegian? That would explain the sallow complexion, too: he was pining for the fjords!

    Pining for the fjords? Lincoln is not pining for the fjords, he’s pushing up the daisies, gone to meet his maker, deceased, bereft of life, he’s sluffed off this mortal coil. Lincoln is an ex-President!

  176. avatar
    G March 30, 2012 at 2:30 pm #

    Well said on all points!

    The Magic M: Maybe birthers misunderstand one important thing.The birth certificate is prima facie evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    To tackle prima facie evidence, you have two options:

    (1) Provide evidence that the information on the document is incorrect.

    (2) Provide evidence that the document has been forged.

    Birthers cannot do either. All they have is “I suspect it might be a forgery so I’m entitled to look at it”, backed up by speculation that it is not impossible the information is incorrect. This will get them laughed out of every court in every country in the world in every case they build upon such arguments.

    The one thing birthers don’t get, simply because they don’t like it, is this:Even if a government document was actually forged, the only way to tackle its credibility would be to bring evidence that points to forgery in the first place.

    And even if, arguendo, the White House PDF was forged, that doesn’t magically consist evidence the original was forged, too.Otherwise I could forge a scan of Jerome Corsi’s birth certificate, put it somewhere on the internet and then claim this constitutes “probable cause” that his original documents are forgeries and his birth state is not to be trusted and I need to see the original.

  177. avatar
    nbc March 30, 2012 at 2:45 pm #

    traderjack: There is a chance, that the Obama BC was a filing for an out-of-country birth that would affect his eligibility to be president, And no one except birthers care about that possiblitiy!

    Under HI law there is no such possibility. And in fact, it is something ‘obots’ have looked into as well. The problem is that birthers have jumped to conclusions while Obots have looked at the facts.

    Given the known facts, the chance that an out of country birth was filed is close to zero. Care to explore?

  178. avatar
    traderjack March 30, 2012 at 2:54 pm #

    prima facie

    : (pry-mah fay-shah) adj. Latin for “at first look,” or “on its face,” referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial.

    And that simply means that unless the defendant can produce conflicting testimony he will lose!

    It does not mean that the person is guilty, or that the claims they make are false.

    How how can you prove your defense if the courts don’t allow you into court?

    There is no provision that I am aware of that a court can find you innocent, or guilty, without hearing testimony from both sides.

    Is that what you want for the USA

    If not. let the people get into court and have their beliefs shot down by the courts and not by posting on blogs.

  179. avatar
    nbc March 30, 2012 at 3:06 pm #

    traderjack: And that simply means that unless the defendant can produce conflicting testimony he will lose!

    It does not mean that the person is guilty, or that the claims they make are false.

    How how can you prove your defense if the courts don’t allow you into court?

    There is no provision that I am aware of that a court can find you innocent, or guilty, without hearing testimony from both sides.

    Is that what you want for the USA

    If not. let the people get into court and have their beliefs shot down by the courts and not by posting on blogs.

    Your understanding of how the court works may need some further effort. First of all, the court requires that when someone brings an action, that the plaintiff has standing and that the court has proper jurisdiction. This is to avoid the use of lawsuits to harass a defendant. When the plaintiff fails, or fails to state a proper claim, the court can dismiss the case accordingly without the need to issue a guilty versus innocent verdict. Anyone familiar with US law would know that ‘innocent till proven guilty’ foundation.

    Thus unless a plaintiff can present relevant evidence, not just speculation, but real evidence, there is no need to allow the case to proceed. Thus when the fact of President Obama’s birth is commonly known and when DOH officials continue to state that according to their records, he was born on US soil and thus eligible, and when plaintiffs foolishly submit documents which establish Obama’s birth on soil, it is up to the plaintiffs to overcome this evidence.
    Claiming ‘well it may be fraudulent’ is NOT a convincing legal argument. Remember the following concepts

    1. Presumption of innocence
    2. Burden of proof

    And you may realize how our legal system protects its Citizens from frivolous lawsuits.

  180. avatar
    G March 30, 2012 at 3:26 pm #

    BINGO!

    nbc: Your understanding of how the court works may need some further effort. First of all, the court requires that when someone brings an action, that the plaintiff has standing and that the court has proper jurisdiction. This is to avoid the use of lawsuits to harass a defendant. When the plaintiff fails, or fails to state a proper claim, the court can dismiss the case accordingly without the need to issue a guilty versus innocent verdict. Anyone familiar with US law would know that innocent till proven guilty’ foundation.

    Thus unless a plaintiff can present relevant evidence, not just speculation, but real evidence, there is no need to allow the case to proceed. Thus when the fact of President Obama’s birth is commonly known and when DOH officials continue to state that according to their records, he was born on US soil and thus eligible, and when plaintiffs foolishly submit documents which establish Obama’s birth on soil, it is up to the plaintiffs to overcome this evidence.

    Claiming well it may be fraudulent’ is NOT a convincing legal argument. Remember the following concepts1. Presumption of innocence2. Burden of proofAnd you may realize how our legal system protects its Citizens from frivolous lawsuits.

  181. avatar
    y_p_w March 30, 2012 at 4:44 pm #

    The Magic M: – “full faith and credit” (which means only the respective state gets to decide what it considers proven’)

    I started thinking of what happens in cases where a vital record isn’t a state or local document, but rather a federal document. How does one “prove” it in a court or other office? It’s been my opinion that since FF&C only applies for state to state transactions, then the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 44 would apply.

    There are plenty of Federal vital records. There are Panama Canal Zone birth certificates and reports of birth abroad from the State Dept. There is the American Samoa birth certificate from Dept of Homeland Security. There is the Certificate of Citizenship and naturalization certificates from USCIS (formerly INS).

    tj apparently latched onto some obscure language with few practical uses (I’ve never heard of a local or state government office or court that requires an additional certification statement from a judge/Governor/SoS) and conflated that with an assertion that FF&C doesn’t matter. If you want to go that route, it’s a minor inconvenience.

  182. avatar
    traderjack March 30, 2012 at 7:41 pm #

    Majority Will: What kind of nicknames did people have for minorities when you were growing up in the 20s and 30s?

    I don’t know, spics ,japs, chinks, wetbacks, krauts, frogs, limeys, niiggers, ities, wops, injuns, canucks, haoles, kanakas, aussies, oakies, arkies, darkeys, slanteyes,gays, queers, brownnosers, foureyes,bigears, pachucos, pachucas, zootsuiters,commies, nazis, squareheads,

    And they all fought together in the USNavy, didn’t they?

    And the funniest thing of all, is that there is only one group word there that is supposed to be not spoken today

    Probably a lot more, that I can not think of now.

    Why do you ask? Do you think I am so politically correct that I would not answer that question

  183. avatar
    traderjack March 30, 2012 at 7:48 pm #

    G: BINGO!

    Presumption of innocence applies in the court room , and not in the proceeding prior to the actions.

    you don’t think that DA is presuming that the defendent is innocent do you?

    Once you get into the trial the jury is to presume the innocence of the parties.

    The judge does not , he just assures that the parties are treated equally during the action

    Which is not to say that a judge can not throw out a case for personal reasons, political reasons, or anyother darn thing he wants to do, and the poor loser in the case is faced with more attorney fees for appeals.

  184. avatar
    G March 30, 2012 at 8:22 pm #

    Now you are just being silly again.

    No competent DA attempts to bring forward a case, unless he/she thinks there is sufficient evidence to bring it to trial. Which is why you don’t see Arpaio going to the DA with his so-called “evidence”. If Arpaio had anything beyond a flimsy specualtive sham, he’d have brought it forward to the DA for EVEN consideration of making a case out of it. That Arpaio only holds weasely “press conferences” and doesn’t take any real action, should tell you all you need to know about how non-existent of a “case” he has to make.

    Presumption of innocence starts WAY before any court is involved too. Police cannot arrest someone without justifiable “just cause”…or at least not do so and get it to stick.

    As mentioned to you repeatedly, a police officer can ask to see your Driver’s License, but they cannot demand to see your application for that Driver’s License. There is a clear line between reasonable searches and irrational persecution.

    You Birthers are firmly over the line of irrational persecution.

    So NO, the concept of “presumption of innocence” is firmly embedded throughout our social and legal framework. It may manifest itself in different forms, but the overall outcome is the same – unjustified and targeted witchhunts are NOT supported and treatment of people is weighted towards equal rights and against those areas where bigots attempt to disenfranchise.

    The final part of your screed is nothing but coming up with an ignorant excuse. Judges can’t just “throw out a case for no reason” or get away with applying personal / political prejudices”. Our entire legal appeals structure EXISTS to tackle and restrict that very problem. If a judge actually behaves that way, their ruling can be easily overturned in appeals on that basis alone.

    No, the rules of “innocent until proven guility” exist in some form in all of our processes and that includes the very sensible and necessary basic thresholds of merit that a case must be able to make when brought in front of a court in the first place. You know, the steps in which most Birther cases legitimately fail and get appropriately tossed as frivolous…

    …All which demonstrates that you sad and bitter whiners still have NO real leg to stand on in your silly smears and made-up “concerns”.

    traderjack: Presumption of innocence applies in the court room , and not in the proceeding prior to the actions.
    you don’t think that DA is presuming that the defendent is innocent do you?
    Once you get into the trial the jury is to presume the innocence of the parties.
    The judge does not , he just assures that the parties are treated equally during the action
    Which is not to say that a judge can not throw out a case for personal reasons, political reasons, or anyother darn thing he wants to do, and the poor loser in the case is faced with more attorney fees for appeals.

  185. avatar
    G March 30, 2012 at 8:34 pm #

    No, you are wrong. The N-word is NOT the only word on your list that is considered inappropriate to utter in public these days. Most of the slurs on your list are considered unacceptible…or have simply become so archaic and irrelevant that they are meaningless today.

    So while no one will care much if you call them a “zootsuiter” or “squarehead” these days, that is because nobody talks like that these days. You would just be looked at as odd and lame if you used such archaic language.

    Some of your terms are just silly insults that have no connection to racial issues, and therefore are simply immature taunts, no different than three-year olds calling each other “poopyhead”. From your list, “brownnosers, foureyes, bigears” easily fall there. Further, in terms of how the right has used “commies” and “nazis” as easily thrown-around slurs these days, they have been effectively rendered as meaningless bogeymen too…and really are not far removed from simply shouting “poopyhead” either.

    But yeah, most of the rest of the terms you used are considered offensive racial slurs and are not acceptible in public conversation. If you can’t grasp or understand that, it just demonstrates how out of step you really are with the modern world.

    traderjack: I don’t know, spics ,japs, chinks, wetbacks, krauts, frogs, limeys, niiggers, ities, wops, injuns, canucks, haoles, kanakas, aussies, oakies, arkies, darkeys, slanteyes,gays, queers, brownnosers, foureyes,bigears, pachucos, pachucas, zootsuiters,commies, nazis, squareheads,
    And they all fought together in the USNavy, didn’t they?
    And the funniest thing of all, is that there is only one group word there that is supposed to be not spoken today
    Probably a lot more, that I can not think of now.
    Why do you ask? Do you think I am so politically correct that I would not answer that question

  186. avatar
    Majority Will March 30, 2012 at 8:57 pm #

    G: But yeah, most of the rest of the terms you used are considered offensive racial slurs and are not acceptible in public conversation. If you can’t grasp or understand that, it just demonstrates how out of step you really are with the modern world.

    How out of step some people are who can’t or refuse to accept the eligibility of Barack Obama for the office of President of the United States.

    Thanks, G.

  187. avatar
    G March 30, 2012 at 10:03 pm #

    Yeah, the most bizarre and telling thing about the entire list was the mix of racial slurs along with simplistic childish namecalling terms… as if the two things were in any way on the same level….

    …Just goes to show the type of mentality we are dealing with…

    Majority Will: How out of step some people are who can’t or refuse to accept the eligibility of Barack Obama for the office of President of the United States.Thanks, G.

  188. avatar
    Keith March 31, 2012 at 1:27 am #

    Scientist: Now, come on Kieth, stop with the stereotypes. Not all Norwegians are blond-I give you Eric the Red.

    Mea Culpa. Now that you mention it, the Lincoln portrait I am most familiar with does prove that he had a distinct reddish hue to his hair. He must therefore be descended from Vikings.

    I stand corrected.

  189. avatar
    Keith March 31, 2012 at 1:39 am #

    Scientist: Now, come on Kieth, stop with the stereotypes. Not all Norwegians are blond-I give you Eric the Red.

    Mea Culpa. Now that you mention it, the Lincoln portrait I am most familiar with does prove that he had a distinct reddish hue to his hair. He must therefore be descended from Vikings.

    I stand corrected.

    traderjack: And that simply means that unless the defendant can produce conflicting testimony he will lose!

    NO. You are stating the exact opposite of how the law works in the USA.

    The ‘defendant’ is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That simply means that the PLAINTIFF must PROVE GUILT.

    The defendant does not have to do anything at all, although is usually behooves them to refute the plaintiff’s case.

    Defendants do not have to prove their innocence, plaintiffs must prove their case. That is the American Way from the beginning. It is one of the most fundamental principles of American civics taught to children.

    Your attempt to argue the opposite is, frankly, un-American and places you firmly beyond the realm of polite discussion.

    I won’t speak for anyone else here, but I’m through talking to you until you apologize for that egregious slur on the Constitution and the fundamental rule of law.

  190. avatar
    Keith March 31, 2012 at 1:39 am #

    I haveing a lot of trouble with the back button lately. Sorry about that folk.

  191. avatar
    G March 31, 2012 at 1:54 am #

    Well said! You are absolutely correct.

    Keith: NO. You are stating the exact opposite of how the law works in the USA.
    The defendant’ is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That simply means that the PLAINTIFF must PROVE GUILT.
    The defendant does not have to do anything at all, although is usually behooves them to refute the plaintiff’s case.
    Defendants do not have to prove their innocence, plaintiffs must prove their case. That is the American Way from the beginning. It is one of the most fundamental principles of American civics taught to children.
    Your attempt to argue the opposite is, frankly, un-American and places you firmly beyond the realm of polite discussion.

  192. avatar
    traderjack March 31, 2012 at 2:46 am #

    And it is still a bunch of bull, posted by obot who can not accept that they might be wrong.

    You are never innocent until proved guilty, You are always guilty until proven innocent!

    you want examples? How about Lee Harvey Oswald, never even in court and yet the government calls him guilty on the “prima facie” evidence!

    Oh, you think conspiracy theories are nuts.How about, today, Zimmerman , in Florida, which one of you obots want to speak up and say he is innocent of murder and announce it to he world..

    You can not be innocent of a crime you commit, it is impossible!
    You may not be punished because the case is not proven, but you are not innocent?

    Walking out of court and stating that you were found innocent of committing the crime is a bald lie, if , in fact you committed the crime whether it was murder or running a stop sign.

    Just like your beliefs in prima facie , full faith and credit, and Obama, they may all be wrong.

    In fact , a poster here said that as there was no evidence provided the crime was not committed?

    what a bunch of strange people here!

    And, no matter how good the evidence is presented here , you would never accept it would you?

    A man forges a BC, exactly like Obama’s , tells you how that BC was done, and you will shout to the sky that it is impossible to forge a BC with a certification on it!

    And , to me, personally, the most distressing things about this whole thread is that you are unable to limit your self to comments on the facts, but must attack anyone, with personal comments, anyone who wishes to make a comment, unless they support your position

    Talk about “poopie words” look at what is being posted here be most of the posters.

    your mother would be ashamed of you!

  193. avatar
    traderjack March 31, 2012 at 2:58 am #

    Majority Will: How out of step some people are who can’t or refuse to accept the eligibility of Barack Obama for the office of President of the United States.Thanks, G.

    Holy smokes, you are a fine fellow indeed, You ask me to tell you what the words used to describe the minorities in the 1920-30, and then you get all huffy puffy about the words used in the 1920-30s.

    You look at yourself in the mirror with pride, you smirk and tell your wife that you do these things, you smile and pat yourself in the back?

    And you say people are innocent until proven guilty? Perhaps, in your glee at your brilliance you failed to ask the question properly.

    You did not ask what words I used, did you. I was born in the Phillipine Islands (oops, I missed flips). raised in those bastions of bigotry known as Honolulu, and my father, a Navy Officer , never allowed us to swear as he considered it improper for a navy officer’s children to swear anywhere.

    I spent years in the USN and can swear with any sailor, but refuse to swear in public.

    May you live in peace with yourself!

  194. avatar
    Rickey March 31, 2012 at 3:28 am #

    traderjack: I was born in the Phillipine Islands (oops, I missed flips). raised in those bastions of bigotry known as Honolulu, and my father, a Navy Officer , never allowed us to swear as he considered it improper for a navy officer’s children to swear anywhere.

    You were born in the Philippines, yet you don’t know how to spell it?

    What is it with birthers and poor spelling?

  195. avatar
    Rickey March 31, 2012 at 3:39 am #

    traderjack:

    There is no provision that I am aware of that a court can find you innocent, or guilty, without hearing testimony from both sides.

    You really are ignorant.

    Both criminal and civil actions often go to a verdict without hearing from both sides.

    The defendant, whether in a civil case or a criminal case, has the right to present evidence but is under no obligation to present evidence. Defendants in both types of cases will sometimes rest without putting on any evidence when they feel that the prosecutor or plaintiff has failed to produce sufficient evidence to prevail.

  196. avatar
    G March 31, 2012 at 7:15 am #

    Ah, off on another crazy tantrum rant, instead of responding to any specifics again, I see. Considering that your specific points have been constantly picked apart as wrong and that you haven’t had much success at being right at anything at all, you don’t seem to have much of a grasp of right and wrong in the first place.

    traderjack:

    And it is still a bunch of bull, posted by obot who can not accept that they might be wrong.

    Ok, now I have difficult taking you seriously at all if you are going to claim something this stupid and obviously backwards. Are you going to claim that the night is really day, next? Or tell us that fire is freezing cold? *rolls eyes* You’re examples all FAIL.

    traderjack:
    You are never innocent until proved guilty, You are always guilty until proven innocent!

    Oswald was arrested. He was assassinated before his case could go to court. Another difference here – there WAS material evidence found, which led to his arrest. He wasn’t just picked off the street at random… *duh*

    traderjack:
    you want examples? How about Lee Harvey Oswald, never even in court and yet the government calls him guilty on the “prima facie” evidence!

    Another argument that is stupid on its face. You obviously can’t grasp the difference between the very real and legal term of “presumption” of innocence and being innocent. If you are that obtuse and can’t even grasp that basic of a concept, then you are beyond help. I’m not going to waste time trying to teach you how to count from one to ten either. *sheesh*

    Again, there has to be clear and actual EVIDENCE of a crime before you can arrest anyone – period.

    The Zimmerman case, which again, has absolutely NOTHING to do with Obama, IS a clear case of a murder having taken place. There is ZERO question that Zimmerman killed the young man. We have his own 911 tapes and testimony leading up to the murder and he admits that he shot and killed him. The body of the murder victim and the murder weapon are all there. *duh* These aren’t speculative issues of “did someone get shot and killed”… no, the evidence is clear and concrete in terms of the results of what happened. What remains unclear is the specifics of how the encounter went down and whether, under current FL laws, Zimmerman was within his legal rights to kill someone. That is where the whole controversy lies.

    In the case of all Birtherism claims, ALL actual EVIDENCE supports Obama’s story. The Birthers have nothing but meaningless speculative smears – of which there is ZERO that rises to the level of being actual credible “evidence” at all.

    traderjack:
    Oh, you think conspiracy theories are nuts.How about, today, Zimmerman , in Florida, which one of you obots want to speak up and say he is innocent of murder and announce it to he world.. You can not be innocent of a crime you commit, it is impossible!You may not be punished because the case is not proven, but you are not innocent?

    You are just ranting away again here. Your entire premise is FLAWED from the start, as there is ZERO actual evidence against Obama. There is NO crime, except in your imagination. Speculative fears are NOT a case NOR evidence of any wrongdoing, whatsoever at all.

    You might as well go off on a tear and speculatively rant about who killed Chuck Norris. Oh wait – he isn’t dead…but hey, don’t let that stop you… there is as much credible evidence that Chuck Norris was murdered years ago as there was that Obama wasn’t born in Honolulu, HI… in other words, NONE at all and only a complete lunatic would obsess and rant otherwise.

    traderjack:
    Walking out of court and stating that you were found innocent of committing the crime is a bald lie, if , in fact you committed the crime whether it was murder or running a stop sign.Just like your beliefs in prima facie , full faith and credit, and Obama, they may all be wrong.In fact , a poster here said that as there was no evidence provided the crime was not committed?what a bunch of strange people here!And, no matter how good the evidence is presented here , you would never accept it would you?

    Except what you just described has never happened either. All you have is some random unqualified nuts wasting time ranting about criticizing online images and calling them “fraud”. All completely irrelevant.

    NONE of that wasted conversation deals with the actual physical certified paper document at all. You know, the one that the HI DOH repeatedly confirms and attests to…

    All this nonsense that you BIrthers and Joe Arpaio have wasted time on is akin to claiming that blurry polaroid picture is somehow evidence of “fraud” and that the objects in the photo must not exist, because of some distortion in how the image turned out. A completely meaningless waste of time.

    traderjack:
    A man forges a BC, exactly like Obama’s , tells you how that BC was done, and you will shout to the sky that it is impossible to forge a BC with a certification on it!

    If you don’t want to be ridiculed, don’t act ridiculous. Simple as that.

    Raving like a crazy person will cause people to view and describe your actions as crazy. Name calling, like “poopie head” is when meaningless slurs are hurled at someone. That isn’t what has happened to you at all. You are merely being described by the descriptors that match up with the statements and actions you’ve displayed. You have only yourself to blame for how you come across here to everyone else.

    traderjack:
    And , to me, personally, the most distressing things about this whole thread is that you are unable to limit your self to comments on the facts, but must attack anyone, with personal comments, anyone who wishes to make a comment, unless they support your positionTalk about “poopie words” look at what is being posted here be most of the posters.your mother would be ashamed of you!

  197. avatar
    G March 31, 2012 at 7:20 am #

    Again, you missed the entire point, even though the specific answer to this question was already stated to you. The combination of words that you mixed together, as if they were all the same type of thing was what stood out in your reply.

    G: Yeah, the most bizarre and telling thing about the entire list was the mix of racial slurs along with simplistic childish namecalling terms… as if the two things were in any way on the same level….
    …Just goes to show the type of mentality we are dealing with…

    It was just more insight into your warped POV. A good portion of those words had nothing to do with racial minorities at all.

    traderjack: Holy smokes, you are a fine fellow indeed, You ask me to tell you what the words used to describe the minorities in the 1920-30, and then you get all huffy puffy about the words used in the 1920-30s.

  198. avatar
    Northland10 March 31, 2012 at 8:51 am #

    Keith: Mea Culpa. Now that you mention it, the Lincoln portrait I am most familiar with does prove that he had a distinct reddish hue to his hair. He must therefore be descended from Vikings.

    I stand corrected.

    Very Good 😆

    Keith: Defendants do not have to prove their innocence, plaintiffs must prove their case. That is the American Way from the beginning. It is one of the most fundamental principles of American civics taught to children.

    Sicut erat in pricipio, et nunc, et semper.

  199. avatar
    Keith March 31, 2012 at 9:32 am #

    traderjack: You are never innocent until proved guilty, You are always guilty until proven innocent!

    I know I’m responding here against my better judgement, and in violation of my promise not to respond to you until you acknowledge your un-American and anti-Constitution stance and apologize for insulting the adults reading this blog.

    But I found this comment from Sheriff Joe himself and decided that maybe a slap in the face from Joe would help you to wake up and listen to him. I am sure you will accept that Sheriff Joe Arpaio knows what he is talking about in relation to this now won’t you?

    Please examine this link to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office official web site: Mugshot of the day.

    Note carefully the words in the last line of text in the box with the white background that is displayed in black, in bold, in all caps, and which ends with an exclamation point.

    You’ll probably want to read it to yourself first, and remember while you are doing so that the admonition is coming from Joe Arpaio officially, not as the convener of the Cold Case Posse. Then when your boiling blood cools down a little maybe read it out loud several times. If that doesn’t help you grasp the concept he is trying to get across, maybe you should read it to someone you trust (or get them to read it to you) and ask them to explain it to you.

  200. avatar
    Keith March 31, 2012 at 9:45 am #

    Northland10: Sicut erat in pricipio, et nunc, et semper.

    My Latin is not rusty, imaginary skills don’t degrade.

    “as it was in the beginning, so shall it always be”?

    Or something like that?

  201. avatar
    Northland10 March 31, 2012 at 10:28 am #

    In fairness.. I am cheating by just pulling part of the Doxology (as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever).

    However, it appears my typing skills are degrading. Principio would be the correct word.

    Keith: My Latin is not rusty, imaginary skills don’t degrade.

    “as it was in the beginning, so shall it always be”?

    Or something like that?

  202. avatar
    Paper March 31, 2012 at 11:42 am #

    Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. How’s that?

    He may be considered guilty by lots of people in their personal opinions, but in a court of law, he is presumed innocent. It may be harder to select a jury for such high profile cases, where people start making up their minds from the news, but it is harder precisely because the standard is “innocent until proven guilty.”

    The point is the government has to prove guilt before it can sentence someone, not that personal opinion (of any stripe) is nonexistent.

    traderjack: Oh, you think conspiracy theories are nuts.How about, today, Zimmerman , in Florida, which one of you obots want to speak up and say he is innocent of murder and announce it to he world..

  203. avatar
    Paper March 31, 2012 at 12:06 pm #

    The government is not G-d. A court verdict is not the same as The Final Judgment.

    Yes, *if* you actually commit a crime and are found innocent in court and then declare your innocence, you are telling a lie.

    Prima facie evidence, full faith and credit, presumption of innocence until proven guilty are all human standards to reach a fair and just resolution, without endless spinning of wheels and endless cycles of revenge and harassment. To minimize corruption and abuse of power. To maximize fairness and justice so that the people involved can reach a human resolution, which resolution provides the ability for society to function, for us to have better lives, and which resolution does not settle the eternal score with G-d, or even the plain, old universe.

    Believing in “prima facie” evidence has nothing to do with right and wrong. It is a standard for evidence, not an eternal truth. “Full faith and credit” is about respecting each state’s authority so that the country can function, not a seal of approval from the angels.

    traderjack: You can not be innocent of a crime you commit, it is impossible!
    You may not be punished because the case is not proven, but you are not innocent?

    Walking out of court and stating that you were found innocent of committing the crime is a bald lie, if , in fact you committed the crime whether it was murder or running a stop sign.

    Just like your beliefs in prima facie , full faith and credit, and Obama, they may all be wrong.

  204. avatar
    Seen With Mine Own Eyes March 31, 2012 at 12:33 pm #

    People can forge birth certificates. I’ve seen an amateur forgery successfully used in a low-key situation, not for anything really important, but successful in its purpose, whereas, as clever a trick as it was, it would not have worked under serious scrutiny. (Not by me, just to be clear, and this was decades ago.) The state, however, cannot forge its own birth certificate. It could commit fraud, or some such thing. It could lie. But…

    As has been pointed out here, you cannot forge your own signature. Other people can forge your signature, but you can’t. People sometimes just made an “X.” Then if it came to court, they could be asked, “is that your mark?” They could lie, but they couldn’t forge their own “x,” much less a full signature. Forging an “X” is very easy, anyone could do it, but ven then it remains impossible for you to forge your own “x.”

    traderjack: A man forges a BC, exactly like Obama’s , tells you how that BC was done, and you will shout to the sky that it is impossible to forge a BC with a certification on it!

  205. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 31, 2012 at 1:49 pm #

    Dear SWMOE,

    TraitorJack has been told repeatedly that proving that something could be done has no bearing whatsover on whether that act was done in a particular instance.

    He pays no attention. I don’t know whether he’s just too stupid to get it, or is willfully ignorant of the implications, but in any case he doesn’t seem to grasp the fact that no reliable evidence has ever been presented that proves the LFBC is a forgery NOR is there any that a forgery was necessary because BHO was born ANYWHERE ELSE.

    No evidence. At all. None. And TraitorJack rants and raves that the Constitution is being violated, and numerous officials are corrupt, BASED ON NOTHING CONCRETE. He and his ilk are a detriment and an embarrassment to America, and cannot be reasoned with.

  206. avatar
    J. Potter March 31, 2012 at 2:24 pm #

    Thomas Brown: He pays no attention. I don’t know whether he’s just too stupid to get it, or is willfully ignorant of the implications,

    He’s mostly a cranky old bomb-thrower, who’s reverted to childishness in his dotage. He’s lonely and desperate for any interaction he can get. Not the greatest participant in a serious discussion. 😉

  207. avatar
    traderjack March 31, 2012 at 6:50 pm #

    J. Potter: He’s mostly a cranky old bomb-thrower, who’s reverted to childishness in his dotage. He’s lonely and desperate for any interaction he can get. Not the greatest participant in a serious discussion.

    And I am neither lonely, childish, or cranky, nor a bomb thrower, although I know a hell of a lot about bombs and those types of things.

    What I am is someone who think that this is a bunch of rabid supporters of Obama who can not read written words without imposing upon those words their own beliefs.

    you deny the possibly of anything that the government exudes from its storage areas as being anything but the aboslute truth, as government employees are all outstanding people just doing their jobs, and the arrest and convictions of people for falsifying document never happens when the people are government employees.

    You actually believe that the government cares about the people, that Obama has sympathy towards returning veterans, or serving service members, or that Congressman always vote for the good of the society , and never for their own benefit.

    As to Obama’s birth certificate you say it has to be examined by a certified forensic examiner, preferably one who has never been a Republican, and who voted for Obama in the last election

    You claim that Polland has been shown to be wrong, yet , you will not name the certified forensic examiner who so stated.

    you claim that the Lucas Smith Kenya birth certificate is fake, yet you have never examined it , nor has a forensic certified document examiner.

    You claim that the government would expose all of the facts if it was a fake, and you know that somehow as Obama is an attorney and instructed in legal matter at a University

    And that there could not be any problems with the BC as the DNC looked at it , and posted it on their site, so it couldn’t be wrong.

    And, the BC in 2011 was certified when issued and the HDOH said it was certified when issued, so it could not have been altered after being received by the President’s Office, because they are all honorable men, and all politicans are honorable men.

    And if you haven’t seen how Polland said it was done, and shows how he could do it

    http://www.wnd.com/2011/10/356005/

    But I don’t expect you to look at that!

  208. avatar
    Majority Will March 31, 2012 at 7:09 pm #

    J. Potter: He’s mostly a cranky old bomb-thrower, who’s reverted to childishness in his dotage. He’s lonely and desperate for any interaction he can get. Not the greatest participant in a serious discussion.

    Nailed it.

  209. avatar
    nbc March 31, 2012 at 7:12 pm #

    traderjack: you deny the possibly of anything that the government exudes from its storage areas as being anything but the aboslute truth, as government employees are all outstanding people just doing their jobs, and the arrest and convictions of people for falsifying document never happens when the people are government employees.

    You are missing the point here. Sure, there is the possibility that the government may present something that is not truthful, but that by itself does not make it plausible. We have seen internally consistent data that continues to indicate that President Obama was born on US soil. As such, both from a legal as well as logical perspective it is reasonable to accept that what has been presented as truthful. Now if you, or anyone else, can provide credible reasons and evidence that the evidence is not truthful, then by all means feel free to provide us with such.

    You actually believe that the government cares about the people, that Obama has sympathy towards returning veterans, or serving service members, or that Congressman always vote for the good of the society , and never for their own benefit.

    Such meaningless statements best known as non sequiturs. Yes, Obama has sympathy for returning veterans or serving service members, Congress men can vote for the good of society, but also for their own benefit, and sometimes the two do not even collide. Government can care about the people. What is your point? Is there any?

    So far I have seen nothing from you that provides any relevant arguments or presents relevant evidence. All you do is whine about others even though you have shown yourself to be rather poorly informed in quite some areas.

    What are we to think? What am I to think?

    You claim that Polland has been shown to be wrong, yet , you will not name the certified forensic examiner who so stated.

    Polland has been shown wrong in many aspects, again, your point?

  210. avatar
    nbc March 31, 2012 at 7:14 pm #

    traderjack: you claim that the Lucas Smith Kenya birth certificate is fake, yet you have never examined it , nor has a forensic certified document examiner.

    Can we see some specifics here? So far the evidence that Lucas Smith’s birth certificate is accurate is quite lacking and there is some reason to believe that indeed it is a fake, just like the various other Birth Certificates that supposed to show Obama born in Kenya, in spite of logic, reason and evidence.

    Internal consistency my friend.

  211. avatar
    Scientist March 31, 2012 at 7:14 pm #

    traderjack:

    Come back when Mitt Romney shows his b.c.. He’s a politician last I checked. Let’s say he and Obama and all the rest are liars. Now what??? If your point is that no one is fit to be President, OK. Fine. Now what????

  212. avatar
    G March 31, 2012 at 8:36 pm #

    So you say, yet you sure come across that way and you constantly try to throw irrelevant ideologically based verbal bombs… but then again, the only thing you seem to be consistent at is making statements that don’t hold up under scrutiny.

    traderjack:
    And I am neither lonely, childish, or cranky, nor a bomb thrower, although I know a hell of a lot about bombs and those types of things.

    Another whine that doesn’t match reality. Quite a few of the regular anti-Birther posters here are GOP voters and did NOT vote for Obama last time and have ZERO desire to vote for him this cycle either. Yet all of us think you cranks are full of sh*t…

    The disdain of Birtherism has less to do with support for Obama than it does support for reason and evidence-based thinking and a distaste for dishonesty.

    traderjack:
    What I am is someone who think that this is a bunch of rabid supporters of Obama who can not read written words without imposing upon those words their own beliefs.

    Again, nothing but a meaningless tantrum from you that doesn’t match up with any actual argument you’ve received. Nobody is saying that the government is perfect, nor is that a relevant point. We are saying that when dealing with official government documents, the official agencies in charge of such matters are the ultimate authority and experts on them.

    The “government” by the way is made up of people – as in We The People – you know, fellow citizens of this nation. There is a mix of both good hard working folks who care about their jobs and lazy corrupt folks, just as there is in the private sector and in every town and city in the world. In other words, the “government” is no mystical bogeyman entity as your limited mind pretends. Yes, I believe that a lot of folks in this country, including many who work in government and hold office care for the citizenry and especially for veterans. I certainly include Obama himself in that category. You may disagree with his views of what solutions are needed, but your childish demonizing of others and their motives only speaks to the deep flaws in your own soul.

    traderjack:
    you deny the possibly of anything that the government exudes from its storage areas as being anything but the aboslute truth, as government employees are all outstanding people just doing their jobs, and the arrest and convictions of people for falsifying document never happens when the people are government employees.You actually believe that the government cares about the people, that Obama has sympathy towards returning veterans, or serving service members, or that Congressman always vote for the good of the society , and never for their own benefit.

    Oh look, yet another MADE UP argument, that ONLY YOU are making. The folks here are satisfied by the existing body of evidence, ALL which corroborates the SAME conclusion – Born in Honolulu, HI and which is topped off by being repeatedly and steadfastly validated by the OFFICIAL agency in charge of his BC – the HI DOH.

    No one here needs *any* further examination of that story or document to be satisfied. Any discussion of forensic examiners has simply been to point out that the Birthers, who are the only ones asking for such, have NONE who meet the qualifications to do such.

    traderjack:
    As to Obama’s birth certificate you say it has to be examined by a certified forensic examiner, preferably one who has never been a Republican, and who voted for Obama in the last election

    All of the fake Kenyan BCs, including all of the nonsense from Polland and Lucas Smith were easily debunked long ago. There are numerous articles on here and other places that go through the details. Their mistakes got actual DATA wrong in numerous places, making them obvious fakes – so this has nothing to do with silly “image” based arguments like Birthers pretend about. No- it has to do with the underlying information being presented being wrong. Further, NO official agency is out there vouching for them. So yeah, only the desperately gullible buy into those clear fakes.

    traderjack:
    You claim that Polland has been shown to be wrong, yet , you will not name the certified forensic examiner who so stated.you claim that the Lucas Smith Kenya birth certificate is fake, yet you have never examined it , nor has a forensic certified document examiner.

    *sigh* Again you go off on hyperbolic rants that have very little tether to the reality of any arguments made. Simply put, NO real fraud or conspiracy on something like this would survive all these months, let alone years without being uncovered by numerous serious people in looking into the matter.

    Further, your wacky scenario requires “everyone” to be “in on the conspiracy”. All of congress, half of which are his political enemies, would not go along with such a fraud if it existed. Heck, that would be the perfect gift to them to take him down. If there was any validity to this nonsense, all of his rivals on the campaign trail would have found and run with it as well. To think otherwise is plain silly.

    Finally, official government agencies, such as the HI DOH are not going to jeopardize the integrity of the whole system by vouching for fraud. REAL fraud has real legal consequences. No, they only vouch for something they confidently back. The lack of interest by ANY serious official agency – whether politicians, government agencies or the courts is a CLEAR hint that there is NO actual controversy or problem here at all.

    Face it, you simply are doing nothing more than desperately clinging to a fantasy, because you lack the reason and maturity to deal with a world in which certain people you don’t like in your gut, can be elected President. That is all this amounts too – someone clinging to bitter denial of an election that ended well over three and a half years ago.

    traderjack:
    You claim that the government would expose all of the facts if it was a fake, and you know that somehow as Obama is an attorney and instructed in legal matter at a UniversityAnd that there could not be any problems with the BC as the DNC looked at it , and posted it on their site, so it couldn’t be wrong.And, the BC in 2011 was certified when issued and the HDOH said it was certified when issued, so it could not have been altered after being received by the President’s Office, because they are all honorable men, and all politicans are honorable men.And if you haven’t seen how Polland said it was done, and shows how he could do ithttp://www.wnd.com/2011/10/356005/But I don’t expect you to look at that!

  213. avatar
    James M March 31, 2012 at 10:09 pm #

    traderjack: How about, today, Zimmerman , in Florida, which one of you obots want to speak up

    I do want to discuss Zimmerman, but not on this forum because it’s not the appropriate venue. I want to discuss the case strictly in terms of evidence that is admissible in a Florida criminal trial, and I would prefer to have this discussion in a forum that mostly includes people with at least some legal education in their backgrounds.

    I think it is premature to try to have this conversation, because I believe that very little of the evidence that will be considered by the Grand Jury on April 10, nor evidence that would be used by the prosecution or the defense in a case that may follow from that Grand Jury hearing, has been disclosed to the public. There is some information that is being treated in the court of public opinion as if it were evidence even though it is not, and there is extremely important evidence which has not been made public at all.

  214. avatar
    traderjack April 2, 2012 at 3:10 am #

    Now if you, or anyone else, can provide credible reasons and evidence that the evidence is not truthful, then by all means feel free to provide us with such!

    Now that is a nice statement, but what do you consider to be credible?

    One person says it must be green because they assure me it was green, and another says it is not green because it has a red coloration, instead of blue yellow mix.

    Now if you won’t accept any evidence of the coloration of the item, how could you ever determine that if is not green.

    That is one problem.

    The other problem is that if there are some items issued that did not meet the criteria for issuance, how can you assume that the one you are looking at is correct, as the same agency issued all of the documents. And they have all been certified by the issuing agency.

    California had to change their methods of issuing some items because of that very fact!

  215. avatar
    G April 2, 2012 at 3:19 am #

    Again, you are just rambling on with another meaningless whine and saying nothing of consequence.

    CA’s specific problems were very similar to TX – they are border states… *duh*. Very different than an isolated island chain…or most of the rest of the US. You have a bad habit of comparing apples and oranges and not being able to distinguish the difference.

    It is not our problem that you clearly lack the ability to discern between credible and non credible and between reality and fantasy. You are lost and beyond hope and reason.

    traderjack: Now if you, or anyone else, can provide credible reasons and evidence that the evidence is not truthful, then by all means feel free to provide us with such!Now that is a nice statement, but what do you consider to be credible?One person says it must be green because they assure me it was green, and another says it is not green because it has a red coloration, instead of blue yellow mix.Now if you won’t accept any evidence of the coloration of the item, how could you ever determine that if is not green.That is one problem.The other problem is that if there are some items issued that did not meet the criteria for issuance, how can you assume that the one you are looking at is correct, as the same agency issued all of the documents. And they have all been certified by the issuing agency.California had to change their methods of issuing some items because of that very fact!

  216. avatar
    J. Potter April 2, 2012 at 6:28 am #

    traderjack: But I don’t expect you to look at that!

    Yes, I was aware of that, which made it doubly appropriate.
    OK.
    No.
    The world should be so simple.
    Definitely not.
    Who needs a document specialist to settle a question that involved no document?
    When a known forger produces a document he has know means of access to, and it is riddled with obvious errors when compared to known authentic examples … no expert needed.
    No, I haven’t, nor wouldn’t.
    Uhhh …. what?
    That’d be a silly explanation.
    Seen it, refuted it; it was an amateur attempt and it failure, but people desperate to hear what he had to say were more than happy to swallow it whole.

  217. avatar
    Rickey April 2, 2012 at 11:03 am #

    traderjack:

    And, the BC in 2011 was certified when issued and the HDOH said it was certified when issued, so it could not have been altered after being received by the President’s Office, because they are all honorable men, and all politicans are honorable men.

    No, it could not have been altered after being received by the President’s office because the issuing authority, Hawaii DOH, would have noticed. Why would Hawaii DOH issue a press release about the birth certificate, and then provide a link to the image posted by the White House, if the link showed that the document had been altered?

  218. avatar
    Whatever4 April 2, 2012 at 11:14 am #

    traderjack:

    You claim that Polland has been shown to be wrong, yet , you will not name the certified forensic examiner who so stated.

    Dr. Neal Krawetz, founder of Hacker Factor, a leader in cutting edge computer forensics research says Polarik/Polland doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
    http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?serendipity%5Baction%5D=search&serendipity%5BsearchTerm%5D=polarik

    you claim that the Lucas Smith Kenya birth certificate is fake, yet you have never examined it , nor has a forensic certified document examiner.

    A document examiner isn’t needed if the facts on the document are obviously false.

    And if you haven’t seen how Polland said it was done, and shows how he could do it

    http://www.wnd.com/2011/10/356005/

    But I don’t expect you to look at that!

    Must be why you gave us the wrong link.

  219. avatar
    traderjack April 2, 2012 at 4:13 pm #

    Whatever4: Dr. Neal Krawetz, founder of Hacker Factor, a leader in cutting edge computer forensics research says Polarik/Polland doesn’t know what he’s talking about.http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?serendipity%5Baction%5D=search&serendipity%5BsearchTerm%5D=polarikA document examiner isn’t needed if the facts on the document are obviously false. Must be why you gave us the wrong link.

    Well, I can see why you think you way that you all do. You have accepted the information porvided by Kravetz, and that is what you should do. But, at the same time the information provided by the birther differs, and the finall judgment as to which of the two are the correct ones will be made in the courts.

    I did read the reference to Kravetz, and I agree that his arguments are just as good as the other side.

    But, unlike you, I am willing to consider both sides in these discussions.

    Besides, in one of Kravetz posts he says we are much better of now under Obama than we were under Bush.

    And that makes me wonder about his political views , as far as I can determine no one thinks the USA is betteer off now than when Bush was president.

    It will be like having two attorneys trying to describe why , or why not, DNA should be consider as evidence as they present their view to the juror, if it ever gets to a jury

  220. avatar
    traderjack April 2, 2012 at 4:16 pm #

    the link works and worked for me this morning,

    “A document examiner isn’t needed if the facts on the document are obviously false.

    And if you haven’t seen how Polland said it was done, and shows how he could do it

    http://www.wnd.com/2011/10/356005/

    But I don’t expect you to look at that!

    Must be why you gave us the wrong link.”

    How do you know the facts are accurate if you do not know that the document is not false?

  221. avatar
    bovril April 2, 2012 at 4:33 pm #

    traderjack: I did read the reference to Kravetz, and I agree that his arguments are just as good as the other side.
    But, unlike you, I am willing to consider both sides in these discussions.

    And the purblind cretinism of teh Birther spews forth.

    On the one hand yiu have a lying hack who misrepresented who he was, the skills and training he has and his education

    On the other you have a court accepted expert who is one of the leaders in his field with a long and distinguished background in this area.

    So tell us all why are you going to hold them in exactly the same regard..?

  222. avatar
    Scientist April 2, 2012 at 4:58 pm #

    traderjack: as far as I can determine no one thinks the USA is betteer off now than when Bush was president.

    I do. Bush’s appproval when he left office was under 30% and Obama’s is around 50%, so I am far from alone. Which makes your statement a lie….

  223. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 2, 2012 at 5:02 pm #

    I went to WND and looked at the two images. They weren’t even in the same ballpark. Corsi wrote:

    Polland’s standard was that his forgery had to be good enough that most observers would find it hard to tell it apart from the image the White House released.

    Just look at the clumsy David Sinclair signature in Polland’s example. You don’t even need to zoom it. What a joke!

    traderjack: And if you haven’t seen how Polland said it was done, and shows how he could do it

    http://www.wnd.com/2011/10/356005/

    But I don’t expect you to look at that!

  224. avatar
    G April 2, 2012 at 5:18 pm #

    Well, there you go again, simply proving that you utterly lack the ability to discern between credible and non-credible sources.

    There is only ONE side with actual evidence. That is the same side that ALL courts have ruled in favor of.

    HINT: it is NOT the Birthers.

    traderjack:

    Well, I can see why you think you way that you all do. You have accepted the information porvided by Kravetz, and that is what you should do. But, at the same time the information provided by the birther differs, and the finall judgment as to which of the two are the correct ones will be made in the courts.

    I did read the reference to Kravetz, and I agree that his arguments are just as good as the other side.

    But, unlike you, I am willing to consider both sides in these discussions.

    Well, here it is hard to tell if you are just lying, have very little contact with the outside world, or if someone can truly be so untethered from reality via their bias blinders to suffer from being that much in denial.

    It isn’t hard at all to find people who think that Obama is a vast improvement of GWB and his administration. People who think like that are everywhere. Just because you beg to differ doesn’t mean that they don’t exist and aren’t extremely numerous. Your statement is just laughable on its face for the sheer audacity of its blatant denialism. If you really live in an area where you don’t know any people who think differently than you do, than you truly live in a very sheltered existence. Only brainwashed Cult members talk in stark terms like you do… *sheesh*

    traderjack:

    Besides, in one of Kravetz posts he says we are much better of now under Obama than we were under Bush.
    And that makes me wonder about his political views , as far as I can determine no one thinks the USA is betteer off now than when Bush was president.
    It will be like having two attorneys trying to describe why , or why not, DNA should be consider as evidence as they present their view to the juror, if it ever gets to a jury

  225. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 2, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

    It’s “Krawetz” with a “w.” So if his argument is “just as good” how come the birther experts are routinely demonstrated as junk and nobody has debunked Krawetz? Heck, the birthers haven’t debunked any of their opponents. They just hunker down and believe harder.

    traderjack: I did read the reference to Kravetz, and I agree that his arguments are just as good as the other side.

  226. avatar
    traderjack April 4, 2012 at 3:42 am #

    and, never, never, never, answer a question !Why is the R in Barack on the LFBC a different font than the other 4 and why does it show pixels to a greater degree than the other four?

    come on , let’s see the example that can be posted showing how that could be accomplished on a typed page.

    Here is your answers , already written for you by me!

    Oh, it is just a defect in the scanning”
    Oh it is only a defect in the printing?
    Oh, it is not any different at all!

    Oh , it is just a birther artifact that someone put into the BC

    Oh, it doesn’t matter as the BC is certified by the HDOH

    Oh it is just a birther talking point and it does not need to be discussed

    oh, it was debunked years ago by someone who was fully qualitied as a forensic witness!

    Oh, it came of a birth site and they can’t be trusted.

    Got anymore?

  227. avatar
    traderjack April 4, 2012 at 3:44 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I went to WND and looked at the two images. They weren’t even in the same ballpark. Corsi wrote:Just look at the clumsy David Sinclair signature in Polland’s example. You don’t even need to zoom it. What a joke!

    Heck, DR, C, I saw that right away, but it did have the certification , and by the way , the little e that was in the Onaka first letter, and I guess you would have to say it is there, if he put it in there., and it does look like the whitehouse sig.

  228. avatar
    traderjack April 4, 2012 at 3:55 am #

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/sheriff-joe-wants-obamas-original-draft-card/ssd/

    You scroll down and you will see the 5 stamps from the PO and the two from the Makiki postoffice within 5 days of Obama’s

    of course , these could be faked also!

  229. avatar
    Scientist April 4, 2012 at 6:56 am #

    traderjack: !Why is the R in Barack on the LFBC a different font than the other 4 and why does it show pixels to a greater degree than the other four?

    Because jack needs new glasses….

    Tell you what, let’s do a fair comparison, with the R in Romeny’s birth certificate…What’s that? Romney hasn’t released his? That seems VERY suspicious to say the least.

  230. avatar
    The Magic M April 4, 2012 at 7:39 am #

    traderjack: It will be like having two attorneys trying to describe why , or why not, DNA should be consider as evidence as they present their view to the juror, if it ever gets to a jury

    No, it would rather compare to one side (non-birthers) introducing DNA as evidence whereas the other (birthers) tries to introduce the testimony of a Voodoo priest who looked at bird intestines to determine who the murderer was.

    Or, my favourite analogy, if the issue at stake was what Paul McCartney’s favourite food was, the birthers would call someone who has collected Beatles records for 20 years whereas the non-birthers would simply call Paul McCartney.

  231. avatar
    James M April 4, 2012 at 9:42 am #

    traderjack:

    Here is your answers , already written for you by me!

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I went to WND and looked at the two images. They weren’t even in the same ballpark. Corsi wrote:

    Just look at the clumsy David Sinclair signature in Polland’s example. You don’t even need to zoom it. What a joke!

    Isn’t this evidence of forgery? Could Polland be in some hot water over this?

  232. avatar
    y_p_w April 4, 2012 at 10:22 am #

    traderjack: and, never, never, never, answer a question !Why is the R in Barack on the LFBC a different font than the other 4 and why does it show pixels to a greater degree than the other four?

    That’s easy. Compression artifact. While most of the other letters were interpreted as solid black for file compression, that letter was sampled in grayscale. There are other examples in there that show up in grayscale without sharpening, such as the “K” in “Kenya”, and the “S” in “Stanley”. Same goes for the date stamps. The closeup shot that Savannah Guthrie took doesn’t have those artifacts on “STANLEY” or “Kenya”.

    This is all pretty normal stuff when a document gets scanned and compressed.

  233. avatar
    y_p_w April 4, 2012 at 10:33 am #

    y_p_w: That’s easy.Compression artifact.While most of the other letters were interpreted as solid black for file compression, that letter was sampled in grayscale.There are other examples in there that show up in grayscale without sharpening, such as the “K” in “Kenya”, and the “S” in “Stanley”.Same goes for the date stamps.The closeup shot that Savannah Guthrie took doesn’t have those artifacts on “STANLEY” or “Kenya”.

    This is all pretty normal stuff when a document gets scanned and compressed.

    There are a bunch more. The dropped “K” in “Kansas” (16), the first three letters of “None” (17a), everything except the last “1” in (20), everything except “19” and “1” in (22), the “X” in (7c). Even parts of the same letter show up differently, such as the tip of the “l” in “Male” (2). “Date A” in (22) also shows up in grayscale.

    That’s only with this compressed color PDF. The AP scanned PDF of the press packet version is much sharper and is a flat image.

  234. avatar
    James M April 4, 2012 at 10:37 am #

    traderjack:

    and, never, never, never, answer a question !Why is the R in Barack on the LFBC a different font than the other 4 and why does it show pixels to a greater degree than the other four?

    Because digital document scanners still render results that are within the limits of human perception.

    If you are asserting that this is evidence of forgery, then your next step is to identify the party responsible and report the crime to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. You are a material witness in an ongoing criminal investigation. It is irresponsible to speak about the case in public until the investigation is resolved.

  235. avatar
    JPotter April 4, 2012 at 10:44 am #

    y_p_w: That’s only with this compressed color PDF. The AP scanned PDF of the press packet version is much sharper and is a flat image.

    And you ca reference that photo to see why those glyphs were passed over for inclusion in the overlays.

    This has been explained to Jackie-o before, multiple times. Jack, why not educate yourself, make your own determination? Read up on digital imaging and optimization techniques. Enable yourself to offer more than questions. Stop relying on the conclusions of others … here and anywhere else.

    Or just keep asking the same questions and expecting the answers to change.

  236. avatar
    The Magic M April 4, 2012 at 12:28 pm #

    JPotter: Read up on digital imaging and optimization techniques.

    Conspiracy theories thrive where weak minds feel threatened by expert knowledge they cannot confirm themselves, or forces they cannot control themselves.
    That’s why it’s unlikely John or any other birther will ever bother to understand that stuff.
    Just like a die-hard Christian will never bother with quantum physics or anything else that can “explain away” his “God did it” belief, a birther will never dare look at any hard science that refutes his “Obama did it” belief.

  237. avatar
    JPotter April 4, 2012 at 1:24 pm #

    The Magic M: a birther will never dare look at any hard science that refutes his “Obama did it” belief.

    I know, but at least we can lead the horses to the water. When it drops dead, it will still blame us, but at least we tried.