Main Menu

Counter-editorial to the Sonoran News

The Sonoran News describes itself as “The Conservative Voice of Arizona,” a rather presumptuous title for a local newspaper, I think. All I can say for certain is that that they are certainly a birther voice in Arizona. A Cave Creek, Arizona, couple, Don and Shari Jo Sorchych, run the site, and apparently there is also a print version on alternate weeks. Some serious questions have been raised about the newspaper, for example:

Now the real question is, where does Don come up with the money to print 36,000 copies of that lousy newspaper and deliver it free of charge every other week when he doesn’t have the cash to pay Freeman for fixing up his driveway?

[That was supposed to be funny. For more on that see.]

The Sonoran News is notable to me for their long-time support for Terry Lakin, the birther military doctor who went to jail for disobeying orders in an attempt to create some sort of crisis that would expose Obama as an ineligible president. Lakin pled guilty, but many birthers still consider him a hero.

Now, the the Sonoran News has published a guest editorial by one Robert Quinn, titled “The man who stole America – Part Three.” The article may qualify the paper as “The Stupid Conservative Voice of Arizona.” Here’s the opening of the editorial:

Barack Obama uses anyone or anything to avoid revealing any document which would supposedly help prove he was eligible to seek the Presidency of America. Why he did this? He knew disclosure would reveal a deception beyond belief. He deliberately fought against producing a valid "Certificate of Live Birth" from Hawaii which should have confirmed he was born there and was a natural-born American citizen. He could have brought a divided Nation together. Instead, he chose lying, falsifying documents (including an ineligible "Certification of Live Birth" which he, a former Constitutional teacher, knew was an ineligible document for a presidential aspirant. The deception had begun!

So in order to avoid revealing his birth certificate, Barack Obama went so far as to release it with minimal prompting back in 2008, long before the election. Of course the “Certification of Live Birth” was the standard form of birth certificate in Hawaii in 2007 when Obama’s certified copy was issued. Quinn makes the nonsense assertion that a certification is not a certificate, and doubles down on this with this remarkable assertion:

Bill O’Reilly of Fox News claimed he saw a copy of Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate but had to retract that claim when told that what his team viewed was a fraudulent, ineligible copy of a "Certification of Live Birth", not of a "Certificate of Live Birth."

Quinn provides no references for anything, including this odd one:

That is why some Democratic representatives are trying to have a resolution passed which would permanently seal all Obama Presidential records from the Public eye.

He seems to be pretty confused, saying things like:

Georgia’s Federal Deputy Chief, Michael Maliki, subpoenaed Obama to appear in court with a valid birth certificate or suffer contempt of court.

The judge’s correct name is “Malihi,” and he is a state administrative law judge, not a “Federal Deputy Chief.” The judge didn’t issue the subpoena—Orly Taitz put Obama’s name on a blank form provided by the court. The judge didn’t quash the subpoena, but he did not order Obama to appear in court either—he had no jurisdiction to compel anyone from out of state to appear.

Finally, Quinn engages in the usual birther rant: “treason,” “robbing our freedom” and “media silence,” asking, “Is anyone going to stand up against the greatest deception in our Country’s history?” Well Robert Quinn is certainly standing up against the deception by writing a letter to the editor to an obscure newspaper, perhaps the only one in the country that would print it.

Robert Quinn has been added to “Birthers A to Z.”

, ,

93 Responses to Counter-editorial to the Sonoran News

  1. avatar
    JPotter November 13, 2014 at 7:05 pm #

    Reading his piece is like time travel. And I haven’t even seen Interstallar yet! Gravity well in Arizona dragging Quinn into the past?

  2. avatar
    Georgetown JD November 13, 2014 at 7:21 pm #

    As a former resident of Cave Creek I assure you that few, if any, waste their time reading the Sonoran News. If it even lands within proximity of the driveway the small newspaper typically stays there, turns yellow, and then the weekly yard maintenance crew picks it up (carefully, to avoid scorpions that like to crawl inside) and tosses it on the trailer with the mesquite tree clippings.

  3. avatar
    john November 13, 2014 at 7:36 pm #

    “The judge didn’t quash the subpoena, but he did not order Obama to appear in court either—he had no jurisdiction to compel anyone from out of state to appear.”

    I remember that. Obama was in contempt of court. It was golden opportunity and closest anyone came to getting Obama but the birthers blew it. The judge was going hold Obama in contempt which would have absolutely DESTROYED Obama’s reelection hopes. Instead the lawyer wanted to have their trial and the judge allowed it to go forward. In doing so, the judge basically LET OBAMA OFF THE HOOK.

  4. avatar
    predicto November 13, 2014 at 7:53 pm #

    john:
    “The judge didn’t quash the subpoena, but he did not order Obama to appear in court either—he had no jurisdiction to compel anyone from out of state to appear.”

    I remember that.Obama was in contempt of court.It was golden opportunity and closest anyone came to getting Obama but the birthers blew it. The judge was going hold Obama in contempt which would have absolutely DESTROYED Obama’s reelection hopes.Instead the lawyer wanted to have their trial and the judge allowed it to go forward.In doing so, the judge basically LET OBAMA OFF THE HOOK.

    nice.

    All I can say to that is summed up by this link: http://i.imgur.com/H8ffMtv.jpg

  5. avatar
    john November 13, 2014 at 8:31 pm #

    “Barack Obama went so far as to release it with minimal prompting back in 2008, long before the election. Of course the “Certification of Live Birth” was the standard form of birth certificate in Hawaii in 2007 when Obama’s certified copy was issued.”

    I always thought this was highly suspicious. The COLB was issued in 2007 and it was released in 2008. But no one was really talking about the birth certificate issue when Obama first started his campaign in 2007. What interest or why did Obama have to get his COLB from Hawaii in 2007. Remember, there is no official vetting of presidential candidates nor are they required to show their birth certificates (All the birth bills failed to pass.) So there was no reason why the COLB was needed.

  6. avatar
    Rickey November 13, 2014 at 8:37 pm #

    john:

    I remember that.Obama was in contempt of court.It was golden opportunity and closest anyone came to getting Obama but the birthers blew it. The judge was going hold Obama in contempt which would have absolutely DESTROYED Obama’s reelection hopes.Instead the lawyer wanted to have their trial and the judge allowed it to go forward.In doing so, the judge basically LET OBAMA OFF THE HOOK.

    You remember it, but you don’t remember it very well.

    Malihi never was going to hold Obama in contempt. As Doc has explained, Malihi had no authority to compel Obama to appear in a state legal proceeding. What Maiihi “threatened” to do was to enter a default judgment for the plaintiff’s because neither Obama nor his attorneys showed up (the emply chair, remember?) Orly, Hatfield and Van Irion rejected Malihi’s offer to enter a default judgment. Not that it would have made any difference. A default judgment only means that the defendant cannot argue its case, but it is still up to the plaintiff to make its case and convince the judge that he could and should give the plaintiff the relief which is being sought.

    Obama and his attorney did not need to appear because the plaintiffs had zero evidence that Obama was not eligible. The key finding:

    “his Court considered that President BarackObama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80417613/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Judge-Malihi-Final-Decision-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-2-3-2012

  7. avatar
    Reality Check November 13, 2014 at 8:39 pm #

    His spokesperson said the certified copies were obtained in an abundance of caution. Maybe rather than researching what was required to apply for candidacy in all 50 states they decided just to gather all the documentation that might be required. It is called thorough planning. Of course you can weave anything into a conspiracy JY so why am I bothering to reply?

    john: I always thought this was highly suspicious. The COLB was issued in 2007 and it was released in 2008. But no one was really talking about the birth certificate issue when Obama first started his campaign in 2007. What interest or why did Obama have to get his COLB from Hawaii in 2007. Remember, there is no official vetting of presidential candidates nor are they required to show their birth certificates (All the birth bills failed to pass.) So there was no reason why the COLB was needed.

  8. avatar
    alg November 13, 2014 at 9:34 pm #

    john: I always thought this was highly suspicious.The COLB was issued in 2007 and it was released in 2008.But no one was really talking about the birth certificate issue when Obama first started his campaign in 2007.What interest or why did Obama have to get his COLB from Hawaii in 2007.Remember, there is no official vetting of presidential candidates nor are they required to show their birth certificates (All the birth bills failed to pass.)So there was no reason why the COLB was needed.

    John, the COLB is legal tender as a birth certificate in every state and in every court in the nation. It is all that any person born in the State of Hawaii needs to prove they were born there. My niece and nephew, both born in Honolulu, each have a similarly appearing certification of live birth. No one questions their citizenship. It is valid for obtaining a passport, drivers license and social security number. Nothing else is required. There is nothing suspicious whatsoever about it. For six years birthers have been tilting at windmills over a non-issue that was legally resolved in 2008. You are living in a make believe world.

  9. avatar
    Joey November 13, 2014 at 11:12 pm #

    Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the presidency on February 10, 2007. As has been mentioned, having a birth certificate available in case it was needed in order to be eligible for any state’s ballot was a prudent idea. As we all now know, there is no state that requires a birth certificate be shown in order to be eligible for the ballot.

  10. avatar
    john November 13, 2014 at 11:15 pm #

    Reality Check:
    His spokesperson said the certified copies were obtained in an abundance of caution. Maybe rather than researching what was required to apply for candidacy in all 50 states they decided just to gather all the documentation that might be required. It is called thorough planning. Of course you can weave anything into a conspiracy JY so why am I bothering to reply?

    Why would there be abundance of caution. It is has been established, presidential candidates don’t need to produce birth certificate, they only to swear they are natural born citizens.

  11. avatar
    Steve November 13, 2014 at 11:41 pm #

    john: Why would there be abundance of caution.It is has been established, presidential candidates don’t need to produce birth certificate, they only to swear they are natural born citizens.

    He also published it online because there were rumors his middle name was Muhammad and he wanted to put an end to that.

  12. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 13, 2014 at 11:55 pm #

    John would argue with an oncoming speeding train, if he thought he could convince it that Obama isn’t who he says he is.

  13. avatar
    Joey November 14, 2014 at 12:19 am #

    john: Why would there be abundance of caution.It is has been established, presidential candidates don’t need to produce birth certificate, they only to swear they are natural born citizens.

    Each state has different requirements to be ballot eligible. For example, in some states the prospective candidate must swear that he/she is a natural born citizen; in other states, the nominee of a political party is verified to be eligible by their party’s chairperson.
    Roger Calero was the presidential candidate of the Socialist Workers Party. Calero was born in Nicaragua. He was permitted to be on the ballot in five states but a substitute natural born citizen was the party’s candidate in other states.

  14. avatar
    RanTalbott November 14, 2014 at 3:53 am #

    john: Why would there be abundance of caution.

    Because he’s not a Republican, and plans ahead before he acts.

  15. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) November 14, 2014 at 5:30 am #

    Steve: He also published it online because there were rumors his middle name was Muhammad

    I never quite understood why having Muhammad as middle name would’ve been in any way worse than having “Hussein”.

    john: What interest or why did Obama have to get his COLB from Hawaii in 2007. Remember, there is no official vetting of presidential candidates nor are they required to show their birth certificates (All the birth bills failed to pass.) So there was no reason why the COLB was needed.

    Is that your birfer Catch-22 again, where you first go “why doesn’t he show it?” and after he shows it, switch to “why did he show it if he didn’t have to?”?

  16. avatar
    RanTalbott November 14, 2014 at 5:45 am #

    john: I always thought this was highly suspicious.

    You’d think the fact that the average daily temperature has been declining and tree leaves have changed color is “highly suspicious” if you could figure out a way to blame Obama for it.

    john: So there was no reason why the COLB was needed.

    None that you know of. There are many reasons for getting a birth certificate. Maybe he was planning to get a DC driver’s license. Or apply for a gun permit because of all the RWNJs threatening to kill him.

    I realize this may come as a shock to you, but not everything in the vast set of “things you don’t understand” is nefarious.

  17. avatar
    Judge Mental November 14, 2014 at 6:35 am #

    Many millions of people, no doubt also including some prospective Presidential candidates, especially those who have been unable to locate any certified copy birth certificate that has been in their family possessions since shortly after their birth, also from time to time need a certified copy of their birth certificate for reasons unconnected with any intention to run as a candidate.

    Applying for a certified copy birth certificate is a very common and thoroughly unremarkable occurrence. Irrespective of whatever precautionary or contingency “candidacy related reasons” Obama may have had for acquiring a certified copy, it is surely far from being beyond the bounds of reasonable probability that Obama wanted a certified copy birth certificate in 2007 for other fairly mundane reasons too.

  18. avatar
    Keith November 14, 2014 at 7:15 am #

    john: I always thought this was highly suspicious. The COLB was issued in 2007 and it was released in 2008. But no one was really talking about the birth certificate issue when Obama first started his campaign in 2007. What interest or why did Obama have to get his COLB from Hawaii in 2007. Remember, there is no official vetting of presidential candidates nor are they required to show their birth certificates (All the birth bills failed to pass.) So there was no reason why the COLB was needed.

    What makes you think “Obama HAD to get his COLB from Hawaii in 2007″. Maybe he didn’t HAVE to get it – maybe he just WANTED to get it.

    Perhaps there was no LEGAL reason for him to get his birth certificate to run for President – but that doesn’t mean there weren’t other absolutely compelling reasons.

    It might just have been that he realized that he didn’t have one and chose to get a copy just for his own personal benefit. Maybe he was gathering a packet of documents to file with his will. Maybe he was setting up an archive of personal documents to stash in a safety deposit box. Do you have your birth certificate? Why? Are you running for President?

    Furthermore, part of what campaign staff get paid to do is make sure all the bases are covered. A good staff, even a mediocre staff, would advise the Candidate to ensure that EVERYTHING is ship shape – no ex-wives or girlfriends are going to spring unpleasant surprises; taxes are up-to-date; documentation is complete. The campaign staff are going to grill the Candidate unmercifully – because the Press is going to be relentlessly looking for weaknesses.

    There is also the fact that the DNC Chair has to swear, under penalty of perjury, that the Candidate is eligible in order to get on the ballot in many states. It is not unreasonable that the DNC would have a requirement that the Candidate provide the proof – too them – so that they can indeed swear to that eligibility.

    Your constant needling and picking on this stuff is insulting to your own intelligence.

    Your entire premise:

    “What interest or why did Obama have to get his COLB from Hawaii in 2007… So there was no reason why the COLB was needed.”

    judges him guilty and insists that he prove himself innocent. That is the premise that all you Birthers operate under and the bar is set and moved so that it is impossible to prove that the Sun rises in the morning, let alone that he is innocent of some imagined transgression.

    In America EVERYONE is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty – and before you can prove someone’s guilt you have to actually charge him with a crime. It is not up to Obama or anyone else to demonstrate why he wanted a copy of his birth certificate in 2007, there is nothing nefarious about ordering a birth certificate for yourself, and frankly, his reasons are really none of your darn business. If you think it was for some nefarious purpose, then it is up to you to prove it. Your continual niggling on trivia, especially when you get it wrong, and declaring that somehow it makes Obama the devil in disguise is positively un-American.

    If you disagree with Obama’s policies and performance in his job, that is something that can be discussed and debated. Trying to convince people that yellow is really green isn’t worth wasting time on and your pouting whinge-laden trolling posts are pointless and this is certainly the last one I will respond to.

  19. avatar
    Keith November 14, 2014 at 7:18 am #

    john: Why would there be abundance of caution.

    Because campaign staffs are PAID to exercise an abundance of caution. Its what they do.

  20. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) November 14, 2014 at 9:44 am #

    The funniest part about the Sonoran News article (I always read “Sontaran” but that’s just the Whovian in me) is how the guy harps about “ineligible documents”. Another case of “I hear you say that word but I don’t think you know what it means”.

  21. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) November 14, 2014 at 9:48 am #

    john: Why would there be abundance of caution.

    And again Catch-22. Had there been no abundance of caution, you’d have claimed how the Prez plays “fast and loose”.
    Y’know, like the Catch-22 about Obama’s lawyers personally fetching the documents from Hawaii (birthers: “why didn’t they just FedEx them?”, birthers if they had: “who tells us nobody at FedEx switched the real Kenyan BC for this one?”) or Obama not holding them in front of the press (birthers: “why didn’t he hold them?”, birthers if he had: “who tells us he didn’t switch his Kenyan BC for this one when nobody was looking?”) etc.

  22. avatar
    John Reilly November 14, 2014 at 10:28 am #

    Why was yhere an abundance of caution, John?

    To prepare for racist trolls like you.

  23. avatar
    gorefan November 14, 2014 at 11:24 am #

    Steve: He also published it online because there were rumors his middle name was Muhammad and he wanted to put an end to that.

    The rumor about his middle name started at least before 2008 as there is a PolitiFact article from January, 2008.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/11/chain-email/not-a-muslim-not-mohammed/

  24. avatar
    Lupin November 14, 2014 at 11:55 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): (I always read “Sontaran” but that’s just the Whovian in me)

    Totally OT: Always glad to see another Whovian. You do know who I am, don’t you? (I linked to my wiki page a long time ago; maybe you weren’t there then.).

    Dalek Obot: Birth certificate… EXTERMINATE Birth certificate!

  25. avatar
    Crustacean November 14, 2014 at 12:22 pm #

    Folks, please remember that “john” is an expert at logical fallacies (i.e. master of the art of logic fallacio). Under no circumstances should you attempt this level of mental gymnastics at home. You could sprain your membrane, causing it to go insane. (see also: begging the question, as in “why did Obama have to get his COLB from Hawaii in 2007?”).

    Please leave this dangerous practice to the experts. Stay safe!

    The Magic M (not logged in): Is that your birfer Catch-22 again, where you first go “why doesn’t he show it?” and after he shows it, switch to “why did he show it if he didn’t have to?”?

  26. avatar
    Bonsall Obot November 14, 2014 at 12:58 pm #

    a racist drive-by troll sez:
    I always thought this was highly suspicious.

    Tell us, racist drive-by troll: has the President ever done something you didn’t find “highly suspicious?” It might save us some time if you just provided that list, instead.

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 14, 2014 at 1:02 pm #

    Just remember: DALEK is KALED spelled backwards.

    Lupin: Totally OT: Always glad to see another Whovian. You do know who I am, don’t you? (I linked to my wiki page a long time ago; maybe you weren’t there then.).

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 14, 2014 at 1:08 pm #

    In 2010, I wrote:

    “I remember seeing (but can’t find now) a comment attributed to an Obama campaign staffer that said the campaign had obtained several birth certificates for Senator Obama in 2007. When the issue began to be raised seriously about where Obama was born, the campaign posted the famous scan of the 2007 Certification of Live Birth.”

    We know now that no state requires a birth certificate of presidential candidates, but they might not have known that then.

    john: What interest or why did Obama have to get his COLB from Hawaii in 2007.

  29. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 14, 2014 at 2:15 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Just remember: DALEK is KALED spelled backwards.

    Well, not quite.
    I do love me some Doctor Who though, and I love how the show seems to have gone back to it’s roots. Gone is the “Young pretty boy, fan service for the ladies” Doctor. We’re back to “Angry confused grandpa” Doctor.

  30. avatar
    BillTheCat November 14, 2014 at 2:40 pm #

    “…perhaps the only one in the country that would print it.”

    Aw c’mon Doc, I’m sure “The Post & Efail” would give it a shot too, lol.

    I see John continues to be just slightly less delusional than Nancy – barely.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 14, 2014 at 3:23 pm #

    I would say more accurately that Orly Taitz, Van Irion and Mark Hatfield let Obama off the hook by not accepting the judge’s offer of a default judgment. That would have been the one and only birther “win” in history, but …

    john: Instead the lawyer wanted to have their trial and the judge allowed it to go forward. In doing so, the judge basically LET OBAMA OFF THE HOOK.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 14, 2014 at 3:25 pm #

    So as not to disturb the Dr. Who space-continuum, Sherman, set the Wayback machine for early this morning.

    Remember: DALEK is an anagram for KALED.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Well, not quite.

  33. avatar
    Arthur B. November 14, 2014 at 3:38 pm #

    john: Instead the lawyer wanted to have their trial and the judge allowed it to go forward. In doing so, the judge basically LET OBAMA OFF THE HOOK.

    That strikes me as a very odd way of looking at it.

    ALJ Malihi, at the lawyers’ request, gave them a chance to present their evidence. It wasn’t until after he heard it that he ruled that their case had no merit.

  34. avatar
    Woodrowfan November 14, 2014 at 4:24 pm #

    John, perhaps you should see a doctor, maybe a mental health professional. seriously.,

  35. avatar
    john November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I would say more accurately that Orly Taitz, Van Irion and Mark Hatfield let Obama off the hook by not accepting the judge’s offer of a default judgment. That would have been the one and only birther “win” in history, but …

    I tend to agree. It was biggest screw up made by birthers. If they allowed the judge to enter a default judgement against Obama, then you finally a court with judgement against him and Obama’s reeelection hopes would have been gone.

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 14, 2014 at 5:53 pm #

    Well, I don’t think the default judgment would have actually meant anything beyond a symbolic victory for the birthers. The default wouldn’t have changed the facts or the evidence. Obama would still have been declared eligible in the end.

    Remember, it was the birthers who proved that Obama was born in Hawaii through their FOIA responses and a copy of Obama’s birth certificate. They provided the evidence, and were unable to impeach it.

    john: then you finally a court with judgement against him and Obama’s reeelection (sic) hopes would have been gone.

  37. avatar
    Arthur B. November 14, 2014 at 6:01 pm #

    john: If they allowed the judge to enter a default judgement against Obama, then you finally a court with judgement against him and Obama’s reeelection hopes would have been gone.

    I’m afraid that’s just wishful thinking, john.

    The default, had it taken place, would have been entered after the President’s legal team made it clear that they were not participating because the hearing was a political farce — under the law, the court had no jurisdiction to hear that case.

    And that’s precisely what the appellate court said. The court had no jurisdiction to hear that case. Any judgment by Malihi would have been instantly vacated and then — well, your “court with judgment against him” fantasy just vanishes into thin air.

  38. avatar
    john November 14, 2014 at 6:27 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Well, I don’t think the default judgment would have actually meant anything beyond a symbolic victory for the birthers. The default wouldn’t have changed the facts or the evidence. Obama would still have been declared eligible in the end.

    Remember, it was the birthers who proved that Obama was born in Hawaii through their FOIA responses and a copy of Obama’s birth certificate. They provided the evidence, and were unable to impeach it.

    I doubt Doc it. All you would have needed is the News Headline by main stream media, something that birthers have never been able to get. If a news headline like “Obama fails to get on the ballot in Georgia.” or “Default judgement entered against Obama in Georgia”, I think the damage would have been done regardless of how temporary such a situation was.

  39. avatar
    john November 14, 2014 at 6:37 pm #

    Birthers came close to getting their news headline but never got the death blow. I think the closest they got was when Ken Bennett of AZ threatened to keep Obama off the ballot. Bennett was all ready to but then he got Hawaii Verification and chickened out. I think that if Ken Bennett had went ahead and forbid Obama on the AZ ballot demanding to see the original (Verification is not good enough, I want to see the original or like Arpaio, show me the microfilm) I think Obama would not have been reelected.

  40. avatar
    Arthur November 14, 2014 at 6:43 pm #

    john: I think that if Ken Bennett had went ahead and forbid Obama on the AZ ballot demanding to see the original (Verification is not good enough, I want to see the original or like Arpaio, show me the microfilm) I think Obama would not have been reelected.

    People think a lot of things.

  41. avatar
    Crustacean November 14, 2014 at 6:45 pm #

    Let me see if I have this right: if Bennett had only had the guts to piss on the U.S. Constitution, he could’ve changed the outcome of a presidential election?

    Tell me again who the traitors are, grandpa!!

    john:
    Birthers came close to getting their news headline but never got the death blow.I think the closest they got was when Ken Bennett of AZ threatened to keep Obama off the ballot.Bennett was all ready to but then he got Hawaii Verification and chickened out.I think that if Ken Bennett had went ahead and forbid Obama on the AZ ballot demanding to see the original (Verification is not good enough, I want to see the original or like Arpaio, show me the microfilm) I think Obama would not have been reelected.

  42. avatar
    Sef November 14, 2014 at 6:46 pm #

    john: I doubt Doc it.All you would have needed is the News Headline by main stream media, something that birthers have never been able to get.If a news headline like “Obama fails to get on the ballot in Georgia.”or “Default judgement entered against Obama in Georgia”, I think the damage would have been done regardless of how temporary such a situation was.

    And then he would have only gotten half of Georgia’s Electoral College votes as he actually got.

  43. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 14, 2014 at 6:49 pm #

    john: Birthers came close to getting their news headline but never got the death blow. I think the closest they got was when Ken Bennett of AZ threatened to keep Obama off the ballot.

    You lot never got close to getting your anything. You don’t get it. Birthers have never posed so much as even a minor threat to Obama’s Presidency. Your biggest players are all hat and no cattle. You never had a chance of removing Obama from office, aside from voting him out. Oh, idiots like Corsi and Zullo tried to sway the election, but they failed. No one takes them seriously, so none of their lies ever stuck.

    Now, I’d tell you to take your trollish bullcrap, and go play in traffic, but Its not my place to do so.

  44. avatar
    RanTalbott November 14, 2014 at 6:51 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Your biggest players are all hat and no cattle.

    And the hats are made of tinfoil…

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 14, 2014 at 6:59 pm #

    Ken Bennett, as Arizona Secretary of State, was particularly aware that the verification WAS good enough.

    john: I think that if Ken Bennett had went ahead and forbid Obama on the AZ ballot demanding to see the original (Verification is not good enough,

  46. avatar
    john November 14, 2014 at 7:34 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Ken Bennett, as Arizona Secretary of State, was particularly aware that the verification WAS good enough.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Ken Bennett, as Arizona Secretary of State, was particularly aware that the verification WAS good enough.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Ken Bennett, as Arizona Secretary of State, was particularly aware that the verification WAS good enough.

    Of course, any birther will disagree with you Doc. You should have a post on where Birthers came the closest to getting Obama. I would put the Georgia Ballot challenge on the top but birthers fumbled it. Also Orly nearly got discovery in the Carter case but Carter flipped and dismissed it.

  47. avatar
    Dave November 14, 2014 at 7:56 pm #

    I have to say that the only effect birthers ever had was that 1) the news media liked to write about them, because absurdities make interesting stories, and 2) Democratic political hacks liked to use birthers to smear the GOP and raise money.

    But I have a comment about Taitz and discovery. Taitz always talked about discovery like she would win the instant she got it. But her comments made all too clear that she didn’t understand the first thing about discovery, and had she ever gotten it, it would’ve been the same Keystone Kops routine all over again.

  48. avatar
    RanTalbott November 14, 2014 at 8:17 pm #

    john: Of course, any birther will disagree with you Doc.

    Which is why you have a 6-year unbroken string of defeats: disagreeing with reality doesn’t change it.

    john: You should have a post on where Birthers came the closest to getting Obama.

    If you’re that eager to get humiliated again, do yourself, and us, a favor: hire a dominatrix, and rent a room.

  49. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 14, 2014 at 8:19 pm #

    john: You should have a post on where Birthers came the closest to getting Obama.

    Except birthers never came close to “getting Obama”. Not even by a little bit! Your lot is a pimple that fancies itself as the black plague.

  50. avatar
    RanTalbott November 14, 2014 at 8:39 pm #

    Dave: had she ever gotten it, it would’ve been the same Keystone Kops routine all over again

    Well, of course. But look at all the hilarity that resulted from the SSA “confirming” the existence of Bounel in their FOIA response. Giving documents to Orly is some of the best free entertainment ever. Unless you’re one of the unfortunate folks waiting your turn in the courtroom she’s wasting.

    We already have specialized courts for divorces, drug addicts, etc. We should set up a system for the delusional: after your issue has accumulated, say, 100 consecutive losses in the regular system, jurisdiction is automatically transferred to a reality TV network’s court, with cases to be heard by Judge Judy.

  51. avatar
    Rickey November 14, 2014 at 9:01 pm #

    john: Of course, any birther will disagree with you Doc.You should have a post on where Birthers came the closest to getting Obama.I would put the Georgia Ballot challenge on the top but birthers fumbled it.Also Orly nearly got discovery in the Carter case but Carter flipped and dismissed it.

    The reality – a condition with which you have little experience – is that the birthers have never gotten within a million miles of “getting” Obama. A default judgment in Georgia would have been meaningless. Malihi had no authority to remove Obama from the ballot. All he had authority to do was make a recommendation to the Georgia Secretary of State.

    Birthers in general (and you in particular) are ignorant about the law. A default judgment is not the end of a lawsuit. A plaintiff who has won a default judgment still has to demonstrate that he or she is entitled to relief, and the court has to have the authority to grant the relief requested. Even if every factual claim made by the plaintiffs in the Georgia case had been accepted as true, the plaintiffs still had no evidence that Obama was not eligible to be President. So even if the plaintiffs had accepted the default judgment, they would have been denied the relief they sought.

    To put this into terms which you might understand, let’s say that you and I get into an auto accident. You claim that you sustained a neck injury and sue me for $100,000. I fail to respond to the lawsuit, so the court enters a default judgment against me. That doesn’t automatically mean that you get a $100,000 judgment. You still have to provide evidence to the court that you were actually injured. If the court found your evidence of injuries lacking, you could be awarded nothing in spite of your default judgment.

    As for Arizona, once Bennett received the verification from Hawaii he had no choice but to allow Obama’s name on the ballot. One reason that we have a Constitution is to prevent political hacks such as Bennett from imposing their politics on the electoral process.

    As for Judge Carter, discovery is not a license to conduct a fishing expedition. And discovery is not unlimited. If Judge Carter had permitted any discovery at all, Obama would have submitted a certified copy of his birth certificate and the Constitution would have required that Judge Carter accept it as proof of his birth in Hawaii. And that would have been the end of it.

  52. avatar
    donna November 14, 2014 at 9:19 pm #

    Ken Bennett from 2011: Arizona’s presidential citizenship bill worries Bennett (before he got his birther badge)

    ….. what worries Ken Bennett, the current secretary of state, is that he also would have to be furnished “an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance.” Without that, he said, the measure would bar him from including the candidate’s name on the ballot.

    “I don’t know that’s on MY birth certificate, for goodness sakes” said Bennett, who was born in Tucson.

    “If you were delivered at home with a midwife, does that mean you are no longer qualified to be the president of the United States?” he asked. “If there aren’t any signatures of witnesses in attendance, you’re no longer qualified?”

    And what, exactly, is a “long form birth certificate,” he asked.

    “I think he was born in Hawaii,” he said. “I personally believe he is a U.S. citizen.”

    He added, though, that no process might be enough “in the minds of some people.”

    http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/politics/article_7d8bf3dc-2b41-11e0-bfbe-001cc4c03286.html

  53. avatar
    Curious George November 14, 2014 at 10:05 pm #

    Rickey
    “As for Arizona, once Bennett received the verification from Hawaii he had no choice but to allow Obama’s name on the ballot. One reason that we have a Constitution is to prevent political hacks such as Bennett from imposing their politics on the electoral process. ”

    John, read the above a few times and maybe this will sink in. It’s not a tough concept to understand unless you’re a diehard birther with a very closed mind.

  54. avatar
    john November 14, 2014 at 10:34 pm #

    Rickey: The reality – a condition with which you have little experience – is that the birthers have never gotten within a million miles of “getting” Obama. A default judgment in Georgia would have been meaningless. Malihi had no authority to remove Obama from the ballot. All he had authority to do was make a recommendation to the Georgia Secretary of State.

    Birthers in general (and you in particular) are ignorant about the law. A default judgment is not the end of a lawsuit. A plaintiff who has won a default judgment still has to demonstrate that he or she is entitled to relief, and the court has to have the authority to grant the relief requested. Even if every factual claim made by the plaintiffs in the Georgia case had been accepted as true, the plaintiffs still had no evidence that Obama was not eligible to be President. So even if the plaintiffs had accepted the default judgment, they would have been denied the relief they sought.

    To put this into terms which you might understand, let’s say that you and I get into an auto accident. You claim that you sustained a neck injury and sue me for $100,000. I fail to respond to the lawsuit, so the court enters a default judgment against me. That doesn’t automatically mean that you get a $100,000 judgment. You still have to provide evidence to the court that you were actually injured. If the court found your evidence of injuries lacking, you could be awarded nothing in spite of your default judgment.

    As for Arizona, once Bennett received the verification from Hawaii he had no choice but to allow Obama’s name on the ballot. One reason that we have a Constitution is to prevent political hacks such as Bennett from imposing their politics on the electoral process.

    As for Judge Carter, discovery is not a license to conduct a fishing expedition. And discovery is not unlimited. If Judge Carter had permitted any discovery at all, Obama would have submitted a certified copy of his birth certificate and the Constitution would have required that Judge Carter accept it as proof of his birth in Hawaii. And that would have been the end of it.

    There doesn’t have to be any end conclusion as you suggest. All you needed to do was to get the New Headline Story and that would have the end of Obama. The Main Stream Media has been burying the birther issue for years and the birthers can’t get enough small media to bring it to attention. (Trump was the birther’s best hope but he gave up.) As for Ken Bennett, I can tell you that if Orly Taitz had been SOS (She tried to run in CA but was beaten badly), Obama would have never gotten the ballot in CA or AZ (SOS has the final say and Orly wouldn’t do it unless she was inside that Vault in Hawaii. She tried to go there but was denied.)

  55. avatar
    RanTalbott November 14, 2014 at 10:52 pm #

    john: I can tell you that if Orly Taitz had been SOS (She tried to run in CA but was beaten badly)

    And I can tell you that, if pigs could fly, we’d all need Kevlar umbrellas.

    Orly _did_ run, not just “try”, and she was beaten badly BECAUSE SHE’S #$*&ING NUTS. As are pretty much all the people you’ve chosen to align yourself with.

    There’s a clue there. See if you can spot it, and discern its meaning.

  56. avatar
    john November 14, 2014 at 11:27 pm #

    RanTalbott: And I can tell you that, if pigs could fly, we’d all need Kevlar umbrellas.

    Orly _did_ run, not just “try”, and she was beaten badly BECAUSE SHE’S #$*&ING NUTS. As are pretty much all the people you’ve chosen to align yourself with.

    There’s a clue there. See if you can spot it, and discern its meaning.

    Actually, I would consider that to be biggest hope that birther could have gotten, Orly winning SOS of CA. ASSUMING Orly Taitz had won SOS of CA, Obama would have been in big Sh#$% trouble trying to get on the ballot of US’s most popular state. I don’t think Orly would let Obama on the ballot short of impeachment or being able to get inside Hawaii’s Vault to personally inspect the Birth Certificate.

  57. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 14, 2014 at 11:29 pm #

    john: As for Ken Bennett, I can tell you that if Orly Taitz had been SOS (She tried to run in CA but was beaten badly), Obama would have never gotten the ballot in CA or AZ (SOS has the final say and Orly wouldn’t do it unless she was inside that Vault in Hawaii. She tried to go there but was denied.)

    How would Orly, as California Secretary of State, have prevented Obama from appearing on the ballot in Arizona?

    And what would she have done when the courts ordered her to put Obama on the ballot?

  58. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 14, 2014 at 11:33 pm #

    john: Obama would have been in big Sh#$% trouble trying to get on the ballot of US’s most popular state. I don’t think Orly would let Obama on the ballot short of impeachment or being able to get inside Hawaii’s Vault to personally inspect the Birth Certificate.

    You really don’t understand how things work. If, for the sake of fantasy politics, Orly had won and refused to put Obama on the ballot she would have been sued and lost. She would have been ordered to put him on the ballot and if she didn’t she would have been held in contempt. From there it would have gotten ugly with her possibly going to jail and/or the court taking control of the election.

  59. avatar
    realist November 15, 2014 at 12:06 am #

    Rickey: Obama and his attorney did not need to appear because the plaintiffs had zero evidence that Obama was not eligible.

    They didn’t need to appear because (as the higher court stated later) Malihi had no authority to hold the hearing in the first place.

  60. avatar
    realist November 15, 2014 at 12:08 am #

    john: Actually, I would consider that to be biggest hope that birther could have gotten, Orly winning SOS of CA. ASSUMING Orly Taitz had won SOS of CA, Obama would have been in big Sh#$% trouble trying to get on the ballot of US’s most popular state. I don’t think Orly would let Obama on the ballot short of impeachment or being able to get inside Hawaii’s Vault to personally inspect the Birth Certificate.

    Orly may have attempted to keep him off the ballot. Litigation would have been filed, she would have lost, and Obama would have been on the ballot. It’s that simple.

    And no BC would have been needed to do it.

    Orly Taitz wouldn’t make a pimple on an AG’s butt.

  61. avatar
    realist November 15, 2014 at 12:10 am #

    Curious George: “As for Arizona, once Bennett received the verification from Hawaii he had no choice but to allow Obama’s name on the ballot. One reason that we have a Constitution is to prevent political hacks such as Bennett from imposing their politics on the electoral process. ”

    He indeed had a choice to keep him off the ballot. It would not have been successful and no BC would have been required to put him on the ballot.

    Bennett knew he couldn’t keep him off, BC, verification or not. It was all political BS.

  62. avatar
    realist November 15, 2014 at 12:14 am #

    john: Of course, any birther will disagree with you Doc. You should have a post on where Birthers came the closest to getting Obama. I would put the Georgia Ballot challenge on the top but birthers fumbled it. Also Orly nearly got discovery in the Carter case but Carter flipped and dismissed it.

    Orly never came withing a light year of getting discovery from Carter. That’s nothing but Birther wet dreams and made-up bull from Orly that birthers bought hook, line and sinker. Carter never “flipped’ on anything. Orly’s just ignorant and knows her followers are ignorant as well.

    She’s an incompetent and a pathological liar.

  63. avatar
    Rickey November 15, 2014 at 1:04 am #

    realist: They didn’t need to appear because (as the higher court stated later) Malihi had no authority to hold the hearing in the first place.

    Yes, but I meant that they didn’t need to appear in order to get a favorable ruling from Malihi.

  64. avatar
    Rickey November 15, 2014 at 1:13 am #

    john: As for Ken Bennett, I can tell you that if Orly Taitz had been SOS (She tried to run in CA but was beaten badly), Obama would have never gotten the ballot in CA or AZ (SOS has the final say and Orly wouldn’t do it unless she was inside that Vault in Hawaii.She tried to go there but was denied.)

    You have an inflated belief about the powers of a Secretary of State.

    Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that Orly was the Secretary of State in California in 2012. The Democrats file to have Obama’s name on the ballot, and Orly refuses. What do you think happens next?

    The Democrats immediately file a lawsuit in Federal Court and obtain an emergency injunction prohibiting Orly from refusing to put Obama on the ballot. A hearing is held and the injunction is made permanent. End of story.

    The State of California is required by the Constitution to give full faith and credit to official records from another state. Even if Orly became President of the United States she wouldn’t be allowed to inspect Obama’s original birth certificate.

  65. avatar
    Color Me Skeptical November 15, 2014 at 1:40 am #

    I like how Obama says he gave the repukelikens time to pass immigration reform and they didn’t do it so tough luck.

    When he makes the laws they don’t like it because he’s black!

  66. avatar
    trader jack November 15, 2014 at 2:26 am #

    certificate:1cer·tif·i·cate noun \(ˌ)sər-ˈti-fi-kət\ : a document that is official proof that something has happened

    : a document that is official proof that you have finished school or a course of training

    : a document which shows that you own something

    Certification is the notice that informs you that the stated facts are true.
    A certificate does not state that the facts are true..

    Short forms are not acceptable for identification purposes.

    DOS requires long form for passport, if available.

    COLB only certifies that a live birth occurred as recorded.
    And all of them are subject to challenge in court!

    As to the belief that birth certificates are true and accurate all you have to do is look at the court cases, and the ability of the agencies to modify, change, alter, amend, and issue changed birth certificates at will.

  67. avatar
    Suranis November 15, 2014 at 2:45 am #

    Funny that John does not rate an Arizona birther bill nearly passing as a great success. Maybe because it blatantly had “ignore everything that Barack Obama has provided” as its criteria. Yes, prove your NBCness with a circumcision certificate!

  68. avatar
    Keith November 15, 2014 at 2:47 am #

    RanTalbott: We already have specialized courts for divorces, drug addicts, etc. We should set up a system for the delusional: after your issue has accumulated, say, 100 consecutive losses in the regular system, jurisdiction is automatically transferred to a reality TV network’s court, with cases to be heard by Judge Judy.

    I’d pay to see Orly in Judge Judy’s courtroom.

  69. avatar
    trader jack November 15, 2014 at 2:48 am #

    If you look at the HDOH rules for looking at birth certificates you will find that governmental agencies are permitted to view all of the documents upon a statement that the viewing is a necessary part of their duties.

    So the President could look at any of them!

  70. avatar
    interestedbystander November 15, 2014 at 3:41 am #

    Keith: I’d pay to see Orly in Judge Judy’s courtroom.

    Long a fantasy of mine too – shall we start a whip round?

  71. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 15, 2014 at 4:03 am #

    john: Actually, I would consider that to be biggest hope that birther could have gotten, Orly winning SOS of CA. ASSUMING Orly Taitz had won SOS of CA, Obama would have been in big Sh#$% trouble trying to get on the ballot of US’s most popular state.I don’t think Orly would let Obama on the ballot short of impeachment or being able to get inside Hawaii’s Vault to personally inspect the Birth Certificate.

    Just wondering. Let’s say, just for a thought experiment, that Orly Taitz refused to allow Obama on the ballot in California, demanding his birth certificate. Obama publicly gives her his birth certificate (the very same COLB he released in 2008). She then refuses saying that it’s not good enough.

    She’s just opened the State of California up for a emergency lawsuit. Obama sues under two-fold. One, there is nothing in State law that gives her the authority to keep him off (he submitted the birth certificate as a curteosy, not as a requirement), and two: she’s violated the Constitution, by ignoring Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution (full faith and Credit). She’d lose on both aspects, and have a court order her to put Obama on the ballot.

    Are you saying that she’d still refuse to put Obama in? Then she’d be held in contempt of court, and jailed, and yes, she would probably be impeached by the State Legislature. If that’s what you meant by “short of impeachment”, then I might agree with you. However, the second part of that would be impossible for her to do.

    If you meant that short of Obama’s impeachment, you’ve got another thing coming.

  72. avatar
    Krosis November 15, 2014 at 4:08 am #

    Oh, oh, oh. If only Dr. Taitz managed to gain access to the original birth certificate in Hawaii secret vaults, which are guarded by a wall of fire, a Dragon of Despair and a three-headed dog! The decedent attorney could immediately jump in and tear the original certificate to pieces! After this, Obama would indeed not have an actual paper birth certificate, which would definitely make the PDF a FRAUD and a FORGERY, even if it wasn’t before! He would be arrested as soon as Dr. Taitz finished tearing the paper!

    But no, no. It was not to be.

  73. avatar
    roadburner November 15, 2014 at 5:04 am #

    Suranis:
    Yes, prove your NBCness with a circumcision certificate!

    and then john and his cronies would cry ” see…we told you he was a moooooslim!”

  74. avatar
    roadburner November 15, 2014 at 5:19 am #

    john: All you needed to do was to get the New Headline Story and that would have the end of Obama.The Main Stream Media has been burying the birther issue for years and the birthers can’t get enough small media to bring it to attention.

    the birthers do get attention on the MSM, but it’s mainly when they can’t find an amusing story about a poodle in arkansas that can tap dance!

    they warrant no more than a novelty mention at the end of the news.

    i mean, why give much notice to a wacky minority who wouldn’t be satisfied if your president produced a BC signed by god and witnessed by jesus christ? all they would say is they were threatened, paid off, given a preferential contract for the expansion of heaven or something similar.

    the fact that even the small media ignore them is telling in itself. the birther issue is dead and remained dead after the 2012 election.

    when the biggest of the last 3 `million man impeach obama’ rallies in washington only managed 300 people (a smaller turnout than you’d get for a small town gay pride march – somthing i do enjoy pointing out to birthers considering their blatent homophobia) and birther blogs have to make a big thing reporting on a dozen crazies holding signs on an overpass, it would be an indication to a normal rational person that the birfoons are a largely insignificant minority.

    `woulda, coulda, shoulda’ doesn’t cut it john, the birthers lost – get used to it.

  75. avatar
    Suranis November 15, 2014 at 7:31 am #

    You know, the Ironic thing is that I don’t think anyone would have any real objections to a state making it a requirement to show a newly issued Birth certificate from their home state (or some certificate of citizenship at birth in the case of the Cruzer) to run for President. it is part of the requirements for the job after all.

    The terrible thing for birthers is that Obama could have just handed over his 2007 COLB or a newly issued version and it would have been perfectly fine.

  76. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 15, 2014 at 7:51 am #

    Why do you think that? I know what I find if I look at the rules. I am curious what you find.

    trader jack:
    If you look at the HDOH rules for looking at birth certificates you will find that governmental agencies are permitted to view all of the documents upon a statement that the viewing is a necessary part of their duties.

    So the President could look at any of them!

  77. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 15, 2014 at 8:06 am #

    I see you haven’t upped your game during your enforced absence. You assert without sources, and all you demonstrate is your personal misunderstandings of fact–for example the bit I quoted from your comment below. The Department of State guidance on birth certificates is governed by 22 CFR 51.42(a), which says:

    §51.42 Persons born in the United States applying for a passport for the first time.

    (a) Primary evidence of birth in the United States. A person born in the United States generally must submit a birth certificate. The birth certificate must show the full name of the applicant, the applicant’s place and date of birth, the full name of the parent(s), and must be signed by the official custodian of birth records, bear the seal of the issuing office, and show a filing date within one year of the date of birth.

    Sensibly, there’s nothing about hospital certificates, or long forms. The facts support the sufficiency of the birth certificate Obama released in 2008, and the inanity of the birthers’ reaction to it. See also:

    http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/news/new-u-s–passport-requirement0.html

    Under your twisted world view, no Hawaiian could have gotten a birth certificate suitable for a passport since 2001, when they stopped routinely issuing long forms.

    trader jack: DOS requires long form for passport, if available.

  78. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 15, 2014 at 8:24 am #

    There might be some candidate who wouldn’t meet the requirement who objected and some might object on the principle that eligibility is assigned under the Constitution to Congress, and not the states. Remember, none of the “birther bills” passed their respective state legislatures and became law (Governor Brewer vetoed the Arizona bill), suggesting some opposition. It also seems an unnecessary burden for candidates for president to submit 50 birth certificates, one to each state.

    And what is Ted Cruz going to show?

    As much as I am inclined to say “sure, there’s nothing wrong with asking a candidate to prove eligibility,” the details of making that work give me pause. Just like Voter ID, it’s a solution without a problem.

    Suranis: You know, the Ironic thing is that I don’t think anyone would have any real objections to a state making it a requirement to show a newly issued Birth certificate from their home state (or some certificate of citizenship at birth in the case of the Cruzer) to run for President. it is part of the requirements for the job after all.

  79. avatar
    gorefan November 15, 2014 at 10:25 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: no Hawaiian could have gotten a birth certificate suitable for a passport since 2001

    Neither could Mitt Romney:

    http://www.nationalmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/romney-birth-certificate.jpg

    His like, the President’s was only filed not accepted. LOL

  80. avatar
    Crustacean November 15, 2014 at 11:11 am #

    I’d prefer something more like the Monster Truck Demolition Derby reality show depicted in “Idiocracy.” Judge Judy is pretty good, but she’s no “Rehabilitation Officer” Beef Supreme.

    Keith: I’d pay to see Orly in Judge Judy’s courtroom.

  81. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 15, 2014 at 12:27 pm #

    Suranis: You know, the Ironic thing is that I don’t think anyone would have any real objections to a state making it a requirement to show a newly issued Birth certificate from their home state (or some certificate of citizenship at birth in the case of the Cruzer) to run for President. it is part of the requirements for the job after all.

    I’d have a problem with the “newly issued” part of it. It would go above and beyond the standards that the Federal Government have already established for proving citizenship (look at a passport application). If they want to submit a birth certificate from 20 years ago, as long as it still meets the Federal Standards, then it proves citizenship and place of birth, plain and simple.

    The fact is that the States, due to the Constitution (Article IV, Section 1), have no real control over what is an acceptable birth certificate from another State. They cannot require that a birth certificate be issued within the last 5 years if the Federal Government doesn’t require it.

    But your right. Barack Obama would be perfectly acceptable to submit the exact same COLB that he released to the Internet in 2008, and he’d be fine.

  82. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 15, 2014 at 12:47 pm #

    trader jack: Certification is the notice that informs you that the stated facts are true.
    A certificate does not state that the facts are true..

    This is the most idiotic statement that I’ve heard in a long time. You just contradicted yourself. You’re again putting too much emphasis on the actual title of the document, rather than on what it is.

    Short forms are not acceptable for identification purposes.

    No birth certificate is acceptable for identification purposes. There is nothing on there that identifies me personally, whether it’s a long-form, or a short-form. That is why every state requires other proof of identity. However, the birth certificate is acceptable to prove place of birth for the person listed.

    DOS requires long form for passport, if available.

    Actually, if you mean the Department of State, no they don’t. The short-form birth certificate is actually preferred to a long-form birth certificate, and President Obama’s short-form birth certificate meets every requirement laid out. If you take a look at the passage, here are the requirements (gotten directly off of the State Department’s website): Certified U.S. Birth Certificate (must meet all of the following requirements):

    Issued by City, County, or State of birth
    Lists bearer’s full name, date of birth, and place of birth
    Lists parent(s) full names
    Has date filed with registrar’s office (must be within one year of birth)
    Has registrar’s signature
    Has embossed, impressed, or multicolored seal of registrar

    Please tell me which one of these the short-form birth certificate misses.

    COLB only certifies that a live birth occurred as recorded.

    It certifies that a live birth occurred as recorded. Part of the record includes PLACE OF BIRTH. So, what you’re saying is that a COLB only certifies all the information in the certificate.

    And all of them are subject to challenge in court!

    Only in a case that actually gets there. You cannot just bring a case up and say, “I want to challenge this birth certificate. The person is obviously lying about his place of birth. I don’t have any evidence of this, but the person should have to prove his place of birth outside of the certificate.”

    Anything is subject to a challenge is court, by the way. You’ve said nothing in that last scenario. The Long-form birth certificate is subject to the same challenge that the short-form birth certificate is.

    But in order to actually challenge a birth certificate, you have to have two things: 1. A cause of action that would require it (for instance a father challenging the paternity of a child has that cause of action, which is the vast majority of the cases), and two: actual evidence that the certificate is false. You don’t just get to go upto a court, and say, “The place of birth on this certificate is false. Now, the defendant has to prove that it’s true for the birth certificate is valid.” The judge would look at you and say, “Well, do you have any actual evidence that its false.” If you turn around and say, “No, I don’t.” The Judge will just say “denied.”

    As to the belief that birth certificates are true and accurate all you have to do is look at the court cases, and the ability of the agencies to modify, change, alter, amend, and issue changed birth certificates at will.

    Until they are challenged, they do represent a true copy of the facts contained within the certificate. It’s a prima facie case. In order to get around it, you have to have evidence that it’s not the case. Birthers have yet to actually present any sort of evidence that the birth certificate is false.

    What you’ve basically said in that statement is that nobody can ever prove their place of birth. And because birth certificates can be changed, then why have them in the first place? Why were you asking for the long-form birth certificate. That can be changed at will by the court, just as the short-form can.

  83. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 15, 2014 at 12:49 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Under your twisted world view, no Hawaiian could have gotten a birth certificate suitable for a passport since 2001, when they stopped routinely issuing long forms.

    Under his twisted world view, nobody can ever prove anything using a birth certificate, because there is a miniscule chance that it could be wrong.

  84. avatar
    Suranis November 16, 2014 at 6:09 am #

    The background to my point about the 50 states bieng presented with a BC was my understanding of the electoral process of the President. Essentially, what voters are doing is voting for the way the state will cast its votes for the president, so therefore the people that the state is going to cast its votes for would have to be shown to be eligible to the states.

    Now to my mind this system is complete looneyballs, it should just be popular vote wins and that’s it. But given that context the minimum that should be asked for is the ability to get a birth verification from the home state, like Was asked for and granted by Bennett. If something is part if the eligibility requirements then asking for a varification is not unreasonable.

    The reason I said Newly issued is simply because BCs in states change so much over the years that expecting SOS’s from other states to know every permutation of BC that has ever been issued in every state is lunacy, so it would just cut down on the allegations of fraud if you present the present form of BC that a state generates.. However the ability to verify the information on it would eliminate that part of it.

    Anyway, the point of it is that Barack Obama would have passed any such requirements with his 2007 BC. The Arizona Bill was hilariously and deliberately crafted to eliminate the COLB as a valid form of eligibility determination, so it was pretty crazy. I’m amazed the Brewer had to Veto it.

  85. avatar
    Jim November 16, 2014 at 10:30 am #

    Missouri tried to pass a birther bill (HB 1046) till it was pointed out to them that Missouri uses the “short” form and all the Missouri bill would do would be to eliminate candidates born in Missouri from being on a Missouri ballot.

  86. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 16, 2014 at 12:30 pm #

    Jim:
    Missouri tried to pass a birther bill (HB 1046) till it was pointed out to them that Missouri uses the “short” form and all the Missouri bill would do would be to eliminate candidates born in Missouri from being on a Missouri ballot.

    Definitely not one of Missouri’s finer moments…

  87. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) November 16, 2014 at 1:57 pm #

    john: if Orly Taitz had been SOS (She tried to run in CA but was beaten badly), Obama would have never gotten the ballot in CA or AZ (SOS has the final say and Orly wouldn’t do it unless she was inside that Vault in Hawaii

    I find it quite disturbing that you believe state officials should elevate their own looney opinion over the law in such a dictatorial fashion (and that courts should or must allow them to do it).
    Your imagined Dream America is obviously at least as bad as Stalinist Russia.

  88. avatar
    Rickey November 16, 2014 at 6:16 pm #

    trader jack:

    DOS requires long form for passport, if available.

    Wrong.

    DOS accepted my short form and I was never asked about a long form, even though the New York short form contains less information than Hawaii’s short form.

  89. avatar
    Northland10 November 16, 2014 at 9:20 pm #

    trader jack: DOS requires long form for passport, if available.

    wrong.

    Primary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship (One of the following):
    Previously issued, undamaged, and fully valid U.S. Passport (5 year for minors or 10 years for adults)

    *Certified U.S. birth certificate (must meet all of the following requirements):
    issued by the City, County, or State of birth
    Lists bearer’s full name, date of birth, and place of birth
    Lists parent(s) full names
    Has date filed with registrar’s office (must be within one year of birth)
    Has registrar’s signature
    Has embossed, impressed, or multicolored seal of registrar

    Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth

    Naturalization Certificate

    Certificate of Citizenship

    Before making a claim, try checking to see if it’s correct.

    Edit: oops, Doc stated the same thing earlier. Now ThreadJack can ignore it twice.

  90. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 16, 2014 at 10:36 pm #

    Northland10: Now ThreadJack can ignore it twice.

    Make that three times. I posted it as well…

  91. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 16, 2014 at 10:43 pm #

    Suranis: The reason I said Newly issued is simply because BCs in states change so much over the years that expecting SOS’s from other states to know every permutation of BC that has ever been issued in every state is lunacy, so it would just cut down on the allegations of fraud if you present the present form of BC that a state generates.. However the ability to verify the information on it would eliminate that part of it.

    The problem with the “newly issued” part of it is that a state clearly going in and stating which documents from another state are acceptable, and which documents from another state are not acceptable. The United States Constitution quite clearly removes that power from the States, and puts that in the hands of the Federal Government. As long as a document is acceptable to the Federal Government, it must be accepted, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, as proof of the place of birth. Anything getting around that would be successfully challenged on a Constitutional challenge under Article IV, Section 1.

    Missouri and Arizona tried to pass birther bills, as well as a few other states. The Governor of Arizona clearly vetoed that in part because it was clearly unconstitutional that it didn’t accept the documents from other states. (She also vetoed it because she realized that it would make Arizona a laughing stock.)

    The very fact is that if they had passed, Obama would have submitted his COLB (if I was Obama, I’d have submitted the very exact COLB that I scanned and photographed in 2008), and the State would then have to accept it under the Constitution. If they didn’t, I could challenge the law under the Full Faith and Credit clause of it. John’s fantasy of the Secretary of State refusing to put the candidate on the ballot would not just happen.

  92. avatar
    Northland10 November 17, 2014 at 7:45 am #

    dunstvangeet: The problem with the “newly issued” part of it is that a state clearly going in and stating which documents from another state are acceptable, and which documents from another state are not acceptable.

    This could be suggesting that a person submitting a bc have an up to date copy with from their state, and not some 40 year old copy of the “long form” lacking the the various newer security features. From the State of Michigan:

    All certified copies of birth records issued by the Michigan Vital Records Office have a similar appearance since March 2003 and records of births prior to 1950 have had this appearance since March 2001.

    The certified copy is printed on special paper containing many security features. Included are a unique pantographic background, microprinting, visible fibers, invisible fibers, true watermarks, artificial watermarks, thermocratic ink and a die embossed raised seal. We caution that you should not accept the copy if the three heat sensitive images on the back do not disappear when rubbed or pressed and if you cannot verify the presence of the watermarks in the paper by holding the paper to light.

    A certified copy of a birth record issued by the State Vital Records Office will contain three distinctive identifying numbers:

    (1) The state file number that identifies the record of this birth.
    (2) The AFS number that identifies the requestor of this copy.
    (3) The security paper number in red bleed through ink that identifies this copy.

    Do not accept the copy if all three numbers are not on that copy.

    The key here is that the issuing state is is specifying what is acceptable for their certificates, not the accepting state.

  93. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 17, 2014 at 11:51 am #

    The problem is when the State itself accepts previous versions of its birth certificate. Then it’s upto the Federal Government to determine whether a version is acceptable, or not acceptable. This has been done quite extinsively by the Federal Government.

    It isn’t one state putting an limit on the documents of another State. It’s the Federal Government determining how those documents are proved, within full compliance of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

    The fact is that if a birther bill passed, it would not be able to say, “I don’t want short-form birth certificates. I just want long-forms” and still remain in compliance with the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.