Over the last few days, things have happened on the blog that reminded me of Scripture. Just now, as the number of comments rolled past 44,000 (jogging a memory of the sacred number of completeness, 144,000) I thought I’d share.
The first comes from the ban of the commenter WTF?. The scripture is from Matthew, Chapter 12.
43“When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.”
After WTF? was cast out, we got three new birthers the next day, and arguably the condition is worse than before.
The second is another saying of Jesus from Matthew, Chapter 23:
24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
This describes birthers pretty well. They will make huge objection to insignificant things like “Date Filed v Date Accepted,” “Certificate v Certification” or “vital record v vital records”, but will swallow wildly implausible scenarios of trips to Africa, call federal judges traitors and uncritically accept documents from convicted forgers.
Perhaps this just goes to show: “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
There is also saying in Spanish:
“No hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver”
In English is something like this: “None are more blind than those who refuse to see.”
Perfect for the birthers.
this has all happened before. this will all happen again – BSG
Insignificant things?
That’s like saying it is insignificant for my attorney to actually draw up a deed, get all the signatures and notary done, then fail to file it with the registrar. When I have a claim against the deed – I go to the court with deed in hand and say, ‘but Your Honor, my attorney drew up the deed, here it is – SEE?’ The Judge says, but it is merely an insignificant piece of paper – as it fails to be legitimate having not been recorded as accepted by the registrar.
I would agree – none are more blind than those who refuse to see. Legal is legal. If it is not filed, accepted and recorded – it is NOT legal. Are you woefully blind to that fact? Or do you just pick and choose the FACTS that suit you?
And you’ve committed yourself what you claim to no longer allow. Name-calling how ever convoluted and by innuendo – is still name-calling.
. If it is not filed, accepted and recorded
.
now where did this old birther point come from
.
For many years, every Hawaii COLB, uses the term on the COLB as “date filed by registrar”, that includes Obama.s COLB. The State has clarified this but you paid no attention. So if your concern is correct that means all born in Hawai since 1961 have no valid COLB, is that what you are saying or are just repeating a debunked birther talking point. What state were you born in?
.
this is every Hawaii COLB, my daughters included, Now what does your failed to get passport COLB say?
“it is NOT legal”
yet everyone who counts disagrees with you. What a surprise.
“After WTF? was cast out, we got three new birthers the next day, and arguably the condition is worse than before.”
Like in scripture…birthers can be exorcised!
You banned WTF?? Does WTF? have due process rights? Is an appeal available?
Did you give WTF? an opportunity to respond to allegations or was the action unilateral without interrogatives?
From the Dhammapada (attributed to Buddha):
The fool who knows he is a fool is wise in that at least;
the fool who thinks that he is wise is indeed called a fool
Apparently, WTF? has the right to switch sock puppets.
Actually there is considerable variability on the wording on COLBs. However, what it says on Obama’s is not uncommon. You can be sure that it was accepted because birth certificates are never issued until the record is accepted. This should be obvious because of the evidentiary uses of certificates. How could you get a passport with a document from a state who is saying “uhh, we got this thing here, but we haven’t decided whether we should accept it or not, but while we’re figuring this out, go ahead and consider this prima facie evidence and give him a passport.” Absurd.
I really doubt that such is actually true. A contract is a contract. But let’s follow your analogy a little further. Suppose you went down to the County and said you wanted a certified copy of the deed as proof that you owned it. Do you think they would give you one if they had not accepted it?
Likewise the State of Hawaii is not going to issue a certified copy of a Birth Certificate as proof that someone was born in Hawaii unless they had accepted the original report.
Note that if WTF? does not reside in the USA, Constitutional rights do not apply to him.
Can you prove that WTF? resides in the USA?
Why are you even here, Scott?
That has to be one of the most idiotic statements to ever come out of the blatantly obvious biased fingertips of Dr. Conspiracy.
When a child is born, the birth is required to be reported. If the child is born outside of an institution, the parent, midwife, or an adult is required to report it. In general, the local registrar will provide supplimental paperwork in order to substantiate the birth report. This paperwork generally includes physician verification of pre and post-natal examinations of the mother.
But guess what? We live in a country where the mother can refuse to undergo any medical exam. Dr. Conspiracy would have you believe that the child would never be able to obtain a birth certificate, or a COLB.
It is Dr. Conspiracy’s assertion that is absurd.
More Obama derangement….
Kinsolving’s Stupid Question Leaves Gibbs in Stunned Silence
Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily actually tells most of this story straight for once, so we’ll let them handle it:
A question about war memorials at Harvard apparently has left White House spokesman Robert Gibbs without a response.
The question was raised at today’s White House briefing by Les Kinsolving, the third-ranking beat correspondent at the White House and WND’s correspondent there.
“A two-part question relating to yesterday, Memorial Day. As a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law School, the president has never protested,” started Kinsolving.
“He didn’t graduate from Harvard, Lester. He graduated from Harvard Law School, but he graduated from Columbia undergrad,” Gibbs corrected.
“I’m sorry, I correct that. Thank you very much. The president has never protested the memorials to Harvard’s war dead in World War I and II, which include the names of Harvard alumni designated as ‘enemy’ because they were soldiers of the Kaiser and of the Fuhrer. Has he – he’s never protested that, has he?”
“I honestly don’t have – I don’t have any knowledge,” Gibbs said.
In a second question, Kinsolving continued, “Does the president believe it is right for Harvard to have memorials mentioning these three German enemies, but no memorial at all to 71 Harvard alumni who died in the Confederate army?”
But instead of responding, Gibbs left the room.
WND goes on to try and explain that “The issue was raised because of the long-standing controversy over war memorials at Harvard and the fact that Obama is a graduate of its law school,” but in fact there is no “issue,” only Kinsolving’s strange obsession, which Obama has absolutely nothing to do with and, thus, has no place at a White House press briefing.
And Kinsolving wonders why nobody takes him seriously.
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/
It seems like our friend “Who Dat”, similar to our other friend “yguy” is following the birther/denialist script to the letter….
We can see this with his obvious obsession with the COLB. From his absurd notion that the officially sanctioned state issued COLB is insuffcient because it is not the “original” to this nonsense about date filed vs. date accepted. Even though it has been shown that the state of HI used date filed on its COLB’s, he still has an issue. And we all know that if they used the term date accepted “Who Dat” would be the first person stated that the COLB was just “accepted”, not filed. So we can tell that this is a circular argument and “Who Dat” would never be satisfied. So this would be #’s 4 and 5 below.
1. Allege that there’s a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.
2. Use fake experts to support your story. “Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility,” says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.
3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.
4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.
5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.
6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist “both sides” must be heard and cry censorship when “dissenting” arguments or experts are rejected.
Births registered by midwives and home births have a high potential for fraud.
Even Dr. Conspiracy should be willing to acknowledge that as a fact.
We have nothing that indicates Obama’s birth registration was provided by an institution.
Fraud in what way? Can you show us any example of fraud committed by a midwife or on a home birth? And since Dr. C has shown you with emperical evidence that in 1961 there were only about 14 home birth, they were not even common.
So in other words you are hung up on the possibility that Obama’s could have been a “home birth” because of the high potential for fraud. But you can’t show us where there has been any fraud in HI births at home or midwives in 1961 or even more recently. Secondly you have no evidence that contradicts a hospital birth or supports a home birth. Especially when home births were not that common (only 14 in 1961). Third and more important legally it doesn’t matter if he was born at home or in a hospital because there is no NBC or constitutional requirement to be born in a hospital. But most of all in all of your speculation you have not provided any evidence that supports any of your suppositions. So you are now using #’s 4&5 of the birther list.
“So you are now using #’s 4&5 of the birther list.”
.
so far the only proof WhoDat has shown is proof of his own mental state!
Imperical what? Don’t you mean that Dr. Conspiracy provided the number of non-hospital births for the City of Honolulu, while a home birth for Obama would have taken place in the county?
Ah I see where Whotdat is going
See since most Presidents in our history were not born in institutions, we should be doubting the veracity of their stated birthplaces too.
Of course once again Whodat is stringing a bunch of conjectures together and challenging us to disprove them- rather than actually proving anything himself.
What I find amusing is the assertion that birthes registered by midwives have a higher degree of fraud. Because Whatdat is asserting that a birth registered by a midwife would have a greater likelyhood of being a fraud than one registered by an institution.
But he completely rejects arguments regarding probable vs improbable in every other situation.
I’m not talking about past Presidents. I can’t do anything about the past. I can only address the present and the future. Is that Obot distraction #235 or #237?
“What I find amusing is the assertion that birthes registered by midwives have a higher degree of fraud. Because Whatdat is asserting that a birth registered by a midwife would have a greater likelyhood of being a fraud than one registered by an institution.”
Did I forget to tell you that my assertion if a fact?
Now you have moved the goalposts again. Back to #5. On the COLB it states that Obama was born in Honolulu, HI. So the new scenario is that Obama was not born in the city of Honolulu, but the county. Even tough Obama Sr. lived in the city of Honolulu and Stanley Ann and her parents also lived in Honolulu. So you want us to believe that it could have be a home birth, but it happened in some location outside of the city of Honolulu but in the county. Wow. You are willing to support your untenable position with the most farfetched logical conclusions known to mankind. Hating Obama really does lead to mental instability….
Your midwife assertion is a fact? So you have some evidence to show us that indicates that there is a lot of fraud with home births registered by midwives. Because it can’t be a fact without proof. Somehow we both know you cannot provide this evidence. You can’t even provide us with ONE example of a fraudulently registered birth in HI in 1961. As a matter of fact evidence of a fraudulent birth registered in HI by a midwife regarding a home birth since 1961. We are all waiting. Lets see some proof that makes your statement a fact.
Well, that clinches it! Have a golden crown and a sceptre, for you are obviously king of facts. O, Mighty King of Facts! How shall we manage when you finally get fed up of trolling and go away? We’ll be adrift in a sea of unknowns – known unknowns and unknown unknowns alike shall mix together in a terrifying cacophony of epistemic chaos! Weep, for the day of WhoDat’s passing is at hand, tremulous Obots, when all facts shall be severed from their epistemic foundations which rest upon The King of Facts’s say-so!
You get the idea, I’m sure. I could go on like this – I had an expensive education at a very old, private Anglican school, so my ability to witter at length in faux-biblical language is almost without peer outside of the tracts of Mormonism, but I think the point is made.
WhoDat: I have proof
Obat: show it
WhoDat: Crickets
.
WhoDat: I have proof
Obat: show it
WhoDat: Crickets
.
WhoDat: I have proof
Obat: show it
WhoDat: Crickets
sure WhoDat,but your therapist says different!
I hate to do their work for them, since they clearly cannot do the work themselves, but HHS has said that registration by midwifes is a source of potential fraud. (p. 21)
But, saying that fraud occurs with midwife filings is a far cry from saying that fraud occurred in this case (assuming Obama was delivered by a midwife) or even that this birth certificate can be doubted based on a midwife delivery! The birth certificate would still have the same evidentiary value until called into question by specific allegations of fraud – this midwife committed fraud, and here’s the evidence that she did so!
I didn’t move the goal posts. You just decided to ignore their existence. I used the address from the birth announcement. What address do you think should be used for a home birth scenario?
Greg, good points. But it said that it was a source of potential fraud. Who Dat would have to show us at least one example of a fraud resulting from a midwife delivery at home in 1961 for his theory to have any sort of merit. Secondly he would have to prove that Obama had a home birth delivered by a midwife. And third according to his theory that Obama could have been born in some magical county location, proof that the president’s parents or grandparents lived in a location outside of the city of Honolulu. His so called theory stretches the boundaries of common sense.
If I am correct the address from the birth announcement was located in Honolulu, HI. Now I know we have people from HI that post on this blog. They can tell us if the parents location is not located in Honolulu. Because according to the address, it said Honolulu. If you have different information, how about you share it with us.
You didn’t think that no one would bother looking it up, did you? The address in the birth announcements is a Honolulu address, and the area is hardly “the country” and is built up (you can get an areial shot of the home from zillow).
But I suppose you didn’t let the fact that there was no evidence to support a home birth get in your way, why let the fact that you don’t care enough to check out the facts of where the address in the birth announcement get in your way.
Aww, Greg. I wanted to let more of the Obots claim that I made it up before I posted a link to the HHS document.
The HHS document was released in 2000. Do you think out of institution births were more or less susceptible to fraud as procedures to prevent it were put in place?
In 1999, Forty-seven States accept affidavits of personal knowledge as proof a birth occurred, and 14 include no abstract of documentary evidence when issuing delayed birth certificates.
That was in 1998. I have a hard time believing that the proof required was relaxed over the years.
What you believe is immaterial. How about you find out what was actually required by the State of Hawaii?
Oh, and google map has a great shot of the purported “country” location of 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, Honolulu, HI.
The city limits of the City of Honolulu are defined. The analysis provided by Dr. Conspiracy even refers to such in footnote 5. The newspaper address is in Honolulu County, not the City of Honolulu.
And you seem to have no problem letting the fact that there is no evidence of a hospital birth get in your way.
Try “county” not “country”.
92 home births were reported in 1961, and Obama could not have been one of those. Why? Because Obama said so, and Obots eat and sleep the words of their messiah.
Do you not understand the difference between city and county? They are both Honolulu, HI, but the statistics were recorded seperately in the documentation linked by Dr. Conspiracy.
I think we should start giving our resident birthers epithets describing their mental gymnastics. Some examples:
.
Scott Brown, fearless appealer to authority
.
yguy, wanton slayer of straw men
.
Whodat?, mover of goalposts and master of the logical fallacy
.
I think this would be a useful way to indicate exactly how our birther friends are trying to misrepresent things.
I am not sure but the COLB does not designate by county but by island. If I recall it listed Oahu. So if you can locate someone born outside of the city of Honolulu, but in this “county” location that you claim, and if their COLB lists a different location, then you would be in business. However I am sure you won’t because that would show the implausibility of your “revelation”.
my bad.
There is a high potential for midwife fraud along the border because it is easy to cross the border. A midwife can deliver an infant in Juarez and be in down town El Paso 45 minute later with all documents in hand…. and the newborn can easily be carried across the border for a medical exam at an El Paso clinic.
There is an extraordinarily low potential for midwife fraud for anyone born in Hawaii because the islands of Hawaii are separate from the rest of the world by a friggin’ ocean. (And of course it is separated from AFRICA by TWO oceans!)
92 home births were reported in 1961, and Obama could have been one of those. Why? Because the Birtherbots are clutching at straws, and that’s the one that’s sticking out the furthest, today.
What part of “County of Birth” was so difficult to find on the COLB?
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/bo-birth-certificate.jpg
And the Obots are holding tightly onto the words of their messiah.
OK, to use your numbers then tell us how many hospital births were reported in the same time period? And please tell us how a home birth could make a difference in Presidential eligibility? Are you claiming fraud? That there was some sort of conspiracy back in 1961 to lie about a home birth?
Are you claiming that if he was born at home then he would be ineligible? Or are you pushing this “home birth” theory to then make your ridiculous Kenya birth claim? You know the one where a pregnant American with little money and a husband with even less takes an expensive trip 14,000 miles to a barely functioning third world country to have a child. Then teletype her grandmother to register this birth even though she has no proof of the birth to show the HI officials, and then they would just issue said birth certificate on her word alone.
I am not sure where your home birth scenario is supposed to be going. I guess you are claiming that if there is a .1% of fraud, then Obama needs to prove that this did not occur.
My question is, what would it even change? If it was a home birth, we still have unrebutted prima facie evidence of birth in Hawaii. And since not an iota of evidence has been offered to show Obama being born anywhere but Hawaii, we’re still where we are now.
Provide us all with documentation to support your assertion.
Familiar with the Rules of Evidence? There are certain exceptions to the hearsay rule. Some of the interesting ones are:
Reputation concerning personal or family history: Reputation among members of the person’s family by blood, adoption, or marriage, or among the person’s associates, or in the community, concerning a person’s birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, death, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of the person’s personal or family history.
Here’s what the writers of the Hawaii rules of evidence said about this:
and if Obama is unavailable to testify:
(4) Statement of personal or family history. (A) A statement concerning the declarant’s own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history, even though declarant had no means of acquiring personal knowledge of the matter stated;
And the Hawaiian commentary on this rule:
So, Obama saying so is admissible evidence. Obama’s family, associates, or close community saying so is also admissible evidence.
So your claim is that there is a Honolulu city and a Honolulu county….Interesting…And you also claim that the Dunhams lived in Honolulu county and not the city. But you claim that the home births were from the city and not the county. Wow…It take a lot to keep your entire theory straight. And what exactly is the point?
“And the Obots are holding tightly onto the words of their messiah.”
.
many of us view Jesus as our Messiah, why do you view Obama as you messiah? What is it with wing nuts calling Obama messiah?
.
Bellevue has free consultations on Wednesday.
My messiah breathes atomic fire and stomps Tokyo flat. Obama is just a man.
Whodat?, master of the logical fallacy and slayer of straw men is obviously trying to argue that it the birth was not reported by the hospital then there is a larger chance of fraud than if it was a hospital report (which as Expellarimus points out is a problem on the US-Mexico border, but not so much in Hawaii). He’s trying to use this to suggest that if President Obama’s birth were not reported by a hospital then it is probably a fraud – and that the burden of proof rests on the president to show that he was registered via hospital report.
City, Town or Location of Birth: Honolulu
Island of Birth: Oahu
County of Birth: Honolulu
Doesn’t this suggest that a COLB which says the birth took place in the city of Honolulu did not take place at the newspaper address?
What do they put for City of Birth when the location is in the county, not city of Honolulu?
How can it have been in the county of Honolulu but not the city and the COLB still says it was in the city of Honolulu?
What kind of game do you think is being played here? Do you really think a court would rely on the statement of Obama when documentation is readily available in the vital records? If Obama made any statement to a court that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital, he would open the door for access to the records. In fact, Obama could put such a statement in writing and he could have the DOH certify it as true. (If he was so daring.)
WhoDat’s link points to a jpg of Obama’s COLB.
It shows 3 items
1 City, town or location: Honolulu
2. Island: Oahu
3. County: Honolulu
So what is WhoData’s issue on this?
WhoDat, you need help. Have your children take you in, Kaneohe Mental Health Clinic, it has free consultations!
the newspaper birth annoucement address is not the address of Kapioani Hospital, the Hospital is in the City of Honlulu, WhoDat’s mental illness is causing some very strange parsing of words here. (Quite common for birthers and wingnuts)
The source provided by Dr. Conspiracy provides different statistics for births within the city limits, and those outside of the city limits.
Look at page 157 of this document: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1961_1.pdf
You will see Honolulu, and Honolulu with foot #5.
On page 200, footnote #5 is defined as: The cities of Honolulu and Hilo hove legally established limits and therefore are treated as incorporated places.
Now do you understand why the incorporated section of Honolulu was treated differently than the unincorporated section?
Actually, why would Obama even be called to the stand? Why would the question even be asked? I’m mean you’re already down a long line of improbable events, what’s one more for you? I mean you can’t give a reason why a court wouldn’t accept an unrebutted COLB (which is already assuming you could ever get past standing and political question), so what difference does one more “improbable” make in your long list of things that aren’t going to happen, and wouldn’t make a difference anyway?
If we got into court, he wouldn’t need to make any such statement, since the COLB suffices.
You were impugning us for believing the word of Obama, and I was pointing out that traditionally, the word of an individual, his family and community about place of birth are considered reliable evidence.
1. Map of Honolulu’s Incorporated Area.
2. Map of 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, Honolulu, HI
Number 2 looks to be squarely within number 1.
Now, you allege that Number 2 is outside the established boundaries of Honolulu the incorporated city.
What do you think a birth outside the city limits of Honolulu say for City of birth?
Do you think the authors of the study looked at each individual address on each individual birth certificate and looked them up on the map to determine they were outside city limits, or is it more likely that a birth in the unincorporated, non-city, Honolulu was reported on the birth certificate as “unincorporated Honolulu” for the City, Town or Place of birth?
We also don’t have anything that indicates that it wasn’t provided by an institution. Unless you do? What is it?
Look, here’s the bottom line. No matter how much documentary evidence you ever get, there’s always going to remain the bare possibility that Obama’s birth was registered by fraud. Even if you looked at the original records and found a hospital of birth, doctor’s signature and all the rest, it would still be possible that it was fraudulent. Maybe they bribed someone at a hospital or the registrar’s office, maybe they forged the thing and somehow inserted it ….. any number of things. If the standard is absolute certainty, we’re all out of luck.
But what then? You can’t prove anything with absolute certainty. I can’t even prove, with absolute certainty, that any of you exist. For all I can prove, I might be a disembodied entity floating in space, and I’m imagining all this. (Although, in that case, it’s hard to see why I’m not richer.)
The thing is, the fact that something is not impossible does not constitute evidence that it happened. The fact that it’s possible that I’m imagining the world isn’t evidence that the world does not exist.
I grant that it’s not impossible that Obama’s birth was fraudulently registered in Hawaii when it actually occurred elsewhere. But then what? Is there actual evidence that it occurred elsewhere, or that fraud occurred? The fact that it’s possible doesn’t get us anywhere.
I’m reading these comments backwards, so I may have the context wrong.
I don’t see that the City on the Certificate tells us anything besides that the original birth certificate says Obama was born in the city. It could have been anywhere in the city, and not necessarily at the hospital. The newspaper address is the “Usual address of the mother” which says nothing about the place of birth (whether the place of birth was home, hospital, or the Honolulu airport).
@ Black Lion:
Yes, there is a Honolulu City and a Honolulu County. Obama was born in both. I will have to check what a birth certificate says for unincorporated areas, though.
Let’s take a look at the birth announcement. We’re all familiar with the listing for Obama, but take a look at the two annoucements right before his.
The first is for Mr. and Mrs. Melvin F. K. Llu at 45-458 Keaahala Rd., Keohane, son, Aug. 5.
The second is for Mr. and Mrs. Richard D. Wright 91-939 Kalapu St., Ewa Beach, Ewa, daughter, Aug. 5.
Kaneohe and Ewa Beach are Census Designated Places within Honolulu county. They are unincorporated communities.
This indicates that the practice was, if someone was from an unincorporated part of Honolulu, to put the name of that community. The conclusion to draw from this is that 6085 Kalanianaole Highway is within the borders of Honolulu the city, proper, not one of the unincorporated suburbs.
That means that the appropriate number we’re dealing with is 14 home births, not 92.
I imagine there is a look-up table for zip-codes which will tell us whether the 96821 zip code for Kalanianaole Highway is incorporated or unincorporated.
Obama was born in the City of Honolulu, which lowers the number of home births to 14. It’s on his birth certificate. Hint: look under Town, City or other location. I didn’t see anything on the COLB about messiah, though.
Not sure what you’re trying to get at. The newspaper address isn’t the location of birth; it’s the residence of the mother, and that’s not on the COLB.
Was that the incorporated or unincorporated city?
WhoDat is a far right winger that hates Obama and is impervious to facts or truth, no sense answering him. He is driven by hate not reality. He has to believe Obama’s COLB was fraudulent, Nothing else makes sense to him, poor guy. I would suggest he visit a few US Giv offices, each will have a portrait of Obama labeled as “President” not “messiah” or “usurper”. But that probably won’t sink in.
So such animal “unincorporated city”.
Dr. C. The moderation ate one of my comments, I think.
Whodat, the mystery of incorporated/unincorporated is solved by looking at the announcements in the paper. The two announcements above Obama’s list “towns” within the county of Hawaii – Ewe Beach and Keohelane (IIRC – I’m writing this on my Blackberry and can’t check). This indicates that births in the unincorporated part of Honolulu would give the Census Designated Placename for the place of birth.
Therefore, Obama was born within the incorporated Honolulu city limits and we’re talking 14 home births.
Thanks Greg. I think you are on to something. Of course I need to check the other addresses to make sure.
But Passerby, either you exist, or someone has decieved you in order for you to believe that you exist. But for someone to decieve you, you must exist!
Gotta love Descartes.
No. The data files that the State of Hawaii reported to the NCHS would have included that information. The COLB form in 1961 included a indicator of whether the child was born in a city or an unincorporated place. There is a block (6d) on the form to record this information.
Speaking for the present day (I was only 11 when Obama was born and was not interested in vital records at the time), place is a very important piece of information, and vital statistics agencies go to a lot of trouble to collect, record and code it correctly.
I looked up the 6085 Kalanianaole Highway address in the 2006 TIGER LINE file. This file has detailed street segments tied to all sorts of geographic coding. The FIPS-55 place code attached to this address is “17000” which is the code for “Honolulu”, with a FIPS Class Code of U1, defined as:
So for vital statistics purposes, to the best of my understanding, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway would be called “Honolulu”, at least it would be today.
For folks wanting to play around in the wacky world of geographic coding, you can visit this site: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tiger2006se/tgr2006se.html and download the files for Hawaii, and read the manual available on that page. Addresses are in the file TGR15003.RT1 (the address of interest is on row 31,039) and place names are in TGR15003.RTC.
That was a lot of work for mostly nothing.
Yeah and it is called the HI COLB, which clearly states born in Honolulu, HI. *duh*
End of story.
Nah, it won’t sink in. It probably just makes him cry. From the whiny and frequent posts, he probably does a lot of that these days. Looks like he’s going to have red eyes for years to come. Time to invest in Kleenex stocks.
More class shown by the GOP in SC, when attempting to take a swipe at a candidate they insult the President…
http://www.thestate.com/2010/06/03/1315978/knotts-uses-slur-to-describe-haley.html
“Lexington state Sen. Jake Knotts called political rival and Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley a “raghead” on an Internet political talk show Thursday evening.
The term is a slur typically used against Arabs or other ethnic groups who wear turbans or headdresses. Haley, a state representative from Lexington, is the child of Indian immigrants.
“We already got one raghead in the White House,” Knotts said. “We don’t need another in the Governor’s Mansion.”
Of course we then get the insecure so called “apology”…..
“My raghead’ comments about Obama and Haley were intended in jest,” Knotts said in a statement. “Bear in mind that this is a freewheeling, anything-goes Internet radio show that is broadcast from a pub. It’s like local political version of Saturday Night Live.’
Replace Raghead with the ‘n’ word. In the right company thats what Knotts would have really said.
Dr. Conspiracy, your description of “birthers” leaves out people who haven’t swallowed “wildy implausible scenarios” of anything, but have a difference of opinion as to Obama’s rather “translucent” disclosure of his records and Constitutional interpretation of Article II. But I understand why you left out this category—obviously to you and most of your regulars, it is much easier to mock and ridicule everyone who disagrees with your unquestioning acceptance of Obama’s spotty record and Constitutional eligibility simply as brainless idiots. A tactic learned in the hallways of high school, which rather than causing people like me to cower in the corners or mumble in agreement, results in an increased motivation to intelligently and logically understand all of the facts of the issue.
Your site is really quite entertaining. I don’t care if all here disagree with my interpretation of the “natural born” clause or my understanding of “citizenship by consent” or the concept of singular “allegiance”, nor will I try to engage you in a debate, but for you to immediately and constantly paint all who think differently than you as kooks simply reinforces my impression of all of you as gullible bullies.
There was a great article on American Thinker the other day: “A Hole in the Fence of Immigration Reform,” that I’m sure all of you here will “hate”, which asserts that both the concepts of “birthright citizenship” (to the children of legal or illegal aliens) and “dual citizenship” are unconstitutional. Although none of the PhD experts (racist and kooks also?) that were quoted mentioned anything about the Obama eligibility controversy, it can be rather easily and logically concluded that a “natural born citizen” eligible for the Presidency would not be a person born with dual citizenship to a non-US citizen father.
Surely someone here can be open-minded and tolerant enough to accept that there are rational, intelligent people who can have this opinion. After all, if you are going to quote Scripture…
I have always felt uncomfortable when I use the label “birther” for this second group. With all the commentary here over the last week or so regarding those “wildly implausible” born in Africa scenarios, that was what was on my mind when I wrote this article, and that is what it is about. When I talk about both groups I sometimes use the phrase “Obama denialists” or “eligibility denialists.” I don’t have a good name for the second group alone.
But this raises the question of whether there is a difference of kind between birthers and the NBC objectors (how’s that?) or whether it is just a difference in subject matter. I think there are similarities and differences.
The NBC objectors do not generally espouse conspiracy theories beyond the one great conspiracy of silence involving all three branches of government who know (according to them) that a president must have two citizen parents, but keep silent. One must ask the same plausibility argument that one asks the birthers, if it is true that presidents must have two citizen parents, then why has no one of any import (legal scholar, retired federal judge, news organization legal correspondent, major newspaper or member of Congress) said even a word about it? And if the answer is ‘they are all too afraid” then I would say this is full-bore nut case conspiracy theory.
There is a second group of NBC objectors, chief of whom is Leo C. Donofrio, who claim that they are not stating what everyone who stayed awake in Civics class already knows (hardly possible because no Civics book says presidents must have citizen parents), but that they have discovered a lost principle, something that no one knew because the situation never arose before (explaining away somehow that Chester A. Arthur was a US president whose father was Irish when the president was born, using 19th century conspiracy theories.) There are some in that group that one might reasonably refrain from labeling “nut case.” Probably the only person I have interacted with on this matter that I give the time of day to is Ken Dunbar.
Nevertheless, I still view those NBC deniers as putting forward a meritless position. I think nearly all of the proponents of this theory on this blog were arguing using propaganda and smear techniques, rather than legal argument. They take citations out of context and flat out misstate their sources. Now the person who listens to this stuff and believes it (not hearing the other side) might be sincere, and even reasonable in their agreement. But I would call them irresponsible for not questioning exactly why no legal scholar, etc. agrees. There ought to be a fundamental sanity check before someone says they understand the Constitution better than the federal judges and the Congress.
The birthers are crazier than the NBC objectors, but that the latter carry around their own store of bad facts, some of them harbor conspiracy theories, and they only look at one side of the issue.
Dr. C – to followup on both your response to Sallyven & her points as well, I have come to a more skeptical view that *most* of such claims or protestations of “but I’m only concerned with X and if he’d only do Y or Z then I wouldn’t have an issue” arguments.
With very few exceptions, we’ve seen time and time again a poster appear on here saying that such-and-such was their only concern, or that they heard X and just wanted to know more.
Sadly, in most of these cases it has turned out that wasn’t the case and when confronted with answers to their questions, they usually just continuously move the goal posts again and again and resort to trotting out more and more standard birther arguments & tactics.
Therefore, I don’t buy Sallyven sincerity in her statements at all. In fact, I’ve seen that poster make birther statements and arguments in the past (I don’t remember if here or at other sites, but Sallyven has been “around” on the blogosphere on this issue as a birther proponent for a long, long time.)
It is called “concern trolling” for a reason.
The whole “concern of transparency argument” is another tired trope and intentionally misleading straw-man argument, with the intent to distract from real issues and make it seem that this is merely about Obama breaking some promise to the people. Well, we all know that is a bold-faced characterization at best.
Transparency is about improving government transparency and has nothing to do with personal records. One might actually be unaware of this truth initially and buy into this argument, but as it can be easily disproved and corrected during initial questioning on the matter, that only leads those with willful intent to mislead who still repeatedly continue to carry on such a false argument time after time.
So yes, I lump them all as birthers – to continue to believe myths and untruths and to continue to repeat them after being exposed to the truth is simply a willful intention to smear and cling to preconceived conclusions that can only be driven by deep, personal biases and a deep-seated “need” to not just disagree or dislike the president, but to invalidate him, because they can’t “accept” the mere reality and notion of his presidency.
To me, that by definition is what makes them birthers and why I will continue to lump all such arguments that lead down that same path as under the birther umbrella.
Doc-The 2 types of birthers is largely a distinction without a difference. Certainly the birthers who post here are happy to embrace both theories (he was born in Kenya and even if he wasn’t he is ineligible), along with any other foolishness that would tarnish Obama’s name. They embrace things that make Obama “look bad” even where those would actually make him eligible under their own theories (his parents weren’t married, Frank Marshall Davis is his real father).
Among the prominent birthers we see much the same. Orly certainly ascribes to both theories, plus many more. Donofrio claims he believes Obama was born in Hawaii, yet his web site was full of the confrontations between “miss tickly” and Hawaiian officials, something that under his own theory should be irrelevant. Mario, who knows? Perhaps Berg is the only “purist”, since he does maintain that anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen-perhaps because he was an actual attorney at one point in the past. However, he too delves off into the swamp of loss of citizenship in Indonesia and other side arguments.
What all the birthers share, is a failure to distinguish between what they think the law should say and what it actually says. It’s one thing to argue, as some respectable conservatives do, that extending citizenship to the children of 2 illegal aliens is a bad idea and that the laws should be changed (probably a Constitutional amendment would be required). But there is no denying what the current law is, supported by dozens of Supreme Court decisions. Similarly, they “think” that Lakin “should” be able to present any argument he feels like in his defense, despite centuries of jurispridence that say the contrary. The NBC types are no different. They believe that 2 citizen parents “should” be required. Yet, as we know, real judges say that is not the law.
I happen to think that forbidding the governors of 2 of the largest states (whether you like them or hate them) from being President simply on the basis of where they were born makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Nevertheless, that is what the law says. Part of living in a society is that one must accept that one will not like every law or every interpretation that a court puts on the law. But the social contract under which we all live says that you have no choice but to accept the law as decided by those bodies delegated to do so.
I agree it is a distinction without a difference; the tax protestors couch their “concerns” in psudeolegalistic arguments. Yet the explanation of why the “correct” arguments are continuously rejected by the courts requires a conspiracy of vast proportions.
And the vast majority of birther suits have been rejected on a basis unrelated to eligibility, i.e., standing. Yet you can’t throw a stone on a birther site (or even this site!) without finding someone talking about corrupt judges who have been bought off, threatened, or otherwise “gotten to.” It is all conspiracy, no matter how you slice it.
I’d prefer not to have to deal with said persons as brainless idiots, and then be forced – forced, I say – to mock and ridcule them, if only to protect my own sanity.
But you can only stand there with a baseball bat in your hand, behind your back, while someone’s jumping up and down in front of your face yelling “HIT ME! HIT ME! FOR GOD’S SAKE, HIT ME!!!” without doing the obvious thing.
Then you’re really not doing anything here at all, other than a driveby concern trolling
Well, here’s the difference. Those PHD experts, if they actually earned their PHDs, have what we hope are informed opinions. And they have a right to those informed opinions. But just because they’ve got those opinons, and they are informed (maybe) DOES NOT MAKE THEM CORRECT. That’s why even intelligent people vehemently disagree on things.
So just because those experts think that birthright citizenship and dual citizenship are unconstitutional, that does not necessarily make them racists or kooks. I’m willing to bet dollars to nickels that racists and kooks will gravitate towards those opinions, and use them in their own arguments, but that doesn’t make those persons the same as their fan base. It just makes them wrong… at least in my humble opinion.
I’m sure there are rational, intelligent people who have that opinion. There are also rational, intelligent people who think the American government caused 9/11, think we faked the Moon landing, and firmly believe that a cabal of Jews are secretly controlling the world. Just because you believe in something that sounds crazy doesn’t mean you ARE crazy – you may have just been innundated in an “alternate angle” on the world that seemingly answers all questions, and sounds believeable enough that cognative dissonance can fill in the blanks that common sense would normally shriek were missing.
Well, I’d agree that there are folks that aren’t actually crazy that hold crazy views. More importantly & pertinent to the discussion is that if a sane person spouts crazy talk, they will come across as crazy, whether or not they are actually sane. And that is the point: If you chose to make crazy statements, then your mental state comes into question by your own actions. It is that simple. It always amuses me that these birthers and other similar types of deniers of reality have such an immature entitlement mentality and no sense of either personal shame nor personal responsibility for their own actions.
Bottom line: we are all accountable for our words and deeds.