Donald Trump has provoked a reaction. My Google alerts are flooding in with interviews and news articles uniformly critical of Trump’s birther remarks. By going birther, Trump has soared in the polls of Republican voters, likely among the 37% of Republicans who doubt Obama was born in the US, but his birtherism has completely overshadowed anything substantive he might have had to say about the Obama administration.
Newspapers from large to small are uniformly taking up the birther issue and calling crazy, ludicrous, false and dumb. For example, check out this New York Daily News report with an embedded ABC video about about a CNN story. I found the video entertaining. Local news in Boston carried an interview with Obama’s aunt, who called Trump a liar. NBC carried an interview with the former Director of the Hawaii Department of Health who inspected Obama’s original birth certificate twice. Google News today reports 965 current news articles matching “trump birther.”
Other coverage:
[unordered_list style=”tick”]
- Will the birther issue backfire on Trump? – Fox News
- What Donald Trump’s Birther Investigators Will Find in Hawaii – The Atlantic (recommended)
- Obama’s sister call’s Trump’s birther rant “a shame” – CNN
- Ann Coulter not on board Donald Trump’s birther crusade – Daily Caller
- Bill Cosby vs. “The Donald” – Seattle Post Intelligencer
- Donald Trump: White House ‘Concerned’ Because I’m Raising Birthplace Issue – The Huffington Post
- Obama’s Sister: Birthers Should Give It A Rest – Honolulu Civil Beat
- Donald Trump’s Letter: An Insight Into the Man – The New York Times
[/unordered_list]
Wow – in order to predict this kind of reaction you would have had to be some kind of a genius… or at least not a birther. Doc, how do you think this firestorm that the birthers have ignited (while sitting on a pile of inflammables and high explosives…) will effect the birthers when the fickle eye of the media turns away from the bloated corpse of the idea that ‘most Americans’ have questions about President Obama’s (natural born) citizenship?
“…eye of the media turns away from the bloated corpse ”
when Obama is accepted as a candidate in Arizona (100% certainty)
In the birther minds, however, the fact that the media are paying attention to and largely debunking what Trump is saying is being considered a victory, because they think they have Obama “running scared” and that they’ve “almost got him!” because he’s having to order his media followers to defend him.
If you ignore them, they think they’re winning because they claim no one is willing to take on their “overwhelming” stack of “evidence”. But when people are showing they’re wrong, they also claim victory based on Obama’s “desperation”.
Much like there is no evidence Obama can show that will ever convince them (the goalposts will always move, they will always claim forgery, corruption, or go de Vattel), there is no action Obama, the media, or anyone else can take that they will not claim as a victory.
I just listened to the Ann Coulter interview. No wonder she’s alone. Can you imagine living in the same house with that voice?
Trump was not expecting the reaction he got, and I predict he is only days away from taking his birther ball and going home, never to mention it again.
Trump is already lying about his own statements. Trump’s “nobody knew young Barack” blew up in his face, He stammered, claimed he didn’t say it (hah!) and quickly moved the goalposts like a good birther.
I thought he said he wasn’t an idiot.
Conservatives loved Cosby when he was telling African Americans they need to step and be responsible for themselves.
I bet Birthers will just label Cosby as another liberal and ignore that.
Donald Trump will probably run as independent if he doesn’t win GOP nomination for president
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/chatter/2011/04/trump-will-probably-run-as-independent-if-he-doesnt-win-gop.html
So what is Donald’s plan for his presidency once he finishes beiing born in the USA? As best I can tell, he plans to start a trade war with China, something which history has shown often leads to a real war. Birtherism may be the least insane of his positions.
So all these people come out with statements defending Obama, his stepmother, his sister, his chief campaign manager, the MSM, but Obama is far too busy to make a comment on it. He has enough time to go on television and fill out his brackets for the NCAA tournament but he’s far too busy for this.
He has enough time to go golfing while Libya is breaking out in civil war and Japan is wracked by a natural disaster and threatened with a nuclear disaster, but he is far too busy for this.
It would take far too much time to make the statement, “I was born in Kapiolani hospital and delivered by Dr. ___________ at Kapiolani.”
Yes, the news media is very wise not to trouble the President with such time consuming questions when he is far too busy to answer them.
Bob
And if he did that, would you fully support him and vote for his re-election?
CNN Poll: Trump tied for first in GOP horserace.
Posted: April 12th, 2011 12:00 PM ET
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/cnn-poll-trump-tied-for-first-in-gop-horserace/
I’m calling out the news media. Up to 40% of the country either don’t believe or are not sure if Obama was born in this country. Trump has risen to the top of the republican opiniion polls for president for raising the question. Yet the mainstream media will not ask him the simple questions on his birth.
It’s not the news media job to serve as the President’s campaign manager. By not asking these questions they are abrogating their responsibility to the American people.
Bob
Probably not. (I can imagine scenarios where I would.)
But that 40% who have doubts will resonate with Trumps questions. Remember that includes a large proportion who are not sure one way or the other. To capture those people Obama needs to come out and make a definitive statement about which hospital he was born in and his delivery doctor.
Bob
Don’t you understand that the birther issue doesn’t resonate with independent voters? It drives a wedge between them and the Republicans. If I were him, I wouldn’t say anything to or regarding the birthers in order to get the maximum effect out of them, but President Obama probably just doesn’t think about them at all…
I asked about YOU, not that imaginary 40%.
How did 40% of Republicans become 40% of the country
Great imagnation you got! With comments like yours, don’t expect to be invited to Obama’s Inaguration in 2013
Bob, let me ask you the most important question – why do you waste your time concern trolling? What do you get out of this?
You know exactly what you are doing. You are here intentionally. You know exactly what a concern troll is and that you are doing it. Why?
To answer your lame concern troll questions about why Obama doesn’t waste time on this…that is easy –
Why should he pay attention to trolls? He has NOTHING to gain from doing so and as many have pointed out, there seems to be much more political benefit for him to let the GOP sink themselves and lose credibility by focusing on the birther issue. As the more politically savvy have lamented, the biggest problem with Trump’s big birther splash is that it might have arrived and peaked too soon.
By Trump drawing such big attention to birtherism, it has only forced more media to have to address the issues he raises, which has mainly led to a much, much broader and more detailed debunking of the birther myths than ever before. If you don’t realize that birtherism is ultimately a millstone or albatross around the neck for any politician in the long term, then you are truly deluding yourself.
The President has treated it with the attention it deserves. He occassionally make a joke about it. You seem to be under the false impression that these foolish questions based on rumour and innuendo deserve any serious consideration.
I’ll agree with you on one point. The media has abrogated their duty…by not calling Trump out to his face for believing wholly unsupported rumours, and repeated easily disproven lies. Not to mention his self contradictions. He finds it bizarre that the Obamas, in his own words were poor students, would take out an ad announcing the birth if their child, but it makes sense that they would fly half way around the world? Never mind that he is dead wrong about “taking out the ad.” Serious journalists don’t waste government officials’ time with silly conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality. Just as I would have been offended if a journalist asked President Bush if he was behind 9/11 or sleeping with Condi Rice, if any journalist asked those questions to President Obama, I’d be calling for their jobs.
Bob,
Deep down, you know darn well this is not a serious issue. Yes, you totally hate Obama and suffer from some pretty extreme ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome). So you wish bad things on him, purely for the simple fact that you loathe him. But you really know better and deep down you know that the whole Birther game is nothing but a propoganda tactic to slander and demonize.
Should the media go ask NASA if the moon is made of green cheeze?
Should network time be devoted to investigating if Elvis is still alive?
Should they be asking scientists if the earth is flat?
Get serious for a minute. Look, a candidate you really, really don’t like won an election. More voters disagreed with you than agreed with you. This can’t be the first time in your life you’ve faced this. DEAL WITH IT ALREADY. There’s nothing you can do about it and having this sad obsession about still being cranky 2.5 years after an election ended is quite frankly, really sad and unhealthy.
This won’t be the last time in your life that the person you want to win something loses…or more importantly, the person you cast a vote against, still winds up getting elected. IT HAPPENS. IT WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN. LIFE GOES ON.
Trump rising to the top of the GOP candidate list is most amusing and entertaining and really reflects a greater sad truth of what the GOP base has degraded into – a bunch of angry, xenophobic and increasingly wacky lot. It most likely reflects that the GOP has crossed the tipping point – beyond where the manipulators in power at the top can throw red meat at a base to rile them up and still steer control of their hate & fear. It really is endemic of the bigger problem that this type of base is now too rabid and too big to control…as they drive too much of the primary voting base. Rove and the other business-minded GOP establishment are getting more and more concerned about this eventuality, as it is increasingly unlikely that they can prevent their base from chosing a candidate that will totally turn off independents and lose the general.
Look, I realize you don’t like Obama and are really unhappy knowing that there is a really good chance he’ll be reelected in 2012. My advice is that you try to find and focus on the more postive aspects in your personal life that you can control and not let this petty hate destroy you. If anything, you can comfort yourself as many did in 2004 who couldn’t stand that Bush got re-elected. Once a president is re-elected, that is his last term. Feel better now?
Please, Bob, enlighten us on these scenarios you imagine in which you “would consider voting for Obama”, as I don’t believe you would under any circumstance.
Come on Bob, you waste your time here with endless birther speculation on the most meaningless of minutae issues…
…so let’s here these speculative scenarios where you would. I’m calling you out on this one.
I stand by my Trump prediction- he is not actually going to run for President, and he wasn’t expecting the ridicule he has received (such as being shown on page one of a NYC paper as a clown. He is ultra-thin skinned, and he will drop this when ridicule becomes the standard response to him.
He posted his birth certificate on the web for the whole wide world to see back in 2008. Because of that, Barack Hussein Obama II is the only president for whom I know the exact moment of his birth: 7:24 p.m. on Friday, August 4, 1961. He was born in the City of Honolulu, in the County of Honolulu, on the Island of Oahu, in the state of Hawaii according to that birth certificate.
That’s all he needed to do.
His birth certificate’s authenticity was verified by the Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics, the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, the Director of Communications for the Hawaii Department of Health, the Hawaii Attorney General’s office and by the Governor of the state of Hawaii.
The Constitution of the United States in Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 requires three pieces of information to prove eligibility: (1) date of birth (age 35 and over), (2) place of birth (within the continental United States or born overseas to US citizen parents while being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) and (3) 14 years residence in the United States. Two of those three pieces of information can be found on any certified birth record issued by a state.
“The state of Hawaii says he was born there. That’s good enough for me.”–Congressman John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives (R-OH).
Which is why Obama comes across presidential, and Donald Trump appears a clown.
Clown? Trump is a buffoon.
Intrade has Obama at 62%. Their accuracy is at least 90%. Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Better get used to it.
You make the mistake of confusing support for Obama (or his policies) and feeling utter contempt for the birther cause.
As a devoted follower of Glenn Greenwald, I am not thrilled with your President’s policies in numerous instances.
But one doesn’t have to like and/or support Obama to realize how asinine, delusional, meritless and xenophobic the birther movement is.
I couldn’t agree more! This is a cause of great concern to me. America seems to have moved from a rather unyieldy winner-takes-all 2-party system to a one-party-plus-crazy-loons system.
Whichever way you feel about the proper course of action, this is not good news.
On behalf all clowns, let me honk in protest at this unwarranted attack against an honorable profession which has brought mirth to millions.
It is actually very hard to find something utterly vile, stupid and useless to compare Trump to.
There is a precedent for this whole Trump circus you know
All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian.
“If either the right wing or the left wing gained control of the country, it would probably fly around in circles.”
How about Ivana?
The 40%, which includes those who don’t believe it outright and those who aren’t sure one way or the other, is from a New York Times/CBS News poll mentioned by Chris Matthews on MSNBC:
Chris Matthews Release Obama’s birth certificate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baH0fi2oVHs
Bob
I’m just trying to envision the scene. All the media accredited to the White House are sent a notice to be there at 2 PM for an important Presidential announcement. The budget? The Middle East? Energy policy? A few minutes after 2 the President strides to the podium. He clears his throat, looks the camera in the eye and says, “I was born at Kapi’olani Hospital and delivered by Dr X”. Then he turns and walks back in. I suppose he could take questions, like “Were you a breech?”, “Was it a C section ?” “How did the event make you feel?”
Now of course that supposed 40% who “have doubts” will immediately become Obama supporters, giving him an approval rating of 98%. The Republicans wiill decline even to nominate an opponent and he will be re-elected by a larger margin than Kazhak President Nursultan Nazarbayev, who recently won such a landslide that even 2 of his opponents said they voted for him.
I think you ought to take an honest look at just how ridiculous you come off. Here we are, more than halfway through the term of someone you claim you hate, yet you have yet to cite a single substantive policy disagreement with him. and can’t come up with a better reason to vote against him than the fact that you don’t know the name of the doctor who delivered him? You either are the most shallow, small-minded person I have ever had the displeasure of encountering.or you are pulling our legs.
Did I miss something? Did Chris Matthews get elected President? Is the President supposed to do whatever theTV pundits say? I mean if some pundit wants to invade China, then we should do that?
But let’s look at the “birth certificate”. Since he already released one, I presume you mean a different one. Let’s walk through the process. Hawaii has said they don’t release photocopies of the original, nor even allow the person concerned to make one. Whether it’s statute or not, and whether you like it or not, that’s their policy.. Some have claimed that if you go in person to the DOH and ask very nicely, they will provide you a copy. I’m not convinced, but for the sale of argument, let;s say that’s true. Are you actually suggesting that the President march in there with his Secret Service dettaiil and browbeat some staffer into making him a copy? That he use the prestige and power of his office to persuade state bureaucrats to violate the policy of their office? That is about the most inappropriate thing I could imagine a President to do? In fact, if he did that, Congressman Issa would have every right to investigate him and I would probably be on Issa’s side.
> Remember that includes a large proportion who are not sure one way or the other. To capture those people Obama needs to come out and make a definitive statement about which hospital he was born in and his delivery doctor.
As I’ve said before, the percentage of people who are “not sure one way or the other” is meaningless as long as there’s no follow-up question in the direction of “how will that impact your voting behaviour”.
As I’ve said before, many people in most countries are “not sure one way or the other” where the people they vote for were born. I’ve never asked any politician I voted for about his/her BC, even though I hardly ever knew where they *supposedly* come from, let alone was sure “beyond reasonable doubt” where they were born.
So you birfers can keep lying to yourself how “40+% of the voters are birthers” or that Obama will lose the elections big time because of the birthplace issue. As I always say, lying to oneself usually does not do much harm. 😉
But if the same survey had been taken in 2007 or 2008, the results would have been the same as, as I also have already said, those who “are not sure” now likely weren’t sure then. Still Obama won by a landslide. Makes you think, doesn’t it?
Fact: Obama does not need to “capture those people”. Those who are Republican won’t vote for him either way. Those who are Democrats will vote for him either way. Those who are undecided/independent obviously don’t care much about the issue anyway.
Bob is fudging the numbers again and acting like Squeeky. So tell me if you’re going to include those who say he was probably born in the US as birthers in your scenario would you also count those who don’t outright believe he was born overseas with those who believe he was born in the US? You also threw in those who didn’t even answer the question. That’s not how you read a poll. You have to lie about what the data actually says.
> If I were him, I wouldn’t say anything to or regarding the birthers in order to get the maximum effect out of them, but President Obama probably just doesn’t think about them at all…
But I bet his political advisors do and have told him just that: ignore the issue, make a slight tongue-in-cheek joke every now and then – and enjoy watching the Republicans fighting with each other over the non-issue.
Remember the Lewinsky scandal. Would any sane Republican have said “well, let’s get over with it, everyone’s slept with an intern some time during his career”? They could have, but why would they? 😉
Mitt Romney tells birthers to go & take a hike:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53073.html#ixzz1JPf7TZZk
OTOH loathsome Darrell Issa hedges his bets:
http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201104120001
Oh how torn the Republicans are! Trump is truly the gift that keeps on giving!
Quote from an idiot birther on Politico’s Mitt Romney story:
“Obama was not born in the United States. His grandmother said she witnessed the birth of Obama in Kenya. So I want to see Obama’s birth certificate, long version. Even if I see it, we will not vote for Obama. He has to go.”
Emphasis added.
Just another one of the idiot Birther Bobs of the world.
Considering Mitt is in 4th place even behind Palin at this point I suspect this will make him go lower because of the Republican Primary voters extreme stances.
I love the people that want to see the BC but admit it won’t change their minds or vote at all. So who cares? It’s like the birthers that say “All he has to do is show the BC and this will go away” and if you ask them “So if he does you’d be satisfied?” and they say “No because his father wasn’t a citizen so he still isn’t eligible”.
So they should just admit they’ve decided he’s ineligible and there’s nothing he can do to make them happy, instead of complaining about a BC.
Agreed. Personally, I’ve always been fairly disappointed with how our two-party system was functioning here and wish we didn’t have parties at all…or that there was a much broader field of serious, legitimate parties and independents to offer real choice and to prevent the current de-facto binary option from just continually devolving into a mere contrarian parody of itself.
Having only one serious party is not healthy for a nation… although if you have a 2-party system where the 2nd party is ONLY concerned about undermining the 1st party…I’d have to say that is even worse and more disfunctional. Unfortunatly, that is what the GOP has devolved into and as much as I don’t like it, I’m at the point where I’d prefer one party that can at least get things done (and then we can judge them based on the results) than the current pure opposition for opposition’s sake quagmire. The current GOP has repeatedly shown that they are an utter disaster if they have power, so they have not only failed to be a serious option, but even worse – appear to be about as self-destructive and unhealthy as an organization can get. They’ve gone to the point of being a complete and consistent danger to both the short-term and long-term health of this country.
Right now, at the state and national level, over the past few years it seems that the only sane choice I have anymore is the Democratic party candidates, whether I’m happy with them or not. I don’t vote by party and I don’t like having only one real option.
I think the GOP base has gone too far over the edge to return and self-correct to more sane positions on their own. At this point, the healthies thing would be to allow them to completely implode (hoping without causing too much further collateral damage in the process) and allow a more rational and saner option(s) to emerge from the ashes. In their current form, they need to go the way of the Whigs.
Hilarious! Thanks for that.
Exactly!
Actually, I believe that independents care enough about this issue that when it’s rubbed in their faces by the 24-hour news cycle (like is happening now…) it acts as a wedge separating independents from the Republican base. This sort of thing has repeatedly proved very effective in American politics in the past…
Op-Ed Columnist
The President Is Missing.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 10, 2011
“What have they done with President Obama? What happened to the inspirational figure his supporters thought they elected? Who is this bland, timid guy who doesn’t seem to stand for anything in particular?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/opinion/11krugman.html
Bob
He is afraid of conservatives, for some reason. Personally, I tell conservatives where they can go.
Liberal base abandoning sinking prez.
By CARL CAMPANILE
Last Updated: 3:08 AM, April 12, 2011
Posted: 1:52 AM, April 12, 2011
“Liberals are no longer seeing “change we can believe in.”
“Just 37 percent of self-described lefties say in the latest Rasmussen poll that they still strongly approve of President Obama’s performance.
“That’s way down from 63 percent a year ago, 57 percent earlier this year — and 52 percent just a week go.
“And the 19 percent who said they “strongly approved” equaled not only the lowest percentage of the 2-year-old presidency but also less than half of the 39 percent who said they “strongly disapproved.”
“Pollster Scott Rasmussen blamed the stunning drop in support on Obama’s liberal base, noting that a Gallup Poll just last week revealed a dip in his support among blacks and Latinos, each a key Democratic Party voting bloc.”
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/liberal_base_abandoning_sinking_3Zx9MZi7rZzIjIeWY6LwtI
The Rasmussen poll:
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Thursday, April 14, 2011
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Bob
That’s funny as his approvals were at 44% most of last year. That means his approvals have shot up 10% in the first third of the year. Well done Republicans
And it was 39% and below on Rasmussen for most of last year too. You do know he doesn’t even pretend to be a serious polling firm anymore? he gets paid by Fox to give them what they want to hear. And Nate Silver has him pretty much at the bottom of the reliability charts. But the conservative liar blogs love him.
Come back with Gallup, then we will talk.
What does that have to do with the President’s eligibility for office? Have you run out of birther blog lies, bobby?
Isn’t this the same Rasmussen Reports, LLC that The Center for Public Integrity listed as having been paid $95,500 by the Republican National Committee and $45,500 by the George W. Bush presidential campaign in 2003-04?
http://projects.publicintegrity.org/consultants/list.aspx?act=conDetail&id=122002
What does this have to do with Trump’s birtherism which is the subject of the thread?
I was implying but didn’t say it that the attacks from Trump are taking their toll.
Bob
Are taking their toll? What direct proof do you have of that? Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
March 30, 2011
Americans Less Likely to View Obama as a Strong Leader.
by Jeffrey M. Jones
“PRINCETON, NJ — Americans have grown increasingly less likely to view President Obama as a strong and decisive leader since he took office. Roughly half now believe this aptly describes him, compared with 60% a year ago and 73% in April 2009.”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146876/Americans-Less-Likely-View-Obama-Strong-Leader.aspx
Bob
Good luck getting a birther to understand a common logical fallacy.
Robert,
The President Is Missing.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 10, 2011
“What have they done with President Obama? What happened to the inspirational figure his supporters thought they elected? Who is this bland, timid guy who doesn’t seem to stand for anything in particular?”
Trump is raising Birther issues- whacko eligiblity issues that I have seen little evidence that voters actually care about.
But sure- lots and lots of Democrats and Independents are not crazy about everything Obama has done, or even the totality of his Presidency.
The two are two different things- but the telling thing is that every Birther who ever questions the Presidents eligiblity is also strongly opposed to the President politically, and is likely to link their personal political objections to his policies with their expressed doubts about his legitmacy.
Obama’s ‘all-time low’ approval rating.
Two new polls suggest the president is more unpopular than he’s ever been. Is America’s controversial Libya intervention to blame?
posted on March 30, 2011, at 3:50 PM
“President Obama’s approval rating has slumped to an “all-time low,” according to a new Quinnipiac poll. A mere 42 percent of American voters approve of the job Obama is doing, while 48 percent disapprove. It gets worse: Half of all voters say he does “not deserve to be re-elected in 2012,” with only 41 percent saying that he does. A new Gallup poll offers Obama more gloomy news: The number of Americans who rate him as a “strong and decisive leader” has fallen by 21 percentage points since he took office. Is the president’s decision to intervene in Libya to blame for his poor showing?”
http://theweek.com/article/index/213690/obamas-all-time-low-approval-rating
But the poll I really like is this one:
Hillary Can Beat Obama in 2012
Submitted by may on Fri, 2011-04-01 01:17
“Hillary Clinton now has a 66% approval rating according to a current Gallup poll. This is Mrs. Clinton’s highest approval rating except for the time just after Bill Clinton’s Impeachment.
“Barack Obama’s job approval rating according to Gallup has dropped to 45% with 47% of the poll respondents disapproving of Obama’s job performance. This gives Hillary Clinton an apparent 21% current advantage over Barack Obama.”
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/may/2011-04-01/hillary-can-beat-obama-2012
John Phillips: Why Hillary Clinton must run in 2012.
April 4, 2011 | 2:22 am
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/04/hillary-clinton-obama-john-phillips.html
Bob
Won’t happen. History shows that a primary challenge to a sitting President always loses and resullts in the defeat of that President. The most recent examples are Bush I (Buchanan) in 1992, Carter (Kennedy) in 1980 and Ford (Reagan) 1976.
I really wonder, Bob if you could enlighten us re this un-natural fascination with Hillary? Can you show us where she would have differed with Obama on any major issue and how her position would be better? When they debated they agreed on almost everything, except for the individual mandate in health care and the final bill was much closer to Hillary’s position than Obama’s original one.
From that same link
“The decline in Obama’s leadership rating stands in contrast to the stability in the trend for two other personal dimensions. Fifty-seven percent of Americans believe the president understand the problems Americans face in their daily lives, essentially unchanged from 56% in March 2010. And 51% of respondents believe Obama shares their values, similar to 48% last year. Both ratings are down from early 2009.”
Yeah, he’s really getting hurt there, Sherlock.
Mr. Clark,
While many on the left no longer ‘strongly support’ the president (I am one of them), the Republicans (like Scott Walker and with the help of people like the billionaire Koch brothers) have made it obvious that the left either sticks with the president or we all (Americans) go down together. The birthers only support this dynamic. In your parlance, I voted FOR President Obama in 2008 and I will be voting AGAINST his opponent in 2012 (I’ve got a long list of SUBSTANTIVE disagreements with President Obama, but I’m not enough of a fool to believe for a second that a President McCain would have been in any way better – one of the problems with the excesses of the right is that the liberal core is forced [by their blatant and relentless war on the middle class] to stand with the president against a far worse enemy instead of holding his feet to the fire for being more conservative than Nixon and continuing President Bush’s unConstitutional steamrolling of our civil rights). You obviously (like most birthers) have the political savvy of a newborn duckling…
As someone who’s read a graph or 2 in his time, i read the approval numbers as basically flat since late 2009/early 2010.
is it now your contention that Paul Krugman is a birther?
You know I’m starting to think Robert Clark is a rebranded transgender Squeeky. He’s used her fudging of the numbers for that poll and now is claiming that somehow the birther crap is affecting reelection.
Bob,
You can cling to your bitter PUMA fantasies all you want. HRC is NOT running for President and probably not for any political office again after she finishes up with her SOS work. She’s repeatedly said so herself.
I don’t blame her either. She’s served in politics in high offices for many years now and she deserves to move on from all that if she wants. Being in any Presidential administration is a very demanding job and burnout is common, especially now with so many issues to address all at once and such highly polarized politics and 24-hour news cycle. The POTUS, as head of the administration always takes the most heat and most blame. Had HRC become President, she would have been the major target of attacks and her poll numbers would suffer as a natural result. If anything, a part of her is probably relieved to not have the target squarely on her back in this current political climate and world of crisis. She can now retire and move on from political office to other important things with her reputation and approval ratings in fairly good shape. Like her husband’s Clinton Global Initiative, there is a lot of rewarding and important work she can choose to do for this world after her political career.
You suffer from such pathetic ODS that you’re wasting time here with general political polls, which is NOT the point of this blog. Big surprise, a president’s poll numbers often have periods of going down after they are in office and people realize that they can’t magically accomplish all the stuff they set out to do and that people are unhappy when there is a major economic crisis and long-term wars going on.
You can fantasize and whine and try to get happy on a few polls all you want, but the bigger picture of reality comes down to two major factors (beyond the obvious economy/crisis stuff):
1. The acting President running for re-election is in the de-facto front-runner. In order for a challenger to have a good liklihood of beating them, they must seem like a stronger alternative to the current situation.
2. It is extremely unlikely we will see a serious primary challenge emerge on the democratic side. Therefore, Obama’s position is pretty secure on this front.
3. The potential GOP field is the weakest and kookiest I’ve seen in my lifetime. Further, the contrast between what would appeal to a GOP primary voter and a general election voter is at a new polar extreme as well. Therefore, unless some major change occurs, Obama’s opposition from the GOP looks extremely weak and does not offer any dissatisfied voters much of a serious alternative.
4. In the modern election landscape, dominated by the two major parties, the only other real factor is when some strong independent 3rd party candidate makes this into enough of a three-way race that it can affect the balance between the two main party candidates.
In 1992, people tend to focus on GHWB’s “no new tax” statements and the economy as his downfall, which allowed Clinton to be elected instead. However, if Ross Perot wasn’t in the race, there is a good chance he would have been re-elected.
Likewise, had Nader not been such a factor in 2000, GWB probably wouldn’t have won.
5. When a strong 3rd candidate enters the picture, they are more of a threat to the major-party candidate whose platform/positions is closer to their own.
6. Looking at where things stand in 2011, there is a definite likelihood that we could see some serious third-party or independent candidate emerge onto the landscape as a factor in the 2012 elections. However, at this point, that is more likely to emerge from the right (Tea Party, Trump, Ron/Rand Paul, Libertarian, Constitution, etc.) than from the left. Therefore, such a result further favors Obama’s reelection.
Agreed!
And very true about their similar positions.
The Health Care bill passed was closer to HRC’s platform position than Obama’s.
The only other area where they seemed to have a bit of “real” difference during the primaries was that HRC was more “hawkish” than Obama on positions of foreign affairs and the wars.
Most of the loudest gripes on the left seem to attack Obama because they view him currently as too hawkish on just about all of those issues. I can only imagine how much angrier those “dovish” howls of “betrayal” would have been under HRC, who would likely have taken actions similar or more “hawkish” than Obama’s on all these matters.
It will be interesting to see what happens when more folks on the reactionary birther right discover that George Soros and Donald Trump have been business partners.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2703277/posts
Well said!
I’m more of a centrist pragmatic and although I support a number of what have currently become “liberal” positions (mostly because US politics has shifted so far to the right in general), I’ve always been more of a centrist. I don’t support many of the far-left stances out there, purely because they seem unrealistic and ill-equipped to the realities of where the world is today. The “conservative” positions on issues that I supported no longer seem to be issues that the “right” focuses on anymore or even worse, that they now consider to be “left”. The problem is that the right has gone so far towards the ledge of right that center and center-right are viewed as “liberal” these days and anything remaining on the “right” is pretty much extreme insanity.
Therefore, I too have many areas of disagreement or general disappointment with both Congress & the Administration’s handling of things (which I’m sure may somewhat align with yours but may also differ in areas), but as a pragmatic, I understand the crazy dynamics and outside money influences that make progress or satisfactory results extremely difficult to achieve in today’s world.
Further, I realize that the GOP is too far broken and incapable of doing anything but make these problems much, much, much worse.
I always vote. I’ve always believed in voting. I don’t expect presidents to be perfect or to be able to achieve even half of what they set out to do. I don’t expect them to be able to get their way or to do things according to the outcome I’d like to see. So, I can be disappointed in a lot of specific situations yet still not be disappointed in this Administration overall.
At this point, I fully intend to vote for Obama in 2012 because he doing so is the only sane and pragmatic option as a path forward out there.
I have seen people say they are going to vote GOP next election in order to finally bring out the total crazy to bring forward the day of the rope.
And yes, Hillery Clinton’s career is over come the next term
The day of the rope?
Sorry, not getting the reference.
Are you referring to the Armageddonists who want to bring about the Apocalypse and their “rapture” fantasies and such and who are glomming onto 2012 conspiracies, hoping for “The End of The World”…?
Its a book title. What they are getting at is basically the American people rising up and shooting the rich who have been robbing them blind with the active help of congress.
In short they think the only reason for voting republican at this stage is if you actively want to destabilize the United states. And the way to do that is to finally expose the crazy anti-American heart of the GOP. And the way to do that is to vote for them.
I think they are barging mad. But its the next evolution of the firebaggers “teach the democrats a lesson by voting republican or staying at home” of the last election
I
Robert Clark, I already donated money this week to President Obama’s re-election campaign. And Rasmussen hasn’t called me.
They ARE barking mad. The firebaggers are unrealistic babies. Similar to the birthers, they think the world is owed to them and if they don’t get their rainbow farting unicorn right this minute, they are going to go Galt and everyone will be sorry.
There is a weird spoiled and selfish entitlement mentality on both the far left and far right that just doesn’t match with reality. I hold both types of extreme ideologues in disdain, as their actions to cut off their noses to spite their face ends up doing harm not just to them but to all of us.
Basically, their “solution” amounts to nothing but further destruction and even less power for them to do anything to stop it. They are so wrongheaded in their views and even more so, their “strategy” that it makes me sick.
Trump’s newfound guru……Joseph Farah.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/birther-czar-joseph-farah-ive-been-talking-to-donald-trump-quite-a-bit.php?ref=fpblg
From that TPM article: “Farah doesn’t stop with birtherism, though. He’s also questioned whether Obama is a Christian: “Here’s the truth: Obama is not a Christian. He doesn’t even know what it means to be a Christian.”
United States Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3: “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Which confirms what I have been saying about conservatives: they are actively opposed to the 1st Amendment. See Palin and the Westboro decision.
A lot of birtherism has an improper religious bigotry component to it or even as the driving factor behind it.
Some of these types of bigots merely view Obama as not “Christian enough” or not the “right type of Christian” for them.
I think a large portion of the birthers are anti-muslim xenophobes…maybe based on long-held religious biases within their own faith, but probably extremely hightened as a fear since 9/11. These folks won’t accept Obama as a Christian no matter what he does or says. If Jesus Christ himself materialized in front of them and vouched for Obama as a Christian, they still wouldn’t accept him.
For these fearful and xenophobic bigots, the mere fact that he has a “muslim sounding name” and that his father was a muslim and his mother’s second husband was a muslim is enough for these folks… in their warped and fearful minds, that permanently stains and brands Obama as a muslim no matter what he says or does.
No. Krugman is an op-ed columnist for the New York Times. From his prior articles I gather he writes from a left viewpoint. Still he noticed Obama was showing a lack of leadership. It was my rather sideways implication that the Trump attacks might be having an effect.
Bob
Remember Bill Clinton had a budget SURPLUS at the end of his term? Imagine that, a democratic president with a budget surplus. Hillary was widely regarded as the brains behind the Clinton administration.
Then came George Bush without a clue about economic issues resulting in huge deficits. And now Obama with an even worse understanding resulting in the worst deficits in the history of the country.
Bob
Dr. Krugman is a Noble prize winning economist and professor, who also writes editorials for the New York Times.
At the time that the President was passing the stimulus bill in 2009, Prof. Krugman was one of his most vocal critics. Krugman thought that the bill was way too small and IIRC wanted a stimulus of at least a trillion dollars.
Clinton didn’t have to deal with a deep recession.
Note that discussion of economic policy is out of scope for this blog.
I will respect Doc’s proscription and just note that Mr Clark is talking out of his nether reasons. I will happily debate economic policy with him at the time and place of his choosing.
Agreed.
Bob
Well, Bob, I guess you won’t have to get “Economics for Dummies” after all.
I agree with you, Dr. C. Whenever a politician is accused of something ridiculous, it’s best to ignore it unless it becomes so pervasive, he or she can’t ignore it any more. In that case, the politician’s surrogates need to address the issue and not the politician. Why? Because by defending yourself, you’re going to cast yourself in the light of a victim. Nobody wants a victim as President of the United States. It’s one of the mistakes Sarah Palin has made. Her victimhood makes her look less presidential. Todd should’ve been out there instead defending his wife and children so Sarah wouldn’t look so thin skinned.
Well said!
Poll shows Donald Trump takes a 9-point lead in race for GOP nomination.
April 15th, 2011 12:02 pm ET
Ryan Witt
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/donald-trump-takes-significant-9-point-lead-gop-nomination-poll
Bob
LOL! Good news for Obama. Bad news for the GOP.
Yep, fantastic news for the Democrats.
Also from the poll linked in that article
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_US_0414925.pdf
“PPP numbers released yesterday found Barack Obama leading six potential Republican opponents by anywhere from 5-18 points.”
And, sadly for the birfers…
“23% of these [republican primary] voters say they would not be willing to vote for a candidate who stated clearly that Obama was born in the U.S. 38% say they would, and a 39% plurality are not sure. Among the hardcore birthers, Trump leads with 37%, almost three times as much support as anyone else. He comes in only third at 17% with those who are fine with a candidate that thinks the President was born in the country.”
Bob,
Are you really too ignorant to understand exactly how horrible this news is for the Republican party? They would be better off to run no candidate at all (to diminish President Obama’s coattails in Congress) than to have Trump as their standard bearer – it’s political suicide (at least at the presidential level…). Do you think Karl Rove is an obot? He’s clearly scared of Republicans kowtowing to birthers…
That all depends on what Obama answers when reporters finally put the obvious questions to him during the tough campaign season:
1.)Were you born in Kapiolani hospital?
2.)Who was your birth doctor?
3.)Will you release your long form birth certificate?
If he answers “no comment”, it’s a whole new ballgame.
Bob
From that same article…
“””The problem for Republicans is that the “birther issue” does not poll well for them among Democrats and independents. Numerous fact check organizations have confirmed that President Obama does have a valid birth certificate in the state of Hawaii. Even conservatives like Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck (hardly two men accused of being Obama puppets) have both said they believe the President’s birth certificate is valid. In addition, a Hawaii a newspaper ran a birth announcement eight days after the President’s birth showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. For the vast majority of Americans, these facts are believable. The “birther” platform is likely to play well in GOP primaries, but not as well in a general election with independents who associate “birthers” with people who believe President Obama was abducted by aliens.”””
How is this turn of events even remotely good news for someone wanting President Obama to not be re-elected?
When someone goes around making demonstrably false accusations, like Trump has been doing….it will catch up to him eventually.
Also, please do not insult Emmett Kelly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Kelly
No. If he continues to ignore such questions, the ballgame is EXACTLY the same as it is today. That IS the current ball game and has been all along.
Re-read what Wile E. just pointed out to you about how that current ball game plays out:
You really do have less political savvy than a newly hatch duckling, don’t you? (and a particularly naive one at that) We’ll see how the birther issue plays out, but I expect that if any reporter is stupid enough to ask those questions of the president, his answers will be devastating to the birther movement (because they will reassure normal people that he is, in fact, legitimate while stirring up the birthers [who have admitted that they will reject the sworn testimony of God if he says that President Obama is a natural born citizen] making them an even better example to independent of why they shouldn’t vote Republican…). So far brither predictions have proven to be around 0% accurate while Obot predictions have generally been spot on. Your analysis may turn out to be more accurate than mine, but the empirical evidence says that is virtually impossible (a case which is only strengthened by your repeated lying and failure to respond substantively to the exposure of any of your lies (except the McCain BC – you did admit you were wrong regarding that). I pity you and the sad little world you live it, but your antics in trying to ignore the obvious and deny the truth are fairly amusing…
And what do you expect those answers to be?
Bob
So he answers 1) Yes 2) I have no idea. Who was yours? 3) No.
OMG, the game… didn’t change at all. Obama is still President, and is still ahead in the polls.
Oh yeah, one thing changed. You look completely ridiculous.
Or he smiles, rolls his eyes and says “Next question!” Everyone laughs, Obama is still president and is ahead in the polls.
Oh yeah one thing changed. you look ridiculous.
Of he takes this as an example of the politics that is dividing America. Result, you look ridiculous.
Whats the common denominator? You look ridiculous.
Agreed.
*yawn* Wake me when there is a serious candidate as an alternative.
Trump gets interviewed by George Stephanopoulos:
Trump: I’ll Release My Tax Returns When Obama Releases Birth Certificate.
Published: April 19, 2011 @ 7:25 am
http://www.thewrap.com/media/article/trump-ill-release-my-tax-returns-when-obama-releases-his-birth-certificate-26582
George comes down hard on him for questioning Obama’s eligibility. Trump responds by charging George has been “co-opted”.
Bob
See also this thread, where I’ve already been discussing this topic of Trump using birtherism as a foil to not release his financial info:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/donald-trumps-birther-advisor-joseph-farah/
Obama 49; Romney 45 ABC 4/15
Obama 51; Trump 35 Rasmussen 4/15
There’s only one poll that matters and it’s in 20 months.
not resonate with independent voters? I read that…how many times? How many times have I read all these insults, all this so-called debunking? Guess what? With me, it resonates. I’m an independent voter, always have been. The Constitution is more important than all the media crap that supports this guy no matter what he’s hiding. Clearly he’s hiding something about his origins. He’s not a “natural born Citizen” if his father really was Barrack Hussein Obama of Kenya. He’s been adopted by an Indonesian, and there are no records of his resuming his name that have been released so people are satisfied he’s a citizen, even.
None of these media claims will ever convince me. The Constitution tells me he’s got to be a “natural born Citizen.” No one has demonstrated that he is. Indeed, if BHO was his true father, he was at best a dual citizen. That’s not the standard to hold the office.
The American people are being duped, and you all are contributing.
Your very post, full of nothing but long-debunked myths and lies demonstrates that the DUPE here in this equation is YOU.
You sir, are simply a gullible nut. You need to stop believing every made up myth your read on the internet. It has led you to be wrong on every point you’ve stated and to be too unaware of how foolish you look.
If you really care about yourself or these matters, you would not waste your time with tabloid level trash and biased propoganda and instead listen to actual sites of authority on such matters.
Here, let me start you out with the most proper and best source – the HI DOH:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
Obama admitted his father was Kenyan in 1995. In a best-selling book! How did you miss that, vharlow?
If he was a “dual citizen” at birth, then of what two countries was he a citizen at birth?
If one of those countries happens to have been the United States, then what you are saying is, he was a citizen of the United States at birth. If that is what you are saying, then I can accept it and we seem to have no quarrel.
Well, the first Republican caucus is 288 days from now. That will be a fun poll to watch 🙂
Something interesting about Trump’s anatomy: where everyone has his mouth, Trump has his anus.
From the age of ten, he used the name Barack or Barry Obama. It is listed in every yearbook from 1971 to 1979 at the school in Hawaii, He used the name Barack Obama at Occidental College and Columbia University as shown by student directories.
1. There is no evidence he was ever adopted by anyone, much less an Indonesian.
2. There is no evidence of a legal name change.
Proving either of these is a prerequisite to Obama having to prove the reverse!
Can you provide proof you’ve stopped beating your wife?
Yharlow, it is obvious you love your country, and it is sad that someone is using that love to misinform you. And you are severely misinformed about the Constitution’s definition of Natural born citizen.
Do you remember people saying “what makes America great is that anyone born here can become President”? I do. I’ve heard it all my life, and now people are lying to you and telling you thats not true.
You want an example of a legal definition?
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States
Thats from James madison, the father of the US constitution.
Want a ruling on dual citizenship?
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html
“As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, that citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles.
Second. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents’ origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties.
…
(Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.”
Elg was a dual Swedish-Us citizen, birn in the United states. Her Parents took her back to sweden, and she returned when she was 21. The court rules she was a natural born citizen despite her Swedish citizenship and Alien parents.
I’m sorry Yharlow, theres a long string of case law on this and it is all consistent. Obama is eligible.
Obama’s specific Eligibility was discussed in Alkeny Vs Daniels in November 2009
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”
So the legal term is clear. Dual citizenship is no Barrier to the presidency.
Also Spiro Agnew, Nixon’s VP was a dual greek citizen with a non citizen father, ahd he was eligible. And the 12th amendment holds that the requirements for VP are the same as the presidency.
On the “What’s he hiding?” thread I brought up the concept of an “apostille” added to an officially certified document. This is an extra document required to be accepted internationally:
=====================================================
Robert Clark April 19, 2011 at 8:57 am #
I did a web search for Hawaii birth certificates and apostille and found this:
Who is Eligible to Apply for an Apostille?
“A certified copy of a birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate issued by the State of Hawaii may need to be officially authenticated in order that it be recognized and accepted by government officials of foreign countries.
“In the United States of America, each state has the authority to authenticate documents created within the state’s jurisdiction for international certification or legalization.
“For those foreign countries who are nations that have joined the 1961 Hague Convention, the authentication process requires just one official form called an Apostille to accompany the birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate. In the State of Hawaii, Apostilles are prepared by the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.
“For nations who have not joined the Convention, the authentication process requires two separate forms to accompany the certificate. In Hawaii, one of these forms is called a Certification and is prepared by the Lieutenant Governor’s Office. The third form is called an Authentication and is prepared by the State Circuit Court.
“Any person applying for a certified copy of a birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate is eligible to apply for its authentication, if necessary, for international purposes.”
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/apostille.html
For New York City the original long form must be used to apply the apostille. It would be interesting to find out if that also holds in Hawaii.
Bob
==============================================
I called the numbers on that page and was told that you could get the apostille applied to the long form birth certificates from Hawaii. You have to give the name of the country and the reason and add an extra $1 to copy the cost of the apostille document.
Bob
Actually Bob, you can have an apostile applied to any state issued certified document (you can also have a notarized document apostilled). So yes, if you happen to have a pre 2001 Hawaiian birth certificate, you can have an apostile applied to it. You can also do it with the current Hawaiian COLB. An apostile is simply the pocess of “legalizing” a document for official use in a foreign country. For nations that are part of the Hague Convention on Legalization of Foreign Documents, the state’s apostile is sufficent (I won’t go into the process of other countries). An apostille is merely the state’s confirmation that the document (or notarization) if official. The only requirement for an apostille is that it is an official state issued document.
That’s nice. Now, what part of “Hawai’i lo longer issues long forms” haven’t you understood over the past 3 years?
So what? I think the Obama campaign wants the birthers to keep making a fuss. Given the certainty that if what you say is true, President Obama could obtain such a document – what possible reason would he have to release it until immediately before the election? Are you completely naive politically?
Donald: please keep talking. You have destroyed Romney, the only one who could beat Obama. Thank you.
I’m aware of that but I specifically asked for the long form and told them the usual short form would not be acceptable. And they said they could apply the apostille to the long form.
BTW, on that thread where this was mentioned the problem was that for France, New York City short form birth certificates were not acceptable even with an apostille. It had to be a long form.
Bob
Call the numbers at the link I gave and confirm for yourself.
Bob
Again, this is a non-sequitor. What President Obama could or could not get is irrelevant, only that he has produced (more than) what is required. If he can, in fact, get more documentation (or has it already) he would be a fool to release it now.
Why bother? Such a document would be irrelevant for establishing eligibility to the office of the United States of America.
Oh yeah. the Sec of State said that Obamas short form would be acceptable under the Arizona Birther bill. So again, why bother with one?
Apostiles are only used for some international organizations that Birther types hate, such as the UN. Nothing inside America itself. And since Obama has already traveled to places like France, I really don’t see them rejecting his qualifications.
Yes, you could. But it’s totally irrelvant, because they no longer issue the “long form.” If you happen to have a certified long form, of course it can have an apostille applied.
I’m glad you put such high faith in a random blog. I suppose if you didn’t randomly believe things you came across the internet that support you confirmation bias, you wouldn’t be a birther. Either way, it is irrelevant, as President Obama was not born in New York City, and he is not submitting his birth certificate to France. And I assure you, if he was, France is obligated by the Hague convention to accept his Hawaii COLB with an apostille as evidence of the facts of his birth.
Now, that, I can tell you, is a lie. Myself my wife and our 2 children lived in France for 2 1/2 years. We had had cartes de sejour, the residence cards required for foreigners. and my kids were enrolled in the local schools. And guess what? Not a one of us has EVER even had a “long form”, let alone submitted them. All the documents did have to be translated into French by a translator chosen from a llst at the French consulate. I don’t even recall having an apostille, but it’s possible. But they defiinitely didn’t require long forms, since none of us have ever had them.
Let’s not go that far.
Romeny might be the only one that seems mostly sane and therefore an actual candidate. However, he’s a consumate flip-flopper who comes across like the typical politician who will just pander and say whatever he thinks people want to hear. Other than being described as physically “looking presidential”, he demonstrated very little in 2008 other than slogans and sound bites and it came across weak even back then.
Heck and those criticisms don’t even touch on the key issues that the current GOP base has against him…
We’ve really lowered our standards when just having a seemingly sane-sounding candidate is considered a “credible threat”…
At best, you could say that he’s one of the few candidates that could *try* to appeal to a general election audience as a contender…
I don’t know. They might not want him as President if they get the sense he obtained his position fraudulently.
Bob
You think that foreign nations and organizations should have a say in who the POTUS is? Are you out of your mind? – that kind of talk will generally get you lynched by the birthers… (if there’s one thing the birthers are good at, it’s lynching people [I wonder why…])
And that’s what all this crapola is really all about – making up lies about the guy who beat McCain so that he doesn’t beat the next dummy the GOP runs.
And it’s all blowing up in your faces as the recent veto by Governor Brewer has shown. These ridiculous conspiracy theories may make some political hay on the state level, but when it comes to national politics, any politician who runs on the basis of loony conspiracy theories and outright lies is digging his or her own political grave. And any Republican who refuses to engage in these kinds of slimy tricks is bound to earn the title of “RINO” or “traitor” by a significant number of the conservative base.
The birther monster lives, and either it will destroy the GOP, the GOP will destroy the monster, or they will destroy each other; most likely, the latter. I need some more popcorn, misha; this movie ain’t over yet, and it’s going to be one hell of an ending.
Which is why Obama should not show one more scrap of paper.
While I take you at your word, following birther standards, each of us would have to personally inspect the original apostille and have a team of forensic document examiners examine it before it would mean anything.
Perhaps it was only for something like getting married.
Bob
Only because I believe it’s difficult to put up a building in NY or NJ without some interaction with organized crime, I have doubts that Trump will be very forthcoming with his financial records.
Every name and every company listed will be investigated and there’s a good chance someone will find some bogus company with 3 employees who were paid millions for something ridiculous.
Once this hits the fan, Trump will not only not a contender for the presidency, he’ll be a target for the mob.
For this reason alone, I don’t think he’ll be releasing much info anytime soon. Call me a conspiracy monger, but I think his financial records are too dirty to wash clean.
What, you mean “pay to play”, greasing the skids of planning with under the counter bribes and considerations, providing Local 3 et-al with the occassional “no-show” job etc are all naughty items…..Say it’s not so…. 😎
> Indeed, if BHO was his true father, he was at best a dual citizen.That’s not the standard to hold the office.
The funny thing is that you are, again, epically incorrect in applying your terms.
You seem to believe that “natural born citizen” and “dual citizen” are mutually exclusive. They are not.
Even by your birther standards, you can be natural born (“born in the country to two citizen parents”) and a dual citizen (e.g. by acquiring Iranian citizenship at the age of 18 without renouncing your US citizenship).
So even by your birther standards, a US president can be a dual citizen as the Constitution only requires “natural born”, not “not a dual citizen”.
Do you now realize how silly your babbling is?
This is bunkum.
France does not distinguish between various types of foreign birth certificates — in fact there is no such thing as “short form” and “long form” French BCs, so there would be no way of even phrasing that distinction.
French authorities will generally ask for a passport since that contains most (all?) the information they usually need when processing a foreigner. In the less frequent instances where they may ask for a foreign birth certificate (in the event of an inheritance, for example), they might specify an “official” birth certificate (ie: signed by some kind of person with authority) but that’s absolutely it. They would never dictate the format of said BC.
President Obama’s Hawaii-issued BC would satisfy every possible requirement I can think of.
Getting a NY Birth Certificate with Apostille
May 17, 2007
http://www.thomascrampton.com/uncategorized/getting-a-ny-birth-certificate-with-apostille/
Perhaps it had something to do specifically with getting married.
Bob
Nope. In order to register a marriage with the French authorities (assuming that either the bride or the groom is a foreigner), you only need an “acte de naissance” (birth certificate) that is no more than 6 months old.
The “acte de naissance” must have the date & place of birth, and the names of the parents. Nothing else is required.
Just show it. And we’ll proceed from there.
I made the comparison of the entire country being beholden to one state and to one unelected official in that state. Does a single state’s rules supersede those of the federal government? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Under the court ordered procedures for releasing a birth certificate, shouldn’t federal law have priority over a state’s to see that ALL information is released publicly?
Federal law requires full financial disclosure due to a mere law passed by Congress. The eligility requirements are at the level of Constitutional law. Shouldn’t the federal government have the authority to insist that ALL birth information is released publicly under the authority invested in it by the Constitution?
Bob
Bob
Bob
Found this after a web search:
How do I get my Birth Certificate Apostille
“You are required to have an Long form Birth Certificate with a Letter of Exemplification in order for your Birth Certificate to be Apostille.”
http://nynotaryforyou.com/birth_death_marriage_certificate.html
In order for the birth certificate to be accepted internationally it has to be apostille. At least in New York city only the long form can be apostille.
Bob
At the bottom of your link, he mentions births from New York State outside the NYC and there is no mention of any long form. Anyway, I’m not sure this notary with a web site is the ultimate authority.
Amyway, you ducked the fact that France doesn’t have long form certificates.
Phony, phony, phony.
Just say, “I don’t like Obama” and be done with it, You are free to dislike anyone you want to dislike. You voted for McCain who didn’t show a birth certificate because you thought he did and you hate Obama who did show one and you want to pretend he didn’t.
Priceless.
No. It certainly may be, I suppose, but the French requires no such authentication by US authorities, which in and of itself would have to be authenticated.
They do require the BC to be an original document issued by the applicable authorities, not older than 6 months, and translated by a Consular-approved translator.
That’s it.
This is not “theoretical” knowledge BTW. My wife was born in the US (she has since acquired dual citizenship via marriage) and recently we moved her elderly mother to France, so I am personally familiar with the procedures involved.
My mother-in-law was in fact born in Manhattan and I can personally verify that what you may call a “short form” (but legal) BC issued by the State of NY was perfectly acceptable to both the French consulate in the US (to get her long-stay visa) and the French Prefecture here (to get her resident card).
The question is of what forms are acceptable from the U.S.
Several different sites, in addition to the one I first gave with individual people giving their experience, say that in New York city the long form is required for apostille:
Notary, Apostille & Translation Service.
How do I get an Apostille for my Birth Certificate
“In NYC you are required to have an Long form Birth Certificate with a Letter of Exemplification in order to get an Apostille/Apostilla for your Birth Certificate.”
http://apostilleonline.com/vital_records.html
Bob
Phony Bob has really picked the wrong board to spout his nonsense. People here actually know how the world works, unlike birther boards filled with those typing from Mom and Dad’s basement. Everything Lupin said was my experience as well in moving to France. Only translations were required.
By the way, the US accepts any foreign birth certificate certified by the civil authorities in the birth country, providing it is translated into English by a cetified translator.
Phony Bob
I’m aware that the short form can be used for identification purposes even internationally. Perhaps for marriage there are more restrictive requirements. Note also I’ve only seen this mentioned in regards to the city of New York.
Bob
The point was about marriageand specifically for New York city.
Bob
Just in case you forgot the name. 🙂 Sorry about that.
Phony Bob-Here is what is required to marry in France. Direct from the French embassy http://ambafrance-us.org/spip.php?article387
“A birth certificate (less than three months old”
Phony, phony, phony
Palin Says Trump Is “Being Really Treated Unfairly” By Media Over His Birtherism
April 19, 2011 9:49 pm ET
From the April 19 edition of Fox News’ Hannity:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201104190035
Actually, if it’s a foreign certificate, that tolerance is extended to 6 months. Just fyi.
Bob: seriously, there is NO SUCH THING as a distinction between “short form” and “long form”. There are official Birth Certificates, issued by the proper authorities, an original document with all the basic information — and then there’s all the rest: hospital souvenirs, religious documents, etc.
I (a Frenchman) married a US citizen (with a Pennsylvania BC) so I should know.
To return to the topic, President Obama’s BC, issued by the State of HI in the last 6 months before use, would enable him to meet each and every possible requirement from any state in the EU (European Union).
It’s that simple.
Everything else is rubbish.
The distinction you’re trying to create
You really need to start checking your sources better than that. You are NOT looking at an official government web site. You are looking at some commercial web site owned by a guy who happens to be a notary, which doesn’t really require much qualifications beyond taking a test.
If you want to get accurate information, you need to go to a government web site , such as http://www.dos.state.ny.us/corps/apostille.html
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/corps/apostille.html#howto
No mention at all of long form or even original, but that of course is New York State birth certificates.
So we have a few possibilities here:
1) in 2007, “short-form” New York City birth certificates did not include the full names of the parents, and France wants full names
2) the notary takes a commission on the translator’s fee – translating the text on the photocopy of the original birth certificate would cost far more than translating a boilerplate bith certificate (where a translation memory program would be able to translate everything in a few seconds)
3) the notary does not know and asks for a long form because he always did it that way
You take your pick.
I know for a fact it would satisfy Ireland’s regulations. And my birth certificate actually has “birth Certificate” on the top.
New York city birth certificates are different from New York State birth certificates and are registered separately.
Bob
I’ll allow you to say what the birth certificate looks like in France, but in the U.S. nobody would take seriously there is no difference between the original hand signed birth certificate produced at birth and a computer generated short form that most often does not have a human written signature but a stamp containing the reproduced signature of a state registrar.
The most important difference is the original birth certificate it is signed in person by WITNESSES to the birth.
Bob
No you don’t know that for a fact. For one thing, it would have to have an apostille.
Bob
> The most important difference is the original birth certificate it is signed in person by WITNESSES to the birth.
However where is the legal relevance?
Your entire argument somehow is based on “abstracts given out by the state cannot be trusted because the state could be lying”. However that is not how it works, neither in the US nor internationally.
Besides, this is only a short-stop battlefield because as soon as Obama releases a photocopy of the so-called “long form”, you will face the same problem because you will simply claim that the people who signed on the form could have been lying, too.
Something I also noticed here that he said before that I think is significant. He’s says that he hopes Obama does show it and he is a citizen.
Here’s how I interpret this (or how I would have said it):
“Obama, please you’re killing me, here. You know what I mean? You think I like being ripped a new one by the news media? Will ya please just show the damn thing already? Then I can go onto something else. Otherwise I have to keep talking about it.”
Bob
That is in that interview with George Stephanopoulos:
Trump: I’ll Release My Tax Returns When Obama Releases Birth Certificate.
Published: April 19, 2011 @ 7:25 am
http://www.thewrap.com/media/article/trump-ill-release-my-tax-returns-when-obama-releases-his-birth-certificate-26582
Bob
Advice to Trump (and all birthers): When you’re in a hole, stop digging!
Advice to anyone running against Trump (or against anyone, really): Never interfere with your enemy when he’s in the process of destroying himself.
Napoleon fought wars based on the second maxim.
Given that piece of advice, can you think of any reason why Obama might not release his form?
Obama has released his birth certificate. What more do you want?
I love the bkirther wails, “Obama, please end this”. They sound like the old line, “Stop me before I kill again”. You clowns want this to end? Simple. Stop being birthers. There, problem solved.
If Obama doesn’t like it. He has the power to stop it. If the news media doesn’t like it, they can tell Obama to end it by releasing the original long form birth certificate.
It’s not going away unless he does.
Bob
Why would Obama not like it? His enemies are self-destructing!
Trump is rising in the polls, but guess what? Obama kicks Trump butt compared to Romney!
Do you honestly believe that?
Fixed it for you.
My “Certificate of Live Birth” looks a lot like the Nordyke twins’ certificates. It seems to meet the birther definition of a “long form” certificate, but by your definition, it’s unacceptable. It doesn’t have “witnesses” to my birth. There’s a signature of the “Attendant at Birth.” There’s also a signature of the Deputy County Clerk, but she wasn’t present at my birth. The physician is the ONLY person who signed the certificate that could meet the definition of a witness to my birth. My mother was the informant but her signature is not on my birth certificate. It’s also missing my time of birth.
Sure. I’ll buy that. Just as soon as every birther admits that the Certificate of Live Birth is authentic, so we can be assured that the long form won’t also be called a forgery.
Also, every birther must admit that Vattel is irrelevant and that this “must have two citizen parents” claim is nonsense.
Also, every birther has to drop claims that Barack Obama ever surrendered his U.S. citizenship.
THEN, I will believe that showing the long form holds any meaning.
I think that’s nearly universal among birth certificates. I worked with birth certificates in various states for decades, and never came across a witness signature for a hospital birth.
Why would Obama want to stop it? The birther issue is tearing the Republican Party and the conservative movement apart. Just today Michelle Bachmann came out anti-birther after saying she supported Trump last week! Can you say “flip-flop?” 🙂 She is now saying that Obama’s COLB is a perfectly legitimate proof of birth to use for any candidate.
If Obama can be lucky enough to run for president against Donald Trump, a guy who contributed to the campaigns of Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel (Obama’s former chief of staff) and Democratic Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, so much the better! Trump is also a business partner in the Chicago Trump Tower with Obama benefactor George Soros, one of the most hated men in right wing circles.
Every time a Republican comes out as an anti-birther, it makes it that much LESS likely that Obama will ever release a long form. He’s doing too much political damage to the loyal opposition by not releasing it.
If I were Obama, I would submit my COLB to get on the ballot in any state that passes an eligibility law and I would only release a copy of my long form birth certificate during the last week of October in 2012 to inflict the maximum political damage on whoever I might be running against who is still a birther at that late date, just before the election. “OCTOBER SURPRISE!!!!”
In this post to the now closed “What is he hiding thread?” I discussed finding sources for the claim Obama was born at Kapiolani:
===============================================
Robert Clark April 13, 2011 at 11:19 pm #
At that Wikipedia link with the 5 references, a couple of the links were expired. The earliest one that did open was this one:
Serafin, Peter (21 March 2004). “Punahou grad stirs up Illinois politics” (Article). Special to the Star-Bulletin (Honolulu Star-Bulletin). http://archives.starbulletin.com/2004/03/21/news/story4.html. Retrieved November 30 2008.
It did list his birth hospital as Kapiolani, but then it contained this statement:
“Obama declined Star-Bulletin requests to interview him about his Hawaii years.”
So even then he would not state on the record he was born at Kapiolani. Still I would like to find out what was the source of the reporters information that he was born at Kapiolani.
Another one of the references is about the Kapiolani centennial celebration. I couldn’t get that link to open when I accessed it but it probably refers to that purported White House letter that the White House still refuses to acknowledge it wrote.
The last reference listed discusses the Nordyke twins whose mother has released their long form birth certificates showing they were born at Kapiolani. The mother clearly just says she must have been there the same time as Obama’s mother because it has been widely reported Obama was born there, so this can not be regarded as an independent confirmation he was born there.
Bob
===============================================
The article by Peter Seraphin from 2004 was the earliest reference I’ve seen that says this. I tried to get in touch directly with him with no success. However, someone who does know him and asked him about it relayed the information to me that Seraphin did not put that part in the article. If you look at the article there is an inserted timeline of the type that would be put in by an editor, and, according to this person who knows Seraphin, Seraphin says an editor did insert that part.
That’s how far I’m going to take it. I’m not going to track down every editor who worked at the paper at that time and ask if they wrote that part.
Someone who wants to get the answer directly from Seraphin can do a web search on his name and try to find some contact info for him.
Bob
If he does like it, he should inform the news media because they keep gnashing their teeth and tearing their hair out if some keeps raising the issue.
Bob
Good, Slarty I hope you like it too.
Bob
And what does that get them? I’ll tell you what – good ratings (and they’ll keep gnashing their teeth and crying crocodile tears all the way to the bank, too…). President Obama doesn’t control the news media – the quest for ratings does.
How oblivious are you? Do you really think that the birther movement has or will cost President Obama a single vote? Are you really unaware that, in fact, the ONLY thing that it can possibly do is gain him votes? (If you disagree, then it is beholden on you to exhibit a single vote President Obama lost because of the birthers or a single vote he would gain by releasing a BC or you will be tacitly admitting that you are wrong…) I’ve never seen a group fighting so hard to shoot themselves in the head before… birthers (like you) make other conspiracy theorists look rational by comparison.
> President Obama doesn’t control the news media
Isn’t it funny that the birfers used to claim the mainstream media were keeping silent on the issue, yet apparently every other news channel is giving Trump air time for his birfer crap? Then again, when was a birfer, or any conspiracy theory for that matter, ever consistent?
I usually tell the conspiracy fools that if the conspiracy really were this powerful, how come the few conspiracy sites aren’t closed down and their editors taken out by “accidents”? I mean, that should be easy game for a conspiracy that allegedly has no problems causing earthquakes and tsunamis and keeping the entire government, media, judiciary and military under their control.
I’d like to do an experiment. Hawaii as a lot of states including my own normally only gives out short form birth certificates. However, I have confirmed for my state I could get an original long form birth certificate by specifically requesting it and giving a reason such as to do genealogical research on my family background. For Hawaii, I confirmed I could get the long form by requesting an apostille be applied specifically to the long form.
How about everyone trying to see if they can get a long form birth certificate in their home state by specifically requesting it on the grounds it’s needed for genealogical research or an apostille?
Bob
Sure – I’ll do it just as soon as you admit that it has noting to do with President Obama’s eligibility which has already been proven to any reasonable standard.
I mentioned before about 20% of the people are not sure one or the other if he was born in the U.S. If he did publicly release the long form that would go a long way to convincing those people. It would also remove Trumps main complaints that he hasn’t released the original birth certificate.
Bob
Then what are you complaining about? Please encourage me further.
Bob
The “news media” is not monolithic. Your interpretation of media reaction is full of your own personal biases.
It is the job of public affairs media to challenge assumptions and separate fact from myth.
Without investigative media, Americans might have thought that forged Kenyan birth certificates for Obama were real, that Tim Adams had access to birth certificates, that an Obama relative really did say that he was born in Mombassa or that a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth is not a real birth certificate that can be used to prove birth in any court proceeding or for any federal government purpose.
All that happened when he released his birth cert before was that suddenly everyone heard about long forms. If he “released” the long form suddenly everyone would be talking about Apostile forms. You have already been doing the ground work for that here.
Ever hear about the legend of the Wendigo? Its a real American legend. The Wendigo is always hungry and can never be satisfied, because the more you feed it, the bigger it gets.
47% of Americans who care enough about politics to vote didn’t vote for Barack Obama in 2008. Why we even had a recent president elected with less than 50% of the popular vote.
I think that you (and birthers in general) are so addle-minded that pointing out the truth to you a ridiculing you will only further your psychosis and drive you to more extreme positions (I’m just following some advice that Sun Tzu gave…). Plus it’s amusing and you people need to be continually debunked for that strategy to work (so none of your birther lies can gain traction). Besides, the chances that every birther will realized that they are helping President Obama win reelection and accept his eligibility are nonexistent, so I don’t have to worry even if I convince you (frankly, I believe you are probably too far into your rationalized fantasy world for anyone to be able to drag you back to reality (although if you just admit that President Obama is eligible, I’d be happy to try…).
Why would he want to do that? – those 20% are not going to vote for him regardless and if they are in any way mollified, they might stop alienating independents from the Republican party. And being seen as giving in to Trump’s (unreasonable) demands would be an incredibly stupid move politically – you are clearly completely incompetent when it comes to understanding politics.
Bob, you apparently have no clue how the game of politics is played.
You’re mixing in the 20% or so who believe definitely he was not born here with the 20% or so who are not sure. It very well may be that that uncertainly is holding them back from giving full support to the President.
Bob
I’m glad you appreciate our presence on this board.
Bob
What do you think the percentage would be if you asked people, how many know that President Reagan was born in Ireland? Or if you ask how many are sure President Bush was born in the US? There will always be some percentage who respond not sure. What is that percentage?
Mr. Clark,
As a group I think birthers are useful idiots (and idiots that President Obama can completely marginalize at any time he wishes…), individually I’ve found birthers to be intellectually dishonest, ignorant, unintelligent, hypocritical bigoted racists who are filled with fear and hate which fuels their seditious fantasies and leads them to the most unAmerican and unpatriotic behavior imaginable in defiance of all US law and with contempt for the US Constitution – in short, I believe birthers are scum (yourself included – sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts).
No, I’m assuming that anyone who cares about the issue enough to let it influence their vote wont be voting for President Obama in any case – all of the evidence (birther behavior) that I’ve seen so far supports this hypothesis…
Like Rush Limbaugh
You’re being disingenuous. But the fact that it never occurred anyone to ask this about George Bush while the issue still festers for Obama is further evidence he should get the issue out the way by releasing it.
Bob
Now you’re getting upset again. Please remember we are helping Obama.
Bob
So where’s your long form copy?
You are assuming that those 20% unsure would also not be satisfied with the COLB already released. I mentioned a day or two ago a fellow on another forum who said Obama should release his birth certificate and when I pointed to the COLB on Factcheck, he had the honesty and integrity to say “I was mistaken. I stand corrected.”
To paraphrase Trump I’ll put up mine when you put up your tax returns.
Bob
Bill Clinton?
I’m not upset – I just wanted to make clear that I think that birthers (like you) are vile creatures who are against just about everything that America stands for. Furthermore, the hypocrisy of unpatriotic, seditious, racist scum who spit on the Constitution, falsely slander good Americans with baseless allegations, and have a tendency to wrap themselves in the flag should be called out in no uncertain terms at every opportunity – that’s the American thing to do.
You’re the one making accusations – in this country people have a right to confront their accusers. So put up or shut up. Or admit that you’ll happily violate the Constitution in pursuit of your bigotry…
Nope, not Bill Clinton. Try again! 🙂
This particular president got elected with 47.9% of the popular vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)
I don’t doubt that you can in some states. By the way, if you’re not going to actually use it for genealogical research, but are going to use it to “show us” then you lied to a state official. You seem to want the President to do that. I suppose if he did, you would call him a liar.
That’s a lie, Phony Bob. I’ll bet what they said is that if you have a long form from some time in the past and you send it, they will stick an apostille on it. Or they will issue you a COLB with an apostille, which, as we’ve already shoown will get you married in France (though why a French woman would want to marry you, I don’t know).
I’ve looked at the famous “Danae” photos. Here’s what they show:
1. A “long form” for someone born in the 1960s. No date is on the actual form other than the original 1960s filing date.
2. A receipt for a birth certificate ordered in Sept 2010.
2. An envelope mailed from the Hawaii DOH in Sept 2010.
But something is missing. We don;t know that the “long form” was actually what was ordered and sent in Sept 2010. This is just as likely:
1. “Danae” had a “long form” from years back,
2. She ordered a birth certificate in Sept 2010 and received a COLB, which is not shown.
Phony, phony, phony
Bush Jr.
Another birther bites the dust???
Michele Bachmann moved Wednesday toward saying the book is closed on questions some voters have about President Barack Obama’s birth certificate that a copy of his certification of live birth should “settle” the issue.
Bachmann made the comments on ABC News’s “Good Morning America,” when host George Stephanopoulos noted she had said on Fox News a night earlier that the president ought to come forward with his birth certificate to settle the “birther” issue, which had largely died down in the mainstream media but picked up steam again when Donald Trump began pushing it.
Stephanopoulos noted that Bachmann’s Iowa supporter Kent Sorenson has put forward a bill saying candidates should file “a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate certified by the appropriate official in the candidate’s state of birth.” Bachmann said she believed that proof of birth could be asserted only by county clerks. Stephanopoulos then showed her Obama’s certification of live birth, which Team Obama got from Hawaiian officials during the 2008 campaign. Skeptics have taken issue with that document, but it is the legal equivalent to a birth certificate in Hawaii.
“I have the president’s certificate right here,” he said. “It’s certified, it’s got a certification number. It’s got the registrar of the state signed. It’s got a seal on it. And it says ‘this copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.'”
Bachmann replied, “Well, then that should settle it.”
“So it’s over?” the host asked.
“That’s what should settle it,” she said. “I take the president at his word and I think — again I would have no problem and apparently the president wouldn’t either. Introduce that, we’re done. Move on.”
“Well this has been introduced. So this story is over?” Stephanopoulos pressed.
“Well as long as someone introduces it I guess it’s over,” she said, adding later, “That is not the main issue facing the United States right now.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53468.html#ixzz1K5plZVpN
Bad paraphrasing considering Obama put up his tax returns and trump never will. So it just makes your claim that you can get your long form even though they don’t normally give them out rather weak. I also see you didn’t state you actually got your long form so I guess that means you never went through the process to get it.
I think that the AZ SoS’s acceptance of the COLB and Gov. Brewer’s Veto probably made a lot of people reevaluate the political calculus on birtherism…
She actually did show the COLB that she got in one photo, alongside the non certified photocopy of her vital record that she got with it. She was actually pretty honest that the legal BC she got was the COLB, and said she got a copy of her vital record as well.
Whether by pestering the staff for months till they sent her a photocopy to shut her up or photocopying it herself I don’t know, but i lean on it being genuine as far as that goes.
I don’t believe Miki Booth’s LFBC is recent for a second.
Even corgis can do calculus. http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/pages/puzzlezone/muse/muse0104.asp
Actually my mother has been getting on me to do this for some time. I think of it as a first step towards it. 😉
Bob
If your mother is still living, what possible information could be on a BC of any length which could provide you with any genealogical data that you or she does not already know?
Boy, these reporters are getting hysterical over this issue now.
They could relieve their angst just by doing their job and asking Obama some tough questions for a change. These two would be a good start:
1.)Mr. President, will you publicly confirm you were born at Kapiolani hospital?
2.)Is there a reason why you choose not to release your original long form birth certificate?
Bob
A good friend of mine is Chair of the Hope Math department – I’ll have to ask him about this (I’m sure he knows the guy and he probably knows the dog [and I believe that he’s good enough to teach a dog calculus himself if he set his mind to it…]).
Mother’s and father’s address when I was born for tracing family members.
Bob
If your mother is alive, what use will your “long form” be for genealogy? It will provide your parents address when you were born and their birthplaces, which she can presumably tell you anyway. I can see some use if your parents are dead and I can see a lot of use for birth certificates from earlier generations. I have done some research into my family. My own birth certificate tells me nothing I don’t already know. Birth certificates for grandparents and great-grandparents would tell me a lot.
As far as the President, since I doubt he has time to do genealogiocal research right now, he would be llyinng if he called Hawaii and told them that. Perhaps after he leaves office, he can honestly request a copy of hiis records, which he cann put in his library as other Presidents have done. Then you can go to Chicago and llook at it to your` heart’s content.
Phony, phony, phony
And your mother doesn’t know?
You mean your mother doesn’t know where she lived when you were born?
Phony, phony, phony
Obama should not release one more scrap of paper. To amplify others here, it is tearing the conservative movement apart, and Karl Rove is tearing his (few) hair out about it.
If Trump wins some primaries, he will have standing. Let’s see if he subpoenas Obama’s vital records.
In reality, no reporter with enough credibility to get an interview with the POTUS is stupid enough to ask these insipid questions.
Why are you trying to change the subject? This wasn’t an interview with President Obama. It was an interview with a prospective Republican presidential candidate on an issue that she has taken a public position on. Now she is changing her position, apparently.
The White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney holds media briefings five times a week. Any member of the White House Press Corps can ask him the questions that you would like answered and President Obama himself was interviewed by four different local news reporters just yesterday but they had more important things on their minds than what hosptial the president was born in: gas prices, three wars, the deficit, taxes, et cetera.
However I can answer your questions for the president: “I was born at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii and I wrote a letter to that hosptial confirming that fact.”
“In 2007 I filled out the state of Hawaii form to get a copy of my birth certificate in order to prepare for a possible presidential run. The state of Hawaii sent it to me and in 2008 I had members of my campaign staff scan that copy and we posted it on the internet. It’s still there. My understanding is that Hawaii no longer issues the old style birth certificates since the state digitized its records in 2001. There is no information on a longer form of a birth certificate that is relevant to presidential eligiblity. Birth certificates confirm place of birth and date of birth.”
“If anyone really, truly, absolutely MUST see the vault copy birth document, under Hawaii statutes 338-18(b), it can be released under a court order. I think that is a preferable way to release it because then my administration and I would have absolutely nothing to do with its release and no one could accuse us of tampering with that document or releasing a forgery.”
This is a very good point!
As I wrote above, let’s see if Trump can get standing, and subpoena the original vital records.
I have never seen a father’s address on a birth certificate.
You know, Bob, I’ve been thinking about how you have all these questions about Barack Obama; and yet, you like Hillary Clinton as a candidate and don’t have any questions at all about her background. Why is that? There are people on the internet who say, “The fact that Mrs Clinton holds a foreign (Irish) passport rules her out as a legitimate candidate for the US Presidency anyway.” Why aren’t you demanding that Hillary either show her Irish passport or prove she doesn’t have one?
If Hillary had won instead of Obama, I have no doubt there would still be “birthers.” During the campaign, I came across several references to Hillary’s alleged Irish passport and her alleged dual citizenship because her grandfather was born in Great Britain. In fact, 7 out of 8 of Hillary’s great-grandparents were born outside of the United States, in contrast to 4 out of 8 of Obama’s great-grandparents.
If Hillary had obtained a birth certificate from Illinois, they would’ve sent her a “Certification of Birth” or “Certification of Live Birth” similar to Obama’s. The birthers would’ve asked “What is Hillary hiding?” until Hillary produced the “long form” certificate. We’d still have Vattelist birthers who would argue that Hillary couldn’t be President because of dual citizenship derived from her paternal grandfather. They would also argue that the 19th amendment gave women only the right to vote, and not the right to run for President. Would you have sided with Hillary under such circumstances?
Trump isn’t needed and neither is Article III standing. Any Republican Committee Chair in
the House of Representatives has congressional subpoena power and ALL courts honor congressional subpoenas.
Also, any prosecuting attorney, like a local district attorney or a state attorney general could seek a subpoena for Obama’s birth records if they were conducting a Grand Jury investigation into alleged election fraud or forgery.
Not the fathers, who is deceased.
Bob
Please, I’m asking someone to call the numbers at the link and confirm it:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/apostille.html
Ask specifically for the long form birth certificate for the apostille, and be clear that the usual short form that is sent out is unacceptable for the purpose.
Bob
I’ve told you what you need to do to get me to consider your request – admit that President Obama is legally eligible to be POTUS. That shouldn’t be any problem because this matter has no relevance to the president’s eligibility.
My point is the news media is forgetting their job to enquire skeptically of public officials. Now they are taking the attitude they are supposed to be Obama’s protectors.
How long would it take to ask and answer those two questions? For most people, probably less than a minute – unless there is something more complicated in the scenario that requires a more nuanced response.
If a reporter finally did have the cajones to ask, I predict a few possible answers, from most likely to least likely:
1.)”Those questions have already been addressed by the release of my birth certificate. I have nothing further to add.”
2.)”No comment.”
3.)”Those documents do not have to be released under grounds of executive privilege.”
4.)”Oh, yes I was born at Kapiolani. The original birth certificate? We are pretty busy at the White House I just didn’t get around to ordering it. I’ll direct my chief of staff to put that up on the agenda list to get done as soon as possible.”
Bob
That’s the entire point of this discussion.
I have said before though that I consider it most likely he was born in Hawaii. That he won’t release the original long form birth certificate is what leaves lingering doubts.
Bob
No reasonable doubt remains.
No white man ever had to show his birth certificate. Obama should not release one more scrap of paper.
Besides, Orly and her coterie say that both parents must be citizens. You agree with them, right?
There were questions about McCain. It was demanded of him that he release his. My opinion: the appearance on the internet of images purporting to be his birth certificate led to that being downplayed. However, it is my opinion that since those were most likely false, if McCain had won the White House the demands on him to release his would have been renewed.
There was also the requirement of Eisenhower he had to produce a birth certificate, he didn’t have one initially, for him to run for President.
I don’t agree with the idea that both parents also have to be citizens to satisfy the eligibility requirements.
Bob
Senator McCain never released his birth certificate. Someone posted a fake birth certificate for McCain, but nobody ever asked him to make his BC public. It he had been elected, Democrats would not have questioned his eligibility, because the Democratic Party has no insane wing.
You are a heretic, and I’m reporting you to Orly. Watch your back.
Repeating this garbage over and over again doesn’t make it true. There was no requirement of McCain to release his birth certificate and he never did. He showed one reporter who couldn’t photograph it. There were no “demands” of McCain. Same thing for Eisenhower no one demanded it of him. That story was already debunked here as it was some random inquiry and was not apart of him running for President.
That’s what you call an unreasonable doubt from an individual who has shown he is bigoted and has no ground to stand on.
It’s not likely Eisenhower would have went through the trouble of getting those signed affidavits for no reason at all. I believe also there was some suspicion of Eisenhower because of his german name.
I really disagree with the idea that if McCain had won there would be no calls for McCain to release his birth certificate if it was known the ones shown on the internet were faked. For one thing the strong suspicion would have arose that his campaign released the faked ones or was complicit in their release.
Bob
I don’t care about your phony opinion, only facts. No Democrat called for McCain to release anything. Every Democratic Senator voted for the resolution saying he was eligible (in fact it was sponsored by Democratic Senators). So your speculation is unsupported by any facts.
I almost forgot to say,
Phony, phony, phony
And you know this how?
Signed affidavit? He got a birth certificate that wasn’t even filed until after he was running for president. His brother signed the affidavit as no one was there to attest to his birth. Eisenhower never had a birth certificate. So again this is you having bad information and making yourself look stupid. The ones that are on the internet from McCain are fakes. They were put there apart of the Hollister lawsuit. They claim McCain was born in Colon. Coco Solo Naval Hospital isn’t located in Colon. McCain was born at Coco Solo. So again you’re making yourself look dumb. No one would have asked for McCain’s birth certificate because frankly no one cared as his issue was that he was actually born in Panama which was not US Soil
Didn’t we address this months ago Doc? I could remember you did a story on it where there was no actual demand.
I’m sorry Doc I confused turningthescale with an article done here.
http://turningthescale.net/?p=372
There was no protocol or demand in place contrary to most birther claims
Keep in mind also there has been some evidence that McCain was not born in a U.S.naval hospital but in a panamian hospital outside of U.S. jurisdiction.
You really think that if it was known the birth certificates released on the internet were faked with the possibility that his campaign was complicit in their release there would be no calls for him to release his real birth certificate as President?
Bob
The word “demand” is used just to mean “call for”.
Bob
It was well known by most people that the ones on the internet were fake. Show me anyone who raised the issue. Not speculation, facts. You appear not to know the difference.
Phony, phony, phony
Scientist, I’m asking you to make an reasoned prediction. You think if it were known that McCain as the winner of the election had a campaign that was in some way involved in faking a birth certificate and it also became known there was evidence he was actually born in a Panamian hospital outside the Panama Canal Zone and now as President he refused to release his real birth certificate that there would be no calls for him to release it?
Bob
As President????
NO.
Completely moot at that point. The electoral college’s validation of his votes is really the decisive legal end to that debate.
Besides, most Americans would support a military father serving his country and having an American son while he was stationed abroad.
Your concern trolling point fails to acknowledge that his biggest competitors from the other side of the aisle rallied to cut the issue off and support his status from the get-go. The whole senate was in support. The few nutty lawsuits on the issue were NOT from the Democrats camp either.
McCain’s campaign had nothing to do with the fake BC. Stop making up false arguments.
The answer again is NO. It is extremely improbable that there would be calls for him to release it. There’s always a few cranks and conspiracy nuts out there for any issue, but the Democratic party would not be pandering to them – in fact, they have a clear history of disavowing or ignoring their nuts. There is the key difference.
No one would really care about the hospital issue. His American dad was stationed there and had a baby while serving his country. That alone would be satisfactory in most people’s minds.
Finally, its not McCain’s fault if he didn’t know exactly where he was born – nobody remembers their birth and can only go on what they are told. There is NO fraud there at all.
Again, once he’s sworn in, entirely moot issue.
You were aware that McCain’s birth announcement at the Sub baseappeared in a Panamanian newspaper?
Nut cases are not restricted to the right. So probably some would ask for a birth certificate. Not me.
The majority of mainstream republicans also don’t agree with the ‘birthers’.
Still in such a scenario with regard to McCain there would be some elements of the population who would call for McCain to release his real birth certificate even if the democratic leadership made no such calls.
Bob
If the evidence against McCain was anything similar to the evidence against Obama, i would be just as derisive as I am now.
Though I do believe a certain subsect of Birthers would be just as convinced that McCain was a fake, and that there was a conspiracy involved.
Not all Birthers are racists.
No the word demand has more power than “to call for”. You birthers are foaming at the mouths in your demands.
Robert what would the birth certificate matter in McCain’s case since he was born in Panama which wasnt US soil. You’re not making any sense.
The majority of Republicans are playing footsie with birthers. Just ask Karl Rove.
Either you don’t understand the source and nature of the McCain birth certificate images that you are describing as “released on the internet” or you are deliberately spinning what you do know.
So let’s be crystal clear in order to remove the possibility that you innocently misunderstand and so that you have the opportunity to then reconsider your above comments.
The (almost certainly fake) birth certification which you describe as “released” and which you appear to be referring to when you suggest (either due to ignorance of the subject or due to a pursuit of disingenuous spin) that McCain or his campaign were in “some way involved in faking a birth certificate” actually have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with McCain or his campaign who were in no way whatsoever
“involved” in its fabrication or release.
Quite the opposite was the case. Indeed it could hardly be any more opposite. McCain was the defendant in the court case. The birth certificate documentation you refer to was actualy acquired and submitted to the court BY THE PLAINTIFFS as purported evidence of their case AGAINST McCain. The content of that fabricated documentation, had it been a genuine document, may have HARMED McCain not helped him.
It is utterly absurd to link McCain or his campaign to production of a fake document which is designed to support a case against his eligibility. I realise birtherism is inseparably joined at the hip with topsy turvy logic but this one takes the biscuit.
McCain’s real birth certificate has never been “released” to anyone and there are no internet images of it at all. He showed it privately to one journalist after the court case in question was concluded.
Perhaps you’d like to now consider which it is to be…….did you make your comments in ignorance of the subject or were you disingenuoiusly spinning and hoping no-one would notice?
Do you remember the 2004 election? There were a tiny number of Democrats that thought Bush stole Ohio.
Do you remember how the Democrats hounded him about it for the next 4 years and sued him 76 times and made a huge stink about it?
No. Because Democrats are pretty good about shutting up their crazies. Republicans, however, have always winked and nodded at the John Birchers, Birthers, Clinton Death-listers, etc.
It’s Obama [Clinton/Democrat] Derangement Syndrome, Robert, and it’s not pretty.
Ah, so you are determined to resort to more desperate attempts at false equivocation, I see…
Look at the polls – the proportional percentage of “birther-ish” responses amongst the GOP base is shameful and an embarassement – to the GOP. They truly do seem to represent a SIGNIFICANT portion of the GOP base. No impact to Obama of course, as these are votes he never had and never would anyways. But extremely troubling and damaging to GOP leadership looking towards 2012 and beyond.
What is worse is that so many of the GOP have to pay lip service and cater to this base. You really don’t see Democratic politicians playing constant wink/nod footsie with their lunatic fringe as you constantly and openly see on the GOP side.
The Dems usually marginalize and denounce their crazy…the GOP cynically encourages and supports it…and ends up with more crazy as a result.
There is no serious comparison, so stop with the pathetic false equivalency. Read also Greg’s post at 12:03am. His point is an excellent illustration of this.
There were two birth certificates released on the internet. One was the one you mentioned which, it’s been reported, was released by his opponent in a court case challenging his eligibility. However, there was another short one also released on the internet. I don’t know who released that short one.
McCain’s camp never challenged the validity of either one. It is possible that they allowed them to remain unchallenged because it contributed to the notion that McCain had released his birth certificate. If you imagine a hypothetical scenario where McCain won the White House while intentionally allowing faked birth certificates to remain on the internet in order to mislead the population that he had released his birth certificate, then that could be interpreted as being complicit in a deception.
Bob
With all due respect, you have spent a lot of time investigating the McCain eligibility issue. I gather you believe most likely he was not. If we had a scenario when McCain won the White House over Obama while never releasing his birth certificate, with evidence suggesting he was actually born in panamian hospital, while Obama did release his birth certificate showing, you believe, him to be born in the U.S., you would just say he won the election fair and square there’s nothing more to be said?
Bob
“There were two birth certificates released on the internet. One was the one you mentioned which, it’s been reported, was released by his opponent in a court case challenging his eligibility. However, there was another short one also released on the internet. I don’t know who released that short one.” –Robert Claark
Where was the short one released? Link?
The fake, showing that McCain was born in Colon City, is on the web and here at Doc’s site.
The campaign showed his real bc, showing birth in the Canal Zone at Coco Solo to a Washington Post reporter, but did not release it to the public or show it on the web.
Let’s have the link for the”short” form.
Where is this “short” one.
I’m sure you’re aware that phrase derives from “Bush Derangement Syndrome” which was ascribed to some democrats who had the view that George Bush was the cause of everything wrong with the world.
Bob
Yes. McCain is a citizen by birth, not by naturalization, so he is natural born.
Candidate (1980) Lowell Weicker (R) was born in Paris, France to US citizens, though his mother was born in India and her father was a British General.
Progressives believe in elections, not courts, to defeat opponents.
And no photographs of it were allowed. I think the reporter only was given 15 minutes to look.
The overwhelming majority of the republican leadership discounts the validity of the birther viewpoint. Some segments of the republican voters suspect Obama was not born in the U.S. This no doubt is influenced by extreme dislike of Obama.
The scenario is quite similar to the fact that a portion of the democratic voters suspect that George Bush was involved in 911. This also is no doubt influenced by extreme dislike of Bush.
Bob
“Robert Clark: I really disagree with the idea that if McCain had won there would be no calls for McCain to release his birth certificate if it was known the ones shown on the internet were faked.”
Clark, are you totally unaware that the Democrats took the lead in passing a Senate Resolution in 2008 supporting McCain’s eligibility, supported by a bipartisan legal memo by Tribe and Olson?
This was at a time when there was no serious question of Obama’s status as a natural born citizen.
The historical record is that the Democrats acted to prevent a divisive battle, while the anti-Obama fanatics have fomented it.
I severely doubt that interpretation. I remember that Obama was on the Senate committee considering McCain’s eligibility and I thought at the time that Obama had his own eligibility questions.
Bob
Clark: “I thought at the time that Obama had his own eligibility questions.”
Any evidence for those “eligibility questions”?
Thought not.
Nice little sashay to avoid the first question.
Where is that “short form”?
Clark is a fount of misinformation. He told us earlier that McCain had released his birth certificate. He had to admit he was wrong.
Now the same misinformation bubbles up again.
The fact is that Clark is wrong again, and that no short form for McCain or any other form of birth certificate was ever released to the internet. If there was, show the link.
“There were two birth certificates released on the internet. One was the one you mentioned which, it’s been reported, was released by his opponent in a court case challenging his eligibility. However, there was another short one also released on the internet. I don’t know who released that short one.” –Robert Clark
Here is what Tribe and Olson said on March 19, 2008″
“Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860–one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961–not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.”
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/29/olson-and-tribe-argue-that-mccain-is-natural-born/#comment-12303
The Senate passed the resolution April 30, 2008:
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. 511) was agreed to.
Clark” “Scientist, I’m asking you to make an reasoned prediction. You think if it were known that McCain as the winner of the election had a campaign that was in some way involved in faking a birth certificate and it also became known there was evidence he was actually born in a Panamian hospital outside the Panama Canal Zone and now as President he refused to release his real birth certificate that there would be no calls for him to release it?”
What a barefaced lie is embedded in this question.
If the winner had faked a birth cerificate, there would be calls to release it, but neither Obama nor the campaign ever faked a certificate.
The comparision is heinous.
Not according to Karl Rove.
“Now, I’m not one to question the authenticity of Barack Obama’s birth certificate,” Pawlenty said. Repugs are great at dog whistles. Pawlenty is a milquetoast.
Really? So speakers and majority leaders of state legislatures and governors are not part of a party’s leadership? And, yes, I will flat-out guarantee that if McCain were President, not a single Democratically-controlled state legislature would have passed or even debated a bill to attempt to keep him off the ballot.
Progressives believe in ballots, not blackballing.
Do a web search on: John McCain birth certificate.
Bob
You made the claim. You provide the link. Nothing was released in any form.
I might believe that if it weren’t for the fact that there are democratic officials who believe that George Bush allowed 911 to occur:
Friday, August 20, 2010
Congressman Alan Grayson, Truther
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2010/08/congressman-alan-grayson-truther.html
Grayson lost his re-election bid in November 2010.
Bob
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_v63oTveUEGI/Snn7Zg_2-PI/AAAAAAAAJHM/Cy0RgNh5NhE/s1600-h/McCainbirthcert.jpg
Clark: “If we had a scenario when McCain won the White House over Obama while never releasing his birth certificate, with evidence suggesting he was actually born in panamian hospital, while Obama did release his birth certificate showing, you believe, him to be born in the U.S., you would just say he won the election fair and square there’s nothing more to be said?”
Observer: “This was at a time when there was no serious question of Obama’s status as a natural born citizen.The historical record is that the Democrats acted to prevent a divisive battle, while the anti-Obama fanatics have fomented it.”
Clark: “I severely doubt that interpretation. I remember that Obama was on the Senate committee considering McCain’s eligibility and I thought at the time that Obama had his own eligibility questions.”
The facts: A Democratic Senate passed a resolution stating its position that McCain was natural born citizen.
A Republican House has not passed any resolution stating its position that Obama is a natural born.citizen.
Clark can doubt the interpretation all he wants, in the face of the facts.
Everyone is entitled to his own interpretation, but will be called on his facts.
> Do a web search on: John McCain birth certificate.
You mean this?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11110505/JohnMcCain-Birth-Certificate-long-and-short-form-Colon-Panama-1936
Isn’t that “long form” a fake? The font in which the parents’ names are set doesn’t look like anything from 1936.
Not sure about the “short form”…
I guess Clark has a point.
Since unknown parties made sure that McCain had at least three fakes on the net, and McCain never saw fit to release his real certificate to the public, while the Obama campaign made sure that he had one real COLB on its own website, Clark’s obvious choice was McCain.
OK.
The most likely scenario is that Eisenhower needed his birth certificate to get a U.S. passport.
As a career military man, he had no need for a passport until he retired from the Army on May 31, 1952. However, once he became a civilian he needed a passport to travel overseas. His delayed birth certificate reportedly was issued a few months after he retired.
Hey phony, Bob. Did you actually listen to the Grayson interview? He said that Bush received warnings of imminent terrorist attacks, including the famous memo “Bin Laden determined to strike in the US” and did nothing about them, in fact speding all of August 2001 on vacation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow84BoZjLjU
That does not make him a truther. In fact, the bi-partisan 9/11 commission found that numerous warnings were ignored.
Truthers claim that the US government either deliberately blew up the WTC center with charges planted in the towers or conspired wiith Al Qaida. You can’t show me a Democratic leader who has ever said anything like that. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who is a 9/11 Truther was drummed out of the Democratic party-national leaders backed a primary challenger who beat her-and is now a Green.
Will national Republican leaders back anti-birther primary challengers to the AZ Senate Leader and House Speaker. Will they???
Phony, phony, phony
The title of that web page calls Grayson a “truther”. I wouldn’t call him that. But a closely related view is that Bush knew it was going to happen and intentionally allowed it to happen. That seems to be what Grayson is arguing.
Bob
But she was a democratic congresswoman. Grayson also lost re-election when his constituents realized his views were too extreme.
Dude what’s this “phony” business? Do you mean I’m a “plant”, a “ringer”? I’m not your average guy in the street. Let’s say I’m in education, but not in the law field.
Bob
So phony Bob, if I take an actual interview with someone where he says X and I put up a web page claiming he said Y, then Y must be true, right? You are as morally and intellectually bankrupt as Donald Trump and probably as financially bankrupt as well.
Claiming Bush was NEGLIGENT, which is what Grayson said, does not make him a Truther. The bi-partisan 99/11 commission found that the Government as a whole was negligent, while Bush was President.. They also found fault with Clinton. You should read their report before you make another post here.
Now I ask, will you and Republican leaders support a Republican challenger to any birther state legislators or members of Congress the way mainstream Democrats supported a primary challenger to McKinney? If not, then you are
Phony, phony, phony
So everyone challenges me on everything else I say but no one challenges me on this?
May I interpret this as acceptance?
Bob
Clark is told that birthers are strong in the GOP. 14% of the electorate doubts Obama’s birth, while 45% of the Republicans. The leading contender for the 2012nomination in the polls is Trump, a full birther.
But Clark counters that the Dems are just as bad, he says, because two defeated Members of Congress may have had 911 doubts.
OK.
I wonder if he is in a quantative branch of education.
“So everyone challenges me on everything else I say but no one challenges me on this?
May I interpret this as acceptance?”
Nope.
Call them yourself.
First, I’m not a republican. I’m registered independent. I just react with extreme skepticism to the idea that democrats are somehow “superior” to republicans.
I myself of course would not automatically oppose a “birther” because I feel the issue remains unresolved while Obama could resolve it but irritatingly chooses not to.
Bob
Clark: “There were two birth certificates released on the internet. One was the one you mentioned which, it’s been reported, was released by his opponent in a court case challenging his eligibility. However, there was another short one also released on the internet. I don’t know who released that short one. McCain’s camp never challenged the validity of either one. It is possible that they allowed them to remain unchallenged because it contributed to the notion that McCain had released his birth certificate.”
McCain never challenged either? That is wrong, too. The McCain camp refuted any and all false claims that he was born outside the Zone in Colon by showing his real BC of birth at Coco Solo to the Washington Post.
Another false “McCain’s camp never challenged the validity of either one.”
You quoted numbers about a survey of republican *voters*. Similar numbers apply to democrats who believe Bush intentionally allowed 911 to happen. In both cases the high numbers probably stem from extreme dislike or distrust of that particular president.
Bob
What are those numbers? Do you have a link to a poll or are you speculating?
Is this true in the US?
I never heard of a BC attested by witnesses.
Also, for legal purposes, is there actually a difference in the US between the original piece of paper signed by the doctor and the official document issued by the authorities with a computer generated or stamp on it?
I can tell you that in France the ONLY thing that counts (legally speaking) is the official registrar entry (“acte de naissance”) kept at the Mairie (town hall) of the place of birth. Anything created prior to that would have no legal value, signatures or not.
Yes, that page had the short form I remember seeing.
Bob
Clark: “the issue remains unresolved while Obama could resolve it but irritatingly chooses not to.”
All the while that McCain chose to resolve the issue of his birth.
Clark reacts “with extreme skepticism to the idea that democrats are somehow “superior” to republicans.” On the fact that the Democratic Senate supported McCain’s citizenship, and the Republic House has not supported Obama’s, the Democrats are superior.
On the issue that “Bush intentionally allowed 911 to happen,” similar numbers do not apply unless the numbers conflate and confuse those who believe that Bush was negligent or could have been better prepared.
Very little, if anything, that Robert Clark says, is true in the US, or indeed in any realm of reality.
Wrong again.
Truthers believe that the U.S. government was complicit in causing 9/11. Grayson doesn’t say that. He says that Bush ignored warnings about a terrorist attack, which is true.
The difference is that the Democrats marginalized people with BDS while the Republicans pander to (and their fear-mongering is the main cause of) those with ODS…
Why should I bother the good state workers of Hawaii with a meaningless fraudulent questio?. I’m not born in Hawaii nor is anyone in my family so I have no claim to a b.c., long or short from them.
Frankly, I think it’s unconscionable the way the birthers have harassed civil servants whose actual job is to serve Hawaiians, not a bunch of lunatic busybodies from the mainland (and the goodly # of birthers who aren’t even in the US).
If you swore on a stack of of Bibles that you saw the sun rise in the East this morning, I wouldn’t believe you. Why not? Because you are
Phony, phony, phony
PS-I used to like Hillary. I thought she was a very good senator for New York. After interacting with you, however, I am re-evaluating her.
You were challenged. Several times, by several different people.
Wrong again.
There is no “evidence” that McCain was born in a Panamanian hospital, only debunked allegations.
First of all, there would have been no reason for Mrs. McCain to give birth in Colon when she was entitled to free medical care by American doctors and nurses at the base hospital. In addition, at the base she had access to air transporation in the event that complications arose and she needed to be evacuated to a hospital in Florida.
There is a contemporary newspaper announcement in the Panamanian American, an English-language newspaper, which says that the birth took place on the base.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/mccain_announcement_041708.pdf
Finally, McCain’s mother has attested to the fact that he was born at the base hospital.
You really think that if it was known the birth certificates released on the internet were faked with the possibility that his campaign was complicit in their release there would be no calls for him to release his real birth certificate as President?
Why would anyone believe that McCain’s campaign had anything to do with releasing a forged birth certificate which shows that he was born in a civilian hospital in Colon? How would that have helped him?
I’m calling B.S. Please provide a poll. Truthers were never a big part of the Democratic party, certainly not anywhere near the 50% that make up the Republican birthers. While many believed that Bush was negligent (vacations, ignoring the Bin Laden determined to strike US memo), those that believed Bush “intentionally allowed 911 to happen” were never embraced by the party.
There are various kinds of birth registration in the United States, but they all have the signature of someone who attests to the facts of birth. These attestations in the modern era are done using a standard form signed in most cases by the attending physician, but it might be a midwife, a taxi driver or in the case of a foundling, whoever found the child. The form is filed with the appropriate jurisdiction: local, state or federal.
We have two types of certificates in the US. Before photocopy machines, all birth certificates were hand-prepared abstracts from the original document kept in the archives of the jurisdiction where the birth was filed, and now in the “digital age” many certificates are computer-generated abstracts. The other type of certificate is a photocopy of the original registration form.
For all legal birth certificates the document is a certified copy (either abstract or photocopy) accompanied by the seal of the jurisdiction issuing it and the signature of the official responsible for certifying that it is a true copy. Most signatures are mechanically added (e.g. via rubber stamp).
Mr. Clark correctly states the obvious, that the abstract does not look like the photocopy, and a knowledgeable person would not mistake one for the other. However, their legal validity is the same. There is a chain of authentication from the original witness through the issuing official.
For regulatory purposes, a certificate may be required to contain certain items of information, such as the parents’ full names, that might not appear on some forms of certificate, thereby rendering such a certificate inadequate for some particular purpose.
Your mother doesn’t know where your father was living when you were born?
If you want you could phrase it as a hypothetical. You could even say you’re writing an article about the difference between the long form and the short form among the various states. That actually would be a good article to write considering the current controversy . That would even alleviate your qualms about disturbing the already harrassed state workers since you might be put through to a supervisor.
Besides that there are Hawaiians on this forum who could make the call.
Bob
If McCain had won, I’d also be objecting to people claiming he’s not a natural born citizen. I doubt the framers had any intention of disqualifying the son of American citizens who was born abroad only because his father was in military service.
I’m married to someone who, back in the ’70s, knew Capt. Jack Fellowes, a former resident of the Hanoi Hilton. We’ve since learned Captain Jack’s cell mate was John McCain. I’m angry at John McCain for sponsoring the Enemy Belligerant Act. I’d think his experience in the Hanoi Hilton would’ve prevented him from introducing such a bill, but I’m offended by anyone questioning his citizenship or love for this country. My reasons for supporting Obama against the birthers isn’t partisan. If he doesn’t get re-elected in 2012 so be it, as long as its because of his policies and performance as President, and not because birthers kept him off the ballot.
You and all birthers begin with a presumption of guilt and want to work back from there. The state of Hawaii, through its elected and appointed officials has confirmed that Barack Hussein Obama II was born in that state.
In 2008 the President released a certified document from the state of Hawaii that verifies that he was born at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961 in the City of Honolulu, in the County of Honolulu, on the Island of Oahu, in the state of Hawai’i. The signature and stamp of the current state Registrar of Vital Records is on that document and he has said not one word that invalidates its authenticity. Both the former Director of Health of Hawaii and the former Governor of Hawaii have gone on the record stating that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
Anyone who needs more information about Barack Obama’s birthplace and is dissatisfied with the degree of transparency that he has provided regarding his place of birth should simply vote against him in the next election.
There is also the option of getting a court order which is allowable under Hawaii statutes and forcing the release of Obama’s original birth records without Obama’s permission.
I found a contemporareous newspaper article about Eisenhower’s birth certificate. It is an Associated Press article published in the New York Times on October 2, 1952.
EISENHOWER BIRTH DATA ARE FILED AT LAST IN TEXAS
by The Associated Press
SHERMAN, Tex., Oct. 1 – A certificate recording Dwight D. Eisenhower’s birth in near-by Denison on Oct. 14, 1890, was filed today in the Grayson County Clerk’s office. Nobody had bothered to make out a certificate when the Republican Presidential candidate was born. A copy of the certificate filed was mailed today to the general’s wife in Denver.
The Denison Herald noted recently that there was no record of the general’s birth there. Lonnie S. Roberts of Denison decided to do something about it. He wrote Mrs. Eisenhower, who replied that her husband was amused that he “wasn’t a matter of record in Grayson County” and she sent Mr. Roberts the necessary statistics.
Mr. Roberts sent a birth certificate to Arthur Eisenhower, the general’s brother, in Kansas City to attest the facts.
So there was no demand, no suspicions that the general who had crushed the Nazis was really German, no allegations that he was not a natural-born citizen.
A search of news stories from January 1, 1952 through December 31, 1953 turned up not a single one which even hinted that there was a question about Eisenshower’s natural-born status.
Birthers have used the very same Associated Press article about Dwight Eisenhower to say: “See, General Eisenhower knew that he needed a birth certificate before he could run for president. Why doesn’t Obama do the same thing?”
I have responded on birther web sites: “OK, so the President’s half-sister should be able to attest to the facts of his birth and a copy of whatever she attests to should be sent to Michelle Obama?” 🙂
Brithers start with the presumption of guilt and then proceed to make up evidence of guilt…
I’m not writing such an article, so you are suggesting I lie. That isn’t surprising and merely reinforces the obvious truth that you are a
Phony, phony, phony
He can’t because its BS. The truthers were never big in the democratic party and also were in the republican party. The Democratic party denounced them as opposed to the republican party that plays games and avoids denouncing the birthers outright. The republicans use weasel words to keep their statements ambiguous about the birthers. I think this is Bob twisting another poll. Where the question was originally asked was if Bush had knowledge that 9/11 would happen. I think a fair amount of the population thinks that based on the PDB and repeated warnings Bush got.
That is simply not true. I’ve seen birth certificates with no signatures only typed names. LtC Lakin’s BC from Colorado had only typed names.
And here is a Louisiana BC, that was referenced on this site very recently
http://cenlamar.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/screen-shot-2010-07-14-at-9-01-57-pm.png
No doctor name, no witness signatures, only the signature of the state registrar
Both are fakes McCain wasn’t born in Colon
Here is LtC Lakin’s BC, no witness signatures, no doctor signature, no mother signature.
Only signature is from the State Registrar
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/apf02-tlakincertificateoflivebirth.pdf
Not one of the certificates anyone has shown has “Father’s address”, which is the claimed reason Phony Bob wants his “long form”. I guess Bob is
Phony, phony, phony
Rumour has it, however, that colon is the favorite place to be for a lot of republican politicians.
MikeyN and BobbyC are running neck and neck to win the biggest liar award.
Of course he’s a phony. Just look at the main reason he says he hates Obama is because of Chicago corruption and politics. Which means he gives into generic meaningless stereotypes. Chicago didn’t corrupt Obama
I dont know give NC1 some time to catch up
I think Mikey is mentally ill and believes the crap he writes. Bobby, on the other hand, does not and is phony, phony, phony
THANK YOU. I couldn’t quite put my fingers on it, but something bugged me the way some people were all “Obama comes from Chicago, which is known for corruption, so Obama must be corrupt.”
Here is a case in Texas where a certified copy of the original long form is required:
Collin County County Clerk Services: Birth Certificates.
“EFFECTIVE JULY 13, 2010 THE PASSPORT OFFICE CAN NO LONGER ACCEPT ABSTRACT (SHORT FORM) BIRTH CERTIFICATES FOR A PASSPORT APPLICATION. IF YOU NEED A BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF A PASSPORT APPLICATION, YOU MUST CONTACT THE COUNTY IN WHICH YOU WERE BORN OR THE BUREAU OF VITAL STATISTICS IN AUSTIN. IF YOU CONTACT THE BUREAU OF VITAL STATISTICS YOU MUST SPECIFICALLY REQUEST A LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE.”
http://www.co.collin.tx.us/county_clerk/birth/birth.jsp
It came about because there were some cases of fraud in the border states of Texas and California.
Bob
In the old days we had witnesses here in Belgium. My birth certificate has my paternal grandmother and someone completely unknown as witnesses. In the old days, old people and unemployed used to wait outside the mairie for a father who did not bring enough relatives with him to stand in as witness. These people actually witnessed the certification, when the birth was written down in the birth registration book. The father had received a slip of paper from a doctor (no difference between birth at hospital or birth at home – the midwife may deliver, but the doctor “certifies” the birth). The slip of paper mentions the place, the date, the mother’s name, the sex of the child and whether it is alive or stillborn.
The registrar then checked the family data, looking at the passport and the marriage booklet) and asked the father what (Christian) name the chld should have. The registrar had the right to refuse a name if it was not included in a list of Christian saints, a recent book of Christaian names bought privately by the mayor, or optionally in a list of common names in a particular country (signed by the Ambassador of that country) and handed in by the father. Some registrars gave back the foreign name list, some kept it for further use.
After writing the name in the book, and asking father and two witnesses to sign, the registrar typed (using carbon paper) a number of birth certificates, to be used to get the child birth premium, a few days off work, and so on. The witnesses were also allowed to ask for a birth certificate to get a day off at work.
The point here is that the only thing which really counts (and I am sure it is comparable in France) is the text written in that book. The certficates the father and the witness got on certification, are not originals, they are documents that prove something was wrtten in that book. Years after the event, the person who was born then can apply for a new BC. That document is as valid and as original as the one the father got back then.
Today, of course, the “book” is really a double-secure, fully backed up file on the registrar’s computer, no need for witnesses. The paper slip the doctor gives to the father is mor like an official warning to go to the Mairie and give a name to the child – since the hospital’s computer is linked up with the registrar’s via internet and a Belgian government server. ( I know all this because I was that father in 1982 and in 2003)
The paper pushing work that seems to have happened in the USA (where they never enjoyed the pleasure of Napoleon’s code civil) makes it difficult for Europeans to actually understand that there are people so stupid to think that if you lose the souvenir certificate they gave your parents at a hospital, you can forget about being President.
In France and Belgium, the legal thing was already centralized and immovable – makes it easier to understand what happens when you make the whole administration of birth cerfication digital. The Birfers will never understand and think that where there’s a computer involved, there must be fraud. If the guy is black, of course
US Birfers are not the only ones who have problems with centralized certification of birth. There is a conspracy theory in Uruguay claiming the most famous of all Argentine tango singers Carlos Gardel was born in Uruguay. Don’t tell them that you can still go to the Toulouse mairie and read the entry describing the birth of Charles Gardes to the woman who was Carlos Gardel’s mother in the exact year that Carlos Gardel hinted at whenever people asked where he was born and answered “I was born in Buenos Aires, at the age of two years and a half”. They want to see the original birth certificate, and the Puerto Rican who probably paid loads of money for a basically useless document, refuses to show it.
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/c/carlos+gardel/biography.html
Wow you’re just late to the party aren’t you phony bob. You birthers just give each other the reacharound when it comes to your wealth of knowledge. Hawaii isn’t a border state which makes you look stupid
And surprise, surprise, that has been dealt with here before – when someone claimed a home birth was always suspicious.
You do know what happened in the case you are quoting, do you? Midwives had sworn that they had delivered babies who had actually been born in Mexico., and smuggled in afterwards.
Now tell me how to smuggle in new-born babies into Hawaii. I hope you know where Hawaii is?
Like Crocodile Mickey, you are omitting valuable information.
Not to mention that Eisenhower already was running for president. In fact, by the time he got his birth certificate he had already secured a place on the ballot in all 48 states.
Dammit, I demand to know the name of the doctor who delivered Ike! Also, he was born David Dwight Eisenhower, but he reversed his first and middle names when he enrolled at West Point because everyone called him by his middle name. As far as I can determine he never had his name legally changed, so by birther logic he was guilty of fraud.
It is given in California, not to say I’m from California:
http://satwatcher.net/genealogy/scans/birth_certificate_richard_waters_reduced.jpg
Bob
That is a 1919 BC. More recent California BCs don’t even have a place for the father’s address.
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/hunter_birth_certificate.pdf
While there are signatures for the mother and doctor, notice that there are no signatures for witnesses. You claimed earlier that witnesses signatures are on BCs.
But both LtC Lakin’s Colorado BC and the one for Louisiana don’t have any signatures.
The birth certificates for the Nordyke twins have signatures of the mother and the attendant, but no witnesses. Also, there is no space for the residence of the father.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17772843/NBC-Nordyke-Birth-Certificate-Photos
And Robert Clark still hasn’t explained why his mother does not know where his father was living when he was born.
Plus his mother (who is still alive) knew where she gave birth. She’s 99.
Your bogus and false insinuations on have already been addressed by others through the follow-up back & forth on this thread, but you addressed this to me and so I’ll chime in briefly.
As I’ve said before, STOP with the bogus false equivocations!
You’ve already been shown that you are wrong about examples of numerous GOP leadership pandering or providing “dog whistle” support to crazy conspiracies like Birtherism, while there is simply NO equivalent recent historical comparisons on the Democratic side.
Your 9/11 Truther examples were all bunk and false. The tape of the interview shows that Grayson was NOT a Truther and NOT claiming LIHOP – merely pointing out INCOMPETENCE (the failure to take a communicated threat seriously and follow-up on it). This is a proven fact, born out by the PBS and NIE documents from Aug 2001. There is no question that the threat was identified in advance and not much was done with that info. That is all well known and documented. The Democratic Party has a solid history of ignoring and marginalizing its crazies. Further, there is no valid comparison between GOP base % that believe in “birtherism” and polls on Trutherism, which don’t distinguish between being aware of the NIE/PBS info and indicating mere incompetence (TRUE FACT) vs actual 9/11 Trutherism, which is a belief that the US was somehow complicit. Those crazy folks are few and far between. You’re more likely to find them amongst the typical anti-gov conspiracy crowd types…which includes a number of birthers.
I am. Let’s be clear. Any “derangement syndrome” is a clear sign of irrational hatred and craziness and is WRONG – period! BDS was wrong. ODS is wrong. Similar symptoms existed amongst certain groups for previous administrations before that term was “coined”…so it wasn’t called CDS or RDS back in those days, but that too certainly existed and was wrong. There are definite distinctions between cause/effect, etc attached to each xDS…but that’s really getting off topic to go into all that. Further, it should be pointed out that BDS was not just limited to certain Democrats. A number of independents and even fellow Republicans who became overwhelmingly disappointed with GWB during his terms were also displaying BDS during that timeframe. But bottom line, xDS is irrational and WRONG and observing one form of xDS is no excuse to turn around and display your own!
This is the final comment to date of yours that I’m going to comment on, as it is the only other point that I think was overlooked in the mass of exchanges and not already addressed.
Your conclusion is wrong and shame on you for trying to allude to Dr. C. coming up with a conclusion opposite to all of his prior statements on this issue.
Yes, Dr. C has covered this topic extensively. Why? Because BIRTHERS tend to frequently try to bring up McCain as a FALSE equivalency tactic and several early BIRTHER lawsuits ALSO attacked McCain and came up with FAKE BCs for him.
However, Dr. C. has NEVER come to the conclusion that he doubts McCain’s qualifications to be POTUS.
No one here would be attacking or clamoring for McCain to show his BC if he had been elected and definitely NOT Dr. C. There would be no real McCain “birther movement”. We accept McCain as NBC. End of Story.
You really need to stop making these false insinuations and disingenuous straw man arguments. They are both loathesome and easily debunked.
I agree with G. Dr. C. has integrity and is interested in pursuing the truth or falsity of conspiracy claims. He’s no hypocrite. I’ve never seen anything he’s written that indicates he thinks McCain was ineligible to run. McCain doesn’t need to release his birth certificate ever, and Obama doesn’t need to release anything more than he already has.
In May of 2009, I wrote in an article A view from the other side where I said:
I concluded:
As I became better acquainted with the question, and after I had read law journal papers and scholarly essays, my opinion shifted. A year later, in May of 2010, I published the article: John McCain – natural born citizen that reflects my current thinking.
Jack Chin makes a strong argument that McCain is ineligible, and Laurence Tribe and Theodore Olson have a strong argument otherwise. Both are respected experts. Because of S. Res. 511 and a comment by the judge in the California case, Robinson v Bowen et al, I do not think a challenge to McCain’s eligibility would prevail in court. Until the Supreme Court rules there is no firm legal consensus, but the majority opinion is that he’s eligible.
Please refer to my comment here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/the-reaction/#comment-107017
See my extended comment here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/the-reaction/#comment-107017
The McCain eligibility question is intertwined with the Obama question in a few ways. McCain’s eligibility was challenged in some of the same court cases as Obama. Scholarly material on McCain’s eligibility often contained statements relevant to Obama’s situation. The claim “McCain released a birth certificate and Obama didn’t” forced us to look at the McCain birth certificate on the Internet (and conclude that it was a fake and McCain didn’t release it.) Finally the question you raised of what I and other debunkers of the birthers thought about McCain goes to issue of bias, and it’s always important to look at bias.
Early on, I was concerned about the amount of McCain material that had accumulated on the blog out of necessity, and I even have a page of McCain eligibility links:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/mccain-eligibility/
However, you were mistaken to jump to the conclusion I think McCain ineligible. I don’t. Some commenters here think, with good reason, that he is ineligible. It’s no big deal.
There you go, Bob. I told you he had integrity. He pointed out an article he wrote (that I hadn’t read) that came to the conclusion that McCain probably isn’t a natural born citizen. He corrected me and G even though we were defending him.
One of the reasons I like Dr. C’s site is that he’s interested in the facts. He looks at the information that is presented from all sides and adjusts his views to account for the evidence. If someone came up with convincing proof that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, I have no doubt he’d embrace it.
Agreed.
By witnesses I was including anyone whowas there. That almost always includes the mother and physician or midwife.The case of Louisiana is unusual in not requiring signatures.
Bob
Don’t forget Colorado’s, they have no signatures either.
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/apf02-tlakincertificateoflivebirth.pdf
And we know there is a least one signature of a witness on the President’s BC. The doctor.
Sorry I’m late to the conversation. I came into the whole birther thing defending Senator McCain so that’s my particular interest. I get hot under the collar on this so forgive me if you’ve heard me rant on this before.
No committee ever considered Senator McCain’s eligibility. There was no “adversarial Democrats raising questions” stuff going on. It was McCain’s long-time friends and colleagues addressing the NYT articles and blogs questioning McCain’s eligibility by making a strong statement that it wasn’t going to be an issue in the election.
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) had been discussing how to deal with the rumors. They decided to introduce a Senate Resolution (SR 511) recognizing that the Senate considered McCain to be a natural born citizen.
The only “hearing” was one single aside in an April 2nd Senate Judiciary committee hearing on Oversight of the Dept. of Homeland Security. Sen. Obama was not a member of that committee. Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff was being questioned on REAL ID. After he had finished his questions and before Sen. Specter started his time, Chairman Leahy (D-VT) asked Chertoff (who was a former federal judge):
“Chairman LEAHY. We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believe—and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind—I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
Secretary CHERTOFF. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
Chairman LEAHY. That is mine, too. Thank you.
Senator Specter?
Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That was the entire extent of any Senate hearings on the matter. No witnesses, no documents, no birth certificates, no grilling Sen. McCain. No doubts in Leahy’s mind AT ALL. On April 10th, Leahy and McCaskill introduced SR 511 with 4 co sponsors: Sen. Hillary Clinton [D-NY], Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK], Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL], Sen. Jim Webb [D, VA]. Only one R in the bunch.
Leahy read a statement that began: “Today I join Senator Claire McCaskill in introducing a resolution to express the common sense of everyone here that Senator McCain is a “natural born Citizen,” as the term is used in the Constitution of the United States…. As far as I am aware, no one has unearthed any reason to think that the Framers would have wanted to limit the rights of children born to military families stationed abroad or that such a limited view would serve any noble purpose enshrined in our founding document. Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens….”
On April 30, the resolution was passed unanimously without amendment or floor discussion.
http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:67:./temp/~bd5VkK:@@@L&summ2=m&|/home/LegislativeData.php?n=BSS;c=110|
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=fd6db55d-33d4-440e-b53d-754f5bb58983
Thanks, Doc. I’ll calm down now.
So when a birther bill calls for a birth certificate with the signature of the doctor and witnesses, you believe they mean that the signatures of the doctor and the mother are sufficient? I seriously doubt that.
And you still haven’t told us why your mother doesn’t know where your father was living when you were born.
Robert Clark, in the 110th Congress, Obama was not on the Judiciary Committee, which would have been the one to take this on. The Judiciary committee consisted of the following Senators:
Patrick Leahy (D-VT) – Chairman
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Joe Biden (D-DE)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Arlen Spector (R-PA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
So, how was it that Obama was on the Judiciary Committee when every indication was that he wasn’t?
The Colorado one does have a signature space for the mother and doctor. The mother did sign it, it’s blurred out, the doctor though chose to type his in.
Bob
Not that unusual. Here are Pennsylvania birth certificates from 1962 and 1963
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mtroy/support/Birth_Certificate_Ada_Raub.jpg
http://i1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee410/Whatever4PJ/COLBs/Scan4.png
They have the same information as a current Hawaiian COLB. the only signature is a stamped one by the Secretary of Health. I haven’t done an exhaustive study of every jurisdiction in the US, but don’t you think the legislators ought to before they pass laws demanding things that many jurisdictions simply do not put on thier documents and may never have put on their documents?
Passing laws without proper reflection and study would make them phony morons, phony morons, phony morons
Correction. Since the mother’s name is blurred out in her signature line it’s possible indeed likely it was also typed.
Bob
Dear phony moron Bob: The point is not whether the certificates issued by SOME states will meet the requirements in the birther bills. The point is that if the certifiicate issued by ANY state does not, that’s a problem. Why? Because anyone born in ANY state should be able to run for President, without being denied on the basis of what format their birth state choose for their certificates. I can’t stand Newt Gingrich,, but if he wants to run, the fact that Pennsylvania’s b.c’s are signed only by the Secretary of Health should not stop him.
I await your phony, moronic argument to the contrary.
I severely doubt that those are the original birth certificates filed by the delivery physician since they almost always give the time of birth. Those more likely are the summarized certificates used at the time. For instance note that for the first one the date it was issued was in 1962 but the date of birth was in 1911.
Bob
And do you know what Pennsylvania law allows them to issue? Everyone likes to cite Hawaiian law. There are 50 states + DC, plus perhaps Puerto Rico and other US territories. Then there are local jurisdictions like NYC that handle their own certificates. And that doesn’t even address the issue of foreign born birth citizens. And currently, most places submit births electronically so there are no signatures at all.
Don’t you think legiislators ought to hold hearings and take expert testimony on how birth certificates are handled in multiple jurisdictions before they pass laws? Are they afraid to do that?
Isn’t that what they would do if they weren’t phony morons, phony morons, phony morons?
Robert Clark,
Don’t take the bait. What scientist linked to are abstracts. They are marked as “Certifications” The were not issued as “birth certificates”.
And you have proof that someone can get a copy of the original “birth certificates?”
I don’t believe that to be the case. Here’s an image of a long form BC showing the detail normally shown in long form BC’s:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~talbotfamilyhistory/Ray_Wesley_Myers_Birth_Certificate.jpg
Bob
And you have evidence that this is the form that has always been issued when someone sends in their money to get a birth certificate?
I mentioned before the experiment I would like to see done by participants of the forum to call their state health departments and ask for purposes of genealogical research on your own family background is it possible to order specifically your own long form birth certificate.
I confirmed it is possible in my home state. In New York city it is possible if you want to add an apostille, though I don’t know if that is possible for New York state BC’s.
Bob
I can’t read the exact date on that, but it looks like 1946. The ones I showed were issued in the 1960s, though the births took place before that. My son was born in Pennsylvania in the 1990s and all we have ever had or needed is a computer-generated abstract.
By the way, Pennsylvania, like Hawaii, allows one to register a foreign birth as long as at least one parent is a US citizen and PA resident.
But you are ducking my main point. So I ask this question again: Have the legislators passing these birther bills made certain that all 50 states and the District of Columbia will in fact issue certificates with the information they require? Don’t you think they have a duty to do so, so as to avoid knocking eligible candidates out of contention?
Bob, if you duck that clear and simple question again, I will have to conclude that you are a phony and a moron
No Bob the mother’s space is blurred but it is clear that it is also typed in, not signed by hand.
It is not the form issued when one send in their money to get a birth certificate in Pennsylvania. I was born in Latrobe PA in 1961 and all I have ever gotten was a Certification of Birth with the date filed (not accepted) 5 days after my birth. No hospital
name, no doctors signature, and only the county I was born in, not the city. It is also interesting to note that it says at the bottom: “Warning: it is illegal to duplicate this copy by photostat or photograph”.
In looking at the web site for Pennsylvania’s Department of Health, there is a form to get a certified copy of your birth record for genealogical purposes. I noticed on the form it asks for the hospital in which you were born. I’ll have to ask my mother because, unlike the President, I haven’t a clue what hospital I was born in.
Nice sock puppet you got there
The number of morons out there who don’t realize, or don’t want to realize, that the words “certificate” and “certification” are interchangeable, completely astounds me.
AGREED.
The battered green PA certification is mine. It’s battered because I carried it around for years because I don’t drive, and my school ID didn’t have birth date. I have never seen a PA long form for anyone in my family.
Here;s what they sent you up until Jan 1 this year, note the similarity to what’s on the battered green form — PA has been issuing short forms ar the preferred document since at least the 1960s: http://i1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee410/Whatever4PJ/COLBs/Scan3.png
Here’s what they send after Jan 1st this year, to meet the new passport requirements: http://i1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee410/Whatever4PJ/COLBs/ScanA.png
I have sent for my original “complete’ birth certificate, they say 6-8 weeks. They REALLY don’t like to give those out. I had to email them to get the correct magic words.
Proving once again you’re no expert on what appears on a birth certificate. Go to page 25 of the following PDF. There’s a table called, Content of the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth, by year revised.” It shows that “time of birth” didn’t appear on the 1949 or 1956 revisions of the US Standard Certificate of Live Birth:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_04/sr04_028.pdf
That means there are birth certificates issued from 1949-1967 that could have no time of birth.
You seem to think an abstract birth certificate is an indication of a conspiratorial plot when they’re actually very common. In 1999 I obtained a certified birth certificate (with a raised seal) of a person born in 1833. It was from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and called a “Copy of Record of Birth.” It’s computer generated with no handwriting accept for the clerk’s certification. It’s on plain white paper, Form 429. It was obviously abstracted from original town records, but according to birther logic, it’s not a birth certificate because they didn’t have computers in 1833, and it’s abstracted!
Scientist makes a valid point that all 50 states have their own requirements for what constitutes a birth certificate. The format varies not only from state to state, but also by the time in which the record is created. The name can also vary. In Michigan, for example, I’ve asked for birth certificates and gotten a “Certificate of Birth,” a”Certificate of Live Birth,” and a “Certified Copy of Record of Birth.”
Here, for example, is a “Certificate of Birth” from Cook County, Illinois in 1921. The signature of the physician or midwife isn’t a signature at all. It’s typewritten. There’s no mother’s signature:
https://familysearch.org/search/image/show#uri=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.familysearch.org%2Frecords%2Fpal%3A%2FMM9.1.i%2Fdgs%3A004441028.004441028_01777
Ronald Reagan’s birth certificate:
http://terryfrank.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/dscn0552.jpg
No time of birth. No mother’s signature. Filed 31 years after birth.
Reagan was friends with Obama conspirator, Walter Annenberg, the son of Chicago mobster Moses Annenberg. Undoubtedly the birth certificate was a conspiracy by the mob to allow the Irish born Reagan to obtain the presidency. What is Reagan hiding?
This leads to a question I have regarding Hawaiian Vital Statistics Law 338-13. Maybe one of guys can help me out.
“””§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.”””
When I read the above, I interpret it to mean that if any eligible applicant requests a “certified copy” of their original birth record the the State has to furnish either…
(1) a “certified copy” of the full original certificate (such as the Nordyke photostatic type or the more recent Xerox type…even though there is some indication that even those have been cropped)
OR
(2)an abstracted “certified copy” of the full contents of the original
OR
(3)an abstracted “certified copy” of some part/parts of the original
“”” (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]”””
In (c) the statute goes on to describe various processes by which the “certified copies” “may be made”. I think I’ve seen examples of each of these processes except for the “other process approved by the director of health” which I assume could even be a copy handwritten by the director of health on security paper with all the other required certification procedures if the director chose to do so.
In my reading of this statute it seems that while all of these possible formats to produce a “certified copy” are certainly legal and available to the DOH….the DOH is under no requirement to furnish whatever particular format is requested. It seems to me that they could….and probably would…but only if an applicant convinced them of a specific need for a variation from the current standard, or they got tired of the applicant asking and just figured it would be easier just to get them what they wanted, or whatever.
Or am I reading it all wrong?
How about this option: I ignore all your questions unless you conduct a civil discussion.
Bob
Prithee answer the question, kindest sir:
Have the legislators passing these birther bills made certain that all 50 states and the District of Columbia will in fact issue certificates with the information they require? Don’t you think they have a duty to do so, so as to avoid knocking eligible candidates out of contention?
Since you are from Pennsylvania perhaps you can perform the experiment of calling the state health department and inquiring if for genealogical research on your own family background could you get a copy of your own original long form birth certificate?
You might also ask about the case of getting a birth certificate with apostile. Are those always given out as the long form? Can you choose to have it with the long form?
Bob
I’m not from Pennsylvania, but I have received a computer generated short form birth certificate which was then apostilled. It was presented to and accepted by a foreign government with no problem.
The same state that issues a document apostilles it. If they issue a document, they will apostille it. Why is that even a question?
I will call on Monday to see if I can order a copy of the original birth certificate.
Dearest Mr Clark: Surely you cannot think that it is the job of posters on this site to do research on what the laws of all 50 states and various other jurisdictions are so that the excellent legislators of the great state of Louisiana and various excellent colleagues in other great states can pass laws that will take the realities of what documents other states prepare into account? And surely, sir, you cannot counsel those brilliant legislators to rely on our researrch? Should they not hold hearings and solicit expert testimony for themselves? Surely one as wise as yourself would expect that?
Your humble servant…
Wow, that first one they sent out is really brief. It doesn’t even have the parents names.
What were the magic words you had to give to get the long form?
It’s understandable why they don’t like to send it out. They actually have to have someone go though the stacks and find the document and photocopy it and then make sure it gets put back in the right place to be found again. With the short form you just punch in a few numbers in the computer and the computer prints it out.
Bob
In some cases the foreign government requires the long form for the more detail it contains. One case is for dual citizenship. Some of the short forms contain little information on the parents which would be needed to determine if you can get citizenship in that country, like the Pennsylvania ones sent out prior to January this year. According to the image linked by “Whatever4” above these didn’t even have the parents names.
For some states the original long form contains the parents place of birth, such as the state or different country. For example this is the case for the Hawaii long form:
http://state-of-the-nation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/colb-1.jpg
Here is a page that describes getting dual citizenship with Italy:
Jure Sanguinis: Dual Citizenship Through Ancestry.
“All documents must be in “CERTIFIED COPY” or “LONG FORM”. This is critical. If you have original documents, keep these for your personal records and request by mail “Certified, Long Form Copies” of originals from the Vital Statistics Office of the State in which the Birth, Death, Marriage, or Divorce took place. (This does not apply if you have your Italian ancestors original birth certificate from Italy)”
http://www.expatsinitaly.com/node/136
And here is a page from the Italian Consulate in NJ showing that your long form birth certificate must be used to apply for dual citizenship:
Citizenship.
“7) Your birth certificate (you must obtain a “certified copy” or “full form” or “long form”, with an APOSTILLE from the Secretary of State of the State in which it was issued).”
http://www.consnewark.esteri.it/Consolato_Newark/Menu/I_Servizi/Per_i_cittadini/Cittadinanza/
Bob
You’re reading it right. Rather than it being illegal to provide someone their own long form birth certificate, it is illegal NOT to. A spokesman for the Hawaii Atty. Gen. office was putting out to the public the EXACT opposite of what the law actually says.
Does that sound like a normal state of affairs for the highest law enforcement office in a state?
Bob
Did you read the warning at the bottom of those documents. Wouldn’t want to see you land in the pokey.
In my experience with state governments over the years, I have found that some people know what they are doing, and some don’t, and the closer that person is to the “actual doing” the more they they know. So Governor Abercrombie would be the least informed, followed by the Attorney General, followed by the Health Director, followed by the head of Vital Statistics (Alvin Onaka) who probably knows everything cold.
WRONG! The law gives DOH options as to what form to provide. That’s what the word “or” means. If a law says: A taxpayer may pay their taxes by check or credit card”, that means the taxpayer has a choice. This law gives the choice to DOH. And they have chosen not to provode “original forms”.
The COLB is considered a “certified copy”. What the Italian consullate is looking for a birth certificate that shows a parent was born in Itally. it doesn’t have to have a hospital or doctor.
Let me tell you what happened with my daughter. She needed a birth certificate from Maryland to submit to a foreign gpvernment. The one that came was a computer form that lacked “parent’s place of birth”. We called the Maryland DOH and they said re-order and mark “long form”. We got back a computer generated form that included “parent’s place of birth”. That was acceptable. Never were we offered the option of a form with hospital, doctor’s signature etc.
Do you guys KNOW what regulations are?
I’m fairly certain that in any state where the long forms are not normally given out that the law allows court orders for that information to be released to the person named on the birth certificate. In the case of a candidate running for political office this would be regarded as being granted routinely, automatically.
However, I’m pretty sure that court orders wouldn’t be required in the majority of states, if not all of them. I confirmed this in my state by giving a legitimate reason why the long form would be needed such as genealogical research on your family background. In Hawaii I confirmed this by asking if an apostille could be applied specifically to the long form. Note that law in Hawaii states that copies of ANY birth documents must to released to the person the documents are about on request, contrary to the information incorrectly put out by the spokesman for the Hawaii Atty. Gen.’s office.
I rather suspect the proposers of these laws for verifying presidential eligibility are aware of these facts because it just makes good common sense that the current policies of usually releasing short forms are only there because they’re easier and cheaper to produce. But the long form can be obtained on request for the person on the birth certificate with a sufficient reason for ordering it.
Bob
Funny. That’s exactly NOT how I read it.
Arizona lawmakers didn’t, and their bill didn’t allow for it, and in any event Arizona’s law doesn’t apply in Hawai’i, Alaska, Maine, Texas, or New Mexico. I’m uncertain whether it applies to any of the other states though.
Whether you call it a regulation or a policy it can be changed by the stroke of the pen by the health department director or the governor. But most likely it doesn’t have to be changed. I already confirmed that the long form can be ordered from Hawaii by requesting an apostille be applied specifically to the long form birth certificate. I strongly suspect it can be ordered by giving a reason why the long form would be needed such as genealogical research or for a need to know the delivery doctor or hospital for medical reasons. Indeed I suspect you don’t have to give a reason. You just have to cite the Hawaiian law that says copies of ANY birth documents have to be supplied to the person
on the documents on request.
Bob
No that does NOT mean it can be ordered. it means that if you have one from years ago, you can send it and they will siick an apostiille on it.
You know this how? Source?
Nope. It allows DOH a number of options as to what to release/
You know this how? Source? I have never heard a single legislator make such a statement. Have hearings been held on these bills? Have experts from various DOHs testified? That is what is supposed to happen before such bills are passed.
WHERE WERE THE HEARINGS??
I have to go back to calling you a phony
It could. But there is no requirement to do so.
No. That means if you have a long form from years ago, you can send it and they will apostille it.
Who cares what you suspect, strongly or weakly? .
Phony
You should tell that to Terry lakin, because he tried to get his daughters long form and failed. Oddly this seems to be a rather common state of affairs.
As in you birthers have yet to come up with a single case where someone was successful.
No, regulations can only be changed in compliance with the Hawaiian Administrative Procedure Act.
But, thank you for demonstrating that you are not aware of what regulations are.
You are completely backwards and entirely wrong on this, Bob. As usual.
Keep living in denial and keep lying.
The HI AG was correct. You are wrong.
Let alone reality
Then, have someone with a Hawaiian birth record do so and see if they can get the long form with an apostille. If they can’t get it, they can sue. I’d have no objection to that. In fact, I’d be glad if someone did, because my hobby is genealogy. Hawaii is a closed record state. They restrict all vital records for 75 years. Genealogists don’t like closed record states.
It’s long been my contention that if Obama’s family filed his birth record fraudulently, then the problem isn’t Obama. The problem is with Hawaii’s government for allowing fraud to occur. If it’s true that anyone can get a Hawaiian birth certificate, that’s vital records fraud, and it needs to be stopped. Alas, none of the birthers are focused on that. They want to “bring Obama down.” That tells me that the concern about fraudulent birth certificates isn’t real, and neither are the allegations of fraud. If they were real, we’d see numerous lawsuits filed against Hawaii’s Department of Health.
Even if ‘anyone can file for a Hawaiian birth certificate”, an assertion which is yet to be supported, there is no reason to presume that thus President Obama’s birth filings were fraudulent.
So far the prima facie legal evidence shows him born on US soil and no evidence of fraud has been presented.
Ok lets cite it.
That means that you get zip unless the DOH says so, and what the DOH says goes, apart from
That means the DOH has to give you one of those 3 options on request, and it can just pick whichever one it wants and make whatever rules it wants.
Its says you ain’t getting a long form, you ain’t getting a long form, kid. You don’t like it, sue.
And yeah I got suckered into quoteing the law again. I guess it sucks that I’m not lazy and that I actually have the facts on my side.
I agree. I’m just saying if the birthers are right–and they’re not–it’s not Obama that’s the problem. He was a baby when the deed was done. The problem would be the Department of Health giving out birth certificates to just about anyone.
Col. Hollister fraudulently had Obama’s selective service information sent to his address. That demonstrates he has no scruples. Why hasn’t he ponied up a Hawaiian birth certificate?
I think you guys are all missing the point.
It is the Federal Government that gets to decide what constitutes proof, not the State Governments. This is explicit under Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
If a state issues a birth certificate, and the Federal Government says that it constitutes proof of birth within the state (as the Federal Government has done with state “abstracts”), the State Governments do not get to say that it doesn’t actually constitute proof, and require a different form. That violates the Constitution.
So, we have two options.
We have a document, that is issued a certified by the State of Hawaii. The Federal Government has confirmed that it is proof of the place of birth. According to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 1), the State Government must accept it as proof of the place of birth.
So, the question is whether the state legislation accepts that as proof, or doesn’t? If it doesn’t, then it is unconstitutional, as it does not give Full Faith and Credit to the records. If it does do that, it actually may pass constitutional muster.
If the bill passes constitutional muster, then it must accept the document that Obama scanned and placed on the Internet 2.75 years ago as proof of place of birth.
That is just one of the many ways that we can attack birther legislation.
Some have been posted. There is debate on their validity.
I have called the Hawaii health department and was told you can get the long form with apostille. I would to see what would be the result if someone from Hawaii ordered the original long form birth certificate with apostille.
Bob
There are cases where the usual short form birth certificate is not accepted as valid for some applications. For instance we discussed the case on this forum where in the border states of Texas and California you have to use the long form birth certificate to get a passport because there have been cases of fraud. So there is a precedent for wanting to see the long form if there is evidence the short form is not valid.
In the case of Hawaii it’s been argued it’s possible to get a COLB without actually being born there because of certain laws on the books. One would actually have to demonstrate such cases do occur for the stronger long forms to be requested.
Bob
Note those are only rules. They can be changed at the stroke of a pen by the director of the health department or the governor.
I also do not agree with the interpretation of the line:
“…the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.”
It would not make sense for example if you ordered the usual short form being currently given out and the health department decided to send you only the top half and offered the justification the law allows them to send “part thereof”. That passage of the law must mean YOU can order any part thereof and the health department must supply it.
Bob
Sorry Bob – Hawai’i can decided that the short form isn’t enough, but no other state can (Constitutionally speaking). And the long form is exactly the same as the COLB in terms of strength of proof of natural born citizenship (which is to say that both are conclusive absent evidence that doesn’t exist…)
Until they are changed, they are the rules. Do you have a job? I wonder because I am imagining if you were my employee. According to you if I said company policy is X, you would feel no need to follow it because “It could be changed”.
So birth certificates are, according to you like an a la carte menu? Supposing i wanted a b.c. that showed only my name and date of birth? No problem according to Bob. What if I wanted only father’s name, but not mother’s? No problem according to Bob. I’m sorry that IS NOT what the law allows. It allows anyone to get their birth certificate in THE FORMAT OR FORMATS NORMALLY ISSUED BY THE DOH. That’s it.
Let’s stop pretending that there is anything unique about Hawaii. There isn’t. Most states allow this. Why? Primarily for foreign adoptees.
But the certificate will list the actual date and place of birth. Here is proof from the HHS web site:
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/intercountry.cfm
“Application for a U.S. Birth Certificate
Approximately 35 States, Guam, and Puerto Rico require adoptive parents to submit documentation from readoption or validation of a foreign adoption in a State court when they wish to request that the State Registrar of Vital Statistics issue a State birth certificate for the adoptee.10 Approximately 11 States and the District of Columbia will accept the foreign adoption decree when adoptive parents want to request a U.S. birth certificate for their adopted child.11 Usually, the request for a birth certificate is accompanied by a certified copy of the final adoption decree, the State court’s findings of fact as to date and place of birth, and a written request for a new birth certificate for the adopted person.
The State Registrar issues the birth certificate in the new name of the adoptee if requested by the adoptive parents, and the certificate shows the actual date and place of birth.”
Did you catch that last part Bob?
THE CERTIFICATE SHOWS THE ACTUAL DATE AND PLACE OF BIRTH
Should I repeat that?
Can you demonstrate that anyone born abroad has been issued a COLB from Hawaii that shows them BORN IN HAWAII? I didn’t think so. Remember what it says above:
THE CERTIFICATE SHOWS THE ACTUAL DATE AND PLACE OF BIRTH
Tut tut Robert
Your inability to to follow simple facts along with a well evidenced failure to apply equally simple logic us becoming quite, quite tedious.
FACT
SOME, very specific states had a vey specific issue with fraudulent birth certificates, in general around midwife recorded births
FACT
Said issues led to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT stating the short forms from these specific states and only these specific states would be inadequate for specific FEDERAL purposes, includinf but not limited to issuance of passports.
FACT
These states did not, does not and never has included Hawai’i
FACT
There has nor been any evidence provided ever, since Hawai’i became a state of fraudulently created or issued BC’s
FACT
The current issued BC is regarded as whole and sufficient for a legal purposes
Ergo, your thesis is malodorous crap
The point is there are two states where the federal government has found the short form was obtained fraudulently in a sufficient number of cases that it will not allowed to be used to obtain passports in those two states. Only the original long form can be used. Note specifically in those cases the short form can not be used to prove you were born in the U.S.
The claim has been made that because of the laws on the books in Hawaii there have been cases where the COLB has been issued to those who actually were not born in Hawaii. In order for this to be used as a justification for needing to see the long form birth certificate it would have to be shown this occurred in a significant number of cases to warrant requiring the long form.
Bob
It’s the Federal government that gets to make the determination whether a long form is needed, not a state government.
I’ll respond to the second part of your post after I read over that link you provided. But my understanding of that “part thereof” passage is that there might be some long documents stored at the department of health such as divorce decrees. The law would allow you to request say just the first page of it.
Bob
Incorrect. Nowehere is the original long form used. That would mean the physical copy would have to be taken out of the vault and sent to the place. Nowehere bemands that./ All you can get is a copy prepared according to the rules of the state.
Of course you ‘accidentally’ left out the rest of the sentence :- IF YOU WERE BORN IN THOSE STATES. They will accept a COLB from Hawai’i
Well the claim involves a law that was passed when Obama was 20 and in college.
The claim has also been made that Obama is a reptilian alien, and the earth is hollow, and the Moon is really made of cheese. And even more ludicrously that Obama is a socialist. Not ever claim has be endlessly and breathlessly taken seriously and debated endlessly.
I claim that Bob is a woman.
So “once, and that was 110 years ago” wont cut it then.
Bob has been told this over and over and over. At some stage people just have to accept the spoiled kid you are talking to is just too stupid to learn anything and just send him to his room without any sweets.
Every modern day birth certificate has a confidential medical section used for statistical purposes only. One could argue that it falls under “any part thereof.” If you request it, you’re not going to get it. You’ll get only the legal portion of the birth certificate no matter how much you beg.
We don’t have a case of Texas or California, where the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT says that they may not be valid. We have a case, where the Federal Government says that the document is valid to prove place of birth. Now, the states must accept that as proof of place of birth, according to the United States Constitution. Otherwise, they are not giving full faith and credit to the documents of another state.
But nice red herring. That’s like me arguing…
“Well, I murdered Robert Clark. I should be let go from this obvious murder, because it’s possible to argue justifiable homicide. Therefore, there’s precedent for my homicide to be justifyable, and you can’t prosecute me.”
Repeat it with me…
We have a document that the Federal Government accepts as proof of place of birth. It doesn’t matter what the idiots on the Internet argue, this is a simple fact. No, ifs, ands, or buts. If the states don’t accept it as proof of place of birth, they are not giving the full faith and credit that the Federal Government says is due to that document. They are in violation of the Constitution, plain and simple.
As far as your little tirade into Internet conspiracy, I’ll give you over to the Hawaii Law, HRS 338-20.5: “The new certificate of birth shall show the true or probable foreign country of birth, and that the certificate is not evidence of United States citizenship for the child for whom it is issued or for the adoptive parents.”
I’ll give you over to the Hawaii Department of Health spokesman, Janice Okubo: “If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate. But it’s become very clear that it doesn’t matter what I say. The people who are questioning this bring up all these implausible scenarios. What if the physician lied? What if the state lied? It’s just become an urban legend at this point.”
So,
This is what we have. We have a document that the Federal Government says proves the place of birth. If a State say that it doesn’t prove the place of birth, then they are not giving the full faith and credit that the Federal Government says is due that document. The State, therefore, is being unconstitutional in their rejection of the document, plain and simple.
The California and Texas example that you gave are completely different. The Federal Government has said that they may not be adequate to prove place of birth, therefore the States do not have to accept them for place of birth. That is completely different from the Federal Government saying that this document proves place of birth, and the State saying, “No, it doesn’t.”
Robert you lie and very poorly at that
===============================
Only the original long form can be used. Note specifically in those cases the short form can not be used to prove you were born in the U.S.
===============================
ONLY FOR THE STATES NOTED AND NOT FOR ANY OTHER
Hawai’i is not one of them, is it.
============================================
In the case of Hawaii it’s been argued it’s possible to get a COLB without actually being born there because of certain laws on the books. One would actually have to demonstrate such cases do occur for the stronger long forms to be requested.
===========================================
Again utter BS, name a single occassion, post statehood, or simply bugger off and stop furiously masturbating your cack in this thread.
Bovril, Dr. C. very admirably discusses civilly with those on his forum who he disagrees strongly with and even those he believes makes horrendously bad errors in fact.
I’m sure he would prefer that language be used appropriately for a public forum.
Bob
Mr. Clark,
Lying, intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy, bigotry and willful ignorance are not civil behavior either, yet you have exhibited all of those behaviors here. Since Doc doesn’t ban you for your incessant uncivil drivel (because Doc believes in free speech – unlike birthers), I don’t think you have any standing to object to epithets that you have repeatedly proven you deserve. If you don’t want Borvil (or others) to call you out for your shameful behavior here, then maybe you shouldn’t have been such a dishonest, uncivil a$$hole…
Slarty man, it’s hard for me to get mad at someone who’s name shows he shares my appreciation of a great author’s work.
But I think anyone reading that is aware you are not using the correct definition of the word civility.
Bob
Here’s a couple of definitions from my dictionary:
To me (and, I believe, to others here) the dishonesty and lack of respect (to the legitimate POTUS if nothing else) that you’ve shown here is very much the definition of uncivil behavior. Again, to use an analogy, we shouldn’t call someone a pedophile if they don’t rape children, but if someone does rape children, while it might be considered an ad hominem attack to call them such (although it would not be an ‘ad hominem’ fallacy), it would be neither unjustified nor uncivil. So if your going to whine about incivility then please get the f*cking beam out of your own eye first!
I think you’ve touched on an important point. Respect underlies true civility and in the main I think that birthers and anti-birthers deep down have no respect for each other. While a veneer of politeness makes things a little more pleasant, the root problem of stereotyping and disrespect is what prevents meaningful dialog. A few individuals come for the sole purpose of being uncivil and disruptive, and they make up our banned list.
Bad things happen when one demonizes their opponent.
To me, the most obvious outward sign of the birthers’ lack of respect is seen in how they address President Obama, the First Lady, and Dr. Dunham (as someone who finds Dr. Dunham a very impressive woman as well as someone who lost their mother to ovarian cancer, this really annoys me – which you probably could have guessed from my constant use of Dr. Dunham’s title…). There is no attempt to see things from any other point of view (I don’t think may birthers would treat repeated and vile insults to themselves, their wives, and their mothers in the same cavalier manner that they use to make their baseless slanders of the president and his family) – the birthers aren’t really big on walking a mile in anyone else’s shoes. I found your insight that this disrespect extends even to other birthers very interesting (and accurate as well – I can think of a couple recent examples by Dr. K(h)ate in particular…). I think this is one of the qualities of birtherism which guarantees its ineffectiveness – because everyone has their own subset of Obama conspiracies that they believe in (and the set of true theories is empty [which would yield touchstones that everyone could agree on – like we have with the US Constitution and law…]) and since every one of them has a different grab bag of fallacious assumptions these are unlikely to be completely reconcilable. This is clear on birther sites – when anyone questions the site orthodoxy in any way (even from a birther perspective) they are immediately attacked by the natives (sometimes even if they are natives of the site themselves…) or banned outright.
We’re all paying for the fact that the Republicans have been demonizing all of their opponents in any way possible (since 9/11 at least – starting with the idea that anyone who disagreed [seemingly about anything…] with that bumbling fool, President Bush, was unpatriotic [I noticed that kind of talk disappeared during the 2008 election cycle – I guess it’s one of those things that only applies when a Republican is president…]). Hopefully, the lion’s share of that cost will fall upon the Republicans – if so, I would expect them to cease to exist as a national party within a decade (which would be wonderful for our body politic, in my opinion – especially if it resulted in divorcing the fiscal conservatives from the social conservatives [and the bat guano whackos…]).
Reminds me of Archie Bunker on “All in the Family” railing against the “commie, pinkos” criticizing a good and honest man like Richard Nixon.
Bob
Except that you are the admitted bigot here, Bob, not me.