It is remarkable to me how loud cries for “where’s the birth certificate” changed to “the birth certificate doesn’t matter” overnight. In all fairness, there were those who said that the birth certificate didn’t matter since Obama wasn’t eligible anyway (because his father wasn’t a US citizen) before Obama released his long form, and it is true that there are those who deny Obama’s double-certified long form birth certificate; however, many seem to have changed gears seamless between the two.
One of the most ironic remarks that I have seen is this one on YouTube where KenyaBornObamAcorn said:
Yo, check the video, the LIBTARDS are NOW the Birthers, cause they are the ones that are stuck on WHERE Obama was born, we could care less because no matter WHERE he was born, HE IS STILL INELIGIBLE!
I am not seeing any increased caution among the birthers when accepting rumors, lies and crank experts. The fact that the birthers were totally wrong about where Obama was born, of course, doesn’t impact what the Constitution says about what it takes to be President. It does, however, provide evidence as to the credulity of birthers and their inability to distinguish authoritative information from garbage. Just as Obama’s real birth certificate has been out there for over two years, the Constitutional requirements for President have been covered here for over two years, and authoritative commentary on what it means has been out there for for over two hundred years
There’s a scene in 1984 where a member of the Inner Party is giving a hate-filled speech about the enemy du jour. Mid-speech he’s given a slip of paper which tells him the enemy du jour has changed, and Winston is marveled at the speaker’s ability to continue the speech, with the names and places now different, without missing a beat or even interrupting his syntax.
That’s the birthers right now. World Net Daily shifted almost overnight to “It’s always been about eligibility and Natural Born Citizenship and de Vattel and Indonesia, not the birth certificate” and birthers ate it up as if such a thing wasn’t a complete fabrication. In the seal thread, it was pointed out that butterdezillion, who has been pushing a “No seal so it’s a forgery!” tack for two weeks now switched to “The seal means forgery!” without even acknowledging that something had changed.
I’m sure if at some point it’s made abundantly clear (well, it already has been, but clear to birthers, like a court somehow rules on the merits, likely due to a pre-election ballot challenge, which in many states has no requirements for standing by the challenging party, who can often be any random citizen), they will simply switch to the Indonesia issue or academic records (and many already have, likely seeing the writing on the wall that the two-parent theory simply isn’t going anywhere).
While I agree with your comment, I also think that it’s important to note that while the birthers have changed gears without missing a beat, their new tune is far less likely to resonate with the general public. “Anyone born in the US can grow up to be president” is a foundational American meme – the birthers couldn’t get traction using this meme and I think that they will get even less trying to fight it.
I agree completely. The more technical they have to be to make him ineligible, the worse off they are. Which, IMO, is why the more “savvy” (heh) birthers have dropped the Vattel nonsense and moved onto the Indonesian adoption nonsense. The former requires repudiation of the “Everyone born here can run!” thing, which is a non-starter. No matter how many birthers “fondly remember” their history textbooks teaching the two-parent theory, none have been able to produce one.
The “Indonesia adoption” myth is a better soundbite and IMO will be the main focus point (note that it’s the tack WND is taking, and whatever one thinks of them, they’ve been the best at monetizing the birther story).
KenyaBornObamaAcorn posted: “You ain’t seen nuttin yet…we are gonna make you laugh so hard you’ll be crying!
Wait and see…New case at the Supreme Court!”
Birthers still living in birferland, they still have “hope” they are going to remove Barack Obama!
Agreed.
Yeah, I see that being one of their attempted trends in the near term. That won’t fly either. ALL of their main memes are pretty much DOA for a general public audience at this point.
It will be more interesting to see what new nonsense they come up with in the longer term…after several months of the dust settling causes their utter inability to gain traction on their overplayed existing bag of tricks, finally starts to sink in with them…
Many of these DeVattelists now claim that they were taught in school that there was a two citizen parent requirement. I just wonder if they are lying or if their devotion to their cause has actually convinced them that they’re telling the truth.
There’s a great list from Google Books showing literally hundreds of textbooks spanning over a hundred years that all say born here is all it takes.
The delusional Birthers will always cling to hope of the next ZOMG!… “Any day now”… moments.
The bigger problem for them is that they have very few of these events to cling to any more…and what is still on the table for them are the skimpiest of scraps in their barrel…
How many states are even still in play on Birther Bills? Not many. Really, which ones are even still alive at this point, with any reasonable chance of passing?
How many legal cases aren’t completely exhausted? Very few. Kreep’s weak attempt at the Supreme’s, a few bumbling bits of foolery from Orly…and a clown crazy sideshow from Cao.
What else do they even have left? Desperate hopes that Trump will still run and pander to them?
“New case at the Supreme Court!”
.
Kreep anticipating 9th cir denial filed cert with Supremes, he is smart enough to know that will go nowhere but he needs paypal pushes. our numb friend fell for it.
I don’t see that gaining traction either. You have to be careful not to piss off large groups of voters. An awful lot of people these days live in blended famiies. Getting them mad at you isn’t smart politics. And if they went there, Obama could crush them by releasing the US passport he used to come back to Hawaii from Indonesia. This game has always been played on Obama’s turf, because he knows where he was born and what passports he’s had and the birthers have only wild-ass speculation.
I actually think many of them have simply deluded themselves into thinking they were taught it, or at least have been able to convince themselves it was always that way and just not talked about (and it’s easy for them to do since every previous non-grandfathered President has fit that definition save Arthur, which they’ve rationalized away as “He hid it”). WND, no, but for many of the freepers I think there is real belief that it is what they were taught or that it’s the way it’s always been.
However, the proof is in the pudding, and despite numerous birthers claiming they “fondly” remember reading about it in their history textbooks, none has been able to produce a textbook that matches said definition. I guess just like butterdezillion believes that Obama’s “goons” went to EVERY LIBRARY IN THE WORLD that had copies of the Honolulu Advertiser and added in fake birth announcements, they must think Obama is so powerful as to have replaced all these old textbooks with otherwise identical copies but without the two-parent citizen requirement.
Man, that guy is powerful.
I would point out that the birthers’ rationalizations are even thinner than you suggest since no president required the grandfather clause for eligibility (all of them were natural born) and others such as Jefferson and Agnew have had actual or potential foreign citizenship.
I’d be willing to bet most of them don’t remember the basics of algebra they were taught at about the same time, but somehow they can remember the details of their civics classes that they all hated and slept through?
Riiiiiiiight
Not at all. They just somehow remember that ONE “detail” from civics class. They clearly don’t remember learning anything about the Constitution or they wouldn’t be getting it wrong so often…
The birther issue is just a distraction from what’s important; the neverending war against Eastasia.
Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus has published numerous studies of false memories and how suggestion and imagination create “memories” of events that did not actually occur. Loftus explains, “False memories are constructed by combining actual memories with the content of suggestions received from others.” The implantation of a false memory frequently occurs — or in reinforced — when another person also makes the claims that the event happened. “Corroboration of an event by another person can be a powerful technique for instilling a false memory.” Loftus, Elizabeth (1997) Creating False Memories. Scientific American, 277, 70-75.
A few birthers have law degrees. That’s more disturbing.
No, different case.
But dumb. If he and Soros had remembered about the two-citizen-parent thingie earlier, they could have cooked up a real ‘Merkun father for him and saved all of us a lot of trouble.
It ACTUALLY happened just like this….
Soros: How can we make sure he won’t get elected?
The board members: Make him black!
Soros: What should his name be?
The board members: Make it something African.
Like Odinga or Obama.
Soros: Good. Good. And his middle name?
The board members: Hitler, Hussein! (laughs)
Soros: This is great guys!
But we can’t do Hitler; I have lots of Jewish friends.
I’ll go with Iraq’s dictator, Hussein.
Ok, so far the person is black with an African last name and a dictator’s middle name.
He can’t possibly win!
And for his first name, I’ll make it some Egyptian name that’s hard to pronounce.
You know, one of those ones you need to use your throat and cough out his name.
Baraqgge, Borakge, Boraquuwe…
The board members: Barack?
Soros: YES! This is excellent!
Barack Hussein Obama… the 2nd!
The perfect candidate who can’t possibly win.
There isn’t a chance in hell this clown will win. Agreed?
The board members: Agreed!
Soros: Just like the movie “The Producers!”
I’ll dump my money on the other guy and clean up!
You’ll all see big bonuses this Christmas. Thanks boys!
The board members: Thanks GS!
Funniest birther note of the week:
In a video reporting Lakin’s return, one birfer guy (who looked a bit like someone from ZZ Top) actually said, referring to the “1981 Pakistan travel ban” without calling it a “travel ban”, that “to enter a country, you have to have a passport from that country, so to enter Pakistan, Obama had to have a Pakistani passport”. I think that’s the funniest distortion of that birfer meme I’ve seen so far.
Unfunniest birther note of the week:
Over at the Pee and Eee, they’re now pimping the “Obama stole his BC number from a Hawaiian girl who died one day after her birth which also was August 4th, 1961” meme.
(Which should be funny because there is actually no factual basis for this allegation but even more speculation and wishful thinking than with the other birfer memes.)
One birther “investigator” actually talked to the mother and brother of the girl, trying to get them to request a BC for the girl.
I suppose the current flurry of postings suggests they’re going “Orly style” on the family next, inundating them with requests to “support them”. Really really sad.
Misty, water-colored memories . . .
A comment (in it’s entirety) from the P&E:
“I remember the news in 1960/1961-i remember the interviews with Stanley Ann Dunham as she was about to leave the USA to “go over the water to marry her baby’s daddy-her black prince(My Mother’s Words) Was obamas daddy a prince? read “whose your mama, Who’s your daddy” on this site.”
It would be interesting to see what the number of the certificate would be if the brother obtained it compared to Obama’s alleged number.
“All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.
— US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (retired)”
Actually, Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was still a territory, but not yet a state. Yes, I know he lost in a landslide.
Based on the available evidence, the numbers are in alphabetical order (amongst the batch) by last name.
So under this theory, when did the President steal this number in 1961? or in 2007? If in 1961, how did they doing it and how did they even know about the child? And then there are those darn newspaper announcements. And is Hawaii in on it? If 2007, then is it just a coincidence that the President already had his birth records and government records dated as August 4th, 1961 and of course there are those darn birth announcements.
Hahahahaha
You were an “intelligence” officer?
Well Obama’s grandmother ‘did’ work in a probate office. The birth announcements were probably put in from proud happy grandparents saying that a baby was born when the vital records were created. That’s happens all the time.
It has been reported that Obama is a shape shifting reptilian alien that drinks human blood to survife. Lots of people believe it. would you be agaionst Obama taking a simple blood test to prove his humanity. Why do you think that he has refused to do so? Its so simple, would only take 5 minutes. Don’t you think that’s strange?
Birth announcements were never put in from the family. It never happens “all the time”. And Hawai’in law states flat out that grandparents cant register a birth. 338-05 and 338-06.
Get help.
Yes, when the vital records was created. That could have been done by a form filled out by the mother or grandmother and turned in to the Dept of Health. Notice the birth announcements never had place of birth, only that a baby was born.
But fortunately we have conclusive evidence that President Obama was born at Kapiolani. Do you think that it is appropriate to accuse someone of a crime with no evidence? Would it be okay with you if I accused your mother or grandmother of a crime that I had no evidence was even committed?
Kapi-olani has never in a official capacity confirmed Obama’s birth there. Also since the long form has been deemed a forgery ( with all those suspect anomalies) by computer graphic experts, it can’t be taken serious that Kapi-olani is the actual place of birth.
Actu 96. Any birth announcement given in by the parents had to be in the form of a sworn affidavit, with witnesses under penalty of pergury. and then there had to be a hearing with the representative of the DOH. The process typically took a month. Not 4 days. WHich is when the Birth was registered.
By the way my birth was registered 22 days after my birth and I was born in a hospital in 1972.
SECOND Hawai’in law 338-05 and 338-06 The grandparents could not have registered the birth. Only the parents could have done so.
Your conclusions are plain wrong.
I am not sure if logistics would allowed them to know of BHO’s Kenyan birth so fast. Mail would take weeks and intercontinental phone calls would be costly.
I agree with you. In fact, I found what may be the smoking gun: an authentic (Obama’s?) Kenya BC!
I’m afraid it is you who can’t be taken seriously.
The only people who have deemed the long form or the short form forgeries are the same people from whom you have gleaned the rest of your misinformation. Do you not tire of being so wrong? I’d say you are batting about .000 here.
‘Suspect anomalies’? – just another Quixotic attempt by a birther to turn a molehill into a mountain. What can’t be taken seriously is the idea that President Obama was not born at Kapiolani hospital – their website contains a letter from the POTUS stating he was born there and a staff member confirmed that President Obama was born there to a radio host who called the hospital. All you are doing is making serious allegations for which you lack any sort of evidence (let alone evidence which would be sufficient in any official proceeding) – do you think that is ethical?
So, if it turns out that this girl has a unique serial number on her birth certificate–one that she does not share with Obama or anyone else–would that convince you that Obama did not co-opt her birth certificate? Or would that just be further evidence of a cover-up?
I sure hope her family slammed the door in the face of the amoral nitwits who approached them about this.
Trans-Atlantic telephone service did not begin until December, 1961. The cost was astronomical. A cable price would have been out of reach for them, also.
Just as I thought, there is no plausible way that the grandparents could have known in 4 days.
And anyway the form would have had to be filled out and turned in by one of the parents IN PERSON.
stop insulting Retired Intelligence Officers, is not a good tging for you to spout make believe stories, the issue of where Obama was born is over don’t you know.
Retired Intelligence Officer,
I’ll grant you this: you’ve stayed completely on-topic… 😉
Wel congrats, you are the cartoon of the day again:
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/05/15/cartoon_of_the_day.html
There is quite a bit of evidence that President Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital: His birth certificate places him there, and is signed by the MD. The document was filed soon after his birth, allowing his name to be published in contemporaneous newspaper announcements.
All this in the span of a week or so… And you suggest that all this was faked somehow? There is no evidence that Obama’s birth certificate is linked to anyone else’s. There is no evidence that his parents visited Kenya before his birth and his father’s immigration records as well as the school attendance records show his father in Hawaii until August 8th.
I do admire the possibility of your scenario but you really should do more in the area of plausibility…
The mistake most birthers make is beginning with a presumption of guilt rather than a presumption of innocence. The President doesn’t have to prove where he was born. His political opponents have to prove that he wasn’t born at Kapi’olani. I can’t imagine a judge wouldn’t take an official publication published by Kapi’olani in which the President states that Kapi’olani is “the place of my birth” as official confirmation under HIPAA confidentiality regulations.
Also, an attending physician on the staff at Kapi’olani, Dr. David Sinclair, signed Barack Hussein Obama II’s Certificate of Live Birth.
Those who challenge the President’s eligibility are going to have to present proof that he was born somewhere else. Thus far, they have been unable to do that in the four plus years since Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the presidency.
Now “this is interesting”… Bob…
I would find it surprising if ‘Retired Intelligence Officer’ hadn’t posted here before under a different alias…
I’ve suspected we’ve seen this troll before too… maybe Doc C. can check the records…
From my Army days I can tell you that in military terms, “Intelligence Officer” is one who gathers intelligence, not one who has it.
Retired Intelligence Officer is no longer even gathering it…. since he’s retired.
Charles Curtis, VP, was born in Kansas Territory.
Birthers don’t care about the white guys.
Not to be nitpicky, but Barry Goldwater and Charles Curtis were never Presidents. On that count she was technically correct.
Like George Romney, born in Mexico to a polygamist family, who ran in 1968.
Romney was a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in 1968. While initially a front-runner, he proved an ineffective campaigner, and fell behind Richard Nixon in polls. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney
Yes, but Goldwater, Curtis and Romney were never the object of the vitriol spewed at Obama. And no one screamed that Romney’s father was a polygamist. Look at the mud thrown at BHO Sr, Ann Dunham and Frank Marshall Davis, and compare that to George Romney’s parents.
There is no indication that Retired Intelligence Officer has ever posted here under any other name.
We have a copy of “the form” so there is no need to speculate about it.
Exactly which “computer graphics expert” has given their professional opinion that the recently-released long form birth certificate is a forgery?
I think any reasonable person would conclude that Kapi’olani Hospital has confirmed Obama was born there twice. Maybe they didn’t say the magic words you are looking for, but I’m sure an intelligence officer would have some sophistication in dealing with sources and could see pretty clearly that Kapi’olani has confirmed.
Thanks for letting us know.
Some of the writing sure seems to fit a pattern I’ve seen before, though… then again, birthers are known for just cribbing off of each other and repeating near verbatum…
I’m sure that an “intelligence officer” is trained not to let their personal bias color their reading of intelligence. True conclusions have to come from facts.
I am extremely troubled by your use of the word “probably” because such a word implies that one thing is more likely than another. Now, the only thing I know in favor of your theory is the personal bias that a birther has that makes everything potentially bad about Barack Obama more probable than anything good. The fact is that the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper stated that birth announcements came through the Hawaii Newspaper Service from the Health Department. Further, CNN interviewed a long-time newspaperman from Honolulu so said that there was no avenue through which a private individual could submit such announcements.
So I’m afraid your remark is irresponsible. Irresponsible, misleading and false statements are not welcome here.
Your speculation is contradicted by the evidence. A certified copy of the original Birth Certificate has been issued by the Department of Health and released by President Obama. Now I know you have bought the stories of some cranks on the Internet who claim the birth certificate is a forgery, but there is only so much one can do to try to convince someone who is committed to another version of the truth.
I would add that the statute in force in 1961 requires the parents to register an unattended birth. A third party could only register a birth on the disability of the parents, and there was no such disability. I don’t think “they are out of the country” would quite make it.
He was reborn there? 😉 (j/k)
Is your information from here?
Could Obama’s 1961 birth announcement in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin be a fake? Some conspiracy theorists say yes. Longtime Honolulu newspaper reporter Dan Nakaso says no.
“It’s not possible,” Nakaso said. “Under the system that existed back then, there was no avenue for people to submit information that way. … The information came directly from the state Department of Health.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/25/birthers.obama.hawaii/
Dan Nakaso appears to have been in college in 1979 (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dan-nakaso/4/57/720); maybe he was an older student but not likely. I don’t know how he could be aware of the system back then, except by hearsay. Could he be relying on information from Will Hoover, who also relies on hearsay from someone who was not around in 1961 either?
See below:
“Advertiser columnist and former Star-Bulletin managing editor Dave Shapiro was not at either paper in 1961, but he remembers how the birth notices process worked years later when both papers were jointly operated by the Hawaii Newspaper Agency — which no longer exists.
“Those were listings that came over from the state Department of Health,” he said. “They would send the same thing to both papers.”
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Nov/09/ln/hawaii811090361.html
Strong circumstantial evidence is believable, but it is circumstantial nonetheless.
Hahahahahahaha
That may be the dumbest thing a so-called “intelligence” officer ever said. What kind of estate would a one day old have that they would need to go through probate.
And it is a fact that the birth announcements were placed by the DOH not the relatives. This has been confirmed by both the DOH and the newspapers.
Now you are just embarrassing yourself.
Birther sees straw. Birther grabs straw. Sad.
Also, all the announcements are identical in format and information given. That is what a state agency would do. Ads placed by families would be individualized.
Anyway, with the long form released, surely the newspaper ads are irrelevant. He was born at kapi’olani Hospital. Dr Sinclair was in attendance. These are NOT circumstantial evidence but facts as well documented as anything in the historical record of humankind.
With all due respect to your religious beliefs, charo (or anyone else’s), the circumstances of Obama’s birth are documented with orders of magnitude more certitude than those of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Buddha or Krishna or any of the other personages in which billions believe. And certainly more exactly than any other living human that I am aware of.
Bet you calling Barack Obama’s birth certificate genuine ‘circumstantial’ too
Fact is grasshopper.Obamas granny could not have phoned in the birth announcement. It was against the law. and if she somehow did it would not be in the space taken by the DOH announcements but in with the private ads. AND its just corroborating evidence to the 2 birth certs we have seen and lots of testimony.
All you have is innuendo. which is evidence for nothing.
We also know that the Advertiser announcements were published under the label “Health Bureau Statistics / Birth, Marriages, Deaths” — in other words, the newspaper itself specified that the information came FROM the “Health Bureau”. This is a separate and different category than listings that some papers carry for private announcements, such as wedding announcements, birth announcements placed by family members, etc. (Which typically begin with words such as, “John and Mary Smith announce the birth of their son” and often include the names of other relatives, such as grandparents and siblings).
Back before the internet, it was standard practice for notices of vital records to be published in local print newspapers “of record”. No one would doubt that the information came from the agencies involved in keeping those records.
A large number of typical Birther “arguments” tends to be based on sheer ignorance. The belief that a parent or grandparent could place a notice in the paper in the section devoted to vital records is but one example of such ignorance.
Y’all,
He was born in Hawaii. (Scientist, as soon as I scanned your comment and saw religion, I didn’t read it and won’t). There is nothing wrong with pointing out that the evidence in the CNN report was circumstantial. That doesn’t mean it is inaccurate. Juries convict all the time, and rightly, on circumstantial evidence.
Is your faith so frail that it can’t stand being challenged?
So let me summarize what this blog post just said.
Birthers just don’t care about facts.
And in other news, the sun will reportedly rise in the east.
This is not the appropriate thread. If you are interested in a civil debate on religion, we could take it to an open thread sometime.
There is also evidence that BHO was born in Hawaii. The only way circumstantial evidence is really considered is when there is no other evidence. Try again.
Try what again? The CNN investigation used circumstantial evidence. That doesn’t mean there isn’t other evidence. I think it is wrong to quote CNN as the final arbiter of the birth announcement issue.
To be clear, my point wasn’t about religion at all. It is simply this: The circumstances of Obama’s birth are better documented than those for any historical figure i can think of.
And you are totally innocent of any jab? Okay, I’ll believe you so that I am following the example of Jesus, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and the Savior of the World. 😉
Again, the newspapers do not mention where the baby was born. Use logic.
The baby was born in somewhere in Hawaii (which still makes him Natural Born. There is no feasible way that they would have gotten this info from Kenya in four days. (remember this is 1961)
Then who is the final arbiter? I don’t think there is one, that’s why birther’s stay around. they know how to play the circle (I will ll give them that).
ABC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC should never be taken verbatim. that’s my 2cents.
I still can’t get a birther to point out the U.S. law or part of the Constitution that demands a hospital birth or attending physician in order to be eligible for the office of President.
That would eliminate most of our Presidents from eligibility.
You mean my birth could be on there? Wow! I never knew hawai’in papers ran a world wide service announcing babies from every country in the world!
Juries are also instructed that they can properly draw inferences from circumstantial evidence based on logic and reason.
It is reasonable and logical to believe that birth announcements which are identically formatted and published under the title “Health Bureau Statistics” come directly from the agency.
It is also reasonable and logical to believe that if two separate newpapers have the same listings, formatted similarly and published in the same order, that they received their listings from the same source.
So the question isn’t whether or not the evidence of a newspaper announcement is “circumstantial” — but whether or not there exists any evidence to the contrary. That is, what evidence do birthers have that it would even have been possible in 1961 for the Dunham’s to place an announcement in the Hawaii news papers, and have it appear in the specific sections where other birth records are printed? So far, the answer to that is -0 — so we are weighing very strong “circumstantial” evidence against zero.
But I would add to that the fact that the newspaper announcements probably can be admitted into court as a recognized exception to the hearsay rule, meaning that they would be probably be considered as direct rather than circumstantial evidence. (Federal Rules of Evidence 803, exceptions 9. 16 & 17 — you might be interested in reading the comments about these exceptions at http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/ACRule803.htm as to why that publication would be deemed reliable and admissible).
I constantly hear birthers stating that Madelyn Dunham worked at the Probate Office. Is there any evidence at all for this claim, or is it just another birther meme?
We would certainly appreciate it if you would do just that.
I’m wondering if “Retired Intelligence Officer” is the guy who believed “Curveball”.
You forgot this one.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html
“Such vital statistics, however, were not sent to the newspapers by the general public but by the Health Department, which received the information directly from hospitals, Okubo said.”
No, I said plainly as a fact, the birth announcements do not say where a baby is born. Look at Baracks announcement. It lists a address of the parents (which they didn’t live there) but doesn’t say where he was born.
Yes, in 1961 the Hawaiian Dept of Health accepted mail in registrations for births that would initiate a vital record.
Thats a VERY good question, I had a look at her artickle on wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madelyn_Dunham
“The Dunhams then moved to Honolulu, Hawaii, where Stanley found a better furniture store opportunity, and Madelyn started working at the Bank of Hawaii in 1960 and was promoted to be one of the first female bank vice presidents in 1970.[2]”
The footnote source is a link to some newspaper announcements.
So as it happens his grandmother had nothing to do with the Dept of health at all.
Take to another blog. Debates on religion are off topic on this blog. But you’d be wasting your time anyway, as the rapture is set for next Saturday, May 21.
The birth certificate says precisely where and when Barack Obama was born. Those are established facts. End of story.
NEXT…
They don’t have too, as the DOH told us that the announcements were based on information given to the DOH by hospitals.
“Such vital statistics, however, were not sent to the newspapers by the general public but by the Health Department, which received the information directly from hospitals, Okubo said.”
Janice Okubo is an official spokesperson for the DOH. Notice, she didn’t say received information from relatives.
You just made that up.
According to this story, she started working in the escrow department at the Bank of Hawaii in 1960. She remained at the bank until she retired in 1986.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Mar/30/ln/hawaii803300356.html
I have no idea where the story about her working in the “probate office” comes from. One would think that a retired intelligence officer would be scrupulous about confirming his or her sources, but apparently not.
Gotcha.
Under what Hawai’ian statute and what circumstances is this true? I believe that you just made that up – If you agree, don’t provide a link to the law which shows that mail-in registrations are allowed and under what circumstances they are accepted. If you can’t provide such a link (to Hawai’ian law, not a birther site) then the only intellectually honest thing left for you to do is apologize for your error.
I hate to stun you, but I used my parents address as my home address all the years I was in college, even though I was living 100 miles away.
And stunningly the point was that that all the paper announcements concern births that happened in Hawai’i.
And its a pity His birth cert says he was born in kaapiolani.
No, they didn’t. If you want to say something like that, prove me wrong.
Even if that were true, an initiated vital record would not be given a certification number, the DOH has already said that the numbers are assigned at the end of the process.
RIO,
If you had a website and someone repeatedly posted bald-faced lies that they had apparently made up out of whole cloth and refused to defend, what would you do?
This is an exerpt from Act 96, at least one of the laws which governed the registration of births in hawai’i in 1961
” ..All applications shall be by sworn petition, in which the party shall set forth circumstantially all the facts upon which his application rests, and shall be accompanied by sworn affidavits of witnesses. The Secretary and such persons as he may designate and appoint may examine, under oath, any applicant or person cognizant of the facts regarding any application and for that purpose he and they are hereby authorized and empowered to administer oaths, subpoena and compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books and papers…”
Not only expensive, but also with limited capacity. When I was in the Philippines in 1967, if we wanted to make a telephone call to the U.S. we had to reserve a 15-minute slot a week in advance. The calls were then routed through Manila.
When USS Forrestal had a devastating fire in July, 1967, the crew members had to send telegrams home from the Philippines because there were only about a dozen phone lines available for calls. The telegrams were inexpensive because they were sent by military message to Stockton, California, where they were forwarded to Western Union to be converted into real telegrams.
I figured that, but I didn’t to respond him…I almost had an aneurysm.
From 1956 to 1978 there were 36-48 transatlantic channels available between Newfoundland and Scotland…..for everyone. I doubt all channels were available to the public. Seems you were better off writing a letter.
Transpacific cable did not start till 1964…so that is off the table.
“TRANSPAC-1 (TPC-1) was opened in 1964. It connected Hawaii, Guam, Japan, The Philippines, Hong Kong and Vietnam. It had a capacity of 142 channels. TRANSPAC-1 was part of the network that supported the Apollo 11 moon landing mission in 1969.”
If you don’t believe in the moon landing, feel free to correct me.
oops, forgot my source
http://atlantic-cable.com/Cables/1964TPC-1/index.htm
The LFBC also shows the same address as appears in the newspaper announcements.
Why would a pesky fact be significant to a birther?
Folks, you owe to yourselves to check out a post in a birther thread over at FreeRepublic.com.
The thread is entitled: “Political Prisoner LTC Lakin Setup (sic) and railroaded by USURPER Obama’s Network of FogBow Obots.”
An anti-birther regular poster at FreeRepublic who goes by “Texas Con-Man” has created a character and a portrait of “Thurston Fogbow Obots III Esq.” that is not to be missed! 😉
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2719831/posts
Haha a link to tracy’s new video. [Personal attack deleted. Doc.] lady is saying in her next video she’s going to out full names of “obots” and their place of employment. It reminds me of the 90s when they “outed” abortion providers including where they went to church and where their kids went to school. We all know how that turned out.
I love reminding [Personal attack deleted. Doc.] birthers like Tracy that General David Petraeus is leaving the US military and going to work for President Obama as his Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Would General Petraeus work for a “usurper,” “traitor,” “communist,” “Marxist,” “socialist,” “Muslim?” I don’t think so.
Charo, he didn’t attack religion in his comment, but then again, because you made such a snap judgement to not even read it, you don’t even realize that. You shoudn’t be so thin skinned.
I have been unable to locate an objective source for this assertion; it always tracks back to birther blogs. The birthers — because they simply copy and paste one another as sources — typically state something along the line of “It’s interesting that his grandmother was a volunteer at the Oahu Circuit Court probate department and may have had access to the Social … ” blah blah blah. The actual name of the court is NOT the Oahu Circuit Court, and probate is NOT a “department” so those are among the many tell tale signs that birthers used the anal extraction method to source this.
Funny stuff!
I also noted that even for a cesspool of RW crazy such as Freeperville, the majority of the comments there were overwhelmingly AGAINST Lakin.
Blue Falcon’s deserve very little sympathy.
What’s interesting is a INS memo recently released on Barack Obama’s father in August 1961 lists the address as 1482 Alencastre St and on the birth certificate, it lists the address at 6085 Kalanianaole St. This memo is dated Aug 31, 1961. Obama’s mother was supposedly already attending classes in Seattle Washington. Also, Now evidence from his ‘Alien Registration Card’ gives his birth date as 6-18-34 which would have made him 27 years old at the time of Obama’s birth instead of 25 years old on his sons ‘alleged’ birth certificate.
Something is not right with this nativity story.
Image:
http://radiopatriot.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/obamadoc1.jpg?w=576&h=611&h=611
Eureka! I found the source, and it does not aide the birthers.
An article about the strong and constant influence of Madelyn Dunham on her grandson appeared in an AP article published by The Kansan.com on August 28, 2008. Here is the operative paragraph:
“Over the years she’s worked for various charitable organizations. She did volunteer at the local library, as well as the Oahu Circuit Court, where she served as a court observer, probate aide and arbitrator for the Juvenile Monetary Restitution Program.
“A demanding, sharp and feisty woman,” laughs Chief Clerk Naomi Komenaka, who supervised Dunham in the program and remembers her bringing a tough but grandmotherly style to the task. “I used to think, ’I don’t know who’s the supervisor here — me or her.”
http://www.thekansan.com/news/x1311851415/-Toot-Obama-grandmother-a-force-that-shaped-him
NOTE THAT MRS. DUNHAM’S ROLE WAS AS AN AIDE AND ARBITOR FOR THE JUVENILE MONETARY RESTITUTION PROGRAM. In other words, she had nothing to do with probate estates of the deceased, rather, her work was in the arena commonly referred to as “restorative justice programs” — programs which provide offenders (in her work, juvenile offenders) the opportunity or encouragement to take responsibility for repairing the harm they caused.
In this capacity, Madelyn Dunham did not have access to SSNs of deceased persons.
Tracy cannot even get FReepers to take her seriously. The only one batshit enough to swallow it is The Dentist.
As usual, the comments are the gems:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0513/Number-of-birthers-is-declining-recent-polls-show
It’s just a memo, nothing official. could have been made by anyone.
For a “Retired Intelligence Officer” you certainly seem to be falling down on the information gathering tasks. If you had done your homework, you would know that (1) Ann Dunham was taking correspondence courses at the University of Washington (it’s on the released grade sheet) and (2) that Obama Sr gave 1934 and 1936 birth dates on various INS documents. (And you would also know that Ann Dunham was listed in 1961 in the Polk city directory as living at 6085 Kalanianaole St.)
Take a look at this comprehensive report:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/when-was-obamas-daddy-born/
and compare it to the inadequate research you present to us here. My report is accurate, complete and reliable.
Excellent find, GJD! That makes so much more sense than volunteering in the actual probate office.
Actually, if you look at the context, you will see that Madelyn’s volunteer work began after she retired in 1986:
So basically by the time she quit her day job and had time for volunteering, her grandson had already finished college and was working as a community organizer in Chicago.
Never the less, do you agree that Obama’s father lied about his birth?
She could have know somebody who did. Do you agree with that possibility?
I wonder if there’s an error and it’s probation aide, not probate aide. Looking at the Juvenile Monetary Restitution Program, probation would make more sense. Probate aide would seem to require a law degree. Dunham was a bank VP, but it was of the Escrow Department.
“”She was the Grande Dame of escrow who started the local escrow association.”
Also seems to support that the volunteer work was after retirement:
“In retirement, Dunham devoted herself to community service, Soetoro-Ng said. Stanley Dunham died in 1992 at the age of 73. Madelyn Dunham worked for various nonprofit groups and public libraries and volunteered at Circuit Court, such as serving as court mediator, Soetoro-Ng said.”
Source.
This line of discussion is silly. Social Security numbers of deceased persons are public information. EVERYBODY has access to them. Just type in Obama’s SSN in the death index lookup available on many web sites, and verify that his doesn’t belong to any dead person.
The evidence strongly suggests that he did. However, this has no impact on the authenticity of Obama Jr.’s birth certificate. Obama Sr. was not the informant.
An excellent line of reasoning, and I’m happy to tell you why:
Yesterday, the doorman of my building was told by the freight elevator operator, that there was a mugging at the corner. So when he saw me take my dog, an Afghan hound, out for her final walk for the night, he told me to head in the opposite direction. Fortunately, I took his advice, and we came back without any incident, except for the time she peed on the right front tire of a Bentley.
Kudos!
No, I do not. But keep spewing those birther talking points, ya hear?
Cripes on toast! Well, of course Borderraven shows up there. But I’m not familiar with Birther “Leilani26” who’s spamming the heck out of the comments there with all the long debunked birther lies.
Coulda/woulda/shoulda
You can build just about any fallacy you want with coulda/woulda/shoulda…. but don’t leave it in direct sunlight
No. You could have someone you know who created a false SSN. See I could make assumptions that aren’t based on reality as well.
> She could have know somebody who did. Do you agree with that possibility?
You could be a North Korean agent like many other birthers. Do you agree with that possibility?
Magic M I find that interesting.
All it takes is the filing of an affidavit in some random lawsuit and Voila!, there is evidence that RIO is a North Korean agent.
Or Iran. Many birthers have been demanding an overthrow of our democratically elected President. They favor a theocracy just like Iran.
They also seem to think the laws of other nations supersede the sovereignty of the U.S. over the citizenship status of its own people. They can’t be Americans.
Like Huckabee, who has several theories about Obama.
Indeed, it appears that Obama Sr may not have been fully forthcoming about his DOB. Your point? Dr C brought this up already
I’m curious. Can anyone explain why the Hawaii Democratic Party left out the Constitutional eiligibility wording on their OCON form for Obama when Gore and Kerry had the eligibility wording contained in their OCON forms? If anyone can answer I would greatly appreciate it. I asked this the other day and no one seemed to have a answer for this.
Because it was added by the National Committee of the Democratic Party. If you look at the DNC’s 2000, 2004 filings, it is clear that for the past several elections, the DNC have been confused by the requirements for the OCON. For Vice-President Gore, someone typed the Constitutional phrase in, for Senator Kerry they left it off. For President Obama they added it back. In 2008, The DNC had it and the HDP left it off. Obviously they are still confused about whether it is the responsiblity of the DNC or the state party to certify the candidates for national elections.
Can you explain how any of that has anything to do, whatsoever, with Obama’s eligibility? Explain without resorting to wild speculation, that is.
Remember primary candidates in several states (we have shown Arizona and Arkansas on a previous thread) have to file affidavits swearing to their eligibility. So Obama had already attested to the fact that he was eligible at least a year before.
Absolutely wrong pertaining to Hawaii. You have to understand that Gore and Kerry’s Hawaii OCON form had the wording as requested by law this:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are [legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution] and are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national Democratic Parties by balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held in.”
Obamas omitted the Constitutional wording and said this:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States (Obama and Biden) are legally qualified to serve under the provision of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held on February 19th, 2008 in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 27, 2008 in Denver, Colorado.”
So apparently Hawaii never legally certified him eligible under the Constitution as state law requires.
Here is what the law says:
Hawaiian Revised Statute 11-113 (c)(1)(B) requires that this statement must explicitly state that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution in order for the Hawaiian Elections Commission and the Chief Elections Officer to be able to approve the candidate for ballot placement. Specifically, the wording of each party’s Hawaiian OCON must adhere to the requirements of HRS §11-113 (c)(1); Presidential Ballots, which states:
(c) All candidates for president and vice president of the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under the following procedures:…
…(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:
(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;
(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;
(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.
Obviously, Obama clearly did not meet the requirement of HRS 11-113 (c)(1)(B)
But the DNC OCON for Hawaii did have the Constitutional eligibility clause. The Hawaii statute does not say who has to certify the candidate.
Because the DNC selects the candidate in their national convention, it makes sense that they would certify the candidiate meeting the Constitutioanl requirements.
There are two groups that can certifiy a candidate the DNC (Democratic National Committee) and the HDP (Hawaii democratic Party). In 2008 they decide to let the DNC certify the candidates for national office.
They both say “legally quallified to serve”. For President and VP that means natural born citizens, 35 or older and 14 years residency (however that might be defined). Those are the legal qualifiications, along with winning the election. There are no others.
Now that I have addressed your foolish issue, will you FINALLY provide some proof of intelligence?
Everybody has access to that information now, but the information wasn’t easily obtainable in 1961 or during the mid-seventies.
Also, the Social Security Death Index does not include everyone. Some deaths, particularly those of deceased people who have no dependents and never have collected Social Security benefits, are never reported to the Social Security Administration. And for many years self-employed individuals were not eligible for Social Security and never bothered to obtain a SSN. My father was a self-employed physician who was born in 1912. He didn’t obtain a SSN until he was 48 years old. My mother didn’t obtain a SSN until she was 53.
It’s also possible that Obama Sr. did not know his actual date of birth. Not that it matters.
Nope. Hawaii law is clear but a review of the Democratic National Committee’s applications for Obama reveals a shocking irregularity in the composition of its Official Certification of Nomination sent to Hawaii. The DPH, chaired by Brian Schatz, refused to include legally required language, per HRS 11-113 (c)(1)(B), within the state party’s Official Certification of Nomination stating that Obama was Constitutionally eligible to serve as President. The omission of this language within the DPH’s 2008 OCON of Obama’s candidacy is not a mistake or an oversight. It was done intentionally and with full understanding of Brian Schatz that the Hawaiian CEO, Kevin Cronin, would not be legally permitted to approve Barack Obama as a candidate on the Hawaiian presidential ballot. So in other words, the Democrat Party of Hawaii refused to acknowledge that Barack Obama was legally qualified to serve as president under the provisions of U.S. Constitution and, therefore, the DPH refused to provide legal certification allowing the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer to approve the placement of Barack Obama on the presidential ballot
Can you back that up with any evidence? or are you just making this up as you go along?
I need more than just your word on this also.
You are not a lawyer too, are you? You don;’t practise in Hawaii, do you? It is up to Hawaii officials to interpret the law.
Yet, Barack Obama was on the ballot in Hawaii and won their electoral votes. The Republicans did not challenge either of those. Therefore, you are wrong.
Did the Republicans challenge? I believe they did not. Therefoore, the interpretation
If they had actual, credible evidence and rational explanations, they wouldn’t be birthers.
And the Electoral College voted for Obama and Congress approved his election, this curing any deficiencies such as Hawaii failing to properly certify him per Hawaiian law. By the way, the Constitution trumps Hawaiian law. Oh, and PPS, you birthers are notoriously bad at statutory interpretation, what with your 0-76 court record. Therefore, you don’t get to quote statutes and give your personal interpretation and expect to be believed. Until you cite a court case saying the exact same thing, any gloss you put on Hawaiian law is, in this lawyer’s mind, 100% false!
Neither, he’s copying and pasting, verbatim from another website, which you can see by googling the name of the Chief elections officer. Of course, that website also has no evidence of any of their allegations.
Greg isn’t it interesting (if I may use that word) that a retired something or other and a`disbarred lawyer come here and tell us that Hawaiian statutes are crystal clear and can ONLY be interpreted the way they say, and how they know better about the laws of Hawaii than the AG, the Secretary of State, the Governor and the legislators?
RIO plagiarized from this site, or the site it quotes:
http://grendelreport.posterous.com/dem-party-ocon-docs-show-fake-hawaii-certific
Quote:
“Can you back that up with any evidence? or are you just making this up as you go along?”
Considering the amount of BS posted by (Pretend) RIO, I would guess the former is correct.
That’s no good. I hope there is a warning for outright plagiarism. Could be bannable.
You know that Electors from each state to certify the nomination of their candidates and verify their legal qualifications to serve under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. or do you?
Hey, RIO, were there any objections to Obama’s election raised on the floor of the House or Senate?
Look up the “waiver” doctrine. Any technical flaws in Obama’s Hawaiian certification papers had to be addressed BEFORE the election, and certainly BEFORE the election was certified!
Even if you were right, those issues were WAIVED!
They were unaware because the documents were released around a year ago.
Oh, I missed the part of the Constitution that said an electionwas certified UNLESS the Congress didn’t do it’s due diligence and missed a technical flaw in one of the state’s nomination papers.
Mind quoting me that amendment?
I know that opposing candidates would have had standing to challenge the placement of an unqualified candidate on the ballot. In Hawaii, in addition to John McCain, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin and Cynthia McKinney were on the ballot and no challenges were filed. Therefore, the result stands amd your interpretation of the law is without merit.
I know that in baseball, if there is a close play at the plate, the manager whose team had the call go afainst them will come out and argue. If he doesn’t, I accept that the umpire called it correctly/ You are not a manager, a player, or a league official. You are just a loudmouth in the bleachers who was in the bathroom when the play happened. Therefore, your opinion is without value.
Nice and apt metaphor.
With all the copying and recopying of birther material, it’s hard to tell where anything originates, but I think this actually comes from the Daily Pen.
http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/01/o-con-had-legal-help-from-non-partisan.html
No obvious copyright notice.
If you’d continued reading HRS 11-113, RIO, you would have found section (e):
It’s now May 17, 2011, more than five days after Obama was found eligible for the ballot in Hawaii.
Do you agree that it is more than five days after Obama was found eligible for the ballot in Hawaii?
Even if Hawaii’s law didn’t foreclose your long-late attempt to invalidate their election, the fact that the US Constitution gives Congress the sole power to certify the election, and Congress the only method to object to the election in the 12th and 20th Amendments. No objections were raised, therefore the issue, which could have been investigated years ago, was waived.
Obama won with 365 electors, to McCain’s 173. Take away Hawaii’s four electors, and Obama still wins. As we’ve shown before, Obama swore in other states that he was a natural born citizen.
You’re straining at gnats, RIO. You’re straining at gnats years after the ship has sailed by Hawaiian law. You’re straining at gnats years after the doors have been closed to you by the US Constitution.
WRONG.
One of the earliest Obama eligibility lawsuits challenging the President’s natural born citizen status was filed by Philip Berg and heard in federal court on August 21, 2008. That was well before the general election and the Joint Session of Congress held to certify Obama’s Electoral College votes was convened on January 8, 2009.
Barack Obama had posted a copy of his Certification of Live Birth on his “Fight the Smears” page in April of 2008. The issues were definitely in the public consciousness.
These documents were not aware of during the Berg case. I said they were released last year, That’s when the people became aware of these OCON forms and Brian Shatz not certifying Obama. Read the article from Pen Johannsen posted above.
They could have been obtained in 2008. In fact, a candidate must be challenged within five days after his eligibility has been determined by the Chief Election Officer. In fact, from my personal experience, these sorts of papers are easily obtainable by showing up at the Elections Office and asking for them!
Again I ask….. what does this have to do with Obama’s eligibility.
At best you have evidence of a clerical error for which the DNC might have to answer. It has nothing at all to do with Obama’s eligibility.
Please provide some reason why this is at all relevant to Obama. Again, without wild speculation.
Are your questions purely rhetorical or just satirical?
I’ve noticed you don’t respond to answers to your questions nor do you oblige any of those who respond with any answers to their questions.
Why is that?
You are still wrong and continue to be wrong. The DNC did certifiy that President Obama was Constitutional eligible to be President. The fact that you do not understand hawaii law does not change that fact.
Because he knows he is wrong and he has no answers for that fact.
So where is the form that Hawaii certified him as Constitutionally eligible?
Why are you asking us? go to the source.
RIO, better yet, produce the Form Number.
Here are both the HDP and the DNC OCONs.
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hawaii-response.pdf
Here is Hawaii statute §11-113
“c) All candidates for president and vice president of the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under either of the following procedures:
(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:
(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;
(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;
(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.”
You have a statement signed by the appropriate official that both candidates meet the Constitutional requirements per §11-113 (c) 1 (B).
You have statements from both the National and State parties that both candidates are the duly chosen candidates per §11-113 (c) 1 (C).
Nowhere in the statute does it say you need more then one certification saying that the candidates meet the Constitutional eligibility or that the OCON has to come from the state party.
And here is the thing, per §11-113 (d), “(d) Each applicant and the candidates named, shall be notified in writing of the applicant’s or candidate’s eligibility or disqualification for placement on the ballot not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth business day after filing.”
This is a requirement for the Hawaii chief election officer. So since the President’s name was listed on the ballot, the chief election officer, obviously had no problem with their filings.
Nope. I was arguing with people over those OCON forms in 2009.
Excellent question. After a lengthy internet search, I found the form here.
> Here are both the HDP and the DNC OCONs.
> http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hawaii-response.pdf
This must be one of the biggest birfer absurdities – to claim that because the HDP paper does not say “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the US Constitution” (as the DNC paper says), that must be part of “something nefarious”.
And birfers even turn this into “the DNC never claimed him to be Constitutionally eligible”.
Again they want confirmations of confirmations of confirmations. And woe to the one who only once writes “Obama” without adding “(legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the US Constitution)” immediately thereafter! He must be hiding something!
gorefan answered your question.
Why do you keep posting questions if you’re not interested in the responses?
Why do you refuse to extend the same courtesy that posters here have given by answering their questions posed to you?
Are you at a loss for answers?
Please explain.
s/b by NOTanswering their questions posed to you?
I’ve had a copy of the documents since February 23, 2009.
That file directory is fairly conclusive proof that the documents were published on the Internet in December of 2008, before Congress certified the election.
It’s a pretty horrible place to make such a giant typographical error. Neither person who signed it, read it. It’s one of the very few points that the birthers make that has any basis in truth.
Hawaii could have kicked it back for correction before putting him on the ballot, but they didn’t. (My bet is that Kevin Cronin or Joseph Sandler didn’t really read it either, either when accepting it in the first place or when making this response.)
It’s a typo but it’s not evidence of a crime.
No they couldn’t. Their rules say that the candidate needs the nomination of A political party, not two. There’s nothing missing — no “typographical error” – that I can see in the DNC paperwork.
The birthers are simply grasping at straws. The look for any tiny thing they can latch onto, even a speck of dirt on a photocopy, to support their specious claims and irrational arguments. If it wasn’t one thing it would be another.
There is an entire line missing from the memo signed by Brian Schatz and Lynne Matusou.
I don’t think it has any real significance, since the DNC memo would take precedence in any real challenge, but there *is* a very serious error that shows that two people signed the document and had it notarized without actually reading it. Like I said, this is one of the very few bits of truth to come out of the whole birther movement.
I understand that, but it’s irrelevant because that certification was redundant..
My point is that if there had not been a problem with that certification, the birthers would simply hunt for some other supposed “anomaly” even if they had to make one up.
Look at what has happened with the Department of Health statements — on multiple occasions, statements have been issued confirming Obama’s Hawaiian birth, but each time the birthers managed to parse out the language to deny the confirmation.