Please see update at the end of the article.
The latest big story among the birthers is a comment by Reggie Love, former body man to Barack Obama.
The American Thinker web site (see Ugly list at the bottom of the page) has an article based on a YouTube video, the original of which has been been removed, but copies remain (the birth certificate stuff starts at 7:45). The gist of the story is that Obama told Love about “finding” his birth certificate, saying that this version of the source of the long form birth certificate differs from the White House story of obtaining it from the Hawaii Department of Health two days before it was released.
That interpretation of events is obvious nonsense. In context, one cannot tell when the certificate was found in the Love story. The certificate that Obama’s attorney showed the White House Press Corps was dated April 25 of 2011 and obviously was not something he “found” among family papers, or could have found.
You can listen to the excerpted video linked above. Here’s a transcript I made (repeated words omitted):
Love: I remember when he found, he finally found his birth certificate.
Interviewer: It took a little too long.
Love: Well, hey, you come from — your parents don’t live together. They travel all over the world. Documents get lost. And so he wanted to just like have like an impromptu press conference, to just walk in to the press briefing room in the White House and just like put the birth certificate down on the podium. And everyone was like, “that’s a really bad idea.” But he was really gung-ho about doing it he because he was so irritated about it.
The American Thinker surmises that this certificate Obama found is the same one released in April of 2011, and that a fake story of it being issued by the State of Hawaii was created to give it credibility. We have no information as when Obama told Love about finding the Certificate. Love’s remarks were made after the certificate’s release to the Press.
You will pardon me, but I have just been reading about JFK assassination conspiracy theories and about the “single bullet hypothesis” accepted by the Warren Commission. The American Thinker is putting forward a “single certificate hypothesis.”
There is a much more benign and plausible explanation of the statement of Reggie Love, the “two certificate hypothesis.” It goes this way: Obama indeed did find his birth certificate, possibly the very one he mentioned in his book Dreams from My Father (page 26), sometime after becoming President. So why not show this certificate rather than get a fresh one from the State of Hawaii. I can think of two reasonable alternatives:
1) The found certificate was not an official state certificate, but a souvenir from the hospital. Hospitals give out such things, but they are not official.
2) Obama’s attorney advised publishing a certificate with a chain of custody–issued by the State of Hawaii, personally delivered to Obama’s attorney, and hand carried from Hawaii back to Washington. I like this second alternative because it explains why it was hand carried rather than sent by an express service.
Considering that the Hawaii Department of Health said specifically:
On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.
I find my simple explanation far more likely than The American Thinker version that requires a big conspiracy and lots of people in Hawaii and Washington telling lies. And of course it is also possible the Love just got some details wrong, assuming that the certificate had been found, when in fact it was not.
We may have to wait for the Obama Presidential Library to see this yet undisclosed certificate if it exists.
Update: New information published in the book Double Down: Game Change 2012, adds considerable further detail on the finding of the birth certificate. What the President found was a hospital souvenir booklet described:
a small, four-paneled paper booklet…. On the front was an ink drawing of Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, in Honolulu. On the back was a picture of a Hawaiian queen. On one inside page were his name, his mother’s name, and his date of birth; on the other were his infant footprints.
WND has the video — look for the article “Will Reggie Love’s loose lips sink Obama’s ship?” I’m going to refrain from linking directly to the article.
The BC talk starts at 7:43. The American Thinker transcript you quote is accurate, minus a bit of byplay from the interviewer, and segues into the “The Hill” quote, which is also accurate.
My take? Simply, Love was just not aware of the details on where the BC came from. He thought Obama “found” it rather than working with HDOH to obtain a new copy. The evidence for this, as you say, would be: Obama clearly got a new copy from HDOH.
Of course the simple explanation is the most likely……in the real world.
It’s kinda like the explanation for why I wasn’t the next Clark Gable. Either I can’t act or it’s George Soros’ fault.
I have an old photostat of my birth certificate with a seal and certification on it that was issued in the early 50’s but when I tried to use it for something in the 80’s or 90’s – maybe my passport – they said they needed a current certified copy.
My take on this story: Reggie Love inserted some things as “facts” that he actually didn’t have personal knowledge of, filling in holes in his personal knowledge with his best guess about what actually happened. People do this all the time, often without even realizing it. It seems to me entirely reasonable that he might assume that the birth certificate released on April 27, 2011 was the version Obama already had. And, since I live in the reality-based world, I have no problem believing that this birth certificate issue was not a topic that people in the White House wasted much time on. It seems reasonable that Reggie would have only limited personal knowledge of such a trivial bullshit issue.
This reminds me of the Obama staffer who said that Obama ordered his COLB in 2008, when we know from the issue date that it was ordered in 2007.
Nothing to see here.
If I had the need to show my birth certificate to anyone, it wouldn’t be my original birth certificate which was issued a few days after I was born. That certificate is signed by the local registrar, but it does not have a seal, raised or otherwise, and would not be accepted today.
It’s possible that Obama did find a real state-issued birth certificate, but one without a raised seal.
I am one of those people inclined to never engage the nonsense of a unaccountable blog with comment because it is beneath the dignity of intellectual discourse to do so. But, in this one, rare case, after reading your post I was prompted to respond when confronted with the blatant failure on your part to acknowledge some important “therefores”.
In your lazy explanation of Reggie Love’s account of Obama’s birth certificate (and your misquote of the interview between Love and the interviewer), and subsequently, the .pdf image of an alleged official vital record, you guess, (in promotion of a conspiracy between Obama, his lawyers and the state of Hawaii, I might add) that several individuals convened into a “chain of custody” schema designed to preemptively address, which did not exist at that time, that Obama’s birth certificate might be called a forgery someday. Your delusions, while simultaneously presenting arguments against conspiracy theories which do not favor Obama, promote equally stupid conspiracies conjured to make excuses in favor of Obama. You can see that your theory looks somewhat paranoid, right?
Here’s just one example. While you choose to swallow whole everything you have been told about the birth certificate by Obama and those who adore him, you make an astonishing leap into the following conjecture:
For the sake of argument, let us agree that Obama, himself, did, in fact, provide a self-written request to the HDOH for an official copy of his original birth certificate, (a document which, despite birth to parents who resided in Hawaii in 1965, looks nothing like mine). And, as a result of that request, let’s agree that someone working for the HDOH perused through the archives, located Obama’s document bound within a book of thousands of other birth certificates, took that entire book to a copier, (the left margin of the image implies this is what was done to produce Obama’s doc), then placed it upon a carefully spliced piece of safety paper cut precisely to fit the page and reveal the left binding through a ‘window’ cut in the safety paper, but obscure the state seal, secretary of state signature and natal statistics at the bottom, even while integrating flawlessly and seamlessly with the hatch pattern of the body of the image along the top, right and bottom.
Then, they took two paper copies and stamped them with Alvin’s grammatically obscure, smiley face signature stamp in the bottom margin, placed the copies in an envelope(s) we should have confidence was sealed and handed off to someone claiming to be acting on behalf of Obama. (or did the HDOH turn the copies into .pdf images at the vital statistics office?) Your “chain of custody” conspiracy theory gets complicated at this point.
Here’s where your “chain of custody” conspiracy begins to fall apart. When the reps returned with alleged certified copies of Obama’s original birth certificate, did they give them to someone other than Obama? Who else must we now infer was a part of your “chain of custody” conspiracy theory? Certainly, you don’t believe Obama received them himself and posted them to WH.gov, right? Chain of custody is important to know in this case, right? Or, did the lawyers produce the .pdf images themselves, then post one of them to the WH.gov site? Who did they hand them off to? What was the name of the person who took those copies and turned them into a .pdf image? Who then posted the .pdf image? Chain of custody, right?
You give reasonable account up until the plane lands in Washington D.C. some time after April 25, but then, you just become a bungling idiot lacking the capability to go to the next logical level of inquisition. You appear afraid to ask the hard questions about Obama’s birth certificate image. All of which you claim to be feasible is derived from what you have been told happened by Obama and his horde of degenerate media dregs. Decent, reasonable people of faith know this.
You never provide credible evidence or attachment to any explanatory merit about how, or who, a .pdf image of an alleged official vital record found its way onto a government controlled, tax funded media source as the sole piece of information about the identity of the individual claiming to be president. You tote the chain of custody conspiracy as long as that chain of custody supports your narrow motives, but when hard truths become inconvenient and psychologically painful, you abandon it.
Who all was involved in the chain of custody and what did they do with this document image leading up to its presentation to the American people? Simple question to ask.
Not once have you ever been able to reconcile this void of truth with fact, or theory, in the reasonable mind.
Given your indentured reputation as a refuter of conspiracies against Obama, you look more and more like a conspiracist FOR Obama than ever. Perhaps the truth will someday render hypocrites of us all, but until that day of judgment comes, the least you could do is give the appearance that you are not one already.
If you are not a bald face liar, you are, quite simply, the most willingly ignorant tool for flourishing deception I have ever come upon on the internet. Truly pathetic.
Huh? It was copied *onto* security paper. No need to “cut precisely” anything. The entire sheet of paper it was copied onto had the security pattern (instead of being a plain white paper). How hard is that to understand?
Again, if you look at the Guthrie picture, you will see there is a “THE” with a slightly smugded “H”, not a “TXE” as it might appear in the PDF’s low resolution.
And the “smiley face” is just pareidolia.
You do have a point here, just not the one you think you have.
I never understood the efforts of a “chain of custody” either, given that conspiracy believers will never be convinced of anything and at least one party of the central chain of custody (Obama’s lawyer) could always be claimed to be “in on it”.
Without the existing chain of custody, what would a sane person have thought? That someone at the post office played switcheroo with the BC?
However, Colin, the chain of custody is one point where your conspiracy theory fails Occam’s Razor and birther inner logic. You see, birthers believe that someday “any day now” the whole conspiracy theory will fall apart, at which point Obama would have to have plausible deniability (“I had no idea, my parents lied to me, I don’t know who on my team forged my BC”). But if they had wanted to do this, *not* using a chain of custody would’ve given them a myriad of ways to claim they were not involved (up to and including “someone at the post office switched documents”).
So you see how your own logic does not hold up at this point.
That has already happened with regard to you. Your security paper “argument” alone shows you miss the most obvious things in your ODS delusion.
H’mmmmm, based on the volume of and lack of coherent comment, does one detect a Mario the Putz…?
What an astonishingly rude attack from Mr. Foote. Rather than ask simple questions, he barges in with insults and accusations — an affront to reasonable intellectual discourse.
Doc C and the regular posters here have spent hundreds of hours researching and analyzing pretty much every aspect of President Obama’s eligibility. None of us blindly accept anything. Some of us aren’t even political supporters of the president.
Some polite points:
No one in Hawaii made the PDF. Someone at the White House copied one of the 2 paper certificates from Hawaii, and emailed it to one of the web developers to upload. Does it matter who at the WH did that?
Obama did send a letter to Loretta Fuddy asking for 2 certified copies of his original birth certificate. No need to assume that. The Hawaii DOH has posted it and her reply on their official web site.
What does your 1965 Hawaii birth certificate look like? Hawaii has used several different layouts over the years. All of the ones from 1961 that have appeared on the web look like Obama’s. We have seen some from as early as 1978 with a different look.
The original birth records are on white paper, not security paper. The original records don’t have a seal. The raised seal and the current registrar’s signature stamp are applied to the certificate once the record is copied onto security paper.
Since many birthers had claimed that the COLB that Obama posted online in 2008 was forged, it was entirely reasonable to assume that birthers would also claim that the long form was forged. As it turned out, that prediction was correct. Several of the more prominent birthers said they knew it was a fake without even seeing it.
Decent, reasonable people of faith? That describes many of Us anti-birthers.
Out of your entire tirade, I’m interested in this comment you made (quoted above).
What are “decent, reasonable people OF FAITH”?
Faith in what? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China????
Why should the opinion of “people of faith” should be more significant or relevant in this case? As opposed to what? The opinion of atheists? Of non-decent and/or non-reasonable people of faith???
I’d be tempted to argue that you can’t be both a “people of faith” and “reasonable” since, despite Blaise Pascal’s well-reasoned efforts, “faith” stands at the opposite of “reason”.
I’m curious as to why you felt it necessary to drag faith in this issue?
Ever heard of the reduce and center setting on a modern multifunction machine? I suppose not.
Sigh.
There is nothing worse than a faux intellectual taking up crazy conspiracy theories trying to pretend to not be a goof ball.
BTW, the same settings also let you set the original size to whatever you wish.. that would explain things being cropped to what the operator wanted to be visible.
I agree. In fact, I did a ‘net search, and found this Kenya BC. Fireworks!
Hey, Obama, read it and weep: http://tinyurl.com/phwo85h
Colin Foot’s prolix response to this blog entry employs a classic rhetorical tactic from the creationist movement dating back to at least the 1960s. In that version, emphasis is placed on the “gaps in fossil record” to insist that (for example) there could be no evolution from reptiles to birds since no intermediate forms are known that fill the “gap.” When an intermediate form is found (for example Archeopteryx) the goal posts move to “Aha!! Now you have two gaps! One from reptiles to Archeopteryx, and one from Archeopteryx to modern birds.” In this way, creationists progressively split the difference, never acknowledging that the existence of Archeopteryx is evidence for the transition.
Mr. Foot tries to assert here that the “chain of custody” explanation is absurd because at some point along the journey of the birth certificate from the Hawaii DoH to the Whitehouse, it was scanned into the PDF that has since been the subject of birther perseveration. In point of fact, Mr. Foots’ own assertion is a demonstration that the Whitehouse’s concern over that chain of custody was legitimate. His rejection of its effectiveness casts him in the same role of the creationist proclaiming scientists have multiplied rather than filled the gaps in the fossil record.
Let’s remember why the process of “certification” was invented in the first place. It was to establish provenance for official documents. The simple presence of the signature and seal are designed to establish the legal presumption of authenticity for the document in question. We do not require clerks at the DMV or employees at the Post Office to be forensic document experts, we instead require them to only accept as authentic those documents that bear the appropriate certifying characteristics. From the purely legal perspective, those details alone establish provenance regardless of any intervening chain of custody.
By April of 2011, birthers had become a known quantity. Their rejection of the COLB three years earlier (even after the examination by Factcheck) proved that the legal standard was not “good enough” for them. Further, Mr. Foot is objectively wrong when he asserts that the effort to establish a chain of custody was “designed to preemptively address (an objection), which did not exist at that time, that Obama’s birth certificate might be called a forgery someday.”
In truth, President Obama’s long form birth certificate had been preemptively declared a forgery by birthers sight unseen as early as April of 2009 when it was claimed that “They (Obama’s people) have already prepared the forgery with special paper and ink. The document was printed on a fully functional 1960 Heidelberger printing press located at a print museum in Toronto. Access was arranged by a trustee of the museum who is connected to a large Canadian banking/investment firm with major US interests.”
There is little doubt that the President’s team knew better than to imagine that all birthers would be convinced by a strong chain of custody, and Mr. Foot’s post is proof that they were correct. As my father used to say, “You can’t make anything idiot proof, because idiots are so ingenious.” The chain of custody was not meant for the fraction that the President acknowledged at the time would still not be convinced… would never be convinced. It was meant merely to incrementally move the line further towards the fringe between those who would finally accept that Obama was born in Hawaii and those who never would regardless of the evidence. Mr. Foot resides in that fringe of the unconvincible.
It is of no genuine concern that he doesn’t buy it, since it was not meant for him. He is of the class of birthers that were written off as unreachable a long, long time ago; “people of faith.” It is not evidence, or reason, or any standard of proof that will ever satisfy “people of faith” since none of those was relevant to their convictions in the first place.
A perfect example of inserting one’s Foote into one’s mouth.
FIFY
As my step-father – עליו השלום – used to say, “If you argue with a fool, make sure you’re not doing the same thing.”
Historian Richard Hofstadter described conspiracy thinking as “the paranoid style” and if there is any paranoia here, it is those who attribute Obama’s birth certificate to some massive conspiracy theory.
You assert that I misquote the interview, even though I copied it and pasted it from two sources. So what is the misquote? Where is your source? If I were accusing someone of misquoting an interview, I would make it my business to provide specifics. You don’t seem to be much into specifics.
The narrative that you disparage is taken not from an attempt to prop up the birth certificate but from the Hawaii Department of Health’s own published account of the chain of event and the statements of Obama’s attorney Robert Bauer made to the press before the announcement from President Obama.
Some of your statements are odd to the point that I question whether they make sense on any level–I certainly can’t make sense out of them. I have not seen any argument that stands up to examination that indicates that the Obama PDF birth certificate is inconsistent with the published narrative, none at all. You allude to “hard questions” but don’t say what they are. There are no hard questions. The narrative is straightforward and everything fits.
Your comment is sophistry.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
That’s probably true, and it does appear that Love used his own ideas in at least one place. Still, the most straightforward reading of the interview is that Obama did find his old birth certificate at some point, wanted to release it, but was persuaded to wait.
It is certainly plausible that Love just got it wrong, that there was only one birth certificate, the one issued by Hawaii on April 25, 2013. Love could have shared the common misconception that you only get one original birth certificate when you’re born and anything you get later is some kind of a copy. Actually, all birth certificates are certified copies.
This article has been updated with a link to the elusive video. It doesn’t add anything new to the discussion.
I really don’t see where you get this. The certificate is simply copied onto the safety paper. There’s no window. Apparently the certificate is reduced in size (there is scaling information in the PDF).
There is no state seal or secretary of state signature on the original. Seals are to certify copies and not originals. Secretaries of State don’t sign birth certificates in Hawaii at all.
It is possible that a strip of paper obscures natal statistics at the bottom. My own birth certificate which is an image printed on safety paper shows just a small strip of the tops of some letters from that section. The masking of such things was done by the Hawaii Department of Health for decades (see the Nordyke twins certificates for a good example).
You assert that your birth certificate from 1965 looks nothing like Obama’s. That could be. The forms of birth certificates change over time. However, the Obama certificate is very much like the Nordyke certificates from 1961, and the certificate that Jerome Corsi called “authentic” in his WND article. Perhaps your birth certificate is the fake. In any case, your argument is a fake.
Well that would certainly explain the 882 words that followed.
Kind’a snooty ain’t he.
Other comments by “Colin Foote”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/04/not-my-problem/#comment-264272
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/06/zullo-tries-to-pull-off-a-fast-one-on-sheriffs/#comment-270771
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/06/zullo-tries-to-pull-off-a-fast-one-on-sheriffs/#comment-270808
So why are you posting this, your fourth comment, on this site?
Other comments by “Colin Foote”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/04/not-my-problem/#comment-264272
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/06/zullo-tries-to-pull-off-a-fast-one-on-sheriffs/#comment-270771
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/06/zullo-tries-to-pull-off-a-fast-one-on-sheriffs/#comment-270808
Your condescending remark about “beneath the dignity of intellectual discourse” doesn’t quite ring true, now does it?
In the first linked comment above, Foote says in his painfully turgid style, that arguing against the birthers actually hastens birtherism becoming a consensus view. He doesn’t argue this–he just claims it.
The other theme of note is the word “paranoid,” used in the comment above and twice here. Foote should remember his audience. Regular commenters here are not inflicted by self-doubt that could be aggravated by the use of the word “paranoid” and they are well past such rhetorical trickery. Perhaps Foote gets off on condescension, but it falls flat here. I can tell the difference between real intellect and affected intellect. Colin Foote is all big words and small ideas.
Beyond the fact that Hawaii verifies the information on the certificate, which fact ends all discussion of chain of custody conspiracy before it even begins, we arrive at the fact that it was Judith Corley, Obama’s personal attorney, who picked up the certificates.
His personal attorney. Not a government employee, not a government lawyer. An attorney representing him personally, just as your personal attorney, if you have one, would represent you.
Any shenanigans thus fall on the head of his personal attorney, who in your hypothetical scenario would need to be an unwitting dupe of some kind or acting on instructions from her client or going AWOL on her client, for her own purposes or some clandestine group’s purposes.
Once his personal attorney has it, you might as well just say he did it. Or, alternatively, there is some conspiracy he himself knows nothing about, to trick him too, not just everyone else, into believing he was born in Hawaii.
The only imaginary plausible deniability here would be for the President to say his personal attorney went AWOL or was a dupe of some other conspiratorial forces he has nothing to do with.
So would you like to review and specify your *exact* concerns with the chain of custody?
And have you published your past concerns over Mitt Romney’s chain of custody somewhere? Or John McCain’s chain of custody? Or Sarah Palin’s, for that matter? Just so we can see how incredibly thorough and professional you are in your concerns?
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2011/04/perkins-coie-judith-corley-got-obamas-birth-certificate.html
You can tell you’re dealing with one of these folks by the second sentence of their message…..at the latest.
I’m always fascinated that someone so smart, so superior, doesn’t have more important things to occupy his time.
As it regards his turgidity it appears Mr. Foote missed this warning on his Viagra prescriptions:
“In the rare event of an erection lasting more than four hours, seek immediate medical help to avoid long-term injury.”
I was a Cameron Crazy when Reggie Love played basketball (and football) for Duke (he was a defensive specialist and fan favorite) and, as a result of that “connection”, I remained a fan of his when he became President Obama’s body man. This also made the birthers attempts to use Reggie in their baseless and disgusting smears against the president all the more vile to me. It saddens me that the birthers are once again using this fine young man as a vehicle for their hatriot drivel.
Here is just one example of how wrong Foote is. I don’t believe anything about the LFBC because Obama or his admirers said so. I believe it because the HDOH said so, it is on their website, and they have issued three Verifications.
Mr. Footes point that there is more information below the last box (23), may be correct.
Look at the PDF, the curved page ends abruptly but IMO the original form does not end at the line art that makes up the bottom of box 23. There may only be a margin but I think the original page is longer.
I think the BC image is cropped along with being shrunk in size on the copier. Maybe the DOH copier has a preview feature that allows them to crop the image. The copier glass may be large enough to put the entire bound volume on the copier and then preview it and then crop and print. Almost like anyone can do on a home scanner.
While there is little doubt that fact is true, there’s no sign that Mr. Foote is aware of that prosaic explanation for this ordinary detail.
ROTFL.. We do not ‘swallow anything’ we look for the best explanation given the data. And we know that the DOH received a letter requesting a long form birth certificate. We do know that the DOH of HI provided two copies of the long form birth certificate, properly certified and with the requisite seal.
We do know that the documents were shown at the press conference, and at least one person managed to take a picture of the document.
Similarly, we know that copies were provided of the documents to the press corps and that Applewhite took photographs of them, and uploaded both the LFBC and COLD “B&W” copies to the AP, soon after the press conference had started.
We know how a simple work flow can create the artifacts seen in President Obama’s PDF.
So we have a pretty coherent story. As to the ‘chain of custody’ of the documents, we know that the DOH has verified the document on the White House server. Again, there are no inconsistencies once properly understood.
Then there are some who claim that somehow, somewhere, sometimes, somebody did something to somehow cause the birth certificate to be altered, created, destroyed, manipulated, but somehow they lack any supporting evidence beyond pure speculation or just clearly wrong claims (PDF artifacts).
It’s ignoring the coherent story, the search for minor issues people do not fully understand that leads one to the ‘god of the gaps’ argument from ignorance like explanations.
In the mean time, common sense, logic and reason have been fully set aside.
It is clear that the original was reduced in size during the copying process. Ignorance of details can often cause one to make foolish conclusions.
Well, as you might assume, I do believe that there is some validity to Foote’s comments.
Andi, it is emphazied by the attacks on the poster, instead of on the comments he made
Of course the BC was copied somewhere before being exposed to the public. no doubt about that is there,
And if it was copied somewhere it might have been altered, note, the word might in there!
And if it was copied and altered by cropping, editing, or photoshopping, no matter what, it is not a certified copy of the original but a copy of the certified copy, which has no value at all.
And, of course , birthers and anti-birthers always use the explanation that supports their position, right?
There are no differences between birthers and anti-birthers in their desire to use what supports their postion.
just an aside, how do you know that Obama paid the attorney who picked up the information for the services and the travel expenses.
Heck he was out there the week his grandmother died and could have picked it up for $10, or so.
How in the world do we KNOW all of that stuff.
Applewhite took the pictures? I though that the pictures showed her holding the documents and not her taking pictures of it.
And you believe reporters?
The same way we know that you are a willfully ignorant, dishonest birther troll Helen. A little reasoning ability and a modicum of objectivity.
Helen,
All of his points have been debunked many times in the articles and comments here. Mr. Foote-in-mouth is not going to listen to anyone who rebuts his nonsensical garbage if he even returns at all (I’m guessing he was a drive-by troll rather than a concern troll like yourself) so why should anyone waste their time addressing more discredited memes that the birthers just wont let die?
Helen,
If what you believe is true—that a massive conspiracy hid the truth about President Obama’s birth in order to elevate an ineligible person to the office of POTUS—, then why aren’t you and all of the other birthers currently in a FEMA re-education camp somewhere watching movies of the president growing up with Clockwork Orange-style eye clamps on?
I’m just asking questions…
Not really no. Only in the loosest sense to show he asked for it, and they gave it. And even in that sense, only to appease the nutters. In reality, chain of custody is irrelevant here. It’s an official state document with an official state seal on it. For any legal purpose, that is sufficient. The “Chain of custody” is just window dressing for the media to gobble up.
The rest of your word salad and bizzaro world conspiracy theory assumptions really aren’t worth addressing either.
But thanks for playing.
Why am I not surprised? You tend to believe many other genuinely silly things.
As the saying goes, if you don’t want to be ridiculed, don’t say ridiculous things (and who’s Andi?)
So?
Again, so what? Space aliens from the planet Zenon might have time traveled and inserted it in Hawaii public records too. Note the word might in there. “Might” is nothing more than the creation of your overactive imagination. It is not evidence, nor is it even a probability.
Not exactly sure what in God’s name you are claiming was actually copied, but there is no evidence any croppping, editing or photoshopping of the certified record provided by the state of Hawaii. The only thing that matters is the paper copy issued by the state of Hawaii.
Actually none of the “explanations” really matter at all. All that matter is that the state of Hawaii has issued certificates and verified (on multiple occassions) the data on those certificates. Everything else is just an irrelevant detail that has no importance what-so-ever.
Except that anti-birthers deal with facts, and birthers work with conjecture, rumours, outright lies, and of course character attacks on the dead who are unable to defend themselves.
Does it really matter? Does not paying his attorney suddenly make the birth certificate invalid? You do know that most firms take on clients such as the President for the prestige, and don’t actually expect to be paid for it?
And living up to true birther form, let’s just dig up the dead people out for a quick drag through the mud. Don’t you think perhaps he was a little busy at the time? First off, his grandmother was dying. I tend to think he was a little busy at the time trying say his good byes. Secondly, it was in the last weeks before his campaign, so time was precious. Thirdly, why would he? Birthers weren’t even on the radar for 99% of the people at that point. There really weren’t any questions about his birth certificate at that point. And fourthly, no, he couldn’t. He had to ask for a waiver to get the long form. He had no reason to ask for back in 2008. Why would he get a waiver?
Whether or not he paid his attorney is irrelevant. What is relevant is she picked it up. We know, first and foremost, because Hawaii tells us so.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/Birth_Certificate_Request.PDF
Actually… no. You see, there is the Registrar’s certification right on the copy which reads:
“I certify that this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health.”
It is that certification (and accompanying seal) that establishes the presumption of authenticity for the information on the document. It can be a photocopy, a computer printout, or in the not too distant past a typed or handwritten statement. Under the law, its value is equal to that of the original still resident in the bound volume in Honolulu.
I see Helen of Troll is back.
Helen of Troll!! I like it. Very good.
You may be right, as the copy may be just a copy of a fake document!
the copy might be better than the original in that case!
Bustamante Xlll willl solve that problem
Here is a great photo for your enjoyment: Posterized!
Wars may be waged to get RID of “her”.
Helen of troll is posting on various threads without being willing to tell us how she determined McCain and Palin were natural born citizens. She voted for them.
We all know why. Helen is a lying racist troll.
And so much time is being expended on “her” because……? We are bored? Cuz Orly is boring? Cuz the birther movement is dead and we need something to do?
Yes. Yes. Yes.