Rep. Barny Frank
In a stunning surprise yesterday (May 25, 2010), Democratic Congressman Barny Frank demanded to see the birth certificate. Speaking to reporters, whom he said should “do your job”, Frank questioned the documentation of newly-elected newly elected Rep. Charles Djou (R-Hawaii). Reported in The Washington Scene: The Hill.
I guess it’s payback time.
Here’s a really freaky poll I just found. According to this, 1/3 if those who believe Obama was born outside of the US like him and think he is doing a good job. So, do any of our wonderful birther visitors fall into that category? Come on, you can tell me; I promise I won’t tell Orly.
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/poll-half-birthers-call-suspicion-approve-obama/story?id=10576748
And if these people still believe he’s doing a good job in 2012, then presumably they will vote for him. After all, there is a solid rationale that a good foreign-born President is much better for the country than a crappy one born here. To that I say, BRAVO!!!
OH! The Irony!
Hilarious!
I expect there is a significant fraction of U.S. residents who think HI is a foreign country.
I found this on the Internet:
For more, visit Lame Cherry’s blog.
Thanks for sharing, but I think I’ll avoid the diseased cesspool that is Lame Cherry’s blog, thank you.
Talk about taking the cake in irony & hypocrisy!
Lame Cherry’s rants are some of the most disgusting displays of hatred towards Obama & others, particulary in some of “it’s” birther-based rants….so for LC to claim offense by this obvious comedic quip is….well…beyond words.
Naturally the birfoons have been all over this from the other angle as well; this guy is usually particularly vile, and he doesn’t veer from his usual dreadful standard: http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/barney-frank-wants-to-see-rep-djous-birth-certificate-what-about-barack-hussein-obamas/
The way your republic is going, I expect togas to come back in fashion any time.
Yeah, like Rand Paul.
Yuck! We are regressing. Two steps forward with Obama, and one step back with
Gerald LK SmithRand Paul.Who says they ever went out of fashion?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9JYq-mXprw&feature=related
I love ANIMAL HOUSE! And Belushi always was my favorite comedian on Saturday Night live. Good times.
If I recall correctly, at the end of the film, there’s a shot showing that he’ll eventually come Senator Blutarski. This is meant to be funny.
Not so funny today, eh? 🙂
A good post worth reading on Booman’s Tribune, with lots of links to provide food for thought:
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2010/5/26/82228/3034
In a nutshell it is about people who believe that whites are the only “Real Americans.”
Lame Cherry? That idiot? After all of the crap he has posted on his cesspool of a site against the President he has the gall to call Frank out? The hypocrisy is amazing.
I see we are not quite over the name-calling phase. When is this democracy threatening blog going to grow up?
I’m gathering from the posts – you all feel this is a joke or irony?
What happens if Djou produces his long-form that was ACCEPTED and not merely FILED by the registrar and challenges your hero to do the same?
He probably won’t, but oh….THAT would be true irony.
Maybe I’m missing the whole hilarity of it all – I found it quite intriguing, especially given that it was Barney Frank of all people!
Is there an issue with Derek Jeter’s birth certificate?
Scott Brown: challenges your hero to do the same?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
New Flash! Dr. Conspiracy, Hero of Reason,
Sings “Ironic” Version of Bette Milder Song to Scott Brown
So I am the one with all the glory,
While you’re a girl who rants and raves.
You’re posting lies without support,
The only way to vent your pain.
And did you know that you’re a zero,
and everything I’d hate to be?
While I fly higher than an eagle,
you complain beneath my wings.
When asked for her response, Scott Brown refused to respond.
birfoon= threatened by democracy and demorcracy threatening poster
I would be fascinated to see that. Especially since Djou was born in California. 🙂
Definitely a joke.
But since you ask, no matter what Djou produces, it won’t matter. Because there is no issue with the President’s BC, which, as has been repeated a thousand times now, has already been produced. And if Djou starts making an issue of this non-issue, he will sound like an idiot. Which in turn won’t cause him much trouble, because he’s not getting re-elected anyhow. Unless he pulls off a gigantic shift to the left.
I hope that clears up your questions.
Jody, Scott doesn’t usually let something as annoying as facts or the truth get in her way when she posts her usual fictionalized nonsense.
That would explain why Djou’s Hawaiian COLB would only be “FILED” and not “ACCEPTED”.
I think I’m beginning to see a pattern. 🙂
Or, maybe he wouldn’t have a Hawaiian COLB at all.
Or that would explain why DJOU DOESNT HAVE A HAWAIIAN COLB. Being born in CALIFORNIA would not allow him to have a Hawaiian COLB that indicated that he was born in HI. Unlike the 44th President of the United States, who was born in HI and has been able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
If Arizona had passed that birth certificate requirement (which they didn’t) and they required a long form (which they wouldn’t) then the most likely outcome is that the Obama campaign would explain the situation to the Hawaii DoH and they would give him a certified copy of it.
That’s how things work in the normal world.
A key part of maturity is telling the truth, Mrs Brown. When you learn to do that at all, let alone consistently, you can comment on the maturity of others.
In the “normal world” that “certified copy” would have already been provided to all the major media outlets in order to put the “born in Kenya” claims to rest.
It’s really pretty simple; If Obama was born in Kenya, he’s not even a U.S. citizen. Anyone who would find a non-U.S. citizen holding the Office of Commander in Chief to be acceptable cares more about the choice they made than the welfare of their country. The born in Hawaii vs. Born in Kenya issue should have been put to bed from the get-go.
I think natural born citizen is one who is born on the soil, of parents who are citizens -but that is up to reasonable debate.
Debating unsettled law is reasonable. We don’t have anything conclusive in regard to nbc. However, I don’t find it reasonable to leave a question of citizenship unsettled. The ability to file a fraudulent birth report existed. We all know that. Nothing has been presented to relieve that question.
If anyone think the use of fraudulent birth reports is unheard of, I suggest they read “Scope of Soviet activity in the United States. Hearing before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eighty-fourth Congress, second session. (1959)”
Pretty much everything we know about Obama comes from the books where HE decided what he wanted to tell you about himself. Any other questions have been summarily dismissed.
A good start would be for you to stop repeating the lie that there is a difference between a Hawaii COLB that has been registered and one that has been accepted.
The claims have been put to rest. On the one hand, we have statements from the State of Hawaii stating he was born in Hawaii, a pictures of a document that says he was born in Hawaii. On the other hand you have????
You would be wrong, and actually, that is not up to reasonble debate. There is not a single, genuine constitutional scholar that accepts that definition. It is a fringe belief unsupported by any real legal scholarship. If there was any real debate, don’t you think someone besides the brain trust of Tatiz, Appuzzo, and Donfrio would have weighed in? Perhaps a Lawrence Tribe? Perhaps somoen who taught Constitutional law at some law school somewhere?
The way it works, is you, being the party challenging prima facie evidence are supposed to provide evidence that fraud exisited. The proponent of the prima facie evidence does not have to prove the absence of fraud. Nothing has been provided to suggest that it was a fraudulent birth report.
How is that different from any one else? Everyone who runs for president seems to publish a book. All we know abou the early years is what they tell us, and what can be verified from public documents.
Scott Brown:
Noticed you said this blog is anti-democracy ; Also noticed you leaned somewhat to the right, to the side of the birthers. I’ve been browsing around, taking a look at quite a few blogs run by birthers — every single one of them tend to censor opposing viewpoints. This one allows EITHER side to post viewpoints uncensored. Please enlighten me on how this blog is anti-democracy whereas the others are not?
It has been but still…
Some never give up…
Not really by any definition of reasonable as the Courts as well as history have clearly decided that you are wrong.
So wrong…
A document cannot be FILED until AFTER it has been ACCEPTED.
Here’s how it works: If you were to march down to your local county clerk to give them some sort of document — and the clerk was not sure that your document met the legal requirements for FILING — then the clerk might take it and give you copy with a stamp denoting that it had been “RECEIVED” or “ACCEPTED.” But if you were required to “FILE” something — you would know that things weren’t “official” until you were able to get a certified copy of the document marked “FILED.”
IF the COLB indicated that the birth certificate had been “RECEIVED” or “ACCEPTED” on a specific date… then you MIGHT have an argument that you lacked evidence that it was ever FILED, or that you didn’t know the date of FILING.
However, since OBAMA’s COLB includes the notation “Date Filed by Registrar” — we know that it was FILED, and it must have been “ACCEPTED” prior to filing. “FILED” is the culminating act.
No. There are 2 issues:
1. While we know what the statute in place at the time said, we don’t know how courts would have interpreted it. There is no case law for any comparable situation.
2. The validity of Mr Obama and Ms Dunham’s marriage is in doubt due to his prior undissolved marriage. If she was single, then she would have passed on her citizenship without restriction.
There is a better than even chance that the President would be a US citizen even if born outside the US.
WTF: “In the “normal world” that “certified copy” would have already been provided to all the major media outlets in order to put the “born in Kenya” claims to rest.”
Which Obama did. The fact that no major media- including Fox or that truth abherrent WND chose to make the minor amount of effort to review it shows that none of them thought that this was an issue for any sizeable audience.
“Anyone who would find a non-U.S. citizen holding the Office of Commander in Chief to be acceptable cares more about the choice they made than the welfare of their country. The born in Hawaii vs. Born in Kenya issue should have been put to bed from the get-go.”
And the question was answered with the release of his certified birth certificate. The voters were confident that he was born in the United States. The question was put to bed except for a few racists, some rabid obama haters and conspiracy theorists.
“Debating unsettled law is reasonable.”
That is correct. I just don’t know of any unsettled law here regarding President Obama. For at least the last 40 years, NBC was understood by the citizens of the United States to mean someone born in the United States. Again, a few malcontents came up with this theory after the election. Nobody of any gravitas agrees with the ‘two citizen’ parent’ theory.
“If anyone think the use of fraudulent birth reports is unheard of”
If this was your concern, this should have been an issue long before President Obama’s election. And if we can’t rely upon BC’s we have a bigger problem actually than this election- that means that pretty much every identifying document- including my passport- is questionable. A common sense approach is that we assume that a certified BC is correct unless there is evidence- real evidence- to the contrary.
“Pretty much everything we know about Obama comes from the books where HE decided what he wanted to tell you about himself. Any other questions have been summarily dismissed.”
Ummm no- the certified Birth Certificate is a certainly not from him, nor is the Governor of Hawaii saying he was born in Hawaii not from Obama. And the birth announcements in the newspaper. What do we know from other sources? That his supposed father was from Kenya. That his grandmother and grandfather lived in Hawaii, and that she was a bank manager. That his uncle fought in WWII in Europe. That he attended school in Hawaii, and Occidental College. That he went to Harvard Law School, and was head of the law review. That he was a community organizer in Chicago, was a state senator and then a U.S. Senator.
What exactly do you want to know about him that is relevant to his eligiblity that you do not already know? Because I know a hell of a lot more about his background than I ever did about Bush or Clinton.
Well said, Jim Cricket.
Of course, you won’t get a response from Scott Brown. There is no honest debate with that person and the closest thing we’ve gotten were personal stories that turned out to be lies.
You are dealing with someone who posts here with no real intent of dialog or honesty, whose whole purpose is to alternate between pure trolling and concern trolling.
You are totally free to have that belief, as you are also free to believe in fairies or that the moon is made of green cheese. It is, however, not necessary for anyone else in the world to have your belief. The people on this blog have tried to dissuade you & to inform you of how the world really works, but we cannot make you see reason. No one on this blog is going to try to commit you to an insane asylum, nor are we going to buy you any tin foil.
WTF? : “I think natural born citizen is one who is born on the soil, of parents who are citizens -but that is up to reasonable debate”
“Debating unsettled law is reasonable. We don’t have anything conclusive in regard to nbc.”
Yeah that’s what YOU think that NBC is one who born on the soil, of parents who are citizens but the Supreme Court think differently.
We DO have many conclusive cases in regard to “nbc” : Elg, Lynch, Wong Kim, also James
Buchanan, Arthur, Spiro Agnew ( his father was registered as “Alien” in 1920) Romney and Jindal both can run for president, doesn’t ring a bell yet?!
You’ve got things backwards. The mere possibility of fraud always exists — there doesn’t exist any set of documentation or testimony that precludes fraud.
Your approach is guilty until proven innocent — but it goes against the clear settled law of the US.
Obama’s birth is established by the COLB, which is presumed by law to be accurate.
A person could negate the presumption by coming forward with clear and convincing evidence of fraud — for example, the testimony, under oath, of someone who participated in creating a fraudulent document. But absent such evidence, the presumption holds.
Further, legal practice requires that claims of fraud be plead with specificity. So you can’t merely allege “document X was produced by fraud” — you would have to say with some detail exactly what the asserted fraud was.
Nothing unsettled here. Born on US soil means natural born.
As to nothing conclusive, you are wrong, we have President Obama’s COLB which shows him born on US soil.
Now that he has been found qualified, it’s time to move on rather than wallow in self pity and what-ifs.
**If the COLB were submitted to a court without any specificity of evidence, you would be correct. Let’s consider Ron Polland who claims that the COLB is a fraud. The substance of his report has been beaten to the ground but would a judge allow his testimony to be admitted as expert testimony to be cross examined to make a determination that clear and convincing evidence was brought forward? I think it would depend on the judge. (My Cousin Vinnie 🙂 ) That would be a splendid opportunity for someone to officially dissect his report, as has been done on the internet. IMO this is where someone like Sandra Lines, who is unquestionably a forensic expert, would come in to either support the “expert” testimony or deny it after her examination of the COLB. If she (or someone like her) could not support the findings of the report, then the issue is dead for “birthers.”
But this is theoretical until a court case actually proceeds that far.
No, because Dr. Polland is not an expert in digital image analysis by any definition. But in any case, his analysis was based on the theory of a fake digital image, not a fake paper document.
Sandra Lines might testify directly about the paper document’s authenticity, but the only way she would testify about Polland would be at his trial for perjury. (Berg claims that Polland signed one of his affidavits under his own name in Berg v. Obama.)
What kind of experience would one need to qualify as a digital image expert? I know that there have been some online critiques of Pollard’s report but I have no idea of their expertise.
**Duh, I forgot about that. Your second statement then nails why Sandra Lines was unable to give a determination as to authenticity of the electronic COLB.
Even if a case ever got to the discovery phase, it is unlikely that a forensic expert would ever get to testify. To ensure that there was no question about the validity of the COLB, Obama’s attorneys likely would not the produce the COLB which is currently in Obama’s possession. Rather, they would have a new copy sent to court directly by Hawaii’s DOH. The certified document (possibly accompanied by a separate certification affidavit) would not be challengable. And that would be the end of it.
That said, as Doc C. points out Ron Polland would never qualify as a documents expert. Sandra Lines might qualify, but keep in mind that she has never said that Obama’s online COLB is a fake. All she said is that it is impossible to authenticate a document by looking at an online image.
Only a paper COLB with a raised seal would be admissible in a court of law. If a case could ever be framed where the document would be at issue, then either the paper document that was made available to Factcheck for inspection would be produced in court, or a different COLB (with identical information) would be produced. (Obama can always obtain additional COLB’s from the DOH — if I were his attorney and needed to produce hard copy in court, I’d have him send away for a new one).
The quality of the digital image posted online is irrelevant to any court action.
A certified record like the COLB is a self-authenticating document. Ordinarily nothing else needs to be produced. However, if there was any question of forgery or alteration, the proper thing to do would be to subpoena the custodian of records — the same person who signs the certification — into court to attest to the manner of production of the document.
All of the internet hubbub about the digital images is simply a red herring argument that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issues of establishing time and place of birth.
A digital image expert would be totally irrelevant to any court action over the COLB.
Again — the PAPER would be produced in court, and the opinions of two so-called experts who had never actually seen the paper would be irrelevant.
Office procedures and terminology vary between jurisdictions. However, what you may be sure of is that it has been both FILED and ACCEPTED before any certified copy of a birth certificate gets printed.
In a rational world the COLB would have put the “born in Kenya” claims to rest, and any residual doubts that the COLB was a forgery would have been put to rest when the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health issued a press release saying she had examined the records and that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
In fact in a rational world the whole “born in Africa” would have been seen as absurd.
The birther segment of the world, however, is not rational.
?
**The paper is supposed to represent what was electronically released by the campaign. It could be relevant (if someone wants to try to prove fraud to show that if the online COLB is fake, then how is the paper COLB to be trusted?
That is what I would guess the argument to be.
Thanks, Doc. You hold my comments for moderation, then you don’t post them.
Finally, the court won’t accept still shots of two non-experts holding a COLB as proof of evidence for the same reasons some “birthers” won’t.
I am not moderating “your comments.” I am moderating based on certain words that are common to personal attacks and the third-party spam filter is picking out others. Didn’t you get the memo about personal attacks? I delete them.
The two comments of yours that I’ve thrown in the trash start with: “Are you confused or just lying?” It should be fairly obvious why the moderation keyword list picked these and why I hit the [Trash] link.
Doc, Why do you make statements that you know are not supported by fact?
All births are required to be filed with the registrar’s office. If required supporting information is not subsequently submitted, the report will remain filed, but will not be accepted. –You can check with Ohio on this if you wish. They will even provide you with the additional paperwork required for a non-institutional birth.
A certified copy of what was filed, is just that…a certified copy of what was filed.
Fine Doc. I won’t ask if they are confused or just lying. I’ll just assume that they were lying. How’s that?
IF you think asking the question is a personal attack, you’re confused.
I see what you’re getting at, but let me ask you to go read this satirical article of mine first:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/obama-announces-national-natural-born-day/
then think about the what your comment implies in practical terms. A court is the representative of the community, and similarly the news media is the representative of the community. It is simply impractical for everybody to be their own court and investigative reporter. We’d all starve.
That makes no sense.
If someone gave you a dollar, you wouldn’t go online, find this picture — – http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ksyy1jUn4b1qaofkwo1_500.jpg — and then decide that the dollar you were given must be fake.
If you think that is not a personal attack, then you are not acquainted with the English language.
Your other comment with the obscenity has been deleted. I have no desire to ban you. I would rather continue to refute you.
Now Charo, I’m going to call you out on this one. Obviously, all you are trying to do here is make a fallacious cheap shot at the credibility of the factcheck.org report and its images. Why you feel you need to stoop to such a red-herring argument, I don’t know. All I can assume is that you don’t like the results and answers they provide and therefore have some personal wish to discredit them and Obama.
Let’s be reasonable and rational here for a moment. You and I both know darn well that if you are searching for information on the internet, what you are looking at are images that are put up there.
When people with the proper authority to request such documentation (such as a license bureau, etc), they request from you and receive physical certified copies of such documentation and deal with that. When you go there, you present your actual documents to them.
However, if for whatever reason you wanted to share your birth certificate with the world, how would you do that? Would you physically request and mail me and others a copy of your certified birth certificate? No, you wouldn’t. You would scan it in and post it on the internet…and guess what, you would have *shock*…an “image”.
If you wanted to show me pictures of your last family vacation, you would upload them and post them on the internet. Even if you emailed me such directly, you would have to send an image of that photo, regardless of whether it was taken on a digital camera or with a Polaroid, all you do is convert it to an image to send it to me. Say that picture showed you and your family on a beach. Since I only have an “image” from you and not actual sand pouring out of my computer when I look at it, should I immediately doubt your family or the beach exist? After all, they are just images….do you see where this pattern of thinking breaks down easily?
So, go back and please read the very clear and concrete answers already given to you, before you made this glib remark. I’ll help you out and restate two of them:
Thus, your answers have already been clearly stated and I think you fully understand this and what they’ve said. You just don’t like the answer.
Bottom line, in any actual situation that requires seeing the BC, a certified physical copy will be produced and used and such an official certified copy of the HI COLB will fully satisfy any such request – regardless if this comes from the courts, a license bureau, or any other organization with authority and official capacity to request such documentation.
To insinuate or pretend that this would happen otherwise is disingenuous at best and such complaints about “images” are nothing but red-herrings arguments to make up excuses to question fairly straightforward and standard documents and a fairly straightforward and common process for how they are used.
Finally, I would like to go one step further to add to Expelliarmus’s comment I quoted above, just to be clear of how such an event would take place. As the COLB document is self-authenticating, once it is presented in such a matter (as both Rickey & Expelliarmus have explained), the case would most likely end there.
I highly doubt that any “cross-examination” or questioning of its authenticity would even be allowed.
Remember, the burden of proof for any claims to challenge it rests with the accusers and the courts do not allow “fishing expeditions”. Our system of law and courts do not work that way in the real world. Therefore, any accuser would have to have sufficient credible evidence, either in advance or at the time that the document is presented, that would seriously bring the document’s authenticity into question at that time in order to even proceed along *any* line of inquiry or challenge to it. They can’t just whine and stamp their feet and say that they want experts to authenticate it. Such requests without sufficient pre-existing justification to do so would be immediately and easily overruled and the matter would simply be over like that.
Finally, as an aside and response to something else I saw you post above – I wanted to say that “My Cousin Vinny” is a movie that my wife & I love too. 🙂 We can’t help but stop & watch it any time it comes on and we’ve easily seen it 50-100 times.
The fallacy in your response is when you said “A certified copy of what was filed, is just that…a certified copy of what was filed.” You will not get a “certified” copy in Ohio (a state vital records program with which I am quite familiar) until the record is accepted. That is because the state has not verified the information they would be certifying if they printed the certified copy.
It should be obvious on the face of it that neither Ohio, Hawaii, nor any other state is going to print a certified copy of facts which have not passed their administrative procedures, checks and safeguards.
You asked: “Why do you make statements that you know are not supported by fact?” This is hugely ironic because JUST THIS AFTERNOON I received an email from one of the states about the setting of the “Print flag” in their electronic database. There are incredibly complex rules governing when vital records may be printed or not, but out of all of these the most basic principle is you don’t print a record when there are any questions about what it says.
I’ve been working with vital statistics for over 30 years. Don’t expect to impress me by claiming I don’t know the facts.
G,
You are reading too much into things again. I was going with the flow of the comments. An authenticating document can be challenged (I quoted the note following the particular FRE on another thread). It is a matter of the judge making a determination about the evidence. One way MAY be to challenge the COLB that was released online by the campaign. The better way would be for an expert like Sandra Lines to examine it. The plaintiffs are allowed to see the evidence that is going to be submitted. I was being facetious, sure, about the Factcheck comment. But there is a ring of truth to it. The two who vouched for it are certainly not experts.
Yeah, I blend here… 🙂
Goodnite!
“Doc, Why do you make statements that you know are not supported by fact?”
.
the “certified” vs “filed” was put to bed long ago by Hawaii Dept of Health as well as Dr. C. It is being resurfaced by the birthrs to get the paypal pushed. Remember, birthers have large fingers delsigned for pushing paypal buttons..
.
those large finger are on large hands which birthers can use to cover their eyes and ears at the same time when shown facts.
If you are talking about a criminal proceeding by the State of Hawai’i accusing President Obama of producing a fraudulent state document, then the State would just produce a real one and show that it said something different from the one the Obama campaign posted. I’m sure you agree that if the content were the same, the notion of a forgery makes no sense.
Charo,
In answer to the highlighted text of your quote above, I believe I’ve already addressed this in detail, and Dr. C. just did as well:
I think the answer is very clear that if the prosecution would bring up the online document, the defense would respond with providing an actual certified paper copy and other than comparing the two to demonstrate that the info on them was the same, the whole “online” or “image” issues are fully rendered moot at that point.
No further discussion of “images” or such would be relevant at that point. The prosecution would not be allowed to have any “experts” testify towards moot issues of images they saw online at that point. Nor would they be allowed to begin a line of questioning or try to conduct a “fishing expedition” on the actual self-authenticating document itself at that point, without sufficient evidence and cause to warrant such. To date, there has not been a single shred of anything that comes close to being evidence that could be used to question or challenge that self-authenticating COLB, were it to be presented. Therefore, such attempts to challenge it would be objected to and struck down and that would be the end of the case.
In reference to the part of your comment I put in bold above, yes, you most certainly were being facetious in your remarks and that was what I was calling you out on and questioning why you would even need to make such a cheap-shot remark.
Your response was: “But there is a ring of truth to it”. Please explain what you mean, as I am not familiar with any factual evidence to make such a claim.
I did not understand your need to slander their report, nor do I understand what you base your “ring of truth to it” as defense upon and I look forward to getting a more clear explanation of what you mean by that and why.
You tell me that I read too much into your statements, but you haven’t yet given me any other context to go on to understand them.
In trying to ascertain the point you were making, I asked: “Why you feel you need to stoop to such a red-herring argument, I don’t know. All I can assume is that you don’t like the results and answers they provide and therefore have some personal wish to discredit them and Obama.”
Are you saying I’ve misjudged your motives here? Please give me a full, direct and honest response to these questions. You know from experience that I have no problem with being corrected or apologizing if I am wrong, but in order to do so, I need to have a clear understanding of what you mean.
Clarification to Charo:
Oops! The initial part of my post above might not make sense, as the attempt I used to “highlight” part of the text” did not come across, so when I said:
I was intending to reference this portion of your text:
I hope that helps to clarify and make more sense.
I realize you are going to bed & I wish you a good night and I hope that when you are back on here next that you will come back to this thread and give me a full reply to my questions in this post and my previous one.
That’s bull Doc! If a child is born outside of an institution the birth is required to be reported.
Nothing in our laws can force a woman to undergo a gynecological exam to prove that she recently gave birth.
They are not going to send the CSI team to collect evidence of birth.
Therefore the birth is FILED, but it goes no further.
What do you think the child gets for a birth certificate? According to you, it would be nothing. -According to me, it would be a certified copy of what was filed. It would likely indicate that the report was not accepted, but it need not identify the reasons why.
every COLB from Hawaii states “date filed” for quite some time now, so I am curious, what is WTF’s issue with this.. My daughter was born in Hawaii in 1965, her COLB states “date filed”, she got a passport so what is WTF’s problem? He doesn’t like the word “filed” so no one in Hawaii has a valid COLB, that is silly Is it just a silly birther isssue that gets that paypal pushed. Semantics is usually beyond a birthers pay level.
You’re missing the essential point – the online image of the COLB which was released by the campaign is never going to be examined because it is never going to be introduced as evidence. No one from Factcheck.org is going to be testifying about the document which they photographed. Even if one of the birther cases were to get to the discovery stage, the online COLB image is totally irrelevant.
If Obama ever is required to produce his birth certificate in court, his attorneys will simply have Hawaii DOH submit a COLB under seal to the court. The court will look at, it will say that Obama was born in Hawaii. If the plaintiffs somehow were able to convince the court that there is some question about the authenticity of the document, Obama’s attorneys would simply subpoena a custodian of records from Hawaii to testify that the COLB is authentic. End of story.
“Now Charo, I’m going to call you out on this one. Obviously, all you are trying to do here is make a fallacious cheap shot at the credibility of the factcheck.org report and its images. Why you feel you need to stoop to such a red-herring argument, I don’t know. All I can assume is that you don’t like the results and answers they provide and therefore have some personal wish to discredit them and Obama.” (G)
– I said that they are not experts, and they aren’t. That is the truth. Maybe facetious is the wrong word. They themselves didn’t claim expertise (I didn’t mean to imply that), but they are non-experts nonetheless.
“I’m sure you agree that if the content were the same, the notion of a forgery makes no sense.” (Doc C)
I am not disputing that now that I realize what my mistake is. I made it twice tonight grrr. I haven’t read the Polarik (Polland) report so from what you are saying, he is accusing the campaign of digitally changing the image versus paper forgery. (I keep mistakenly thinking that he claimed photos were taken of a fraudulent COLB). It would be very obvious if a forgery occurred. Sandra Lines would not even be needed because the information would either be the same or not. So, yes, my point is moot regarding the online report.
G, I would have no problem with the outcome if the COLB were admitted as a self-authenticating document in court. So far, it hasn’t been. When I argued about the long form on the other thread, it was a matter of principle. I don’t think information should be selectively revealed when there is no backing it up. But we have been there, done that.
“However, if for whatever reason you wanted to share your birth certificate with the world, how would you do that? Would you physically request and mail me and others a copy of your certified birth certificate? No, you wouldn’t. You would scan it in and post it on the internet…and guess what, you would have *shock*…an “image”. (G)
Let’s stick to President Obama’s situation rather than mine. Since Candidate Obama supposedly ordered COLB’s in 2007 for official business, he could have submitted one to an election official and claimed to the reporters that he showed it. He could have said it was submitted to “X” and that could have been verified by asking “X.” It is certainly one way he could have handled it. If he indeed did submit his COLB to an official (which someone here said he could have done), why didn’t Gibbs say that he did when he was asked at the press conference about the birth certificate? If he didn’t submit it to an official, then he’ll have another chance in 2012.
You asked what I would have done. That’s what I would have done.
I will be out of town for a few days, so if you need me to answer further, just let me know, and I’ll get to it (if it still matters) then.
Since you have kindly expressed concern for me, I will tell you reveal some other things to convince you I am here for a distraction rather than an agenda. I like to debate. In the past year, these are things that have happened: (1) I was home alone with two of my children when a drunk kid burst through the front door at 2:00 a.m. (2) Our van died and we had to buy another one. (3) My husband lost his job the next week (where he had been employed for 15 years).
(4) He had a blocked artery the following month, while still looking for work. (5) My dad started going downhill a few months later. He seemed better at Christmas then got worse. (6) He was hospitalized again in February. I drove to see him (he lived 3 hours away) just as a second major snowstorm hit. I had to keep driving back and forth while trying to keep up with home schooling. (7) He eventually died in April, which I told you.
This is the first holiday without him.
I am not here to provide agitprop. It is interesting to comment and read others’ comments.
Charo –
Thank you for your reply and sorry for keeping you away from your sleep! Thank you for all your detailed answers and time to reply, as well as for sharing more about your personal situation. Your responses are very helpful and help clear up misunderstandings, which are so easy to happen, especially in online forums. Unlike several others here, I always find you to be honest and sincere and I always look forward to your posts. And yes, I *do* learn from you and I am very appreciative of that. Good dialog in good faith, particularly between people of different viewpoints, can be beneficial and help both to grow and broaden understanding. Therefore, I say thank you.
On a personal note, let me start by saying that wow…you have had quite a rough past year full of a lot of back-to-back challenges that would definitely test the best of us…all my prayers and well wishes to you and your family and I sincerely hope that you will be blessed with more fortunate days in the weeks, months and years ahead and I can tell that you’ve got the fortitude to hang tough and make it through the tough times.
I do hope that your 3-day weekend is one of a pleasurable nature and I hope you’ll be willing to pop back in here sometime when you return. (Happy Memorial Day weekend to you & your family!)
If I may ask a few personal followups:
1. Was everyone in your family ok after the drunk kid busted in??? How scary! Was he arrested?
2. Is your husband’s health recovering ok and has he been able to find / return to work yet?
Best wishes & have a safe & happy time out of town!
I’ll post a separate reply to give any follow-up comments or questions I have on the rest of your post, so this one isn’t too long.
Thank you for the response & explanation, which makes sense. I agree that they are not “experts” on this. However, I disagree that one needs to be a document expert in order to just do some good old-fashioned reporting.
I would like to point out that not everything in life requires an “expert” for their reporting to be of value or to take them at their word for their findings. I would expect that any of us, if we were handed an official birth certificate document, would be able to understand it for what it was and have a good idea if it seemed “legit” or not. The only final point I want to impress upon here is that there is no good reason or evidence to impugne their integrity nor assume that the document would be fraudulent or anything other than what it appears to be.
If you think about it, it makes very little sense for any public candidate to willingly hand the press or anyone a fictitious document. “Expertise” would only be truly needed if there was significant reason & evidence to suspect it was fraudulent. The supporting facts of both the newspaper birth announcements & that the HI DOH & HI republican governor stand behind it is strong evidence of its authenticity.
He isn’t required to do that – nor was any other candidate, ever.
When a question was raised during the campaign — he did the most obvious logical thing — he told his campaign staff to post a copy of the birth certificate on the internet.
When people still questioned it, he made it available to the press. (It happened that Factcheck.org was the only media group that bothered to show up to examine and photograph the paper — precisely because the rest of the media figured that would be a waste of time.
What election “official” do you think Obama should have selected? Should he have just picked a random secretary of state somewhere?
Why would showing the paper COLB to, say, Secretary of State in South Dakota, serve any purpose other than grandstanding AFTER the head of the Department of Health in Hawaii issued a public statement confirming that Obama was born in Hawaii?
Have you noticed that there are a lot more important things going on in the world right now?
P.S. I’m sorry about your personal, family hardship. I wrote the post above before reading the rest of what you had written.
Fair enough. If you can be reasonably patient & accept that there must be legitimate cause to validate such a document in the court, then you can look forward to the 2012 election cycle. I suspect that will create a legitimate scenario where the COLB is directly challenged and addressed. So, I do think you will eventually have your official answers to this question.
I agree with you completely. Very good point. I too would have done the same. It is true that we cannot say whether he did or did not submit the document to any official and it would have been helpful if Gibbs or someone clearly addressed that specific issue. However, absent of such a direct statement or evidence, we cannot make any assumptions or conjecture on that point one way or another. It is quite clear that Gibbs & others have given all the statements they plan to make on this topic a long time ago and have nothing further to add at this time.
As you pointed out, I’m sure it will come up again in 2012 and I suspect there will be further clarification at that time.
I doubt it, actually. I think the birther movement has already been fully discredited, and will have fully lost steam by then. There will still be issues of jurisdiction and standing in 2012. It’s possible that some state or another will enact a law requiring that candidates submit their birth certificates — and if that is the case then Obama’s COLB will end up attached to some filing with some Secretary of State … but that’s going to be as far as it gets.
There is nothing to “clarify” because there is no plausible basis to doubt the veracity of the COLB.
Desperate to look for “evidence” that supports his beliefs, WTF has focused on a misunderstanding to conclude that there is something nefarious about date filed. What he fails to understand is that date accepted ends the clock, not date filed. File later than 30 days after birth and you become a late filing. (IIRC). It’s just that the date accepted is a more relevant date than date filed.
I noticed in my analysis how more recent COLB’s have date filed and with the new COLB released by birther Miki Booth, which shows date accepted, the issue should have been laid to rest and closed. But some apparently refuse to learn.
Wow! So now the contention appears to be that Stanley Ann Dunham never gave birth at all, that Barack Obama was perhaps the world’s first laboratory-produced human, like MacDuff, “not of woman born”.
Speaking of which, in the light of advances in biotechnology, we need to be prepared to address the NBC status of the following:
-A child cloned from a US citizen donor in a US lab
-A child cloned from a non-US citizen donor in a US lab
-A child cloned from a US citizen donor in a non-US lab
The impression I get from talking to birthers is that the forged COLB issue is all but dead except among the most extreme of that group. When TechDude was exposed as a fraud, a lot of credibility was lost, and when Dr. Polarick was exposed as “nobody special” in terms of image analysis that pretty much killed it. Add to that the official statements from Hawaii. Those that still hold onto the possibility that Obama was born in Africa focus on registration fraud as their only straw to grasp and the “long form” would kill that if it shows (which it inevitably would) that the President was born in a hospital.
That’s exactly what happens. The child gets no birth certificate until it is registered (or in your terms, accepted). I have 30 years experience in the field, and you base your assertion on something which you have so far not disclosed. Would you like to disclose to us now why you think that birth certificates for records not accepted are nonetheless printed?
And finally, perhaps you will delve into Hawaiian law and Health department policy and procedures to show how your particular scenario of a record filed and printed, but not accepted, could apply in Hawaii.
To make the latter request easier, here are all the links you might need:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/hawaiian-vital-statistics-law/
See how much more polite my remark is than “are you confused or lying?”
But I don’t want to grow up I’m a Toys R Us Kid!
“Scott Brown: I see we are not quite over the name-calling phase. When is this democracy threatening blog going to grow up? ”
.
scott, “The Onion” accepts satitre not irony, try again please.
I explained this scenario in my article:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/barack-obama-was-genetically-altered-super-child/
It’s already been proven!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
The founders were way ahead of you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLdEmgmSbso&feature=related
I’ve seen no evidence that the ‘hard core’ birthers will lose interest and anyone on the Presidential ballot in a single state in 2012 should be able to satisfy both the jurisdiction and standing hurdles (personally, I hope it happens because I think that the outrage when the case is settled in President Obama’s favor after a certified copy of the COLB is presented will be very funny).
Charo,
I’m sorry to hear about your losses and hard times – like others here, I hope things turn around for you soon. For what it’s worth, I’ve always found you to be intellectually honest and willing to engage in debate – qualities which I find much more important than whether or not someone agrees with me. Hope you have a great weekend!
Personally, based on how birtherism has acted to date, I have no confidence that any issue is ever “dead” for “true birthers”, except in a zombie like way. How many times already have we seen the same old long-dead & well-debunked arguments resurface time and time again every 3-6 months already?
Although I appreciate your perspective & also that which was expressed by Expelliarmus on the future of birtherism, I’m with Slartibartfast on this one and will echo what he said:
Being fully debunked and having no credibility has no impact on the hard-core birthers, as they are completely untethered from reality or facts.
The whole question is, what percent to the “hard core” birthers represent amongst the total of “birtherism”?
At least 50% is my guess. I’d love to hear everyone else’s thoughts on the matter.
Well, if you listen to the birthers they represent over 50% of the population as a whole…
Dr. Kate has a dream:
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/the-republic-ersus-the-renegades/
I think this story gives an interesting insight into the mindset of hard core birthers.
I’m thinking that conspiracy theories in general seem to have a natural selection process by which people who aren’t hard core tend to drop away as time passes (either they lose interest or fall victim to facts and logic) so as time goes by the movement becomes more and more ideologically pure – I would guess that the ‘hard core’ will number 80-90% of the total by the time the 2012 election rolls around (and is probably upwards of 50% now).
They would still have to plead sufficient facts to state a cause of action, on a state by state basis. I don’t see them getting past first base on that. You have about three possible scenarios:
A. State law does not require any statement of eligibility for inclusion on the ballot. Court rules that challenge is irrelevant, because candidate is not required by law to demonstrate eligibility; that it is a federal, political question left to Congress after the election.
B. State law requires candidates file an affidavit affirming that they are natural born. Court dismisses action because Secretary of State has power to accept affidavit. (It’s a burden of proof thing — you can’t have a situation where every candidate could be forced into court merely on the bare allegation that he “might” be born other than where he states.).
C. Some state passes law requiring submission of birth certificate to get on ballot. Obama submits COLB. Court dismisses lawsuit on grounds that Secretary of State has authority to accept COLB.
Keep in mind that in any one of these scenarios, a lawsuit has to be brought against the Secretary of State, and the standard would be a determination of whether the SOS acted within his/her discretion.
The only way it would get to court would be if there was a combination of a law requiring proof of eligibility and a Secretary of State crazy enough to reject the COLB, forcing Obama’s people to go to court. I am quite confident that Orly Taitz’s chances of getting elected to that office in California are nil, so I think there are pretty slim odds that the issue would ever get framed in a way that would result in a pre-election court decision.
For the “true believers”, no, but I was talking about the casual office water cooler crowd.
In politics there is the problem of “peaking too early”. I expect that by 2012 most people will have long since forgotten this off-the-wall fringe theory & be on to other things which we cannot yet fathom.
“I knew a DeLorean was involved” ROTFLMAO!!!
In most states the process of certification is that a member of the DNC or RNC gives a certification signed by a party official to the SOS (I base this on work done by the birther JBJD
http://jbjd.wordpress.com/
if she spent half the time and energy on something useful as she did on birther nonsense we’d probably have peace in the Middle East, energy independence and a balanced budget by now…). I think that a suit brought against a SOS asking for President Obama to be removed from the ballot could possibly get to the point where a copy of the COLB was shown in court to verify the president’s eligibility (i.e. it could get to the point where arguments were actually heard since it would be possible for the case to have standing, the court to have jurisdiction and for the plaintiff to be requesting an action within the power of the court to grant). I believe (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that any evidence of ineligibility must be assumed to be true when determining if a court will hear the case and therefore would not necessarily be exposed as garbage until arguments were heard or at least until discovery (when the birthers might discover that the COLB was sufficient evidence and that they had no case…).
All it will take is one birther lawyer and a client with standing – I don’t imagine that Dr. Orly will be giving this up anytime soon (although she may be disbarred by then). I don’t see the people who would actually bring lawsuits as being vulnerable to persuasion by the facts or being distracted by something shiny…
Someone get that fake doctor a towel so she can qipe her seat.
Jesus wept. I’ve been on the internet for about 15 years now, so I’ve seen my share of masturabatory fantasies masquerading as politics, but that is a real piece of shlock.
I’m afraid that is just par for the course over at Dr. Kate’s view – she might not have been beaten with the crazy stick as badly as Orly has, but she doesn’t seem to be within lightyears of the reality based world on anything having to do with President Obama. And she is apparently a real doctor – as her description over at badfiction says:
I check out her blog from time to time to get an idea of what the birther mindset is – it’s kind of scary to see what kind of anti-Obama spin you get when Fox News is your most liberal news source…
Birther Chess Rule: “Game must begin with 64 white Kings!”
Perfect! Since white moves 1st & there is nowhere to go this is exactly similar to the “standing” & “burden of proof” problems. White has checkmated itself. Hilarious!
Yeah, I’ve seen her before… I wonder where her degree comes from; as I understand it, a university education is as much about ingraining the habit of critical thinking as learning, and she demonstrates absolutely none of that. Maybe I didn’t go to the right one.
Anyway, I think I irked her by calling her a fake doctor; to be honest, I’m not willing to extend the title to someone who so transparently demonstrates that she is anything but learned.
*does Google-fu* Oh, look. She’s apparently in her fifties, involved with NoQuarter and apparently some kind of “natural healing” woo, and is cranky. Teabagger to the last iota.
Wow, thanks for that disturbing find! Yeah, I have a sad feeling that many of these folks get through their days and avoid dealing with the real frustrations of their daily lives by inventing such warped “coup” fantasies like this. *sigh*. How utterly sad.
The funniest part to me is that she focuses on her 3 million people (less than 1%) of the country, overthrowing the rest of it…never considering that the majority of the rest of us might take issue with an illegal coup to overthrow our lawfully elected government by such a paltry number of malcontents.
Well, as least her coup fantasies are, for now, have a “peaceful” resolution. Unfortunately, I have a strong feeling that many other malcontents out there dream of very violent outcomes and fantasize heavily about massive bloodshed. Those are the really sick and disturbed ones.
Don’t forget hardcore PUMA to boot.
Dr. C – an interesting point. What are your thoughts on what percent of the “birther” population is currently the “water cooler crowd” and also how do you think it has trended as portion of that population since 2008 to now?
One other point I want to make: “Water cooler” crowds by nature are gossips. Gossips may not believe what they say or spread, but they love the act of gossiping itself, which is how some tall-tales remain in circulation via this method for years past their expiration date.
Therefore, even if these are not “hard core” serious birther believers, I don’t see any real reason that most gossips would give up their “water cooler” fantasies either, unless they get a new one to latch onto. No matter how discredited the birthers are, even these folks might continue to spin
their tall tales just for the sheer sake of being addicted to gossip and smear.
Mike,
Dr. Kate is absolutely a teabagger to the core – she was a delegate to the convention of the third constitutional congress (teabaggers rewriting the Constitution – not specifically a birther thing, but Orly was also a delagate). Getting a PhD is about proving that you can do scholarly research (in my opinion – I have a PhD in math from Duke University). I’m sure that Dr. Kate knows what she’s talking about when it comes to drilling a well, but she certainly doesn’t seem to be able to apply critical thinking, reasoning or a dispassionate judgement of the facts and laws to President Obama in any way.
If I said, I would be guessing more than anything else.
Clearly many more people know about the conspiracy theories (as a percentage of the population) than before. We have the remarkable statistic that 1/3 of those who think or suppose Obama was born outside the US like Obama and think he’s doing a good job.
My perception is that folks learn about the conspiracies from emails and web sites. While there is newspaper coverage, there is not a lot of it. Of the web sites that are out there, they are overwhelmingly anti-Obama, and invariably spreading innuendo, bad reasoning and sometimes outright lies. Good information is literally drowned out by the sheer number of bad information sources. However, I think that bad information can be overcome by good information in most people once they hear it.
I guess I’m trying to say that I think birthers today are less “hard core” than a year ago.
I find the PUMA branch of the birthers in general (and Dr. Kate in particular) very interesting. The mental gymnastics that the woman has had to go through to remain a supporter of Hillary since she became Secretary of State while simultaneously being against everything that Hillary stood for that President Obama is trying to accomplish are just amazing. When you throw in the fact that she is a big fan of Caribou Barbie who is as close to the opposite of Hillary as you can get in just about every way it is even more astounding.
Dr. C & Slartibartfast –
Thanks for the follow-up replies. I’ll save space by not re quoting them again, since they are both right above this post, but just say that I agreed with each of your responses and thought you both brought up some excellent points. Thanks again.
In short:
1. Yeah, I think you are correct that there are a lot of conservative “influenced” folks who might not believe any of the birther BS, but are continuously subjected to it, somewhat susceptible to it, and regardless of their own true feelings on the matter, just as likely (unfortunately) to continue to spread it along.
For some, it is simply about expressing anger or smearing Obama/democrats and not about actually believing the birther nonsense.
2. Yes, the PUMA’s are such a sad, strange form of hypocrisy that it truly baffles the senses. That is why they went down in such EPIC FAIL flames that only a few birther leaders can even hope to match up with.
While surprising at first blush, I’m not sure that there isn’t a good explanation. We all accept (or try to) our friends and family for what they are, with all their wonderful traits and their flaws. The same with a political candidate. We will never find one that shares our view on every issue and that is without personal flaws. So we pick the one that best fits our overall criteria.
While the birthers believe (or pretend) that “natural born citizen” are the 3 most sacrosanct words ever written, I don’t think the average voter feels that way at all. I think they regard it as an archaic technical requirement. Given 2 equal candidates, one of whom you are sure was born in the US and one of whom you think wasn’t, then you would probably go with the second one. But what if the candidate you think might have been born abroad is better on the issues you care about and appeals to you more as a person? In that case, it would be perfectly reasonable to put aside the technical eligibility requirements and go with the guy you think will do the better job. And from the country’s standpoint, a very good non-NBC President would be far better than a lousy NBC one.
There are probably many who have not followed the issue closely and aren’t aware that Obama premises his “natural born” status on birth in the US, or even award that a President must be “natural born”.
Keep in mind that in 2008, Obama was running against a man born in Panama.
So its quite possible that there are some people who believe (incorrectly):
1. Obama was born in Hawaii, but Hawaii is not part of the US or was not part of the US when he was born.
2. Obama was born somewhere else, like Kenya or Indonesia, but it doesn’t matter because his mother was a US Citizen and passed on her citizenship to him.
3. Any US citizen can be President.
None of the erroneous beliefs above would stand in the way of their approval and acceptance of Obama as President — and each belief is more plausible and less convoluted than the various theories propounded by birthers.
Keep in mind that many citizen voters are immigrants and naturalized citizens themselves, or the children of immigrants — so they may be quite comfortable with the idea of Obama’s Kenyan-born father or childhood in Indonesia. In fact, there are probably some who voted for and support Obama because they are inspired by the idea of such a man becoming President, because it represents — for them — the quintessential American Dream.
It is clearly a part of the birther narrative that ALL of President Obama’s supporters fall into one of the categories you listed (while they themselves fall into a much more convoluted and less plausible theory as you pointed out). By doing this they can paint their opposition as incorrect and once they throw out the correct theory (that President Obama is natural born) they can use the process of elimination to rationalize how they are right.
Regarding #2, it is incorrect that Obama was born in Kenya or Indonesia. However, they may be quite correct that the child of a US citizen is a natural born citizen regardless of where the birth occurred. I have read the arguments on both sides, and am reasonably certain that no court would disqualify the foreign-born child of 2 or even 1 US citizens. I’m not saying it’s a slam dunk, but I would put my money on any court allowing the election of such a person to stand.
I think the average voters instinctively understand the true meaning of the Constitution. They certainly do so better than the birthers. They may well also be closer than the non-birthers here who examine things from a narrow legal perspective. The history of the NBC clause suggests that the intent was to bar those with no connection to the country, particularly European royals. There is no suggestion that the intent was ever to bar either the US-born children of foreigners OR the foreign-born children of US citizens, particularly when the latter were raised in the US.
The 1/3 of birthers who support Obama are wrong if they believe he was born anywhere besides Hawaii. They are not necesarily wrong if they support him because they see his performance in office as more important than legal technicalities regarding the circumstances of his birth.