Birtherism Lives

While it may be true that facts are stubborn things, a lot of American are stubborn in the face of them.

A new CNN poll [PDF] illustrates the amazing fact that even a simple, empirically knowable fact can have a very hard time fully establishing itself in the mind of the public—specifically the fact that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii:

Forty-two percent of those questioned say they have absolutely no doubts that the president was born in the U.S., while 29-percent say he “probably” was.

How can it be that only a plurality of Americans “have absolutely no doubts that the president was born in the U.S.”?  Especially when we have a birth certificate and contemporaneous newspaper birth announcements, along with assurances from the Hawaiian state government?

And stuff like the following isn’t helpful:

On Tuesday, conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh quipped on his program, “They tell us August 4th is the birthday. We haven’t seen any proof of that!”

Joke or no, it fuels the fire (and I will charitably interpret the statement as a joke).  However, according to the poll, 27% of Republicas think Obama was “probably born in another country” and 14% think he was “definitely born in a foreign country”—that’s 41% combined.

Yet, as CNN rightly notes:

Yet there is ample evidence that defies Limbaugh’s statement and the beliefs of the 27-percent of Americans that, according to the poll, doubt the president’s birthplace. CNN and other news organizations have thoroughly debunked the rumors.

Hawaii has released a copy of the president’s birth certificate – officially called a “certificate of live birth.” And in 1961 the hospital where the president was born placed announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers regarding Obama’s birth.

It honesty makes one wonder how basic discourse is possible  if such simple issues like this can’t be settled in a reasonable fashion across the public.  After all the evidence is irrefutable and not the kind of thing opened to interpretation (although, no doubt, someone will take issue with that statement).

FILED UNDER: US Politics,
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is Professor of Political Science and Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Troy University. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. tom p says:

    If one lies down with dogs, one gets up with fleas Steve…

    And yes it is sad, because there ARE sane people on the right… but most of them are keeping their mouths shut just now.

    Your problem now is to get the rest of them yapping.

  2. Michael Reynolds says:

    They don’t suspect he’s not American.  They suspect he’s black.  That’s what birtherism is about.

  3. ponce says:

    Americans have the right to be idiots.

  4. Barack Obama has not released his full medical birth report, with doctors’ signatures, etc. Newspaper announcements can be forged. And Obama has a history of secrecy — no one has seen his academic transcripts. You don’t have to be a ‘birther’ to have doubts about the president’s honesty. All you’ve posted is the ‘certif’cation of live birth’, who knows if that’s authentic, and Markos Moulitsas was the first to claim he published a copy of it a Daily Kos, so that tells you something.

  5. Michael Reynolds says:

    Americaneocon:
     
    You’re exercising the aforementioned right to be an idiot.
     
    I got my passport — my US passport — with the document Obama has.

  6. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Reynold, I never though much about your IQ, but after reading what you wrote above.  There is not much there to think about.  Do you know how easy it is to get a certificate of live birth in Hawaii?  No hospital, no attending doctor.  Go look at your birth certificate, if you have one.  Mine has littel feet prints on the back.  Says what hospital, what time, and who the doctor was, who my parents are.  All they list is Obama’s mama.  But then you people are easy to fool.  After all, you believed his BS from the beginning.  BH Obama was part of congress that got us in this mess.  Congress was controlled by the dems from 2006 on.  Blame Bush if you think that will get you votes in November.  I somehow doubt it.

  7. floyd says:

    micheal;
     When you’re a hammer, every problem is a nail.
     When you’re a racist, every problem is about race.

  8. floyd says:

    Oh! What a tangled website we weave…

  9. Michael Reynolds says:

    ZR3:
     
    Jesus Tapdancing Christ you’re a f–king imbecile.  There are 50 states you jackass.  50 different state systems. My CA birth certificate does not have little feet on the back.  Most don’t.  And guess what?  I don’t have a newspaper announcing my birth and No, NO, NOOOOOO you moron, no one went back and altered the microfiche of every f–king newspaper archive in Hawaii.  And MILLIONS of birth certificates fail to list both parents.
     
    You are the stupidest, and most persistently stupid person I’ve dealt with since I was waiting tables and we hired retarded people as dishwashers.  I mean, Jesus, I try to be polite to you, I really do try, but you know less about . . . well, anything . . . than the average baboon.  Honest to God my 13 year old would wipe the floor with you on any issue.  Any issue.
     
    No wonder you can’t get a job.  You’rte sucking at the government teat because you’rte a complete f–king idiot.
     
    Stop obsessing over politics.  You don’t know anything.  Your opinions are worthless.  You are profoundly, irreversibly ignorant.  My dog knows more about politics than you do, you stupid, stupid, oh my f–king lord stupid, human being.

  10. Michael Reynolds says:

    Did I mention stupid?

  11. Max Lybbert says:

    I don’t know what causes it, but this kind of derangement is nonpartisan.  Do you remember the number of people believing “9/11 was an inside job” until President Obama was elected?  Logically, Obama’s election had no relevance to whether 9/11 was staged to create a pretense for war, but his election did cause the Truthers to basically evaporate.
    As soon as President Obama’s successor is determined Birtherism will disappear.
    Maybe not.  There are still people who believe either Nixon was framed or that Nixon didn’t do anything worse than what JFK allegedly had done to Nixon.  There are still people who believe that Clinton was a victim of a “vast right wing conspiracy.”  I know people who believe McVey was a patsy.  And, of course, there are still people convinced that some part of JFK’s assassination was covered up.

  12. sam says:

    Right Max, exactly. To paraphrase the J-man, “The idiots will be with you always.” Hey, we’ve all forgot to list the Faked Moon Landings.
     
    Can’t pass this up. The Ineffable writes:
    “Go look at your birth certificate, if you have one. Mine has littel feet prints on the back.”
     
    Tell us how many feet prints. No peeking.
     

  13. Pug says:

    Ragshaft, did you know Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster?  Oh wait, that was your conspiracy theory from the ’90’s. 

    All you’ve posted is the ‘certif’cation of live birth’, who knows if that’s authentic, and Markos Moulitsas was the first to claim he published a copy of it a Daily Kos, so that tells you something.

    All you’ve posted is his birth certificate.  That doesn’t prove a damn thing.  Nothing can be proven to an idiot, and this guy proves it.

  14. As I predicted:

    After all the evidence is irrefutable and not the kind of thing opened to interpretation (although, no doubt, someone will take issue with that statement).

    I really am amazed, but not surprised by much of the above.

    @Donald and other doubters:  the document posted above is practically identical the birth certificates that were issues for all three of my children by the State of Alabama, and the ones used for any official/legal activities that have been needed for them.  I know I have one for my Middle Son (and perhaps the others) that has foot prints on it, but it is an unofficial decorative document.

    @Max:  you are right, conspiracies have been, and always will, be will us.  The thing that I find so remarkable about this one is that is so demonstrably and provably false.  And yet, we have people like Donald above (who, if memory serves, has a Ph.D. in political science and teaches at a community college in CA) who persist in asserting no evidence has been provided.  It is rather remarkable.

    And speaking of @Donald:  I am not asking that you embrace everything that Obama has ever said, but the notion that this is a conspiracy of fake document and forged newspaper announcements is really a fantastical approach to a pretty obvious situation, especially since the source of these documents is not, ultimately, Obama, but archived newspapers and the state of Hawaii.

  15. Steven Taylor: I don’t “persist in asserting no evidence has been provided.” Why mischaracterize what I wrote? Lot’s of people who aren’t wild ‘birthers’ have spoken out on Obama’s secrecy on this. Why not release the full medical record and put doubts to rest? McCain did. You assert that a “certification of live birth” is full evidence? It’s not and that’s not solid thinking friend. This administration is secretive. I don’t trust them. And you do? And you have a Ph.D.? For shame.

  16. john personna says:

    There were no large amount of people who thought 9/11 was an inside job.  On the other hand, you could construct a question such that people who knew of the CIA report “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” would answer “yes.”
     
    Did Bush “know”?  Know what?  The time and the place?  No.  That “Bin Laden [was] Determined to Strike in US?”  Yes.
     

  17. john personna says:

    Americaneocon, I think if you were sane you’d have already asked yourself “how much energy should I waste on an issue that is 99.9% assured?”  Then you’d move on to something like taxes or education spending.


    Either that or you are the kind of hack (with others in this thread) that don’t care the truth of it, and just think it provides you leverage on other issues.  That’s even sicker really, because it means your “market” for ideas is with those who can’t figure out that 99.9% odds and energy equation.

  18. john personna says:

    sorry for the bold, something screwy happening here with copy/paste

  19. @Donald:

    Perhaps I am misunderstanding your statement on this and would be happy to have your position clarified.  You seem to be saying about that you doubt both the newspaper announcements and the veracity of the document posted above.

    You wrote:

    Newspaper announcements can be forged. [..]  All you’ve posted is the ‘certif’cation of live birth’, who knows if that’s authentic, and Markos Moulitsas was the first to claim he published a copy of it a Daily Kos, so that tells you something.

    I construed those statements as casting doubt on the location of the president’s birth and at least suggesting that the evidence provided is insufficient, and hence casting doubt on the location of Obama’s birth.  Is that not your position?  If it is, I am not sure how that doesn’t fall under the rubric of “birtherism.”

    And in regards to this:

    You assert that a “certification of live birth” is full evidence? It’s not and that’s not solid thinking friend

    Again:  this is the exact document that any other American would use as proof of birth and is colloquially known as a “birth certificate” (the rearranging of the words does not change the nature of the document).  By your logic, I cannot prove that my own children were born in the US (as the only official documents issued to me by two states, 1 from Texas and 2 from Alabama) look exactly like the “certificate of live birth” issued by the state of Hawaii for Obama.

    You can make whatever argument you may like about Obama’s academic records or whatever else, but that is a different issue.  The issue of evidence here is clear:

    1)  Contemporaneous newspaper announcements in two newspapers (and as as commenter noted above, altering all the archived copies of those papers would be quite a trick.

    and

    2)  The official documentation of the state of Hawaii.

    This is as clear as it gets.  If they above isn’t enough, then there isn’t a single resident of the United States that can prove their place of birth.

    Indeed, by the logic that these documents may be forged, there is no reason to believe a document with signatures and baby foot prints because, after all, that might be forged as well.



  20. @Donald:

    You are correct in one regard:

    Steven Taylor: I don’t “persist in asserting no evidence has been provided.” Why mischaracterize what I wrote?

    I apologize in the sense that you did not assert that no evidence has been provided.  You appear to be asserting that the evidence is either forged or inconclusive.  Is that fair?

  21. Robert Bell says:

    Dr. Taylor: Have you merged PoliBlog has into OTB?
    Also with respect to your comment:
    “It honesty makes one wonder how basic discourse is possible  if such simple issues like this can’t be settled in a reasonable fashion across the public. ”
    In particular, there is probably an implicit assumption in what you call “basic discourse” operates according to Bayesian inference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference).  So, for example, someone who had doubts that President Obama was born in the U.S. prior to the display of the COLB at campaign headquarters should become at least a little more certain after its release.
    While someone might say “Yeah but it’s a COLB, not a birth certificate” it is still the case that the ability to produce the COLB is a stronger statement than the inability to do so.  However, many birthers do NOT seem to concede this.
    Similarly, correlation is not causation, but it ought to be harder to defend causation in the face of lack of correlation, ceteris paribus.

  22. john personna says:

    Bayesian?  Behavioral back at ya.  Don’t studies show that on an issue divided among partisans more information widens the gulf?

  23. @Robert:

    I accepted an invite from James back in May-ish to move most of my writing here.  PoliBlog lives, but for all practical purposes my main blogging is now here.

    I take the point about the words “doubt” and “certain”–although it seems that for many the only way to be “certain” is to have been present at the birth.

  24. Gilbert Le Blanc says:

    I’m one of “those” that believes Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii.
     
    There’s no point in my bringing up my reasons here.  They would just be trashed, as Americaneocon‘s posts have been trashed.
     
    The more important point is that Democrats are going to make the birther issue an issue in November.  The CNN poll proves that.  Anything to distract from Obamacare and the 3.3 trillion dollar increase in the national debt in FY 2009 & FY 2010.
     
    So, Republican candidates better be prepared to answer the birther question.  How they answer, is up to each candidate.

  25. Herb says:

    The funny thing that gets me about the birthers….

    They’re not just calling into question the President’s legitimacy as an American citizen, they’re calling into question America’s very system.

    If indeed Obama was not born an American citizen, how come this wasn’t discovered until he was nominated for president???

    His grade school missed it, as did his junior high, his high school, his college, his first employer, the DMV that issued him his first drivers license, the post office where he got his passport. He managed not only to be educated, employed, but also elected to public office -not just on a local community level but to national office– and none of these institutions discovered the fraud. Not the Secret Service, not the FBI, not the CIA.

    Not one of them.

    Do the birthers understand the implication of their conspiracy theories? If the system hadn’t discovered this fraud years ago, the system doesn’t even function.

  26. marc says:

    Where is the original birth certificate?
    Why won’t he release the original?
    What hospital was he born in?
    The article states that the hospital where O was born ran two announcements in local papers regarding Obama’s birth.  Where did this fact come from?  No doubt this article purports to quote someone else’s statement to the effect that the hospital where O was born had the announcements run.  But this is false. In point of fact we still do not know which hospital O was born at.  We do not know who the attending medical providers were.  This Cert of Birth can be obtained in any number of ways … and does not definitively establish much of anything.  Again, O merely has to authorize release of his original birth certificate.  But he won’t.  Why?
    Again the article here asserts, “And in 1961 the hospital where the president was born placed announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers regarding Obama’s birth.”.  Which hospital did this?  The name of the hospital is what?

  27. john personna says:

    To paraphrase, “I believe nutty things, and as a result people are mean to me.”
     
    There’s an easy fix to that.

  28. Robert Bell says:

    john personna: Yes exactly, especially in politically polarized situations, apparently posterior beliefs *do* widen, and if that’s true it’s hard to imagine how one can have a coherent discourse.  For example, suppose that person A initially believes that the acceleration due to gravity is 11 m/sec^2, and person B initially believes that it is 9 m/sec^2.  My high school physics class 35 years ago used 9.8 m/sec^2, so let’s assume that if we measured g we would get numbers close to 9.8 m/sec^2.  If, after hearing this data, A now believes g is greater than 11 and B less than 9, I think we have no hope.
    Astonishingly, even Daniel Kahneman himself isn’t immune (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kahneman07/kahneman07_index.html)
     
     

  29. mantis says:

    <blockquote>I’m one of “those” that believes Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii.
    There’s no point in my bringing up my reasons here.  They would just be trashed, asAmericaneocon‘s posts have been trashed.<blockquote>
    The word is refuted.  Your crazy stupid reasons would be refuted, quite effectively.  That’s why you won’t bring them up.  They’re nonsense.

  30. floyd says:

    Micheal;
      Thanks for the info, now we know a source for raising the bar on discourse around here…
    Hand your keyboard over to the 13year old, or even the dog!! [lol]

  31. floyd says:

    Mantis;
     No, actually the word is “trashed”,
    Evidence….
     “Your crazy stupid reasons ” and “They’re nonsense”

     I think you have adequately proven the point, that there is no point.

    Yeah …  ” They would just be trashed” and without a hearing. 

  32. jwest says:

    Steven Taylor wants to argue that the Certificate of Live Birth should be blindly accepted as proof positive of Obama’s birthplace, but he can’t answer the most simple and obvious question…….
     
    Why won’t Obama release the original document?
     
    Hawaiian officials have claimed to have seen it.  All that needs to be done to release it is an OK from Obama.
     
    Why, with such widespread doubt, would he continue to prevent its release?

  33. floyd says:

    Oh the times and the toils and the troubles are such…
     Methinks thou dost protest too much!

     If the evidence is clear as is claimed here, why all the hair pulling and brow beating?
     It is kinda cute, but…  
     Does anybody really think the truth matters here?

     

  34. mantis says:

    I think you have adequately proven the point, that there is no point.
    I’m already very familiar with all the birther nonsense, and can respond to any and all of it quite easily.  Unless you have something new to add, I can safely assume your “reasons” are just more of the same.
    But since you are unwilling to give your reasons, but are still eager to give us your opinion, we can probably safely conclude that you just have no reasons whatsoever.

  35. mantis says:

    All that needs to be done to release it is an OK from Obama.


    Wrong.  The Hawaii Department of Health digitized all of the primary records years ago.  The original documents are archived, and they do not give out copies of those original documents to anyone.  They give out exactly what Obama released.  That’s all he can get from the State of Hawaii, and it is sufficient proof of birth in any state of the union, as well as the US Passport Office, and has been confirmed as legit by both the director of the Hawaii State Department of Health and the Governor.
     

    Obama’s not refusing to release anything.  That little fiction was created by nutcases like you so you can continue to lie about this issue.

  36. jwest says:

    Mantis,
     
    The last time I heard so many liberals grasping at straws to explain something away, Monica was hiding her blue dress.
     
    Your position is that the state officials in Hawaii would deny Barack Obama’s request to release the image of the original birth document?
     
    Are you sure you want to stick to that?

  37. floyd says:

    mantis ;
    I disagreed here with your and others demeanor  and expressed no opinion as to the validity of either argument.
    If any questions are left, this would certainly NOT be a place to air them.

     The only thing that is certain here is that the truth has never had standing or effect in a foregone conclusion.
     You apparently have a brain the size of a planet and are infallible. so…  
    C’mon ,why so adament when your arguments are clearly irrelevant?
     

  38. mantis says:

    Your position is that the state officials in Hawaii would deny Barack Obama’s request to release the image of the original birth document?


    No, that’s not my position.  That’s why I didn’t state that as my position.  My position is that the State of Hawaii has a set of procedures which apply to everyone, and Obama secured his birth certificate using those procedures.  Hawaii officials, including the Republican governor, have affirmed that his birth certificate is valid and accurate, and contemporaneous accounts confirm its contents.  It is unreasonable to expect the president to demand something outside the state’s normal procedures which produce birth certificates that are legally valid for everyone else, and it is unreasonable to expect the State of Hawaii to go outside their normal procedures just to satisfy the desires of half-baked conspiracy theorists who choose to ignore what is plain and obvious.

    There’s also the obvious fact that birthers will never be satisfied, and that even if every document they’ve ever requested were provided, the birthers would dismiss them as invalid/forged/extraterrestrial and make new demands, steadfast and obstinate in their belief that up is down, black is white, and the sky is orange.  It is unwise to comply with the demands of crazy people.  Their craziness, like liquid, simply adjusts to fill the altered vessel.

  39. mantis says:

    I disagreed here with your and others demeanor  and expressed no opinion as to the validity of either argument.


    Apologies, I mistakenly thought you wrote the original comment I responded to.

    If any questions are left, this would certainly NOT be a place to air them.


    Why not?

    The only thing that is certain here is that the truth has never had standing or effect in a foregone conclusion.


    You can say that again…

    You apparently have a brain the size of a planet and are infallible. so…  
    C’mon ,why so adament when your arguments are clearly irrelevant?

    I like punching crazy.  It’s a hobby.  I also enjoy messing with moon landing conspiracists, JFK assassination conspiracists, anti-vaccination nutjobs, one world government/Alex Jones goofballs, Obama’s a sekrit mooslim looneys, people who think the Da Vinci Code is based in nonfiction, “AIDS was invented by the CIA” conspiracists, and more.  We all need things to pass the time, no?

  40. Mary Adams says:

    Wow, the crazy is strong here.
    @ZRIII: The author didn’t post the full graphic, therefore only Obama’s mother is on his BC? Truly you are a fool.
    Yes, it is easy to get a certificate of live birth in Hawaii IF YOU WERE BORN THERE.
    Many, many US states don’t list the hospital or attending doctor. They aren’t necessary to prove date and place of birth. Mine certainly doesn’t – at least not my CERTIFIED, LEGAL one. The cutesy one from the hospital that is USELESS does. It has foot prints too.
    As far as Congress controlled by the Dems in 2006 – you’d better look that one up, dumbass.

    @Americaneocon: Obama’s “full medical birth report” likely no longer exists. Hospitals don’t keep records forever. What, you want to know if his mother had an epesiotomy? Talk about NOYFB!
    And the newspaper birth announcements were taken straight from the Office of Vital Statistics. They are listed along with other reported births, marriages and deaths. Microfiche of the announcements, archived in 1961 can be found in libraries throughout the US.
    Yeah, <!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:””; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>

    /* Style Definitions */
    table.MsoNormalTable
    {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
    mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
    mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
    mso-style-noshow:yes;
    mso-style-parent:””;
    mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
    mso-para-margin:0in;
    mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
    mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
    font-size:10.0pt;
    font-family:”Times New Roman”;}

    Obama has a history of secrecy. LOL! Anybody who WANTS TO, knows more about him than any other President – he wrote two books about who he is and where he comes from!
    You are simply willfully ignorant.
    BTW, no other President voluntarily released their transcripts either.
    Another BTW: The “Certification of live birth” is what Hawaii issued as a certified birth certificate in 2007. The form they issue now looks almost exactly the same but is called a “Certificate of live birth”. They change things around every few years to thwart forgers.

  41. Mary Adams says:

    Very true post, mantis. The birthers will never be satisfied.
     
    Imagine if Obama DID ask Hawaii DOH to go outside their normal procedures and make a special photocopy of his original BC. Not only would they say it was a fake, they would simultaneously be screaming that Obama acted “above the law”. LOL!

  42. matt says:

    ZGilbert Le Blanc : Most of that is a result of actually budgeting for the two wars we’re fighting unlike Bush who kept the true cost of the wars off the books..

    This post is deja vu to me as I’ve gotten into ridiculously long discussions here with people over my own CoLB. I’ve had people tell me that I have a birth certificate too that the COLB means nothing. Meanwhile the state of Illinois says they have no birth certificate for me but they do have a COLB which has been more then enough for Illinois AND Texas (which has strict requirements for proof of citizenship) to issue me driver licenses and for me to acquire a passport. I’ve posted official documents and links to official websites proving I cannot get a Birth Certificate and yet the crazies here would continue to insist I was lying and that I could get a Birth Certificate since my COLB doesn’t count….

  43. MarkedMan says:

    Why won’t Obama release the original birth certificate?  I can’t know his mind, but if I was in his place I wouldn’t either.  When the Birther nonsense started, Obama’s staff obtained his birth certificate from Hawaii in the official way and released it.  The Birthers immediately said it was not a real birth certificate because it didn’t have feet on it.  His staff then asked the department of records (I might have the department name wrong) to publicly verify its authenticity and they did.  The Birthers immediately said it didn’t mean anything.  The staff then got the Governor of Hawaii to examine the documentation and make a public statement verifying its authenticity.  The Birthers immediately said he was in on the scam.  The staff then pointed out that Obama’s birth was announced in two Hawaiian newspapers, as was a common practice at the time.  We now have a Birther above who claims we have no evidence that these announcements actually exist despite being verified by virtually every major news organizations on the planet.
    And they say, “If only he will release the piece of paper with feet on it, we will believe”.  Seriously?  As every successful politician knows, once you realize someone is insane, you can only do yourself harm by publicly engaging them.
    BTW, my official Illinois birth certificate does not have feet on it  My mother has at least one birth “certificate” from the hospital with the little feet on it, it might be for me or might be for my sisters or heck, she might even have one for all of us, but it was something given by the hospital to new parents, not anything official filed with the state.  My children’s official MD birth certificates do not have feet on them, nor did we get such a ‘feet’ certificate from the place they were born. That birthing center simply filed the state required paperwork, probably because it was so small there was virtually no chance of a baby mixup so there was no need for a CYA of taking the baby’s footprints.  I offer these comments up for general consumption and interest.  It will have no effect on the Birthers. Nothing can affect them.  They believe what they believe and nothing can change that.

  44. jwest says:

    Mantis,
     
    So, your position (restated) is that the very act of Barack Obama requesting the Hawaiian officials to deviate from their set bureaucratic procedure regarding the release of documents would be so off-putting to the Standard Order of How Things Are Done in the  Universe that it wouldn’t be worth it to appease the doubts of over half the population of the country?
     
    Is it any wonder why people don’t trust Democrats to run anything?

  45. taiko drum says:

    I was born in Yokosuka Naval Hospital, Japan and I have a COLB.  That COLB states on it, and I paraphrase here, that it has the full and legal authority of a birth certificate.  The US military thought that COLB was adequate enough to give me a SECRET/NOFORN clearance and a job requiring PRP, working with nuclear components/weapons.  It was also adequate enough for me to get cleared for a Top Secret when I was going to work for DARPA.  The hospital will only release a COLB to me, they will not release either the original, nor a copy, of my BC to me or my family.  I know because my dad tried to get one and that was the answer he got.

    One issue about the claim Obama wasn’t born here, let’s dispense with all the he said/she said and examine the actions of parties who would benefit if that were true…such a disclosure would have clearly helped either Hillary in the primary or McCain in the general, yet neither pushed it.  Such a disclosure would gain fame, money and notoriety to any organization/individual who could prove such a thing and yet…nothing.  You’re asking me to believe that everybody with anything to gain by proving this claim has decided not to investigate it thoroughly because of …..what?  I can think of only 3 reasons; fear, benevolence or they know it’s BS.  The first requires me to believe in a world-wide conspiracy of pro-Obama “men in black” knocking on doors, and the second requries me to believe that unrelated politicians/news orgs on a global scale will subordinate their pursuit of fame, power and wealth by exposing possibly one of the biggest scoops in recent US history for purely magnanimous reasons.  The third option simply requires me to believe that these groups/individuals had no incentives to pursue this line of thought.  So which should I believe?  Two words come to mind-Occam’s Razor.  Just my 2 cents.

  46. mantis says:

    So, your position (restated) is that the very act of Barack Obama requesting the Hawaiian officials to deviate from their set bureaucratic procedure regarding the release of documents would be so off-putting to the Standard Order of How Things Are Done in the  Universe that it wouldn’t be worth it to appease the doubts of over half the population of the country?


    No, that’s not my position.  You like having fun building things with straw, don’t you?  I said it’s unreasonable to make such demands.  It’s unreasonable because the procedures by which the State of Hawaii issues birth certificates are tried and true, similar to many other states, and recognized in every state of the union and the US Passport Office (which is very stringent, I might add) as producing reliable, legal documents of proof of birth.  It is unreasonable to expect this president to adhere to arbitrary standards set by crazy people way above those of any other president in the history of our nation.  It is not only absurd in the face of the obvious and well established facts, but would set a terrible precedent, making the White House forevermore subject to the whims of irrational people.

    Btw, how does one “appease a doubt,” exactly?

  47. jwest says:

    Mantis,
     
    Just for the record, I believe that Barack Obama was born to citizen of the United States (his mother) and therefore is a “natural born citizen” regardless of where the actual birth took place.
     
    However, it is painfully apparent to everyone except the Obama Kool-Aid crowd that something about his birth records doesn’t add up.  If everything was as simple and easily proven as the liberals wished it were, Obama would agree to release the original documents only if Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Andrew Brietbart flew to Hawaii and were present at their unveiling.  Obama would also want all the TV networks there to capture their statements that everything was exactly as presented by the campaign.
     
    To blindly accept as fact the word of politicians flies in the face of everything it ever meant to be a liberal, don’t you agree?
     
    By arguing the minutia of what is legal and accepted practice without asking for verification in something so obviously fishy demonstrates the naiveté so common in liberals on every subject, from economics to foreign affairs.  Once again, is it any wonder why people don’t trust the left to run anything?

  48. mantis says:

    However, it is painfully apparent to everyone except the Obama Kool-Aid crowd that something about his birth records doesn’t add up.


    In what way is that apparent?  Just because you say so?  Because he doesn’t respond to the demands of irrational conspiracy theorists?  What an absurd standard!

    If everything was as simple and easily proven as the liberals wished it were


    It is.  It has already been proven through the release of his legal birth certificate, affirmed by Hawaii officials, accompanied by contemporaneous accounts in local newspapers.  It’s absurd to even expect more than that.

    To blindly accept as fact the word of politicians flies in the face of everything it ever meant to be a liberal, don’t you agree?


    No one is saying you should accept blind the word of politicians.  We’re saying you should accept clear, obvious facts established through the preponderance of evidence.  Secondly, I have no idea what you think it “means to be a liberal,” but I can assure you that the foundation of liberalism is not “politicians are liars.”  It’s a political philosophy, not a drunken rant.

    By arguing the minutia of what is legal and accepted practice without asking for verification

    Verification has already been presented in the form of a legal birth certificate and statements from state officials.  Why ask for what has already been provided?

    in something so obviously fishy


    Again, why is it obviously fishy?  Because you say so?

    demonstrates the naiveté so common in liberals on every subject, from economics to foreign affairs.  Once again, is it any wonder why people don’t trust the left to run anything?


    I understand wingnuts always want to project their deranged beliefs onto everyone else, but rest assured that everyone does not think like you.

  49. mantis says:

    Once again, is it any wonder why people don’t trust the left to run anything?


    Oh, and by the way, if people don’t trust the left to run anything, why did they elect Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, along with a majority of governorships and state legislatures in 2006, followed by a Democratic president and increased majorities in Congress two years later?
     

  50. The Q says:

    Amazing, friggin’ amazing.
    The depth of the stupidity exemplified by the above doubters is incredulous.
    I am sure Zags and jwest et al. were oh so interested in discovering where Bush was during his ROTC assignments in Alabama, no?
    Bush is the only known President or candidate for President to have served in the military or Guard to refuse to disclose his full records, including any health records or details of his discipline by the Guard. These records were uncovered using FOIA.
    I mean, you guys wouldn’t possibly take W’s word (ater all, he is a politician) that he reported for duty even though no one could produce a witness that remembers seeing him correct?
    But I am sure that if W was a nig%ger you a$$holes would have been all over the lack of records and witnesses and would accuse him of being AWOL and a coward.
    Right cretins?
    You should all go F%UCk yourselves.
    The patience to indulge morons wears thinner every day.
     

  51. Mary Adams says:

    “However, it is painfully apparent to everyone except the Obama Kool-Aid crowd that something about his birth records doesn’t add up.”
     
    What the eff? EVERYTHING has added up. EVERY bit of evidence has PROVED that the birth certificate the Obama campaign posted on the web has the correct data.
     
    – The contemporary newspaper announcements that can be found on microfiche in many libraries including Honolulu’s, UC Berkeley’s and Sacramento’s.
    – The Index Data in the Hawaii DOH that ANYONE can walk in and look in the original tome where births were recorded in 1961.
    – And just this week, the FOIA requests by Allen and Strunk.

  52. The Q says:

    But Mary, you are forgetting that the hospitals were just covering for Obama’s dad, because they just knew in 47 years, he would run for  President and his “birth” location could be a problem.
    So, obviously they conspired with O’s granny to falsely publish in the local honolulu newspapers the live birth announcement so this wouldn’t be an issue in the 2008 elections which were 47 years in the future.
    They were prescient in that their clever forgeries were able to deceive many gov’t agencies, the press, the FBI etc.
    But, undaunted, the brilliant geniuses known as Zags, floyd,  jwest and Gilbert Le Blanc proved false this elaborate ruse with their transcendent logic (where are the little feets?), acumen (Does anybody really think the truth matters here?) and deduction (Newspaper announcements can be forged)
    They thus saved democracy, mom and apple pie.
    Their next crusade is to prove that Obama really wasn’t even born, he was hatched since his REAL parents are reptilian aliens  from another galaxy.
     

  53. wr says:

    Jwest — Obama is the president of the United States, a job which requires a great deal of time and energy.

    Limbaugh, Beck and the rest are political hacks whose role in life is to stir up crap in order to rile their easily outraged audiences.

    Given all the real responsibilities Obama — or any president — has, why should he waste one second flying to Hawaii to meet with them in order to resolve a “controversy” that only people who already hate him believe is controversial?

  54. Bob Weber says:

    Mary Adams wrote:
    Thursday, August 5, 2010 at 18:20

    – The contemporary newspaper announcements that can be found on microfiche in many libraries including Honolulu’s, UC Berkeley’s and Sacramento’s.

    – The Index Data in the Hawaii DOH that ANYONE can walk in and look in the original tome where births were recorded in 1961.


    – And just this week, the FOIA requests by Allen and Strunk.

     
    It should be emphasized that the newspaper announcements are not vanity announcements from the parents, but are listings from the Hawaii Dept. of Health.  They are legal documents in any court of law, as are the State Dept. documents, released in response to  Strunk, which state that Obama was born August , 1961 in Honolulu.  They are not strictly necessary, as the COLB suffices in and of itself, but they are additional nails in birferism’s coffin.

  55. sookie says:

    Not an Obama fan.  I think his policies are a disaster for the country.
    However for those who want to mount challenges against him and his policies, this is a stupid and foolish distraction.   It sounds about as intelligent as Rosy’s 9-11 rants.
    There are plenty of reasons and ways to challenge the president, the majority led house and senate.  This isn’t it.
    I would go so far as to say that even if by some Machiavellian manipulation of the facts, he was born elsewhere, lied and managed to cover it up, this still isn’t it.  His mother was a natural born citizen and that should be the end of it.
     
     

  56. @ Steven: I’m not invested in this and have written about Obama’s birth perhaps once on my blog. I just don’t like soft thinking.
    You write:
    “Again: this is the exact document that any other American would use as proof of birth and is colloquially known as a “birth certificate” (the rearranging of the words does not change the nature of the document). By your logic, I cannot prove that my own children were born in the US (as the only official documents issued to me by two states, 1 from Texas and 2 from Alabama) look exactly like the “certificate of live birth” issued by the state of Hawaii for Obama.”
    Even accepting the possibility that Obama’s Certification of Live Birth, which is the document you have provided above, is authentic, questions remain as to whether that is sufficient to demonstrate eligibility. So to be clear: A “Certification of Live Birth” is not the same thing as a long-form birth certificate. At the time of Obama’s birth, the state of Hawaii made long-form birth certificates available. These included the name of the hospital and the attending physician, name and address of the parents, the race of the parents and the race of the baby, etc. The long form includes signatures of the doctors attending. The state of Hawaii’s long form certificates in 1961 were numbered in order with serial numbers. This is what people refer to when they talk about their “birth certificate.” I have mine (from Landstuhl military hospital). I have my children’s (from county records in California). Since Hawaii records show that these long-form documents were available at the time, why hasn’t Obama released his, and why has the hospital refused to release it? (And this says nothing about your children, or mine. No one is proving the eligibility of your children, or mine, for president of the United States.) The short form you have provided is a computer generated certification. No hospital or doctor is listed.
    Even if that is sufficient for you, there were multiple ways to obtain a Hawaiian COLB that would leave open the possibility that the person in question was born outside of the state. No doctor or midwife, or any medical professional, in 1961, was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth. One parent was required to provide proof of residency and a pre-natal and post-natal certificate by a physician. A pre-natal report would show the mother was pregnant. The post-natal report would certify a newborn was seen by a doctor. Thus, it’s possible that a child born outside Hawaii could still receive a state COLB. As of today, it is still possible for a child born outside of Hawaii to obtain a short-form COLB using official state form s338-17.8. Go ahead and search it on Google.
    Also, newspaper announcements are not legal proof of official birth.

    This discussion, therefore, places doubt on your claim at the post above that Obama’s birth is a matter of  “a simple, empirically knowable fact …”

    Empiricism requires evidence. And in the case of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama, that evidence is virtually entirely absent. Hence, it’s entirely reasonable for 6 of 10 at the CNN poll to have doubts about Obama’s U.S. birth story. You, sir, are in the minority.

  57. Far be it from me to engage in soft thinking, but the document in question states:

    City, Town or Location of Birth:  Honolulu

    Island of Birth: Oahu

    County of Birth:  Honolulu

    Perhaps I am missing something, but I think that means that the state of Hawaii is certifying that he was born in Hawaii.

  58. I’m not claiming the COLB document is forged, Steven. So no debate on that question. Please respond to the other substantive points  raised …

  59. I’m not claiming the COLB document is forged, Steven. So no debate on that question

    No, but you said “Thus, it’s possible that a child born outside Hawaii could still receive a state COLB”–the relevance of which is unclear given what this COLB says.  However, the COLB provided states the child was born in Hawaii.  So, what’s your point?

    If you agree that the COLB is authentic, then what is the debate about?

    Further, you said “Empiricism requires evidence. And in the case of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama, that evidence is virtually entirely absent. “

    If you agree that the COLB is authentic, then your statement above is a non sequitur.

  60. floyd says:

    TheQ;
      Thank you for the complement, , I’m hardly a genius, it merely appears to be the case in contrast to those here who would rather hurl insults than address the issues.

     The fact remains, as I said earlier, that the only thing that is certain here is that the truth has never had standing or effect in a foregone conclusion.

    Your inadequate reading comprehension has unfortunately lead you to the exercise of jumping to conclusions. I made no indication of my opinion on the subject, merely an observation and a question, which I reiterate here… Do you really think the truth matters here?
    I don’t , and said so owing to the nature of a foregone conclusion. Legitimate or not, BO holds the office and will not be removed on account of this issue, in fact I am just cynical enough to think he may be reelected.
    David Axelrod has not ever in his career shown any deference to the truth and clearly holds it in contempt as irrelevant, to be used only when seen as means to an end.
    The perception of gullible minds is adequate for his purposes and those of his creations, whatever their source. 
     

  61. repsac3 says:

    <i>Even accepting the possibility that Obama’s Certification of Live Birth, which is the document you have provided above, is authentic, questions remain as to whether that is sufficient to demonstrate eligibility.</i>

    According to who? The COLB is sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for all manner of legal and government licenses and other official documents,  employment, and security clearances. What official or legal entity is claiming the COLB as issued by the state of Hawaii is not sufficient for demonstrating eligibility for President Obama’s current position?
    <i>The state of Hawaii’s long form certificates in 1961 were numbered in order with serial numbers. This is what people refer to when they talk about their “birth certificate.”</i>

    In California, perhaps, but in Hawaii, the document is the COLB.

    <i>Since Hawaii records show that these long-form documents were available at the time, why hasn’t Obama released his, and why has the hospital refused to release it?</i>

    At the time, Obama himself was probably too young to keep hold of the thing, being just born’n’all… His mother may’ve received one, but those things have a way of getting misplaced, especially in cases where mom has since died.

    When you apply to the state of Hawaii for proof of birth, you receive a certified COLB, which is what’s pictured above. According to factcheck.org, “The Hawaii Department of Health’s birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department.”
    If I had to guess as to why President Obama hasn’t found a way to get a copy of his long form certificate out there, I’d say that the short form COLB actually IS sufficient proof of his eligibility, and speculation by birfers like you has been a net positive, politically.

    <i>there were multiple ways to obtain a Hawaiian COLB that would leave open the possibility that the person in question was born outside of the state.</i>
    Even assuming this was true, wouldn’t it be incumbent on the person making the charge to prove that President Obama’s Hawaiian COLB actually was obtained in a way that left that possibility open?

    <i>Thus, it’s possible that a child born outside Hawaii could still receive a state COLB.</i>
    And it’s your assertion that that COLB would report that the child was born in a particular part of Hawaii? Based on what? Who makes this claim?

    <i>As of today, it is still possible for a child born outside of Hawaii to obtain a short-form COLB using official state form s338-17.8. Go ahead and search it on Google.</i>
    The danger of suggesting a dare like that is that someone will actually do it. Yes, within one year of a child’s birth, a parent who can establish legal residency for at least one year immediately prior to the child’s birth can obtain a COLB for their child. But nothing suggests that the place of birth for a child born outside of Hawaii would not be listed as being in Hawaii, so I fail to see the significance…

    As I said to you back in <a href=”http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/donald-douglas-im-no-birther-i-just.html”>December</a>, if you talk like a birther and make birther arguments, you’re a birther. No need to be embarrassed about it (well, there is, but…) Embrace it, Donald Douglas. You’re a Worldnet Daily reading birther, and you should be proud of it.

  62. James H says:

    Barack Obama was NOT born in Hawaii.  In reality, he is a cyborg sent from the future to find John Connor …

    … is that the governor of california?

  63. sam says:

    To sum up, the birfers argue:
    This is a momentous question, the answer to which is will be worthy of the Ignobel Prize. And that prize must go to an native-born American, or, if not available, to at least a Canadian. The time is short, the shadows lengthen, the postage is due. This cannot stand, or sit, if the Republic is to endurate, endure. Never before in the anals, annals of American political wrestling have the stakes been so low, the fight to get to the bottom so fierce, the outcome so so. This is not the time, nor the place, nor the phone call we were expecting, but history seldom rings twice. It has fallen to us, the wretched refuse of the freaked-out fringe, to light the torch and the curtains and the furniture, but to never fail to walk tall and not miss the turn. We wear your disdain like a pair of dirty underpants and proudly pass by the washing machine of liberalism. Those who scoff at we who delve up out of the muck on this issue, should never forget the stirring, moving words of Mencken who said something like, “You can make a fortune betting on the stupidity of the American people.”  We would be proud to contribute to the success of the American economy. Can you say as much?
     

  64. Beckwith says:

    It’s 97% certain that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.  Despite Gov. Lingle’s lying statement of May 2nd, 2010, there’s a 10% chance he was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center, a 10% chance he was born at the Queens Hospital, and a 77% chance he was born at home.  No Honolulu hospital has a record of Obama or mother ever being there.  There’s also a 2% chance that Obama was born in Kenya, and a 1% chance he was born in Vancouver, BC.  Wherever he was born, he had one American citizen parent and one Kenyan citizen parent.  An Indonesian adoption could further complicate Obama’s status.
      
    At birth, Barack Obama gets his citizenship via the 14th Amendment (assuming Hawaii):
        

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    Obama also has his citizenship defined via the Immigration and Nationality Act — “by statute.”
         

    Sec. 305. [8 U.S.C. 1405] Persons born in Hawaii:
     
    A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

        
    At birth, Barack Obama was also a Kenyan citizen and a subject of Great Britain:
        

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire.  As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.  That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

        
    The implications of a Soetoro adoption:
        

    Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in this case Soetoro/Obama, an Indonesian State citizen.  See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie).

             
    The implications of Kenyan or British Columbian birth:
        

    Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1405] Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth:
     
    (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

    (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

        
    Click here for detailed scenarios of Obama’s citizenship status.
             
    This case meets the test of jus soli — born in the USA (97%)This case fails the test of jus sanguinis — one or both parents are NOT US citizens
    This person has “dual citizenship” via his father, is NOT a “natural born” citizen, and is NOT eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

  65. repsac3 says:

    Birtherism lives.

  66. MarkedMan says:

    Whoa.  So if you have dual citizenship from your mother or father you can’t be President?  Amazing.  Did you know that anyone who has parents (or grandparents!) who were Irish citizens at birth are also considered Irish citizens?  My parents came from Ireland ten years before I was born and I can get an Irish passport if I want (very convenient if I want to work in the EU.)  Are you saying I’m ineligible?  That everyone who has even a single grandparent of Irish birth is ineligible?  I may be wrong but I think that includes Joe Biden.  And Ronald Reagan. John Kerry.  John Kennedy.

  67. Beckwith says:

    MarkerMan does the apples and oranges trick.

    I too am eligible for Irish citizenship and passport under the Irish law, but tell me, what does Irish law have to do with Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States?

    You are addressing citizenship.  I am addressing eligibility.

    Obama, at birth, was subject to the laws and jurisdictions of two countries because of his father, a foreign alien.  He is not now, nor has he ever been eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.  If he was born in Hawaii, which i’ll cede, he is a “native born”, statutory citizen, under the 14th Amendment.

  68. repsac3 says:

    Sorry, Beck…
     
    in the absence of any US court willing to take the case and rule in favor of your beliefs, you might just as well be speaking Kenyan. The fact that no one successfully challenged his right to run in court any of the fifty times he certified that he was eligible to run in a given state, that he ran for about a year, and that he’s been serving for two, kinda puts the lie (or at least, the irrelevance) to your allegations as to what that clause really means.
     
    It’s all well and good to believe a thing, but we are a nation of laws… If you can’t get your case heard, your untried facts are worth no more than the electrons they’re printed with…
     
    (Personally, I’d prefer to have it ruled on, one way or the other, but there’s many who’d say that the judiciary branch’s refusal to hear the case IS their ruling on it.)

  69. The Q says:

    Just for the record idiots, Linda Lingle the Gov. of Hawaii is a friggin” REPUBLICAN.
    Do you partisan hacks really think that she would lie for a black Democrat????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
    So, a COLB, newspaper listings from 1961, a Republican Governor personally vouching for the authenticity and you morons aren’t convinced?
    Its like trying to talk string theory with a first grader.
    Only in your warped, twisted minds can such calumny exist.
    Meanwhile, on Planet Earth, let me reiterate a previous point “Go f*uck yourselves!!!!
     

  70. sam says:

    “Obama, at birth, was subject to the laws and jurisdictions of two countries because of his father, a foreign alien. He is not now, nor has he ever been eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. If he was born in Hawaii, which i’ll cede, he is a “native born”, statutory citizen, under the 14th Amendment.”
     
    I think United States v. Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. 649) pretty much put paid to this argument.
    But I hope that we all realize that under this argument, no black person, whose ancestry can be traced back to slavery, can ever be president of the United States, since the slaves were not citizens of the United States (before the 14th Amendment), and thus their children, and their children’s children,  ad infinitum, will never be “natural born” according to Beckwith’s argument — at best they will be “native born”, even under the 14th Amendment. For I can’t see how, under his argument, we can conclude anything other than that the offspring of native-born parents (not natural born, under his definition) can ever be anything other than native-born themselves (under his definition) And, indeed, nobody, whose parents were or are immigrants, and not naturalized at the time of their birth in the United States, can ever be president of the United States, for they, even though born in the United States, can never be natural born citizens of the United States. The patent nonsense of all this should be clear.
     
     

  71. floyd says:

    repsac3;
     Your catching on  with that “relevance” thing!

  72. floyd says:

    ”  but we are a nation of laws… If you can’t get your case heard, your untried facts are worth no more than the electrons they’re printed with…”
    “””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
    repsac3;

     Back to that “relevance”thing…. If those in power won’t here your case you’re just SOL!
    A nation of laws as you say, with politically selective enforcement. 

  73. sam says:

    MarkedMan question piqued my interest.

    Ronald Reagan was born in an apartment on the second floor of a commercial building in Tampico, Illinois, on February 6, 1911, to John Edward “Jack” Reagan and Nelle Wilson Reagan. Reagan’s father was of Irish Catholic ancestry,while his mother had Scots-English ancestors.

    Jack was the youngest of four children born to John Michael Reagan and Jennie (née Cusick), both of whom were second-generation Irish Americans.

    Absent any evidence that the parents of John Edward Reagan and Jennie Cusick ever became naturalized American citizens, we would have to conclude that, under Beckwith’s argument, Ronald Reagan was a native-born citizen of the United States, and not a natural born citizen. Therefore, he was ineligible to become president of the United States.

  74. sam says:

    I meant the parents of John Michael Reagan. Sorry.

  75. mantis says:

    Impeach Reagan!
     
    Seriously, birther idiots.  There are two types of citizen in this country, and only two: natural-born and naturalized.  You’re either a citizen at birth, or you become one through the naturalization process.  That’s it.  Obama has been a citizen at birth, born to an American mother in Honolulu, Hawaii.

  76. repsac3 says:

    They’re all in on it, floyd.
     
    The doctors, the lawyers, the judges, the FBI that did his background checks, everyone he ever went to school with–including the teachers and staff, both here and abroad, the folks who let him use his indonesian passport, every member of congress that didn’t object to his being sworn in, fifty secretaries of state, the governor and head of the health department records in HI, the British government, the Republic of Kenya, …
     
    And not a one of them is talking… Not one. He’s THAT POWERFUL… (How much deeper can this rabbit hole get?!? How many more are involved? Was the JFK assassination just two years later a part of the cover-up? Is Kennedy even really dead, or in hiding, lest his own Irish citizenship be found out? Tune in tomorrow…)

  77. Beauxdog says:

    I really wish you people would stop harping on the birth announcements in the newspapers.  They, along with the COLB, don’t prove anything.
    Why would anyone place false birth announcements or file for a false COLB? How about grandparents who have raised a communist, anti-American daughter who got knocked up, married some Kenyan and moved off to Africa who want their grandchild to be able to claim American citizenship despite their mother?
    I am not a birther, but you lefties cling to the idea that a document available to anyone who applied for it as proof of citizenship.  This is not equivalent to a document that includes eyewitness accounts signed by attending medical professionals which most birth certificates are.  Why can you not admit that Obama’s hiding of most of his records is at least suspicious?

  78. sam says:

    Let me expand a bit. Beckwith says the following:
    “Obama, at birth, was subject to the laws and jurisdictions of two countries because of his father, a foreign alien.”
    (Therefore, he can only be a native-born, as opposed to a natural-born, citizen.)
    Beckwith’s argument can only be understood as asserting that Obama’s father’s citizenship was transferred to Obama. (To keep it simple, let’s just focus on the supposed British citizenship.) Thus, Obama’s two children, Sasha and Malia, are themselves British citizens, since Obama’s citizenship, by Beckwith’s argument, must transfer to them. Thus, Sasha and Malia are not natural-born, but only native-born, citizens of the United States. And so on. The taint of being native-born, as opposed to being natural-born, can never be expunged by the girls, even if they went over to the British embassy and renounced their British “citizenship”. It’s not their citizenship that controls, but their father’s at the time of their births.  And in his case, it’s not his citizenship that controls, but his father’s at the time of his birth. So, even if you are born in the United States but have only one ancestor who was a citizen of a foreign country, and that ancestor never became an American citizen and renounced his or her previous allegiance, you can never, under Beckwith’s argument, be anything other than a native-born citizen. And being native-born, rather than natural born, means you can never be president.
     
    It’s more pernicious in the case of black folks whose ancestry traces back to slavery. According to Beckwith, the freed slaves were only, and forever will be, native-born, not natural born. They had no citizenship in the United States prior to the 14th amendment, and were, technically, citizens of the country from which they were kidnapped. And that citizenship transferred to their offspring. Thus no black person in the United States whose ancestory traces to slavery will ever be anything other than a native-born citizen, and thus no such black person can ever be president.
     
     

  79. Beauxdog says:

    Dear Sam:
    Are you really that willing to twist other people’s ideas?  I don’t think even the most devoted birther thinks Obama is not an American citizen.  I think they doubt his qualification to be president.  That would not cast any doubt on his children.
    Your logic is twisted at best.
     

  80. sam says:

    Dear Beaudog:
     
    Follow the argument, please.  Beckwith (supra) is arguing that Obama is a native-born citizen, not a a natural-born citizen, and thus Obama is ineligible to be president. That’s the argument I was responding to, and showed, I think, that his argument is leads to conclusions that only the insane would support.
     

  81. matt says:

    Yes you can get a COLB in Hawaii for someone borne outside of Hawaii but the problem is that the COLB will list the ACTUAL location of birth as outside Hawaii..

  82. floyd says:

    “The doctors, the lawyers, the judges, the FBI etc,etc,etc.”

    repsac3
     A bit paranoid aren’t cha’ even if only half of what you pretend to know were true!
    I thought all “conspiracy theorists” were considered “nut cases” by your peers.
    Better watch out.

    Again, I couldn’t care less about how BO got into office, or where he came from, as long as it is irrelevant to his staying there , which it is.

    My comment merely supported yours, which is that “we are a nation of laws” and those who control access to the courts , control who gets heard and…
    “If you can’t get your case heard, your untried facts are worth no more than the electrons they’re printed with…”  whether they have merit or not.

    “How much deeper can this rabbit hole get?” 

    I’m not sure but it has already reached the point of “Malice in Wonderland” [lol]   
     

  83. repsac3 says:

    Forgive me if I misunderstood, floyd, but I thought it was you saying that the cases that would prove Obama ineligible to serve were not being heard because those in power do not wish them to be, which sounded mighty conspiratorial to me, hence my reply. If that WASN’T what you were saying, I invite you to take another crack at it, and make your point more clear…
    (Personally, I’m of the opinion that they fail to hear them on the basis of not wasting time, but milage more’n’likely does vary on that…)
     
    And speaking of conspiracies, I wonder what ever happened to that American eocon guy, and his many questions on the matter… Could it be he was just trolling…?

  84. Steven: Non responsive. We are not debating the authenticity. It’s simply not the case that it is known where Obama was born. One can get a COLB without having been born in Hawaii. I’d think you’d be better at this …

  85. Steven: Non responsive. We are not debating the authenticity. It’s simply not the case that it is known where Obama was born. One can get a COLB without having been born in Hawaii. I’d think you’d be better at this …

    So how do you explain that the COLB, which you appear to agree is authentic, places the place of birth as Hononulu, Hawaii? Are you actually arguing that anyone can get a COLB stating that they were born in Hawaii?


  86. repsac3 says:

    (Dang… Looks like my 5:40 comment got caught in the trap…)
     
    Let’s just say that “non-responsive” is a pretty ironic comment for professor Douglas (American eocon) to offer, given all that he’s chosen not to see and hear others say, here…
     
    but perhaps he’ll respond to the words in Steven’s comment, this time… (which is at least the 3rd time the idea has appeared in the thread… …not that AmEo has bothered to notice…)

  87. matt says:

    I keep pointing that out Steven but americanneocon just keeps ignoring that fact…

  88. Beauxdog says:

    I have a respectful and honest question for the stragglers on this thread…
    Had BHO been born in a hospital in Hawaii, I would expect there would be records that contained information like the hospital name, doctor, nurses, parents, etc.  There wouldn’t be just this COLB everyone talks about.
    I hear the argument that anyone can get a COLB in Hawaii, but it would state their place of birth.
    The question is… in 1961, when standards and identification were not as strict as today (people were far more trusting), who could have requested the COLB and supplied the information it contained.  What documentation was required to request the COLB and how stringently was it verified.
    My theory is that IF (big IF) BHO was born in Kenya, his loving grandparents may have tried to protect him from their irresponsible daughter and arranged the COLB to protect his right to American citizenship. Same thing with the newspaper announcements.
    I am not presenting this as fact… just a theory that could explain the COLB and ads IF BHO was born in Kenya.
    I personally believe he was born in Hawaii, but his hiding of the documentation raises doubts in my mind.

  89. @Beauxdog:

    I don’t think you understand what the COLB is:  it is the official document issued by the state of Hawaii based on its own records which certifies that a specific birth took place.  It is not something that the Grandparents filed or created.  It is an official document of the state of Hawaii.

    It is the document someone born in Hawaii would use to get a US Passport, to enroll in school or for anything else that was needed to prove date and place of birth.

    Indeed, except in the conversation, the COLB is usually what people are referring to when they talk about a birth certificate.

  90. Beauxdog says:

    @Steven… thank you for your reply.
     
    I think this is where the confusion is.  You say the COLB is obtained from Hawiian records.  Your nemesis, Americaneocon, says it can be obtained multiple ways… one way by an individual presenting pre-natal and post-natal records signed by a doctor (I found this after my previous message).  Your way would be definitive.  His way leaves my loving grandparent theory valid… only it would take collusion with a family friend who is a doctor or bribery (which would be quite easy to do).
     
    Your disagreement and a lack of clarity from all is what leaves me confused.  It is also hard to believe anyone, or any government, these days because everyone has an agenda.  I am so use to be lied to its hard to know what is the truth.