Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[boyntonstu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EinxdXg_-k

OBAMA Birth Certificate Trial Update of Oct 5

Birthers nuts?

I don't think so.

[Beerina]

Well, that's what "their day in court" means -- time to put up or shut up.

[Meadmaker]

Some of us use work related computers for this, and while forum posts are tolerated, video viewing is severely frowned upon.

When posting video, could you also give a brief summary of what's in it? At least a line or two saying, "This will go to trial" or "These people seem to have some great evidence."

As for your question, "Birthers nuts?" I think the answer is yes, but if there is other evidence, please, present it.

[NoZed Avenger]

I haven't looked at the link, but I'm putting my money on "nuts" unless someone gives me some really good odds.

[JoeTheJuggler]

When posting video, could you also give a brief summary of what's in it? At least a line or two saying, "This will go to trial" or "These people seem to have some great evidence."

You didn't miss anything. It's a 9 minute plus video made by Birthers and attempting to look like a news program.

It shows a Birther pretending to be a reporter interviewing a Birther lawyer.

I only lasted about 2 minutes before I couldn't take it any more.

I gather they were talking about motions to dismiss the case because the plaintiffs have no standing or the court has no jurisdiction. From what I gather, the judge has said he won't dismiss the case because the Birthers have been incompetent (like if they failed to serve notice or some such).


My prediction: this will never get to trial. If it does, when the Birthers lose, they will be severely scolded for wasting the court's time and resources.

[Arcade22]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EinxdXg_-k

OBAMA Birth Certificate Trial Update of Oct 5

Birthers nuts?

I don't think so.

:dl:

[Brainster]

How appropriate is it that the lawyer for the Birthers is named Kreep?:D

[Ausmerican]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EinxdXg_-k

OBAMA Birth Certificate Trial Update of Oct 5

Birthers nuts?

I don't think so.

See, when you say you don't think that Birther's are nuts you kind of imply that you agree with them.
Which would make you one.
Which means no-one here is going to trust your judgment on the sanity or lack thereof of said group that you are a defacto member of since said membership may mean you are mentally challenged also.

[leftysergeant]

The birfers put a lot of faith in the action filed by Orly Taitz and the perpetual whackadoodle candidtate Alan Keyes. Turns out that they had no standing, because their "client" didn't retain them in the first place and has filed action forbidding Orly to file anything on her behalf.

Orly responded by demanding more money from the "client."

Is anybody going to say with a straight face that this is not good evidence that at least a good portion of the birfers are utterly NUTS?

[boyntonstu]

Why? Please explain this outrageous expense.


…….Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated at more than $1 million to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.

WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption records.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110114


Is a fool someone who spends $1,000,000 for no reason?

[Upchurch]

WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption records.
Who cares? What on Ed's green earth do any of the highlighted things matter? Adoption records? Why would their be any adoption records? For that matter, do they even keep baptism records?

Incidentally, here is evidence of his passport (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23736254/). Here is evidence of articles written while he was at the Harvard Law Review (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12705.html).

What do you mean that "files from his years as an Illinois state senator" are not available? What files?

boyntonstu, there is a reason WND is called "Wing Nut Daily". They are not a reliable source of information. This is pure crazy on a stick.

[Thunder]

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EinxdXg_-k)Birthers nuts?
.

certifiably.

[boyntonstu]

$1,000,000 and lawyers for what??????

[Thunder]

WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Columbia thesis, passport, medical records, any baptism records and adoption records.


I'm sorry, how is ANY of this information any of your damn business?

I thought Republicans were the party of privacy and protection of private property.

I thought Republicans didn't want "Big Government" prying into the lives of people?

[Upchurch]

$1,000,000 and lawyers for what??????
Well, lawyers are to represent him in the suit. No matter how ludicrous the suits are, he would be wasting his time defending himself in person. And even then, Obama isn't a law suit lawyer (whatever the proper term is). He'd be stupid to go up against a professional in the area.

And consider how many of these frivolous suits have been brought up. I'm sure the fees add up. ...assuming the $1,000,000 number is true. Do you have a source that isn't a conspiracy theory website?

[Upchurch]

Birthers nuts?

I don't think so.
Birthers are completely nuts. Obama produced his birth certificate already. The state of Hawaii certifies that it is the genuine article and not a fake.

eta: linky (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html)

To any reasonable person, that should have ended it right there.

[boyntonstu]

Birthers are completely nuts. Obama produced his birth certificate already. The state of Hawaii certifies that it is the genuine article and not a fake.

To any reasonable person, that should have ended it right there.

The state of Hawaii certifies that it is the genuine article and not a fake.


Do you have any proof that a valid Birth Certificate was produced?

Do you know the difference between a "Certificate of Live Birth" and a "Birth Certificate"?

Why are Obama's attorneys objecting to the production of the requested document?

A logical explanation please.

[Upchurch]

The state of Hawaii certifies that it is the genuine article and not a fake.


Do you have any proof that a valid Birth Certificate was produced?
Yes, see the eta above.

Do you know the difference between a "Certificate of Live Birth" and a "Birth Certificate"?
Yes. Do you know that they are legally equivalent?

Why are Obama's attorneys objecting to the production of the requested document?

A logical explanation please.
Because it wouldn't solve anything. Obama already produced his birth certificate and people still believe this nonsense. If he produced yet another form of his birth certificate, then, no kidding, we mean it this time, birthers would believe him?

Right. :rolleyes:

eta: ...and are they actually objecting to producing the various documents or are they requesting that the suit be dropped?

[Thunder]

Do you know the difference between a "Certificate of Live Birth" and a "Birth Certificate"?
.

they are the same thing, my friend.

I do not have a New York City High School Diploma. My diploma is specifically from my specialized NYC school.

does that mean, I didn't graduate high school?

[Upchurch]

boyntonstu, instead of just JAQing off all over this thread, how about answering a few questions?

Is there any reason to think that Obama might not be a natural born citizen of the US? Is there any document or testimony to that effect that has not already been thoroughly debunked?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

boyntonstu, instead of just JAQing off all over this thread, how about answering a few questions?

Is there any reason to think that Obama might not be a natural born citizen of the US? Is there any document or testimony to that effect that has not already been thoroughly debunked?

Why sure Mr Upchurch. They are busy PhotoshoppingTM them as we speak. :D

[Meadmaker]

$1,000,000 and lawyers for what??????

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt since you are relatively new here. A lot of us who admire the work of James Randi started out on a very different path. We were investigating all that stuff that was being ignored or covered up. I was a JFK assassination buff myself, and I also was sure that scientists were closed minded people who were way too dismissive of all the evidence for psychic powers.

However, unlike many with similar notions, I was genuinely curious and so I looked into things, and found that the world of conspiracy theories and psychics were full of lies, half truths, distortions, and delusion. Some of it was sincere but absurd. Some was outright fraud.

So, with the possibility that you haven't encountered this sort of thing before, I will assume that you don't know what to look for to see when you are dealing with kooks and/or frauds.

You asked why Obama has spent a million bucks to avoid releasing his birth certificate. After all, no one in their right mind would fritter away a million bucks unless there was some darned good cause.* That's the statement I'll focus on, since it illustrates beautifully the ways of the world of the frauds, con men, and crazies found in this arena.

The statement has a couple of parts. First, there's the assertion that Obama spent a million bucks in legal fees related to the lawsuits surrounding his birth records. Is that really true? Follow the links in your own article. You'll get to here.


"As WND reported, Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie – top lawyer for Obama, Obama's presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and Obama's Organizing for America – is the same Washington, D.C., lawyer defending President Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president."

Earlier in the article, it was noted that Perkins Cole had received 1.4 million bucks from Obama and/or his campaign or related organizations.

So, where's that 1 million dollars to defend against the birther lawsuits? It isn't there. No, it isn't. It says that Obama and co. payed a 1.4 million to Perkins Cole. It says a lawyer defended Obama against the birther lawsuits. It doesn't say that Obama has spent 1 million bucks defending himself against birther lawsuits. (For comparison: I spent 65 dollars at the grocery store yesterday. I bought chicken at the grocery store yesterday. How much did I spend on chicken at the grocery story yesterday? Why did I need so much chicken?)

It's a classis way the frauds distort reality. Sadly, though, Obama has certainly spent a great deal defending against the lawsuits. It's a pity he has to, but it goes with the territory these days. He can't take the time to show up in court himself. He has to send lawyers. He doesn't use guys he finds in the yellow pages, so this idiocy has probably cost him a pretty penny. Fortunately for him, he's mostly using other peoples' money. Unfortunately for us, he, and every other politician in a similar situation, ends up owing favors to the people, or special interest groups, who raised that money for them.

But, one might ask, why did he spend any money at all? Why not just release the records? Another classic case of distortion. Let us imagine that you wanted to prove that you were born in a certain place at a certain time? Assume that this was in the United States. You would begin by producing your birth certificate. However, what if you had no birth certificate? You would replace it. How would you do that?

You would write to the the appropriate authority, probably a state or county official, who maintained the records. They would look in their records and verify that there was a record of a live birth at the place and time with the name issued just as you suggested. Would they then give you the records? Of course not. Those records don't belong to you. They belong to the state. Instead, they would issue a piece of paper that certified that they did indeed look up those records and that there was a record of that live birth at that place and time. Such a paper is called a "birth certificate".

Neither you nor the President can "release the records". Neither he nor you have access to them, nor do either of you have the authority to tell the people who have them to give them to someone else. That's not how it works. They have the records. They keep the records. They "certify" the existence of those records with a "certificate".

There is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about Obama's case. The state has released exactly what they would release for any other citizen. No more. No less. The only difference is that in Obama's case, they have talked about it more than they normally would.

Typical conspiracy stuff. By the way, among people writing about this stuff, some of them are deluded and sincerely believe that there is something to all of this nonsense. Others are frauds trying to sell books or advertising on their web sites, or identify deluded individuals who might be marks for further, more lucrative, fraud. Takes all kinds to make a woo.

*but of course, thousands of psychics leave a million dollars on the table every day by turning down James Randi's challenge

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why? Please explain this outrageous expense.


…….Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated at more than $1 million to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.

Yeah, right.

And if only NASA and the Gummint would release their secret documents it would forever put the UFO/space aliens nutjobbers to rest.

Sure it would. :rolleyes:

Also, I doubt this thing has cost Obama $1,000,000.

I don't know, but I would guess the POTUS ordinarily keeps a law staff on retainer to handle these sorts of things (and any other personal legal work needed). Perhaps *that* total operation costs a million, but it's not devoted just to a Birther lawsuit.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well done, Meadmaker. Especially this bit:


The statement has a couple of parts. First, there's the assertion that Obama spent a million bucks in legal fees related to the lawsuits surrounding his birth records. Is that really true? Follow the links in your own article. You'll get to here.


"As WND reported, Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie – top lawyer for Obama, Obama's presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and Obama's Organizing for America – is the same Washington, D.C., lawyer defending President Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president."

Earlier in the article, it was noted that Perkins Cole had received 1.4 million bucks from Obama and/or his campaign or related organizations.

So, where's that 1 million dollars to defend against the birther lawsuits? It isn't there. No, it isn't. It says that Obama and co. payed a 1.4 million to Perkins Cole. It says a lawyer defended Obama against the birther lawsuits. It doesn't say that Obama has spent 1 million bucks defending himself against birther lawsuits. (For comparison: I spent 65 dollars at the grocery store yesterday. I bought chicken at the grocery store yesterday. How much did I spend on chicken at the grocery story yesterday? Why did I need so much chicken?)

Also did you notice the way his claim went from Obama spent $1,000,000 on this case to "$1,000,000 and lawyers"?

[boyntonstu]

Types of certified copies issued
Long forms, also known as certified photocopies, book copies, and photostat copies, are exact photocopies of the original birth record that was prepared by the hospital or attending physician at the time of the child's birth.[7] The long form usually includes parents' information (address of residence, race, birth place, date of birth, etc.), additional information on the child's birthplace, and information on the doctors who assisted in the birth of the child. The long form also usually includes the signature of the doctor involved and at least one of the parents.[8]

Long forms may become obsolete in years to come, as many states have begun to use Electronic Birth Registration systems.[9] The use of these systems will enable information typically seen on certified copies (long forms) to be available in computer databases that typically issue short form certificates, thus eliminating the need for "hard copy" long form certificates and having all birth information stored in computer databases only. This benefits parents in many ways; registration can be completed via computer at the hospital, meaning that parents can stop by their Vital Statistics office on the way home from the hospital to purchase the birth certificate instantly.[10] It also means that the extra cost for long form certificates will no longer be a factor.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_certificatePlease provide appropriate reference for quoted material.

[JoeTheJuggler]

they are the same thing, my friend.


Indeed.

Last time I renewed my driver's license, the state license office said that Homeland Security is requiring us to present a birth certificate this time around. The photocopy I already had wasn't good, so I had to get a certified copy from City Hall (or from the state Department of Health and Senior Services). The heading on my birth certificate was "Certificate of Live Birth".

The requirement for a "birth certificate" was fulfilled by this document.

[Upchurch]

Types of certified copies issued {snip}
It is usually courteous to cite the page you copy and paste from.

We all know that the long form and certificate of live birth are two different things. The point is that, legally speaking, they are the same thing.

So, is there a particular reason you would like this obscure form of birth certificate? Is there any actual reason that it would convince you when all other evidence could not?

[Dancing David]

Why? Please explain this outrageous expense.


…….Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated at more than $1 million to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.

WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption records.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110114




Is a fool someone who spends $1,000,000 for no reason?

Are you really quoting World News Daily!

:dl:

Even better you are referencing an article by Camille Paglia!

Most embarrassing vote: Bill Clinton the second time around. Because he did not honorably resign when the Lewinsky scandal broke and instead tied up the country and paralyzed the government for two years, leading directly to our blindsiding by 9/11.

http://reason.com/archives/2004/11/01/whos-getting-your-vote/8

:dl:

[fullflavormenthol]

I was born in LA, and I have a certificate of live birth; they are the same document. I got a license with it, I got a passport with it, and I got a job with it.

This crap belongs in the CT section. The President is a citizen, natural born and the overwhelming evidence supports this case.

Types of certified copies issued
Long forms, also known as certified photocopies, book copies, and photostat copies, are exact photocopies of the original birth record that was prepared by the hospital or attending physician at the time of the child's birth.[7] The long form usually includes parents' information (address of residence, race, birth place, date of birth, etc.), additional information on the child's birthplace, and information on the doctors who assisted in the birth of the child. The long form also usually includes the signature of the doctor involved and at least one of the parents.[8]


I went ahead and bolded the part that is incorrect for you.

A long form will contain information like the hospital, where the parents were born and their ages; and not a whole hell of a lot else. They are not photocopies or exact copies, and now they are simply printed from a computer like the short forms.

OH...Hawaii doesn't even issue a long form.

[Thunder]

Types of certified copies issued
Long forms, also known as certified photocopies, book copies, and photostat copies, are exact photocopies of the original birth record that was prepared by the hospital or attending physician at the time of the child's birth.[7] The long form usually includes parents' information (address of residence, race, birth place, date of birth, etc.), additional information on the child's birthplace, and information on the doctors who assisted in the birth of the child. The long form also usually includes the signature of the doctor involved and at least one of the parents.[8]

Long forms may become obsolete in years to come, as many states have begun to use Electronic Birth Registration systems.[9] The use of these systems will enable information typically seen on certified copies (long forms) to be available in computer databases that typically issue short form certificates, thus eliminating the need for "hard copy" long form certificates and having all birth information stored in computer databases only. This benefits parents in many ways; registration can be completed via computer at the hospital, meaning that parents can stop by their Vital Statistics office on the way home from the hospital to purchase the birth certificate instantly.[10] It also means that the extra cost for long form certificates will no longer be a factor.

do you understand how STUPID this all is? do you have any concept of that?

[Dancing David]

Types of certified copies issued
Long forms, also known as certified photocopies, book copies, and photostat copies, are exact photocopies of the original birth record that was prepared by the hospital or attending physician at the time of the child's birth.[7] The long form usually includes parents' information (address of residence, race, birth place, date of birth, etc.), additional information on the child's birthplace, and information on the doctors who assisted in the birth of the child. The long form also usually includes the signature of the doctor involved and at least one of the parents.[8]

Long forms may become obsolete in years to come, as many states have begun to use Electronic Birth Registration systems.[9] The use of these systems will enable information typically seen on certified copies (long forms) to be available in computer databases that typically issue short form certificates, thus eliminating the need for "hard copy" long form certificates and having all birth information stored in computer databases only. This benefits parents in many ways; registration can be completed via computer at the hospital, meaning that parents can stop by their Vital Statistics office on the way home from the hospital to purchase the birth certificate instantly.[10] It also means that the extra cost for long form certificates will no longer be a factor.

Um, long forms are already obsolete. My wife and my son both (she born in 1972, he in 1992) , if you request a copy of their birth cerufucate, what will you get a 'record of live birth' and a computer print out amazingly like the one the POTUS has.

the long form is not required to get a passport orr a security clearance.

False issue.

[Dancing David]

boyntonstu, instead of just JAQing off all over this thread, how about answering a few questions?

Is there any reason to think that Obama might not be a natural born citizen of the US? Is there any document or testimony to that effect that has not already been thoroughly debunked?

Well, now that you have Upchurched the thread... Ziggy

;)

[fullflavormenthol]

Um, long forms are already obsolete. My wife and my son both (she born in 1972, he in 1992) , if you request a copy of their birth cerufucate, what will you get a 'record of live birth' and a computer print out amazingly like the one the POTUS has.

the long form is not required to get a passport orr a security clearance.

False issue.
Exactly. I have a long form COLB, and all it has is a little more information that is completely useless. No one needs to know my parents birth place and age. Many states are getting rid of them because all the added information is pointless and only a short form is needed for all federal standards.

[Upchurch]

OH...Hawaii doesn't even issue a long form.
...anymore. Not since 2001 (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html).
"At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting," she said.

Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.

"The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests," Okubo said.

Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate."

"The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models," she said.

Okubo also emphasized the certification form "contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate."
Obama couldn't produce a "long form" certificate if he wanted to.

[Juniversal]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt since you are relatively new here. A lot of us who admire the work of James Randi started out on a very different path. We were investigating all that stuff that was being ignored or covered up. I was a JFK assassination buff myself, and I also was sure that scientists were closed minded people who were way too dismissive of all the evidence for psychic powers.

However, unlike many with similar notions, I was genuinely curious and so I looked into things, and found that the world of conspiracy theories and psychics were full of lies, half truths, distortions, and delusion. Some of it was sincere but absurd. Some was outright fraud.

So, with the possibility that you haven't encountered this sort of thing before, I will assume that you don't know what to look for to see when you are dealing with kooks and/or frauds.

You asked why Obama has spent a million bucks to avoid releasing his birth certificate. After all, no one in their right mind would fritter away a million bucks unless there was some darned good cause.* That's the statement I'll focus on, since it illustrates beautifully the ways of the world of the frauds, con men, and crazies found in this arena.

The statement has a couple of parts. First, there's the assertion that Obama spent a million bucks in legal fees related to the lawsuits surrounding his birth records. Is that really true? Follow the links in your own article. You'll get to here.


"As WND reported, Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie – top lawyer for Obama, Obama's presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and Obama's Organizing for America – is the same Washington, D.C., lawyer defending President Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president."

Earlier in the article, it was noted that Perkins Cole had received 1.4 million bucks from Obama and/or his campaign or related organizations.

So, where's that 1 million dollars to defend against the birther lawsuits? It isn't there. No, it isn't. It says that Obama and co. payed a 1.4 million to Perkins Cole. It says a lawyer defended Obama against the birther lawsuits. It doesn't say that Obama has spent 1 million bucks defending himself against birther lawsuits. (For comparison: I spent 65 dollars at the grocery store yesterday. I bought chicken at the grocery store yesterday. How much did I spend on chicken at the grocery story yesterday? Why did I need so much chicken?)

It's a classis way the frauds distort reality. Sadly, though, Obama has certainly spent a great deal defending against the lawsuits. It's a pity he has to, but it goes with the territory these days. He can't take the time to show up in court himself. He has to send lawyers. He doesn't use guys he finds in the yellow pages, so this idiocy has probably cost him a pretty penny. Fortunately for him, he's mostly using other peoples' money. Unfortunately for us, he, and every other politician in a similar situation, ends up owing favors to the people, or special interest groups, who raised that money for them.

But, one might ask, why did he spend any money at all? Why not just release the records? Another classic case of distortion. Let us imagine that you wanted to prove that you were born in a certain place at a certain time? Assume that this was in the United States. You would begin by producing your birth certificate. However, what if you had no birth certificate? You would replace it. How would you do that?

You would write to the the appropriate authority, probably a state or county official, who maintained the records. They would look in their records and verify that there was a record of a live birth at the place and time with the name issued just as you suggested. Would they then give you the records? Of course not. Those records don't belong to you. They belong to the state. Instead, they would issue a piece of paper that certified that they did indeed look up those records and that there was a record of that live birth at that place and time. Such a paper is called a "birth certificate".

Neither you nor the President can "release the records". Neither he nor you have access to them, nor do either of you have the authority to tell the people who have them to give them to someone else. That's not how it works. They have the records. They keep the records. They "certify" the existence of those records with a "certificate".

There is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about Obama's case. The state has released exactly what they would release for any other citizen. No more. No less. The only difference is that in Obama's case, they have talked about it more than they normally would.

Typical conspiracy stuff. By the way, among people writing about this stuff, some of them are deluded and sincerely believe that there is something to all of this nonsense. Others are frauds trying to sell books or advertising on their web sites, or identify deluded individuals who might be marks for further, more lucrative, fraud. Takes all kinds to make a woo.

*but of course, thousands of psychics leave a million dollars on the table every day by turning down James Randi's challengeGood post.

[Juniversal]

Types of certified copies issued
Long forms, also known as certified photocopies, book copies, and photostat copies, are exact photocopies of the original birth record that was prepared by the hospital or attending physician at the time of the child's birth.[7] The long form usually includes parents' information (address of residence, race, birth place, date of birth, etc.), additional information on the child's birthplace, and information on the doctors who assisted in the birth of the child. The long form also usually includes the signature of the doctor involved and at least one of the parents.[8]

Long forms may become obsolete in years to come, as many states have begun to use Electronic Birth Registration systems.[9] The use of these systems will enable information typically seen on certified copies (long forms) to be available in computer databases that typically issue short form certificates, thus eliminating the need for "hard copy" long form certificates and having all birth information stored in computer databases only. This benefits parents in many ways; registration can be completed via computer at the hospital, meaning that parents can stop by their Vital Statistics office on the way home from the hospital to purchase the birth certificate instantly.[10] It also means that the extra cost for long form certificates will no longer be a factor.I missed the part that concluded that the Certificate of live birth was any less "official" then the long form. Did I miss something??

[Meadmaker]

Types of certified copies issued
Long forms,

Can you tell me how I would go about getting my "long form" birth certificate? When I wanted a certified copy of my birth certificate, I wrote to the county of my birth (in Colorado) and asked for one. I can't recall what else I was required to provide. I do know that the form didn't have any options for "long form" or "short form" copies.

That was in 1998, by the way. I then proceeded to use that "short form" copy to get not one, but two, passports. I got one from the United States, and one from Ireland. If I ever run for Taoiseach, I'll bet there will be one heck of a ruckus about my citizenship, but it's quite perfectly legitimate.

[MattusMaximus]

How appropriate is it that the lawyer for the Birthers is named Kreep?:D

Wins thread :D

[Arus808]

Do you have any proof that a valid Birth Certificate was produced?

Yes it has been produced. Hawaii only provides a Certification of Live Birth - has been using only that version since the 60's.

Dont even try to wave that fact away, since
1)IM from Hawaii
2) I have a Certification of Live Birth
3) This is the only type of certificate given by the State of Hawaii by the Department of Health. My copies come from 1976 and from 2006 (yes I have two, I misplaced the one my parents obtained in 1976 - and subsequently found it after a move)

The certification of live birth (AKA short form) is legal to to obtain:
Driver License
Passport (of all things, this is the most important)
Get a Job (tax filings)
Establish citizenship.

I did all of the above with my COLB.


Do you know the difference between a "Certificate of Live Birth" and a "Birth Certificate"?

Yes, its practically the same thing. NOT all states call their "birth certificates" that. Hawaii uses the term Certification of Live Birth. The only other term they use was Certificate of Birth, which is the only words that could fit on a 1 3/4" x 2 1/2" card that duplicates the information found on the COLB which they stopped giving out in 80's


Want to challenge that. I was born in Hawaii, so you have a huge uphill battle to prove me wrong.



Why are Obama's attorneys objecting to the production of the requested document?


They aren't doing that. They are fighting frivolous lawsuits that are asking for private information to be revealed.

[uk_dave]

$1,000,000 and lawyers for what??????

Just to piss you off.

Money well spent

[Dr Adequate]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EinxdXg_-k

OBAMA Birth Certificate Trial Update of Oct 5

Birthers nuts?

I don't think so. Gullibility like yours should not be wasted.

I bet you $10,000 that the Birthers will lose this case --- because they are, of course, nuts.

Do you agree to this wager?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Do you know the difference between a "Certificate of Live Birth" and a "Birth Certificate"?

Yes. NOTHING!

I have a copy of my birth certificate from the state of Illinios and at the top it says, "Certificate of Live Birth". The difference is a myth made up by birthers. In fact on a Freerepublic thread discussing the issue a guy posted his kids "birth certificate" to show how it was different than a "certificate of life birth"... except right at the top it said "certificate of live birth".

[dtugg]

A certified copy of my birth certificate issued a month after I was born says, "Certificate of Live Birth."

Birthers are stupid and crazy.

[Hokulele]

I suppose someone working for the Obama administration developed a time machine and went back to change the birth announcements in the 13 August, 1961 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser.

[boyntonstu]

I suppose someone working for the Obama administration developed a time machine and went back to change the birth announcements in the 13 August, 1961 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser.

If I placed your birth announcement in the newspaper today, could you claim that you are younger?

Count the ways to get Hawaii 'birth certificate'
WorldNetDaily ^ | July 29, 2009 | Bob Unruh

Posted on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:23:47 PM by RobinMasters

An analysis of Hawaii's birth recording requirements around the time of Barack Obama's 1961 birth reveals several ways to generate a "Certificate of Birth," including some that require no documentation other than the assertion of a adult.

The word comes in a report by an investigator commissioned by a retired CIA officer. The report was posted online by the Western Center for Journalism, which withheld the officer's name.

"In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an 'original birth certificate' on record," the investigator says, including a report to the Department of Health from an attending physician or midwife.

But if the certificate was obtained through any of the other three options, "Obama would have a very good reason not to release the vault birth certificate," the investigator said.

"If the original certificate were the standard … type of birth certificate (documented by a physician or midwife), he would have allowed its release and brought the controversy to a quick end," the report said. The investigator said if the birth certificate was obtained by one of the other methods, then it contributes to the overall questions raised about Obama's eligibility.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...

[leftysergeant]

Let me see your birth certificate within the next 24 hours(you can block out the names) or we will all assume that you are not actually a human being.

Do you get what this is supposed to prove?

[Thunder]

A certified copy of my birth certificate issued a month after I was born says, "Certificate of Live Birth."

Birthers are stupid and crazy.

well then, you must have been born in Kenya.

:D

could you show us a copy with the private info blanked out?

[twinstead]

If I placed your birth announcement in the newspaper today, could you claim that you are younger?

Count the ways to get Hawaii 'birth certificate'
WorldNetDaily ^ | July 29, 2009 | Bob Unruh

Posted on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:23:47 PM by RobinMasters

An analysis of Hawaii's birth recording requirements around the time of Barack Obama's 1961 birth reveals several ways to generate a "Certificate of Birth," including some that require no documentation other than the assertion of a adult.

The word comes in a report by an investigator commissioned by a retired CIA officer. The report was posted online by the Western Center for Journalism, which withheld the officer's name.

"In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an 'original birth certificate' on record," the investigator says, including a report to the Department of Health from an attending physician or midwife.

But if the certificate was obtained through any of the other three options, "Obama would have a very good reason not to release the vault birth certificate," the investigator said.

"If the original certificate were the standard … type of birth certificate (documented by a physician or midwife), he would have allowed its release and brought the controversy to a quick end," the report said. The investigator said if the birth certificate was obtained by one of the other methods, then it contributes to the overall questions raised about Obama's eligibility.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...

Does any of this actually answer the question posed? Are you suggesting that the birth announcement is fake?

[ANTPogo]

If I placed your birth announcement in the newspaper today, could you claim that you are younger?

That's utterly irrelevant, since in 1961, at the time of Obama's birth, the Hawaii newspapers got the information used for birth announcements directly from the hospitals, and not from the family. So, unless the hospitals and/or the newspapers were in on the coverup back in '61, Barack Obama was indeed born in Honolulu.


Count the ways to get Hawaii 'birth certificate'
WorldNetDaily ^ | July 29, 2009 | Bob Unruh

Posted on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:23:47 PM by RobinMasters

An analysis of Hawaii's birth recording requirements around the time of Barack Obama's 1961 birth reveals several ways to generate a "Certificate of Birth," including some that require no documentation other than the assertion of a adult.

The word comes in a report by an investigator commissioned by a retired CIA officer. The report was posted online by the Western Center for Journalism, which withheld the officer's name.

"In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an 'original birth certificate' on record," the investigator says, including a report to the Department of Health from an attending physician or midwife.

But if the certificate was obtained through any of the other three options, "Obama would have a very good reason not to release the vault birth certificate," the investigator said.

"If the original certificate were the standard … type of birth certificate (documented by a physician or midwife), he would have allowed its release and brought the controversy to a quick end," the report said. The investigator said if the birth certificate was obtained by one of the other methods, then it contributes to the overall questions raised about Obama's eligibility.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...

You haven't actually read any post in this thread, have you?

[Dancing David]

If I placed your birth announcement in the newspaper today, could you claim that you are younger?

Count the ways to get Hawaii 'birth certificate'
WorldNetDaily ^ | July 29, 2009 | Bob Unruh

Posted on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:23:47 PM by RobinMasters

An analysis of Hawaii's birth recording requirements around the time of Barack Obama's 1961 birth reveals several ways to generate a "Certificate of Birth," including some that require no documentation other than the assertion of a adult.

The word comes in a report by an investigator commissioned by a retired CIA officer. The report was posted online by the Western Center for Journalism, which withheld the officer's name.

"In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an 'original birth certificate' on record," the investigator says, including a report to the Department of Health from an attending physician or midwife.

But if the certificate was obtained through any of the other three options, "Obama would have a very good reason not to release the vault birth certificate," the investigator said.

"If the original certificate were the standard … type of birth certificate (documented by a physician or midwife), he would have allowed its release and brought the controversy to a quick end," the report said. The investigator said if the birth certificate was obtained by one of the other methods, then it contributes to the overall questions raised about Obama's eligibility.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


Again with the World Net Daily!

:dl:

[twinstead]

I still think this should be in the conspiracy subforum

[Thunder]

If I placed your birth announcement in the newspaper today, could you claim that you are younger?

Count the ways to get Hawaii 'birth certificate'
WorldNetDaily ^ | July 29, 2009 | Bob Unruh .

how about this? PROVE that Obama's short form birth certificate and the birth announcemants are fakes, or let it go.

how's that for a challenge? can ya do it?

[Lurker]

Can you tell me how I would go about getting my "long form" birth certificate? When I wanted a certified copy of my birth certificate, I wrote to the county of my birth (in Colorado) and asked for one. I can't recall what else I was required to provide. I do know that the form didn't have any options for "long form" or "short form" copies.

Yeah, but the form did have options for "fake" and "real". Clearly Obama checked the "fake" box when requesting his Birth Certificate.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EinxdXg_-k

OBAMA Birth Certificate Trial Update of Oct 5

Birthers nuts?

I don't think so.

Birthers are morons. Period.

Are you a birther?

[Ladewig]

Typical conspiracy stuff.

Very much so, given that if the birth certificate is fake then there must be large numbers of diverse people willing to keep information secret. We are left to wonder why John McCain didn't want to disqualify his opponent. Why did the Republican National Committee spend 100s of millions of dollars when they simply could have disqualified the democratic candidate at the last minute and forced the runner up (Hillary) to take over when no money or time was left?

[timhau]

how appropriate is it that the lawyer for the birthers is named kreep?:d

wins thread :d

O rly?

[Ladewig]

A link to Snopes is never inappropriate: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

[DDWW]

I would have thought by now some film crew would have gone to Kenya and interviewed villagers who “saw the birth, participated in the birth, heard about the birth,” etc. with accompanying film of “the actual hut”.

Seems like some money could be made there.

DDWW

[timhau]

I would have thought by now some film crew would have gone to Kenya and interviewed villagers who “saw the birth, participated in the birth, heard about the birth,” etc. with accompanying film of “the actual hut”.

Seems like some money could be made there.


Yes, but not a million dollars which, as we just learned, is what Obama has spent to keep his true birthplace a secret.

[twinstead]

How the hell can ANY rational person ignore the evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961?

[boyntonstu]

I would have thought by now some film crew would have gone to Kenya and interviewed villagers who “saw the birth, participated in the birth, heard about the birth,” etc. with accompanying film of “the actual hut”.

Seems like some money could be made there.

DDWW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlFc4wCpvSo

and:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT1PBlud8GQ

[twinstead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlFc4wCpvSo

and:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT1PBlud8GQ

Do you have ANY comment on the evidence submitted that Obama was born in Hawaii? I mean for example, is the Hawaii registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, who physically touched the birth certificate lying?

[dtugg]

How the hell can ANY rational person ignore the evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961?

Birthers aren't rational people.

[twinstead]

Birthers aren't rational people.

Yes. twinstead, the master of the rhetorical question ;)

[timhau]

I mean for example, is the Hawaii registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, who physically touched the birth certificate lying?

That so-called Hawaii registrar of vital statistics is obviously a fraud. Everyone knows Vitalstatistix is from Gaul!

http://www.asterix.co.nz/characters/gauls/vitalstatistix.jpg

[twinstead]

That so-called Hawaii registrar of vital statistics is obviously a fraud. Everyone knows Vitalstatistix is from Gaul!

http://www.asterix.co.nz/characters/gauls/vitalstatistix.jpg

LOL I stand corrected

[boyntonstu]

That's utterly irrelevant, since in 1961, at the time of Obama's birth, the Hawaii newspapers got the information used for birth announcements directly from the hospitals, and not from the family. So, unless the hospitals and/or the newspapers were in on the coverup back in '61, Barack Obama was indeed born in Honolulu.


the Hawaii newspapers got the information used for birth announcements directly from the hospitals,


Fact or opinion?

Please provide reference/cite for all quoted material (in this case ANTPogo).

[twinstead]

Alvin Onaka, the Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics says Obama was born in Hawaii.

Fact or opinion?

[twinstead]

We therefore find that Plaintiff’s attempt to use these statutes to gain standing to
pursue his Natural Born Citizen Clause claim are frivolous and not worthy of discussion.

I think a Federal Judge pretty much sums it up.

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/08D1256P.pdf

[boyntonstu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3f0GYXTcXc

Listen as Philip J. Berg; attorney explains the Obama eligibility case that he is spearheading. Many interesting facts are uncovered and examined.

Berg was a life-long Democrat.

Decide for yourself.

[Travis]

This is like a Socratic Dialogue done by a four year old on a sugar high and a blind chimp that knows sign language but has arthritis.

[Ohnoes]

Yes because Berg is a solid individual...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Berg

Berg was successfully sued for legal malpractice by former clients on whose behalf Berg had neglected to file a response to a complaint in an ERISA lawsuit, resulting in a default judgment being entered against the former clients.

In October 2004, Berg filed Rodriguez v. Bush, accusing the President of the United States and 155 other parties of complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

Also, being a Dem doesn't make him any less crazy!:rolleyes:

[twinstead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3f0GYXTcXc

Listen as Philip J. Berg; attorney explains the Obama eligibility case that he is spearheading. Many interesting facts are uncovered and examined.

Berg was a life-long Democrat.

Decide for yourself.

The evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii is ENORMOUS. Like the courts have said, it's not even worthy of discussion. You obviously REFUSE to discuss any evidence that contradicts your opinion, and for good reason.

One last chance: Do you think the Hawaii Registrar is lying?

[Dancing David]

I still think this should be in the conspiracy subforum

Yay, this is in the CT forum! I must now don a disguise.

[Dancing David]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3f0GYXTcXc

Listen as Philip J. Berg; attorney explains the Obama eligibility case that he is spearheading. Many interesting facts are uncovered and examined.

Berg was a life-long Democrat.

Decide for yourself.

Appeal to authority, can't stand facts? Quote someone else who has no facts!
A 'life-long Democrat' is not a shield against stupidity.

[Meadmaker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3f0GYXTcXc

Listen as Philip J. Berg; attorney explains the Obama eligibility case that he is spearheading. Many interesting facts are uncovered and examined.

Berg was a life-long Democrat.

Decide for yourself.

I got as far as "Obama isn't producing these documents"

More typical conspiracy stuff.

The real overwhelming evidence of the conspiracy is that there is NO EVIDENCE!

You see, if we had the documents, that would be evidence! But since we don't have the documents, there's no evidence! The lack of evidence is the evidence!

The state of Hawaii has the evidence, and they say Obama was born there.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3f0GYXTcXc

Listen as Philip J. Berg; attorney explains the Obama eligibility case that he is spearheading. Many interesting facts are uncovered and examined.

Berg was a life-long Democrat.

Decide for yourself.

Berg is a life long moron. Are you?

[DDWW]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlFc4wCpvSo

and:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT1PBlud8GQ

Was really thinking more on the lines of a high production film, sorta like "The NASA moon landing coverups", or "Area 51 exposed!"

DD (I think I was born in the USA)WW

[Myron Proudfoot]

So let’s see if I have the birther conspiracy correct. In the Summer of 1961 Obama’s mom, who is only 18, is about to give birth to her first child. She has two choices.

a) Give birth in a Honolulu Hospital, where she knows she will get good care, surrounded by her family and friends, with a doctor she knows, and where she can go home after a few days with a newborn via an easy car ride, knowing that she has family and friends to help her with her baby

b) She can travel to Kenya, probably a several day trip via airplane (while 9 months pregnant!) buying international airplane tickets even though she’s a college student without a lot of money. Once in Kenya she can give birth aided by an unknown doctor, in a hospital she doesn’t know anything about, surrounded by strangers. Once she’s given birth she has to then repeat her trip back halfway across the world, this time with a newborn.

For some reason she chooses Option B. She makes the trip but manages not to leave any trail of documents behind, such as consular records or visas. She also somehow (and for some odd reason) has someone in a hospital in Honolulu fake a birth record so that an announcement will appear in the Honolulu newspapers and so her son’s official records will say he was born in Honolulu. She then swears her family and friends to secrecy, again for no reason that was apparent in 1961.

Gee, and birthers wonder why the rest of us think they’re crazy. (and, I would add, racist. No one ever questioned the nationality of a white candidate before, and no, there are not “legitimate questions” in this case.)

[Myron Proudfoot]

Berg was a life-long Democrat.

And some lifelong Republicans, including one of Bob Dole's old aides, are 9-11 troothers. They're still nuts...

[ANTPogo]

the Hawaii newspapers got the information used for birth announcements directly from the hospitals,


Fact or opinion?

The Hawaii newspapers in question themselves (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/-1/specialobama08) sure seem to think that it's fact.

[T]he first mention of Barack Obama ever published — a tiny, one-line birth notice in the Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961, edition of The Honolulu Advertiser:

"Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, son, Aug. 4."

The exact same notice appeared the following day in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. The numerous birth announcements above and below the Obama listing also were identical in both papers, which were unaffiliated, competing publications.

Advertiser columnist and former Star-Bulletin managing editor Dave Shapiro was not at either paper in 1961, but he remembers how the birth notices process worked years later when both papers were jointly operated by the Hawaii Newspaper Agency — which no longer exists.

"Those were listings that came over from the state Department of Health," he said. "They would send the same thing to both papers."

[Myron Proudfoot]

So, where's that 1 million dollars to defend against the birther lawsuits? It isn't there. No, it isn't. It says that Obama and co. payed a 1.4 million to Perkins Cole. It says a lawyer defended Obama against the birther lawsuits. It doesn't say that Obama has spent 1 million bucks defending himself against birther lawsuits. (For comparison: I spent 65 dollars at the grocery store yesterday. I bought chicken at the grocery store yesterday. How much did I spend on chicken at the grocery story yesterday? Why did I need so much chicken?)

A great example. TY

All 50 states have different filing requirements, both for the primary process and for the general election. it takes a ton of lawyers to take care of the paperwork. What did McCain and Clinton spend? I bet it's a lot of $$ as well. The birthers' "logic" reminds me of the 9/11 twoofers and the Pentagon surveillance camera films. the FBI checked all the films from surveillance cameras nearby. I think the twoofers use the figure of 85 for the cameras. Most of the films didn't show squat but the investigators had to check. in the twoofers' world this magically became 85 films of the plane hitting the Pentagon. They've not been released! WHAT IS THE FBI HIDING! (nothing, they were released, and show zilch) Somehow, magically, a national campaigns total legal bill for a year-long campaign is now being applied to one legal battle AFTER the election.

FWIW, I read in one article about the birthers (forget which one, sorry) that at leas tone of the lawyers filing on Obama's behalf against the birthers is working for free because he's so offended by the lawsuits.

Birthers just can't stand that a black man was elected President, period.

[kookbreaker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EinxdXg_-k

OBAMA Birth Certificate Trial Update of Oct 5

Birthers nuts?

I don't think so.

Birthers are nuttier than a squirrel stash. They are the most stupid, arrogant and incompetent group of people in the US today second only to truthers.

They are also morons, led by a complete and utter moron. They are so idiotic and moronic that they find conspiracies to explain their failures rather than own up to the fact that they are morons. They are a class of people for whom trepanation would result in an improvement.

The birthers are such dumb***** that you have to wonder it Poe's law is in application. Between groups calling themselves 'teabaggers' and the birther leader being named 'Orly' I have to wonder if soon they will jump out and say 'thanks for helping us show how many people and news sources would take this dreck seriously!"

[NoZed Avenger]

Birthers are nuttier than a squirrel stash. They are the most stupid, arrogant and incompetent group of people in the US today second only to truthers.

They are also morons, led by a complete and utter moron. They are so idiotic and moronic that they find conspiracies to explain their failures rather than own up to the fact that they are morons. They are a class of people for whom trepanation would result in an improvement.

The birthers are such dumb***** that you have to wonder it Poe's law is in application. Between groups calling themselves 'teabaggers' and the birther leader being named 'Orly' I have to wonder if soon they will jump out and say 'thanks for helping us show how many people and news sources would take this dreck seriously!"

I have to take issue with a portion of your post. In your first paragraph, I think you need a comma or some form of punctuation after the word "today."

[Meadmaker]

As an aside, I haven't followed this story very much, because it isn't really worth it, but I'm curious about something. Is there any reason to believe that the State of Hawaii has any unreleased documents? (Like a "long form" birth certificate?) I believe that the answer to that is yes. I believe they have something other than the actual birth certificate that we have all seen.

Now, assuming that they have some form of record, and that it has not been publicly released, is there any reason to assume that Barack Obama has the authority to release said documents? I'm fairly certain that he has no more authority than you or I have to release documents. Could he release them if he wanted to? I suspect the answer is no, but I have no real knowledge of the matter.

I can say without doubt that there are plenty of reasons other than some presidential aspirations that he might not want to do so, even if he has the power to do so. I'll tell (part of) a story from my own life.

When I was 11 years old, I saw my birth certificate for the first time. It wasn't the certified copy that I have now. It must have been a "long form", because it had more information on it, like siblings and such. Seeing it prompted me to say, "Hey, mom. There's a mistake on my birth certificate. It says I have two brothers!"

Well, let me tell you, there was an awkward silence around the table that night.

[Paulhoff]

Why isn't Obama called white, he is half and half.

Because if he was, this thread wouldn't be here.

After the election I thought highly of my county, lately, that thought is falling fast. :o

I can't believe how many of the right-wingers have become so childlish. Obama was born in a state, McCain was born in a territory, The Panama Canal Zone, why wasn't he question on where he was born........... you think it is because he is so-called white.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Myron Proudfoot]

[QUOTE=Paulhoff;5180199]McCain was born in a territory, The Panama Canal Zone, why wasn't he question on where he was born........... you think it is because he is so-called white.

Paul

Well, some commentators on leftwing blogs did raise that point, but were generally shouted down right away by other commentators noting that since his parents were US citizens it didn't matter. But yeah, the difference is interesting...

[Arus808]

Seems that boy-o has skipped over this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5178468&postcount=39

Notice how he cowers away from someone who was born and lived in Hawaii?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Very much so, given that if the birth certificate is fake then there must be large numbers of diverse people willing to keep information secret. We are left to wonder why John McCain didn't want to disqualify his opponent. Why did the Republican National Committee spend 100s of millions of dollars when they simply could have disqualified the democratic candidate at the last minute and forced the runner up (Hillary) to take over when no money or time was left?

Oh. Oh. Oh. I know the answer to this. McCain did not bring it up because he is not a natural born US citizen either because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. They had a secret mutual agreement not to raise the issue. So there! :rolleyes:

[boyntonstu]

Oh. Oh. Oh. I know the answer to this. McCain did not bring it up because he is not a natural born US citizen either because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. They had a secret mutual agreement not to raise the issue. So there! :rolleyes:

McCain turned over all requested documents.

Why doesn't Obama?


If the situation was reversed and McCain was President, I would support releasing McCain's documents. (Had he refused)

[Hokulele]

If I placed your birth announcement in the newspaper today, could you claim that you are younger?


If you tried to place my birth announcement in either of the main Honolulu newspapers, you would earn some funny looks and be shown the door. Birth and marriage announcements printed in the newspapers are taken from the Department of Health (as ANTPogo noted). If you had read the actual 1961 edition that contains the birth announcement, you would have noted the title of that section, "Health Bureau Statistics".

Even if these announcements were submitted by the families, are you suggesting that the conspiracy to elect Obama as president goes back to his infancy?

[Paulhoff]

McCain turned over all requested documents.

Why doesn't Obama?


If the situation was reversed and McCain was President, I would support releasing McCain's documents. (Had he refused)
Who says Obama didn't. Why would anyone's in their wildest dreams think that anyone with any authority wouldn't have check that already. Please, you have to be at least 35 years old too for the job, that would be check out with a birth certificate.

I've only had to show my birth certificate once, and that was for a passport, not even the military service asked for one.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Ladewig]

McCain turned over all requested documents.

Why doesn't Obama?

As long as you are still bellyaching about this issue, do you have a reason why McCain and the other republicans didn't expose President Obama?

[16.5]

WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption records.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110114


Is a fool someone who spends $1,000,000 for no reason?

Actual transcript of telephone call to the Illinois State Bar Association:

Ring, ring,

Illinois State Bar Association, how may I direct your call?

I want a copy of the Illinois State Bar Association records for Barack Hussein Obama.

One moment please.

(on hold, voice repeating the words Osama and Obama, and HUSSEIN over and over)

Hello, are you the guy looking for Barack Obama's records?

Yes, Barack HUSSEIN Obama's records, his records.

You do know that the ISBA is a completely voluntary private organization, so how does NO work for you, is NO OK? I also see that we a have a "**** No you stupid birther idiot," i can also provide that, would that work for you? CLICK

hussein, hussein.....

Line drops dead, end of transcript.

Oh lookie here:

https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=749792754

[Ricomise]

There is an aspect to this topic that I almost never hear discussed, by "birthers" or others, that makes the argument even more stupid: namely, the definition of "natural born citizen." While the Constitution doesn't define it, and to my knowledge no statute specifically speaks to that exact phrase, the first rule of statutory construction is to look at the plain meaning of the text.

The phrase "natural born citizen" seems to mean anyone who is a citizen of the U.S at birth, that is, who was a citizen when he/she was "naturally born." (As opposed to, for example, someone who becomes a citizen later via the naturalization process.)

TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER III, Part I, § 1401 of the United States code defines "Nationals and citizens of United States at birth."

paragraph (a) : "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Cool? If you are born in the U.S. (and not the child of a diplomat not subject to US jurisdiction), you are a citizen at birth. i.e. when you are "naturally born."

Skip a bunch of irrelevent paragraphs and we find paragraph (g): "a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:..."

Right. So, let's just assume, for fun, that the birthers are correct, and Obama was born in Kenya. According to the biography of Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, which, as far as I know is not seriously contested, she was born Nov. 1942, in Kansas, moved around the midwest a bit during and after WWII and then to Seattle in 1956. When she graduated high scholl, in 1960, the family moved to Hawaii (which became a state in 1959.) There, she met and married Barack Obama Sr. She was 18. Let's do the math.

Obama's mom a citizen: Check. Born in Kansas.
Was physically present in US five years or more: Check.
Was physically present in the US at least two years after her 14th birthday: Check.

So, assuming she and Barack Sr. immediatly moved to Kenya, had a child, and then surreptitiously brought the child back to the U.S. and had someone forge a birth certificate, he was still, according to law, a US citizen when he was "naturally born," ergo, a "natural born citizen."

Of course, citizens born abroad get a "certification of birth abroad to a U.S. Citizen," rather than a certifcate indicating they were born in the U.S., but that's neither here nor there. Even if he was born in Kenya, Barack Obama Jr. is Constitutionally eligible to be President of the U.S.

Therefore, I respectfully request that the OP acknowledge the same unless he can produce evidence that Obama was born abroad, that his mother was not a U.S. citizen at the time of her birth, and/or that she was not physically present in the U.S. for the requisite time period prior to his birth.

(Full disclosure: I practiced immigration law for 7 1/2 years and guarentee you that a certified copy of a "Certifcate of Live Birth" issued by a State entity is considered proof of one having been born in the United States.)

[Brainster]

Obama's mom a citizen: Check. Born in Kansas.
Was physically present in US five years or more: Check.
Was physically present in the US at least two years after her 14th birthday: Check.

The birthers are idiots, but you're wrong. At the time Obama was born the law required five years of physical presence in the US after her 14th birthday.

[Thunder]

McCain turned over all requested documents.

Why doesn't Obama?


If the situation was reversed and McCain was President, I would support releasing McCain's documents. (Had he refused)

McCain was born on a military base in Panama...and I don't give a flying ####.

The man was born a citizen of the USA.

[Ricomise]

The birthers are idiots, but you're wrong. At the time Obama was born the law required five years of physical presence in the US after her 14th birthday.

Actually, on further review, it required 10 years total and 5 after your 16th birthday in 1961. My bad. I apologize. The damn immigration law changes so frequently, and I've been away from from it for a few years, and I sometimes mis-remember when various versions went into effect. Thank you for pointing that out.

In any event, I can state that, in my experience, all US governmental entities will accept a state-issued certified "certificate of live birth" as legal proof of birth in the US.

[Brainster]

Actually, on further review, it required 10 years total and 5 after your 16th birthday in 1961. My bad. I apologize. The damn immigration law changes so frequently, and I've been away from from it for a few years, and I sometimes mis-remember when various versions went into effect. Thank you for pointing that out.

No problem, although I note that the sources I have found all say 10 years total, and 5 years after the 14th birthday.

In any event, I can state that, in my experience, all US governmental entities will accept a state-issued certified "certificate of live birth" as legal proof of birth in the US.

Yep, but then the Birthers go with the "what did Hawaii regard as proof to get the "certificate of live birth" and claim that Hawaii would let you just self-certify--i.e., that Obama's grandparents went in and filled out a form claiming he was born at their house. It's a never-ending rabbit hole with them, kind of like how the 9-11 Truthers will say that there's no evidence that Mohamed Atta ever boarded Flight 11 because there's no film of him handing his boarding pass to the gate attendant. No evidence will ever satisfy either group.

[fullflavormenthol]

So basically the birthers have the birth certificate claim, which has been long debunked. It is in fact so easy to debunk that it should be a litmus test for breathing.

Then they have the requests for documents with are protected under medical privacy, FERPA, private documents of an organization or already out there for people that want to find them. Oh and there is the category of documents that don't exist.

Beyond that they have the ridiculous claim about Barack Obama really being named Barry, because he was called Barry. Again the answer painfully obvious...Barry is a nickname using the Bar sound from Barrack. It is an Americanization of one's name for the sake of allowing a little boy to fit it.

All these claims are easily shown to be crap, and so the fall back on their end game. The one "slam dunk" they have. In order to be a Natural Born Citizen you have to be born of two citizens in the United States...blah blah. The only problem is that it is complete crap. They base this off of the work of de Vattel when they should have been smarter and looked to Blackstone. British Common Law had a different idea of a natural citizen, which means that being born within the nation or the holdings of the nation is enough to be a natural citizen. Regardless of the nationality of your parents, unless they are some short of dignitary.

So why de Vattel? I have no damn clue, because as far as I can tell it was only referenced once in U.S. case law; the Dreed Scott case. It was cited as a justification for why slaves weren't citizens, and is not valid because it is part of bad case law.

As far as Berg goes...he is a 9/11 truther turned PUMA turned birther who got spanked on Nightline by a journalist from Hawaii.

[twinstead]

McCain turned over all requested documents.

Why doesn't Obama?


If the situation was reversed and McCain was President, I would support releasing McCain's documents. (Had he refused)

Other people are answering your posts, why are you afraid to answer theirs? You don't have a leg to stand on concerning Obama, and you have been shown WHY a hundred times in this thread alone. You are wrong. Face it and get on with life. Unless of course you like to be called an idiot. If so, please continue.

[Thunder]

McCain turned over all requested documents.

Why doesn't Obama?


why do you care? what is your REAL problem with Obama?

Is it his middle name? Is it that he was raised in Indonesia?

Is it maybe that he is....?

[uk_dave]

Is it maybe that he is....?

Black? ya think?

[Thunder]

Black? ya think?

no...of course not. there is NO way his skin color has anything to do with their obsessions with proving he is not an American.

clearly, this is about the issues.

:mad:

[Slayhamlet]

Race may play into it somewhat, depending on the individual, but I think it's more just a matter of certain conservatives not wanting to except the "lib'rul guy" as their duly-elected President. It's a form of denial. These people are wingnuts and they will do whatever they can to discredit anyone who threatens their ill-informed political ideals, just as they did with Clinton. They made up a lot of BS about Clinton, too, remember?

[Thunder]

Race may play into it somewhat, depending on the individual, but I think it's more just a matter of certain conservatives not wanting to except the "lib'rul guy" as their duly-elected President. It's a form of denial. These people are wingnuts and they will do whatever they can to discredit anyone who threatens their ill-informed political ideals, just as they did with Clinton. They made up a lot of BS about Clinton, too, remember?

The USA has had liberal Presidents before. That's nothing new. But the reaction to Obama is very..very different then the reaction to Carter or Clinton.

Obama's middle name is Hussein. His father was an African Muslim. Obama was raised in Indonesia. Obama is not afraid of his Muslim heritage. And Obama is black.

Add this all up, and you have a perfect storm for insane, paranoid, bigoted right-wingers.

[Chaos]

Black? ya think?

Oh, I´m sure it is a complete coincidence that this has only ever happened to the only non-white US president so far.

[fullflavormenthol]

Race may play into it somewhat, depending on the individual, but I think it's more just a matter of certain conservatives not wanting to except the "lib'rul guy" as their duly-elected President. It's a form of denial. These people are wingnuts and they will do whatever they can to discredit anyone who threatens their ill-informed political ideals, just as they did with Clinton. They made up a lot of BS about Clinton, too, remember?
I think a lot of people looked at sweeping Republican victories at the turn of the century as evidence that the country was theirs and the libs were defeated.

These victories were chipped away at, and they can't accept that. Now I will say race is still a large part of it. For many it is simply that a non-white is President, but for most it is something deeper. It is an obvious symbol that something has changed in the country and there is no going back, which has been to goal of the extreme conservatives; returning to a mythical 50's dreamworld that never existed.

[Thunder]

Yes it has been produced. Hawaii only provides a Certification of Live Birth - has been using only that version since the 60's.

Dont even try to wave that fact away, since
1)IM from Hawaii
2) I have a Certification of Live Birth .

could u show us a copy with the private info whited out?

[Thunder]

returning to a mythical 50's dreamworld that never existed.

well, you know, the 50's was America's greatest time.

Segregation was full steam ahead.

The Klan rode around lynching blacks with impunity.

Only immigrants from Britain and Germany could come to the USA en masse.

Communists and possible Communists were running scared.

Abortion was illegal.

Gays were locked in the closet.

Universities still had Jew Quotas.

It was a Republican's dream come true

[Yoink]

By the way, amongst the other lies and quarter-truths that the birthers cling to with such pathetic determination, one of the most bizarre is this notion that Obama has "sealed" his records. What they're referring to there is Executive Order 13489 which Obama signed on his first day in office. The hilarious thing is that the reason that Obama made such a big play out of this order (making it one of his first pieces of official business) was because he was reversing the trend to increasing secrecy of recent presidencies. He revoked the Executive Order that Bush had issued on Presidential Records and replaced it with a much less restrictive one (modeled--for added irony--after the one that President Reagan issued). Here's an instructive little comment on the action from the National Coalition for History (http://historycoalition.org/2009/01/21/president-obama-revokes-bush-presidential-records-executive-order/).

Talk about no good deed going unpunished! Obama makes Presidential records more available than they have been for decades and the birther nutjobs run around in circles shrieking about how he's spending (entirely fictional) "millions" to keep them from getting vital information.

[Retrograde]

This is like a Socratic Dialogue done by a four year old on a sugar high and a blind chimp that knows sign language but has arthritis.

I love this imagery and intend to use it often.

Do Birthers realize that not only does every state have its own format for birth certificates, but these formats vary over time? My own is issued by the city of Buffalo rather than New York State - and they're only willing to commit themselves to saying that a birth certificate was filed for me. It doesn't even mention my sex: I suppose it's the ultra-short form. But the State Department was happy to accept it when I applied for a passport.

[Yoink]

I love this imagery and intend to use it often.

Do Birthers realize that not only does every state have its own format for birth certificates, but these formats vary over time? My own is issued by the city of Buffalo rather than New York State - and they're only willing to commit themselves to saying that a birth certificate was filed for me. It doesn't even mention my sex: I suppose it's the ultra-short form. But the State Department was happy to accept it when I applied for a passport.

If you want to mess with a birther's head (at least, the kind of unreconstructed paleo-birther we have in this thread) ask him/her to find the form at the Hawaii Dept. of Health where you can order a "long form" birth certificate. Or even find the form for ordering a "birth certificate" rather than a "certification of birth."

[Gord_in_Toronto]

McCain turned over all requested documents.

Why doesn't Obama?


If the situation was reversed and McCain was President, I would support releasing McCain's documents. (Had he refused)

So all that means is that McCain has not been asked for the right documents or the ones he has released are fakes. :duck:

Do try and keep up! :scared:

[fullflavormenthol]

If you want to mess with a birther's head (at least, the kind of unreconstructed paleo-birther we have in this thread) ask him/her to find the form at the Hawaii Dept. of Health where you can order a "long form" birth certificate. Or even find the form for ordering a "birth certificate" rather than a "certification of birth."
Well the first problem is the assumption that they won't just stick their fingers in the ears and scream that you can get a long form if you want it. Believe it or not this is the most common answer I get, and they refuse to accept they are wrong.

The others I encounter will claim that is was changed because of Obama. Stil it is a rare response.

Birthers are all about denile.

[Thunder]

if Obama was to release his long form certificate, most if not all Birthers would claim that it was a fake.

[fullflavormenthol]

if Obama was to release his long form certificate, most if not all Birthers would claim that it was a fake.
Actually that has been the conspiracy theory on the birther boards for months now.

[Thunder]

Actually that has been the conspiracy theory on the birther boards for months now.

exactly. Obama is ********** if he does..and ********** if he doesnt. The Birthers hate him for reasons other then his place of birth.

We all know that..and THEY know that.

If I was Obama, I would do EXACTLY what he is doing now. Completely ignore the Birthers..for they are irrelevant. He has a country to run.

[Upchurch]

McCain turned over all requested documents.
He did? Where is the scan of his birth certificate? I haven't actually seen it.


Why doesn't Obama?
He did. Why do you keep ignoring that?

Unless, of course, you are talking about something that is impossible to provide, which explains why Obama hasn't done the impossible.


If the situation was reversed and McCain was President, I would support releasing McCain's documents. (Had he refused)
Have you seen Bush's birth certificate? Or Clinton's? How do you know they were natural born citizens? Did you demand their documents be released?

[Arus808]

And why must these documents be released to the public? None of the past candidates ever did this. These documents are given to the Electoral College for review, not the general public. And before these documents reach the Electoral College for review, the documents must past review locally via their party groups in their states.


and why does Boyntonstu continue to ignore my post?

[fullflavormenthol]

exactly. Obama is ********** if he does..and ********** if he doesnt. The Birthers hate him for reasons other then his place of birth.

We all know that..and THEY know that.

If I was Obama, I would do EXACTLY what he is doing now. Completely ignore the Birthers..for they are irrelevant. He has a country to run.

If I even remember correctly the birth certificate wasn't even released to satisfy the birthers, but they jumped onto it. If Obama lifted so much as a finger it would in many ways vindicate the birthers by making them appear as anything less than crazy.

This is a country of laws, and the same standards apply to everyone equally. As far as the government is concerned a COLB stating birth in the U.S. is good enough to establish birth in the United States. Doesn't matter if your name is John Smith or Abdul Rana.

And why must these documents be released to the public?

Fishing. They hope to find something, anything that would look bad. Or the slightest thing that they can grab a hold of and create a conspiracy out of.

None of the past candidates ever did this.

Well I can think of one difference between him and other candidates, but birthers claim it isn't about that...

and why does Boyntonstu continue to ignore my post?

What would he write? He doesn't acknowledge mine either, and if he is truly in the birther camp than you won't get a good response. Most you ever get from birthers is the denial of the obvious facts.

If Barack Obama's name was Grahm Wellington and his father was originally from the United Kingdom (and he was white) this wouldn't be an issue to these people.

[UnrepentantSinner]

If Barack Obama's name was Grahm Wellington and his father was originally from the United Kingdom (and he was white) this wouldn't be an issue to these people.

Don't you owe HUD a royalty for using their radio PSA like that. ;)

[Travis]

and why does Boyntonstu continue to ignore my post?

Your post is co-located in the sector of blindness that has also stricken the Birther's logic region in the brain.

[MysteryMammal]

boyntonstu, instead of just JAQing off all over this thread, how about answering a few questions?

Is there any reason to think that Obama might not be a natural born citizen of the US? Is there any document or testimony to that effect that has not already been thoroughly debunked?

Would you like a little veiled racism with your answer, or would you like boyntonstu to lie to you?

I hope Taitz gets legally bitch slapped by this judge too.

[LarianLeQuella]

Birthers nuts?


Absofikkinloutly! Even moresoe than "truthers" I would say. :cool:

[Chaos]

Absofikkinloutly! Even moresoe than "truthers" I would say. :cool:

Indeed. After all, it is possible for someone to be born in Kenya, whereas it is not possible for skyscrapers to be destroyed by radiationless, falloutless mini-nukes, or whatever the current CT fashion would have us believe.

[Thunder]

It turns out, that I do NOT have a "Birth Certificate". I instead have a "Certificate of Birth". And it was issued 3 days after I was supposedly born.

I guess this means I was really born in Kenya.

[Newtons Bit]

It turns out, that I do NOT have a "Birth Certificate". I instead have a "Certificate of Birth". And it was issued 3 days after I was supposedly born.

I guess this means I was really born in Kenya.

Aren't all lefties? :D

[twinstead]

Wait until the people born in Kenya find out they were actually born in Hawaii.

[Paradox74]

Birthers are completely nuts. Obama produced his birth certificate already. The state of Hawaii certifies that it is the genuine article and not a fake.

eta: linky

To any reasonable person, that should have ended it right there.

You know, with a name like Barack HUSSEIN Obama, you would have though that these "birthers" would have compared him to the late Iraqui dictator, Sadam HUSSEIN.

Alas, just like Michael Savage not mentioning (in his book The Savage Nation) that PETA kills more animals than it saves, the Birthers ignore an entire gold mine.

[Sabrina]

You know, with a name like Barack HUSSEIN Obama, you would have though that these "birthers" would have compared him to the late Iraqui dictator, Sadam HUSSEIN.

Alas, just like Michael Savage not mentioning (in his book The Savage Nation) that PETA kills more animals than it saves, the Birthers ignore an entire gold mine.

Had they done that though, we could simply point out that not all people with the name "Hussein" are bad, and point out that "Hussein" means "good, small, handsome one" (Source (http://http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Hussein)) and not "evil dictator", and that judging a man on the basis of his name clearly means that we will have to forever judge every man named Adolf or Timothy or Ted (McVeigh and Bundy, for those of you who might not get the references) as evil murderers or proponents of genocide.

Come to think of it, I think it's been pointed out on several occasions in places, and people never fail to point out the double standard in judging President Obama off the basis of his name (his MIDDLE name I might add) and not doing so for the names I mentioned above. Or they've pointed out that the name "Hussein" far pre-dates both Saddam and Pres. Obama and that we can't let the actions of one man with the name color our perceptions of everyone else who has the name. But then, birthers have never been said to be rational.

ETA: out of curiosity, I looked up the remainder of his name, and found this (http://http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_meaning_of_Barack_Obama's_name):

Barak - also Baruch means "Blessed"

Hussein - means "Handsome One"

Obama - is surname based on a given name from the Dholuo language spoken by the Luo people of Kenya. It is based on the verb "bam" meaning "bent", and probably refers either to an infant's arm or leg looking bent just after birth, or to the birth itself having been in the breech position.
Barak was also an Israelite general listed in the Book of Judges. He is listed in Chapter 4 as an associate of the Judge Deborah. Barak, directed by Deborah, leads the Israelites in a victory over a Canaanite army under General Sisera. There was also a modern Israeli Prime Minister named Ehud Barak.

Obama's a Jew! :eek:

;)

[headscratcher4]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3f0GYXTcXc

Listen as Philip J. Berg; attorney explains the Obama eligibility case that he is spearheading. Many interesting facts are uncovered and examined.

Berg was a life-long Democrat.

Decide for yourself.

Do you actually ever address the questions posed to you?

[Thunder]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3f0GYXTcXc

Listen as Philip J. Berg; attorney explains the Obama eligibility case that he is spearheading. Many interesting facts are uncovered and examined.

Berg was a life-long Democrat.

Decide for yourself.

Yeah, and he is also a 9-11 Truther. So that makes him paranoid AND crazy.

....along with stupid.

[headscratcher4]

So let’s see if I have the birther conspiracy correct. In the Summer of 1961 Obama’s mom, who is only 18, is about to give birth to her first child. She has two choices.

a) Give birth in a Honolulu Hospital, where she knows she will get good care, surrounded by her family and friends, with a doctor she knows, and where she can go home after a few days with a newborn via an easy car ride, knowing that she has family and friends to help her with her baby

b) She can travel to Kenya, probably a several day trip via airplane (while 9 months pregnant!) buying international airplane tickets even though she’s a college student without a lot of money. Once in Kenya she can give birth aided by an unknown doctor, in a hospital she doesn’t know anything about, surrounded by strangers. Once she’s given birth she has to then repeat her trip back halfway across the world, this time with a newborn.

For some reason she chooses Option B. She makes the trip but manages not to leave any trail of documents behind, such as consular records or visas. She also somehow (and for some odd reason) has someone in a hospital in Honolulu fake a birth record so that an announcement will appear in the Honolulu newspapers and so her son’s official records will say he was born in Honolulu. She then swears her family and friends to secrecy, again for no reason that was apparent in 1961.

Gee, and birthers wonder why the rest of us think they’re crazy. (and, I would add, racist. No one ever questioned the nationality of a white candidate before, and no, there are not “legitimate questions” in this case.)

You forget the fact that she wouldn't have actually been in Kenya if he was born, as the morons allege, in Mombassa, which I think was part of Zanzibar at the time...and, it wasn't close, btw, to the area where the Obama family lived...so she would have had to go to Zanzibar outside of the area/jurisdiction where her husband's family lived, rather than go to the area where his family lived or to Niarobi, which arguably, would have had the most modern hospital in the region at the time (as the colnial hq for the brits).

[twinstead]

Do you actually ever address the questions posed to you?

I noticed that too. He hasn't directly answered a single post that has presented evidence that contradicts him or even directly answered a single question.

[headscratcher4]

McCain turned over all requested documents.

Why doesn't Obama?


If the situation was reversed and McCain was President, I would support releasing McCain's documents. (Had he refused)


Ah, that's what McCain wants you to think.

[Thunder]

um, if an American citizen takes a vacation to Kenya, and while on vacation she gives birth, isn't that child still considered a natural born citizen of the USA?

I sure thought so.

[Travis]

um, if an American citizen takes a vacation to Kenya, and while on vacation she gives birth, isn't that child still considered a natural born citizen of the USA?

I sure thought so.

It apparently depends on the age of the mom. Why would that clause be included? I'm not sure.

[drkitten]

It apparently depends on the age of the mom. Why would that clause be included? I'm not sure.

It's a little more complicated than that, but, yes.

The reason is basically that the powers-that-be don't want to be granting US citizenship to people with essentially no connection to the US (as, for instance, Israel does). You don't need to ever have set foot in Israel in your life to be Jewish and to have the right to be an Israeli citizen. Your parents don't have to have set foot in Israel. Your grandparents don't have to have set foot in Israel. Et cetera.

By contrast, the US is a little more restrictive:

* A child born in the US is a citizen.
* The child of two US citizens is a citizen irrespective of circumstances of birth.
* The child of one US citizen (and, of course, a non-citizen) is a citizen only if the citizen parent had a sufficient connection to the US. The exact degree required has changed over the years, but it basically amounts to a residency requirement. You have to have lived in the US for enough time.

Obama's mother hadn't lived in the US for long enough.

[KDLarsen]

It's a little more complicated than that, but, yes.

The reason is basically that the powers-that-be don't want to be granting US citizenship to people with essentially no connection to the US (as, for instance, Israel does). You don't need to ever have set foot in Israel in your life to be Jewish and to have the right to be an Israeli citizen. Your parents don't have to have set foot in Israel. Your grandparents don't have to have set foot in Israel. Et cetera.

By contrast, the US is a little more restrictive:

* A child born in the US is a citizen.
* The child of two US citizens is a citizen irrespective of circumstances of birth.
* The child of one US citizen (and, of course, a non-citizen) is a citizen only if the citizen parent had a sufficient connection to the US. The exact degree required has changed over the years, but it basically amounts to a residency requirement. You have to have lived in the US for enough time.

Obama's mother hadn't lived in the US for long enough.
I recall a previous thread where this came up, and off the top of my head it was generally agreed upon that it would make for a very interesting case if it was ever tried.

Basically it came down to how the clause would be interpreted, in case that the mother was on vacation (for whatever reason) and not leaving the US on a permanent basis.

[Paulhoff]

Geezzzzzz :mad:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=96719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=96719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD


Paul

:) :) :)

[CurtC]

He did? Where is the scan of his birth certificate? I haven't actually seen it.

The scan of McCain's certificate has been discussed here before, so a search should turn it up, but many of us here have seen it (the scanned image anyway).

If someone had needed my birth certificate a year and a half ago, they would get to see a piece of paper I got from the county clerk's office several years back which is basically equivalent to the form Obama has. It says I was born in Cherokee County, Texas, and the date, etc., but it's not a scan of an original.

Last year when my father died, I found in his effects an actual certificate from 1961 when I was born, with a gold seal on the front and baby footprints on the back. I guess the county clerk has something like this on file, and they issue the paper certificate when someone requests one, but they don't release the original nor scan it.

Apparently John McCain still had his original from when he was born, and Obama didn't, so provided the updated certificate issued by Hawaii.

[jadebox]

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:


(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;


(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;


(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;


(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;


(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;



(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and


(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899

[Yoink]

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:

Hmmm, that's interesting. So even if Obama had been born in Kenya he would qualify as a citizen-by-birth under current law (though not under the law as it was formulated at the time he was born).

So two questions come immediately to my mind: 1) if I was born in 1960 outside America to an American parent and a foreign parent and I apply for an American passport do they apply the law as it stood at the time of my birth or as it stands now?

2) How does any of this apply to the constitution's "natural born citizen" provision? The constitution provides no definition of that term. The only "plain language" meaning I can give it is "citizen by virtue of birthright." That is, if your citizenship is a result of "who you were born to" rather than a result of service to the state or residency or anything else then you are a "natural born citizen." I'd have thought that that would rule in the foreign-born person in (1) above if current law is the controlling law.

ETA: to be very clear (for the sake of the small-brained birthers among us); none of this is remotely relevant to the case of Barack Obama, because he was born in Honolulu and there is simply no question whatsoever about his status as a "natural born citizen" of the USA.

[Arus808]

Yes it has been produced. Hawaii only provides a Certification of Live Birth - has been using only that version since the 60's.

Dont even try to wave that fact away, since
1)IM from Hawaii
2) I have a Certification of Live Birth
3) This is the only type of certificate given by the State of Hawaii by the Department of Health. My copies come from 1976 and from 2006 (yes I have two, I misplaced the one my parents obtained in 1976 - and subsequently found it after a move)

The certification of live birth (AKA short form) is legal to to obtain:
Driver License
Passport (of all things, this is the most important)
Get a Job (tax filings)
Establish citizenship.

I did all of the above with my COLB.




Yes, its practically the same thing. NOT all states call their "birth certificates" that. Hawaii uses the term Certification of Live Birth. The only other term they use was Certificate of Birth, which is the only words that could fit on a 1 3/4" x 2 1/2" card that duplicates the information found on the COLB which they stopped giving out in 80's


Want to challenge that. I was born in Hawaii, so you have a huge uphill battle to prove me wrong.

Questions skipped by boyntonstu. He wants to bring up the conspiracy around a Hawaii Birth Certificate, then he must go head to head with someone who was born in Hawaii.

[headscratcher4]

1) if I was born in 1960 outside America to an American parent and a foreign parent and I apply for an American passport do they apply the law as it stood at the time of my birth or as it stands now?
.

I believe the answer to this question depends on the length of attachment of the parent that was a citizen to the US. As I understand it, the claim is that Anne Obama (had she born Obama overseas) while a citizen had not lived in the US long enough to convey that citizenship. It is a technicality that the birthers have climbed all over...but it is pretty meaningless in that there is NO evidence that she ever left the United States prior to Obama's birth and certainly not to give birth to Obama in Mombassa.

[Arus808]

could u show us a copy with the private info whited out?

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m108/Arus808/th_hbc2.jpg (http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m108/Arus808/hbc2.jpg)


ETA: funny thing, My birth record wasn't received into the Dept of Health for a full 13 days. Longer than Obama's one.

[Hokulele]

ETA: funny thing, My birth record wasn't received into the Dept of Health for a full 13 days. Longer than Obama's one.


Fake! At the very bottom it says "Any Alterations Invalidate This Certificate". You have clearly altered it, so it doesn't count. Plus, I don't see the word "Kenya" on it anywhere.

Nice try, but I'm not falling for it.

[Lurker]

The USA has had liberal Presidents before. That's nothing new. But the reaction to Obama is very..very different then the reaction to Carter or Clinton.
I disagree. right wingers came up with similar styled conspiracy theories about Clinton and they made it on major TV news.

1. Clinton had Foster murdered
2. Clinton ran a cocaine operation out of Mena
3. Clinton death lists

You get the idea. Birtherism isn't any crazier than the above three I listed.

[Achán hiNidráne]

I disagree. right wingers came up with similar styled conspiracy theories about Clinton and they made it on major TV news.

1. Clinton had Foster murdered
2. Clinton ran a cocaine operation out of Mena
3. Clinton death lists

You get the idea. Birtherism isn't any crazier than the above three I listed.

Don't forget the Juanita Broderick "rape" accusation.

[Arus808]

Fake! At the very bottom it says "Any Alterations Invalidate This Certificate". You have clearly altered it, so it doesn't count. Plus, I don't see the word "Kenya" on it anywhere.

Nice try, but I'm not falling for it.

hahah...yeah...its not official...now...

i tried to get the embossed seal to show up, but the scanner couldn't pick up the indentations made by the seal. Im sure if you play around with the levels, you'll get a hint of where its located.

[Brainster]

Hmmm, that's interesting. So even if Obama had been born in Kenya he would qualify as a citizen-by-birth under current law (though not under the law as it was formulated at the time he was born).

So two questions come immediately to my mind: 1) if I was born in 1960 outside America to an American parent and a foreign parent and I apply for an American passport do they apply the law as it stood at the time of my birth or as it stands now?

Neither. They apply the decision to give you an American passport based on your citizenship, which is not based on whether you are a natural-born citizen or not. There are plenty of foreign-born American citizens who are not natural-born citizens and some (John McCain and I for two) who are foreign-born but still natural-born. As far as I know the only difference between being foreign-born and natural-born is eligibility for the presidency. It mattered in McCain's case; mine, not so much. :D

If you are stipulating that there is a continuing question about your citizenship, because, for example, you have never lived in the United States, then the law would be based on your birth date; otherwise why would every website on the matter break it down that way?

[JoeTheJuggler]

It turns out, that I do NOT have a "Birth Certificate". I instead have a "Certificate of Birth". And it was issued 3 days after I was supposedly born.

I guess this means I was really born in Kenya.

It also follows that you must be an atheist Muslim too.

[Yoink]

Neither. They apply the decision to give you an American passport based on your citizenship, which is not based on whether you are a natural-born citizen or not. There are plenty of foreign-born American citizens who are not natural-born citizens and some (John McCain and I for two) who are foreign-born but still natural-born. As far as I know the only difference between being foreign-born and natural-born is eligibility for the presidency. It mattered in McCain's case; mine, not so much. :D

If you are stipulating that there is a continuing question about your citizenship, because, for example, you have never lived in the United States, then the law would be based on your birth date; otherwise why would every website on the matter break it down that way?

Sorry, you misread the question. I wasn't asking "are you a natural born citizen" I was asking "are you granted citizenship." The law at the time of Obama's birth would have ruled him ineligible for citizenship had he been born outside of the US (his mother would not have met the "residence in the United States" requirements). It appears that under current law, however, a child born to a US woman and a non-US man outside the US when the woman was the same age as Obama's mother at the time of his birth would be regarded as a US citizen. So my question (leaving the whole "what does natural born mean" question entirely to one side) is what citizenship law is applied to someone born in the same year as Obama: the law that prevailed at the time of birth or the current law?

[Upchurch]

The scan of McCain's certificate has been discussed here before, so a search should turn it up, but many of us here have seen it (the scanned image anyway).
Was it "long form" or otherwise significantly different from Obama's?

[Juniversal]

Had they done that though, we could simply point out that not all people with the name "Hussein" are bad, and point out that "Hussein" means "good, small, handsome one" (Source (http://http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Hussein)) and not "evil dictator", and that judging a man on the basis of his name clearly means that we will have to forever judge every man named Adolf or Timothy or Ted (McVeigh and Bundy, for those of you who might not get the references) as evil murderers or proponents of genocide.Indeed. If that was the case then little Adolf Hitler Campbell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K25UF8EiBc) is destined for a life of destruction (it MIGHT be true that he's destined to be a racist on the basis of his parents though) ;).

I disagree. right wingers came up with similar styled conspiracy theories about Clinton and they made it on major TV news.

1. Clinton had Foster murdered
2. Clinton ran a cocaine operation out of Mena
3. Clinton death lists

You get the idea. Birtherism isn't any crazier than the above three I listed.Crazier? No. But are the individuals who promote the theory more fanatical? I would say definitely, yes.

[Thunder]

* A child born in the US is a citizen. .

does this include citizens of another country on vacation in the USA, who happen to go into labor?

the purpose of the "birth" clause was to ensure that all slaves born in the USA would become citizens.

[dropzone]

Yes. twinstead, the master of the rhetorical question ;)So, it's too late, 26 hours later, to make the same point without you blowing that geegaw all over me?

[Travis]

Was it "long form" or otherwise significantly different from Obama's?

Here it is. The circles are from when we were trying to see what the faded text said. Note it says "certificate of live birth" as well.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3179/2999300008_9dca462a02_o.jpg

[CptColumbo]

no...of course not. there is NO way his skin color has anything to do with their obsessions with proving he is not an American.

clearly, this is about the issues.

:mad:
I don't know.

As far as I know Martin Van Buren didn't have to put up with this kind of crap.

[CptColumbo]

If Barack Obama's name was Grahm Wellington and his father was originally from the United Kingdom (and he was white) this wouldn't be an issue to these people.Out of curiosity:
If President Obama was born in Kenya in 1961, would he be a UK citizen?

[CptColumbo]

When I was applying for a US passport in the mid-80s I had to go to the county seat where I was born, the clerk would go in back and come out with a photocopy of my "certificate of live birth" (IIRC I was not allowed to see the original) then a notary would stamp it to certify that it was an actual copy. This certificate the usual information (birthdate/sex/weight/etc). It also had my parents names and places of birth and age, the hospital where I was born (which doesn't exist anymore), and the doctor's signature.

When I re-applied for one two years ago (my old one had expired and I couldn't find it) I received a printout that certified one was there and it was stamped. None of the additional information was present and I got a US passport.


If the "birther" movement wants to convince me that President Obama was not born in the US they have to porduce more evidence then they have. Provide documentation that contradicts that his mother was in Hawaii at the time (flight records, boat tickets, ETC). The same holds for those that doubt he went to the schools that have records of him being there. He had to be someplace if he wasn't at Occidental. Produce a lease on an appartment or employment records. The opposition has already produced all that is needed to prove he was born in Hawaii. Rather just sitting around saying that the COLB isn't good enough and if this issue is as important as you believe it is and you love your country, doing some work would seem a reasonable request.

[drkitten]

does this include citizens of another country on vacation in the USA, who happen to go into labor?

Yes. The only exception are for foreign diplomats and such who are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States by virtue of diplomatic immunity. Ordinary tourists are indeed subject to the jurisdiction of the US (as a lot of foreign nationals in prison have found out) and their children are therefore citizens.

My understanding is there's something of a cottage industry of women with late-term pregnancies coming to the States for exactly this reason.

[drkitten]

Sorry, you misread the question. I wasn't asking "are you a natural born citizen" I was asking "are you granted citizenship." The law at the time of Obama's birth would have ruled him ineligible for citizenship had he been born outside of the US (his mother would not have met the "residence in the United States" requirements). It appears that under current law, however, a child born to a US woman and a non-US man outside the US when the woman was the same age as Obama's mother at the time of his birth would be regarded as a US citizen. So my question (leaving the whole "what does natural born mean" question entirely to one side) is what citizenship law is applied to someone born in the same year as Obama: the law that prevailed at the time of birth or the current law?

Time of birth, unless the change in law is explicitly made retroactive.

ETA I believe, in fact, that the new law (the changed law) was even explicitly made NON-retroactive to make this point perfectly clear to even the dumbest of immigration judges.

[Yoink]

Time of birth, unless the change in law is explicitly made retroactive.

ETA I believe, in fact, that the new law (the changed law) was even explicitly made NON-retroactive to make this point perfectly clear to even the dumbest of immigration judges.

Thanks.

Of course, Congress has the power to change that law, so they could retroactively declare that anybody ever born to one American-citizen parent had citizenship rights. It would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court would make of the "natural born citizen" clause in such a case. If you weren't considered a citizen at the time of your birth, but later became a citizen "by birth" are you a "natural born citizen"? Very "angels on the head of a pin" of course.

[Rolfe]

Yes. The only exception are for foreign diplomats and such who are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States by virtue of diplomatic immunity. Ordinary tourists are indeed subject to the jurisdiction of the US (as a lot of foreign nationals in prison have found out) and their children are therefore citizens.


This happened (accidentally) to a girl I was at school with. She was born in the USA prematurely while her parents were only visiting.

I recall her saying she was technically American (despite never having returned in all her 15 years) but her parents hadn't done anything about it because she was a girl. If she'd been a boy (she said) they'd have had to do something to get rid of the citizenship or she'd have been called up to fight in Vietnam.

I have no idea how accurate this is, but it was what she told us. I imagine she had British citizenship as of right also.

Rolfe.

[drkitten]

This happened (accidentally) to a girl I was at school with. She was born in the USA prematurely while her parents were only visiting.

I recall her saying she was technically American (despite never having returned in all her 15 years) but her parents hadn't done anything about it because she was a girl. If she'd been a boy (she said) they'd have had to do something to get rid of the citizenship or she'd have been called up to fight in Vietnam.

I have no idea how accurate this is, but it was what she told us. I imagine she had British citizenship as of right also.

Sounds good/right/correct to me, with the exception that I'm not sure she would have been called up to fight in Vietnam. The draft rules at the time were rather complex (still are). But dual nationals not in residence are/were more or less automatically classified as category 4-C (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=34d66e9e6f578c47be1a37a99b0331e1&rgn=div8&view=text&node=32:6.2.2.19.10.0.8.16&idno=32), which in turn would make them ineligible for the draft.

But that certainly sounds like the sort of thing that someone would believe. Especially if they had not bothered to check (which they would not have done for a point of merely academic interest).

[GlennB]

This happened (accidentally) to a girl I was at school with. She was born in the USA prematurely while her parents were only visiting.

I recall her saying she was technically American ....

If true, this is a totally daft law. You can become a citizen of a country by accident of premature labour as your mother is passing through?
Potty.

[Rolfe]

Sounds good/right/correct to me, with the exception that I'm not sure she would have been called up to fight in Vietnam. The draft rules at the time were rather complex (still are). But dual nationals not in residence are/were more or less automatically classified as category 4-C (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=34d66e9e6f578c47be1a37a99b0331e1&rgn=div8&view=text&node=32:6.2.2.19.10.0.8.16&idno=32), which in turn would make them ineligible for the draft.

But that certainly sounds like the sort of thing that someone would believe. Especially if they had not bothered to check (which they would not have done for a point of merely academic interest).


Mmmm, she might have said "might have been called up to fight in Vietnam". I suppose at the time nobody could be sure the rules wouldn't be changed to make non-resident dual nationals eligible.

I don't imagine there would have been any danger of them applying to extradite a Scottish teenager to be drafted, but on the other hand it could have been a nuisance being unable to travel to the USA for fear of finding yourself in uniform!

Rolfe.

[dudalb]

If true, this is a totally daft law. You can become a citizen of a country by accident of premature labour as your mother is passing through?
Potty.

I agree. But it is a fact.
Nicole Kidman is a US Citizen despite both her parents being Austrailian Citizens and never having taken up legal residence in the US because she was born prematurely while her parents were on vacation in Hawaii...a lot like the case mentioned above.

[drkitten]

If true, this is a totally daft law. You can become a citizen of a country by accident of premature labour as your mother is passing through?
Potty.

Why? What's potty about it? Being a citizen of a country conveys no obligations on you (esp. as the US allows you to renounce your citizenship more or less at will). On the other hand, having a very clear and simple bright line defining citizenship prevents the establishment of second-class long-term residents.

Japan has had a lot of problem with this sort of thing. For example, the "zainichi" problem : Korean citizens, many of whom were forcibly brought to Japan during the Manchurian War as slave laborers, and many more of whom are the descendants of such slaves.

[tsig]

Thanks.

Of course, Congress has the power to change that law, so they could retroactively declare that anybody ever born to one American-citizen parent had citizenship rights. It would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court would make of the "natural born citizen" clause in such a case. If you weren't considered a citizen at the time of your birth, but later became a citizen "by birth" are you a "natural born citizen"? Very "angels on the head of a pin" of course.

I think that would fall foul of the US Constitution:

"In the United States, the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and the states are prohibited from the same by clause 1 of section 10."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States

[Arus808]

Guess boyntonstu got so owned in this thread, he had to leave....when subjected to facts the scum scurry away

[Travis]

Are we really surprised when Woo's abandon their own threads after having their ideas slammed?

[Upchurch]

If the situation was reversed and McCain was President, I would support releasing McCain's documents. (Had he refused)
uh-huh.
Here it is. The circles are from when we were trying to see what the faded text said. Note it says "certificate of live birth" as well.

Looking at the two certificates, it turns out that McCain provided less information than Obama did.

FAIL

[ktesibios]

I think that would fall foul of the US Constitution:

"In the United States, the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and the states are prohibited from the same by clause 1 of section 10."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States

I doubt this. The exact language of Article 1 section 9 of the US Constitution is

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Source (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section9)

Note the association of ex post facto law with bills of attainder.

What is a bill of attainder? According to wiki:

A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial...

Bills of attainder were sometimes criticized as a convenient way for the King to convict subjects of crimes and confiscate their property without the bother of a trial—and without the need for a conviction or indeed any evidence at all.Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder)

As I understand it, the prohibition of ex post facto laws is to prevent the gummint from making an end run around the prohibition of attainder by declaring some act to be illegal and then prosecuting their target for committing that act before the law was passed. Sometimes it's helpful to remember that the Constitution was written by people who were seeking to avoid some of the nastier features of the European monarchies which were the norm at the time- notably the tendency to define "crime" as "pissing off the king".

in Yoink's hypothetical scenario nobody would be deprived of life, liberty or property nor of any benefit deriving from US citizenship; in fact, the set of people entitled to the benefits of citizenship would be enlarged. In this scenario I can't understand how a Constitutional provision designed to protect the people from being abused by authority would apply.

[Meadmaker]

If true, this is a totally daft law. You can become a citizen of a country by accident of premature labour as your mother is passing through?
Potty.

I believe the issue is that the Consitution says that all persons born in the United States are citizens. Of course, in 1789, it didn't occur to anyone that you could just visit the country for a day, and have a baby while you were there, but it's right there in the Constitution. It would be difficult to change it, and there's no strong incentive to do so.

The biggest issue it causes has to do with children of illegal immigrants. If born here, they are citizens whether or not their parents are citizens.

[Meadmaker]

I think that would fall foul of the US Constitution:

"In the United States, the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and the states are prohibited from the same by clause 1 of section 10."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States

You can have laws whose effects are retroactive, as long as those laws don't criminalize behavior that has already happened. I was marginally surprised when, in 1993 Congress passed a tax increase that was retroactive to income earned before the tax increase was passed. I thought that might run afoul of the ex post facto clause, but it didn't. Apparently, that issue had been settled long ago, and quite decisively. Challenges on those grounds weren't taken seriously.

[timhau]

Looking at the two certificates, it turns out that McCain provided less information than Obama did.


However, he looks more American and his middle name is Sidney.

[GlennB]

Why? What's potty about it?

The parents are not US citizens and are not in the process of applying.
They have no right of residence. In fact their visas almost certainly create an obligation to get the hell out sooner or later.

In fact the exsitence of such a law creates a huge loophole whereby a mother in late pregnancy could be encouraged to travel around the US, possibly illegally, in the hope she'll drop her sprog on US soil and earn these rights for the sprog.

Nah. Look after the mum and child until they are fit to travel, then help them on the way to their intended destination when it all happened. Easy.

[fullflavormenthol]

You know what. I think it is great we have a system that makes children born here citizens. You know why? Because the parents that can travel here are the best their country has. Hell let them become citizens, if they can work and pay their way I have no problem with them.

Look, my dream is to get a job for the BBC. Given that as an American this is my goal I am not going to fault anyone. If you can afford to simply vacation here, you are probably what we need. Hell Obama's father was educated, and if he wanted to stay and work here I would have shaken his hand and said, "welcome to America."

[Brainster]

uh-huh.


Looking at the two certificates, it turns out that McCain provided less information than Obama did.

Do you not see how you are playing into the conspiracy theory here?

[Bobby078]

How did this conspiracy theory start anyway? Obama has shown his birth certificate multiple times but they just wont let go.

[Travis]

How did this conspiracy theory start anyway? Obama has shown his birth certificate multiple times but they just wont let go.

That's what makes the Birthers both crazy and stupid.

[Chaos]

How did this conspiracy theory start anyway? Obama has shown his birth certificate multiple times but they just wont let go.

This conspiracy theory started because Obama is a black (first strike) Democrat (second strike) with a foreign-sounding name (third strike - OUT!). They won´t let go until Obama remedies all three of these things.

[twinstead]

This conspiracy theory started because Obama is a black (first strike) Democrat (second strike) with a foreign-sounding name (third strike - OUT!). They won´t let go until Obama remedies all three of these things.

I just wish a birther would have the cajones to stand up and admit it, because we all know this is true.

[Paulhoff]

My Pennsylvania "Certification of Birth" has nothing about a live birth.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Dr. Lao]

When I was hired for a federal job with the State Department, they were fine with my Certificate of Live Birth from Arizona. And they did one hell of a background check on me that took weeks. Too bad that I never got placed in a position, but oh well.....

(and, I never had to produce any long form to get a passport either)

[Horatius]

My Pennsylvania "Certification of Birth" has nothing about a live birth.

Paul

:) :) :)



So, what was it like, being a Zombie Baby?

[Puppycow]

See, when you say you don't think that Birther's are nuts you kind of imply that you agree with them.
Which would make you one.
Which means no-one here is going to trust your judgment on the sanity or lack thereof of said group that you are a defacto member of since said membership may mean you are mentally challenged also.

Yep. OP outed himself/herself as a nutter.

[Puppycow]

Why? Please explain this outrageous expense.


…….Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated at more than $1 million to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions. False premise. Obama has released his birth certificate.

WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption records.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110114Who has their kindergarten records? Do you? I don't. Anyway. he is under no obligation to release them.


Is a fool someone who spends $1,000,000 for no reason?

Birthers apparently. And it's actually a pretty cheap price to pay to keep political opponents chasing a red herring and revealing themselves to be idiots for all to see in the process.

[Upchurch]

Do you not see how you are playing into the conspiracy theory here?
I was going for the double standard (or, really, no standard) being used here, but okay.

[Paulhoff]

So, what was it like, being a Zombie Baby?
Daaaaaaaaaaa, a dead so-called birth is a stillborn or stillbirth.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Thunder]

Who has their kindergarten records? Do you? I don't. Anyway. he is under no obligation to release them.

.

If Obama was a white man, no one would be asking for his "kindergarten records" or "certificate of baptism".

the amazing double-standard being applied to Obama is disgusting and is clearly just pure racism and bigotry.

[Paulhoff]

If Obama was a white man, no one would be asking for his "kindergarten records" or "certificate of baptism".

the amazing double-standard being applied to Obama is disgusting and is clearly just pure racism and bigotry.
And named John Smith.

Paul

:) :) :)

[twinstead]

unless some birthers come back to this thread and answer our questions, this thread is done like dinner

[MattusMaximus]

Whatever happened with Orly Taitz and the court case?

[MervinFerd]

Actually, on further review, it required 10 years total and 5 after your 16th birthday in 1961. My bad. I apologize. The damn immigration law changes so frequently, and I've been away from from it for a few years, and I sometimes mis-remember when various versions went into effect. Thank you for pointing that out.

Only as an academic exercise, but this doesn't make sense: It would mean that no baby born outside the US to a woman younger than 21 years would be a citizen--even if the woman were a lifelong resident and citizen of the US. It would make sense in the case of an older woman: guaranteeing some significant period of US residency.

ETA: If a Canadian male married a 20 yo American lass and they lived in Minnesota, but the lass unexpectedly went into labor and gave birth while on a visit to in-laws in Canada, the baby could not have been an American Citizen? This seems too unfair an outcome for the agencies and the courts to let stand.

Not that the law will always make sense but---Was the rule really interpreted this way by the agencies and the courts? And, is this the entirety of the text?

It sounds as if the rule quoted is a summary of a larger body of rules.

ETA: The law as actually enforced often involves a body of court decisions and interpretations and administrative regulations. I'm thinking it is likely not a simple matter to figure out how these regs were actually interpreted nearly 50 years ago.

[Arus808]

Whatever happened with Orly Taitz and the court case?


which one? she has like 7 cases she has filed on birther claims alone; 3 of which are now on appeal and 1 in which she was getting a judge to recuse.

The best site to follow her antics and cases:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org

[Myron Proudfoot]

Orly Taitz fined $20,000!

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/orly_taitz/

Judge Clay Land of the U.S. District Court in the Middle District Of Georgia goes on for some length -- the order is 43 pages -- explaining his reasoning:

When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the Judicial Code of Conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge's rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice.

[D'rok]

I'm all aglow with schadenfreude right now. Awesome smackdown.

[D'rok]

And she says she'll refuse to pay. This is gonna get really ugly in the best possible way.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/birther_orly_taitz_responds_to_judges_20k_fine_sho .php#more

[MervinFerd]

The reason is basically that the powers-that-be don't want to be granting US citizenship to people with essentially no connection to the US (as, for instance, Israel does).


Obama's mother hadn't lived in the US for long enough.

I'm bumping this thread just to raise this question, in the hope someone knowledgeable will address it:

Mom Obama was, when he was born, a life-long resident and citizen of the US. Under the law in force in 1962, as described elsewhere in this thread, it was logically impossible for her to have satisfied the requirement. If you are 19 yo, you cannot have lived 5 years in the US after your 16th birthday, no matter how hard you try.

It's hard to believe this was Congress's intent, or that this was a workable policy. It could result in a child having no citizenship at all: If Mom is a 20 yo resident and citizen of the US but gives birth while traveling in a country that does not grant citizenship on the basis of birth in the country, then the child would not be an American OR a (say) Japanese citizen.

SO. I think there was more to the law in 1962 than the section quoted on the internet. There must have been procedures or policies that would allow a baby that everyone would agree should be a citizen to gain citizenship.

Is anyone able to comment?

Separate crazy question: What if Mom Obama had listed the Father as John Fitzgerald Kennedy, US citizen, profession POTUS? There was no DNA testing in 1962.

[drkitten]

And she says she'll refuse to pay. This is gonna get really ugly in the best possible way.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/birther_orly_taitz_responds_to_judges_20k_fine_sho .php#more

Yeah.

From your article:


"Are you kidding? Of course not," she said, asked whether she planned to send a check. "This is a form of intimidation."

Instead, she plans to file yet another written response (though it's unclear whether the court will even accept one).

The irony -- or something -- is that the purpose of sanctions is to deter future sanctionable conduct. The judge raised the sanction from the proposed $10,000 to $20,000, because a mere $10,000 fine demonstrably deter her from filing frivolous paperwork.

If her response to this is to file another frivolous piece of paper, then that will prove that even $20k isn't enough to deter her, and justify the judge in raising the sanctions again.

This is a game Taitz can't win. Once it's been established that her conduct is sanctionable, the court has the authority to deter her. And there's no maximum fine that can be imposed; she can't buy her way out of this one by simply saying "hey, there's at most a $10,000 fine and I can afford this." If $20k won't work, try $50k. If that doesn't work, try $100k.

[D'rok]

Judge Land's order is a hella good read. I almost feel sorry for poor Orly.

[drkitten]

I'm bumping this thread just to raise this question, in the hope someone knowledgeable will address it:

Mom Obama was, when he was born, a life-long resident and citizen of the US. Under the law in force in 1962, as described elsewhere in this thread, it was logically impossible for her to have satisfied the requirement. If you are 19 yo, you cannot have lived 5 years in the US after your 16th birthday, no matter how hard you try.

Sucks to be her, then.


It's hard to believe this was Congress's intent, or that this was a workable policy.

Which may be why the law was changed.



SO. I think there was more to the law in 1962 than the section quoted on the internet. There must have been procedures or policies that would allow a baby that everyone would agree should be a citizen to gain citizenship.

Sure. It's called "changing the law." Happens all the time.


Separate crazy question: What if Mom Obama had listed the Father as John Fitzgerald Kennedy, US citizen, profession POTUS? There was no DNA testing in 1962.

There's a good chance that she would have been arrested for fraud or something similar if she had tried.

But, again, this is a well-understood problem; paternity suits have been around forever. Just because a mother writes something on the birth certificate doesn't mean that it's true, and any interested party (usually the father who's being asked for child support) has an opportunity to rebut.

If we're talking specifically about the hypothetical case where Obama was born in Kenya, and his mother lied on the birth certificate to make it look like Obama had US citizenship, a sharp-eyed consular officer would have been within his rights to deny him citizenship (and to arrest her) on the grounds of suspected fraud. Someone would have had to depose JFK, and when it came out that she had never even met the man and her story fell completely apart under cross-examination, some (Federal) court somewhere would make an appropriate ruling based on the evidence presented to it.

Similarly, while there was no DNA testing, there was blood typing and a few other types of genetic markers. I suspect that just the fact that a white woman and a white man had a clearly "mulatto" child would be sufficient for a court to suspect shenanigans.

[D'rok]

Yeah.

From your article:



The irony -- or something -- is that the purpose of sanctions is to deter future sanctionable conduct. The judge raised the sanction from the proposed $10,000 to $20,000, because a mere $10,000 fine demonstrably deter her from filing frivolous paperwork.

If her response to this is to file another frivolous piece of paper, then that will prove that even $20k isn't enough to deter her, and justify the judge in raising the sanctions again.

This is a game Taitz can't win. Once it's been established that her conduct is sanctionable, the court has the authority to deter her. And there's no maximum fine that can be imposed; she can't buy her way out of this one by simply saying "hey, there's at most a $10,000 fine and I can afford this." If $20k won't work, try $50k. If that doesn't work, try $100k.
Yup. Also, I'd be willing to bet that disbarment is in her very near future. (Check out the final sentence of the order).

[MervinFerd]

Sucks to be her, then.
Which may be why the law was changed.
Sure. It's called "changing the law." Happens all the time.

Respectfully, I'm not sure whether these answers knowledgeably address the question posed. Sure. The law may have been stupid; but, situations must have arisen often enough to require some kind of work-around. How was the law actually administered? If citizenship was not "automatic", was there a non-automatic procedure that could fix the problem? They really could not have wanted a bunch of Stateless babies toddling around.

This is mostly a matter of idle curiosity, but it helps to put the Birther in some kind of context.

There's a good chance that she would have been arrested for fraud or something similar if she had tried.

But, again, this is a well-understood problem; paternity suits have been around forever. Just because a mother writes something on the birth certificate doesn't mean that it's true, and any interested party (usually the father who's being asked for child support) has an opportunity to rebut.

Suppose she had named a recently deceased Black neighbor, then. Who would ever challenge it? Or know about it? Would JFK bother to challenge, if there was never a claim for child-support?

[Hokulele]

Yup. Also, I'd be willing to bet that disbarment is in her very near future. (Check out the final sentence of the order).


Awe. Some.

[Yoink]

Respectfully, I'm not sure whether these answers knowledgeably address the question posed. Sure. The law may have been stupid; but, situations must have arisen often enough to require some kind of work-around. How was the law actually administered? If citizenship was not "automatic", was there a non-automatic procedure that could fix the problem? They really could not have wanted a bunch of Stateless babies toddling around.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness)seems to have the answer to your question:

Statelessness may also arise at birth. For example, an American born abroad that has not spent five years in the US or one of its possessions does not have the right to transfer citizenship (i.e., that person's children will not be US citizens at birth). If that person continues to live abroad (e.g., as a resident alien (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_%28law%29), not a dual citizen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship)) and then has children with a person with the same status in a country that does not have jus soli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli), their children will automatically be stateless at birth (Immigration and Nationality Act Sec. 301g). (However, many states have signed the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Convention_on_the_Reduction_of_Statelessness) and will grant nationality to otherwise stateless persons born on their territory.)

[CptColumbo]

Orly Taitz fined $20,000!

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/orly_taitz/Ouch.

That still probably won't stop her.

[Matthew Best]

Nicole Kidman is a US Citizen despite both her parents being Austrailian Citizens and never having taken up legal residence in the US because she was born prematurely while her parents were on vacation in Hawaii...a lot like the case mentioned above.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_kidman) says she was born in the US while her father was "a visiting fellow at the National Institute of Mental Health of the United States", and that the family didn't return to Australia when she was four.

[MervinFerd]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness)seems to have the answer to your question:

Thanks for finding this article, but I don't think it directly addresses the question I'm posing:

... an American born abroad that has not spent five years in the US or one of its possessions does not have the right to transfer citizenship ... .

This describes a person with truly minimal contacts with the US. What about the lifelong resident and citizen who happens to give birth while visiting another country, and who then continues to reside in the US?

In brief, I'm having trouble believing that a baby born to a Kansas girl normally residing in the US would not be a citizen under some provision of the law.

The Internets tend toward simplistic answers.

[timhau]

This is a game Taitz can't win.

Yes, but she's determined to play anyway. It could lead to something beautiful.

[L. Ron Hoover]

Taitz grossly underestimated the gravity of a court proceeding. Judges don't take matters lightly and the LAST thing he or she will tolerate is a lack of respect. Taitz kept pushing her luck, failing to address the judge's questions, refusing to heed his warnings, and flouting strongly-worded orders that declared her case over. Despite all those chances, she kept it up, and was punished for wasting the court's time, especially where she declared herself counsel (who should know better).

If she pays the fine, she may be admonished or suspended by California. If she refuses to pay the fine, she will almost certainly be disbarred. It can't come soon enough. The fact that she passed the bar is almost unbelievable considering her arguments and logic.

[IMST]

I find O rly to be about the best political entertainment since Bush I puked on someone's prime minister. This cannot possibly go on too long.

[Yoink]

Thanks for finding this article, but I don't think it directly addresses the question I'm posing:



This describes a person with truly minimal contacts with the US. What about the lifelong resident and citizen who happens to give birth while visiting another country, and who then continues to reside in the US?

In brief, I'm having trouble believing that a baby born to a Kansas girl normally residing in the US would not be a citizen under some provision of the law.

The Internets tend toward simplistic answers.

You missed the crucial part of the Wikipedia article I linked to (and which I quoted in my post): i.e., the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. So, yes, under the terms of that convention, some kind of citizenship would be found for a child born, say, in Tokyo airport to a teenaged American mother and a Nigerian father. But the very existence of the convention speaks to the fact that your broader point was incorrect: in other words, there clearly were instances in which babies could be born with no de jure claim to citizenship in any country.

[twinstead]

Take note 9-11 truthers--this is what happens when kooky conspiracy theories get into an actual court.

[MervinFerd]

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
.
.
...
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: ... This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; ...


Aha! Retroactive! This would make Obama a citizen from birth, even if he had been born in the Outer Mongolian African Republic.

I continue to believe that in 1962 there must have been provisions of the law that would make the infant child of an American citizen living in the US a citizen. But, this will do for now.

Simplest anti-birther argument:
Mom's Amurcan; Babe's Amurcan.

[MervinFerd]

You missed the crucial part of the Wikipedia article I linked to (and which I quoted in my post): i.e., the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. So, yes, under the terms of that convention, some kind of citizenship would be found for a child born, say, in Tokyo airport to a teenaged American mother and a Nigerian father. But the very existence of the convention speaks to the fact that your broader point was incorrect: in other words, there clearly were instances in which babies could be born with no de jure claim to citizenship in any country.

See my post directly above quoting the current law as posted on this board. If I read the statute correctly (never a certainty) the new provisions are retroactive, so the issue is moot as regards Obama.

I still do not think the article is on point. It refers to a US citizen born outside the US and not living in the US, or raising the child in the US. Surely, an unusual situation and not one where American Citizenship is an obvious right.

It is a different situation if Mom is a citizen and resident of the US and returns immediately to raise the child in the US. This must be a common occurrence and it would be politically painful to deny such children citizenship.

This is not a question that Google is likely to answer; we need a person with actual knowledge. I suspect that one or more of the following are true:
a) the legal dependent child of a citizen residing in the US is automatically a citizen. Current law makes this provision for adopted foreign children.
or
b) the child is regarded as born in the USA if it is returned to the US within a short time and properly registered.
or
c) Something else..

As I said, this needs an expert opinion. It's a good example of the kind of question that the Internets don't answer.

[Yoink]

See my post directly above quoting the current law as posted on this board. If I read the statute correctly (never a certainty) the new provisions are retroactive, so the issue is moot as regards Obama.

I still do not think the article is on point. It refers to a US citizen born outside the US and not living in the US, or raising the child in the US. Surely, an unusual situation and not one where American Citizenship is an obvious right.

It's giving that as one example. It's not "about" that instance.

[MervinFerd]

It's giving that as one example. It's not "about" that instance.

Statelessness happens.

I am just doubtful that it happens (or happened in 1962) to the child of a US resident citizen who went into premature labor abroad and immediately brought the infant home. It's a common enough occurrence that the political or legal system would respond.

To understand the legal situation in 1962, we would need to read the entire statute plus the agency regulations and relevant court decisions. Not just a single provision of the law replicated over the Internets.

I am most certainly not up for that effort, so I'll wait for the opinion of someone who actually knows what he is talking about. In the meantime, a little skeptical Common Sense will keep us somewhere near reality.

[Yoink]

Statelessness happens.

I am just doubtful that it happens (or happened in 1962) to the child of a US resident citizen who went into premature labor abroad and immediately brought the infant home.

1962 being one year after the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, I tend to agree with you.

[Myron Proudfoot]

Orly now claims that the JUDGE is delusional!!!

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/orly_taitz/

(gets out the popcorn)

[Thunder]

Orly Taitz is a very ugly, obnoxious, and stupid woman.

[Juniversal]

Orly now claims that the JUDGE is delusional!!!

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/orly_taitz/

(gets out the popcorn)Lol she was insisting that the Governer of Hawaii never made a statement that Barrack was born in Hawaii (which she did). "It never happened!" So who really is the delusional one??

[patchbunny]

Orly now claims that the JUDGE is delusional!!!

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/orly_taitz/

(gets out the popcorn)

This is, like, the best thread ever. I can't wait for the next installment. It's worse than waiting for Christmas to come.

:popcorn1

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Orly Taitz is a very ugly, obnoxious, and stupid woman.

I actually watched her for a few minutes on a TV show last night being interviewed by the Joy lady from The View. It was like seeing a dog trying to chew off its own tail. :bwall

[BenBurch]

My Pennsylvania "Certification of Birth" has nothing about a live birth.

Paul

:) :) :)

So, you're a ZOMBIE?!!

[Myron Proudfoot]

I actually watched her for a few minutes on a TV show last night being interviewed by the Joy lady from The View. It was like seeing a dog trying to chew off its own tail. :bwall

Sadly the comments for the Joy lady feature a lot of Birthers. ugh.

[ktesibios]

My Pennsylvania "Certification of Birth" has nothing about a live birth.

Paul

:) :) :)

I'll go ya one better. My New Jersey birth certificate (obtained in 1999, when I moved to CA and had to get a new driver's license) not only says nothing about a live birth, it doesn't include the word "birth" at all.

Apparently I wasn't actually born- I must have been decanted, just like Brave New World.

Now to find the rest of my Bokanovsky group and organize a picnic.

[Travis]

Looks like my prediction of an eventual contempt of court charge might come true.

Seriously pissing off a judge is just a bad idea. Flouting your pissing off a judge is just looney.

[dudalb]

Take note 9-11 truthers--this is what happens when kooky conspiracy theories get into an actual court.

Actually we got a pretty good taste of that with the epic fail of the NYCCAN Intiative in court last week.

[Thunder]

Actually we got a pretty good taste of that with the epic fail of the NYCCAN Intiative in court last week.

I am not sure which is better. When wacky CTs are laughed out of court because of their stupidity..or when they are politely tossed out of court after a several hour legalize tongue lashing.

[Katopale]

Unfortunately, ignorant loudmouth wackjob is currently a more lucrative career
than dentist, lawyer, or Governor of Alaska.

Maybe FOX news will throw her a bone and employ her to suck up Glen Beck's tears with one of those spit straws.

[BazBear]

When I was applying for a US passport in the mid-80s I had to go to the county seat where I was born, the clerk would go in back and come out with a photocopy of my "certificate of live birth" (IIRC I was not allowed to see the original) then a notary would stamp it to certify that it was an actual copy. This certificate the usual information (birthdate/sex/weight/etc). It also had my parents names and places of birth and age, the hospital where I was born (which doesn't exist anymore), and the doctor's signature.

When I re-applied for one two years ago (my old one had expired and I couldn't find it) I received a printout that certified one was there and it was stamped. None of the additional information was present and I got a US passport.


If the "birther" movement wants to convince me that President Obama was not born in the US they have to porduce more evidence then they have. Provide documentation that contradicts that his mother was in Hawaii at the time (flight records, boat tickets, ETC). The same holds for those that doubt he went to the schools that have records of him being there. He had to be someplace if he wasn't at Occidental. Produce a lease on an appartment or employment records. The opposition has already produced all that is needed to prove he was born in Hawaii. Rather just sitting around saying that the COLB isn't good enough and if this issue is as important as you believe it is and you love your country, doing some work would seem a reasonable request.

Just the logistics of TRAVELLING to Kenya from Hawaii at that time make it questionable. You are indeed right to ask for more proof that any such travel took place. Those who doubt our President was born in Hawaii are the ones who have to prove this, not Obama.

I'm sorry, it simply all smacks of either paranoia, racism, or both. Like him or hate him, he was born in Hawaii. Using the arguments of those who doubt this, you'd disqualify me from the precidency, and be able to eliminate a good many folks you MIGHT like.

I'm really not sure what folks who don't get this want beyond the possible. His truncated birth certificate has been signed off for by a REPUBLICAN governor and sec. of state.

This left-right thing is WAY WAY WAY out of hand!!!!!!!!!!! You extremists have lost your bloody minds! There'll be no USA IF WE KEEP THIS CRAP UP!!!!!!!!

[LashL]

For those interested, there is a related thread running over in the Social Issues and Current Events sub-forum, which has some pretty good info and lots of links and documents and such.

It is located here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=154042).

[Alareth]

When I joined the Navy it was discovered that I don't have a birth certificate.

The one copy we had was destroyed in a fire and somehow the original cannot be located.

I'm a non-entity.

[LissaLysikan]

In the US for people that were issued a SSN that isn't a problem. My guardian got a "certified copy" of a "birth certificate" by appealing to the SS office - although the document he has is a print of a microfiche. The town he was born in burnt - completely - to the ground and the only record of his birth certificate at all was the microfiche in the SS office from when he applied for an SSN (he's old, from back when kids got them in 6th grade ).
It got him a passport so we got to go to Rome, so all is good :D.

[Travis]

When I joined the Navy it was discovered that I don't have a birth certificate.

The one copy we had was destroyed in a fire and somehow the original cannot be located.

I'm a non-entity.

Better not run for office or you will be a "traitor."

In the US for people that were issued a SSN that isn't a problem. My guardian got a "certified copy" of a "birth certificate" by appealing to the SS office - although the document he has is a print of a microfiche. The town he was born in burnt - completely - to the ground and the only record of his birth certificate at all was the microfiche in the SS office from when he applied for an SSN (he's old, from back when kids got them in 6th grade ).
It got him a passport so we got to go to Rome, so all is good :D.

Rome! You lucky *****!

[CORed]

How the hell can ANY rational person ignore the evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961?

I have seen no evidence that any rational person is.

[dropzone]

Don'tcha just love a pointless anecdote? No? Didn't think so.

It was well-before 9/11. A friend, not a relation by any means, who lived in Olympia, WA suddenly was offered a grad student job in Colombia, but she needed a passport chop-chop. She was born in Dupage County, IL and she asked me, who you will note was unrelated, to pick up a copy at the Dupage County offices, near where I live. She CALLED them; I verified who I was, and I dropped a copy in a FedEx box a few minutes later.

"Things are different today," I hear every mother (or father) say.

[Alferd_Packer]

There has been a shift in the birther strategy lately. (well actually not so much a shift as they are going to their fall back position).

Accordingly, to the birthers, it doesn’t matter that Obama was born in Hawaii since his father was not a citizen, therefore Obama is not a “natural born” citizen.

Not surprisingly this theory is not getting much traction either.

[Brainster]

There has been a shift in the birther strategy lately. (well actually not so much a shift as they are going to their fall back position).

Accordingly, to the birthers, it doesn’t matter that Obama was born in Hawaii since his father was not a citizen, therefore Obama is not a “natural born” citizen.

Not surprisingly this theory is not getting much traction either.

Actually that one's been around for awhile; IIRC the claim is that because Kenya was a British Commonwealth back then, that Obama was born a British subject due to some law that the Brits passed sometime back in the 1800s. It's completely crackers, of course. I suppose Obama could have taken British citizenship if he'd wanted to, but it has no effect on whether he's a natural-born American.

[Alferd_Packer]

Yeah, it has been around, but they have been trotting it out more lately.

Orly's hedging her bets.

Even if, by some wild chance Carter allows her suit to go through, she knows she will lose on the Hawaiian birth issue.

[Alferd_Packer]

Orly's chasing Unicorns.

From her blog page:

I am trying to ascertain what happened to this individual, who was born in 1890 in CT, received his ss number in CT between 1977-1979 (probably he needed it for some ss benefits or medicaid benefits in his older age) , and whose ss Obama used most of his life.

We already know that another ss Obama used 485-40-5154 was issued in IA to Lucille Ballantyne, born 12.22.1912, deceased 09.13.1998. Last residence was at 50140 Lamoni, Decatar, IA. Does anyone know where did she die, how?

I am deeply concerned, what happened to the person whose ss Obama used in MA, Chicago and currently using in DC? This person (could have been a man or woman) was born in 1890 and would’ve been 119 years old today. Since we don’t know of any 119 y.olds in this country, it is safe to assume this person is deceased. I am greatly alarmed, why isn’t he noted as deceased in the National databases. Why is Obama using his ss with such unbelievable arrogance? Does he know how this person died? Is he sure for some reason that no one will be reporting his death today or tomorrow?

I need more info on other deaths:

1. death of Renee Abima Obama – 3 months old, birth and death were reported in Springfield MD. Was there a doctor in ATTENDENCE, who reported her death? Coroner?

2. Was there any doctor, who recorded death of Madelyn Payne Dunham? Is there a coroner’s report?

3.Was there a doctor present when Stanley Ann Dunham died? Is there a death certificate signed by a doctor in attendance? coroner’s report?


Talk about OCD.

[timhau]

If she can't get Obama for immigration violations, maybe she can get him for murder.

[tsig]

If she can't get Obama for immigration violations, maybe she can get him for murder.

Or something.

[CptColumbo]

Actually that one's been around for awhile; IIRC the claim is that because Kenya was a British Commonwealth back then, that Obama was born a British subject due to some law that the Brits passed sometime back in the 1800s. It's completely crackers, of course. I suppose Obama could have taken British citizenship if he'd wanted to, but it has no effect on whether he's a natural-born American.
IIRC he could have applied for Kenyan citizenship anytime before his 24th birthday, but is no longer elidgible.

[Travis]

She still hasn't figured out that no one actually alleged Obama was using those other SS #'s? Talk about dense.