Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[kookbreaker]

Well, I find it very healthy and useful to be able to so easily identify the bat **** crazy racists.

I assert that anything that drives them out of hiding where they can be properly dealt with is a GOOD THING.

Bingo.

 

[headscratcher4]

It all boils down to BAC can find all kinds of specious reasons for not accepting the evidence but he has yet to articulate a single legitimate reason for not accepting the eficence. One.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.

 

[cwalner]

Hmm, been away from the forums for a while. I am pleased this thread is still active, although I am a bit disturbed that I must admit that I am actually entertained by Donald Trump. Thank you, Don, for keeping birtherism alive.

 

[BeAChooser]

You misspelled "Republicans" there, BAC. Or have you forgotten who appointed Dr. Fukino in the first place?

Indeed, there are a number of republicans who seem to fear what is in that so-called "long form" document. Why is that?

Perhaps for the same reason they feared Clinton's impeachment? Perhaps there is something they don't want revealed about themselves?

Perhaps because they are just Republicans In Name Only (there are more than a few of those … especially in liberal states like Hawaii)?

Or perhaps they fear the disruption that disclosure of something potentially damaging to Obama might do to the institutions of the US? In other words, they fear the ensuing Constitutional Crisis. It wouldn't be the first time that such a judgement was made, by the way.

Or perhaps this is just a case demonstrating that Republicans are more law abiding than democrats? That even when they would like to do something else, they still follow the letter of the law.

Or perhaps they know that if the truth were NOW to come out, they too might be arrested and discredited for having sat on such information. It's not all that different from the reason that the MSM might refuse to report on the results of an autopsy of Brown's head were that to occur?

Quote:
That the Department of Health can indeed release material if they feel the person has a direct and tangible need to have it released.

And Obama received and showed to the public the only thing that can be released.

Here's an interesting analysis of Fukino's statements:

http://usurpador.blogcindario.com/2...ome-fukino-to-nbc-news-regarding-obama-s.html

It also contains this, relevant to your claim above:

It is rather absurd for Mr. Wisch [spokesman for the attorney general's office] to contend that someone could not get a certified copy of their own birth certificate, especially the President of the United States. There is no law in Hawaii that so provides. On the contrary, the Hawaii Revised Statutes, Section 338-13(a) states that the department "shall, upon request, furnish an applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof." Paragraph (c) also provides that copies of birth certificates "may be made by photograph, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health." Hence, Hawaii’s statutes directly contradict what Mr. Wisch is telling the public.

To further prove that Mr. Wisch is wrong and/or inventing information, we have seen recent examples of people who were born in Hawaii obtain with little fanfare a certified copy of their original long-form, hospital generated birth certificate. A friend of Niki Booth--who was born in Japan, spent much of her life in Hawaii and ran for Congress in 2010 from the Second District of Oklahoma—has a friend who obtained a copy of his long-form, Certificate of Live Birth in March 2011. See the story here, http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/07/exposing-the-birth-certificate-lies-used-to-cover-for-obama/. Also, October 13, 2010, a “Danae” posted on FreeRepublic a copy of her long-form, birth certificate originally issued in 1969, which she obtained by mail from the Hawaii Department of Health on September 28, 2010 after paying a $10.00 fee. She also posted a copy of the receipt that she got for paying the $10.00 fee.

Gee … looks like there are a lot of claims on this thread that are turning out to be false.

In fact, the state certified and state verified form that Obama has released already contains all the relevant information

No, it does not. It does not contain the name of the birth hospital and the names and signatures of the delivery doctor and other witnesses to the birth. The rest of those sources you alluded to prove nothing. I could send in a birth announcement to a paper right now about a completely fictitious person and they would publish it.

So why do you and Obama fear what the real birth certificate contains? This would be so easy to clear up but for some reason you and Obama don't want it cleared up. Just like you and he don't want anyone to know what courses he took at Columbia.

 

[Upchurch]

So, BAC, does this mean you are giving up the facade that you are not a Birther?

 

[A'isha]

Indeed, there are a number of republicans who seem to fear what is in that so-called "long form" document. Why is that?

Perhaps for the same reason they feared Clinton's impeachment? Perhaps there is something they don't want revealed about themselves?

Perhaps because they are just Republicans In Name Only (there are more than a few of those … especially in liberal states like Hawaii)?

Yes, BAC. Governor Linda Lingle, who campaigned for McCain and introduced Sarah Palin at the RNC convention, is secretly a liberal Obama supporter who would do anything to cover up for him.

Or perhaps this is just a case demonstrating that Republicans are more law abiding than democrats? That even when they would like to do something else, they still follow the letter of the law.

So, you went from accusing Democrats of not following the law (when you thought it was Democrats who were refusing to release Obama's information), to praising Republicans for following the letter of the law even when it would hurt them (when you were told that it was Republicans who were refusing to release Obama's information)?

You should see a doctor posthaste to get your neck checked out, BAC. I fear you may have gotten whiplash.

Here's an interesting analysis of Fukino's statements:

http://usurpador.blogcindario.com/2...ome-fukino-to-nbc-news-regarding-obama-s.html

If by "interesting" you mean "repeating the same completely false claims about the laws of the state of Hawaii despite being corrected by Republican state officials".

It also contains this, relevant to your claim above:

Which is just a repetition of the same anonymous claims from WND (and gets Miki Booth's name wrong, to boot).

Gee … looks like there are a lot of claims on this thread that are turning out to be false.

And they're all yours.

No, it does not. It does not contain the name of the birth hospital and the names and signatures of the delivery doctor and other witnesses to the birth.

Which are irrelevant, since the location information is sufficient.

Or do you think that the citizenship of everyone who gets the exact same form (including both "Danae" and Miki Booth's son Alan) is also in doubt?

I could send in a birth announcement to a paper right now about a completely fictitious person and they would publish it.

Not in Hawaii they wouldn't. All their birth announcement information, including Obama's, came from hospitals themselves, distributed by the Department of Health.

So why do you and Obama fear what the real birth certificate contains? This would be so easy to clear up but for some reason you and Obama don't want it cleared up.

Repeating lies doesn't actually make them true, BAC.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by headscratcher4
1. The document issued by the state is legally certified and dispositive. There is nothing more that any "form" could provide.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Nope.

Totally true. In fact, the form itself says "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."

Every single court in the US will accept that document and the information contained on it as given, automatically.

But that's not the same as claiming the long-form provides nothing more, which is what was claimed. The long form does contain information that is not on what was released.

Originally Posted by headscratcher4
The form issued by the state says he was born in the state. That is all that can ever be shown by any document issued by the state.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Not true.

Nope, true. As verified by the Republican-appointed head of the Department of Health, as well as the Republican who appointed her.

No, untrue, as proven above, quoting the law itself. As proven by people who have gotten the so-called "long form" sent to them.

Do you think they're liars, BAC?

Well it would appear so. So now the question is motivation and I already provided plenty of possibilities where that is concerned.

Originally Posted by headscratcher4
As noted above, the form issued by the state and released by Obama has all of the same essential information that would have been on any form available at the time of his birth.

Quote:
Not true.

Nope, true again. The form released shows where Obama was born, when he was born, and to whom. In other words, the important stuff.

No, that's untrue. Other people in Hawaii have obtained a so-called long form from around the time Obama was supposedly born for their own births that clearly prove the long form contains information (like the doctor's name and the hospital of birth) that is not on the document Obama is claiming proves his birth. And given the magnitude of the controversy that has now erupted over this, that IS important stuff, no matter what your definition of "is".

 

[BeAChooser]

It is exactly true that the so-called long form and the COLB issued by the state of Hawaii contain the same information.

Prove it.

 

[headscratcher4]

The "real" birth certificate has been released by Obama. That is just the point. By real, of course, I mean the document that states and the federal government, etc. give credence to when determining a place of birth.

 

[BeAChooser]

Well, I find it very healthy and useful to be able to so easily identify the bat **** crazy racists.

I see. So you are claiming that over half the GOP are bat **** crazy racists?

 

[Upchurch]

BAC, what would you say are the differences between your beliefs and those of Birthers?

 

[A'isha]

But that's not the same as claiming the long-form provides nothing more, which is what was claimed. The long form does contain information that is not on what was released.

Not information that affects the important location of birth information, which is what determines whether you were born in the US.

What hospital you were born in within city limits is pretty irrelevant compared to the fact that you were born within those city limits in the first place.

No, untrue, as proven above, quoting the law itself. As proven by people who have gotten the so-called "long form" sent to them.

No, they haven't. Several anonymous people have claimed they have, but the forms displayed conveniently lack any actual proof that they were obtained on the dates claimed (and, in one case, the form is a plain uncertified and undated photocopy indistinguishable from someone taking their old certificate to a Kinko's).

I find it telling, though, that you uncritically accept the above, while coming up with ever more elaborate and reaching conspiracy theories to handwave away the explicit statements of named state government officials, from the actual governor on down.

You're not a skeptic in search of the truth, you're a gullible partisan looking for anything, however tenuous, to support something you desperately want to believe is true in the face of voluminous evidence to the contrary.

No, that's untrue. Other people in Hawaii have obtained a so-called long form from around the time Obama was supposedly born for their own births

I've highlighted the key words here. What was issued then is not what's issued now. As even Miki Booth has had to invent conspiracy theories to try and explain away.

that clearly prove the long form contains information (like the doctor's name and the hospital of birth) that is not on the document Obama is claiming proves his birth.

And which is irrelevant to what his certified copy proves, which is that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.

And given the magnitude of the controversy that has now erupted over this, that IS important stuff, no matter what your definition of "is".

Actually, the fact that the more information that is released (like Dr. Fukino stating outright that Obama's information shows he was born in Honolulu and has a doctor's signature), the louder birthers like you cry for additional information, shows that you don't care about the truth at all.

 

[beren]

I see. So you are claiming that over half the GOP are bat **** crazy racists?

Yes.
And you.

 

[headscratcher4]

I don't have to prove it. The State of Hawaii certifies that it is so. It is presumed, by law, be so. You have to prove not only that the information is different but that the State of Hawaii and officials charged with acting on behalf of the state is perpetuating a fraud. You've provided not one shred of evidence to suggest that the State is engaged in a fraud. The state "certifies" that the COLB is dispositive proof by the state of where the person named in the document was born. This must legally reflect the information on the electronic record kept by the state. COLB says he was born in Hawaii, ergo -- without a fraud by the state and its officials -- it reflects the information contained in the electroinc record. It says he was born in Hawaii, ergo he was born in Hawaii.

That is acceptable to any court of law in the country as dispositive proof. You would not be allowed to challenge this in a court of law without meeting a basic burden of proof...that being a credible showing that the State of Hawaii and or officials acting for the state were engaged in a intentional fraud. It is that simple.

 

[BeAChooser]

I consider those who entertain the "birther" conspiracy idiocy to be culpable for their own ignorance and bias, rather than blaming the educational system as in the case of the accidental geocentrists.

Why do you fear the contents of that so-called "long form" so much? What possible harm could publishing it do? Seriously.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Sure, there would always be some who would not accept any proof,

And here we come to the real issue, that defines the mendacity and stupidity and craziness of "birtherism". I do not believe for a second that most of those people would suddenly say, "Oh! Here's another form certified by the State of Hawaii that confirms the birth certificate he released several years ago! I guess I was wrong, then!"

So you think that even after Obama allowed his a so-called long form, signed by a doctor and denoting the hospital of his birth, to be released and published, that over half of republicans would still claim he wasn't a US citizen? Do you really seriously believe that, sts60?

No, they'd simply start another list of reasons they didn't believe the latest form.

So is your fear about releasing the so-called long form really a fear that they'd start another list of reasons not to believe the latest form? Seems like an unending reason to fear. The mother of all excuses. :rolleye:

The vast majority of those who say they'd accept the form, in my opinion, are simply lying.

Has half the GOP given you any reason to believe they are simply lying? Seriously. And wouldn't proving that they behave that way actually help your *cause* even more in the long run? Why would you fear the GOP proving that half it's members are liars? Hmmmmmm?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
but by publishing the so-called "long form", Obama in one fell swoop could completely marginalize them as utter kooks … no different than the 9/11 Truthers.

They are utter kooks, right now.

So you are labeling half of republicans "utter kooks". I see. You have any other basis to make such a claim? Because that also means that Chris Matthews is a kook. Do you believe that?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Right now, many ordinary people, like myself, like Trump, like Chris Matthews, would just like to be reassured.

Sorry, but I simply don't believe you.

You don't believe that Chris Matthews would be reassured? Is he a kook?

I don't believe, for a second, that you would accept a "long form" as authentic if it confirmed what we already know

Your belief is based on absolutely nothing other than your fear of what that so-called "long form" contains. You have no evidence that when presented with facts I am unwilling to change my mind. I can, however, point to instances here at JREF where I have changed my mind when confronted with verifiable facts (and currently the existance of that birth certificate and it's contents has not really been verified). In contrast, I have evidence that many democrats (and folks who claim they aren't democrats) here at JREF won't change their minds when presented with verifiable facts.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 11.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Because there is sooooo much about Obama that we still don't know … that he seems to be actively trying to hide. ...

Which is absolutely true. If you deny that, then why don't you tell us what courses he took at Columbia and Harvard?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And in point of fact, it would be within Obama's power to issue an Executive Order directing the release of the document in the interests of national security. Presidents have that much power.

I would be furious if the President wasted time and misused the power of the office to entertain the paranoid fantasies of a group that wouldn't believe him anyway.

And yet you aren't furious that the President and his staff have had to keep coming back to deal with this issue. Have spent millions of dollars and countless hours trying to keep people from finding out the contents of a little, inconsequential (according to you folks) document. You aren't furious that we've even had US soldiers and others suing the Federal government over this matter? And how much time and money did the government spend defending those suits? Hmmmm?

First, I'm not "the left".

Of course not. You folks rarely are.

Second, I know of only one soldier who shirked his duty as you described, and his career properly ended in court-martial and disgrace for it. I don't follow this that much - perhaps there are others - but clearly there is no rising birther tide of disobedience in our Armed Forces.

Well here are two, plus some retired generals who agreed with them ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Military

On April 13, 2010, the United States Army announced that it would court-martial Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lee Lakin, a surgeon in the Medical Corps, for refusing to report for deployment to Afghanistan. Lakin asserted that due to citizenship issues, Obama is not legally the Commander in Chief, and therefore lacks the authority to send him to Afghanistan. The military revoked Lakin's Pentagon building pass, and confiscated his government laptop computer. Lakin was assigned to Walter Reed Army Medical Center while awaiting trial.

Lakin's case differed from Stefan Cook's case in that Cook volunteered to deploy, received orders, and then filed a civil suit refusing to serve; the military responded by revoking Cook's voluntary orders. Lakin was ordered to deploy and he refused the orders, whereupon the military eventually initiated a criminal law prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. On September 2, 2010, Colonel Denise Lind, the presiding judge, issued a ruling in the case that Obama's status as a natural born citizen is irrelevant in the court martial case against Lakin, as Obama's eligibility is outside the jurisdiction of the military and falls within the jurisdiction of the United States Congress instead.

Three retired generals have publicly expressed support for Lakin. The first was Army Major General (retired) Paul E. Vallely, a senior military analyst for Fox News. In an interview, Vallely stated "I think many in the military – and many out of the military – question the natural-birth status of Barack Obama." Following Vallely's announcement, Army Major General (retired) Jerry Curry and Air Force Lieutenant General (retired) Thomas G. McInerney also expressed public support for Lakin.

And here's another soldier …

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89837

A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an "impostor" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief.

… snip …

"As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States," wrote Scott Easterling in a "to-whom-it-may-concern" letter.

And here's another …

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=89941

Another U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq is joining a challenge to President Obama's eligibility to be commander-in-chief, citing WND's report on 1st Lt. Scott Easterling, who has agreed to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit over the issue, as his inspiration.

… snip …

The second soldier wrote, "I am an Army reservist who was activated last August and am currently serving with a military police battalion in Camp Bucca, Iraq. I will be here until at least June 2009."

He continued, "When I enlisted last year I had to show my birth certificate, as well as my driver's license, high school diploma, college transcripts, social security card; I also filled out loads of paperwork to include listing the names, addresses and phone numbers of my family members and had to answer any questions regarding foreign travel.

"I think it is reasonable for Obama to prove his citizenship status thus certifying his eligibility. I too raised my right hand and swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States," he told Taitz.

I suspect there are a great many other soldiers who feel the same way but are simply afraid to voice those doubts. But the doubts are real and may affect their performance in the field.

Third, yes, we are at war, and wasting time on this pernicious twaddle only detracts from serious debate on the real challenges this country faces.

Which could be put to rest so simply … by Obama allowing the release of his so-called "long form" birth certificate. Then reasonable people, and I count myself among them, would have no doubts. Then we could focus on the pernicious twaddle that Obama spouted today about the economy and deficit.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Edited out a response to a bunch of posts that got moved to AAH or something I guess

What, specifically, is lacking from the birth certificate already provided that would convince you that Barack Obama was born in the United States?

 

[Tricky]

Please stay on topic. The political affiliation of various members and the Clintons are not "on topic".

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Upchurch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Military


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89837


http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=89941

An article on conspiracy theories and two articles from a discredited conspiracy theory website that admitted to publishing misinformation.

Notice the pattern in your sources?

 

[Arus808]

Oh and Lakin has publicly stated that he is sorry for ever entertaining the birther mantra.

 

[sts60]

Why do you fear the contents of that so-called "long form" so much? What possible harm could publishing it do? Seriously.

Complex question. I don't fear it, or the contents of any other form of the birth certificate already released by the President.

So you think that even after Obama allowed his a so-called long form, signed by a doctor and denoting the hospital of his birth, to be released and published, that over half of republicans would still claim he wasn't a US citizen? Do you really seriously believe that, sts60?

First, I do not stipulate to any particular percentage of members of any political party believing "birther" claims.

I do believe that the majority of "birthers" would still claim he wasn't a U.S. citizen, citing some new set of objections to what was released.

So is your fear ...

Complex question again. I do not fear the release of a "so-called long form".

Has half the GOP given you any reason to believe they are simply lying? Seriously. And wouldn't proving that they behave that way actually help your *cause* even more in the long run? Why would you fear the GOP proving that half it's members are liars? Hmmmmmm?

First, as noted above, I do not stipulate to the "half the GOP" value, but it's not especially relevant. I don't care which percentage of which party believes this tripe.
Second, I note again that I don't fear the release of a form.
Third, you've clearly misidentified "my cause". I am a registered unaffiliated (or independent as known in many states) voter. My allegiance is to no party; it's to my country.

So you are labeling half of republicans "utter kooks". I see. You have any other basis to make such a claim? Because that also means that Chris Matthews is a kook. Do you believe that?

See above regarding the disclaimers on parties and percentages again. I think "birthers" are kooks, regardless of their affiliation. Note that they may not be kooks outside that particular preoccupation; there are many people who are quite normal in all regards except a profound belief in one profoundly silly idea.

Your belief is based on absolutely nothing other than your fear of what that so-called "long form" contains.

This doesn't get any more correct with repetition.

You have no evidence that when presented with facts I am unwilling to change my mind. I can, however, point to instances here at JREF where I have changed my mind when confronted with verifiable facts...

Indeed, while I don't believe you would change your mind, I certainly can't prove you wouldn't.

But let's suppose such a form was provided (I don't know whether it is possible, and I don't care), confirmed the information on the birth certificate already released and you did change your mind. Why would you accept one form certified by the state of Hawaii but not another, given this supposed conspiracy to prevent its release? Why would this grand conspiracy suddenly capitulate, rather than simply issuing another forgery? It's right up there with Judy Wood types insisting that of course SAIC would admit to vaporizing the World Trade Center, if only they were questioned in court.

...(and currently the existance of that birth certificate and it's contents has not really been verified).

A birth certificate has been certified by the State of Hawaii. We understand that what was sufficient to hold a hotly-contested Presidential election is insufficient for you and other "birthers".

In contrast, I have evidence that many democrats...

I don't care. I'm not a Democrat.

Which is absolutely true. If you deny that, then why don't you tell us what courses he took at Columbia and Harvard?

Irrelevant. I'm talking about a birth certificate issued by the State of Hawaii and how some people don't accept that, even though it's sufficient for jobs and driver's licenses and Social Security and joining the military and everything else that you do with a birth certificate.

And yet you aren't furious that the President and his staff have had to keep coming back to deal with this issue.

Wrong. I am furious. The President and Congress have a lot of real work to do and hard choices to make, and entertaining paranoid conspiracy theories distracts from that.

Have spent millions of dollars and countless hours

No, I don't stipulate to that, because it appears the "millions of dollars fighting birther claims" isn't actually true.

trying to keep people from finding out the contents of a little, inconsequential (according to you folks) document. You aren't furious that we've even had US soldiers and others suing the Federal government over this matter? And how much time and money did the government spend defending those suits? Hmmmm?

My hard-earned tax money shouldn't be wasted defending against ridiculous claims.

Of course not. You folks rarely are.

Ad hominem fallacy, and incorrect as well. I'm still not "the left". You don't get it. This isn't about political viewpoints to me; it's about damage to America's civic discourse by promoters of a ridiculous conspiracy "theory".

...I suspect there are a great many other soldiers who feel the same way but are simply afraid to voice those doubts. But the doubts are real and may affect their performance in the field.

You suspect, and I suspect the other way... that they spend their time in the field thinking about people who might shoot at them or try to blow them up.

Which could be put to rest so simply … by Obama allowing the release of his so-called "long form" birth certificate. Then reasonable people, and I count myself among them, would have no doubts...

Sorry, I still don't believe you. Again, I can't prove it; if such an event could and did occur, then there would be some resolution, but that doesn't seem likely.

I guess the "birthers" will just have to deal with it until January 2013 or January 2017, depending on the outcome of the 2012 election.