Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr. Prey, a question:

What's your pupose in these forums? It certainly isn't to engage in give-and-take, or to learn something. By your non-productive and largely childish tactics you demonstate a lack of seriousness.

Perhaps you enjoy being ridiculed and laughed at? That seems strange, but to some, any attention is better than none, I guess.

Perhaps you were slighted at some time in your past and you hold a grudge. Then you act out by projecting onto others your faults in some vain attempt to recover some lost measure of your battered ego. I don't know.

In any event, from what I can tell, few if any here take you seriously. If that was your intent, you can stop now. You win.
 
Perhaps you enjoy being ridiculed and laughed at? That seems strange, but to some, any attention is better than none, I guess.
Click to expand...
A bit like the boy who soiled his trousers at school, he did it to get attention.
 
abaddon said:
Wait, Bob is quoting Faux news as a source? Oh dear. credibility, meet toilet.
Click to expand...

He has already quoted Ann Coulter, so he's borrowing at least some of his arguments from radical conservative viewpoints. Highly polarized political viewpoints seem the farthest from the truth in nearly all cases.
 
Robert Prey said:
Sorry, AntPogo, but a verification of "information of the copy" is not proof that the document itself is a true replcation of the original.
Click to expand...


If the issuing authority does not have the authority to verify the correctness of "information of the copy", then who does?

Robert Prey said:
"But officer, I may not have my Drivers' License with me, but I do have a copy. Why won't you accept that??????"
Click to expand...


Actually, at least in my state, when it comes time to renew your license, you receive a "camera card". This piece of paper is a valid driver's license for a limited time.
 
Last edited:
Lord Monckton Explains it All For You.

Lord Monckton, a prominent Englishman, explains how anyone with half a brain can easily deduce the document is a fraud and in the process, produces his own freshly minted Hawaiian Birth Certificate, "proving" he also was actually born in Hawaii.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CvhhRTq6fQ
 
Robert Prey said:
Lord Monckton, a prominent Englishman, explains how anyone with half a brain can easily deduce the document is a fraud and in the process, produces his own freshly minted Hawaiian Birth Certificate, "proving" he also was actually born in Hawaii.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CvhhRTq6fQ
Click to expand...

Someone should elect him to fill the senate seats occupied by the anti american GOP senators cowards.
 
Robert Prey said:
Lord Monckton, a prominent Englishman, explains how anyone with half a brain can easily deduce the document is a fraud and in the process, produces his own freshly minted Hawaiian Birth Certificate, "proving" he also was actually born in Hawaii.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CvhhRTq6fQ
Click to expand...


Except that Lord Monckton's certificate has NOT been certified as correct by the appropriate state.
 
As a foreigner I have to admit this is most confusing:

a. A politician runs for the nomination of his party to be the presidential candidate and wins;
b. Same politician runs for POTUS and wins;
c. Fringe group of US citizens states "He wasn't born here, he can't be President." Some launch lawsuits;
d. Lawsuits are successfully defended;
e. More lawsuits are launched - alleging that the birth ceritificate has been forged;
f. The issuing state verifies that the scan of the birth certificate is correct; and
g. Robert Prey states that this isn't good enough, ignoring the "full faith and credit" portion of the US Constitution because, well it's inconvenient to his world view.

When asked if the issuing authority for a document isn't good enough to verify that a document is genuine, who would be, Mr. Prey replies, "Anybody else not subject to prosecution for fraud."

So, to sum up:

If the people who issue documents cannot verify those same documents as correct, because they are subject to prosecution for fraud if they lie.
And all persons in the US are subject to being charged with fraud under the appropriate statutes.
Then no one can verify any documents in the US.

Congradulations Robert, using your logic nothing can be done legally in the US - no one may purchase alcohol or tobacco, no property transferred, no credit purchases made, no one may withdraw money from any bank account, no one can be arrested, or detained, etc. You've managed to do what the British Crown, the Mexican government, the US Civil War, the Kingdom of Spain, Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, etc failed to do because nothing may be proven or certified - destroy the very fabric of American society. Well done.
 
Robert Prey said:
Anybody else not subject to prosecution for fraud.
Click to expand...


But in your world, everyone who confirms the validity of the birth certificate and its copies is automatically subject to prosecution for fraud. So, basically, the only people with the authority to verify the correctness of "information of the copy" are the people who already "know" it's false.

That's awfully convenient, isn't it?

Border Reiver said:
So, to sum up:

If the people who issue documents cannot verify those same documents as correct, because they are subject to prosecution for fraud if they lie.
And all persons in the US are subject to being charged with fraud under the appropriate statutes.
Then no one can verify any documents in the US.
Click to expand...


I think that when he says "subject to prosecution for fraud" he means in this specific case, not in general.
 
Last edited:
Just taking Robert's "logic" to the next logical level (amping it up past 11) and ensuring he recognizes the ludicrisness of what he's saying.
 
Robert Prey said:
Lord Monckton, a prominent Englishman...
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that "prominent Englishman" necessarily gave one suitable qualifications to comment on American constitutional law and the forensic authentication of documents. Monckton also holds a number of controversial views and has used his influence to browbeat scientists who disagree with them. But please, if you want to cite him in support of your case, by all means do so. The credibility of your sources to date would not be materially affected by it.

explains how anyone with half a brain can easily deduce...
Click to expand...

Translation: "If you don't agree with me, you're stupid." As a matter of fact, a vast number of highly intelligent, well informed, people are not convinced by birther nonsense and can cite good reasons why. Sorry, you don't get to browbeat people who disagree with you.

No, like all Birthers he simply throws out the established statutory methods of certifying candidates for office and substitutes his own. He's the invited speaker at a small gathering of Tea Party members. He offers up the standard FUD about a constitutional crisis, omitting that the relevant authorities have already determined Obama's eligibility. What are we to say about arguments that work only when prefaced by appropriate fear-mongering? He's so audacious as to say that until the question is "resolved," Obama cannot govern effectively. That rhetoric is simply ludicrous in the face of the near-frantic efforts of Birthers these days to have their lost cases reconsidered. It's the Birthers who won't let the thing go, so let their hypocrisy speak for itself.

Birthers don't argue for applying the standard practice; they argue for special practices they invent. The sum total of his argument is, "In Britain we do it differently." Whoop-de-doo. That has zero relevance for whether common, accepted, and authorized practices have been followed in the United States to certify the President's birthplace. He's followed the same tired line of Birther reasoning that's been around for three years: "We don't care what the law is, we want you to follow our prescription for how to verify someone's birthplace."

His Lordship can mock Hawaii's laws all he wants, but the denial of access to original vital records to all but officers of relevant bureau, for the purpose of protecting them against such things as damage and wear, is enshrined as the first sentence of section 338-18 of the Hawaii State Code. Monckton's mockery does not change the fact that under the law, authorized parties are entitled to at most a certified copy of a vital record.

Long ago refuted: you don't get to make up new rules that suit your agenda.

...the document is a fraud
Click to expand...

Well for starters he says, "It's not for me, to tell you as a non-expert, that [Obama's birth cerfificate] is not [genuine]." (6:20, emphasis mine) He's not an expert in the forensic authentication of documents, and people who are experts have already spoken to that point.

And no, he himself does not prove that the birth certificate (in any form) is a fraud. He doesn't even suggest how it might be proven a fraud. No, instead he himself infers that it "must" be a fraud on no stronger grounds than his assertion that the officials in question do not do what he says should be done were it genuine. That's exactly what it means to beg the question, and it is the fallacy the Birthers have been committing for going on three years now.

What's his evidence of forgery? He watched a YouTube clip of Joe Arpaio's press conference. Yes, that's all he does: he parrots our dear sheriff uncritically.

Not just uncritically -- he grossly misrepresents Arpaio's obvious zeal in furthering his investigation of Obama, making His Lordship at best a highly biased purveyor of hearsay. In any case that's very old news. The "forensic" examination of the PDF is neither relevant (since it wasn't the version used to certify Obama's eligibility) nor valid since real experts (not Arpaio's shills) have subsequently conclusively debunked his fumbling efforts to discredit the PDF.

And because you refuse to familiarize yourself with the present state of the debate, we have to go through it all again for you.

...and in the process produces his own freshly minted Hawaiian Birth Certificate, "proving" he also was actually born in Hawaii.
Click to expand...

No, he commits yet another standard Birther error: that of assuming the authentication pertinent to his certification as eligible to the office of President must derive from the PDF copy. To that end he simply produces his own doctored copy of the PDF, complete with the (inauthentic) reproduction of the seal.

Nor can Lord Monckton produce an explicit authentication of his certificate from the registrar of vital records in Hawaii. So no, he has not in the least duplicated what Birthers claim has been done in Obama's case.

Just because he is a peer doesn't mean he isn't also wrong. His reading of the law is wrong and has been addressed by competent American legal authority. Upon that reading of the law hangs his inference of forgery, so amen to that. He has no direct proof; he simply directs you to Joe Arpaio, whose allegations were addressed long before His Lordship took the podium in that clip.
 
Robert Prey said:
"But officer, I may not have my Drivers' License with me, but I do have a copy. Why won't you accept that??????"
Click to expand...

Yes?
I once got pulled over and couldn't find my license. After I dug through my wallet for 10 minutes, I apologized and gave the officer my license number. He looked me up on his computer and didn't consider it to be a problem. I did eventually find it while he was at his vehicle (I had put it in my pocket after having to show it the night before and forgot to transfer it back to my wallet). When he came back, I handed it over, he gave it a cursory glance and handed it back.

ETA: Although, I am white.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
"But officer, I may not have my Drivers' License with me, but I do have a copy. Why won't you accept that??????"
Click to expand...

Licenses are not vital records and are treated differently under the law. There is no provision under the law to certify copies of licenses. However, owing to the unique nature of vital records, there is a provision under law to certify copies of them when the information contained in a vital record is pertinent and necessary. The nature of that provision is to require the acceptance of such a certified copy where vital information is needed, such as to verify one's birthplace for the purposes of determining citizenship and subsequent eligibility.

The analogy to driver licenses fails on that point. One can have a certified copy of a birth certificate, and where required the certified copy must be accepted under the law.
 
JayUtah said:
Licenses are not vital records and are treated differently under the law. There is no provision under the law to certify copies of licenses. However, owing to the unique nature of vital records, there is a provision under law to certify copies of them when the information contained in a vital record is pertinent and necessary. The nature of that provision is to require the acceptance of such a certified copy where vital information is needed, such as to verify one's birthplace for the purposes of determining citizenship and subsequent eligibility.

The analogy to driver licenses fails on that point. One can have a certified copy of a birth certificate, and where required the certified copy must be accepted under the law.
Click to expand...

But not if it is a forgery.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom