Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[BeAChooser]

The federal government did not step on state law. This wasn't a federal over-ride of a state law, this was a request by the POTUS that asked the State to make an exception to its rules. The state did this volutnarilly

LOL! So it's that easy for the state to violate it's own laws? Good to know. You've certainly provided an excellent argument for greatly reducing the size and power of the state.

This document is a side show. Period. End of story.

LOL! If I recall, you folks were saying the same thing months and months ago.

 

[BeAChooser]

I guess anyone who was born in Hawaii could write a similar letter to the Director of Health and ask for copies. If someone really really needed it, she may just make an exception for Joe Blow also. Obama's lawyer made a pretty good case in her letter.

I will grant, however, that Obama is a lot more likely to get a "yes" answer than Joe Blow from Peoria.

Isn't what I said all along, and ANTPogo and others vehemently denied?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Here's a crazy theory: wouldn't a much easier and completely undetectable method of forgery be just getting a blank form and writing whatever you want on it?

That's too easy for a conspiracy.

 

[headscratcher4]

LOL! So it's that easy for the state to violate it's own laws? Good to know. You've certainly provided an excellent argument for greatly reducing the size and power of the state.

This makes no sense...but I wouldn't expect it to.

If I recall, you folks were saying the same thing months and months ago.

It was true than it is true now.

The Certified Certificate of Live Birth is, prima facie, proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. The document released to the WH by the state of Hawaii may have historical interest, but it is meaningless, especially given that the official document certified and released by the state two years ago was all that was needed to prove birth in the state. LOL, as you say.

 

[A'isha]

Actually, only one was certified. The other was an abomination by people who don't know the definition of "certified copy". By people who were quite happy when Clinton changed the definition of "is".

I'm talking about the two copies that Fuddy herself personally witnessed being made.

Unless you're talking about the short form Obama released in 2008, in which case you're once again as wrong as it's humanly possible to get.

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm going to break with most of the poster here and say that yes, you and BeAChooser were right that being president, Obama could get a copy of his "long form" birth certificate by asking the state of Hawii for it, as he has obviously done.

Thank you.

However, there were many things that one or both of you were wrong about:

That anybody could get their "long form" from the state of Hawaii.

Well I never said that.

That the lack of a long form raised any legitimate doubts about Obama's birthplace.

Well it might surprise you to learn that most so-called birthers weren't doubting that Obama was born in the US. However, it is a fact that in 1961 the procedures in place made it possible for someone to register a birth (thus allowing a COLB to be produced) without that child actually being born in the US. So naturally some wanted to see actual proof that he was born in a US hospital and delivered by a US doctor. Also, many questioned whether other information on the form might show something else of interest since Obama has clearly worked hard to hide much of his past. And we all wonder why.

That there ever was anything remotely resembling a reasonable doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Reasonable or not, some 40% of the American public said they harbored doubts ... and that percentage was growing. And that's a serious problem that Obama needed to deal with ... as he said in the press release ... for the good of the country so that we could focus on issues that matter more. Better late than never, I suppose.

That there was any reason, beyond attempting to quell the rantings of you and many other irrational people like you

Well if we are simply irrational, why'd he even bother?

There are also long lists of things unrelated to the topic of this thread, in fact, much too long to produce here, that you and BeAChooser are laughably wrong about,

I'll give a vague answer to a vague assertion. Yeah ... sure.

 

[A'isha]

Well I never said that.

You certainly did. In fact, you argued with me vehemently about it, and even claimed that other people had already obtained their certified long form.

 

[BeAChooser]

Because they're both copies of an original, not the original itself (just look at the registrar stamps - the Nordyke certificate is a copy made five years after the original was filed). Only the top half is what's on the actual certificate.

The stuff at the bottom is only applied to the copy after the copy has been made.

That's true. And technology has certainly changed in 40 years. I think the arguments I'm now hearing against the released long form PDF border on 9/11 Truther Woo.

 

[A'isha]

And obviously doing so was not against the law (as repeatedly noted by randman and I). Whereas numerous posters, such as ANTPogo, insisted (and still insist) that doing so violates Hawaii's law. If they really think this violates *the law*, then why aren't these posters demanding this be investigated and someone be punished for violating the law? Or does their concern for the law only depend on which party is benefited?

Yes, I want this investigated. Specifically, I want to know why the "statutory restrictions" that motivated the 2001 switch to certified computer-generated short-form abstracts, with photocopies of long forms no longer issued, apparently do not apply to the release of Obama's long form.

EDIT: In other words, if statutes restricted some information contained on long forms from being released any more, why did the release of Obama's long form not violate those statutes.

 

[A'isha]

That's true. And technology has certainly changed in 40 years. I think the arguments I'm now hearing against the released long form PDF border on 9/11 Truther Woo.

Despite our almost violent disagreements on...well, virtually everything else, I do want to say that I'm glad you and I at least agree on this point.

 

[iknownothing]

since Obama has clearly worked hard to hide much of his past.

Only if you define "worked hard to hide much of his past" as "not jumping through every hoop demanded by birthers."

Otherwise, you have someone who publicly released his birth certificate and an autobiography.

Basically, the birthers are like a kid who whines at Walmart for some candy, then whines louder and louder, and finally throws a tantrum demanding candy. Obama gave in to them, which isn't the best move IMO; all they've learned is that they get what they want when they kick and scream, no matter how ridiculous it is. I can understand being that fed up, but I wish he wouldn't have.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

clinton clinton clinton clinton clinton clinton clinton clinton clinton CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON

You know, now that you mention it, I don't think we ever saw Clinton's birth certificate, either. Maybe you're onto something.

 

[headscratcher4]

"since Obama has clearly worked hard to hide much of his past. "

Has he worked harder than any other President? Kennedy? Johnson? Nixon? Clinton? George W. ? If so, how? Quantify it. He wrote a books telling the world his father was from Africa, his mother was white, that he'd lived in Indonesia, that he attended Occidental, Columbia and Harvard, etc.

What has he worked so hard at hiding?

 

[BeAChooser]

Quote:
LOL! So President's are above the law? And you are OK with that? Any other laws you think we should allow this president to get an "EXCEPTION" for by simply writing a letter? Hmmmm?

Ahem, and I quote...

Originally Posted by Sabrina
-snip-
Like ANTPogo, headscratcher, and others, I rather wish the President had not done this; it does set a bad precedent and could be argued that it is an abuse of power (despite the unusual circumstances behind the request) by those who still dislike the President.

Ahem ... that's it? You admit that Hawaii violated it's own laws and Obama was an accomplice to that and we just "move on"? I thought you cared about the law. Shouldn't we punish somebody now so this "abuse of power" and violation of the law isn't encouraged in the future?

Former LTC Lakin made his own decision to disobey orders based on a faulty interpretation of who issues deployment orders. His orders came down from the Department of Defense and his duly appointed chain of command, NOT President Obama.

So I guess "the buck" really doesn't stop in the Oval Office ... that's just a trite phrase coined by ... a democrat.

President Obama did not owe this man anything regarding his orders because President Obama did not GIVE the order to have Lakin deploy. Therefore, it was a nonissue. That Lakin did not see it that way based on a flawed and LEGALLY DETERMINED TO BE FAULTY interpretation of who issues orders is NOT President Obama's fault.

By that logic, wouldn't any leader be protected from charges of war crimes or crimes against humanity? Afterall, the orders followed by the lower level soldiers who do the dirty deeds always come from someone other than the leader. It's the military heads who are always to blame. Gee ... did we just hang Saddam unjustly? Is Khaddafi being unfairly accused now?

You do realize that when he refused to deploy, he created a serious situation for the doctor who had to scramble to deploy in an extremely short time to be Lakin's replacement, right? Where's your sympathy for that doctor, and his family? The decent thing to do would be for Lakin to admit flat out that he was wrong and apologize to that family and his fellow officer for creating a quite possibly devastating situation for them.

You should pay attention. He did apologize. Of course, if the doctor sent in his place is then killed in action, whose fault will that be? Oh yeah, the buck no longer stops with Obama. Strange how that changed when Obama took office. Abu Ghraib (where they put panties over people's heads and yelled at them) was TERRIBLE and all Bush's fault (he should be impeached! and Rumsfeld fired!). But when a gang of US soldiers are caught murdering innocent Afghan civilians ... even kids ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/23/us-soldier-admits-killing-afghans ... the buck never comes anywhere near Obama and his Secretary of Defense, and the leftist media could care less. I guess I see how your logic works.

Regarding your point one; fine, I can admit I made a mistake there. Again, IANAL. I had heard that was the case, but a bit of Google searching in turn corrected my assumption. So there you go; you get an admission of me being mistaken.

Thank you, finally.

HOWEVER... there are numerous sources scattered throughout this very thread that give you unequivocal proof that "certified copy" can and does refer to the computerized form that President Obama originally provided

FALSE. You said "People REALLY need to look up the definition of 'certified copy'". I did and posted a dozen or so links to what I found. Noone else did that. And not one of the definitions I found (without cherrypicking) come anywhere close to what you and the other were labeling a "certified copy". Sure, Hawaii can call anything they publish a "certified copy" but that doesn't really make it one. They could call it a pig but it wouldn't be a pig.

Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem

LOL! I'm not the one with a reading comprehension problem, Sabrina. And I think this thread and the recent events clearly prove that.

I don't have time to go searching out every single one of them again and link them here, nor do I care enough.

Excuses, excuses.

You see, BaC, when it comes to trusting someone's interpretation of a law and a regulation, I'm going to go with the people who ARE trained in and HAVE experience in creating and interpreting said laws and regulations, not the flawed interpretation of an internet nobody. Hawaii's officials have stated unequivocally that the interpretation you keep giving in this thread is flawed.

LOL! You mean *bureaucrats*? You sure are trusting of government officials, Sabrina. And even when they violate the law and you "move on." They really like *citizens* (or should I say *subjects*?) like you.

The very correspondence between the White House and the State of Hawaii requests an EXCEPTION to existing law, which they granted SOLELY because of his status as President,

And it's that easy huh? Like all those waivers that Obama has granted to excuse his political friends from participating in the ObamaCare Law? What law will be next? Campaign finance laws, perhaps? We already have evidence that in the last election such laws were violated by the Obama campaign. And the coming election will be even more expensive (it costs to keep Obama's real history under wraps ). So will you be ok if Obama takes foreign money to accomplish that noble goal? If he grants himself an EXCEPTION SOLELY because of his status as President? Hmmmm? Why he sounds more like a king every day.

That it happened this once is an aberration brought about by idiots who refuse to accept that a black man could possibly be elected President.

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... pulling the race card. Always the last trick in the book of desperate democrats.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop
Why do Birthers, Truthers and Apollohoaxers invent totaly improbable, random ways of doing things that would never occur to anyone in the real world?

Beacause the mentally ill do not have a grasp on reality. A good number of these people have psychiatric issues. Paranoia is a common sympton of mental illness.

And since I've been called a birther, would you say that applies to me? Careful, your answer could get you in trouble.

 

[GreNME]

As I said, I have no doubt that most racists are (or at least have been) birthers, and that racists are overrepresented among birthers. But I feel that some of the "birther=racist" comments that I've seen in this thread are not only inaccurate, but also counterproductive. I don't feel that distorting and/or oversimplifying the conspiracists' motivation is a helpful strategy for fighting conspiracism.

I think what you're doing is making a knee-jerk response to the accusation. No matter how anyone tries to spin it, the core of the birther arguments against Obama are racist at their core. I'm not speaking to any given individual espousing the birther sentiments or politicians playing to that segment of the voting population. I mean the argument meant to undermine minorities by calling into question their "other"-ness-- a tactic that goes back all the way to Reconstruction after the Civil War (and earlier in other historical occassions)-- is at its core a racist, xenophobic argument meant to remove the target's power and rights.

As such, while the multitude of individuals out there making the birther case or coyly playing the game of not outright preaching the birther sermon but advocating that they may or may not have a valid case (in other words, apologists) may not be, by their own personal and individual standards, guilty of being a dyed in the wool, white supremacist racist, those people are still propagating and keeping alive one of the most stark examples in the United States today of the horrible legacy of the worst time in our nation's history in terms of civil inequality.

In other words: making the birther case or being apologist for the birther case only manages to lend rhetorical power to the most racist and bigoted elements of our nation's history. If we, as a nation, were truly past the issues of racial and ethnic inequality in the United States, then crap like this birther nonsense would have been a non-issue and relegated to the dark corners and the fringes, not as a mainstream media topic of discussion that's run piecemeal over the course of the past two years. If we really lived in a post-racial society, then the birther claims would be an embarrassment and not the subject of constant spotlight.

Really, the entire US should be ashamed that we've let our media give this group any face time. In all honesty, even Alex Jones' crazy rantings are less of a national embarrassment than this birther nonsense. The reason being is that the core of the birther argument is a repackaged version of the same-old Reconstruction and Jim Crow bigotry, hiding in appeals to ignorance as if that makes the racist cowardice any less racist (or cowardly). Most Americans realize this, but the sizable group of Americans who seem to have bought into this fantasy (whether whole-hog or as a curiosity) are simply a national embarrassment.

 

[Andy_Ross]

And since I've been called a birther, would you say that applies to me? Careful, your answer could get you in trouble.

Ducks and Walking comes to mind.

 

[A'isha]

Ahem ... that's it? You admit that Hawaii violated it's own laws and Obama was an accomplice to that and we just "move on"? I thought you cared about the law. Shouldn't we punish somebody now so this "abuse of power" and violation of the law isn't encouraged in the future?

We should at least get an explanation for how this doesn't violate the law, given the 2001 decision's mention of "statutory restrictions". And if it did violate the law, then yes someone should be prosecuted.

By that logic, wouldn't any leader be protected from charges of war crimes or crimes against humanity? Afterall, the orders followed by the lower level soldiers who do the dirty deeds always come from someone other than the leader. It's the military heads who are always to blame. Gee ... did we just hang Saddam unjustly? Is Khaddafi being unfairly accused now?

No, because following an unlawful order given by a lawful superior is still prosecutable (this is what happened at Nuremberg, after all).

But Lakin wasn't given an unlawful order. He was given a lawful order by a lawful superior, and refused to follow it. He pled guilty to that, and was duly convicted in a military court martial.

Sure, Hawaii can call anything they publish a "certified copy" but that doesn't really make it one.

Yes it does, actually. As every single person born in Hawaii who received the same computer-generated abstract short form as Obama got agrees with. Even Danae and Miki Booth agree.

You're pretty much the lone holdout.

 

[Juniversal]

"since Obama has clearly worked hard to hide much of his past. "

Has he worked harder than any other President? Kennedy? Johnson? Nixon? Clinton? George W. ? If so, how? Quantify it. He wrote a books telling the world his father was from Africa, his mother was white, that he'd lived in Indonesia, that he attended Occidental, Columbia and Harvard, etc.

What has he worked so hard at hiding?

I'm with you. We probably know more about Obama (childhood to adulthood) then most past Presidents. But apparently "he's worked hard to hide his past". Translation: Obama hasn't released every perfectly irrelevant piece of information about himself to satisfy me. These people make me...

 

[BeAChooser]

It's odd Republicans keep calling obama a far left socialist- he's actually right of center in my book- but many modern Republicans are so far right wing, even moderates seem extreme leftists to them, so no wonder they think a Democrat like Obama is left wing extremist.

LOL! JFK would be considered a far right republican given the policies of modern democrats. And what's odd about Obama is that he has willingly worked with and surrounded himself with very extreme people from the far far left his entire life. He entered politics under the wing of some of the most radical people in the country. Some of them, avowed communists. His efforts to hide his past are in large part an effort to hide those relationships (hence the relevance of this post to this thread) because he knows full well they would be problematic to the majority of Americans. Because common sense tells all of us that after a while, some of that far left ideology was bound to have rubbed off and it now shows up in his "redistribution", "social justice", and "America's not exceptional" rhetoric.

I wish Obama had been more liberal

And we certainly know where you are coming from.