Video: Hawaiian official corroborates Obama COLB … again
posted at 11:36 am on July 28, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
What does it say about the Birther issue when Fox News covers its debunking while CNN continues to stoke the controversy? Yesterday, Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued a second definitive statement that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, as his Certificate of Live Birth states, after having seen the records in the Department of Health for herself. A second Honolulu newspaper produced a birth announcement for Obama in August 1961 as well:
In an attempt to quash persistent rumors that President Obama was not born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, Hawaii’s health director reiterated this afternoon that she has personally seen Obama’s birth certificate in the Health Department’s archives.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”
On Oct. 31, Fukino originally tried to put an end to the belief among so-called “birthers” that Obama was not born in the United States and thus was ineligible to run for the office of president.
Last July, a Hillary Clinton supporter doing oppo research on Obama dug up a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser from August 1961 that noted Obama’s birth in Hawaii. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin has also found one in its own archives from that month:
Theories that Obama was born abroad abounded during the presidential campaign, even after an official Hawaii birth certificate was produced, along with August 1961 birth notices from two Honolulu newspapers. Numerous lawsuits and emergency appeals were lodged challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president, and all were rebuffed.
People wonder why Obama doesn’t demand that Hawaii release the original records to put an end to the Birther nonsense. The biggest reason? It wouldn’t work. The same people who believe that Obama forged a Certificate of Live Birth twice corroborated by the state that issued it will insist that Obama got someone to forge any new records produced by Hawaii as well. It’s the same reason that having Palin produce her gynecological records won’t satisfy Andrew Sullivan and why producing the phone records from United 93 families to prove that they haven’t been in contact with the supposedly still-alive-but-hiding passengers on the 9/11 flight won’t change Truther minds. The conspiracy theorists have far too much invested in their argument to retreat.
Obama has a valid COLB attesting to his Hawaiian birth, two statements from the state Department of Health explicitly noting his birth in Honolulu, and not one but two contemporaneous reports of his birth there. He’s a natural-born American citizen. I realize that this evidence won’t convince the fringe true believers, but maybe it’s enough to get the rest of America to ignore them to the same extent we ignore the Truthers and the Trig Truthers. Hopefully that will be soon, so we can build conservative credibility to fight the real battles — ObamaCare, cap-and-tax, and other attempts to socialize the American economy.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 Next »
The birthers are the ones making the controversial claim, namely that Obama was not born in the States. Therefore they shoulder the burden of proof.
JS on July 29, 2009 at 4:48 AM
And for those who say that there are 3 classes of citizenship (even though 14th amendment and US statutory law only says there are 2), that must mean there is naturalized, born, and then a class of super-citizens who can get special powers because they had two parents who were citizens.
Basically, we are not needing THREE birth certifcates required then for Presidential candidates? not just 1. Any ever recall that being required? Nope, I never seem to recall that.
Any then if you carry it out to its logical conclusion, anyone from orphanages can not be President, or someone adopted either can not either, unless they can get their parents Birth Certificates to prove they had citizen parents. And I guess anyone whose parents or mom used services of a sperm bank, can not be President either, since maybe who donated was not a a US born citizen.
Sounds silly, but thats the implications of what those are you are claiming that someone has to be both US born, and have citizen parents.
firepilot on July 29, 2009 at 5:19 AM
You should ask for a pony and a ride on the Space Shuttle too. There’s no requirement to ask.
I’d try “Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack?”, et cetera, ad nauseum.
If it worked for Bart and Lisa, it might just work for you.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 5:27 AM
Hey, he can’t be inaugurated without his long form! It’s on him to prove it, or he’s not gonna be POTUS!
Oh, wait. Crap. Stupid reality.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 5:31 AM
The government is the one making the controversial claim, that I was not born in the United States. Therefore, if I want a driver’s license, they should give me one no questions asked or THEY shoulder the burden of proof to prove I didn’t…
Sorry. This argument makes NO sense.
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 5:54 AM
Providing a birth certificate is a prerequisite to getting a drivers license. It is not a prerequisite to becoming POTUS. Perhaps it should be, but it is not.
What part of that do you not understand?
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 6:00 AM
Gee, too bad….
Could have, Should have, Would have….
Kini on July 29, 2009 at 6:00 AM
I’m curious. Never thought about it like this, but… does each Hawaiian citizen have both a COLB and a birth certificate (i.e. long form)? The reason I ask is you said that “his Mother and Grandma put in affidavits to get him a Hawaii birth cert.”
Is this speculation? I’m wondering because if he was born there, there would be no need for affidavits. I’m assuming you’re speculating, but that caught my attention.
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 6:05 AM
What part of “natural born citizen” do you not understand? Are you saying that Putin or Chavez could come here and run for POTUS, claiming they were actually born in Connecticut, and no one would have the right to challenge that or to ask for proof? Wow. That’s stunning.
Heck, you even have to have the long form BC to get a passport, but no one checks for the ONLY two offices specifically delineated to be “natural born citizen”? No one? I think that’s about half of what we’re screaming about… SOMEONE SHOULD BE CHECKING and if they’re not, why not?
Oh, and actually two states do, kind of. Don’t remember the other, but Arizona is one. Obama signed a statement saying he qualified (though on his site, HE says he is a “native born citizen” not “natural born citizen” (apparently even he knows the difference and is banking on all of us being stupid (sounds pretty close to his M.O.). We want there to be a system in place that checks ALL candidates (did you know there was a person on many POTUS ballots from South America this election? Does that bother you? No one checked them either. No one threw their name out.)
This case sets precedent either way. We’re trying to make sure it sets it the RIGHT way, the way that doesn’t allow foreigners to be president. Why is that so bad and hard to understand?
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 6:12 AM
This birther nonesens is just as stupid as the 9/11 truthers. Occam’s Razor points to the obvious on both counts. The left is exploiting this silliness and it better be settled quickly or the right/GOP could blow 2010 with when Barry and his Dem Congress are destroying themselves.
Renwaa on July 29, 2009 at 6:17 AM
That’s NONSENSE, not nonesens. Typing while baby sitting on lap never works well.
Renwaa on July 29, 2009 at 6:18 AM
Find us any person born in the US in last 130 years or so, since statutory law and Supreme Court decisions about it, outside of foreign embassy parents, who was declared to be a citizen but not natural born.
I doubt you will find any.
Can you find anywhere in US election law where it says that a candidate must have US citizen parents?
Can you find where ANYONE has tried to have that codified into law at anytime? No, you wont, it was okay with all of you until you get a President you think you can get out of office on a technicality.
Its like when the Left all of a sudden thought that anyone who wins US Presidential election but does not get popular vote should no be President, but yet they never cared about that until they thought they could somehow prevent GW Bush from being President with it. if they had actually cared so much about it, they could have tried to take care of years ago.
firepilot on July 29, 2009 at 6:30 AM
But why enrich lawyers by thousands of dollars (I assume George Soros is not footing the bill nor is the campaign responsible for the fees, but being a Chicago thug anything goes) when he can dispel everything with less than a hundred bucks? People should change the emphasis from whether he is natural born to ‘what are you hiding?’
Birdseye on July 29, 2009 at 6:42 AM
No, the claim is that he has not provided this long-form birth certificate.
Your disregard for the Constitution is not exactly news, but you’re welcome to keep reaffirming it.
Your fervent insistence on giving Obama the benefit of the doubt.
Jim Treacher on July 29, 2009 at 6:42 AM
You may not be aware of this, but the ONLY two people required by the Constitution to be “natural born” are the president and vice president. So that pretty much narrows or eliminates 99% of people or more from HAVING to be declared a citizen but not natural born. But on that note, actually there HAS been someone who was asked to provide evidence that he was natural born and there WAS some controversy over it for awhile. In fact, I believe Obama was one of those who asked to see the “proof.”
Does the name John S. McCain ring any bells for you?
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 6:48 AM
This is standard burden of proof. Those who propose a controversial claim must shoulder the burden of proof. To suggest that some random person walking into a DMV may not be a US citizen is not a controversial claim since there are many people in the US who are not citizens. To suggest that someone that the local government and media record as having been born in the US may not have been is a controversial claim. Therefore, those the burden of proof rests on those who claim it.
Well, if that’s all you’re saying, then you’re right; you do not shoulder the burden of proof. But so what if he hasn’t? It seems that you’re saying since he has not provided this long-form birth certificate, he may not have been born in the US. But again, since the Hawaii state government and local media record his birth in the US, the claim that he may not have been is the controversial claim, and thus the burden of proof rests on those who claim it.
JS on July 29, 2009 at 7:11 AM
Oh. I get it. So I have to prove with evidence that only HE has that what I’m saying or asking is true or false. In a court case, how does one side get such evidence? Don’t they issue subpoenas and do discovery to verify the truth of what the other party is claiming? And doesn’t the word “controversial” MEAN there’s a “dispute” of some kind? So, if I said Person A stole my ring and I believe he was in my house at six p.m. when the ring was stolen, isn’t that a “controversial” statement? And would I not then be able to ask a court through discovery for Person A to substantiate through evidence that he wasn’t at my house–i.e. phone records, other testimony, etc.?
So far I have heard ONE person speak to the fact that there is a vital record… but the words are so parsed that what was said could mean many things. What I’m asking is for a court to look at ALL of the evidence (BC, Indonesia, Selective Service records, college records, etc.) and make a determination through the law that Obama meets the criteria to be POTUS.
To say I have to provide evidence, when there are plenty of holes in his story to provide doubt, is like saying I have to prove Person A was in my house and stole my ring without being allowed to even ask the question.
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 7:25 AM
I love when logically blind people cut themselves with Occam’s Razor. It’s a special category of FAIL.
Isn’t it amazing to watch the realtime devolution of thought in America down to Orwellian levels as a sacrifice to Obama?
econavenger on July 29, 2009 at 7:42 AM
Who cares? It’s only the Constitution.
No, it does not. He’s the one who needs to prove his compliance with the Constitution. Nobody else is obligated to prove otherwise.
Jim Treacher on July 29, 2009 at 7:45 AM
Jim Treacher on July 29, 2009 at 7:45 AM
Thanks, Jim. Seriously.
In compliance… you have to prove you are. Otherwise, anyone could claim to be in any dispute, and no one would have the right to challenge.
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 7:50 AM
Treacher,
As I said before, an expert in logic and debate could be hired to analyze all the HA birther posts and discussion here and Obama’s Obsequious Online Organizers would lose the debate in a landslide. Not only would I send $1000 to a PayPay escrow account to be paid to the winners, but if the result is even remotely close I would forfeit the $1000.
I’ve never seen a single Obama defender on this come up with a sustained line of thinking that couldn’t be easily refuted and thus had to be accepted as truth. Yet they internally perceive their ignorance as a superior form of intelligence.
econavenger on July 29, 2009 at 7:54 AM
Note to self: Register paypay.com
econavenger on July 29, 2009 at 7:55 AM
Has any Birther invalidated Obama’s certificate of live birth yet, or perhaps proved that the Hawaiian state officials who attested to its validity and to Obama’s citizenship?
No?
Lots of ranting about TEH CONSTITUTIONZ and “dual citizenship” and “not natural born” and “a certificate of live birth is not a long form birth certificate and therefore not valid to me” and “we file lawsuits and they’re quashed on procedural grounds or for lack of standing” and “we have no power to do anything” and “he’s dishonest about other things, so he’s a usurper” and “why doesn’t he just release it, even though he has?” and “stop comparing me to 9-11 Truthers” and “I know complete whackjobs are leading this charge, but I want to believe it so I’ll just ignore this.”
Unfortunately, these are not substitutes for evidence supporting a Birther conspiracy fantasy where Barry-O is either A) not a citizen or B) a dual citizen or something or C)not natural born or D) a “usurper” or E) lying about his name or F) anything other than a legitimate yet flawed candidate for President.
Unless the rest of America missed something
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 7:56 AM
Nor have you produced a shard of evidence supporting your theory – no documents, no witnesses, no whistleblower testimony, no successful lawsuits – NOTHING.
There is nothing to “refute.” You’re not presenting a case. You’re presenting long-debunked, asinine conspiracy theories.
I know you can’t tell the difference.
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 7:59 AM
I re-read Ed’s opening lines here, and Ed is not dealing with evidence-based reality. The way to impose evidence-based reality is to require Obama to be held to the same disclosure and the same process that John McCain did.
I come from the perspective of a Harvard Law graduate and practicing litigation lawyer for over 30+ years who sees what little Obama has produced, a Certificate of Live Birth, as inconclusive because someone not born in Hawaii can obtain such a certificate, who sees Obama has not produced critical records and who sees what fight Obama is putting into not producing more as consistent with there being a real problem, which there may be. Among other things, Obama has not produced the original birth certificate and hospital records, his father was a British citizen, Obama attended school in Indonesia where it would appear not to have been open to an American citizen, there is a tape of Kenyan grandmother who says Obama is a child of the village, and he traveled to Pakistan at a time when U.S. citizens were not authorized to do so.
When the eligibility issue was raised as to John McCain, McCain released all relevant documentation, including an original birth certificate and hospital records. McCain hired two prominent attorneys in Ted Olsen and David Boies to review the facts and the documentation and issue an opinion. Olsen and Boies rendered an opinion that McCain was and is eligible under the U.S. Constitution to serve as President. The U.S. Senate then passed a Senate Resolution that McCain is qualified under the U.S. Constitution to serve as President.
McCain handled the eligibility issue the way he did out of reverence for the U.S. Constitution and love of the country to which he put his life on the line as a combat U.S. Naval aviator. Obama should have been held to the same process. McCain, a patriot war hero from a distinguished American military family, went through that process. So should a community organizer with a British father and relatives in Kenya and with a travel history that includes travel to a country that was not permitted to American citizens at the time.
It is therefore simple: hold Obama to the same disclosure and same process that John McCain did. That is what should be appearing on the Hot Air webiste.
Phil Byler on July 29, 2009 at 8:11 AM
I would rather see:
- Obama`s Indonesian passport.
- Which passport he used to get into Pakistan when US citizens were not allowed to travel to Pakistan at the time he went there.
- A list of classes he took and the grades he received at the two undergraduate Universities he attended.
- His application to Harvard Law School.
- How he paid for Harvard Law School and his living expenses.
- His LSAT (Law School Admission Test) scores to get into Harvard.
- His grades for the classes he took at Harvard Law School.
How is it possible his mother was attending college in the state of Washington at approximately the same time she was supposed to be giving birth in Hawaii?
albill on July 29, 2009 at 8:12 AM
Oh look David Axelrod is still astroturffing HotAir…
doriangrey on July 29, 2009 at 8:14 AM
Hey Jim,
If you’re still on here…
Last night I had to run unexpectedly…thanks for the backup…Gotta love Ayn…
Btw…I was referencing the latter more than the former…
The parallels are astounding …
jerrytbg on July 29, 2009 at 8:29 AM
Hmm. Yes. Indeed.
That’s some compelling evidence you present.
Almost as compelling as calling me names you can’t mention in front of children over and over again like you were doing two nights ago.
Keep digging. The TROOF is out there.
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 8:32 AM
According to Politifact the birth announcements were made by the hospital. If this is true then I would accept that Obama was born in the United States. In his lousy post Ed Morrissey omitted this important detail.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/01/obamas-birth-certificate-final-chapter-time-we-mea/
The fact reamins that Obama is an arrogant prick for not releasing his long form birth certificate and reporters not demanding it should find another line of work.
Basilsbest on July 29, 2009 at 8:34 AM
The NY Times and Media Matters isn’t going to like what you just said about their favorite website.
The point is that Obama has still never documented the hospital of his birth or the citizenship of his parents, and when challenged to do so he stonewalled and eventually folded. He’s going to continue to stonewall too. Every Hawaiian official’s statement has also been politically timed as a slowroll. They also deceptively fail to mention those few things we need to establish constitutionality. It’s obviously a can of worms, so I understand their reluctance. But it’s also quite clear that the intent, just as with anything else with Obama, is to evade the Constitution with non-stop deception. That’s not acceptable.
He has basically admitted that he’s not natural born because of his father and no one cared, but he can’t come clean with his original document because it then can be used as evidence. He’s stonewalling and relying on you to throw up a smokescreen of protection around him. If he’s forced by a court to release it with all the other evidence of his past, the lies get exposed and his sycophantic media love machine falls with him.
econavenger on July 29, 2009 at 8:34 AM
According to Politifact the birth announcements were made by the hospital. If this is true then I would accept that Obama was born in the United Stated. In his lousy post Ed Morrissey omitted this important detail.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/01/obamas-birth-certificate-final-chapter-time-we-mea/
The fact reamins that Obama is an arrogant prick for not releasing his long form birth certificate and reporters not demanding it should find another line of work.
Basilsbest on July 29th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Basilsbest on July 29, 2009 at 8:35 AM
I would like to see:
- the underwear Obama wore during “Law School.”
- Obama’s 3rd Grade Report card and all essays from his 5th Grade civics classes
- his credit card purchases for 6-17-89
- a full transcript of phone conversations he had with his wife for the two weeks before he was elected
- a list of his favorite songs signed by him and a witness
Until then, we won’t know THE FULL TROOF.
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 8:35 AM
As if there could possibly be anything you haven’t taken perverse delight in saying in front of children, speaking of which have you quit exposing yourself to elementary school children waiting for their school bus yet? Or do you just plan on waiting for the cops to stop you?
doriangrey on July 29, 2009 at 8:37 AM
That was weak.
geckomon on July 29, 2009 at 8:38 AM
The various Secretaries of State would be able to do that prior to allowing them access to the ballot.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 8:38 AM
Wrong.
The ‘point’ is that this is a valid form of documentation for the purposes of eligibility. Every government official and individual responsible for verifying President Teleprompter has agreed to this and has not “raised questions” about it. Either there IS NOT AN ISSUE, or there are a bunch of government bureaucrats “in on it.” Occum’s Razor says that it’s simply legitimate.
This is what Birthers pretend they’re seeing when presented with the evidence, complete with crayons and childish immaturity.
And the Birthers have not invalidated it or even produced another document – not one – that calls its validity into question.
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 8:42 AM
That’s in your imagination, Jim. Like the part of the Constitution that says you’re entitled to Bambi’s BC. You’re not.
Really? Here’s what you do. Just keep saying “Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack? Can I see your long form, Barack?”, et cetera, ad nauseum.
Let us know when that works out for you.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 8:44 AM
Are you interested in presenting evidence supporting your conspiracy fantasy, or are you just going to whine and bang your sippy cup on the table all day today (like every other day)?
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 8:44 AM
I disagree.
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 8:44 AM
Count me in.
Black Yoshi on July 29, 2009 at 8:46 AM
On the contrary I did that yesterday by linking to Hawaiian law regarding Birth certificates and like the lying worthless sack of $hit you are you pretending that it didnt matter.
doriangrey on July 29, 2009 at 8:47 AM
Which 8:44am comment were you referring to?
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 8:48 AM
The second.
Black Yoshi on July 29, 2009 at 8:49 AM
That’s not a “document.” A certificate of live birth is a document.
A birth certificate from anywhere else in the world would be a document.
You have neither – all you did was link to a HI government website where you then proceeded to confuse certificate of live birth with a certificate of foreign birth. The link did NOTHING to support your assertion that the COLB was invalid somehow.
FAIL.
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 8:50 AM
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)
[1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
[418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…
[419] Again:
[420] …to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country…
Natural born citizens, “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
The Supreme Court of the United States, in The Venus, relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues.
The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814
“Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”
Vattel’s Law of Nations: § 212. Citizens and natives
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Obama’s father was British by Obama’s own admission. Obama’s stepfather was Indonesian by Obama’s own admission.
There are questions that need to be answered because the precedents set down do not align with the stated personal history of the person who has claimed he is qualified to be POTUS.
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 8:50 AM
Nope, no conspiracy theorists here.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 8:50 AM
Gotcha. Thanks!
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 8:51 AM
What is so beneath contempt about asking for written documents validating the history and background of the man holding the most powerful political position on the face of the Earth?
kingsjester on July 29, 2009 at 8:51 AM
No, he’s right, Pablo.
I really am David Axelrod and have been since I started blogging in 2004.
It’s all been a massive stealth operation in which I’ve been pretending to be a libertarian-conservative in order to gain the kinship of my brothers in arms – ONLY TO FLIP THE TABLE ON THIS ISSUE, AS I PLANNED TO DO ALL ALONG.
MUWAHAHAHA! My plan is working perfectly!
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 8:52 AM
You’ve been presented with them and you don’t accept them as valid.
The problem is yours, not everyone else’s (as is the burden of proof in showing that they’re not legitimate, real or valid).
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 8:54 AM
Well, the will of the American people brought him to office. Apparently, a majority decided that they don’t care about the finer details of his paper trail.
Black Yoshi on July 29, 2009 at 8:55 AM
Perfect example of why I continue to call you a lying sack of $hit. I did not confuse certificate of foreign birth with anything. I proved that Hawaii allowed parents and grandparents who were legal Hawaiian residents to file for and receive Hawaiian birth Certificates for up to two years after the child was born regardless of where the child was born. And that that procedure was in full practice in 1961.
doriangrey on July 29, 2009 at 8:56 AM
That’s because they didn’t know the finer details of his paper trail because… THERE IS NO PAPER TRAIL.
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 8:56 AM
Here. What does this say?
Now read this. All of it.
What’s the issue, and are these people “in on the alleged cover-up?”
If you say yes, you have to PROVE IT.
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 8:56 AM
There is – you don’t accept the paper in question as legitimate.
That’s again, the birther’s problem that they have to grapple with. Not anyone else’s.
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 8:58 AM
Actually, there is (diplomas, legislative records, writings…all made of paper incidentally)…but see, the thing is, the American people didn’t care.
Black Yoshi on July 29, 2009 at 8:58 AM
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 8:54 AM
If you’re talking about the cut and paste COLB seen on HuffPost and DK, it’s not adequate. It doesn’t tell us anything about his background at all.
Epic fail, Skippy.
kingsjester on July 29, 2009 at 9:01 AM
The Constitution says the President must be a natural-born citizen. He needs to prove it.
Your frustration doesn’t change the issue.
Jim Treacher on July 29, 2009 at 9:01 AM
You’d don’t need his BC for that. And that doesn’t involve kooky theories about a coverup over his birth. Hell, he wrote (or bill Ayers) a whole book about his Kenyan daddy what didn’t love him.
That said, the Dred Scot decision’s definition of a natural born citizen was overruled by the 14th Amendment, as noted in Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)
But still, that’s not really birtherism. That’s a legal argument that’s a long stretch, but a legal argument nonetheless. Good luck with that.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 9:01 AM
Yup, if his long form says Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr then Barrack Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen.
doriangrey on July 29, 2009 at 9:02 AM
You’ve called me worse in the past few days – obviously, that because you’re in the right on this issue. That’s how people in the right respond when arguing with others.
You didn’t prove that THIS IS WHAT OBAMA’S PARENT’S DID. Not even close. You linked a government website, attempted to use the text there to “prove” something that you failed to “prove,” and then claimed victory.
Keep going – you’re nearly there.
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 9:02 AM
They’re starting to.
Jim Treacher on July 29, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Your frustration is the issue. And no, mine doesn’t change yours. And yours doesn’t change anything.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 9:02 AM
What you lack in substance, you make up for in tediousness.
Jim Treacher on July 29, 2009 at 9:03 AM
His short form says that. So run with it, already.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Lol. No, they’re not. Fortunately, you can’t bend reality by saying so.
Black Yoshi on July 29, 2009 at 9:04 AM
And your answer to those of us who do is what… Not enough people cared?
Seems to me Woodward and Bernstein were just two guys who didn’t believe all the smoke screen of another president. But they, too, should have shut up and quit asking questions. After all, they were just two guys, and the American public didn’t care.
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Yeah, asking the guy in the oval office to show he actually has, you know, the legal right to be there is sooooooo controversial. These birthers and their crazy ideas, why won’t they just be good little subjects and believe whatever Dear Leader tells them?
Is that you Gibbs? Welcome to Hot Air.
clearbluesky on July 29, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Devastating riposte, sir. Your wit, it is deadly. And your imagination? There are no words.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 9:05 AM
LOL. I’m not making up the polls.
Jim Treacher on July 29, 2009 at 9:05 AM
His mother was a US citizen – natural born – and Obama was born in Honolulu. He is also natural born.
You’ve produced nothing suggesting or showing otherwise.
Therefore,
You FAIL.
Oh, so it’s not a valid document?
These officials disagree.
Are they lying?
PROVE IT.
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 9:06 AM
Don’t forget about the sticks and the stones.
Jim Treacher on July 29, 2009 at 9:06 AM
Yeah, it’s not like there were 7 people facing charges for an attempted break-in. Just smoke was all there was.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 9:06 AM
David David…come on now…just run down to your guys 0ooffice and get him to release the docs…what could be easier…
This ain’t going away…esp when you consider the number of active and retired military personnel speaking up…
jerrytbg on July 29, 2009 at 9:07 AM
And don’t forget the substantive responses.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 9:07 AM
Actually, there is (diplomas, legislative records, writings…all made of paper incidentally)…but see, the thing is, the American people didn’t care.
Black Yoshi on July 29, 2009 at 8:58 AM
Jim is right. They’re starting to. Again, if there is this paper trail, why has it not been published?
kingsjester on July 29, 2009 at 9:07 AM
Uh, neither did Hawaii itself until about three weeks ago. You couldn’t use a COLB to get a passport, a driver’s license, nothing, nada from Hawaii with a COLB. So you’re right, I don’t accept this paper as legitimate to settle the matter.
Not to even mention any of this…
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)
[1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
[418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…
[419] Again:
[420] …to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country…
Natural born citizens, “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
The Supreme Court of the United States, in The Venus, relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues.
The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814
“Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”
Vattel’s Law of Nations: § 212. Citizens and natives
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Obama’s father was British by Obama’s own admission. Obama’s stepfather was Indonesian by Obama’s own admission.
There are questions that need to be answered because the precedents set down do not align with the stated personal history of the person who has claimed he is qualified to be POTUS.
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 9:07 AM
After you.
Jim Treacher on July 29, 2009 at 9:08 AM
David says thanks, and keep up the good work. You’re a great American.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 9:08 AM
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Birthers are not aware of this. They’re apparently not even certain of what the evidence against their conspiracy theory is.
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 9:08 AM
My point is that he’s President now. There is no constitutional requirement to reveal every bit of your paper trail so your opponents can pick it apart.
You mean approval ratings?
Sorry, that doesn’t have to do with this conspiracy theory or his paper trail. It has to do with what he’s done in office so far, which is what we should be concentrating on.
Questioning the One’s eligibility is a red herring.
Black Yoshi on July 29, 2009 at 9:08 AM
Hawaii is issuing passports? Interesting.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 9:09 AM
“We.”
Anyway, the more this guy shows who he really is, the more people start to wonder what the hell happened. And the more they notice his pattern of secrecy.
Jim Treacher on July 29, 2009 at 9:11 AM
Refute this official. Either he’s right, or he’s wrong. If he knows “the troof” and keeps saying this stuff in major US newspapers, then he’s lying.
SO PROVE IT.
Go ahead. And make sure you call a paper and get your bulletproof refutation printed.
THE SURVIVAL OF AMERICA DEPENDS ON IT.
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 9:11 AM
Actually see Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856) and The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814
His father was Kenyan/British. I’ve just produced something suggesting and showing otherwise… three times. But of course that doesn’t count because I’m fringe and you’re just right because you say you are and I’m supposed to prove you wrong.
Oh, wait. I just did.
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 9:12 AM
They’re worrying about his birth certificate?
He’s not the first President to want secrecy of his personal records or even of his craptastic policies.
Again, this is not “proof” of a birther conspiracy theory.
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 9:13 AM
The biggest reason? It wouldn’t work. The same people who believe that Obama forged a Certificate of Live Birth twice corroborated by the state that issued it will insist that Obama got someone to forge any new records produced by Hawaii as well.
…and how is it that you know EVERY skeptics response to seeing the long form BC?
Personally I think it would answer a lot of questions- and frankly broad brush comments like that just make you appear biased.
Here’s a thought…STOP COVERING IT!
Oh that’s right…you like the increased traffic!
Mr Purple on July 29, 2009 at 9:13 AM
The government does, and you couldn’t get one with a COLB.
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 9:13 AM
Which is going to help our cause a whole lot more than birtherism. This guy is everything he claimed Bush was to the 10th power. Also, he’s a Marxist. An a typical dirty Chicago political thug. Those are the things we should be harping on. But if you want to run with the “controlled demolition” bit instead, carry on.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 9:15 AM
And the secrecy and refusal to show anything or be forthright about something as simple as his BC fits right into that pattern, now doesn’t it?
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 9:17 AM
Explain to everyone. Telling people to read an 1856 court case is not “proof” invalidating Obama’s COLB. Sorry to break it to you.
You invalidated his COLB?
You’re the first.
Why aren’t you running to USA Today and demanding this be printed? Why aren’t you calling up the HI dept of Health and accusing them of lying about Obama? Why aren’t you helping your flailing Birther bretheren like Philip Berg by filing more lawsuits to get this out in the open?
Why are you wasting your time here trying to convince the libruls/Axelrods/astroturfers/pedophiles/sacks of sh*t who are demanding you produce better evidence – or any at all – or give the cute little conspiracy theory a rest?
Go, GO! FOR THE GOOD OF THE NATION!
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 9:17 AM
What you call “birtherism” is just part of that pattern.
It’s all part of the same thing. It’s just another piece of the puzzle.
Jim Treacher on July 29, 2009 at 9:17 AM
Please designate the official I am to refute.
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 9:18 AM
So, let’s see what we have here :
1) The “birthers” would like the original long form birth certificate released
2)Obama won’t release it
3)A couple of people say they saw it, but can’t release it because, um, it’s so awesome that you have to wear special glasses when you look at it or you’ll melt like those dudes at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark and they cant afford to buy everyone in America those glasses or something
4)People like you say “prove the two people who saw it are lying” even though there’s no way to prove they’re lying unless they release those awesome people melting records…….which they won’t do.
So yeah, i hate to have to say it, but you’re being just a little bit disingenuous there champ.
clearbluesky on July 29, 2009 at 9:22 AM
No, you’re just another group of conspiracy theorists led by nutcases like Philip Berg and Alex Jones – chief architects of the 9-11 Truth cult.
And that’s just swell.
No, it’s not “part of the same thing.” It’s a paranoid conspiracy theory. There is a multitude of other, more accurate and verifiable, less paranoid material with which to show the unconvinced that Obama is not a good president and is in fact harmful to the interests of the nation.
A conspiracy fantasy. We don’t need conspiracy fantasies for opposition, because not only are they idiotic, but they’re just NOT TRUE.
It’s Don Quixote fighting the windmills.
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 9:22 AM
I didn’t see that in the article or in the official’s statements.
Can you show me where that was stated? Or is that just you flying off the handle and making leaps of insanity again?
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 9:24 AM
It’s simple.
You’re claiming Obama is lying, that he hasn’t produced evidence of his citizenship (he has), and that people who are confirming it are either wrong or lying.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO DEMONSTRATE THEY ARE LYING.
You aren’t doing this. You haven’t advanced past the “just asking teh questionz” stage.
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 9:25 AM
Go.
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 Next »