Arpaio: Obama birth certificate is a fraud

posted at 9:15 am on March 2, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio held a news conference yesterday to release the results of a “deep dive” into the question of whether Barack Obama’s birth certificate was genuine or a fraud. Surprisingly, after having teamed up with WND, Arpaio declared that the birth certificate and Obama’s Selective Service registration are fraudulent.  The local NBC affiliate and the Arizona Republic covered the event:

Arpaio and his team answered questions about jurisdiction by claiming that a fraud taking place in Maricopa County means that local law enforcement would have to investigate it. However, if the fraud originated in someplace outside of Arizona, that technically would be the jurisdiction of the FBI, not Arizona.  At some point Obama would have to submit an affadavit of eligibility to the state of Arizona for his 2012 re-election bid, and if that was fraudulent, then it would be a state matter.

However, in the massive effort to investigate the birth certificate, Arpaio and his “cold case posse” overlooked one detail:

The investigation relied on volunteers working with an electronic copy of the president’s birth certificate, which is available online, and pointing out inconsistencies with the electronic document. A representative with the Hawaii Attorney General’s Office said no one from the Sheriff’s Office ever requested to inspect or collect documents related to the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate.

I’m no Columbo, but wouldn’t the first step in investigating a potentially fraudulent birth certificate be to check with the issuing authority to see if it matches their records?  The state in Hawaii has twice validated Obama’s published birth records, and the Honolulu Advertiser published a notice of Obama’s birth the week these records say it happened, a rather significant piece of contemporaneous evidence that investigators would normally find interesting.  Seems to me that an “investigation” might have would-be detectives talking with these officials to see what they know, or at least asking the state to recheck their records.

Sadly, this won’t stop the flow of e-mails we’ve been receiving since yesterday afternoon by people convinced that a President who can’t figure out supply and demand in gas prices can put together such a vast conspiracy to hoodwink the American people that it involves elected officials in the state of Hawaii and time travel to put a birth notice in the local paper in 1961.  Have fun storming the castle, but the rest of us would rather work on reality-based issues.

Update: A good reminder from commenter Tom Servo: “[I]f you remember Rathergate, you will remember that all document certification professionals agree that a copy of an original can *never* be certified as an original or a fake, since too many uncertainties are created by the duplication process. Only the original can be certified; the failure to ask to see the original is pretty good proof that this commission was a joke right from the get-go.” Indeed. One would think professional “investigators” would know this.

Update II: The state director of health in Hawaii attested to the authenticity of the long-form birth certificate when certified copies were provided to the White House, too:

Correspondence released by the White House shows that Obama wrote a letter on White House stationary on April 22, 2011, authorizing the release of the original birth certificate.

It said, “I am writing to request two certified copies of my original certificate of live birth. With this letter, I hereby authorize my personal counsel, Ms. Judith Corley of Perkins Coie in Washington, D.C. to act on my behalf in providing any additional information or paying any fees required by the Department of Health to fulfill my request. Ms. Corley is also authorized to make any necessary arrangements for delivery of the certified copies from your office.”

That same day, Corley asked the state health director in Hawaii to waive its usual rules and release the original “long form” birth certificate.

“Waiver of the Department’s policy in this instance would allow my client to make a certified copy of his original birth certificate publicly available and would also relieve the burden currently pbeing placed on the Department of Health by the numerous inquiries it receives from the media and others relating to my client’s birth record,” wrote Judith Corley, an attorney at the firm.

Corley, who is based in Washington, apparently traveled to Hawaii. She said in the letter that she would “be coming to your offices to pick up the copies of the certificates.”

On April 25, Loretta Fuddy, the director of health in Hawaii, replied to Obama that she had the authority to approve the release of birth records. “Through that authority, in recognition of our status as President of the United States, I am making an exception to current departmental policy which is to issue a computer-generated certified copy.

“We hope that issuing you these copies of your original Certificate of Live Birth will end the numerous inquiries received by the Hawaii Department of Health to produce this documents. Such inquiries have been disruptive to staff operations and have strained State resources,” Fuddy wrote.

She enclosed the copies Obama requested and said, “I have witnessed the copying of the certificate and attest to the authenticity of these copies.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 3 4 5 6

I was always bothered a bit about the ‘smiley face’, and the ‘TXE’ in the registrars stamp. I actually am starting to believe it was purposely put there to protect whoever created the document.

When they copied the stamp, had they simply put it onto the fake document, that would have been a serious crime. But they made some changes to it. Would those changes be enough that if they go after someone for creating it, that that person will be able to say – “Oh, I created that version to make fun of birthers. We accidentally put the wrong one up for download.”? Would that give them enough cover?

Kind of like you can photocopy a dollar bill, and long as you increase of decrease the size by 50%. Then you are not trying to counterfeit. So, in this instance the person who created the document will say – “I wasn’t trying to defraud anyone, I put a ‘smiley face’ in it so everyone would knowit’s a fake!”.

Mashman on March 2, 2012 at 1:56 PM

A representative with the Hawaii Attorney General’s Office said no one from the Sheriff’s Office ever requested to inspect or collect documents related to the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate.

hawaii would have let Arpaio see the real deal when they have not let anyone else?

Corley, who is based in Washington, apparently traveled to Hawaii. She said in the letter that she would “be coming to your offices to pick up the copies of the certificates.”

Really? The US Mail or a courier company or even diplomatic courier would not have sufficed. Afraid of letting those things get into someone else’s hands? I’m never even been a birther but the more barry and his people speak the more suspicious the whole thing gets.

peacenprosperity on March 2, 2012 at 1:33 PM

From what I understood from Sheriff Joe was that they were not trying to authenticate his BC in Hawaii only the one shown on the web. They showed the one on the web to be a forgery and traced it back to a certain computer. They stated they have a suspect for that. The investigation continues as this raises more questions.

tinkerthinker on March 2, 2012 at 1:56 PM

It’s a big problem for Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats in Hawaii.

Stayright on March 2, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Pelosi signed the Official Certification of Nomination.

I assume that Pelosi also, as Speaker of the House, signed H.Res.593.

I believe those two documents from Pelosi to the State of Hawaii are what Dr. Fukino used to back up her enhanced claims in her second news release.

And even if the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% true, Dr. Fukino is not the legal authority to determine that a child born on U.S. soil to a U.S. citizen and British subject, and who admitted that he was born a British subject because of his father, could/should be a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 1:59 PM

FYI, the PDF was created on a Mac OS X version 10.6.7 using Quartz PDFContext on 4/27/11.

faraway on March 2, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Quartz 2D is not the software that was used to create the pdf. It is the application programming interface (API) used by that software to render the pdf.

Dude, it’s called Acrobat. And there are many other pieces of software that can export a PDF. No one would have to write ANYTHING.

dogsoldier on March 2, 2012 at 1:45 PM

You’re not following the discussion. Acrobat would not natively produce that output. Lawdawg86 understands that, but in a desperate attempt to spin, he was postulating a rube goldberg software package that might have done so.

ElectricPhase on March 2, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Bizarro No. 1 on March 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Sorry, OCON’s?

Akzed on March 2, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Woah! it’s been a few hours and the lunacy in this thread is only increasing.

lester on March 2, 2012 at 2:02 PM

So, what’s your explanation of the “unique” two-digit year on Obama’s Selective Service registration card?

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 1:49 PM

The Posse argues that someone used a “USPO” 2008 stamp to make the 80. They hypothezise that that the “forger” took the USPO 2008 stamp, deleted the “2″ and first “0″ and then transposed the second “0″ and the “8″.

Well the first problem with that is that I don’t believe there exists any USPO stamps that would have 2008 on them. The USPO became the USPS sometime in the 1970′s or 1980′s. So there could not be any USPO stamps that had 2008.

I would find it plausible that perfectly servicable “USPO” hand stamps (the kind you can change the date and year by hand) would be used for several years even after the USPO convereted to the USPS. However, I don’t see how a USPO hand stamp that would have the first two years of “20″ could have been produced. The USPO had not been used for some 2-3 decades before the turn of the millenium.

The more sane conclusion is that the ink didn’t spread to the “1″ and “9″ on the hand stamp or they have been rubbed down so that they didn’t make an impression.

But keep up with the birther conspiracy. It was a winner for the 9/11 truthers and the roswell crowd. Maybe you should look into “sovereign citizen” and the “gold fringe flag” conspiracies while you are at it. Those seem to go hand in hand with all the birther lawsuits I’ve seen.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 2:06 PM

If the White House wanted to publish a direct scan of a paper birth certificate, all they would have had to do is scan it to a TIFF file. Why didn’t they?

A PDF containing layers sounds like prima facie evidence that the image was constructed, not the product of a scan.

If so, then it is likely a forgery. Why make a forged birth certificate? Either the real one doesn’t exist, or contains information they don’t want publicly known.

Ed faults the Sheriff for not approaching Hawaii for the original. But the state has denied that to all who requested it. The White House can put this to rest by simply producing the actual paper original, and having it authenticated by forensic experts. Not hard, right?

MrLynn on March 2, 2012 at 2:09 PM

The Birther’s will never stop. There is literally no proof that can be offered that will make them stop. The most it can do is make them pause while they come up with an even more far fetched reason to not believe the evidence presented.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 1:45 PM

I’ve noticed you have this really bad habit of taking your disproven/unproven/unprovable opinions and presenting them as facts, another example of which is what I highlighted, in regards to 0bamessiah’s birth issues. Why do you do this?

It shows that you are a weak arguer, and if you don’t change this habit, you’ll prove that you are a bad-faith arguer as well, which I will admit I already believe to be true, but I’ll give you a fair chance to prove me wrong before I’ll say it’s a fact.

Do you notice the difference there between how you operate, and how I do? Hopefully, you’ll learn something from it.

Bizarro No. 1 on March 2, 2012 at 2:10 PM

What a story! Back and forth, back and forth. Can’t make this stuff up!

ultracon on March 2, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Sheesh. George Romney ran for President in ’68, and he was born in Mexico! Eyes on the ball, please (deb/unemployment/skyrocketing gas prices, etc.)

Now that that’s off my chest, can’t wait for the Huckabee forum this weekend!
:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 2, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Woah! it’s been a few hours and the lunacy in this thread is only increasing.

lester on March 2, 2012 at 2:02 PM
We won’t be holding our breaths, but when you have something intelligent to add, let us know, ok? :)

Bizarro No. 1 on March 2, 2012 at 2:15 PM

This Birther crap has been nothing but am embarrassing pimple on the face of Conservatism since Obama was elected.

It was Patriotic to question before his election, but now that he has been elected and has been serving as the President for all this time, it’s just ridiculous.

There is NO WAY IN HELL that the Clinton machine would have not deep sixed Obama’s running if he was illegible. Please, the Clinton’s who supposedly killed Vince Foster, are going to let a non-US Citizen in the form of Obama, steal the coronation from Hillary? Really? And they only get Sec State as a Boobie Prize? Really?

The whole thing is just laugh out loud stupid.

Birthers are destroying the Conservative Movement. Might as well talk about the New World Order, the Illuminati, the Priory of Scion, the Masons, the Grey Aliens, Mind Control Rays, Roswell, how 9/11 was an inside Government Job, and the Assassin in the Grassy Knoll.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 2, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Well the first problem with that is that I don’t believe there exists any USPO stamps that would have 2008 on them. The USPO became the USPS sometime in the 1970′s or 1980′s. So there could not be any USPO stamps that had 2008.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 2:06 PM

You obviously watched the video, so you obviously know that the stamp is assembled similar to an old typesetting machine, with the four digit year being one component.

You obviously also know, from having watched the video, that the stamp for the year 2008 was available, though not in widespread use.

That’s a lot of fail on your part, and makes the rest of your wild supposition redundant.

ElectricPhase on March 2, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Sorry, OCON’s?

Akzed on March 2, 2012 at 2:01 PM

This was a link Stayright posted: http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/01/o-con-had-legal-help-from-non-partisan.html

Bizarro No. 1 on March 2, 2012 at 2:17 PM

There is NO WAY IN HELL that the Clinton machine would have not deep sixed Obama’s running if he was illegible.

Who do you think was behind Phil Berg? Berg started this whole thing.

Stayright on March 2, 2012 at 2:20 PM

If the White House wanted to publish a direct scan of a paper birth certificate, all they would have had to do is scan it to a TIFF file. Why didn’t they?

A PDF containing layers sounds like prima facie evidence that the image was constructed, not the product of a scan.

If so, then it is likely a forgery. Why make a forged birth certificate? Either the real one doesn’t exist, or contains information they don’t want publicly known.

Ed faults the Sheriff for not approaching Hawaii for the original. But the state has denied that to all who requested it. The White House can put this to rest by simply producing the actual paper original, and having it authenticated by forensic experts. Not hard, right?

MrLynn on March 2, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Exactly where I’m at and then some. The layers are sorted logically. WTF is that???

What if they did this because they don’t want the BC issue to go away. So the BC is totally legit, and the original looks exactly this. But they layered like this, hoping someone would notice, and bring attention to it? Let’s be honest, talking about the BC is a good thing for Obama.

I sound like a freaking kook from kookville. I need some fresh air. While I’m out can one of you enlightened souls please debunk this with fact and information, save the personal attacks for afterword, where I’ll gladly take them. KTHX!

Fish on March 2, 2012 at 2:20 PM

“The more sane conclusion is that the ink didn’t spread to the “1″ and “9″ on the hand stamp or they have been rubbed down so that they didn’t make an impression.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 2:06 PM”

LOL!!! That’s insane! LOL!!!

What you said has been proven NOT to have happened!

The 2 digit year on Obama’s registration card is not in the same location on the stamp as the last to digits on stamps with a 4 digit year.

You seem kind of slow, so I’ll explain it too you!

When the fraudster cut the 2008 stamp to make the ’80′ to use on Obama’s PROVEN FAKE registration card, the space between the 2 zeroes in 2008, was less than the trailing space at the end of the 4 digit stamp. This means that when the 2 digit stamp was put into the holder, it was more offset to the outside than uncut 4 digit year stamps!

There is ZERO chance of what you claim, because even if the first 2 digits of the year did not have ink – the last 2 digits are in the wrong location!

Obama NEVER registered with the Selective Service, and therefore -

•Federal Jobs – men born after December 31, 1959 must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service.

Mashman on March 2, 2012 at 2:27 PM

It was Patriotic to question before his election, but now that he has been elected and has been serving as the President for all this time, it’s just ridiculous.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 2, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Before the election, the issue was eligibility. He has been elected now, so of course, that issue goes away.

The problem facing Obama today is that he has produced a forged document. It could be any document.

Obama the forger.

The person that forged the PDF is now looking over his shoulder wondering when he will be arrested, and or forced to appear before a Congressional committee, and put under oath.

Things are about to get a lot more interesting.

faraway on March 2, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Bizarro No. 1 on March 2, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I can see how you might get confused. I list a set of facts. Then after listing that set of facts I provide a logical conclusion. Often after that conclusion, I may add in my opinion. You seem to be “unfairly” conditioned by my statement of facts, that you are unable to then distinguish when I state an opinion.

Usually those with good reading comprehension are able to distinguish from context what is a fact and what is opinion. For your benefit I suppose I should clearly label each of my statements as “fact” or “opinion”.

Fact -in 2008 People questioned whether Obama was born in U.S.
Fact -Obama obtained from Hawaii then released to the news media his birth certificate (so called “short form”) in June 2008.
Fact – Birther’s continued to question whether Obama was born in U.S. and demanded a certified copy of his “long form birth certificate”
Fact – as noted by Ed above, the Hawaii gov’t (2008-2010 Republican governor) repeatedly stated that he was born in Hawaii and they have his records on file. Birther’s continue to question.
Fact – In April 2011, Obama released his certified “long form birth certificate” accompanied by a letter from Hawaii certifying the document.
Fact – Birthers continue to question whether Obama was born in U.S.
Fact – Approximately 100 birther lawsuits have been brought challenging Obama’s qualifications for president. All of those lawsuits have failed. Not one court of law has found any credible evidence to counter act the prima facie evidence provided by Obama’s birth certificates.

Conclusion – Birthers have not accepted two certified documents from State of Hawaii, nor the explicit words of the keeper of Health records in Hawaii, nor the opinions of approximately 100 courts, therefore there is no evidence that will satisfy Birther’s of Obama’s birth in the state of Hawaii.

Opinion – Birther’s are nut-jobs.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Things are about to get a lot more interesting.

faraway on March 2, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Riiight… I’ve been hearing that for the past couple of years… and nothing has happened other than the case being thrown out of court… repeatedly.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 2, 2012 at 2:32 PM

We won’t be holding our breaths, but when you have something intelligent to add, let us know, ok? :)

Well, if I were as vicious as you birthers, I would probably recommend holding your breath no matter the reason. Then again, I’m not. Even birthers have a right to live.

lester on March 2, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Before the election, the issue was eligibility. He has been elected now, so of course, that issue goes away.

The problem facing Obama today is that he has produced a forged document. It could be any document.

Obama the forger.

The person that forged the PDF is now looking over his shoulder wondering when he will be arrested, and or forced to appear before a Congressional committee, and put under oath.

Things are about to get a lot more interesting.

faraway on March 2, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Careful with that. There is good evidence that these two documents may be forged. The person(s) responsible should be found and dealt with. Let’s stick with that. We wouldn’t want to sound like nut jobs. ; )

ElectricPhase on March 2, 2012 at 2:39 PM

The layers are the smoking gun to me. I need to see how to get those layers the way the did, innocently and randomly. Show me how those layers can be created without any fraud taking place.

Please and thank you.

Fish on March 2, 2012 at 1:49 PM

I had the same thought as you when the BC was first released, and supposedly debunked by National Review. I thought, “Fine, I agree, it might not be a fake. Now, show us the likelihood a closely similar reproduction of what occurred on the BC could happen again randomly.”

Bizarro No. 1 on March 2, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Maybe the PDF was created with a package these investigators have never heard of. There is no software stamp I could find in the document.

Still, there is one question here, and you nailed it. Everything else is strawmen.

bbhack on March 2, 2012 at 10:27 AM

If your looking for a software stamp, just google it. Multiple adobe software was used. Read the report from one the creator of that software to see how it was done.

It is a forgery by a young amature who thought he was the cleaver one. This is not the only forgery of the CLB. The department of Vital statistics in Hawaii created three other ones; one for each hospital and one for his birth in Kenya and registared in Hawaii as a foriegn birth. They are amazingly simuliar to the one Obama released, only on white paper; same as the press copies handed out when Obama released the CLB in question. They are also obviously cut and paste mockups of the CLB. If they did this, what makes it so sure they did not do it for the officail one?

Who ever the young forger was, they thought of themselvesas cleaver and smarter than the guy who created Dan Rathers document on a typewriter that did not exist at the time of the alledged document was was made. The forger would use documents that were typed on the same period typewriters. Further he would not use whole words, but only parts of words of letters so that no one would find the same identical word in another document.

The problem is that forger was not old enoough to be familiar with the fact that individual typewritter were as different as our finger prints. The reason was engravers different styles, casting, and mechanical assembly of the keys. The forger also was not familiar with the fact that typewrites had set spaces for each font. Word processors can determine the last letter type and adjust the spacing. There is another glaring problem. look where the page curls and the lines curl with it. Notice the the type which should have been consistent in its space from the line, does not curl. There is more of course, espcially when you get down to the formatting levels. Speaking of which is the fact that there were layers that are hard to explain short of admitting the forger forgot to flatten the text, that means to move everything to one layer. As pointed out, the register stamp and date stamp can be moved around. That would only be possible if it were added. If it was added, the document is no more valid that the three admitted forged mockups of his CLB by Hawaii.

There is one other forgery of this CLB. An exact copy with all the flaws down to the digital level, with the one exception being the date stamp to prevent confusion of which was which. The CLB was created using other known documents that the forger could or did use, The Obama CLB as not used as a source.

Just for grins, it should be pointed out that the forger just could not pass on adding his own mark. The X in place of the H is too obvious, but Look at the O in the retgistar’s signature. See the profile smilely face?

Franklyn on March 2, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Lets keep talking about the birth certificate and contraception. Its going to be a real winner in November…

Stick to the friggen bad economy please.

spec_ops_mateo on March 2, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Fact – Approximately 100 birther lawsuits have been brought challenging Obama’s qualifications for president. All of those lawsuits have failed. Not one court of law has found any credible evidence to counter act the prima facie evidence provided by Obama’s birth certificates.

[snip]

Opinion – Birther’s are nut-jobs.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 2:31 PM

I think you have your facts wrong. Except for the recent Georgia showdown, which was decided by a judge writing opinion from whole cloth after the defendant refused to even appear, citing only a 2009 decision that appears written from whole cloth itself, after the birth-certificate issue was already a controversy, the failure of the lawsuits has consistently not hinged on prima-facie evidence. The suits have been thrown out for lack of standing to sue.

Two very different animals.

Your ad hominems don’t do one thing to convince anyone, except that you are prima-facie biased in favor of giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, despite all evidence that something is being hidden about his past, and so your views should be taken with a huge grain of salt….

cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 2:42 PM

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Fact: In 2008, Nancy Pelosi signed two different Official Certification of Nomination (OCON) forms. The one sent to Hawaii declared Obama constitutionally eligible. The one sent to the remaining states omitted constitutional eligiblility language altogether.

Opinion: Pelosi knew Obama could not prove his eligiblility to the satisfaction of Hawaii so she helped him commit fraud. She banked on the remaining states accepting her word. They did.

Opinion: You have been blissfully unaware of the OCON problem. You have never studied the documents .

Conclusion: You are know-nothing blowhard.

Stayright on March 2, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Obama’s long form Birth Certificate is a digital fake. Who didn’t know that already?

Axion on March 2, 2012 at 2:45 PM

“Lets keep talking about the birth certificate and contraception. Its going to be a real winner in November…

Stick to the friggen bad economy please.

spec_ops_mateo on March 2, 2012 at 2:41 PM”

I don’t give a rats anus about the ‘bad economy’. That really would be the same no matter what party was in charge! If you think Romney would spend any less if he were in charge, you are deluding yourself.

What I care about is that we have a freaking communist destroying our military! We have a President who never even registered with the Selective Service! And according to the law, Obama should not even be able to get a job with the executive branch of the government, YET HE’S RUNNING IT!!!

•Federal Jobs – men born after December 31, 1959 must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service.

Mashman on March 2, 2012 at 2:49 PM

I have a rhetorical question for both sides of the argument:

Pretend that 0bama is not president – that he is still a senator and is a candidate for the presidency in 2012.

Given the current arguments/apparent discrepancies regarding his past, including a suspicious selective-service card and the sealing of nearly all his records, and the statements by many in Kenya that he was born there, should 0bama, the prospective president, be required to submit to some sort of federal electoral body a stamped, paper copy of his long-form birth certificate?

Or, dropping the rhetorical supposition, does the actual fact that he’s already been president mean that he receives a “grandfather-clause” exemption from the Natural-Born clause of the Constitution while running for a second term, despite a long-running problem with definitively convincing a substantial portion of the to be ruled electorate that he is actually eligible??

I am bothered by the sense I get from a lot of people that his election in 2008 gives him a lifetime pass from scrutiny… sort of like presidential squatter’s rights.

Yes, possession is 9/10ths of the law, in the popular legal construct….

But, are we to conclude that a man can legally have squatter’s rights to the presidency that authorize him to run for a second term when the eligibility for the first term is an unsettled question in the minds of a substantial portion of the electorate?

Because – mark my words here – the act of allowing him on the presidential ballot in all 50 states, after the documentary anomalies and questions that have never been satisfactorily questioned, is a quintessial act of apply the doctrine of “squatter’s rights” to the Oval Office.

I have problems with that.

cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Conclusion – Birthers have not accepted two certified documents from State of Hawaii, nor the explicit words of the keeper of Health records in Hawaii, nor the opinions of approximately 100 courts, therefore there is no evidence that will satisfy Birther’s of Obama’s birth in the state of Hawaii.

Opinion – Birther’s are nut-jobs.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 2:31 PM

You made the following statement: “The Birther’s will never stop. There is literally no proof that can be offered that will make them stop.” How is such a statement provable as a fact? Fact is, you can’t prove it for the same reason atheists can’t prove that God doesn’t exist.

If you were a person concerned with good reasoning, you would acknowledge this. Since you not only won’t acknowledge it, you doubled down when you had the chance to do otherwise, it confirms my belief that you are a not just a weak arguer, but you are a bad-faith one as well, whose first priority while debating is not intellectual honesty. Therefore, my belief about you has gone from the realm of belief to the realm of fact.

If you were to be graded on your critical thinking skills, you would not pass the class!

Bizarro No. 1 on March 2, 2012 at 2:55 PM

My attention span fell apart in that last paragraph!
Fixed it:

Because – mark my words here – the act of allowing him on the presidential ballot in all 50 states, after the documentary anomalies and questions that have never been satisfactorily answered, is a quintessential act of applying the doctrine of “squatter’s rights” to the Oval Office.

I have problems with that.

cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 2:53 PM

cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 2:58 PM

All 50 states failed in their due diligence of Obama’s eligibility to run for President…Nothing about Obama is as it seems. If he was born in Hawaii then at minimum he holds dual citizenship in Indonesia…I don’t think the American people would ever knowingly elect a President who has dual citizenship. It is not what the founders envisioned of a natural born US citizen and the question of loyalty to this country cannot be overlooked. The DNC and the media ram-rodded this guy through the 2008 election cycle. It would be nice if all 50 Secretaries of State would do their job this time to make sure we know that Obama is a natural born citizen and that he does not hold dual citizenship.

Nozzle on March 2, 2012 at 3:06 PM

This Birther crap has been nothing but am embarrassing pimple on the face of Conservatism since Obama was elected.

It was Patriotic to question before his election, but now that he has been elected and has been serving as the President for all this time, it’s just ridiculous.

There is NO WAY IN HELL that the Clinton machine would have not deep sixed Obama’s running if he was illegible. Please, the Clinton’s who supposedly killed Vince Foster, are going to let a non-US Citizen in the form of Obama, steal the coronation from Hillary? Really? And they only get Sec State as a Boobie Prize? Really?

The whole thing is just laugh out loud stupid.

Birthers are destroying the Conservative Movement. Might as well talk about the New World Order, the Illuminati, the Priory of Scion, the Masons, the Grey Aliens, Mind Control Rays, Roswell, how 9/11 was an inside Government Job, and the Assassin in the Grassy Knoll.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 2, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Maybe the Clinton machine decided that the risks outweighed the rewards on this. We’re still bickering about it four years later and no further ahead and perhaps the Clintons felt this wasn’t the hill to die on – something uncertain that would label them as “conspiracy nuts” to a large number of people.

Maybe they felt outwaiting Obama was a better risk than to go into birther territory where they could be labeled as nuts. I can certainly see them making that assessment as they are extremely shrewd people.

Just a thought.

kim roy on March 2, 2012 at 3:08 PM

This is a little frustrating.

I think labeling everyone a birther, who questions the validity of the piece of crap BC posted at whitehouse dot gov, is missing the point.

That document is clearly a fake sketchy at best and the two items… 1) the place of his birth and 2) the authenticity of that document, are not mutually exclusive. It’s OK, healthy even, to understand the differences and acknowledge them.

Motives be damned! Stop asking why. Start by admitting that it’s forgery is plausible, given the evidence. To deny that reality given the evidence, is delusional.

Fish on March 2, 2012 at 3:21 PM

If you were to be graded on your critical thinking skills, you would not pass the class!

Bizarro No. 1 on March 2, 2012 at 2:55 PM

I’m sorry that you have this opinion of me. Luckily for me, your opinion of me was not shared by my law school professors. The magna cum laude on my law school diploma indicates that a group of qualified individuals over a period of 3 years thought highly of my critical thinking skills. And my clients over the years have had opinions that differ starkly from yours regarding my argument style and critical thinking. And the judge I appeared in front of today also seemed to differ from you on the opinion of my critical thinking skills. That is the great thing about opinions, everyone has them.
I welcome you to continue to share your opinion of me. I assure you I will file it in the proper place.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 3:23 PM

In the distant past some people cowered in fear of being called fools unfit for their positions, unworthy or in some other manner morally impaired if they could not see the Emperor’s fine new invisible clothes. In the recent past some people cowered in fear of being called deniers unfit for their positions, unworthy or in some other manner morally impaired if they could not feel the invisible global warming. Some people now cower in fear of being called birthers unfit for their positions, unworthy or in some other manner morally impaired if they can not see the Holiness and Flawlessness in Dear Leader’s Magical Appearing Birth Certificate. History seldom repeats, but it very often closely rhymes and shows yet again that some people never learn, and there will always be many men who are more as Mice and Sheep than as Lions and Foxes. Sometimes it seems a shame that Noah didn’t miss the boat.

Cheshire Cat on March 2, 2012 at 3:29 PM

All our ‘leaders’ (congress, courts, military officers, except for a very few like LTC Lakin) are like the pathetic towns people in The Emperor’s New Clothes, afraid to state the obvious for fear of being called bad names, like “birther!”, the dreaded “B” word. The Emperor had no fine clothes and Barack Hussein Louie Obama has no fine birth certificate. The governor of Hawaii, using his powers as the governor of that state, could not find an Hawaiian birth certificate for Obama for very likely the very same reason that had he been looking for a Hawaiian birth certificate for me, he could not have found that either.

And this is all never minding that even if by some looking very remote chance he was actually born in Hawaii, he is not ‘Natural Born’ per the nomenclature at the time of the writing of the U.S. Constitution which required that both parents be American citizens at the time of the person’s birth, Our ‘leaders’ are most all either moral cowards of scoundrels. If Obama can get away, and so easily, with unconstitutionally being President, why should he have any respect at all for any of the Constitution or any respect at all for American Sheeple? Why would he think they deserve any?

If Obama’s “Birth Certificate” is authentic, I’m from the planet Mars.

VorDaj on March 2, 2012 at 3:34 PM

By the way, would a press release from the State of Hawaii stating that they released a certified copy of the long form birth certificate to Obama in April 2011 convince anyone that the Birth Certificate released by Obama is genuine?

Press release from Hawaii Health Department

Excerpts:

The Hawai„i State Health Department recently complied with a request by President Barack Obama for certified copies of his original Certificate of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to in the media as a “long form” birth certificate.

“We hope that issuing certified copies of the original Certificate of Live Birth to President Obama will end the numerous inquiries related to his birth in Hawai„i,” Hawai„i Health Director Loretta Fuddy said. “I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to the authenticity of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawai„i.”

(Emphasis added)

On April 25, 2011, pursuant to President Obama‟s request, Director Fuddy personally witnessed the copying of the original Certificate of Live Birth and attested to the authenticity of the two copies. Dr. Alvin Onaka, the State Registrar, certified the copies.

Both documents[LFBC and COLB] are legally sufficient evidence of birth in the State of Hawai„i, and both provide the same fundamental information: President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawai„i at 7:24
p.m. on August 4, 1961, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama.

One would think this would end the debate. But I believe it will not. My conclusion based upon observed patterns with Birthers over the past 4 years is that no evidence will satisfy them. They will continue to move the goal posts and allege grander conspiracies forever.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Fact – In April 2011, Obama released his certified “long form birth certificate” accompanied by a letter from Hawaii certifying the document.
Fact – Birthers continue to question whether Obama was born in U.S.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Not to split hairs or anything, but this isn’t true.

He released a copy. He did not release the actual document. And it’s this copy, that the white house will refer people to when asked about his birth place.

I think we all agree with you, that that really ought to be enough. However, and this is where that critical thinking skill kicks in… it’s this copy, that is generating all the attention.

When examined closely, this copy reveals 9 distinct layers, sorted logically, including the green background, most of the black ink, a couple signature boxes, and finally, the two stamps are movable around the document each in their own layer.

I have yet to see a reasonable explanation how this is randomly accomplished, by simply scanning the doc and creating a PDF.

If it doesn’t bother you that the document is forged, or even likely forged, just say so. Please understand that questioning the validity of the document presented, given the evidence does not a birther make.

OR better yet, debunk it yourself.

Fish on March 2, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Well, for the record, my opinion is that likely he WAS born in Hawaii.

I think he’s been using the Kenya thing as a smoke screen to achieve his goal.

I think his goal is to cover up uncomfortable facts about his birth-certificate file by getting people to say he wasn’t born in America. Such as:

1. The father on the actual certificate is not Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., but is someone else. The true father has been hidden for some reason. This obviously, is serious because it means that forgery has happened somewhere in the process. For this to have happened, a massive cover-up, the name of the true father must have been extremely controversial. One name for the father that comes to mind as somewhat plausible would be Malcolm Little. A son of this controversial, assassinated Black-Power leader, as he had four daughters and no known sons, would not only be hidden, but he would be highly revered as a Golden Child and given special treatment by the highest levels of the Black-Power hierarchy, including Elijah Muhammad and Louis Farrakhan. He would also be aided throughout his life by mysterious beenfactors, who likely would espouse a Marxist/Communist political world-view.

2. The certificate is an amended certificate that retroactively shows Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., as the father, but is not the actual original certificate – the original having been altered by court order…. in other words, some sort of amendment due to adoption or other reason – meaning that the amended certificate may not truly give evidence of his citizenship.

3. The certificate actually has been amended, through adoption, to show Lolo Soetoro of Indonesia as the father. This, of course, means that the one out there showing Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. is a forgery. It also calls into question whether he lost his citizenship through adoption, and ever reclaimed it. His Selective-Service card would be a key affirmative document in re-establishing his citizenship at age 18. If it did not exist, that would be a major problem. Hence, the Selective-Service card is a critical player in all this. For the record, The duly-elected and empowered sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, has just declared it to be a forgery.

Of course there are other possibilities. And if there’s an innocent explanation for all the mystery behind 0bama’s origins, then I, along with much of the rest of the country, am all ears.

But the preceding hypotheticals would have the effect, if true, of casting 0bama’s eligibility in doubt, without resorting to saying that he wasn’t born in America.

My personal opinion is that the truth lies somewhere above, not in a Kenyan birth.

No one looking at this with intellectual honesty, given the degree of deviousness in all this, can say that there is not a heck of a lot of smoke. the question is… exactly where is the fire?

cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 3:58 PM

One would think this would end the debate. But I believe it will not. My conclusion based upon observed patterns with Birthers over the past 4 years is that no evidence will satisfy them. They will continue to move the goal posts and allege grander conspiracies forever.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 3:41 PM

You’re missing the point. Questioning the validity of the document does not make him Kenyan. That’s a leap you’re making on your own.

Even if you go right to the WDN website, in the article itself, no one is questioning where he was born. The question is surrounding the actual document that was released, and that’s the distinction that you’re missing.

Fish on March 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM

cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Well said.

dogsoldier on March 2, 2012 at 4:07 PM

You see, I don’t think it’s truly that far out to think that maybe 0bama was identified as a future president sometime in the 1990s.

If any forgery occurred, my money says it happened then, when political players realized that he was their man, and also had an eligibility problem – not some unlikely forgery back when he was a little boy.

Just a note – the Certification of Live Birth his 2008 campaign put on the Internet had a 1997 date stamp…..

One line of inquiry that I have neer heard, that actually could be productive, is, WHY did he request this in 1997?

Was it to run for a specific office? Or was it to check whether an alteration of the records had indeed gone through without a hitch.

It sounds early but, you know, I don’t think it’s far-fetched that certain people looked at 0bama in 1997 and saw the presidency.

In the words of Blago – “this thing is f-in’ GOLDEN!”

cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 4:11 PM

cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Well said.

dogsoldier on March 2, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Man, I truly feel that with my salvo at 3:58 PM, I am placing rounds all around the target, and one or more of them are close…. but I can’t tell!

It’s like playing a game of “Battleship” – Your opponent either calls out “HIT” or “MISS,” but never calls out, “CLOSE, and you RATTLED THE CHINA!”

cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 4:19 PM

You’re missing the point. Questioning the validity of the document does not make him Kenyan. That’s a leap you’re making on your own.

Even if you go right to the WDN website, in the article itself, no one is questioning where he was born. The question is surrounding the actual document that was released, and that’s the distinction that you’re missing.

Fish on March 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM

So you accept that Hawaii sent a certified copy of his long form Birth Certificate to Obama in April of 2011 as disclosed in Hawaii’s own press release I linked to earlier. You accept that the Hawaii birth certificate states that he was born in Honolulu Hawaii in 1961.

However, after receiving this certified copy of his birth certificate from Hawaii, Obama (or his minions) went and ginned up a totally forged birth certificate to release to the public. Is this your hypothetical. Was this done for s*&*s and giggles? What purpose does it serve?

If the purpose was to make birthers look like fringe crazies, then mission accomplished. If the purpose was to be a distraction from more important issues in the race, you are helping it to succeeed. If the purpose was to publicly identify groups of the Republican party who are so extreme and fringe that normal people would prefer to not identify with them, then mission accomplished.

Also the certified copy of the birth certificate is prima facie evidence itself of his birth in Hawaii. This certified “copy” could be admitted in any court in the U.S. As could the first “short form” birth certificate produced by Obama in 2008. When the registrat adds his certification, it makes the document “official” and just as authoritative in a court of law as the original back in the vaults of Hawaii. The Full Faith and Credit clause requires each state (and the federal gov’t) to treat respect the public records of a sister state. Therefore if Hawaii says Obama was born there, then all the other states must take Hawaii’s word for it. All evidence indicates that Hawaii says Obama was born there. There is zero evidence stating otherwise.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 4:27 PM

The issue here, the real issue, isn’t where he was born but what he has utilized as his citizenship since then. He was born at least a dual British/American citizen. He was adopted at a very young age by an Indonesian citizen, moved to Indonesia, and attended Indonesian public schools that require Indonesian citizenship for admission. He traveled to Pakistan and Indonesia in the 80s and 90s. Yet his adoption records and all passport/travel documentation have been scrubbed or otherwise hidden from view, and I’d just like to know why.

Personally, I think he became an Indonesian citizen as a child, taking the surname Soetoro, and never bothered to become an American citizen again after that. Hence the goofy birth certificate mock-up. He doesn’t have an official one that says “Obama” because that one is long gone with the name change. He likely claimed some sort of foreign student status, hence the hidden college records. (I bet he’s also hiding a butt-load of “D’s” and classes taught by Profs. Piven and Cloward, but that’s another story.) He probably traveled abroad back then on an Indonesian passport. No selective service card for those same reasons, a foreigner doesn’t have to register.

Does any of that really matter? I mean, besides the Founding Fathers’ requirement that a U.S. President hold no allegiance to any other country? I don’t know. But I do know that at least the voters should have been able to decide but were never given that chance.

Stu Gotts on March 2, 2012 at 5:16 PM

“A representative with the Hawaii Attorney General’s Office said no one from the Sheriff’s Office ever requested to inspect or collect documents related to the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate.”

No one who has been paying attention to this issue believes that Hawaii would cooperate with the investigation. It has denied all prior requests and subpoenas. Hawaii clearly has no intention of providing access to any records related to Obama.

Come on, Hot Air, don’t be so naive! I have been investigating these issues for four years and can assure you that there is fire causing the smoke. Read The Obama Timeline and not DNC or RNC talking points.

Colony14 on March 2, 2012 at 5:17 PM

So you accept that Hawaii sent a certified copy of his long form Birth Certificate to Obama in April of 2011 as disclosed in Hawaii’s own press release I linked to earlier. You accept that the Hawaii birth certificate states that he was born in Honolulu Hawaii in 1961.

Can’t speak for anybody else, but I do.

However, after receiving this certified copy of his birth certificate from Hawaii, Obama (or his minions) went and ginned up a totally forged birth certificate to release to the public. Is this your hypothetical. Was this done for s*&*s and giggles? What purpose does it serve?

Now you’re asking the right question. I wish I knew.

If the purpose was to make birthers look like fringe crazies, then mission accomplished. If the purpose was to be a distraction from more important issues in the race, you are helping it to succeeed. If the purpose was to publicly identify groups of the Republican party who are so extreme and fringe that normal people would prefer to not identify with them, then mission accomplished.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 4:27 PM

“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” So….if we’re screwing up so badly, why do you keep interrupting?

Actually, no, it isn’t plausible that the leader of the free world endorsed forgery and fraud for those reasons. A couple of times now, I’ve said that it must be some kind of joke to him. I retract that. It doesn’t make sense. The risk is too high.

Hey, let’s roll the dice and see where they land.

ElectricPhase on March 2, 2012 at 5:22 PM

So you accept that Hawaii sent a certified copy of his long form Birth Certificate to Obama in April of 2011 as disclosed in Hawaii’s own press release I linked to earlier. You accept that the Hawaii birth certificate states that he was born in Honolulu Hawaii in 1961.

However, after receiving this certified copy of his birth certificate from Hawaii, Obama (or his minions) went and ginned up a totally forged birth certificate to release to the public. Is this your hypothetical. Was this done for s*&*s and giggles? What purpose does it serve?

If the purpose was to make birthers look like fringe crazies, then mission accomplished. If the purpose was to be a distraction from more important issues in the race, you are helping it to succeeed. If the purpose was to publicly identify groups of the Republican party who are so extreme and fringe that normal people would prefer to not identify with them, then mission accomplished.

Also the certified copy of the birth certificate is prima facie evidence itself of his birth in Hawaii. This certified “copy” could be admitted in any court in the U.S. As could the first “short form” birth certificate produced by Obama in 2008. When the registrat adds his certification, it makes the document “official” and just as authoritative in a court of law as the original back in the vaults of Hawaii. The Full Faith and Credit clause requires each state (and the federal gov’t) to treat respect the public records of a sister state. Therefore if Hawaii says Obama was born there, then all the other states must take Hawaii’s word for it. All evidence indicates that Hawaii says Obama was born there. There is zero evidence stating otherwise.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Most of your retort is talking all around the issue, still.

Yes I accept that they sent a copy. Yes I accept that the copy says he was born in Hawaii.

What I find mysterious is the anomalies contained within the document itself. Who knows what the reasons are, the simple fact of the matter is, when deconstructed, this thing should not have layers, and it should not layers that appear to be logically put together. I don’t know what purpose it serves. I only know that it’s likely a forgery.

Yesterday morning I could not have cared less about his birth place or the BC. It was ancient history as far as I was concerned. I saw this report on ABC news and scoffed. I read some comments, scoffed some more. Then I got to a comment talking about WDN having detailed videos and I REALLY scoffed. Then I watched the videos. The only thing I can say is, they sent a chill up my spine.

Birthers, kooks, 911 truthers, whatever- whoever. I don’t care where he was born or when. That document that the whitehouse has on its website should not break down into those layers, period. There is nothing random about that at all. That ought to disturb you.

Fish on March 2, 2012 at 5:22 PM

The newspaper birth announcements prove nothing. In 1961 the Hawaiian papers reported births based on data from the county health department, not the hospitals or the parents. A review of the announcements shows that the births included hospital births, at-home births, and foreign births.

The assumption is that Obama’s maternal grandmother reported his birth as an at-home birth. A few days later the infant was brought to the hospital for an exam. Obama does not want to release hospital records because the at-home birth record would be clear. The Department of Health records would also reflect an at-home birth, which is why a forgery was necessary. There is no need to ridicule skeptics with “time travel” remarks. That is a Saul Alinsky tactic that does nothing to get at the truth.

Colony14 on March 2, 2012 at 5:25 PM

You neglected to report two important items:

1.) Because TWA and Pan-Am are long out of business, passenger lists from 1961 are no longer available. Arpaio’s team therefore requested INS records form the government, and received many boxes of microfilm. IN examining the film they discovered that a few days of records were missing – and those missing days were the days immediately before and after Obama’s August 4, 1961 birth. Does that not raise suspicions? If George W. Bush’s military records were missing, would that be suspicious?

2.) Arpaio’s team has testimony from an individual who was introduced to Obama in the early 1980s when he visited the home of William Ayers’ parent. Mrs. Ayers told the individual that Obama was a “foreign student” and they were helping him with his education costs. Does that not raise suspicions?

Colony14 on March 2, 2012 at 5:29 PM

I get the impression that, in relation to the coming presidential election, many posters think we should not talk about election candidates eligibility…just important topics such as Obamacare, wars, the economy, etc.

Would someone please explain why we (or presidential candidates) want to skip discussion about eligibility for office? Isn’t being qualified to hold the office something to establish before you have the above important debates on the issues? Aren’t there age and natural born Citizen requirements? Or, are we that far past the Constitution now and anyone can run? IOW, what is the new definition that a candidate must meet and where is that written? I want to see what allows Obama, a dual-citizen fathered by a British subject, to to skip meeting the NBC clause in his run for office.

1andyman on March 2, 2012 at 5:31 PM

“‘Only the original can be certified; the failure to ask to see the original is pretty good proof that this commission was a joke right from the get-go.’ Indeed. One would think professional ‘investigators’ would know this.”

Who is stupid enough to believe that Obama or Hawaii would turn over the original documents to Arpaio’s team? The whole point of a forgery is to avoid providing the information that is in the original files. It is clear that the” birth certificate” provided by Obama is a forgery. THAT IS THE STORY OF THE CENTURY and cannot be laughed off.

Colony14 on March 2, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Why didn’t his social security card work on e verify?

2012chuck on March 2, 2012 at 6:09 PM

I’m sorry that you have this opinion of me. Luckily for me, your opinion of me was not shared by my law school professors. The magna cum laude on my law school diploma indicates that a group of qualified individuals over a period of 3 years thought highly of my critical thinking skills. And my clients over the years have had opinions that differ starkly from yours regarding my argument style and critical thinking. And the judge I appeared in front of today also seemed to differ from you on the opinion of my critical thinking skills. That is the great thing about opinions, everyone has them.
I welcome you to continue to share your opinion of me. I assure you I will file it in the proper place.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Awwwww does someone’s poor little ego need stroking? Does he feel he should graded not by the subpar quality of his work, but by the effort he put into it, because he tries reallllllly hard to do well and he deserves an “A” for that alone? Is he insecure about his abilities to think critically, and is he so inept in defending himself in this area that he needs to look to others to help him prop himself up? This is one of the most pathetic posts I’ve ever seen here! You sound like a 5 y/o, you ramble a lot, and say nothing of value.

It’s obvious you can’t emotionally handle the fact that you, who commits logical fallacies w/o rectifying them when you are made aware of them, have no rational basis and therefore no good basis to believe you do well in the critical thinking department – seriously, what do you expect someone like me to say when I see that you struggle with distinguishing between facts, and opinions/beliefs which are posited as facts?

If I give you a gold star to make you feel like you achieved something even though you haven’t, will that make everything better for you? Maybe you need a piece of candy, too – would the hurt stop if I gave you a butterscotch button to suck on?

Bizarro No. 1 on March 2, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Here’re a couple “clear the air” questions. All of you who have taken the time to comment on this topic, just as a show of hands, will you please copy and paste my questions and add “YES” or “NO.”

Consider this a thread poll.

Question 1: Do you believe that at birth, the president’s name was Barack Hussein Obama II? Yes No

Question 2: Do you believe that at age 18, the president’s name was Barack Hussein Obama II? Yes No

Question 3: When he was a student at Occidental College in the early ’80s, was his legal name Barack Hussein Obama II? Yes No

Question 4: Do you believe that when he took the oath of office as president, his legal name was Barack Hussein Obama II? Yes No
——————————————————————

As an example, here are my answers:

Question 1: Do you believe that at birth, the president’s legal name was Barack Hussein Obama II? Yes

Question 2: Do you believe that at age 18, the president’s legal name was Barack Hussein Obama II? No

Question 3: Do you believe that when he was a student at Occidental College in the early ’80s, his legal name was Barack Hussein Obama II? No

Question 4: Do you believe that when he took the oath of office as president, his legal name was Barack Hussein Obama II? No

cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 6:44 PM

I believe that the president’s true legal name is Barry Soetoro.

I believe that he committed perjury both on his law license application, in running for president, and in taking the Oath of Office.

I have seen documents and heard testimony about his life in Indonesia and, indeed at Occidental, about his life as “Barry Soetoro,” and I have seen nothing that impeaches that information.

On the other hand, as far as vouching that his true name is Barack Obama, I have seen nothing but very questionable documents that have been hidden, teased out, and apparently altered.

So far, I see more evidence that his last name is Soetoro, than Obama.

cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 6:51 PM

I’m going to take a look at Ed’s post, paragraph by paragraph.

Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio held a news conference yesterday to release the results of a “deep dive” into the question of whether Barack Obama’s birth certificate was genuine or a fraud. Surprisingly, after having teamed up with WND, Arpaio declared that the birth certificate and Obama’s Selective Service registration are fraudulent. The local NBC affiliate and the Arizona Republic covered the event:

1) Why is “deep dive” in quotes? Is this snark/sarcasm? They certainly dove deeper into this than Ed has.

2) The second sentence, starting with “Surprisingly” is absolutely snarky. In Ed’s opinion, OF COURSE they were going to declare it fraudulent if they teamed up with WND, right? How about the fact that Sheriff Arpaio and the Cold Case Posse were suspicious of those who suspected fraud? How about the fact that Sheriff Arpaio and the Cold Case Posse wanted to verify the image quickly and put the controversy to rest? It was only after they did “dive deep” that reluctantly came to the conclusion that both the certifcate of live birth and the selective service registration images wer, after all, forgeries. They didn’t want to reach that conclusion, but they were honest with what was in front of them, and followed the evidence no matter where that lead.

Please put your pre-conceived bias aside, Ed, and look at what they found. How do you, Ed, explain that the selective service registration date stamp is unlike any of the others that were produced at the same post office around the same time? The offset, two digit year is very clear evidence of fraud. How do you explain it?

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Arpaio and his team answered questions about jurisdiction by claiming that a fraud taking place in Maricopa County means that local law enforcement would have to investigate it. However, if the fraud originated in someplace outside of Arizona, that technically would be the jurisdiction of the FBI, not Arizona. At some point Obama would have to submit an affadavit of eligibility to the state of Arizona for his 2012 re-election bid, and if that was fraudulent, then it would be a state matter.

If an affadavit of eligibility to the state of Arizona for his 2012 re-election bid would be a state matter, why isn’t his eligibility in the state of Arizona for his 2008 election a state matter? There have been questions about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility since 2008. If Obama presented fraudulent information in 2008 (his selective service card and his certification of live birth), and again in 2009 (his certificate of live birth), he defrauded citizens in all 50 states, including Arizona. If you believe that Sheriff Arpaio does not have jurisdiction to investigate, and that only the Executive branch of the federal government has jurisdiction, please link to something that clearly supports your premise. Even if you are right (which I don’t think you are), how are we supposed to trust an organization that reports to Obama to do a fair and honest investigation?

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 7:23 PM

However, in the massive effort to investigate the birth certificate, Arpaio and his “cold case posse” overlooked one detail:

The investigation relied on volunteers working with an electronic copy of the president’s birth certificate, which is available online, and pointing out inconsistencies with the electronic document. A representative with the Hawaii Attorney General’s Office said no one from the Sheriff’s Office ever requested to inspect or collect documents related to the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate.

The point was to investigate the very things that Obama “released” to the public.

As to the representative with the Hawaii Attorney General’s Office, are they willing to release documents related to the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate, if asked?

The Hawaii Attorney General’s Office was involved in helping Dr. Fukino with her second news release. The July 27, 2009 press release – wherein DoH Director Fukino stated that President Obama “was born in Hawaii” and that he is a “natural-born American citizen” – was reviewed and approved by the Hawaii Attorney General’s office. ( DoH Communications Director Janice Okubo previously revealed such reliance to researcher Justin Riggs.)

Whether an attorney general opinion is formal or informal is a question of law. The Attorney General is governed by law. If the letter is formal under 28-3 then the letter must be disclosed to the public. If the letter is informal under 28-4, then the letter must also be made available to the public when the client/agency voluntarily discloses the conclusions of the advice rendered by counsel.

On July 27, 2009 the DoH disclosed the conclusions of the Attorney General’s opinion. The DoH cannot make secret law. The controlling statutes, case law and OIP opinion letters make it quite clear that the Attorney General opinion rendered to the head of the DoH pertaining to her infamous July 27, 2009 press release must be made available to the public.

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 7:32 PM

I’m no Columbo, but wouldn’t the first step in investigating a potentially fraudulent birth certificate be to check with the issuing authority to see if it matches their records? The state in Hawaii has twice validated Obama’s published birth records, and the Honolulu Advertiser published a notice of Obama’s birth the week these records say it happened, a rather significant piece of contemporaneous evidence that investigators would normally find interesting. Seems to me that an “investigation” might have would-be detectives talking with these officials to see what they know, or at least asking the state to recheck their records.

So, if Sheriff Arpaio has already asked and been denied, or asks now and is denied, what will you say then, Ed?

You are wrong when you claim, “The state in Hawaii has twice validated Obama’s published birth records”. The state of Hawaii has never explicitly validated Obama’s birth records as released to the public.

If I am wrong, please show me exactly where the state of Hawaii has claimed that what Obama released to the public is valid and authentic.

Newspaper birth announcements are not on the list of Accepted Documents for the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. If it’s not acceptable documentation for a Form I-9, why is it acceptable documentation for you? Why do you accept documentation that doesn’t meet the standards of the Form I-9? And oh, by the way, .JPG and .PDF files are not acceptable documentation, either.

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Sadly, this won’t stop the flow of e-mails we’ve been receiving since yesterday afternoon by people convinced that a President who can’t figure out supply and demand in gas prices can put together such a vast conspiracy to hoodwink the American people that it involves elected officials in the state of Hawaii and time travel to put a birth notice in the local paper in 1961. Have fun storming the castle, but the rest of us would rather work on reality-based issues.

So, those who seek hard copy documents that would meet the standards of a Form I-9 (which, by the way, Obama was legally required to provide) are just wasting your time, right Ed?

Your condescension is so strong as to be downright offensive.

We’re just supposed to trust Nancy Pelosi, Dr. Fukino’s carefully parsed news releases (why was the second release necessary, and why was it released hours after the U.S. House of Representatives became the first government body to explicitly state that “Obama, was born in Hawaii”?), and newspaper birth announcements that could have been there as the result of actions by his grandmother (no snarky time travel necessary)? Who is it that is working on reality-based issues (us) and who is it trusting things that are not trusted by a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification (you)?

If it’s not acceptable documentation for a Form I-9, why do you accept it, Ed?

I know that you are a busy man, and you have many other things about which to write, but why do you feel the need to mock those who are merely expecting that in our Constitutional Republic, the Rule of Law should be followed?

“Have fun storming the castle”? We will. And as I recall, storming the castle was eventually successful. :-)

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Update: A good reminder from commenter Tom Servo: “[I]f you remember Rathergate, you will remember that all document certification professionals agree that a copy of an original can *never* be certified as an original or a fake, since too many uncertainties are created by the duplication process. Only the original can be certified; the failure to ask to see the original is pretty good proof that this commission was a joke right from the get-go.” Indeed. One would think professional “investigators” would know this.

As someone commented earlier, a copy of an original can *never* be certified as an original, but it CAN be certified as a a fake. If the copy contains things that would never be found on an authentic original (such as the offset, two-digit year on Obama’s Selective Service registration), then it is a fake.

And since a copy of an original can *never* be certified as an original, why is it that Obama has never “released” any document that CAN be certified as original? Perhaps because he has something to hide? Why do you give him a pass on this, Ed? After all of your reporting on Obama, Ed, do you really trust him? If you don’t trust him on practically anything else, why do you trust him on this? I suspect the answer is that you aren’t really trusting him, you are trusting the statements from Dr. Fukino, without stopping to realize that:

1) Dr. Fukino’s statements are not acceptable documentation for a Form I-9.

2) Dr. Fukino’s statements were based on counsel from the Hawaii attorney general, and the attorney general refused to release the opinion letters behind those statements.

There’s a lot of smoke here, Ed, and you can choose to say that you don’t care, but don’t mock those of us who do care.

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 7:59 PM

cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 6:44 PM

. . . Question 1: Do you believe that at birth, the president’s name was Barack Hussein Obama II? Yes No . . .

(a) It’s not a matter of ‘belief’; the question is, what does the evidence show?

(b) You left out the answer to your questions I’d be most comfortable with at this point: I don’t know.

But I’d like to find out.

MrLynn on March 2, 2012 at 8:01 PM

But I’d like to find out.

MrLynn on March 2, 2012 at 8:01 PM

It’s a heck of a thing then, that you can’t answer “YES” that you know what your president’s legal name is, wouldn’t you say?

Wow….

cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Update II: The state director of health in Hawaii attested to the authenticity of the long-form birth certificate when certified copies were provided to the White House, too:

Correspondence released by the White House shows that Obama wrote a letter on White House stationary on April 22, 2011, authorizing the release of the original birth certificate.

It said, “I am writing to request two certified copies of my original certificate of live birth. With this letter, I hereby authorize my personal counsel, Ms. Judith Corley of Perkins Coie in Washington, D.C. to act on my behalf in providing any additional information or paying any fees required by the Department of Health to fulfill my request. Ms. Corley is also authorized to make any necessary arrangements for delivery of the certified copies from your office.”

That same day, Corley asked the state health director in Hawaii to waive its usual rules and release the original “long form” birth certificate.

“Waiver of the Department’s policy in this instance would allow my client to make a certified copy of his original birth certificate publicly available and would also relieve the burden currently pbeing placed on the Department of Health by the numerous inquiries it receives from the media and others relating to my client’s birth record,” wrote Judith Corley, an attorney at the firm.

Corley, who is based in Washington, apparently traveled to Hawaii. She said in the letter that she would “be coming to your offices to pick up the copies of the certificates.”

On April 25, Loretta Fuddy, the director of health in Hawaii, replied to Obama that she had the authority to approve the release of birth records. “Through that authority, in recognition of our status as President of the United States, I am making an exception to current departmental policy which is to issue a computer-generated certified copy.

“We hope that issuing you these copies of your original Certificate of Live Birth will end the numerous inquiries received by the Hawaii Department of Health to produce this documents. Such inquiries have been disruptive to staff operations and have strained State resources,” Fuddy wrote.

She enclosed the copies Obama requested and said, “I have witnessed the copying of the certificate and attest to the authenticity of these copies.”

Ed,
The state director of health in Hawaii NEVER “attested to the authenticity of the long-form birth certificate” that Obama “released” on the White House web site.

You are trusting that what was released on the White House web site matches what was sent by the state director of health in Hawaii, and that if they didn’t match, she would have spoken up and said so.

THAT IS AN ASSUMPTION.

Is that a safe assumption? You think it is. Many of us here think it is not.

If the image Obama released on the White House web site matches what the State of Hawaii released, then why won’t Obama ask the State of Hawaii to treat that certificate the same was as this certificate and this certificate, and send it, under seal, directly to members of Congress for their inspection?

I would welcome that, becuase then we could finally move past the birth certificate issue and move on to the Constitutional issue of the Supreme Court’s construction of Article II Section 1 in the case of Minor vs. Happersett.

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Let’s change the scenario.

1985:
Q: “Who is the president?”

A: “That guy with the hair.”

Q: “What’s his legal name?”

A: “I don’t know.”

Do you see the basic problem that 0bama’s evasion has set for honestly motivated citizens who smell a rat?

cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Question 1: Do you believe that at birth, the president’s name was Barack Hussein Obama II? Yes No

Question 2: Do you believe that at age 18, the president’s name was Barack Hussein Obama II? Yes No

Question 3: When he was a student at Occidental College in the early ’80s, was his legal name Barack Hussein Obama II? Yes No

Question 4: Do you believe that when he took the oath of office as president, his legal name was Barack Hussein Obama II? Yes No
——————————————————————
cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Okay I’ll play.

Question 1. Yes. Basis: Birth Certificate, statements by Hawaii department of health, publicly availble birth index.
Question 2. Yes. Basis: Selective service form filled out contemporaneously; Interviews from High School friends including Basketball teammates Dan Hal, Alan Lum, and his High School Basketball coach Chris Mclachlin; pictures from his highschool yearbook.
Question 3. Yes. Basis: Disclosure available on Occidental U Website, poems published in Occidental’s literary magazine; excerpts from Columbia University directory, Disclosures from Columbia University.
Question 4. Yes. Basis: Birth Certificate gave his name. No change of name court documents have ever been produced. No adoption records have ever surfaced. There is zero proof that Barack H. Obama II ever legally changed his name at any time in his life.

I’ve provided proof of my beliefs. Maybe you should provide basis for your beliefs.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Do you see the basic problem that 0bama’s evasion has set for honestly motivated citizens who smell a rat?

No, I think you have a mediocre to low IQ and are credulous.

Random on March 2, 2012 at 8:29 PM

No adoption records have ever surfaced.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 8:14 PM

What do you have to say about Obama’s adoption in May 2008?

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Maybe obama is called Barry Soetoro in Breitbart’s tape. Wouldn’t that be a kicker!

tinkerthinker on March 2, 2012 at 8:40 PM

What do you have to say about Obama’s adoption in May 2008?

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Ummm…. His adoption at the age of 47? Did he adopt a child?

Or are you making some assertion that the symbolic adoption by the Crow Nation in Montana in May of 2008 actually changed Obama’s legal name. If so… well you are ill informed on the law.

In your world, should I have disclosed my confirmation name to the bar association and colleges? That has about the same legal weight in changing my name as the indian tribe “adoption” of President Obama in 2008.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Question 2. Yes. Basis: Selective service form filled out contemporaneously; Interviews from High School friends including Basketball teammates Dan Hal, Alan Lum, and his High School Basketball coach Chris Mclachlin; pictures from his highschool yearbook.

New_Jersey_Buckeye

Hey, I just pulled 182 square feet of weeds in the garden in between comments, and need to clean up and go somewhere. I’d like to address all of your points when I get a chance, but for now, can you explain #2 better? I’m not following your syntax.

What do you mean – that there are sworn witnesses who saw him fill out the Selctive Service form in 1980?

Honest question. Your economy of words left your message a bit short of full information transfer.

cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 8:46 PM

The birth certificate is a brilliant diversion. Please put it aside for 2 minutes and consider the following:

Fact #1:
Between 2003 and 2008, eight attempts were made to change the definition of a Natural Born Citizen. Only Rohrbacher is a “GOP” (RINO). NOTE OBAMA’S co-sponsorship of the last 2 in 2008, prior to him being Dem frontrunner in ’08 election.
1) 6-11-03 HJR59 Vic Snyder
2) 9-3-03 HJR67 John Conyers
3) 2-25-04 SB2128 Don Nichols
4) 9-15-04 HJR104 Dana Rohrbacher
5) 1-4-05 HJR2 John Conyers
6) 2-1-05 HJR15 D. Rohrbacher
7) 4-14-05 HJR42 Vic Snyder
8) 2-28-08 S2678 Co-sponsored by BARACK OBAMA, McCaskill & Clinton
9) 4-10-08 SR511 Co-sponsored by BARACK OBAMA, McCaskill & Clinton

The last one, Senate Resolution 511 (SR511) said  therefore be it resolved… John McCain is a natural born citizen since he was born on US military base to 2 US Citizen parents… (PLURAL: CITIZEN PARENTS) That’s two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen by Obama’s own resolution… And yet…

Fact #2:
Obama’s own Senate Resolution is clearly at odds with his self-admitted dual citizenship at birth:

In Obama’s own words (see p. 26 of his autobiography “Dreams from My Father” quoted on his campaign site “Fight the Smears”) his father, BH Obama Sr was a ”British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That SAME ACT GOVERNED the STATUS of Obama Sr.‘s children.” So, his child, Obama Jr was governed by & therefore owed allegiance to the British government. In other words, Jr was subject to the jurisdiction of the British government AT BIRTH- NOT that of the US govt. His status as a British “subject”/citizen was conveyed by his father courtesy of the laws in effect in 1961, when Jr. was born. 

Obama’s self-admitted dual citizenship at birth and the required (by Article 2 Sec 1 Claus 5) status of natural born citizenship at birth are mutually exclusive. Obama, the self-labeled “Constitutional professor” is ineligible, he knows it. So does every thinking American who has not chosen to look the other way while our country is ruined.
.
HotAir management is guilty of self-imposed ignorance.

(BTW: I don’t believe McCain was a natural born citizen either. You can’t legislate it nor aquire nbc status retrospectively.)

NightmareOnKStreet on March 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Maybe obama is called Barry Soetoro in Breitbart’s tape. Wouldn’t that be a kicker!

tinkerthinker on March 2, 2012 at 8:40 PM

I’ll tell you what – if he were interviewed for some student project and did call himself Barry Soetoro, can’t you see the MSM just hacking and heaving like a cat with a stubborn hairball?

It’s a testament to the MSM coverup that maybe 7 out of 100 Americans even know that he ever went by that name, and that it’s not just some invention by far-right haters….

In honor of Andrew Breitbart’s memory, I hope he was sitting on a game-changer.

cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM

In honor of Andrew Breitbart’s memory, I hope he was sitting on a game-changer.

cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM

And I’ll tell you what… for those of you who watched his CPAC speech, didn’t Breitbart have a prankish glow in his eye like the cat who ate the canary? I thought so at the time. He looked like a leprechaun who had found the pot o’ gold and was just teasing before he broke it out. The look in his eye during that speech was unforgettable….. before he died.

cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 8:52 PM

The birth certificate is a brilliant diversion. Please put it aside for 2 minutes and consider the following:

Fact #1:
Between 2003 and 2008, eight attempts were made to change the definition of a Natural Born Citizen. Only Rohrbacher is a “GOP” (RINO). NOTE OBAMA’S co-sponsorship of the last 2 in 2008, prior to him being Dem frontrunner in ’08 election.

that is weird as hell, I’ve always thought. And the fact it was aimed at McCain seemed so… so transparently….Machiavellian.

And yeah, NJ Buckeye, I’m not avoiding you… I want to address you later & am having a hard time pulling myself away to get ready to go. Hot Air can be so addictive…. when so many people glaze over when politics comes up but youse guys don’t ;-)

cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Hey, I just pulled 182 square feet of weeds in the garden in between comments, and need to clean up and go somewhere. I’d like to address all of your points when I get a chance, but for now, can you explain #2 better? I’m not following your syntax.
What do you mean – that there are sworn witnesses who saw him fill out the Selctive Service form in 1980?
Honest question. Your economy of words left your message a bit short of full information transfer.H

Please tell me you are kidding.

Question 2. Yes. Basis: Selective service form filled out contemporaneously; Interviews from High School friends including Basketball teammates Dan Hal, Alan Lum, and his High School Basketball coach Chris Mclachlin; pictures from his highschool yearbook.
New_Jersey_BuckeyeW

Obama’s draft card is part of the proof. As well as the named basketball teammates of Obama and other non-listed, but existent, school friends of his. Plus pictures (and captions/descriptions from his high school yearbook are also among the evidence for 2.

Do you understand now?

Random on March 2, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Fact #1:
Between 2003 and 2008, eight attempts were made to change the definition of a Natural Born Citizen. Only Rohrbacher is a “GOP” (RINO). NOTE OBAMA’S co-sponsorship of the last 2 in 2008, prior to him being Dem frontrunner in ’08 election.
1) 6-11-03 HJR59 Vic Snyder
2) 9-3-03 HJR67 John Conyers
3) 2-25-04 SB2128 Don Nichols
4) 9-15-04 HJR104 Dana Rohrbacher [sic]

(It’s actually spelled, “Rohrabacher.”)

This intrigues me. Rohrabacher grew up in L.A. and was a surfer.

I’m going to go out on a bit of a personal tangent here, but please indulge me:

He was the star pupil and protege of an excellent professor, who was slumming at a local J.C., who later taught me as well a few years later (and, yes to blow my own horn just a toot, he said I was possibly his best poli-sci student since Rohrabacher).

But Rohrabacher has always been a bit…. “off,” in my estimation. He’s closest thing to “B-1″ Bob Dornan in that no one really knows what makes him tick. He has a very conservative record on most issues. He’s also pro-marijuana and unpredictable. My father, a very sober individual, was involved with him for a project, and Dana suddenly blew him off without even an explanation. He’s a mercurial dude.

I am really wondering why he would be involved in this.

He was educated in the L.A. area and also has represented a district in the area for a long time.

It seems to me that he was not in a bad position to learn all about 0bama’s Occidental College history, once 0bama came on the radar as a rising political star. But it makes no sense to me why a noted extreme hawk on illegal immigration would support a bill authorizing immigrants to be president.

cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Or are you making some assertion that the symbolic adoption by the Crow Nation in Montana in May of 2008 actually changed Obama’s legal name. If so… well you are ill informed on the law.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 8:46 PM

It is a fact that Obama went through an adoption ceremony in May 2008.

You claim it was “symbolic” and could not have changed Obama’s legal name. However,

As provided by law (HRS §§338-17.7, 338-20.5), the following persons may apply for an amended certificate of birth:

A person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and

has become legally adopted

Curious that Obama would choose to be adopted in May 2008, isn’t it?

And why was Mary Black Eagle told that she “had to” adopt Barack Obama?

“He called me and said we’re going to have to rush right back,” Mary said. “He said, You’re going to have to adopt Barack Obama.’ ”

Why the urgency? Why was she coerced into doing it?

Did Barry Soetoro use that adoption to change his name to Barack Hussein Obama II?

I don’t know. But I do know that it is suspicious that someone was told they would “have to” “rush right back” and “have to” “adopt Barack Obama”.

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Obama’s draft card is part of the proof. As well as the named basketball teammates of Obama and other non-listed, but existent, school friends of his. Plus pictures (and captions/descriptions from his high school yearbook are also among the evidence for 2.

Do you understand now?

Random on March 2, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Proof of what? I asked whether his legal name at age 18 was Barack Hussein Obama.

Are you telling me that a verified Selective Service card says that his name was Obama? The sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, just announced in his official capacity that it was forged.

So, remove that. Until someone refutes Arpaio, we’ve got law-enforcement saying it’s a forgery. But, are you telling me that the captions in his high-school yearbook say “Obama?”

I don’t have my facts together on that. Have you seen scans of the yearbooks?

If so, then OK, let’s stipulate that at age 18 he was going by Barack Hussein 0bama.

Now, let me ask again.

What was his legal name? I won’t rely on a yearbook or friends for this.

I believe, based upon stories of his adoption, and viewing a scan of his Muslim school registration, that after returning from Indonesia to Hawaii, his legal name in the eyes of the Indonesian government was very likely “Barry Soetoro.”

You do know, don’t you, that his half sister is named Maya Soetoro?

That means that Obama’s mother allowed her husband’s name to be applied to her daughter.

So maybe she lied on the school application in Indonesia. Possible? Yeah it is. But then it establishes her as a liar. Which then brings us back around to who the father was, as Barack looks not one iota the same as Barack, Sr.

Look at the photo of Barack, Sr., and he did not father the Jr. I’ve done enough genealogy to just laugh at that. Those two are not related by blood.

Dang – running late – got to git in the shower and go. 14′ x 13′ of hand-pulled weeds has me very… *earthy*

cane_loader on March 2, 2012 at 9:34 PM

As provided by law (HRS §§338-17.7, 338-20.5), the following persons may apply for an amended certificate of birth:

A person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and

has become legally adopted, or
has undergone a sex change operation, or
a legal determination of the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship for a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file has been made, or
previously recorded information in relation to the person’s surname and/or the father’s personal particulars has been altered pursuant to law.

A person born in a foreign country who has been legally adopted in the State of Hawaii.

Even a certificate of birth doesn’t prove birth in the U.S. if the person was legally adopted later.

One of the things mentioned in the press conference yesterday was that even our own federal government acknowledges that a birth certificate acknowledges that a birth occurred, but the certificate itself is insufficient to prove where that birth occurred. That is why Sheriff Arpaio and the Cold Case Posse have, contrary to Ed Morrissey’s unfounded assertions, asked for the “release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm, and computer birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has.”

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Ed reports that Hawaii’s AG’s office claims that the Cold Case Posse never attempted to obtain records from the State of Hawaii or the purported birth hospital. Sheriff Joe said on Mike Broomhead’s show on Thursday that the requested information was never provided by those sources.

Someone is not being truthful.

Based on the apparent forgeries and an ongoing cover-up from Team Obama, I trust my sheriff’s version of events.

Tom Servo also references the wrong GATE. This is a cover-up that would make Nixon blush and his plumbers die of envy.

headless blogger on March 2, 2012 at 9:54 PM

So, Mr. Morissey, has anybody actually seen either of these two physical copies released by the HDOH? Or are they locked up behind the castle walls?

Skptk on March 3, 2012 at 4:10 AM

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha…

Natural-born citizenship is not determined by where you were born (McCain) but by the citizenship of your parents. Pay attention, please.

Skptk on March 3, 2012 at 4:20 AM

Ed reports that Hawaii’s AG’s office claims that the Cold Case Posse never attempted to obtain records from the State of Hawaii or the purported birth hospital. Sheriff Joe said on Mike Broomhead’s show on Thursday that the requested information was never provided by those sources.

Someone is not being truthful.

Based on the apparent forgeries and an ongoing cover-up from Team Obama, I trust my sheriff’s version of events.

headless blogger on March 2, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Indeed.

The Arizona Republic article to which Ed linked said:

A representative with the Hawaii Attorney General’s Office said no one from the Sheriff’s Office ever requested to inspect or collect documents related to the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate.

While the TV video that Ed embedded above includes slightly different wording:

BIRTHER INVESTIGATION
HAWAII ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE

“No one identifying themselves as investigators from the Maricopa County Sheriffs office ever requested to inspect or collect documents related to authenticity of the birth certificate of President Obama.”

If you parse that statement, it is possible that someone from the Cold Case Posse DID request documents, yet still have that statement from the AG’s office be technically true.

Are members of the Cold Case Posse, who are unpaid volunteers, considered “investigators from the Maricopa County Sheriffs office”?

If a member of the Cold Case Posse requested documents from the State of Hawaii, would they request them from the AG’s office, or from the Department of Health? I think the latter, but the former could still make the claim that no one had asked THE AG’S OFFICE for records.

And, did the Cold Case Posse request original documents, as opposed to “documents related to authenticity of the birth certificate”?

Do you see what I mean?

You MUST parse everything a Democrat says.

It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.

I realize that Ed Morrissey is likely not reading these comments, but his journalistic integrity is on the line here. The picture caption that Ed chose for this story is:

Arpaio: Obama birth certificate is a fraud
March 2, 2012 – 9:15 am
[picture of Sheriff Arpaio]
Hawaii: Arpaio never asked us about it.

Is that true, Ed?

Sheriff Arpaio asserted:

“As I said at the beginning of the investigation, the president can put all this to rest quite easily. All he has to do is demand the Hawaii Department of Health release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm, and computer birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has in its possession.”

ITguy on March 3, 2012 at 3:00 PM

The Arizona Republic article to which Ed linked and the TV news clip which Ed embedded above are case studies in Alinsky journalism.

Not one bit of coverage of what the Cold Case Posse actually found in their investigation.

No, rather the entire purpose of those two pieces is to try to discredit the messenger and ignore the message.

Try paying attention to the actual message Ed, and stop being deceived by the media spin.

And try paying attention to the chain of custody

On April 25, Loretta Fuddy, the director of health in Hawaii, replied to Obama that she had the authority to approve the release of birth records. “Through that authority, in recognition of our status as President of the United States, I am making an exception to current departmental policy which is to issue a computer-generated certified copy.

“We hope that issuing you these copies of your original Certificate of Live Birth will end the numerous inquiries received by the Hawaii Department of Health to produce this documents. Such inquiries have been disruptive to staff operations and have strained State resources,” Fuddy wrote.

She enclosed the copies Obama requested and said, “I have witnessed the copying of the certificate and attest to the authenticity of these copies.”

What Fuddy witnessed is NOT what the White House “released” on their web site. How do I know? Fuddy witnessed and attested to the authenticity of “these copies” (hard copy documents). Fuddy did not witness and attest to the authenticity of the PDF electronic document that was posted on the White House web site.

Ed, you are assuming that the PDF matches the hard copy certificate, and if it didn’t that Fuddy would speak up. That is an assumption. If the PDF matches the hard copy, then why hasn’t Obama allowed anyone to actually inspect the hard copy? Why are we asked to trust a PDF that shows signs of being a bad forgery?

ITguy on March 3, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Real journalists take notice of anomalies like this:

Interestingly, the Cold Case Posse report said, “To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United States, we examined the records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961 [Obama's birth month]. Those records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly, records from the days surrounding Obama’s birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 were these immigration cards cannot be found.”

ITguy on March 3, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Another thought…

Surprisingly, after having teamed up with WND, Arpaio declared that the birth certificate and Obama’s Selective Service registration are fraudulent.

Ed’s disdain for WND is fairly evident.

But many people mocked the National Enquirer’s coverage of the John Edwards scandal… until they were vindicated and shown to be right.

And many people mocked Andrew Breitbart’s coverage of the Anthony Weiner scandal… until Breitbart was vindicated and shown to be right.

I think the same thing will happen in this case… many people have mocked WND’s coverage of the Obama (in)eligibility scandal… until WND is vindicated and shown to be right.

ITguy on March 3, 2012 at 5:49 PM

So, what’s your explanation of the “unique” two-digit year on Obama’s Selective Service registration card?

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 1:49 PM

The Posse argues that someone used a “USPO” 2008 stamp to make the 80. They hypothezise that that the “forger” took the USPO 2008 stamp, deleted the “2″ and first “0″ and then transposed the second “0″ and the “8″.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 2:06 PM

No, not transposed, but rather flipped upside-down. So, a rubber year piece that said ” 2008 “, (spaces indicating the spaces on the stamp itself to keep it centered), was cut in half with a sharp knife, and the half that said “08 ” was flipped upside-down and became ” 80″. When this cut piece was put in the stamp, there was no space to the right of the 0, and the text ended up looking right-justified instead of centered.

So what you end up with is a stamp that is not only missing the first two digits of the year but also with the last two digits of the year in a right-justified alignment that is unlike any other example from THAT SAME POST OFFICE and THAT SAME YEAR.

Watch this video and take note of what you see at the 1:12 mark. Two of those examples are from the same Post Office and same time frame. There is no problem with the appearance of either the first two digits nor the alignment.

Obama’s Selective Service Registration is a POORLY DONE FORGERY.

Well the first problem with that is that I don’t believe there exists any USPO stamps that would have 2008 on them. The USPO became the USPS sometime in the 1970′s or 1980′s. So there could not be any USPO stamps that had 2008.

Whether you believe it or not, the posse clearly stated that they were able to obtain a 2008 stamp from a postal supply company.

I would find it plausible that perfectly servicable “USPO” hand stamps (the kind you can change the date and year by hand) would be used for several years even after the USPO convereted to the USPS. However, I don’t see how a USPO hand stamp that would have the first two years of “20″ could have been produced. The USPO had not been used for some 2-3 decades before the turn of the millenium.

Don’t tell us about what you believe, or what you find plausible, or what you do or don’t see. Are you accusing the Cold Case Posse of lying? If so, where is your evidence? It’s easy to believe that the stamps themselves, as well as the month and day pieces, would be available to anyone that used and/or collected them. The only real question would be whether or not the posse in 2011/2012 could have obtained a 2008 piece for the year. They were able to obtain that and reproduce the kind of image which appears on Obama’s Selective Service Registration.

The more sane conclusion

Ok, Alinsky. Anyone who doesn’t think like you is “less sane”, eh? Stop the ad hominem and stick to the facts.

is that the ink didn’t spread to the “1″ and “9″ on the hand stamp or they have been rubbed down so that they didn’t make an impression.

… Except that examples from that same post office and time period don’t have any issues, so what’s your next excuse?

But keep up with the birther conspiracy. It was a winner for the 9/11 truthers and the roswell crowd. Maybe you should look into “sovereign citizen” and the “gold fringe flag” conspiracies while you are at it. Those seem to go hand in hand with all the birther lawsuits I’ve seen.

Alinsky 101. Is that the best you can do?

ITguy on March 3, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Investigators now in hunt for forger

ITguy on March 4, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Now that HotAir is owned by Townhall, readers may want to compare Ed’s coverage of this press conference to that of some of his peers.

Townhall –> Columnists –> Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Exposes Forgery of Obama’s Selective Service Registration

ITguy on March 4, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Townhall –> Columnists –> Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Exposes Forgery of Obama’s Selective Service Registration

Having just attended Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse” news conference in Phoenix, Arizona, we candidly admit we have never seen a greater example of raw media bias in our 30 years of watching the fourth estate.

In less than an hour, Arpaio’s team laid out a compelling case that individuals working under the President of the United States have engaged in criminal forgery. And most interestingly, the case isn’t just about Obama’s birth certificate.

The case against Obama was made with simple, clear videos describing the techniques the forgers used to falsifying important documents released by Obama’s team. It was obvious that the law enforcement professionals doing the actual investigation are real pros. If you want the details of the techniques used you can watch the videos on Westernjournalism.com.

The Arpaio team devastated the legitimacy of Obama’s purported birth certificate from Hawaii. The investigation by document forensic experts systematically showed how the document could not be real and is part of a criminal conspiracy to commit fraud.

But we found the most interesting information presented to have nothing to do with the Obama nativity story. Instead it had to do with the selective service records. Forensic document analysis proved this document was also a forgery. Intensive documentation proving that Postal indicia on the form was forged was particularly damaging, as this type of postal fraud is a federal felony.

In the days ahead, it will be interesting to see if the mainstream media provides any coverage of the event’s allegations. Sitting in the room we were overwhelmed by the professionalism of these sworn officers of the law. They clearly used the best experts in their investigation. Finally a legitimate law enforcement official has looked at the evidence and found, as Arpaio said, “probable cause that a felony has been committed.”

Going forward, Arpaio said that he would continue to investigate… over 200 sworn depositions by witnesses in the case, including a witness that, when he met Barack Obama was introduced to him, as a foreign exchange student.

ITguy on March 4, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Obama’s team responded with ridicule, not answers. His campaign tweeted links to an old episode of the X-Files TV show. But ridicule in the face of legitimate questions only works so long.

Citizens are still daring to ask questions about Obama. And by doing it you face certain ridicule, name calling and being treated as children. Even when you may be asking legitimate questions, which have been routinely asked of presidential candidates in the past or have been asked of Republican candidates this year, you are censured.

As WND.com has reported, “Poll after poll in recent months has indicated that Americans have a high level of concern over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president; with one poll showing fully half of the nation wants Congress to investigate the question.” But to date, nothing has been done.

Let’s hope the US Congress can have the courage of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

ITguy on March 4, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6