The Phantom Birth Certificate

My doubts in this post have been retract­ed. Thanks for the live­ly discussion!

Whet­her or not Barack Oba­ma has ever pro­vid­ed defin­i­tive proof that he is in fact a nat­ur­al born Unit­ed States cit­i­zen is up for debate, and right­ly so: If he is not a nat­ur­al born cit­i­zen, then he is a usurp­er to the office of Pres­i­dent. Most of what I’ve read would seem to indi­cate that while there is cer­tain­ly evi­dence of his hav­ing been born in Hawaii, his actu­al, orig­i­nal birth cer­tifi­cate has nev­er been pro­duced for the record.

I doubt the debate is going to go away any­time soon — it may even be dis­cussed long after he leaves office. It’s already get­ting a bit old hear­ing about it (and you’re wel­come for bring­ing it up here at KingdomGeek). 

When I hired in at Wal­mart, I had to pro­vide proof of who I was, that I was eli­gi­ble to work in the Unit­ed States. I’ve had a few jobs, and most of them have had that require­ment. None of those that had the require­ment would accept indi­rect proof; if they asked for a state iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, that is what I was required to present.

So why is it that a man can achieve the high­est office in the land (and one of the most sig­nif­i­cant in the world) with­out pro­vid­ing a birth cer­tifi­cate to prove the con­di­tions of his birth? Seems like the sim­plest thing in the world for the Democ­rats to do to shut Repub­li­cans up about the issue. 

The whole thing reminds me of the Romans and the Jew­ish elite almost 2,000 years ago. They assert­ed that Jesus Christ was dead, gone, and that Chris­tians were whol­ly mis­guid­ed; some Jews, such as Paul, took to slaugh­ter­ing Chris­tians for their mis­guid­ed ways.

Yet for all their actions, all their efforts against the claims of Chris­tian­i­ty, they nev­er did the one thing that would have for­ev­er shut them up: pro­duc­ing the body of Jesus Christ.

In the case of the Romans and Jews, they nev­er pro­duced the body because there was no body to pro­duce. Jesus had come back from the dead, con­quer­ing the grave and even­tu­al­ly ascend­ing body and all to Heaven.

So what about it, Democ­rats? Is there a valid birth cer­tifi­cate for the Obames­si­ah? Just pro­duce it already, shut­ting up the naysay­ers, at least so far as that issue is concerned.

Oh, but wait, a birth cer­tifi­cate has been pro­duced — and I say “pro­duced” know­ing that it either means they have pre­sent­ed the cer­tifi­cate as evi­dence or they man­u­fac­tured it. It isn’t a secret that lib­er­als tend to man­u­fac­ture so-called evi­dence often enough, espe­cial­ly if such “evi­dence” sticks it to the Chris­tians; you may remem­ber the tomb of Jesus hoax from just two years ago, or per­haps the Pilt­down Man would be a more rec­og­niz­able hoax — chances are good you were taught it as fact in your sci­ence classes.

Is This a Legitimate Copy of Obama’s Birth Certificate?
Is This a Legit­i­mate Copy of Obama’s Birth Certificate?

I found this image of a pos­si­ble Barack Oba­ma birth cer­tifi­cate on Poli­ti­Fact. Is this a gen­uine birth cer­tifi­cate or just anoth­er Pilt­down Man?

Curi­ous, I looked up Hawai­ian birth cer­tifi­cates on Flickr, and sure enough, there have been sev­er­al pho­tographs shared of such cer­tifi­cates. Two of which were obvi­ous fakes — one for John McCain, who was not born in Hawaii, and anoth­er done up for some­one’s dog, I think.

Is it strange that the obvi­ous fakes have more of a resem­blance to Oba­ma’s than do gen­uine cer­tifi­cates, such as Alam­ok­i­hana Hookano’s?

Grant­ed, I only have the image of the sup­posed birth cer­tifi­cate to go by — a copy of a copy — and it’s obvi­ous­ly been altered — the cer­tifi­cate num­ber has been cen­sored — despite the dec­la­ra­tion at the bot­tom that alter­ations ren­der the copy invalid.

Even ignor­ing the self-inval­i­da­tion of what has been pre­sent­ed as evi­dence, the image bears none of the marks of being a legit­i­mate birth cer­tifi­cate… It shows no signs of ever hav­ing been han­dled — no folds, no creas­es… And it bears no evi­dence of hav­ing been stamped or embossed on its reverse side, even though this is vis­i­ble on the legit­i­mate cer­tifi­cates such as Hookano’s.

Maybe it’s a legit­i­mate birth cer­tifi­cate — every Obamapol­o­gist and Oba­ma­colyte view­ing this will no doubt say it is — but I don’t think dis­miss­ing a self-inval­i­dat­ing copy of a copy is too unrea­son­able, nor is hop­ing that a long form birth cer­tifi­cate (the above copy of a copy is of what is known as a “short form” cer­tifi­cate) with an offi­cial stamp or seal (or bet­ter, the orig­i­nal) is released for examination.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

79 responses to “The Phantom Birth Certificate”

  1. Thesis Customer Avatar
    Thesis Customer

    You need to make a deci­sion on whether your blog will focus on The­sis and the good­will you have gen­er­at­ed from your valu­able advice and par­tic­i­pa­tion or whether your blog will focus on under­e­d­u­cat­ed Crazy Chris­t­ian conspiracies.

    You are in dan­ger in tor­pe­do­ing your rep­u­ta­tion in the tech world with idi­ot­ic posts like the one above. One more post like this one and you are gone from my RSS reader.

    Does Chris Pear­son believe this crap as well?

    1. Rick Beckman Avatar

      Of my five most recent posts, only one was about The­sis. Of my 944 posts, I’d be sur­prised if even 44 were about The­sis. Like­wise, my tagline is “…on The­ol­o­gy and Oth­er Stuff,” not “The­sis and Noth­ing Else.”

      Chris and I share a com­mon vision for The­sis, but what he posts at Pear­son­i­fied and what I post here at King­domGeek are our own ideas. Please vis­it my Dis­claimers page for clarification.

      If you want to sub­scribe to just my blog­ging news and tips and what­ev­er, then use the appro­pri­ate feed; it’s most­ly free from my sociopo­lit­i­cal rants, jour­nal entries, and the­o­log­i­cal musings. ;)

  2. The Intellectual Redneck Avatar

    Oba­ma’s birth record was men­tioned at CPAC(video) When Accu­ra­cy in Medi­a’s Cliff Kin­caid ques­tioned whether Oba­ma was born in the US, the crowd broke into applause. Oba­ma sup­port­ers and a few con­ser­v­a­tives have tried to degrade Amer­i­cans who believe it is impor­tant to see Barack Oba­ma’s orig­i­nal birth record. They have labeled this group as “birthers” and called them a fringe group. Based on the applause to Cliff Kin­caid’s state­ment, this group is a lot more main­stream than they would like to admit.

  3. Senior Avatar
    Senior

    That you post this just makes me sad.

  4. Sandi Avatar
    Sandi

    I’ve been wait­ing so long for a post that was­n’t geeky, but now I have no com­ment. You know my opin­ion on Pres­i­dent Obama.

  5. Tom K. Avatar

    If you want to main­tain your cred­i­bil­i­ty and per­ceived san­i­ty from your read­ers then I strong­ly rec­om­mend you delete your post. What kind of crazi­ness do you sub­scribe to? This is lunatic fringe stuff. Your tech­ni­cal prowess with The­sis is appre­ci­at­ed. Your wild­ly debunked claims about Oba­ma are embar­rass­ing. Good Lord man you are destroy­ing your rep­u­ta­tion with these lies.

    1. Rick Beckman Avatar

      Your con­cerns are not­ed, but rep­u­ta­tion isn’t some­thing I’m par­tic­u­lar­ly wor­ried about. Feel free to browse through the 900+ posts here, and you’ll find plen­ty that will wreck your opin­ion of me. I’ve nev­er shied away from writ­ing what I believe, regard­less of who or what group I offend.

      1. Tom K. Avatar

        OK Rick.…..but.…..reputation does mat­ter. If some­one has a rep­u­ta­tion as a drunk, being promis­cu­ous, a thief, a liar, a cheat, a fraud, etc, etc, then it will haunt them and neg­a­tive­ly impact their lives. On the oth­er hand if some­one has the rep­u­ta­tion of being kind, gen­er­ous, thought­ful, intel­li­gent, char­i­ta­ble, fun­ny, charm­ing, etc, etc, etc, then it will pos­i­tive­ly impact their lives. 

        Some of the fringe Oba­ma para­noia you’re writ­ing about is up there with Tom Cruise and his out­landish ideas wrought from Scientology. 

        Your views are your own right or wrong.….but.….reputation is important. 

        All the best to you sir,
        Tom K.

        1. Rick Beckman Avatar

          Again, your con­cerns are not­ed, and thank you for them; if some­how this post harms my rep­u­ta­tion, so be it, but I would be dis­hon­est (and miss a great blog post and com­ments dis­cus­sion) if I did­n’t post even my “fringe” ideas.

          I made this blog post not to win points with any­one but to add my small voice to those who would like the debate set­tled once and for all — not by appeal­ing to author­i­ty, which does­n’t real­ly prove any­thing, but by pro­duc­ing the first­hand evi­dence itself.

          Maybe it’ll nev­er sur­face. I know that’s a very real pos­si­bil­i­ty, and I’m not fool enough to think that actu­al­ly proves any­thing. How­ev­er, it does leave leave that one aspect of Oba­ma’s life and career shroud­ed in mys­tery, at the very least for some of those who are already con­vinced his ascent to pow­er is a “sign of the times,” so to speak.

          The post was made sim­ply to give peo­ple some­thing to think about if they want or to respond to the con­cerns I have with the short-form cer­tifi­cate which was released. Sure, that may not have hap­pened too much yet, but I still had fun writ­ing it. That’s some­thing, right? :D

          1. Tom K. Avatar

            These thread­ed com­ments are ter­rif­ic. Post­ing issues such as this do get things rock­ing. You’re get­ting a lot of very inter­est­ing com­ments. That’s always a very good thing.

            With respect,
            Tom K.

  6. lukemcgook Avatar
    lukemcgook

    A ques­tion for Tom K. and the The­sis shop­per, who are so solic­i­tous of their host’s rep­u­ta­tion: Why do you think Oba­ma is so reluc­tant to release the orig­i­nal doc­u­ment? He’s gone to great lengths to con­ceal it, after all. What would be the like­li­est rea­son for that, in your opinion?

    1. Tom K. Avatar

      This insane top­ic ranks up there with nut­ty claims that Amer­i­can’s land­ing on the moon nev­er hap­pened. It was all staged in a stu­dio. Or.…..the World Trade cen­ter being destroyed was an inside job and were in fact blow up with bombs inside the struc­tures and those pesky jets that were filmed and wit­nessed by untold amounts of peo­ple had noth­ing to do with the tow­ers falling. It’s all whack job con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry madness.

      Politi­co did an arti­cle about this today: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19450.html

      Here is a snip­pet from the article. 

      A quick real­i­ty check, before we dive in: The chal­lenges to Oba­ma’s eli­gi­bil­i­ty have no ground­ing in evi­dence. Courts across the coun­try have sum­mar­i­ly reject­ed the move­men­t’s the­o­ry — that Oba­ma can’t be a cit­i­zen because his father was­n’t —as a mis­read­ing of U.S. law; and Hawaii offi­cials, along with con­tem­po­rary birth announce­ments, affirm that Oba­ma was in fact born in Hon­olu­lu in 1961.

      But belief in obscure, dis­cred­it­ed the­o­ries is a con­stant in a coun­try with a his­to­ry of par­ti­san divi­sion — a coun­try in which, a recent sur­vey showed, 34 per­cent of the pub­lic believes in UFOs and 24 per­cent believes in witches..

      1. Rick Beckman Avatar

        I’ve heard some inter­est­ing things about the 911 attacks, but I believe ’em about as much as I believe a Michael Moore flick. Still, you’ve mis­rep­re­sent­ed the “fringe” view; peo­ple don’t believe that the jets had noth­ing to do with the tow­ers falling. On the con­trary, they believe that the gov­ern­ment knew enough in advance about the attacks to rig the tow­ers to explode and col­lapse com­plete­ly, or some­thing to that effect. Hard to browse YouTube at all with­out com­ing across some video that starts off inno­cent­ly enough only to turn into a 911 con­spir­a­cy — it’s worse than the Rick Roll!

      2. lukemcgook Avatar
        lukemcgook

        Hawaii offi­cials, along with con­tem­po­rary birth announce­ments, affirm that Oba­ma was in fact born in Hon­olu­lu in 1961.

        Two points here.

        1) A news­pa­per birth announce­ment is about as use­ful as bronzed booties for ver­i­fy­ing the cir­cum­stances of the O’s birth.

        2) No Hawai­ian offi­cial has gone beyond con­firm­ing the exis­tence of the doc­u­ment. The meme that an offi­cial some­one has con­firmed O’s birth in Hon­olu­lu starts with an AP claim that is found nowhere in their orig­i­nal report­ing of the “sealed” announce­ment. See if you can find the name of the Hawai­ian offi­cial ver­i­fy­ing a Hawai­ian birth. You won’t be able to. Had you fol­lowed the sto­ry, you’d know that a Hawai­ian birth cer­tifi­cate can be filed by peo­ple born else­where — in Kenya, say.

        Now, back to the ques­tion. Why is it that Oba­ma will not release the orig­i­nal birth cer­tifi­cate? Just your opin­ion. I’m sure you have an opinion.

        1. Tom K. Avatar

          lukemcgook.….I have but one ques­tion for you regard­ing the alle­ga­tions you make in 2). What is your source?

          1. lukemcgook Avatar
            lukemcgook

            LOL No, no. You’re unclear on the con­cept here. You’re the one claim­ing that a Hon­olu­lu birth has been offi­cial­ly con­firmed. Source it.

            1. Rick Beckman Avatar

              Hey, Luke. I did some search­ing on my own and found this arti­cle which does cite by name a Hawai­ian offi­cial, but I’m uncon­vinced that is enough. The Roman Catholic Church has bil­lions tricked into think­ing it’s a Chris­t­ian insti­tu­tion, so I don’t find it far fetched at all that a doc­u­ment can be pro­duced that is able to dupe a Hawai­ian offi­cial. Most notable was that the arti­cle did not men­tion that he ver­i­fied the short-form cer­tifi­cate against the original.

              What’s the point of main­tain­ing orig­i­nal birth cer­tifi­cates if they aren’t used for any­thing, espe­cial­ly some­thing on the scale of ver­i­fy­ing one’s eli­gi­bil­i­ty for the high­est office in the land.

              1. lukemcgook Avatar
                lukemcgook

                1) You’re right to be uncon­vinced. Dr. Fuki­no ver­i­fies the exis­tence of the orig­i­nal doc­u­ment and explains why she can­not present­ly release it. She does not say any­thing about the “cer­ti­fied” infor­ma­tion, includ­ing the place of birth. She prob­a­bly can’t, with­out per­mis­sion, even if the vault copy says “Hon­olu­lu, dammit!” But this appears to be the state­ment on which the claim of an offi­cial­ly con­firmed Hawai­ian birth is always based.

                2) Hey, watch it. I’m Catholic.

                1. Rick Beckman Avatar

                  Exact­ly my point. The entire defense of his being a native born Amer­i­can is based on noth­ing more than sec­ond or third-hand sources.

                  I’ve debat­ed with a fair few lib­er­als on a vari­ety of issues, and I notice they are always quick to demand first­hand evi­dence of claims, so the want of first­hand evi­dence is by no means an unrea­son­able desire.

                  I also notice lib­er­als who I’ve debat­ed often make ques­tion just what it would take for me to give up my faith, just what evi­dence would be required, to which I often respond­ed that it would require the body of Jesus of Nazareth to be dis­cov­ered and con­clu­sive­ly proven to be valid (this because Paul declared the foun­da­tion of all Chris­t­ian belief to be the res­ur­rec­tion of Christ). And here again, in order to be con­vinced of Barack Oba­ma’s eli­gi­bil­i­ty to serve as Pres­i­dent, all I’d like is first­hand evi­dence to be presented.

                  I’m throw­ing the lib­er­als a bone here — a piece of paper less than half a cen­tu­ry old is far eas­i­er to pro­duce than a near­ly 2,000 year old body (espe­cial­ly con­sid­er­ing it is today in Heav­en, not in some tomb wait­ing for Indi­ana Jones or Lara Croft to stum­ble upon it).

              2. Tom K. Avatar

                So much for “judge not lest ye be judged”. 

                I’m Catholic.

                1. Rick Beckman Avatar

                  “Judge not lest ye be judged” refers to hyp­o­crit­i­cal judg­ment (else­where, Jesus and numer­ous oth­ers encour­age and demand dis­cern­ment and judg­ment of what is right and wrong); I base my opin­ion on the Catholic Church on first­hand com­par­i­son of the Cat­e­chism and the Scrip­tures, and I wel­come Catholics to hold me to that exact same stan­dard, if they so choose.

                  1. Tom K. Avatar

                    That is a com­plete and utter mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the Bible.

                    1. Rick Beckman Avatar

                      Which part? The part about judg­ing being okay, so long as it is not rash or hyp­o­crit­i­cal? That would be the his­tor­i­cal under­stand­ing of the verse… (If we’re sup­posed to wor­ship in spir­it and in truth, then implied is that we are to judge what is not spir­it and what is not truth so that we can avoid them.) Even the Catholic Church judges, which is inher­it in the Cat­e­chis­m’s affir­ma­tion that sal­va­tion is found only with­in the Church, which implies that Protes­tants, East­ern Ortho­dox mem­bers, and so on are out­side the sphere of salvation.

            2. Tom K. Avatar

              Just as I sus­pect­ed. Your sources are lunatic fringe ele­ments you are too embar­rassed to name. 

              Have some fun and read this whacked out site: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
              It’s right up your alley.

              1. lukemcgook Avatar
                lukemcgook

                Sor­ry, you’re now say­ing that you’ve found Hawai­ian offi­cials’ con­fir­ma­tion of Oba­ma’s birth in Hawaii? Please explain, so that we can set­tle the “nat­ur­al born cit­i­zen” issue once and for all.

                1. Tom K. Avatar

                  Ummm.…..huh?

                  1. lukemcgook Avatar
                    lukemcgook

                    So, to sum up, we have no orig­i­nal birth cer­tifi­cate pub­licly avail­able and won’t have one with­out Oba­ma’s per­mis­sion or a court order. We have the COLB, first pub­lished, I think, on Kos, that very mod­el of non-par­ti­san­ship. Whether the COLB is forged is dis­put­ed, but it’s not clear that it would be dis­pos­i­tive, even if authen­tic. Offi­cials of the State of Hawaii have con­firmed that an orig­i­nal birth cer­tifi­cate exists but have said noth­ing about its con­tents. We know that it is pos­si­ble to be born elswhere and still have a birth cer­tifi­cate on file in Hawaii. What’s so frakkin com­pli­cat­ed? We won’t know where this clown was born until he releas­es his birth cer­tifi­cate or some­one with the req­ui­site legal stand­ing (Mil­i­tary? State offi­cial?) forces him to release it.

                    1. Tom K. Avatar

                      So you think the Pres­i­dent of Unit­ed States of Amer­i­ca is a clown? 

                      Here’s a good home page for you: http://www.newsmax.com/index.html

  7. Dave C Avatar

    Hi Rick

    I got a kick out of these replies. It tru­ly is sad how many peo­ple will­ing­ly take our con­sti­tu­tion to the shred­der. There is exact­ly three qual­i­fi­ca­tions for some­one to be pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States. 

    35 years old
    have lived here for the past 14 years
    nat­ur­al born cit­i­zen of the US

    I think at the VERY LEAST is not too much to ask for ver­i­fi­ca­tion of these three qualifications. 

    ALSO men and women have and will con­tin­ue to die for peo­ples right to voice and opin­ion. I sug­gest tak­ing some time to read our con­sti­tu­tion, YOUR life as you know it DEPENDS on it! 

    Dave

    1. Tom K. Avatar

      From the Politi­co article: 

      The con­ser­v­a­tive talk show host (and Born Again Chris­t­ian) Michael Medved recent­ly referred to the move­men­t’s lead­ers as “crazy, nut­burg­er, dem­a­gogue, mon­ey-hun­gry, exploita­tive, irre­spon­si­ble, filthy con­ser­v­a­tive imposters” who are “the worst ene­my of the con­ser­v­a­tive movement.”

      “It makes us look weird. It makes us look crazy. It makes us look dement­ed. It makes us look sick, trou­bled, and not suit­able for civ­i­lized com­pa­ny,” he mourned.

      Medved makes a good point. The nut­ti­er the Oba­ma haters sound the bet­ter it is for Obama. 

      Keep the flames burn­ing folks. The Pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States of Amer­i­ca Barack Oba­ma loves this stuff. :)

      1. Rick Beckman Avatar

        Yep, ad hominem rant­i­ngs… That’ll show us. :D

      2. lukemcgook Avatar
        lukemcgook

        Oops, looks like Tom K. was right.

        http://a4cgr.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/obama-birth-certificate.jpg

        My bad.

      3. Scott Avatar

        Michael Medved is not a born again Chris­t­ian, he is a Jew. 

        Again, the attempt to gen­er­al­ize conservatives.

        And by the way, Medved is no conservative.

  8. Scott Avatar

    Good job man! When the “intel­li­gen­cia” starts threat­en­ing you with the lose of your “cred­i­bil­i­ty”, you know you are on to some­thing. See, there’s a gen­uine inter­est in sup­press­ing news among some. 

    But the point is valid: Just pro­duce the doc­u­ment (I know where mine is, why does­n’t he?) and every­one will have to shut up about it. Keep stonewalling, and you keep the “sto­ry” going.

    Well done and well said.

    1. Tom K. Avatar

      That’s the point. Pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States of Amer­i­ca Oba­ma and his team want to sto­ry to keep going. It’s makes the oppo­si­tion (ie the Repub­li­can par­ty) look like a bunch of nut cases.….thus drown­ing out any “nor­mal” ideas the par­ty may have. 

      Keep the fire burning.….…..please. :)

      1. Rick Beckman Avatar

        Of course you’d say that… If we all just shut up about it, than the fraud would nev­er be found out, which is def­i­nite­ly in Oba­ma’s favor. ;)

  9. Kukas Avatar
    Kukas

    Your reli­gion appears to be noth­ing more than a veil for your van­i­ty, is that true?

    1. Rick Beckman Avatar

      Not sure who you’re talk­ing about, but if you are talk­ing about me, then I’m not sure how faith in Jesus Christ is even “reli­gion,” let alone a veil. One can­not boast in Christ and be full of van­i­ty; it’s a con­tra­dic­tion of states.

  10. mark Avatar
    mark

    Your argu­ments on this Birth Cert are wingnutia.

    Mul­ti­ple fact check orga­ni­za­tions have sent teams to Hawaii to see the orig­i­nal doc­u­ment, includ­ing right wing groups. They all came away believ­ing they saw the gen­uine arti­cle. Wikipedia did a good job con­sol­i­dat­ing those stud­ies. You don’t have to believe Wikipedia though, because Wikipedia has all the links to all the groups that actu­al­ly looked into this.

    Plus, the local news­pa­per had a birth announce­ment for the Barack baby. Forg­ing this doc­u­ment, on micro­film at NUMEROUS Hawai­ian libraries would be near impos­si­ble to get away with. 

    Could this birth announce­ment have been put in the Hawai­ian paper from Kenya. Yeah, it could. But that would mean that the con­spir­a­cy to put Barack in the White House pre­ced­ed his birth.

    No, the only rea­son this sto­ry con­tin­ues to gen­er­ate blog posts is because the wing nuts are every­where. This is sad because from read­ing a num­ber of posts above, Rick Beck­man once had a degree of credibility.

    The tin foil hats are every­where these days.

    1. Rick Beckman Avatar

      Could you point to *any* source that says the orig­i­nal birth cer­tifi­cate has been viewed by any­one? Every­thing I’ve read — on Wikipedia or else­where — states that the orig­i­nal birth cer­tifi­cate is sealed and that no one can view it unless the O him­self, his fam­i­ly, or the like say it’s okay, which they have not. Instead, they have giv­en us a short-form dupli­cate that not only lacks any sort of offi­cial stamp or seal (which would be the hard part of forge, I would think), but does­n’t even have a cer­tifi­cate num­ber view­able for fur­ther investigation.

      I look for­ward to your sources that say the orig­i­nal birth cer­tifi­cate has been viewed by all these dif­fer­ent fact check­ing groups; I’d hate to think that you’d be the one to lose cred­i­bil­i­ty by mak­ing up stuff in defense of the O. ;)

  11. mark Avatar
    mark

    Rick,

    I have no inter­est in debat­ing this with you. I have noth­ing to prove to you or any­one else. You are the one with a nut­ty contention. 

    When you come up with an expla­na­tion for why the local news­pa­per in Hawaii print­ed a birth announce­ment for a baby boy born to the Oba­ma’s by the name of Barack Hussien, then I’ll con­sid­er wast­ing my time on this.

    1. Rick Beckman Avatar

      A local news­pa­per men­tioned the birth because some­one want­ed it men­tioned — as has been men­tioned else­where, you don’t have to be born in Hon­olu­lu to have your birth announced.

      Sim­i­lar­ly, in my local news­pa­per, I see announce­ments all the time — wed­dings, anniver­saries, deaths, what-have-you — for events that hap­pened else­where but which had rea­son (local ties, promi­nent cit­i­zen, what­ev­er) to be announced in the local paper.

      Regard­less of all of that, you could at least admit your mis­takes in your ini­tial post regard­ing the mul­ti­ple agen­cies ver­i­fy­ing the orig­i­nal birth cer­tifi­cate, events which you claimed to have been ver­i­fi­able on Wikipedia; absolute­ly none of it was true (and that real­ly is ver­i­fi­able on Wikipedia), so why not admit you were wrong and learn from the mis­take? No rea­son to run from it. After all, we’re all friends here.

  12. lukemcgook Avatar
    lukemcgook

    Re mark’s arguments

    1) The Wikipedia arti­cle on “Oba­ma Cit­i­zen­ship Con­spir­a­cy The­o­ries” men­tions FactCheck­’s view­ing of the COLB, but nowhere claims that “mul­ti­ple” orga­ni­za­tions, nor any inves­ti­ga­tor at all, have seen the orig­i­nal birth cer­tifi­cate. Rick has already not­ed this, I see.

    2) The only birth announce­ment I’d been aware of was in the Adver­tis­er, but evi­dent­ly an iden­ti­cal announce­ment appeared in the Star-Bul­letin. These items, which do not include place of birth, would have been pro­vid­ed by the Health Depart­ment. In Hawaii, in 1961 — per some inves­tiga­tive work by a PUMA activist, bless her, who seems to have done her job months before the MSM deigned to do theirs — the papers received infor­ma­tion week­ly direct from the state agency. In oth­er words, these were not paid announce­ments of the type more com­mon now, and prob­a­bly more com­mon in 1961. There was a birth cer­tifi­cate on file with­in a few days of the Incar­na­tion. How­ev­er, accord­ing to cur­rent Hawai­ian law, a birth cer­tifi­cate can be com­plet­ed, or at least “sub­stan­tial­ly” com­plet­ed by “any per­son hav­ing knowl­edge of the birth” … like a proud new grand­par­ent, or one wor­ried about an ille­git­i­mate birth or future cus­tody issues. I do not know, nor have I been able to google up, info on what the law was in 1961, but my hunch is that its pro­vi­sions were even more casu­al fifty years ago, before we all hat­ed each oth­er, and my hunch is stronger for not hav­ing seen any evi­dence in the sin­istros­phere of the law’s hav­ing changed. 

    In short, there’s noth­ing that’s been said by the Oid con­tin­gent that makes me won­der any less about the rea­sons for the sup­pres­sion of the birth certificate.

  13. mark Avatar
    mark

    “sup­pres­sion”?

    I recent­ly went to get a copy of my birth cer­tifi­cate for legal rea­sons. I went to the town hall and watched from the counter as the clerk pho­to­copied my orig­i­nal. I guess it was my orig­i­nal. She then sent that com­put­er doc­u­ment to a ded­i­cat­ed print­er that had fan­cy paper in it, she then embossed it with some offi­cial seal, she then stamped sig­na­tures on it and put it in an enve­lope and gave it to me. I paid my fee.
    That birth cer­tifi­cate is legal in all states for all pur­pos­es. Barack­’s birth cer­tifi­cate that is avail­able online is an exam­ple of that type cer­tifi­cate. It is a legal doc­u­ment. The only peo­ple who ques­tion the legit­i­ma­cy of this doc­u­ment are the ones who wear tin hats. The state of Hawaii requires that any­one who wants to see the orig­i­nal can if they have a legit­i­mate rea­son. Appar­ent­ly, pleas­ing the tin hat crowd does not meet that cri­te­ria. I say good for them because I’m sure see­ing it won’t be enough. Next you’ll want the video­tape of the birth itself.

    This issue has been tak­en up by the US Supreme Court who have found your case want­i­ng. Our Con­sti­tu­tion has pro­vi­sions for a con­tro­ver­sial Pres­i­den­tial elec­tion. In Gore v Bush, the Supremes decid­ed to ignore the Con­sti­tu­tion and cre­ate a new pro­ce­dure. I find that case “want­i­ng”. But what I find, just as what you won­der about, is irrelevant.

    Good­bye.

    1. Rick Beckman Avatar

      You’ll note that the so-called Oba­ma birth cer­tifi­cate has no offi­cial seal or emboss­ing of any kind. On sim­i­lar Hawai­ian short-form cer­tifi­cates avail­able on Flickr, the seal is clear­ly vis­i­ble, slight­ly bleed­ing through from the back side.

      Oba­ma’s short form lacks the stamp, which adds to my dis­trust of the doc­u­ment. As it is, any­one with some fan­cy sta­tionery could print the thing up. Obvi­ous­ly, not just any­one would be able to seal it… which is my point, I guess.

  14. lukemcgook Avatar
    lukemcgook

    So long. But if you do come up with a good rea­son for sup­press­ing the birth cer­tifi­cate, please come back and tell us.

  15. mark Avatar
    mark

    Accord­ing to FactCheck.org, the short form they exam­ined is embossed and matchs the birth certs from the time period.

    You cite Flickr? Seri­ous­ly? You cite Flickr?

    I did a quick inter­net search and found dozens of pics that had the embossed seal on the so called — entire­ly legal — short form.

    I can’t believe I keep com­ing back to this whacko site.

    1. Rick Beckman Avatar

      Could you link to a pic­ture of the short-form that clear­ly reveals the seal? The pic­ture in the post above does­n’t reveal a seal any­where that I can see, and I got it from a fact-check­ing site.

      Also, I fail to see how it would match forms from the time peri­od of his birth… It’s clear­ly a 2001 form (Novem­ber of 2001, actu­al­ly, based on the revi­sion date in the fine print.)

      And I cite Flickr because I don’t real­ly have any oth­er sources for peo­ple’s birth cer­tifi­cates; I go there, and plen­ty of peo­ple have post­ed pics of their Hawai­ian short forms to prove how sim­i­lar they are to Oba­ma’s to shut up peo­ple like me. Prob­lem is, I view theirs and I see signs of han­dling, offi­cial seals, and so on… I view Oba­ma’s, and I see none of that — no seal, no cer­tifi­cate num­ber, no noth­ing that can actu­al­ly tie this short-form to an orig­i­nal Hawai­ian birth certificate.

  16. lukemcgook Avatar
    lukemcgook

    Yes, yes. We’re all whack­os, but why do you think Oba­ma refus­es to release the orig­i­nal, long-form? Tim K. seems to think Oba­ma is play­ing a very deep game. So long as the birth cer­tifi­cate is sup­pressed, Tim K. and the like-mind­ed will be able to scream “whacko” and “tin foil” on the blogs, and this will be good for the econ­o­my, or some­thing. But this is too sub­tle for me. Seems like there ought to be a sim­pler expla­na­tion for why we’re not per­mit­ted to know the actu­al cir­cum­stances of the Oba­ma’s earth­ly prove­nance. What do you think that rea­son might be?

  17. Rick Beckman Avatar

    If any­one’s inter­est­ed, ObamaCrimes.info has a ton (mul­ti­ple long pages) of infor­ma­tion about Oba­ma’s birth cer­tifi­cate which includes detailed com­par­i­son of Oba­ma’s short-form and known legit­i­mate short-form cer­tifi­cates, among oth­er things. Enlight­en­ing reading.

    1. lukemcgook Avatar
      lukemcgook

      Rick

      I’m not much inclined to cred­it Polarik’s analy­sis. I don’t have any­thing like the exper­tise required to ren­der a ver­dict, but reli­able rightwing extrem­ists like Stra­ta and Charles John­son, who do know what they’re talk­ing about, have been unim­pressed with the Polarik ver­sion. What is most strik­ing to me about the COLB is that, even if authen­tic, it’s won­der­ful­ly unin­for­ma­tive. Hawai­ian law affords a num­ber of con­ve­nient ways for an inter­est­ed par­ty to alter the infor­ma­tion on a birth cer­tifi­cate, or even to receive a new one, and the COLB will con­tain the altered infor­ma­tion with­out, as near as I can tell, any indi­ca­tion that the infor­ma­tion has a his­to­ry of changes. The “vault” doc­u­men­ta­tion, on the oth­er hand, would con­tain all the orig­i­nal infor­ma­tion as well as the alter­ations and the source of the alter­ations. That, to me, is why the COLB is garbage and the Tem­ple of Doom should be opened. And note that no vast con­spir­a­cy is required here. Just fol­low­ing a Health Depart­ment drill, with per­haps some fudg­ing, would have got­ten Oba­ma or anoth­er fam­i­ly mem­ber a “bet­ter” birth cer­tifi­cate, at any point, pre­sum­ably, in the peri­od 1961–2007.

  18. Mark Settle Avatar

    Rick,

    I’m sure you’re a nice guy, and God knows you’re smart, but this is nonsense.

    First, you’re wrong. Sec­ond, even if you’re right, you’ll nev­er be able to prove it. Third, even if you can, what then?

    Also, your post sug­gest­ing that “the dif­fer­ence” between Oba­ma’s crit­ics and sup­port­ers amounts to a will­ing­ness to be civ­il and stick to the facts is patent­ly ridicu­lous. I mean, think about this. You’re deplor­ing ad hominem attacks at the same time that you’re ascrib­ing their use only to peo­ple you dis­agree with. You must know that this is hyp­o­crit­i­cal asinine.

    You have every right to your opin­ions and every right to share them. I mean, you sup­port WP and The­sis for a liv­ing, and what could be more demo­c­ra­t­ic than blog­ging? But hon­est­ly, I’ve got to believe that you have bet­ter things to do with your time. I’m sure you’ll have a lot more luck con­vinc­ing peo­ple that Catholics aren’t Chris­tians (not an opin­ion I share, but what­ev­er) than con­vinc­ing peo­ple to ques­tion the verac­i­ty of Barack Oba­ma’s hold on the Amer­i­can experience.

    Let me end with a ques­tion. Do you believe that these rumors would be going strong if Oba­ma was a white man with a bor­ing name? I don’t think that you’re a racist, and don’t mean to imply any­thing to that effect. But there are many peo­ple in the Truther move­ment that make no bones about being just that. To them, rais­ing ques­tions about Oba­ma’s birth is just one more way to divide our coun­try, show­ing that he isn’t one of US. Do you agree, and if so, does this both­er you?

    And once again, what IS the point of all this?

    Respect­ful­ly,
    Mark Settle

    1. lukemcgook Avatar
      lukemcgook

      Do you believe that these rumors would be going strong if Oba­ma was a white man with a bor­ing name?

      Shoot, I think McCain has been a defen­dant in some of the “birther” court cas­es, hav­ing been born in Pana­ma. He’s pret­ty white, although “McCain” isn’t real­ly that bor­ing a name.

      Oh, and, btw, if Oba­ma had been a white man with a bor­ing name, exten­sive Left affil­i­a­tions, and no exec­u­tive expe­ri­ence, Hillary Clin­ton would be president.

    2. Rick Beckman Avatar

      Mark, thank you for your cour­te­ous questions.

      I may nev­er know for sure whether I am right or wrong about this issue; I’m not after that sort of val­i­da­tion, though, as I made the post sim­ply to get peo­ple to think, to ques­tion, and to basi­cal­ly not be so accept­ing of what the media may be say­ing. Yeah, I know, I’m such a rebel. lol. How­ev­er, if all the proof we have is the short-form cer­tifi­cate pic­tured in the post above, then I am con­tent in con­sid­er­ing it not a viable proof for Oba­ma’s being native born. I go over these rea­sons in anoth­er com­ment on this page.

      It has noth­ing to do with the col­or of his skin. I have advo­cat­ed (on a small-scale… I don’t exact­ly have a loud voice with a long reach) the same thing men like Mor­gan Free­man advo­cate: there is no white or black man… there is just man. That is the bib­li­cal truth, and no one can con­vince me oth­er­wise. I hate racism and find it to be a can­cer in the hearts of far too many. I know how easy it is, when crit­i­ciz­ing some­one of a dif­fer­ent col­or (espe­cial­ly if they’ve just achieved a major his­tor­i­cal first), to be accused of being racist. How­ev­er, if I let the fear of being accused dis­suade me from speak­ing my mind on issues that both­er me, then I am doing nobody any good, least of all myself.

      Also, I have tried hard to abstain from ad hominem fal­lac­i­es. There is a dif­fer­ence between point­ing out the behav­ior of peo­ple in a strict­ly obser­va­tion­al con­text and in using those behav­iors as argu­ment against them. To use ridicule as an argu­ment against some­one’s posi­tion does not fur­ther the dis­cus­sion in any way.

      It does­n’t bug me that the best defense of Oba­ma some peo­ple can come up with is by liken­ing me to the con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists, right-wing pun­dits, or who­ev­er else; I’ll keep writ­ing in defense of my obser­va­tions despite them. How­ev­er, there’s noth­ing stop­ping me from tak­ing a step back and point­ing out the dif­fer­ence between the pro-Oba­ma and anti-Oba­ma crowds as they have man­i­fest­ed them­selves in these com­ments, and I only did so to point out that the stereo­types so often advanced by pro-Oba­ma fans, the media, and so on are, in this real world exam­ple, dead wrong.

      I’m not real­ly sure what the point of all this is. Maybe I’m just hop­ing that some­day, Oba­ma or his fans would attempt to give peo­ple like me rea­son to vote for him; as it is, it’s pret­ty clear that they not only don’t want my vote, but would soon­er spit on me than to encour­age me to think crit­i­cal­ly about things — even in a pub­lic are­na where my thoughts are laid bare for any­one to critique.

      Or maybe I want the birth cer­tifi­cate issue to be resolved defin­i­tive­ly so that those who would ques­tion it would shut up about it, myself included. :)

      Or maybe the point of it was to attract new peo­ple to King­domGeek and get some inter­est­ing con­ver­sa­tions going… *dia­bol­i­cal laugh­ter* (Hey, at least this point actu­al­ly worked, whether or not I intend­ed it!)

      Thanks for the comment/questions!

    3. lukemcgook Avatar
      lukemcgook

      Re Mark S’s questions

      First, you’re wrong. Sec­ond, even if you’re right, you’ll nev­er be able to prove it. Third, even if you can, what then?

      May I be so bold?

      First, I’ve nev­er claimed that Oba­ma was born in Kenya, but I do claim that the infor­ma­tion he’s pro­vid­ed thus far is insuf­fi­cient to prove “nat­ur­al born” cit­i­zen­ship. If you think that the online COLB, with its ten­u­ous con­nec­tion to the birth infor­ma­tion avail­able in 1961, proves beyond rea­son­able doubt that Oba­ma does qual­i­fy, then I’d have to say you’re wrong. Btw, have you said yet why you think Oba­ma refus­es to release the real deal?

      Sec­ond, no proof of Oba­ma’s eli­gi­bil­i­ty either way is pos­si­ble with­out the orig­i­nal birth cer­tifi­cate. If I’d claimed that I knew for sure that Oba­ma was born in Kenya, and if the orig­i­nal birth cer­tifi­cate showed he was born in Kenya, it seems to me I would have been vin­di­cat­ed, don’t you think?

      Third, if it does turn out that Oba­ma fails the eli­gi­bil­i­ty test (we’ll know soon­er or lat­er), among the many things I don’t expect to accom­plish is remov­ing him from office. It is dif­fi­cult for me to con­ceive of birth info so con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly incon­ve­nient that a com­pli­ant Con­gress can­not arrange a fix (which is a rea­son for Oba­ma to get squared away soon, come to think of it). For exam­ple, even if born to a minor in Kenya, Oba­ma is a “birth cit­i­zen” by 1992, at the lat­est, per retroac­tive changes to immi­gra­tion law. Con­gress can sim­ply declare that, because “nat­ur­al born” cit­i­zen­ship is such an ambigu­ous term, “birth cit­i­zen­ship” is its equiv­a­lent for pur­pos­es of eli­gi­bil­i­ty. Con­gress has act­ed before now to define vague lan­guage in the Con­sti­tu­tion, and the courts have giv­en them a pass. 

      What I do hope to accom­plish with the pub­li­ca­tion of the required records is to embar­rass Oba­ma polit­i­cal­ly. I con­sid­er him a threat to my coun­try. That he has sup­pressed reams of infor­ma­tion to which vot­ers are cus­tom­ar­i­ly, and some­times legal­ly, enti­tled sug­gests to me that he’s hid­ing infor­ma­tion that con­tra­dicts the life sto­ry that sold him to the elec­torate. I’d like to get that con­tra­dic­to­ry infor­ma­tion out there. There are some lies that he will have dif­fi­cul­ty deny­ing, even with the whol­ly owned media on his side.

      1. Mark Settle Avatar

        @lukemcgook, you asked why it is that Oba­ma has­n’t released his records yet, and then wrote, “What I do hope to accom­plish with the pub­li­ca­tion of the required records is to embar­rass Oba­ma polit­i­cal­ly. I con­sid­er him a threat to my coun­try. That he has sup­pressed reams of infor­ma­tion to which vot­ers are cus­tom­ar­i­ly, and some­times legal­ly, enti­tled sug­gests to me that he’s hid­ing infor­ma­tion that con­tra­dicts the life sto­ry that sold him to the elec­torate. I’d like to get that con­tra­dic­to­ry infor­ma­tion out there. There are some lies that he will have dif­fi­cul­ty deny­ing, even with the whol­ly owned media on his side.”

        I think that your expos­tion answers your first ques­tion. Most of the peo­ple con­cern­ing them­selves with ques­tions about Oba­ma’s nat­ur­al born cit­i­zen­ship, peo­ple who remain unsat­is­fied with Oba­ma’s cre­den­tials as a Unit­ed States cit­i­zen, don’t seem to be on the fence about who they (don’t) support.

        Will those who are cur­rent­ly unsat­is­fied ever be sat­is­fied? Should Oba­ma release a copy of the long-form doc­u­ment? Should he make the orig­i­nal avail­able for a cou­ple hours to that most-hat­ed col­lec­tive, the MSM? Should he place it under bul­let-proof glass in the lob­by of the Nation­al Archives? Let’s get answers to such ques­tions so that the goal­posts don’t keep moving.

        Your answer to my sec­ond ques­tion amounts to a dif­fer­ence of opin­ion between you and I about the weight of the cur­rent evi­dence. I can’t imag­ine a sce­nario where­in the state of Hawaii would have cre­at­ed a birth cer­tifi­cate for a birth that did not occur in Hawaii; you can. It seems whol­ly unlike­ly that the local paper would have pub­lished an announce­ment for the birth of one Barack Hus­sein Oba­ma, if he had­n’t been born there; not to you.

        Oba­ma has noth­ing to lose by releas­ing fur­ther infor­ma­tion, but he has every­thing to gain. This is a game of rope-a-dope. He reduces peo­ple like you and Rick, right­ly or wrong­ly, to the lunatic fringe. He ignores the issue, allow­ing it to sim­mer at a low burn, for the same rea­son that Sarah Palin nev­er con­clu­sive­ly addressed rumors that Trig was not actu­al­ly hers. Right­ly or wrong­ly, it makes those ask­ing the ques­tion look like nutjobs. The idea that Oba­ma is con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly unfit for office is so ridicu­lous to so much of the Amer­i­can elec­torate that those push­ing the idea come across as utter crack­pots. Instead of gal­va­niz­ing oppo­si­tion to his poli­cies, you and oth­ers are dis­cussing the fin­er points of Hawai­ian birth cer­tifi­cate val­i­da­tion. Yes, yes, I know. The courage of your con­vic­tions and all that. But a right to say what you think does­n’t equal a right to be lis­tened to. I sup­pose it’s pos­si­ble that you’re right on sub­stance, but that’s not what mat­ters. What mat­ters is that you’re mar­gin­al­iz­ing your­self. In so doing, you’re play­ing direct­ly into Oba­ma’s hands. Such glanc­ing attacks make him stronger.

        So once again, what is the point of all this?

        1. lukemcgook Avatar
          lukemcgook

          Mark Set­tle

          Thanks for the warn­ing, but I think I’ll con­tin­ue on my feck­less course of roped dopi­ness. Peo­ple don’t care for liars, nor for pub­lic offi­cials who waste gov­ern­ment time and tax­pay­er mon­ey mere­ly to mess with the heads of divi­sive rightwing extrem­ists like myself. The upside returns to your hypo­thet­i­cal stunt are dimin­ish­ing rapid­ly. And, as I’ve already not­ed, this strat­e­gy would have been extreme­ly risky dur­ing the cam­paign. Oba­ma could nev­er count on the total sub­servience of the media, so there was always the chance of a CNN reporter, say, get­ting a wild hair and start­ing a sto­ry with, “Sen. Barack Oba­ma, whose cam­paign has refused to release his birth cer­tifi­cate to reporters for over four months now …” I’m not even sure the issue con­sti­tutes an effec­tive dis­trac­tion. Back in the time of Dan Rather’s “false but true” Nation­al Guard report­ing, believed by some on the Left to be a sin­is­ter Rov­ian set-up, I don’t recall Bushie McHitler get­ting much relief on oth­er fronts.

          The Palin-Oba­ma com­par­i­son is bogus, most obvi­ous­ly because the cir­cum­stances of Trig’s birth do not bear on Pal­in’s legal eli­gi­bil­i­ty for office, while the cir­cum­stances of Baby O’s birth do bear on his eligibility.

          Hawaii issues birth cer­tifi­cates to peo­ple born else­where all the time, one of the fine points it may behoove you to acquaint your­self with.

          And, say, that was a pret­ty long post you made there. Should­n’t you be spend­ing your free time help­ing our pres­i­dent remake Amer­i­ca, instead of fenc­ing with lunatics on a minor blog — a very inter­est­ing blog, I might add, although, sad­ly, one that no one will ever again read, Rick hav­ing hope­less­ly com­pro­mised his reputation.

          1. Mark Settle Avatar

            @lukemcgook, you make some valid points but fail to address my larg­er point, which is this. This kind of argu­ment gets no one no where, except for Oba­ma him­self (not that I’m com­plain­ing). Birth cer­tifi­cate ques­tions bring a lot of heat, but no light.

            1. lukemcgook Avatar
              lukemcgook

              And why is it that no light fol­lows on the heat?

  19. Brian Hosey Avatar
    Brian Hosey

    Chris­tian­i­ty has a great tra­di­tion of self-crit­i­cism and analy­sis. This tra­di­tion has enriched the intel­lec­tu­al envi­ron­ment for the entire world. The his­to­ry makes it all the more trou­bling to see many mod­ern-day, self-pro­claimed Chris­tians engaged in such patent­ly igno­rant and intel­lec­tu­al­ly weak excersizes. 

    To meet legal require­ments, one nev­er has to pro­duce an *orig­i­nal* certification–of any­thing. From deeds, to dri­vers licens­es, to social secu­ri­ty cards, to yes, even birth cer­tifi­cates, all that is required is a cer­ti­fi­ca­tion *of any date* from the appro­pri­ate agency which they say is cor­rect accord­ing to their records.

    With even a small amount of self-reflec­tion, the cur­rent per­pe­tra­tors of this Oba­ma birth cer­tifi­cate myth would see that they are clear­ly engaged not in fact-find­ing but in wish-ful­fill­ment: they don’t want Oba­ma as their pres­i­dent, there­fore in their minds he can’t be the pres­i­dent. Any weak fic­tion will do to hang their wish on. Were they instead to con­sid­er the facts, this would be read­i­ly appar­ent: the appro­pri­ate agency has looked at its records and pro­duced a cor­rect and cur­rent cer­ti­fi­ca­tion of Oba­ma’s birth. The “orig­i­nal” is irrel­e­vant, as legal­ly any cur­rent cer­ti­fi­ca­tion is just as valid.

    As for whether you or some­one you know has had the oppor­tu­ni­ty to see the birth certificate–well, I’ve nev­er been to the moon either, yet I trust it’s not made of cheese. Oba­ma was born to an Amer­i­can cit­i­zen in an Amer­i­can state and he has shown the doc­u­men­ta­tion to prove it. He is an Amer­i­can cit­i­zen. Case closed.

    1. lukemcgook Avatar
      lukemcgook

      Bri­an

      Are you famil­iar with Arti­cle Two, Sec­tion 1 of the Con­sti­tu­tion? Need­less to say, there are peo­ple eli­gi­ble for dri­vers licens­es who are not eli­gi­ble for the pres­i­den­cy. Since only the orig­i­nal birth doc­u­men­ta­tion will be dis­pos­i­tive, why is it that Oba­ma won’t release the infor­ma­tion? Just your opinion.

      Is it the fee, do you sup­pose? Some sort of econ­o­my measure?

      1. Brian Hosey Avatar
        Brian Hosey

        Are you famil­iar with the con­cept of unsup­port­ed asser­tions? Your asser­tion that “only the orig­i­nal birth doc­u­men­ta­tion will be dis­pos­i­tive” is unsup­port­ed and false. All prop­er­ly exe­cut­ed cer­ti­fi­ca­tions from the appro­pri­ate author­i­ty are of equal legal weight. Only when there has been addi­tion­al activ­i­ty on the off­i­cal records (e.g change in title for a piece of prop­er­ty) would one cer­ti­fi­ca­tion be more rel­e­vant than the other–in that case it would be the more recent cer­ti­fi­ca­tion which would car­ry more weight.

        I would­n’t say for sure I could guess the rea­son for Oba­ma not releas­ing more infor­ma­tion to sat­is­fy your remain­ing ques­tions. In a day when even Bill Gates can have his iden­ti­ty stolen, maybe Oba­ma con­sid­ers it a bad idea to put more per­son­al infor­ma­tion out there? Maybe he sus­pects some peo­ple wil nev­er be sat­is­fied? :) Regard­less, with the infor­ma­tion he’s released so far he’s met the legal require­ments and quenched doubts in the minds of most if not all.

        1. lukemcgook Avatar
          lukemcgook

          Re Mark’s above
          Only when there has been addi­tion­al activ­i­ty on the off­i­cal records (e.g change in title for a piece of prop­er­ty) would one cer­ti­fi­ca­tion be more rel­e­vant than the other–in that case it would be the more recent cer­ti­fi­ca­tion which would car­ry more weight.

          Pre­cise­ly. We’d like to see the orig­i­nal and then weigh the impli­ca­tions of any “addi­tion­al changes” ourselves.

          In a day when even Bill Gates can have his iden­ti­ty stolen, maybe Oba­ma con­sid­ers it a bad idea to put more per­son­al infor­ma­tion out there?

          Sure. And that’s why he’s sup­pressed his aca­d­e­m­ic and med­ical records, too. Can’t be too careful. 

          Note that you’re claim­ing that FactCheck­’s priv­i­leged view­ing of the COLB suf­fices to prove “nat­ur­al born” cit­i­zen­ship, but that let­ting reporters view the birth cer­tifi­cate would put Oba­ma’s cred­it cards at risk.

          Care to try again?

          … with the infor­ma­tion he’s released so far he’s met the legal require­ments and quenched doubts in the minds of most if not all.

          Au con­traire, we’re claim­ing that a doc­u­ment as sparse­ly infor­ma­tive and as muta­ble as the COLB, even if gen­uine, is insuf­fi­cient for con­sti­tu­tion­al pur­pos­es. No court has said dif­fer­ent­ly. More minds, if not all, are becom­ing aware of the dif­fi­cul­ties with the birth cer­tifi­cate, and with Oba­ma’s his­to­ry in gen­er­al. I fig­ure the MSM will have to address these dif­fi­cul­ties hon­est­ly, soon­er or lat­er, if only to sell papers.

          1. lukemcgook Avatar
            lukemcgook

            I’m sor­ry, that was Bri­an’s post I was reply­ing to. You guys need less bor­ing names.

          2. Brian Hosey Avatar
            Brian Hosey

            We’d like to see the orig­i­nal and then weigh the impli­ca­tions of any “addi­tion­al changes” [sic] ourselves.

            As I not­ed above, the more recent cer­ti­fi­ca­tion car­ries more weight in that circumstance–the issu­ing agency has the author­i­ty to say what activ­i­ty is or is not valid and they put it on their cer­ti­fi­ca­tion. The agency is pre­sumed to be cor­rect until proven oth­er­wise. You keep insist­ing that the bur­den is on Oba­ma or those who don’t ques­tion the birth cer­tifi­cate to answer your ques­tions after they have already met the legal stan­dard. In fact it’s just the oppo­site: the bur­den is on you to show in a court of law, not the court of pub­lic opin­ion, that the issu­ing agency was incorrect.

            But as shown in a pre­vi­ous com­ment, your main con­cern is not in actu­al­ly win­ning the case in court, it’s in scor­ing polit­i­cal points (for the good of the coun­try of course!).

            You say that you are claim­ing the doc­u­ment is insuf­fi­cient for Con­sti­tu­tion­al pur­pos­es, a claim that no court denies–nor sup­ports. In fact the only court to hear these claims dis­missed the case (using words like “friv­o­lous” and “not wor­thy of dis­cus­sion”) as the per­son who brought it had no stand­ing. Note that one of the per­sons who did have stand­ing, John McCain, chose to let the oppor­tu­ni­ty pass. Why do you sup­pose that was? Was he scared of look­ing like a fool? Or maybe it was the fil­ing fee? :))

            1. lukemcgook Avatar
              lukemcgook

              re Bri­an’s legal eagle remarks above

              Let’s be clear on what you’re say­ing here: Oba­ma is a nat­ur­al born cit­i­zen so long as he can legal­ly obstruct all efforts to show oth­er­wise. With that caveat in mind, let us see what the odds are of his being able to do that, and let’s take the Alo­ha State, where some of the “birther” suits have been filed, for our example. 

              Per Sec­tion 338–17 of the cur­rent statutes

              Late or altered cer­tifi­cate as evi­dence. The pro­ba­tive val­ue of a “late” or “altered” cer­tifi­cate shall be deter­mined by the judi­cial or admin­is­tra­tive body or offi­cial before whom the cer­tifi­cate is offered as evidence.

              Seems to be the judge’s call. Now, the orig­i­nal birth cer­tifi­cate would indeed be pri­ma facie evi­dence for the events described (of course, we’re not allowed to see the orig­i­nal), but, if the COLB con­tains altered infor­ma­tion, it would seem to fall into a weak­er cat­e­go­ry of evi­dence and leave a con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly picky judge the option of unearthing the vault copy to decide the mer­its of the case. In any case, all is not so cut and dry as you seem to think.

              And, in any case, the law­suits will keep on com­ing, and the dis­grun­tled mur­mur­ring will increase. And McCain, who declined to use any num­ber of legit­i­mate issues hand­ed him by the Oba­ma cam­paign, and whose stand­ing, as you’ve not­ed, seems unde­ni­able, may one day get mad enough …

              1. Brian Hosey Avatar
                Brian Hosey

                Let’s be clear on what you’re say­ing here: Oba­ma is a nat­ur­al born cit­i­zen so long as he can legal­ly obstruct all efforts to show otherwise.

                Non­sense. Oba­ma has shown he is a nat­ur­al born cit­i­zen with the prop­er cer­ti­fi­ca­tion from the appro­pri­ate agency. The agen­cy’s cer­ti­fi­ca­tion is pre­sumed cor­rect unless proven oth­er­wise in a court of law.

                The rest of your com­ment oper­ates on an unproven assump­tion that the cer­tifi­cate pre­sent­ed dif­fers from the records the agency keeps. You have shown no evi­dence of this and so your spec­u­la­tion car­ries no weight. I would­n’t be so harsh as to call your opin­ion “friv­o­lous”, but I also don’t blame the one judge who has been con­front­ed with such the­o­ries for say­ing so.

                So the law­suits will keep com­ing until you find the “right” judge, eh? I guess that’s one way to get there. Keep us post­ed as to how it turns out.

                1. lukemcgook Avatar
                  lukemcgook

                  Re Bri­an’s “non­sense” post

                  A few points

                  1) The bur­den of proof of con­sti­tu­tion­al eli­gi­b­li­ty is on Oba­ma here. You do not claim “nat­ur­al born” cit­i­zen­ship and then main­tain that, by obstruct­ing efforts to ver­i­fy the claim, you have made your case. This is equiv­a­lent to apply­ing for a dri­vers license and then, when asked for your birth cer­tifi­cate, reply­ing “Prove I’m not a cit­i­zen,” and adduc­ing the DMV’s inabil­i­ty to do so as proof of your citizenship.

                  2) As for the COL­B’s being pre­sumed cor­rect, note that

                  a) The COLB is not even pre­sumed cor­rect by all Hawai­i’s state agen­cies. The Depart­ment of Hawai­ian Home Lands insists on the birth cer­tifi­cate itself, pre­sum­ably because the COLB does not show the his­to­ry of any sus­pi­cious alter­ations to the infor­ma­tion, or because it is more eas­i­ly forged.

                  b) You have described a Catch-22. We can’t see the birth cer­tifi­cate unless we show that the COLB con­tains altered infor­ma­tion, and we can’t show that the COLB con­tains altered infor­ma­tion with­out see­ing the birth certificate. 

                  To repeat, you have not shown that Oba­ma has sat­is­fied the Arti­cle 2 require­ments; you have shown only that he has so far man­aged to obstruct efforts to set­tle the issue, which we knew.

                  For those rel­a­tive­ly new to this fias­co, here’s one of those end­less freep­er threads that mix­es wild con­spir­a­cy the­o­riz­ing with inter­est­ing mate­r­i­al. One claim new to me is that the res­i­dences of the Dun­hams and of Oba­ma Dad­dy can both be locat­ed in August 1961. Nei­ther is at 6085 Kala­ni­anaole Hwy, the address in the birth announce­ment. Of course, the head of a bank’s escrow depart­ment would know the address­es of vacant hous­es. The thread also pro­vides a good intro­duc­tion to the gen­er­al odd­ness of Oba­ma’s fam­i­ly, at least on the moth­er’s side.

                  1. lukemcgook Avatar
                    lukemcgook

                    And, lest we for­get, the most curi­ous fact of all is that the birth cer­tifi­cate and any his­to­ry of alter­ations, fac­sim­i­les of which doc­u­ments are pre­sum­ably in the hands of Oba­ma’s cam­paign (see FactCheck on their June 2007 doc­u­ment col­lec­tion effort), was sup­pressed dur­ing the cam­paign and is still being sup­pressed. Recall that the “born in Kenya” rumors erupt­ed on the blogs in June or July, even before the nom­i­na­tion was a dead cert. That the cam­paign chose not to end all the spec­u­la­tion by releas­ing the birth cer­tifi­cate sug­gests that the birth cer­tifi­cate con­tains infor­ma­tion with an enor­mous downside.

    2. Rick Beckman Avatar

      Thanks for the com­ment, but you haven’t said any­thing new; I’m aware of the “tech­ni­cal require­ment,” which is why there is a dis­cus­sion about the valid­i­ty of the pre­sent­ed doc­u­men­ta­tion. What we have is a dig­i­tal copy of a copy with no ver­i­fi­able doc­u­ment num­ber*, no offi­cial sig­na­ture, and no offi­cial seal. I can’t even use my cred­it cards with­out sign­ing the back, but we’re sup­posed to accept as end-all, be-all evi­dence of Oba­ma’s eli­gi­bil­i­ty a doc­u­ment with no tell-tale signs of being official?

      I’m sor­ry, but I’m not pre­pared to make a leap of faith that large.

      * I real­ize that the doc­u­ment num­ber has been blacked out — if there was any­thing there to black out in the first place. The cen­sor­ing presents its own prob­lems as the bot­tom of the doc­u­ment declares that alter­ations of any kind make the doc­u­ment null and void. A minor, tech­ni­cal detail per­haps, but hey, that’s what the fine print is for. :D

      1. Brian Hosey Avatar
        Brian Hosey

        My plea­sure Rick, you’ve got a great blog here and I’m hap­py to par­tic­i­pate in this live­ly dis­cus­sion. Con­trary to what oth­ers may have said, I don’t think a per­son needs to cen­sor them­selves from say­ing what they tru­ly believe for fear of ruin­ing their “rep­u­ta­tion”.

        I respect your tech­ni­cal prowess and your friend­ly help on the The­sis boards and now I can respect that you have the courage of your con­vic­tions, even if they aren’t mine.

        1. Rick Beckman Avatar

          Thanks, Bri­an. I real­ly appre­ci­ate that!

  20. Tori Deaux Avatar

    Rick,
    The dif­fi­cul­ty is that pret­ty much all of these points and crit­i­cisms have been answered, many times over — but the doubters dis­miss all of the answers. I’d be very sur­prised if you haven’t seen the answers. Still, you seemed to be ask­ing for sources, so here you go:

    If you go to the arti­cle on FactCheck and scroll down to the pho­tos of the short form birth cer­tifi­cate when they exam­ined it in per­son, you’ll find a close up of the raised seal, and a close­up of the cer­tifi­cate num­ber (along with an expla­na­tion of why it was blacked out in the orig­i­nal scan). If you click on the images you’ll see larg­er ver­sions with a bit more con­text. Note that the seal appears on the back, and thus is not vis­i­ble in pho­tos of the front. The pho­tos also include a close­up of the sig­na­ture stamp. Yes, this is still the short form, which so many peo­ple seem to dis­miss out of hand — but you’d brought up these points in par­tic­u­lar as rea­sons to doubt that form.

    You also asked for sources regard­ing any­one who had seen the orig­i­nal long form birth cer­tifi­cate — and again, I’m sure you’ve seen sev­er­al reports about the Direc­tor of Hawai­i’s State Health Depart­ment and the reg­is­trar of vital sta­tis­tic con­firm­ing that they exam­ined it, and it is legit­i­mate. Here’s the arti­cle in the Hon­olu­lu Advertiser

    These items would have been con­sid­ered beyond accept­able proof by just about every­one, if the whole issue had­n’t tak­en a sharp turn into the Con­spir­a­cy Zone (which I’m told is next door to the Twi­light Zone, but that’s uncon­firmed ;) ) Unfor­tu­nate­ly, once some­thing has entered the Con­spir­a­cy Zone, no proof will sat­is­fy the true believ­ers. So even if the orig­i­nal, long form birth cer­tifi­cate giv­en to his moth­er was pro­duced, (com­plete with near­ly 50 year old creas­es and cof­fee stains) … and if every Amer­i­can who want­ed to touch it could.… and if it were sub­ject­ed to sci­en­tif­ic test­ing to con­firm its age, paper and ink type… peo­ple would still claim it was forged or changed.

    I mean, peo­ple still believe the Ami­tyville Hor­ror was real. 

    Why has­n’t Oba­ma request­ed and released a copy of the long form? I can’t read his mind, but if it were me, I would­n’t release it. It still would­n’t sat­is­fy the doubters, and would only focus more atten­tion on the top­ic, fur­ther inflam­ing and legit­imiz­ing the debate… when atten­tion quite hon­est­ly needs to be else­where. And for all I know, the ear­li­er com­menter was right… keep­ing the con­spir­a­cy alive actu­al­ly helps Oba­ma, by mak­ing a large group of his detrac­tors seem des­per­ate and (for­give me) a bit wacky, and keep­ing them busy on what is essen­tial­ly a snipe hunt. 

    I’d say more, but it comes back to the same point.. no proof will be enough to sat­is­fy those who want to believe Oba­ma’s pres­i­den­cy is ille­git­i­mate. Make sense?

    1. lukemcgook Avatar
      lukemcgook

      Tori

      Oh, now think about your argu­ment for a sec­ond. If some­one’s called as a wit­ness in a court case, is he relieved of his oblig­a­tion to tell the whole truth just because some jurors may not believe him? When some­one promis­es to love, hon­or, and obey, or to uphold the Con­sti­tu­tion, is he per­mit­ted men­tal reser­va­tions just because not every­one trusts him? Is a sci­en­tist relieved of the duty to pub­lish all his results just because some of his peers will still dis­agree with him? Oba­ma has a duty to make the best evi­dence of his eli­gi­bil­i­ty pub­licly avail­able, regard­less of the fact that some peo­ple will nev­er be sat­is­fied. This he has refused to do.

  21. Phil Barron Avatar

    Rick, I feel oblig­ed to point out that the most famous chal­lenge in his­to­ry to ‘birth sta­tus,’ while suc­cess­ful in the short term, did not work out quite so well in the long run. ;)

  22. sandra Avatar
    sandra

    i want u to know despite one every one says i am glad you aren’t afraid to face the facts like every­one else is i have a 2 year lit­tle girl that is mixed half white and half black okay so i am not prej­u­dice but barack should have to have a birth cer­tifi­cate just like every­one else and he he does­n’t then no one should need one any­more at first i thought barack was good for this coun­try but now i am not sure i guess only time well tell that but just keep writ­ing about what you feel strong­ly about and screw every body else you help me out with writ­ings. no i know i am not the only one who has­n’t for­got about it.

  23. David Avatar

    I have no opin­ion to share on this, but I do have a ques­tion. If Barack iden­ti­fies him­self as a US cit­i­zen, with legal rights to work with­in the coun­try, why would it mat­ter if he was born out­side of the coun­try? I under­stand that there is a rule say­ing that immi­grants can’t hold the office, but I’m won­der­ing the ratio­nale behind it.

  24. Rick Beckman Avatar

    Hav­ing a for­eign­er run the coun­try leaves open the ques­tion of ulti­mate alle­giance, I sup­pose. I’m sure my dad could explain it bet­ter, if he ever sees this. But more or less all it means right now is that Arnold will nev­er be President.

  25. David Avatar

    Thanks for the expla­na­tion, Rick. We have no such rule in Cana­da, and I’ve always won­dered why the US has it. I guess when you keep your coun­try’s his­to­ry in mind, it makes sense. I still think that Barack will do just as good a job as any oth­er pres­i­dent. If there’s one thing our coun­tries have in com­mon, it’s that the good politi­cians are the ones who mess things up the least.

    You’re prob­a­bly bet­ter off with­out Arnold as pres­i­dent. My favourite quote of his as gov­er­nor is, “I think gay mar­riage is some­thing that should be between a man and a woman.”

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Use your Gravatar-enabled email address while commenting to automatically enhance your comment with some of Gravatar's open profile data.

Comments must be made in accordance with the comment policy. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam; learn how your comment data is processed.

You may use Markdown to format your comments; additionally, these HTML tags and attributes may be used: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Rick Beckman