The Final Word On Obama's Birth Certificate

Congratulations on your lack of skepticism. Do you believe it's unreasonable for those of us who have more questions or who are not satisifed by the information provided to request more?

 

That must be the reason, because how could anyone forget one morsel of your truth after 134 posts?

 

It is hard for the public to take these people seriously when they spend so much time following conspiracy theories.

No. When the economy is bad - no matter who is in charge - is going to look bad. It's a pretty easy ploy. Obama, like every president, is going to have issues with the economy when times are bad. If you can make it a decision between the known poison and the unknown poison that is shown as petty and stupid by following silly things - like birth certificates - you do that.

Obama has no incentive to appease his opponents on this subject. It did not cause him problems last time - there is no reason to suspect it will this time. If they are concentrated on this - it is to his advantage.

 

Congratulations on your lack of skepticism on Trutherism.

I think those people are as irrational as those who have "more questions" about Bush's possible aiding and abetting the 9/11 tragedy. But I think it's well within your rights to believe it's possible that a shadow council carried out a cover-up on behalf of a newborn they knew was destined to challenge for the US Presidency 45 years later.

 

Nope. I did a little research into the truther charges and found them wanting. Perhaps you'll remember my post to Yega on BBF.com about the reaction of exposed steel beams (the fire coating was blown off) to heat and how it results in a building collapse. When confronted with a question, I try to make my first answer "I don't yet know; I don't have enough data to make a determination." All I want is a simple piece of paper in a Honolulu vault. It's not classified; it holds no national security secrets; It's just a long form birth certificate. What's the harm?

 

There's no harm. I don't care if he releases it or doesn't. I don't think it would a bad thing, if he released it. I just think the people who disbelieve (or aren't sure) that he was born in Hawaii are a little nutty.

As I said, there's plenty of evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. There's no real reason to believe he was born in Kenya, Indonesia or New Jersey. There's no harm in him releasing the Original Hand-Printed Birth Certificate. All of these things are true, as far as I'm concerned.

 

Then we're on the same side. There is no harm for him to release it, it would end a debate easily, therefore he should.

 

Me thinks the Dems doth protest too much

 

If you guys discovered you're being ruled by an Islamacist, you guys would riot. Because you guys are violent.

 

To whom exactly are you referring to when you say, "you guys"?

 

You know who you people are.

 

Ok, wait. Start over.

What is the proof that Obama was born in Hawaii?

1) A Certification of Live Birth issued by the State of Hawaii.

2) Two birth announcements in Honolulu newspapers.

Am I missing something?

 

Nope. Sounds good to me. A birth certificate and reports at the time. Not proof (as again, outside mathematics, nothing is provable) but enough evidence, to me, to make it extremely implausible that he was born elsewhere.

 

No. Not the birth certificate. A "Certification of Live Birth". Which is a document constructed on demand from data stored in a digital database.

Anywho. You say that this amount of evidence is completely adequate.

As "proof" of how adequate it is, you claim that since no amount of proof will ever be enough to "prove" the issue, we should stop at what we have.

I find that argument to be silly.

You are shooting down, what I consider very reasonable requests for more evidence, by arguing that weak evidence is just as good as stronger evidence, since neither "prove" the issue. Try that argument in a court of law when the judge demands production of ALL potentially relevant records.

Note: I don't think this happened, but a plausible scenario with the evidence provided is thus:

Obama's parents were pregnant, planning to relocate to Hawaii to raise their child, the child was born prior to their departure date, in a foreign location. Shortly after birth they fly to Hawaii. Shortly after arrival, they go to the State and record the birth of a baby with the state. Baby now recorded in the state of Hawaii records. Newspapers pick up recording and post notices.

Why is Obama hiding his document? Likely not because he wasn't born in Hawaii. But, that doesn't mean he should feel free to withhold the document which could help clarify.

It is possible that on the original birth certificate Obama's name, or his parents names, or his parents birthplace, or some other fact is in conflict with his prior statements and autobiography. If so, it is in the public interest for these deceptions and lies to be exposed.

I really don't see why Obama get's a free pass from so many on his willful withholding of this document because "only nuts are asking for it", "it is a sideshow", "I don't care if he was born somewhere else", "it is not important", "what does it matter", "please go away, stop bothering him", "he has already provided the proof",

and a whole bunch of other excuses, blaming of the messenger, lies and distortions.

It is real simple - either Obama provides the long withheld document or he should continue to be pillioried for being a hypocrite who loves to tell folks what to do while himself ignoring those very same prescriptions. A classic busybody politician. "I'm passing laws, making rules, passing judgement - none of it applies to me".

 

I am not sure I follow.

A State of Hawaii official in a press conference announced that they inspected the actual birth certificate document. So that record exists if you believe the state official.

 

Right. One which is generally considered functionally equivalent to a birth certificate if the parents' names are present, as they are on Obama's.

No, you've constructed a strawman. I never said that the fact that nothing is knowable is "proof" that we should stop. I said that, in my opinion, adequate evidence exists and, in my opinion, people who still think he wasn't born in Hawaii are a little nutty.

I never once spoke of "proof that we have enough evidence."

No, I'm not. As I told maxiep, I don't think it would be a bad thing if Obama released it, nor do I care if he does or does not. In no way does that constitute "shooting down." I haven't rendered judgment, either, on whether the request is "reasonable" or not.

The only judgment I've made is to say that those who don't think Obama was born in Hawaii are a bit nuts. In my opinion, there is enough evidence for me to make that judgment on "birthers."