Will Half A Million People ask to see POTUS birth certificate by July 4?

I was #375,334!!!

Sqlman must of signed up right after me... it\'s up to 375,335!!!

i was 375,338.

http://timeanddate.com/s/183e\\r
\\n\\r
\\nLets see how much momentum the billboards create. A huge majority of people still don\'t even know that POTUS has not proved to anyone his eligibility to be president.

I had faith in you, Fingers....to show sql the light ;)

Are people still banging on about this? His birth certificate was published ages ago, why can\'t everyone just move on? \\r
\\nNo-one ever questioned Mccain\'s eligibility despote not being born in the US

Problem is that even I could get a certificate of live birth from Hawaii. \\r
\\nIt proves nothing. \\r
\\n\\r
\\nConstitution says \"natural born citizen\" ... McCain was born in Panama to military parents on assignment there under orders of the US military. Both parents are American citizens. He is legal for POTUS.

<Y-A-W-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N>\\r
\\n\\r
\\nSeriously, the longer the clowns on the radical right keep kicking this dead horse--which, by the way, was dead decades ago, a few minutes after Obama was born--the better for the Democratic Party. But still, didn\'t they learn from last November\'s election that people don\'t want silly slogans (\"Drill, baby, drill!\"), incapable miscreant puppets (Joe the Plumber, Sarah \"I can see Russia from my house!\" Palin), top-down \"grassroots\" movements (the Great 2009 Teabagging Party and Fox News Flagwaving Photo Op), wasteful snipe hunts (\"We demand to see his birth certificate! We demand to see his birth certificate!\"), and the like? They want substance. Meat. Solid stuff. Real answers to real problems...not some seriously overdone pseudo-search to \'prove\' the duly-elected POTUS isn\'t qualified.

\"No-bama! No-bama!\" was my favourite. \\r
\\n\\r
\\nAs I undertsand it Joe the Plumber now does consultancy work on a range of issues, inlcuding over seas post invasion infrasture management. Sarah Palin\'s current whereabouts are unknown, although last reports place her at the foot of a mountain, with a rifle and a dead wolf slung over her shoulders. \\r
\\n\\r
\\nIt is clear that when Sarah returns from her self imposed sabatical, with a clear eyed vision of the world, and reinvigoured determination for office, she should team up with Joe (whose OS experiance and plumbing knowledge will add to the juggernaut momentum). \\r
\\n\\r
\\nSweeping electorial victory would then only be a matter time.

So Mr Obama has spent more than $1Million to avoid showing his birth certificate in a court. Looks suspicious to me.

sqlman, dude, you righteously funny man. You don\'t want silly slogans but you fell for \'Change we can believe in\'.

According to a Hillary supporter we\'ll see a Barry Hussein Dunham-Soetoro-Obama Jr. long form soon:\\r
\\n\\r
\\nOBAMA’S TEAM TO PRESENT A NEW SET OF FORGED DOCS PROVING HE’S NOT A FAKE\\r
\\nhttp://www.hillarynme.com/tag/obamas-phony-birth-certificate-berg-v-obama/

Is anyone auditing this online petition? Couldn\'t WND just add names at will? \\r
\\n\\r
\\nEven if they didn\'t, all that\'s needed is any name and e-mail address to \"sign\" the petition. One address does not equal one person, nor does the name or address need to be verified. I just signed it as Barack Obama fake@email.com and it took me to a screen that said: \"THANKS FOR SIGNING THE PETITION FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA\'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE, Thank you for signing the petition to request that Barack Hussein Obama\'s birth certificate be released to the American people. So far, 375,376 of your fellow citizens have joined you in calling for the release of this critical information.\" \\r
\\n\\r
\\nFor a petition demanding proof of something, how do they intend to prove their petition numbers? Or is it just supposed to be a fundraiser and this market is pointless?

errrrm, Nextpaige, you\'ve been around long enough to have figured out that all markets here are pointless. If it was real money and real markets, where would the fun be?

Nextpaige,\\r
\\nWe appreciate your support in signing the petition. (even if you just did it as a joke).\\r
\\nIf you would like to make a financial contribution, just write to my email address, and I will be glad to give you all the necessary information. \\r
\\n;-)

LOL! those tin-foil hats are still firmly attached! 0.125% is seriously fringe, folks.\\r
\\nBlack helicopter kinda fringe. Lunatic element kinda fringe.\\r
\\nOver 300 Million Americans who don\'t care a whit and this corner gets...I\'ll just go get the popcorn now..

\'As I undertsand it Joe the Plumber now does consultancy work on a range of issues\'\\r
\\n\\r
\\n..... drains, washers, toilets etc

My tin foil hat fits just fine - thank you. \\r
\\nI am watching my country turn into some kind of fascist blend, with banks and autos being the first industries to turn into government entities, while the rest of the liberal population goes to get popcorn and just watches with approval.

@ chatarra That\'s another strawman...goes with the hat. \\r
\\n(Beside the point) what I do approve of are the great strides America is making to repair some of the heinous mistakes of the past 8 years. The struggle to make Obama illegal, whilst amusing, is definitely under the radar of most Americans.

Love this question \"Excavator\"

deelilley - by all means tell us what obama is doing to fix these heinous mistakes of the past 8 years. it must be in domestic affairs your referring to. obama is following bush\'s foreign policy.

vot a vaste of lucka my mate, the dragon told me to say that.

tell dragon i\'m gonna disown him if he don\'t get his butt back on HD.

\"obama is following bush\\\'s foreign policy\"\\r
\\n\\r
\\nwhy aren\'t you happy with the current POTUS then?

@sql\\r
\\n\\r
\\nHA! don\'t want slogans??? \\r
\\n\\r
\\nYes We Can! Yes We Can!\\r
\\n\\r
\\nI understand being sick of hearing about this issue.... but then why not sign the petition? If the POTUS would just present it and prove his eligibility then he could make everyone shut up very quickly. Whining about opposite aisle whiners won\'t get anything done. It shouldn\'t be too much to ask the president to prove he was born in the USA. I personally doubt he was born outside of it... but my cynical side keeps questioning why he won\'t show something as trivial as a birth certificate.

\"If the POTUS would just present it and prove his eligibility then he could make everyone shut up very quickly\"\\r
\\n\\r
\\nIt\'s online if you do a basic Google search and has been for a long time. Just like all conspiracy theories, no amount of evidence will be enough for some!

There may be something simply embarassing in the birth certificate that Obama does not want made public. Medical records are confidential by law, by the way, and birth certificates can reflect medical issues which are private. All of which said, I agree with Rob that from a political standpoint, releasing the stupid piece of paper would be Obama\'s best tool for shutting up the Timothy McVeigh types. But for reasons none of us know, he won\'t. I don\'t believe we can jump to the conclusion that our president was not born in the United States. There\'s too much evidence that says otherwise, including a little newspaper ad from the day he was born.

But the birth certificate is in the public domain.\\r
\\n\\r
\\nWould a birth certificate contain medical details? Most babies don\'t have much of a medical history at that age!

Obamas birth cert is truelly irrelevant (in a practical sense). Hes in. He will never be taken out of office for any other reason than a vote. That being clear, the question becomes : \'What is the motivation for focusing on this \'issue\' as opposed to any other\"? (assuming that there are a wealth of other, more pressing, issues) The answer is political (as in \" I would prefer someone else making the decisions\".

The known birth certificate (as mentioned in comment #27) is online available. It used as picture in this question.
But the question asks for the "long version". The long version is kept private by the authorities, because it's kept private by law. The "short" version is confirmed by the authorities as being legit. And thus, the citizenship of Obama is confirmed being US by US authorities. Did I mis something which allowes any doubt of this?

Obama prevents publication of the "long" version. That's his valid personal right to do so. Besides: Publication of that would not clarify any doubt about his citizenship - because the short version does already.

So why publicize it? And even more: Why demand it to be publicized?

Disclaimer: Yes, I'm no US citizen, so why should I interfere in this discussion anyway. Sorry if I bothered you and you've got the impression that I "cast stones from afar" without knowing what I'm talking about.

"is confirmed by the authorities as being legit" isn't correct, sorry. anyway: there isn't a reason to doubt the authenticity as stated by numerous people, obviously.

and funny, it's World Net Daily who started the socalled "petition" - the ones who started the campaign one year ago (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66787)

Despite the claims here, he has NOT released his Birth Certificate.

He has only released a CertificatION of Birth from Hawaii which can be acquired by citizens outside of America.

If you want to read up on the conspiracy end knock yourself out here:

http://obamaisnotacitizen.com/
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/obama/
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/3074

"Is a Certificate of Live Birth proof of natural-born citizenship? Absolutely NOT!

According to Hawaiian law, Certificates of Live Birth may be “prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country.”

In addition, while some sources have confirmed the validity of this document, others question whether or not this document has been altered. Regardless, the Certificate of Live Birth does not prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. Children born outside of the country can be issued Certificates of Live Birth. In fact, Obama’s half sister was born in Indonesia and also has a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth."

Like I said... I don't know where I stand on it all. It is indeed hard to believe we let a noncitizen gain the POTUS position. However, there is a strong argument here and it could honestly be settled easily if it was just shown to the people.

kru - i have nothing againest obama as a person. just don't agree with his domestic policy. so i guess you could say i'm half happy with him. if he changes his foreign (depending on the changes) then i won't agree with him on much. he's trying to send some gitmo prisoners to curios's country. now i would be really happy if he accoplished that. epecially if they move into curios's neighborhood. WOOT WOOT! :O)

@ robamichael Thanks for your synopsis. I thought people would read and understand the controversy before sharing their "wisdom"

The whole point is the Obama is vitally afraid of the birth certificate being made public and has spent over a million dollars to keep the public from seeing it. Gates pretended the other day not to understand the controversy. The upshot is that the informed understand that the legitimacy of the POTUS to run for and hold the position has never been proven. So when POTUS swore to uphold the constitution, the question remains, was he unconstitutionally being sworn in to uphold it.

POTUS must thank his lucky stars that the vote of the uninformed and the misinformed are equal to the educated and informed.

To my "wisdom" I count that I am aware that, regardless where Barack was born, he still meets the criteria of being a natural born citizen of the US. Therefor the discussion about the certificate seems quite senceless to me, if you don't try to cover up something yet unmentioned here.

And about the money spend to protect his privacy. Why did he even have to do so?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

@excavator: you've used the term conspiracy several times as though through repetition it will gain traction and credibility...but the "conspiracy", if there is one, exists solely in the minds of the "uninformed and misinformed" on the Right who can't get their minds around the fact that the American people--by a huge margin--voted into office a guy who doesn't fit their "The President Must Be A Doddering Rich Old White Man" ideal. Folks who spend a lot of time and energy shouting at the rain would do themselves a favor by approaching things with an open mind, and by studying and accepting all the evidence, rather than just that offered by sources that will bolster their preconceptions. Critical thinking can be a truly wonderful thing.

The very simple fact of the matter is that the GOP, painfully aware that its numbers are dwindling--that support for its outdated and hugely unpopular platform is fading, that young people are choosing liberal politics over a conservative one by a nearly two-to-one margin, that as a party it has been wholly unable to offer a single candidate at the national level who possesses the intelligence, gravitas, open-mindedness, and charisma required of the office of POTUS, that it was rejected handily in the 2008 elections in most nearly every race at most nearly every level, as it almost certainly will be again in 2010, and 2012--has nothing to cling to but little paranoia-based conspiracy theories that don't--never have, and never will--hold so much as a single drop of water when subjected to public scrutiny. Those who espouse this whole "Obama is not a legal U.S. citizen!" nonsense--and, to their credit, not all on the Right do--are nothing more than silly modern-day Flat-Earthers. It'd be funny if it weren't so wasteful.

Fun Fodder for Conspiracy Theorists: here's a link to an image that obviously shows what someone skilled with Photoshop can do (look where the arrow's pointing): http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg :-)

The thing about conspiracy theorists is that once they've developed their selective perception, their mind refuses to accept contrary evidence (of which there is much in this case). Making things worse, as soon as you criticize their conspiracy theory, you become part of that conspiracy. IOW, I don't expect this thing will die off anytime soon. But as I've said before: that's only going to hurt the GOP even further...and that's just fine by me. :-)

@ diesel cant get dragon on the plane he has no birth cert .+ the flue and he is creating havoc there is some talk he may end up in jail

@DeeLilly,
"(Beside the point) what I do approve of are the great strides America is making to repair some of the heinous mistakes of the past 8 years. The struggle to make Obama illegal, whilst amusing, is definitely under the radar of most Americans."

To start on a positive note - I agree that the issue of legality is under the radar of most Americans.
I find it fascinating to hear the self proclaimed open minded individuals who will not stop to even consider this issue. The party of tolerance is alive and well, as long as you do not disagree with them.

I am not only concerned about the birth certificate, but his missing school / medical records too. He is hiding something and that will continue to intrigue me. I suspect that it is something as benign as using foreign status to apply for grants for his college education.

I suspect that there is nothing really evil going on here and Obama has the right to keep his records private, but as our top elected official, I would hope that he would choose to use his own presidency as a role model for the transparency that he wants to promote.

@Sqlman
I question your definition of a huge margin.
7.2% makes a valid victory but not a huge margin.

FWIW - I was not very happy with the Republican party by the end of 2008 either.
Both of the political parties have left me and neither listens to the voice of the common man anymore.

This is the kind of stuff that is shrinking the ranks of the GOP. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama is withholding the authentic birth certificate just to see the Republicans whine and sputter.

And didn't Obama go to Hawaii to kill his grandmother (the last living person who knew the truth about his illegal alien status) right before the elections? :rolleyes:

@sql

It's always nice to hear someone ask you to "open" your mind when they refuse to ever do so on their own part. In fact... an "open" mind request usually means "think my way or else."

This isn't an insult. It's not. Just have an open mind.

--------------------

I think crazier than the fact that GOP is getting flak for this is that those on the other side seem to not care at all just because he is such an awesome candidate. Is it really that bad to request a birth certificate from the President of the United States? Come on now....

I know Geithner didn't have his taxes in order but he still fessed those up. Like I've said repeatedly... I don't think anyone would find the worst.... but what the hell? It shouldn't be a big deal for the POTUS to show his proper birth certificate. I would honestly like to see this debate disappear too...

What does "natural born citizen" even mean? Is someone born by Caesarean birth not "naturally born"? I think it is up to the supreme court to interpret this. and there was already a case, and they said it was up to the voting public...(if my memory serves me correctly). So , they refused to enter the controversy (wisely, i think). If they entered it, it would be overriding the voting citizens.. They decided their few votes should not override the millions.. I agree (as if anyone cares).

@bigken1:

The "citizen" part is less difficult to figure out. Also the "born" part pretty much rules out naturalized citizens. So that is a start & if you think that millions of votes should overrule the constitution, then I take it that you question the value and wisdom of a constitutional republic - am I right?

curios - get dragon a good lawyer. send the bill to sqlman. we'll trade you 5 gitmo prisoners for one dragonfang. one catch...he has to be flu free. go ahead and send him to the doctor. you can send sqlman that bill also. :O)

@sqlman:

Just asking: Where did excavator use the word "conspiracy" several times, as you allege in comment #38? I think I have read all of his remarks and can't find it - did you (or one of the admins) delete excavator's "conspiracy" remark? (I sense another conspiracy brewing! - LOL)

@sqlman
ok that is it. you have now outed me. inside agent trying to bring down the GOP with the conspiracy theory. Now at least do me the favor of signing the petition and help to advance it to bring them down.

And i had a good thing going... Ok I'm off to see Valery Plame's lawyer.

@bigken

friendly correction:

since we are a Republic (well thats been changing...) and NOT a democracy, it does not matter how many people vote for what if its stated in the Constitution (Law)

Something I think everyone should see to understand difference between a democracy and republic:
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

I alway thought the US wanted to bring something to Iraq which is one of their own ideals: Democracy. So, since the US ain't a democracy (thanks for teaching us, rob), it seems that main goal of the US to invade Iraq couldn't have been democracy too. Another lie, could it be?

Joking aside:
Since the Reps didn't manage to reveal it, and the secret services possibly also weren't able to cover up anything which points at a fraude by now, I'm just guessing: Maybe there isn't a fraud at all. But maybe the Reps just screwed it. It wouldn't be a surprise.

Anyway:
If those within the Dems party who choose to nominate Obama hadn't checked whether or not he'd meet the criteria, they would have taken a huge risk of a huge disgrace. But I assume they did. And if the appropriate positions dealing within the formal process of the inauguration have not revealed whether or not the person to be inaugurated is meeting all requirements, I guess my concerns about the US should get even larger. I assume both have done what they had to do. And parts of this might not be suitable for being made public - which is fine, IMO.

Wow, my "wisdom" suddenly has grown further:

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”

http://blogs.starbulletin.com/inpolitics/certified/

Obviously, there actually is no doubt. Obviously, there is no legit reason to demand the birth certificate to be made publicly available. So why should he? Why should he even consider to follow these demands? Why should he even reply to them?

(So I retract my retraction in comment #32)

OK I'm 377,696 :-) Just a thought, where is the "transparency" the Obama regime promised? It would be a simple matter for Obama to allow it's release thus ending all the furor. So simple and "transparent" !

... and unnecessary because already done.

Simple and transparent.

@ kruijus thank you for all of your research! (even though I've learned more than I wanted to know about the requirements to be POTUS :)
Wouldn't it be like finding out that the pilot of the plane you're on wasn't licenced to fly?

@ 35 dieseldog It's encouraging to hear that you're "half happy" with your Prez! ;)
why are you afraid of people who haven't even been declared guilty when your super-max prisons can safely contain all sorts of proven criminals? When Bushco ignored habeas corpus and "legalized" torture it had to be outsourced. That gig should be really be over by now.

@ chatarra "To start on a positive note - I agree that the issue of legality is under the radar of most Americans.
I find it fascinating to hear the self proclaimed open minded individuals who will not stop to even consider this issue. The party of tolerance is alive and well, as long as you do not disagree with them."
That positive note was kind of obliterated in your next sentence, tho.
I'll start on a charitable note, and imagine that after being lied to about the WMD in Iraq, you guys have lost faith in the Office, and have a need to question little thang that you can.

@deelilley,

please have one further read on this topic here:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

June 1st: 377,798
Four days ago: 375,334
Change: 2,464 / 4 days = 616/day
Days remaining 33
Expected change: 33 * 616 = 20328
Expected July 4: 377,798 + 20328 = 398126 FAILURE

@ #58 "Expected change" is the question. The bilboard campaign has just started only one is up two more are leased and the search is going on for space in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Sacramento, San Francisco, New York-New Jersey, Des Moines, Seattle and other metro areas. It could gain some momentum.

@DeeLilly,
Iraq is a strawman - something you chastised me for earlier, while I was tightening up the straps on my tin foil hat.
;-)

I predict Obama's defenders will have an increasingly frustrating time as time progresses. In an honest analysis, I know this because I spent a lot of energy and effort to defend Bush before the end of his terms. By the end of his terms, I have finally realized that Bush's policies created a socialist lite society, but Obama's efforts to destroy capitalism are simply incredible, to say the least.

How does the American President get to fire the CEO of GM? Or turn the bankruptcy code on it's ear. Or declare AIG's contract written bonuses to be invalid? Incredibly, he (and the rest of Congress) didn't even take time to read, debate & modify the stimulus bill before he flew to Denver to sign the bill at the Museum of Science of Nature,

It is interesting to see how Obama wants to declassify documents from the previous administration, but while keeping several of his own secret.

@comment 60, 61

f_o_f, that site just repeats the claim that, because he doesn't make it public, he must make it public. still no valid argument in my eyes.

chatarra, that isn't a reason too.

same answers: it is his personal right to keep these documents private. by defending this personal right he does not make himself suspicious. OTOH by fighting this right, you are fighting personal rights. are you throwing away your ideals? again?

@all on the right: Give me one reason why Obama should publish his "long" birth certificate. Please!

deelilley - you still haven't answered what "these heinous mistakes of the past 8 years" are. what is obama doing differnt than bush did? you don't put people captured in a war in supermax prisons. obama is stuck with his commitment to close gitmo in a year. he can't get the dems to follow him cause he has no plan as of today.

kru - i been staying out of this debate this time. its like the global warming debate. its been there done that on HD so many times its gettin boring. i'll give you one reason. to prove he's not nor never has been a dual citizen.

from the link f-o-f provided.

For those of you who are SURE that we have seen Barack Obama's birth certificate (after all Snopes says it is good!) I have a little challenge for you. Take said certificate and insert your name, making no other changes. Then, take it to any local US Post office and ask them if it will be sufficient for you to receive a US Passport. I am not suggesting you actually try to get a passport, just ask if the document will allow you to. After you are told no for the 22nd time, try to rationalize away the fact that if the Government will not allow you to get a passport with it, then why would they let you become president with it?

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4188-4049

Wasnt McCain born in Panama?

@kruijs:

Why do you care? Mr Obama has promised that his administration would be “the most open and transparent in history”, and now he gives all the indications of hiding something when he won't release a simple form that would put all these questions to rest. In fact, he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to prevent anyone from seeing this form... this gives at least the impression that he is breaking a promise. You don't care. I understand that. That is your prerogative. Many right-thinking US citizens do care. That is their prerogative.

Why are you so anxious that he not release this? Are you worried about something? Do you want to share it with us?

Many of the people who don't want to see Mr Obama's papers are also anxious that illegal aliens are not asked for their papers either. Just an observation. (And it might possibly be more relevant than it first seems!) :-)

@buckojo:

Yes, great point. He was born on a US military base. And he didn't hide anything - in fact Congress passed a resolution finding him eligible to be a candidate for president.

"to prove he's not nor never has been a dual citizen"
does dual citizenship disqualify for becoming president? AFAIK he has had dual citizenship (Kenyan). It seems not to be so that he hided that anyway: He held both U.S. and Kenyan citizenship as a child, but lost his Kenyan citizenship automatically on his 21st birthday.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

"if the Government will not allow you to get a passport with it, then why would they let you become president with it?"
So, obviously, they let Obama become president. Maybe not with the short version of the certificate - I don't know. Still, he was let become president - and as that quote implies, they must have testified his prerequisites. If so, than he would be legit president regardless the whole debate about this certificate, isn't it?

BTW state Health Director Chiyome Fukino has certified the certificate to be genuine, in case you missed that (see comment #51).

I still see no reason to doubt.

@kruijs:

Fact check is a website run by Annenberg. They don't even hide that fact - it is not an impartial source for data on Mr Obama

"he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to prevent anyone from seeing this form"
didn't he have to do so because some right wingers challenge his lawful right on privacy in court in the first place? or did he lose any of these cases?

"Why are you so anxious that he not release this? Are you worried about something? Do you want to share it with us?"
actually, if there were a reason to be anxious to have it released, I guess you were right. But I still see no reason ....

But, has nobody of you was able to point me at this far: The United States does NOT check the background of applicants who run for the Presidency. Does it check the background before inauguration? Now that is a real challenge.

@notable, is state Health Director Chiyome Fukino also ran by Obama supporters?

--A thorough background check was done on Obama prior to the 2008 election--by the Bush-led FBI, no less--and they were unable to find a single piece of credible evidence that Obama was born anywhere but Honolulu. That very same investigation was performed again after the election; that kinda thing is necessary when, you know, the person being checked on controls the world's most powerful military, with thousands of tanks, and missile-equipped airplanes, and nuclear weapons, and all. That second investigation also failed to turn up anything to indicate that Obama is not the full U.S. citizen he has always claimed to be.

--Obama has several very valid reasons for not showing the original birth certificate, one of those being that if he were to give in to the tabloid-loving, paranoid, radical Right types demanding to see 'proof' that he was born in the U.S., that would only cause them to smell blood, and start demanding even more...and, frankly, the country has too many problems for Obama to deal with that he hasn't the time to go rummaging through his now-stored boxes of household goods looking for little scraps of paper to answer each and every ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim made against him.

--As I've said here before, when folks of a certain limited intellect latch onto a particular conspiracy theory, nothing will dissuade them from their preconceptions, and every piece of evidence or every witness that contradicted those preconceptions would come under suspicion just because it contradicted them. Were Obama to hold a press conference today at which he'd produce his crinkly, yellowed old original birth certificate, some quack 'expert' on Fox or World Net Daily would opine for hours on how the paper on which it was printed didn't appear to be of the exact weight used on Hawaiian birth certificates the year Obama was born, or that the specific gravity of the ink used for the OB/GYN's signature was off from that used by most physicians before 1965 by +0.005%, or why the torn, slightly dog-eared lower right corner of the certificate was clear proof of a forgery, or how King Kamehameha's right hand on the state seal embossed into the certificate was...well, you get the idea. It's simply not something for which he, nor the American people, have the time or energy.

--He's president. Even if he were to admit--at a separate press conference, of course--that he was born in Kenya and that he sacrifices goats every morning at sunrise in the Rose Garden while naked and beating on a drum and singing Zulu battle songs and drinking the blood of warriors from his tribe's sworn enemies, he'd still be the president. Period. The American people need to get used to the fact that the president is a black man with a funny name. Those who can't do so are certainly free to wallow in racist, paranoid, conspiratorial misery for the next four/eight years, but I truly doubt it'll do them much good.

It's funny--well, maybe not funny, but really, really sad--that the radical Right doesn't mind so much the in-your-face lying perpetrated by the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield/whomever cabal over the last eight years--lying that's resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and the wasting of hundreds of billions of dollars and the squandering of nearly every bit of global goodwill other American presidents have worked 200+ years to build--but when they suspect that a liberal has lied on a birth certificate--even when there's not a single shred of evidence to support that suspicion--they suddenly they become moralistically and bombastically "afraid for the future of their country", and they're willing to "...go to any lengths and any expense to get to the bottom of the matter." I'd have to say that folks like that have motivations that go far beyond simply seeking the truth. Wouldn't you?

Sqlman

True.

The Fox does not help. It has been sick since the election. It is thinner and and now gnaws on its own tail. It only gets up to chase Acorns down rabbit holes. Poor thing.

The transparancy that Obama touted pre election was wonderful to hear, and to an extent I feel that he is quite genuine in his endeavours. But political reality is polictical reality and Obama simply will not be able to live up to the rhetoric in every instance.

At least he seems to be trying (ie take foreign policy for example). Bush and Cheney didnt know and didnt care about how a post invasion occupation of Iraq might go (although Cheney had the foresight to embed KRB and Halliburton into every instance of corporate servicing of 160,000 troops for 6 years).

People aren't angry about that but they have the energy to badger a man over a qualification already vouched for by a state official?

As for the : 'if you didnt have anything to hide you would comply with our every demand argument' - thin end o the wedge no?

Incidentally DID Congress pass a resolution finding McCain eligible? I would have thought this is an issue for a Contitutional lawyer and a judge. If it is the case that McCains eligibility was borne of political will, does that not take away the 'sanctity of the constitution' argument?

sorry. i dont know much about the constitution of america, and whether it can be modified by congressional action.

@buckojo:

Actually, they found McCain to be eligible. They did not make him eligible, but rather reviewed the facts and certified their findings.

@kruijs:

It matters because it is the law.

If a president is not anxious to show he has reasonably complied with the law, what moral authority does he have to expect other citizens to follow laws that he puts in place? Constitutional Republics are not run that way. (However, dictatorships are... but that is not what we have here.)

@notable
what do you mean matters? what do you mean is law? the law is: he must meet the prerequisites. He obviously does. The law is not to make his birth certificate public, in fact the law protects him from unfounded calls to publish private information. - regardless how often you call him to do. Even the fact that he doesn't make it public is no reason to force him to make it public.

Do your anxiousness and curiosity value more than his right on privacy? I guess: No - not as long as there is no reason to doubt.

And no one gave one single reason to doubt he met the prerequisites, and therefor the demand to publish the certificate is still unfounded.

I repeat:
@all on the right: Give me one reason why Obama should publish his "long" birth certificate. Please!

sql, once again, you’re ranting.
in re: comment #71

You state, “A thorough background check was done on Obama prior to the 2008 election--by the Bush-led FBI, no less--and they were unable to find a single piece of credible evidence that Obama was born anywhere but Honolulu.”

An attribute, please?

You further editorialize, “Even if he were to admit--at a separate press conference, of course--that he was born in Kenya and that he sacrifices goats every morning at sunrise in the Rose Garden while naked and beating on a drum and singing Zulu battle songs and drinking the blood of warriors from his tribe's sworn enemies, he'd still be the president. Period.”

Way off on this one.
I refer you to Article ll, Section 1, paragraph 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America.

~livestock is forbidden within the District of Columbia~

Goats at Camp David, perhaps.

Erik, hehe, do you really question that Obama has been checked?
In case they did not do so, I seriously doubt the competencies of the "far most largest greatest" country on earth.

Well, since noone came up with some serious information, I'm currently trying to dig through this myself.

Recently read these articles:
http://usjf.net/archives/718 (nothing new)
http://www.pr-inside.com/hawai-i-health-director-dr-chiyome-fukino-r893490.htm (interesting read, seriously)
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/hawaii-does-not-verify-smears-colb-now-gotv/ (also, interesting)
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/andy-martin-hawaii-lawsuit-obama-birth-certificate-judge-ruling-martin-response-november-21-2008-update/ (almost a disappointment after the previous reads)

Maybe you could point me at some further readings (serious ones, not that usjf stuff 'coz I know that already now).

@kruijs:

Here is the law:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The President historically makes his tax returns available on request, and his health records, and discloses his net worth, and releases college and military records, and so forth. It is not a stretch to ask to see a birth certificate. There is no precedent for such secrecy, and if flies in the face of this President's promise to be transparent.

excavator@59 - apparently the first billboard has been up since at least May 21, so it should already be having its effects.

Suppose the sign-up rate was stalled at zero before the first billboard went up, so all of the 616/day rate is due to that billboard, and suppose that rate doesn't fall off over time, and suppose that the next two scheduled "several weeks" after that date also generate a similar amount.

Heck, round it up to 2000/day for ~33 days remaining, even though the other billboards shouldn't be up yet. That's only 66000 names added. Add that to the current 378,240 names and it's still only 444,240 - 55760 names short.

He might have been a "Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" that would qualify him.

On a different topic (although constituionally related) I'm amazed that gun rights in the US are still supposed to be constitutionally upheld. the relevant amendment refers to : 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'.

Is the reference to 'being necessary to the security of a free state' a supposition (ie all well maintained militas are as a matter of fact necessary to the security of a free state), or is the reference to 'being necessary to the security of a free state' a precondition (ie the right not to be infringed is the right to a well organised militia where it must be first established that such militia is in fact necessary to a free state before the amendment becomes operational?

The sentence as a whole appears to fragment - presumably the argument is that the right of people to bear arms is seperate to teh well organised militia requirement/supposition.

Can of worms anyone?

@notablenotices

I knew that law, obviously. But thanks for pointing that out. I can't find the passage in that law which describes that he has to make private documents available to the entire citizenship. Can you show me that?

"The President historically makes his tax returns available on request, and his health records, and discloses his net worth, and releases college and military records, and so forth"
So you say "historically" and "on request" which means that there isn't a law which describes he must. It's purely voluntary.

"It is not a stretch to ask to see a birth certificate"
So it does not belong to the list of "historically made available" documents, right? I can't find George W. Bush's long form birth certificate on the web, albeit.

"There is no precedent for such secrecy, and if flies in the face of this President's promise to be transparent."
That is your opinion. And you might actually be right in this. But still: There is no rule which forces him to do what you demand. In fact, again, the law protects him from doing so. And courts rule accordingly.

I have never said that Obama doesn't need to fulfill the requirements. My opinion is just: He doesn't have to do it in front of a broad public. I assume that his records have been checked before the inauguration. If not, the problem you have is of a fully different shape.

@kruijs:

Yes, I agree - if his documents had been checked before the inauguration, this problem would have gone away. If you can find any source that said they were checked by an official of any kind, I would be very interested in that. My impression is that he had quite a few teams of lawyers representing him in the many lawsuits that questioned his citizenship, and from what I heard, they did everything they could to avoid showing the document to any of the judges - even to the point that they reportedly objected on the grounds that it was a “legitimate privacy concern” and “particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation.”

So that is where my interest lies - if no judge has made a pronouncement on it, and the public is left to wonder what the "serious embarrassment" is... that is where imaginations take over and he is doing nothing to prevent it.

its my understanding that all the cases obama won WASN'T do to his right of privacy. the judge[s] ruled that the people filing didn't have jurisdiction to file. they couldn't prove they would be harmed if it was found out that obama wasn't eligible to be prez. now tell me how they reached that conclusion? i admit i only read 2 of the at least 8 so can't say what all judges rulings were. if obama isn't eligible it harms everybody in the US and any other country we did business with.

the issue is one of 'standing' (as defined) rather than 'foreseeable harm', no?

@dieseldog, of course it all is about the privacy, as the law describes that the authorities are not allowed to publish the document. and the judge must decide whether the public interest is large enough to put that law aside in this case: "State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record."

"To keep up this debate, you need to change the question to "How did Obama insert the forgery into the middle of the State of Hawaii’s official records?" The rest of us, of course, are wondering why you think it's suspicious that the State of Hawaii is treating Obama's birth certificate the same as it treats the birth certificate of everyone else born in Hawaii since it became a State."

http://askville.amazon.com/SimilarQuestions.do?req=options+Supreme+Court+Obama+refuses+make+public+Birth+Certificate+01+Dec+2008

[...] according to several experts in conspiracy theories, and in the psychology of people who believe in conspiracy theories, there's little chance those people who think Obama is barred from the presidency will ever be convinced otherwise. "There's no amount of evidence or data that will change somebody's mind," says Michael Shermer, who is the publisher of Skeptic magazine and a columnist for Scientific American, and who holds an undergraduate and a master's degree in psychology. "The more data you present a person, the more they doubt it ... Once you're committed, especially behaviorally committed or financially committed, the more impossible it becomes to change your mind."

Any inconvenient facts are irrelevant. People who believe in a conspiracy theory "develop a selective perception, their mind refuses to accept contrary evidence," Chip Berlet, a senior analyst with Political Research Associates who studies such theories, says. "As soon as you criticize a conspiracy theory, you become part of the conspiracy."

Evan Harrington, a social psychologist who is an associate professor at the Chicago School of Professional Psychology, agrees. "One of the tendencies of the conspiracy notion, the whole appeal, is that a lot of the information the believer has is secret or special," Harrington says. "The real evidence is out there, [and] you can give them all this evidence, but they'll have convenient ways to discredit [it]."

[...]

For believers, it works like this: So what if Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the director of Hawaii's Department of Health, released a statement saying she has verified that the state has the original birth certificate on record? So what if she said separately that the certification looks identical to one she was issued for her own Hawaii birth certificate? Why didn't her statement specify Obama's birthplace? So what if a Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman later clarified that Fukino meant that Obama was born in Hawaii? So what if researchers for FactCheck.org actually saw the physical copy of the certification and debunked much of the key "evidence" supposedly proving that the image posted online is a forgery? They're not really independent. They're funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, and Obama once (with Bill Ayers, no less) ran an entirely unrelated program that happened to be paid for with money donated by Walter Annenberg. And on and on and on.

If the long-form birth certificate were released, with its unequivocal identification of Hawaii as Obama's place of birth, the cycle would almost certainly continue. Rush Limbaugh already suggested that Obama's trip to Hawaii to see his ailing grandmother, who died not long after, was somehow connected to the controversy. Others, like Michael Savage, followed Limbaugh's lead, saying Obama was going to Hawaii to alter the record.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/05/birth_certificate/

"If you can find any source that said they were checked by an official of any kind, I would be very interested in that."
Well, I assume that it has actually happened within internal procedures. But I only assume. Maybe someone could cover up whether or not this has happened - as I seem not be able to find something (either way) about it.

But even if it hadn't be done: Why do you doubt? Is there any evidence to base you doubt on? All I've seen by now are allegations, hypothetical allegations based upon antipathy and xenophobia of right wingers. I really am interested in seeing hard facts.

@kruijs:

Here is a discussion about the laws that would have been broken if Mr Obama were found not to be a natural born citizen:

Enforcement of Election Fraud and the Birth Certificate
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/11/enforcement-of-election-fraud-and-birth.html

However, I must take exception to you baseless mudslinging. I see no issue with a basic curiosity on the part of a country's citizens about issues concerning one of their elected leaders. Just because you do not share that curiosity does not give you grounds to call them xenophobic. You ought to show more care with your choice of words and restrain your proclivity for labeling.

@notable,


ctually, if you read closely what I wrote, I didn't label "right wingers" as such being xenophobic. Nevertheless, sorry if I offended you. Is that ok to you if I call you "right winger"? But honestly, I guess there are other around here who show a far larger proclivity for labeling than I do. How often am I called a "tree hugger"?

I am aware of the potential harm by a fraud. But is the potential harm the reason why you assume that the fraud actually is happening?

"I see no issue with a basic curiosity on the part of a country's citizens about issues concerning one of their elected leaders."
I don't too. But if you were simply curious, then you would not go to court, isn't it? In most of the cases you'd simply be a little disappointed that your curiousity isn't served, but you'd move on. Obviously it is no "basic curiosity" which is around. It's a doubt and a fear. But, are there rational reasons? Or is it just a campaign with suggestive and hypothetical allegations?

And, actually, I share this curiosity. But, I repeat what I've said before, that not something a such a claim (and serveral court cases) should be based upon.

So, either there are rational reasons to doubt, or there are no rational reasons to doubt.

I've seen none so far. Have you? Feel free to share.

@kruijs:

I understand what you are trying to say, and I am OK about you calling me a "right-winger". (I usually am more in agreement with the right anyway, so it is pretty much true.) However, this is not a right-wing issue. Philip Berg, one of the earliest and loudest voices on this issue is a staunch ally of Hillary Clinton's and was a lawyer for her campaign. He is not a "right-winger". He has been joined in his lawsuits by attorneys in Washington DC, Arizona and perhaps other states, and leads the most visible legal efforts. (see http://bridgetdgms.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/obama-attorney-threatens-lawyer-over-birth-certificate/ )

Now, if Mr Obama had perhaps satisfied some judge in private that his birth certificate is official, wouldn't judges in lawsuits all over the country cite that in their rulings? All I have seen is dismissals based on things like jurisdiction, standing, and other technical issues instead of any reference that this question had already been satisfactorily answered.

We are left wondering why a series of law firms have been hired on Obama’s behalf around the nation to prevent any public access to his birth certificate, passport records, college records and other documents that could settle this question.

the process i think kruijs is objecting to is known in law as 'fishing' : seeking access to documents hoping to retrospectively prove their relevance and thus justify what might otherwise have been an unjustifiable access to that information (unjustifiable in terms of privacy law).

the law needs to strike a balance between privacy rights and legitimate interets.

the prohibition against fising is a necessary procedural barrier.

@notablenotices: "We are left wondering why a series of law firms have been hired on Obama’s behalf around the nation to prevent any public access to his birth certificate, passport records, college records and other documents that could settle this question."

I believe I (and krujis) have answered this more than once here: during a witch hunt, no amount of evidentiary support is going to satsify those who are absolutely, steadfastly convinced that the person they're accusing is without a doubt a witch. Obama could squander more precious resources gathering reams of certified documents proving he was born in Honolulu, proving what nations he's visited, proving which schools he's attended, proving which classes he took, proving what grades he made, proving girlfriends he's had and groups to which he's belonged and places he's stayed...and it still wouldn't be good enough for those on the out-of-the-mainstream radical right who have it in their tinfoil-hat-covered heads that Obama isn't who he--and every single shred of legitimate corroborating evidence--says he is.

In America, a person is generally considered innocent until proven guilty. When someone decides to accuse someone else of a crime, the onus is on the accuser to provide proof that the accused committed that crime; the accused doesn't need to pony up proof that he didn't. So until the radical right consipiracy theorists can produce a copy of Obama's Kenyan birth certificate, or photos of Baby Barack sitting in a bassinet in downtown Nairobi, or invitations to his baby shower in Mombasa, they should quit trying to obfuscate the truth: the GOP and conservatism are fading, and fading fast...and ludicrous anti-American witch hunts such as this are manufactured for the sole purpose of hiding that fact. Some buy it, to be sure...but most don't. And that's the reason the GOP finds itself more and more sitting on the outside looking in.

and uh, wait a minute ... Obama himself swore that he is legit to be the president ... first he tried and failed, but he did it a second time!

why challenge a man's word?
why assuming a fraud, a false oath, and an abuse of a position which is implied by your demanding that certificate to be made public.

a, right. you have a certain kind of ....... curiosity.

that's a perfect reason.

thanks buckojo, sqlman, that's quite what I'm trying to say.

But don't forget: The reps did such kind of thing before: Putting people in GITMO and than claim that they are dangerous because they would not have been in GITMO otherwise. Nice strategy.

So. For me, this topic is done. As long as no one can come up with a valid reason, I assume Obama is correctly the POTUS.

If you like it or not, you, chatarra, drzinternet, notablenotices, dieseldog, Erik, fingers_of_fury, robamichael, dranonfangxl (rip), and others, yes, you should accept that too as long as there isn't anything else but this stuff which is made up out of thin air.

Kruijs,
I think there are more important issues out there.
I can accept that this topic is done for you.
However, that, does not mean that I must end my curiosity too.

For me, it comes down to trust and I must confess something here.
I know, this will be a shock to some, but I no longer want to be sitting on the fence about it.
I am not a fan of Barack Obama, and I do not trust him either.
There, now that I have said it, there can be no confusion about where I stand.

With that said, I generally do not fall victim to the latest conspiracy theories. But as NN said earlier, the cases that have been dismissed previously in this case, have not been dismissed because the evidence is overwhelming, but rather on various technicalities. There is too much money working hard to keep this issue "in thin air" or hoping that it will just disappear.

I know GITMO is a big issue for you. We will continue to disagree on that too. You imply that the USA simply rounded up innocent strangers and locked them up at Gitmo with only false allegations to base their decisions on. I, on the other hand, feel that the incarceration at Gitmo is preferable to being killed in combat by coalition forces, who chose to take prisoners alive instead.

Speaking of Gitmo, do you trust Obama to close Gitmo anytime soon? - I do not think he will.
Obama (like most other politicians) follows the polls closely.

June 3, 2009
Americans Oppose Closing Gitmo and Moving Prisoners to U.S.
By a better than 2-to-1 margin, Americans are opposed to closing the Guantanamo Bay prison that houses terror suspects and moving some of those prisoners to the United States. Americans express even more widespread opposition to the idea of moving the prisoners to prisons in their own states if Guantanamo is closed.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/119393/Americans-Oppose-Closing-Gitmo-Moving-Prisoners.aspx

Cover-up: CBS bans eligibility billboards
Industry signage leader rejects campaign asking simply 'Where's the birth certificate?'
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100022

...""CBS is a company that is not squeamish about feeding America's children a steady diet of offensive movies, obscene rap music and even TV commercials that push the cultural and moral envelope," said Farah. "But CBS is afraid to put up a sign containing four innocent words of constitutionally protected, non-inflammatory political speech. You explain that to me. This is a giant media conglomerate unworthy of operating under the protection of the First Amendment."

While it would seem simple for Obama to publish his long-form birth certificate, I could see an argument against it, which is simply that it gives credence to a baseless and maliciously motivated campaign against him -- previous presidents have not faced this kind of scrutiny. In any case, it looks like this petition is not going to get the requisite number of signatures. But, please, those who want to see this poll pass keep voting yes. It increases my opportunities to profit at your expense.

kru - to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record." - how do you or any judge consider the american people as having a non-tangible interest? show me a case where the judge sites the right to privacy as the reason obama won. not some website the actual court case #.


So what if researchers for FactCheck.org actually saw the physical copy of the certification and debunked much of the key "evidence" - so he "supposely" released it to a group that supports him but won't release it to all the people. hmmmmmmmm! factcheck has the COLB just like everybody else.

If the long-form birth certificate were released, with its unequivocal identification of Hawaii as Obama's place of birth, the cycle would almost certainly continue - then your case that its just wackos (my word not yours) seeking to derail obama would hold more water. BTW being a dual citizen can make a person noneligible to be prez.

I really am interested in seeing hard facts - so ain't alot of americans. if obama is so concerened about his privacy why did he write 2 books reveling info he didn't have to?

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1078071/Philip-Berg-vs-Barack-Hussein-Obama-Citizenship-Lawsuit

I am in complete agreement with the noisymouse. I'm going to sign the petition just in hopes of winning this bet. Even if Barack Obama was born in Kenya, that fact would be irrelevant to me because he's a far better president than the one we had who was born in Texas, which some of us also consider a foreign country.

@ candelario I guess you fell for the marketing ;) ...the little cowboy was born in Connecticut.
http://magpo.blogs.com/davesblog/images/bush_cheerleader.jpg
Be nice, I know some Libruls in Texas...!

57 kruijs "http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html"
Thanks again...all that *should* be enough!
80 Well, I ran across an interesting theory that might help explain uh, some of the disconnect from reality: http://tinyurl.com/p8keds (Like the author, I too having been wondering why.) There will be screams about the source: but the World Net Daily? Tsk.

diesel @ 99 - 'standing' is a pretty technical term - it might be easy to think at first blush that every US citizen has a tangible interest in seeing the birth certificate, but the reality is likely not that simple. The tangible interest must be in obtaining the birth certificate (without evidence to the contrary it must be assumed that certificate is legit), rather than the tangible interest as defined as being a citizen of a country whose president is not legitimate.

we go back to the idea of 'fishing', and its relationship to standing. For example - lets say that you move into my neighbourhood. I have kids. I suspect you are a pedophile and demand to see your criminal record. Of course its easy to see that i might have a tangible interest in seeing that record IF you are a pedophile. But, without evidence suggesting that you ARE a pedophile, the fact that I would have an interest if you were does not mean that i now have standing to see your criminal record.

I suspect that sort of logic was applied in the court case that decided that the applicants did not have a tangible interest, of 'standing'.

As for Gitmo - it is a best of a mess isnt it? Of course, you have to expect legal quagmires when you illegally invade other countries.

Thats not a jibe at the US BTW - im Australian - part of the 'coalition of the willing'.

@dieseldog, chatarra:
That's exactly what I mean: you comments #96, 97, 99 give me no reason to believe why the certificate should be released. Just further posts like "I doubt", "I fear", "I suspect", "I don't trust' based on personal opinions. Now, who cares about that? Should a judge do so?

For me, there are way too many posts on the internet of that kind. I have found not a single post which simply gave a single rational reason for the demand. And obviously, you can't give me one either.

My opinion? You just posted your personal confession of failure.

@deelilley:

Candelario is absolutely correct. Lyndon B Johnson, one of the worst presidents in recent history, was born in Stonewall, Texas. He brought us contested elections, misused our troops in a war that became a quagmire where soldiers were being killed at the rate of more than 1000 per month, and even used them against US citizens in Detriot.
He pedaled his influence to gain favors with government agencies such as the FCC, used the FBI to wire tap Martin Luther King Jr's conversations, and citizens of Vietnamese decent. He brought us the "war on poverty", the "Great Society", interfered with elections in Latin America, and generally proved Candelario's point...

60 @ chatarra
"Iraq is a strawman - something you chastised me for earlier, while I was tightening up the straps on my tin foil hat.
;-)"

Heh :) It shore looks pretty in the sun, chatarra. Firstly, your strawman was an ad hominem, which never supports an argument. We've been through this before.
Second, Iraq is a perfect example of something that *should* have been questioned. Ironically, Bushco was quite famously secretive about lots of horrible things.
This is *paper*. It's been filed!

"I predict Obama's defenders will have an increasingly frustrating time as time progresses. In an honest analysis, I know this because I spent a lot of energy and effort to defend Bush before the end of his terms. By the end of his terms, I have finally realized that Bush's policies created a socialist lite society, but Obama's efforts to destroy capitalism are simply incredible, to say the least."

That is complete hyperbole.
Capitalism obviously has some honkin' big weak spots. We're all in the car business because Capitalists screwed up, and we're in the finance business for the very same reason.

63 dieseldog
"deelilley - you still haven't answered what "these heinous mistakes of the past 8 years" are. what is obama doing differnt than bush did?

Actually, diesel, "mistakes" is a polite Canadian-type way of saying "malfeasance". "Crimes", even. Obama hasn't invaded another Country yet.

"you don't put people captured in a war in supermax prisons."

You sure as Hell did. Although captured in a "war" could be debated. Bushco managed to redefine the word. It's not like you're on rations or anything.

"obama is stuck with his commitment to close gitmo in a year. he can't get the dems to follow him cause he has no plan as of today."

Well, I agreed with them, but a plan will be arranged and they'll pass the funds.

@deelilley:

We're all in the car business because of Government's intervention and regulations, and we're in the finance business for the very same reason.

The finance and auto industry were some of the most regulated and suppressed industries in existence. CAFE standards are only the beginning of the discussion. In order to get a car on the sales lot, countless rules and regulations put the price of research and development prohibitively high, while other government pronouncements on GM's other business units such as Terex, Frigidaire, Raytheon, Delphi, New Departure Hyatt, Light Armored Vehicles, EDS, American Axle, Detroit Diesel, GMI, Hughes, and so forth, has generally been negative with prominent politicians publicly declaring that the company was too big, too successful, and needed to give up these revenue sources.

Look at what the results have been:
* 1954 - 1973 GM was ranked Number 1 in market capitalization
* 1985 - 1999 GM was again ranked Number 1
* 2003 - GM ranked Number 61!
* 2004 - Ranked #173
Today - bankruptcy

@ notables
You seem to think that you've made a point with Johnson, because you assume that I'd defend a person merely because of their political affiliations. That would be an erroneous assumption on your part: http://tinyurl.com/p8keds

@Dee,
". . . We're all in the car business because Capitalists screwed up, and we're in the finance business for the very same reason."

Close - we are in the car and finance business because our current administration views failure as a worse option than rescue. Instead, they would rather print off billions of dollars to invest into companies that file for bankruptcy later. This gives them the opportunity to insist on what cars people can drive - little tin foil cans (to go with my tin foil hat) that have a higher fatality rate during accidents. But wait, it gets better. government will eventually have universal health care to provide assistance to those who have been injured in the little cars that GM government motors will soon provide.

Keeping the populace dependent upon the services of the government may be Obama's utopia, but it is my nightmare.
It is going to be a long 4 years.

I am especially concerned about the auto industry. What does government know about running a successful car business?
A little current info about the new car czar:
Steve Rattner, the former New York Times reporter and former private equity manager who is worth at least $188 million, hasn't given many on the record interviews since joining the Obama administration as its top auto advisor.

What motive does the Obama administration have for insisting on people driving smaller cars?

BTW Universal health care is good.

Dependent on services of the government? huh?

Buckojo,
My take - I could be wrong, but here are my opinions.
Smaller cars are obviously more fuel efficient. Since the current administration does not believe in offshore drilling, then they will try their best to curtail foreign oil purchases by promoting more fuel efficient transportation. They will not promote the lack of safety or choice, when promoting their favorite automobiles.

If universal health care resembles a trip to the motor vehicle department, then it will not be very popular here. Anytime the level of available choices is cut, then the level of customer service also diminishes. Rather than universal health care, I would prefer to see the government offer inexpensive insurance policies to indigent people. Most of the people who already have private insurance do not want to lose those benefits in a swap with universal health care.

By dependency on the government, I am referring to the absurd amount of growth that is taking place. Bush grew the government more than any conservative ever should have. Obama has since quadrupled the existing deficit in his short time in office. While it is important to have a safety net in place, I find that we are creating a dependency net instead. The government doesn't really produce anything except legislation, so it is a tremendous financial burden to pay for the income of 1 in 6 Americans.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-03-benefits_N.htm
The recession is driving the safety net of government benefits to a historic high, as one of every six dollars of Americans' income is now coming in the form of a federal or state check or voucher.

Benefits, such as Social Security, food stamps, unemployment insurance and health care, accounted for 16.2% of personal income in the first quarter of 2009, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That's the highest percentage since the government began compiling records in 1929.

@buckojo:

As an FYI, the US already has universal health care. What they are talking about inflicting on us next is "single payer health care". That is not so good... Already some states have preemptively started taking steps to preserve the right of citizens to pay for their own health care. I personally am hoping this movement spreads.

deelilley - You sure as Hell did. Although captured in a "war" could be debated. - gitmo is no where close to a supermax prison. as i've said before if they put gitmo detainees in an american jail/supermax prison they'll beg to go back to gitmo.

Actually, diesel, "mistakes" is a polite Canadian-type way of saying "malfeasance". "Crimes", even. - obama is using the bush arguements in court now. does that make obama a co-conspirator?

buckojo - without evidence to the contrary it must be assumed that certificate is legit - if you read the court cases filed by berg and others they have reasonable doubt the certificate is not legit. theres a big differnce between me being your neighbor and a guy running to be POTUS.

kru - For me, there are way too many posts on the internet of that kind. I have found not a single post which simply gave a single rational reason for the demand. And obviously, you can't give me one either. - its funny how you ask for facts and rational demands but when ask for you to do the same you assume this or that has been done. no facts offered that it has been done..just your assumption. is asking for proof that he's a natural born citizen of the USA not rational?

comment 95 - why challenge a man's word?
why assuming a fraud, a false oath, and an abuse of a position which is implied by your demanding that certificate to be made public - oh maybe because he's not the most truthful guy around. he's "streatched the truth" and broken his promises more than once.

i'm an american and have a BC that proves that. i got my BC out and read it. theres not a single thing on there that would do any harm to me if i ran for president. theres not a single thing on there that would cause me any embarrassment. why is obama's any differnt? when a person runs for public office (especially the prez) they are open to more scrutiny than the average person. its not likes he's running to be dog catcher. if a guy will admit to doing cocaine, release his income taxes, health records, etc but refuse to release a simple BC that raises a red flag in my mind. then when he spends thousands of dollars to avoid releasing it, that raises another red flag. it has nothing to do WITH HIS RIGHT TO PRIVACY and nobody has showed me any differnt. when this first come out i was skeptical also. then when the FEC joined with obama fighting the release thats what really got me interested. the FEC is suppose to be non-partisan.

heres my theory. nobody thought obama could beat hillary. so why not let him run and fire up the lefties to help for the general election. imo no reasonable person can claim that obama didn't run to the left of hillary. hillary ran as a moderate and criticized obama for being to far left. well the next thing ya know obama has won the nomination. now the FEC is stuck between a rock and a hard place. they can't come out and say oppsy we didn't examine his paper work as closely as we should have. so they joined in the fight to cover their own behinds. i'm wondering if the "freedom for information act" applies to the FEC. if so then all one has to do is go that route to see what obama used when he filed to run.

@ NN - is universal health care in place constant throughout the states, or is it just some states?

whats the thrust of the single payer health care and how is it different to the existing coverage?

@ diesel - seems like we have a pretty big conspiracy on our hands.

"is asking for proof that he's a natural born citizen of the USA not rational?"
No, because there is no rational reason to doubt is ought. At least, no one from the right was able to show such. So: No. It is not rational - as he swore to be and nothing indicates that that is wrong. Your solely repeated that the demand is based on assumptions, "feelings", hypothesis and, as you now show conspiracy theories. You missed the opportunity to prove me wrong - again.

"oh maybe because he's not the most truthful guy around. he's "streatched the truth" and broken his promises more than once."
Now, have you challenged George W. Bush? If not, seems there are some double standards on your mind... no?

dieseldog, you're only making your position even worse and more absurd.

I went to the dr tonight. He gave me a referral for a CT Scan. The appointment was $55.00AU, but after my Medicare (gov universal health cover) rebate it came to $25.00AU in total. The dr's receptionist transfered the money str8 into my account as i stood there.

This is my local Dr who I have seen for decades. Although, I could have gone to any Dr I chose to.

I will also get a rebate when I take the CT scan.

More to the point, because I know I get a massive rebate for medical fees, Im far more likely to see a Dr and get treatment, which in the long term (especially if I'm poor), and spread out over the population, will decreasse the long term burden to society in general.

the problem with health insurers is that they make money by not paying out claims. Its a simple equation and rarely compassionate. trust me, ive practiced as personal injury solicitor.

I think the cold war scarred the US psyche into a paranoia over society based gov policy, confusing it with theoretical socialism.

Quote Fox 'News' : "coming up next IS Obama a socialist?, some people are saying : 'he sure is'"

God Meaghan Kelly is hot.

@kruijs:

Hey, I thought you were done with this question! :=)

We know who G. W. Bush's father is. We know who is Grandfather is. We know who his Great-Grandfather is. In fact, we know his paternal ancestors lived in what isnow the United States before the War for Independence. Many of them held positions that were very much in the public eyes, including elected positions. There is no rational reason to bring up his citizenship.

Now, we know a little about who Barack Obama Jr claims his father is. He was not a citizen. Barack's aunt that lives in Boston is not a citizen - she is an illegal alien. Barack's grandmother that supposedly has claimed she witnessed Barack's birth is not a US citizen - she still lives in Kenya. The Kenyan ambassador has made comments about knowing where Barack's birthplace is in Kenya, (and then hurriedly retracted the statements).

This gives at least some curiosity to some people about what the truth is. Maybe not you. In fact you have better things to be curious about since it doesn't affect you at all. However it is not illegal or immoral to have curiosity - especially so when it does directly affect the person or people that have it!

@buckojo:

I hope you get good results from those tests - best of health to you

It is the law across the entire United States that a hospital cannot turn away a patient in need, even when they are not able to pay.

The single payer system is where they want all the bills for everyone's treatment to only go to the United States government. This differs from the current system in that now people can pay for their own treatments, or they can have their insurance billed, and so forth.

@notable
I know that you understood what I meant with "challenge". Your selective "misunderstanding" doesn't weaken the point I make.
"However it is not illegal or immoral to have curiosity"
You are completely right. But it's not enough to pass by the law which protects one privacy. Seems that you haven't noticed that dieseldog and chatarra played the "doubt", "fear" and "curiosity" card before.

And yes, I actually thought I wouldn't comment on this anymore. But as long as you show your lack of understanding of what a state under the rule of law actually means, I might do so.

talking about "state under the rule of law"

assuming his BC fraud, why don't change his status to "enemy combatants", spend him an extra, all-incl holiday on cuba eventually apply some "enhanced interrogation techniques" on him from which I'm quite sure he will soon confess to be a muslim terrorist (and anything else you'd like him to say) and consequently stone him eh burn him at the stake eh find him guilty of the assumed fraud and sentence him there for.

after rereading what I just wrote, I fear that some would actually like the idea :-P

I just post this for the entertainment value. I found it at http://www.mofopolitics.com/2008/11/25/petition-impeach-obama/


For anybody who thinks that Barack Obama’s website birth certificate is sufficient proof, why don’t you try the following:

* Apply for a passport. When asked for your birth certificate, tell them it’s up on your website.
* Apply for a job as a nuclear scientist. When asked for proof that you graduated from Harvard, tell them it’s on your website.
* Drive drunk. When pulled over by the cops, inform them that the results of the Sobriety Field Test is up on your website and you passed.

@Buckojo,
Best wishes for a positive outcome on your tests!

@ Kruijs,
You keep saying that there is no proof that Obama is ineligible on any website after exhaustive investigation.
You are right.

That is what cover ups are all about.
(same could be said about conspiracy theories too - in all honesty)

One of the things that keeps me in doubt of Obama's legitimate role as President, is the amount of money
that has been spent by others in previous lawsuits. when in doubt, follow the money.
Obama is forcing expensive lawsuits to prevent discovery.

I have always considered Alan Keyes to be intelligent and rational.
He is one of many who have had to use the courts to try and uncover the truth, wherever it may lead.
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/11/16/alan-keyes-files-lawsuit-over-obama-eligibility/

After 8 years of Bush in office, the Democrats were so eager to replace him, that proper vetting did not seem necessary,
especially since he held elected office beforehand.

Finally, (no more comments tonight),
I listened to Obama talk about his visit to Buchenwald with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
I was very impressed with what he had to say afterward.
No BS - I really was very impressed with what he had to say.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5545IG20090605

kru - imo your making you postion worse. how many of the suits brought againest obama have you read? are you aware of how the judical system works here?

No, because there is no rational reason to doubt is ought - again try reading at least one of the suits brought againest obama.

Now, have you challenged George W. Bush? If not, seems there are some double standards on your mind... no - has anybody challenged bush in court to see his BC? did bush spend mucho money to keep his BC away from the US people? FYI berg also went after mccain and clintion. they BOTH provided their BC's and it ended there. if bushed was asked and refused to show his BC then yes i would have the same concerns.

ojo - my Medicare (gov universal health cover) - don't know where your from but the US govt has totally messed up medicare/medicade. they'll bankrupt the US if not fixed. look at the american debt and deficit and tell me the US govt can run anything right.

@notable dieseldog
I know that you understood what I meant with "challenge". Your selective "misunderstanding" doesn't weaken the point I make.

either way: the number of suits brought up against someone is no proof that he is guilty. the amount of money that person has to spend because of the (increasing) number of suits brought up against him, spend to defend his privacy by perfect lawful ways, does not either. especially as all of these suits are either dismissed or turned down.

now the question is: who doesn't understand how the "judical (sic) system" works over there?

if you doubt that he is genuine, and your "judical (sic) system" can't reveal it than you have either a problem with a) your doubts or b) your "judica (sic) system".

your choice.

@kruijs:

Guilty of what? You misunderstand our judicial system entirely. These are not criminal cases, there is no prosecutor, not even an arrest. Nothing like a criminal case - it is a civil case and there is a huge difference. I understand immigration law and citizenship law and procedures can be profoundly interesting to non-citizens, but please don't go confounding the issue. You are making it to be a big deal of some kind, and it is not. We just want to see the paperwork! Nobody else that I know of would go to such great lengths to cover up something where there is nothing to hide

@notablenotices
maybe you missed that. I wrote it in comment #95: guilty of fraud. If you ask for the "long" certificate, it implies that you do not believe his aught of being natural born citizen. and thus assume him to be guilty of fraud and abuse of a public position in the government.

"Nobody else that I know of would go to such great lengths to cover up something where there is nothing to hide "
but, again, it's only an assumption. I guess, that nobody else you know (personally?) has seen himself in a situation where so many cases are filed against him.

the number of suits brought up against someone is no proof that he is guilty. the amount of money that person has to spend because of the (increasing) number of suits brought up against him, spend to defend his privacy by perfect lawful ways, does not either. especially as all of these suits are either dismissed or turned down.

anyway: if a judge would rule that the BC is to be validated, then, I guess, it will still not be made public but only accessible to those who filed the case or those who would be named to validate it. so, calling for a publication of the "long" version, doesn't make sense that way either.

and the best statement here: "You are making it to be a big deal of some kind, and it is not."
well, errrm, I am making a big deal of this? who is campaigning? driving billboard adds, selling stickers, flooding blogs and comment threads? launching a petition? collecting money?

So, who is making a big deal of this?

Do I do that?

LOL!

Come on guys!

OTOH, yes, a big deal for me is when a "juridical" system is driven by people who only have "doubts". if a court gives in to your complaints and doubts, it would actually act arbitrary. and if you consider arbitrary acts as legit, I guess your understanding of a "juridical" system differs very much from mine.

@kruijs: Maybe you misunderstood my comment. Civil suites do not establish guilt. I know you are concerned and it is easy for you to overreact and get excited over something you don't understand, but it is not a big deal. Believe me, just relax & everything will be OK.

There is nothing worth getting all stressed out about - you're not going to change the outcome of anything, and when Mr Obama comes clean and discloses the information his problem will go away too.

kru - spend to defend his privacy by perfect lawful - if you would read the cases and obama's reply to them you don't see him claim his privacy is being violated. your the one making that claim..NOT OBAMA! you used some hawaii state law to make your INVALID point. obama wasn't running for any office in hawaii. i would think since you know more about america than the american people you would know state laws don't apply to canidates who run for federal office. he has to meet the federal standards to run for president.


can you prove that obama is a natural born citizen? no you can't! you only assume he is, and offer no proof other wise. can i prove he's not a natural born citizen? no i can't! whats the one way to settle this? have obama release his orignal BC.

Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States - notice its says PARENTS who were BOTH citizens. so that does away with the even if he wasn't born in the US arguement.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/presrequire.htm

below is a copy of what you need to file to get a COLB from hawaii. read that carefully then go to factcheck.org and see if obama's COLB matches whats required. has the form changed since obama's birth? only kru would know that.

http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg

We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

hmmmm won't even tell factcheck why they won't release the long/vault version of the BC. wonder why they wasn't told its to protect his privacy?

@notable
If you ask for the "long" certificate, it implies that you do not believe his aught of being natural born citizen. and thus assume him to be guilty of fraud and abuse of a public position in the government. No, it's obviously not a big deal for you.

@dieseldog
of course I can't proof it. I assume, because he swore an oath that he is. If you'd swore an oath that he is not, maybe I'd listen to you more closely.

I'm not saying that I'm an expert in the details of US state or federal law - I never did. I have just pointed out that every single one of you has failed to give me a rational reason until now. I never said he is not guilty. I said we must assume he is not, unless there are reasons which indicate he is. Simple "doubt" and "fear" do not belong to those reasons.

And the situation in which everything is about "doubt" and "fear" is to which I oppose. I repeatedly asked you to give some rational reasons. You failed to do so, by now, and I'm not quite sure dieseldog's comment #133 chances anything (see my comments below).

The most surprising thing IMO is, that nobody has been able to get this issue done before the inauguration took place. During the election campaign nearly every detail of the candidates histories was put a spot on, but this is something which was missed? Many ugly details of the lives of the candidates were revealed, but this topic couldn't be brought to an end? If this is indicating anything than just the incompetence of the Reps.

Now, I guess, it was easier to get an hand on the CB before the inauguration. To me, it seems quite impossible to reveal anything as long as Obama is president. In my eyes, the "doubters" are running into a brick wall now, having actually no chance to win. Which, again, shows the incompetence of the Reps, grasping at straws, desperately searching for ways to attack the president (which was doubtlessly elected by the people) after they failed to give the people anything near to a serious candidate.

To prevent losing its face, the US will do quite anything to avoid any embarrassing moment to happen in which it had to admit that their president could actually be just some schmo. Who could ever trust the US as a "world leading nation" as they aren't able to ensure that only legit people become leader of their very own nation? This moment will not come. Never. Under no circumstances.

As I said before: Even if any of the court cases is admitted access to the CB, it expect won't be made public. But regardless of that, I assume that the CB which would be made accessible would confirm the oath - by all means, regardless where Obama has been born in reality.


@dieseldog, to adress your last comment:
"notice its says PARENTS who were BOTH citizens" ... why don't you cite the original text but this interpretation of it? at least I can't find the part with the "both parents" in any other text ... and no one else but you made this point by now. In fact, people who really should be experts in this specific part state "The law has always been understood to be, if you are born here, you're a natural born citizen. And that is particularly true in this case, when you have a U.S. citizen parent like Barack Obama's mother".
I can't get your second point about the request form. by my experience, it often is the case that you need to fill out a form, providing far more information to retrieve an office document, like certificate, which contains less than the provided information. what's the point?

kru - Many ugly details of the lives of the candidates were revealed, but this topic couldn't be brought to an end? only obama can end it and he refuses to. you keep saying nobody has given you a reason to doubt he's a legit canidate. again i'll ask.....HAVE YOU READ ANY OF THE CASES BROUGHT AGAINEST HIM?

In my eyes, the "doubters" are running into a brick wall now, having actually no chance to win. - fat lady hasn't sang yet. berg (only case i've really followed) still has an active case. they was suppose to have oral arguements in june, it got postponed till september or october. theres at least 8 cases that were filed. i don't know the status of all them.

after they failed to give the people anything near to a serious candidate. - how laughable is that. so when bush won twice was the dem candidates not "serious" candidates?

Who could ever trust the US as a "world leading nation" as they aren't able to ensure that only legit people become leader of their very own nation? - now your finally starting to understand why people want to see obama's BC. they just didn't start asking after the election...berg filed his well before the election was over. if he's not legit i could care less what the rest of the world thinks. my concerns is what it will do the the people of the US.

why don't you cite the original text but this interpretation of it? - i supplied the link. its a site that tells you what qualifies a person to be prez. i pasted the orginal text, why post the whole page when the link is there? it was to show 1. in some cases a dual citizen can't run for prez. 2. to show that just because obama's mom is a citizen that DOESN'T automatically make him eligible to run for prez "IF" he wasn't born in the US.

Requirements to Become President.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/presrequire.htm

"The law has always been understood to be, if you are born here, you're a natural born citizen. - can you prove obama was born in the US? you already admitted you can't. obama was born somewhere, adopted, had his named changed, then changed back, had dual citizenship, etc etc etc. if those things wasn't done properly it could make him non-eligible. his father was a muslim. did he change obama's citizenship when he was a young child? lots of questions and one little piece of paper will put it all to rest.

it often is the case that you need to fill out a form, providing far more information to retrieve an office document, like certificate, which contains less than the provided information - again your finally starting to get it. as rob pointed out anybody can get a COLB from hawaii. a US birth cert has very little info on it. the COLB has even less. did you compare the info on the form to the info on obama's COLB?

If Obama were a white man nobody would even be asking these questions.

Why, because you think white men don't have birth certificates? Or are you making racist comments again? Either way, you are wrong... look at what happened to John McCain, for example.

If Obama were a white man, Hillary Clinton would be President today.

@dieseldog
obviously, you read my comment. but did you understand it?

"HAVE YOU READ ANY OF THE CASES BROUGHT AGAINEST HIM?" - yes. I did.
"i don't know the status of all them." - funny, that I have to help you here. you can find it here: http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?page_id=1518 or the Berg cases here http://www.obamacrimes.info
"so when bush won twice was the dem candidates not "serious" candidates?" - well, maybe it's my personal opinion, but I had the impression that the Reps candidate after Bush, together with his vice-president-candidate actually had no chance. And, yes, I had difficulties to take these two serious. Sorry, if you feel personally objected by this.
"they just didn't start asking after the election" - I know. I wrote: "that nobody has been able to get this issue done before the inauguration took place" and "During the election campaign (...) this topic couldn't be brought to an end". Got it?
"its a site that tells you what qualifies a person to be prez" - correct. an interpretation of the original text. the original text itself states "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." I can't find the "parents" stuff in it. Additionally, the "natural born citizen" term seems not to be easily interpreted as you put it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen)
"if those things wasn't done properly it could make him non-eligible" - correct. still, this is the "doubt" argument I referred to before.
"his father was a muslim." - this seems to me to be the xenophobic argument I referred to before.
"lots of questions and one little piece of paper will put it all to rest." - lots of questions, all actually answered already by his oath.
"again your finally starting to get it." - now it's up to you.
"anybody can get a COLB from hawaii" - I guess, this is wrong. and besides, I can't find the post in which robamichael claims it to be so.
"a US birth cert has very little info on it" - but hey, maybe they validated it with their internal records?

I think kru has it proceedurally, and from a theoretical perspective also.

DD's argument has the persuasive force of course, because in this instance, when you weigh up all the circumsatnces, the arguement that Obama should simply be transparent, not becuase he has to by law, but because he ought to in the circumstances, is seductive.

This is a classic instance of a good process vs those instances that broad procedure cant cater for (process regarding access to info on a fishing basis not POTUS eligability).

thats my 2 cents

If Obama and Hillary Clinton were both white men, Obama would be President today. :-)

kru - funny, that I have to help you here. you can find it here - funny no help required. if i wanted to follow them all i would have. as i said before only followed the berg case[s]. he has at least 1 still active.

that nobody has been able to get this issue done before the inauguration took place" and "During the election campaign (...) this topic couldn't be brought to an end - the reason why is obama is stonewalling..got it?

I can't find the "parents" stuff in it. Additionally, the "natural born citizen" term seems not to be easily interpreted as you put it - try to expand your knowledge beyond wiki and blogs. lots of other info out there. the part of the const your referring to IS NOT the only requirement one has to pass to be eligible.

"his father was a muslim." - this seems to me to be the xenophobic argument I referred to before - xenophobic in your eyes i guess. you take one line out of context to try and spin it into its all about racsism againest muslims. the muslim culture is differnt than the american culture. he very well could have wanted his son to be a muslim.

I guess, this is wrong. and besides, I can't find the post in which robamichael claims it to be so. - i guess you "conveniently" forgot. you was commenting just before rob. comment 34.

but hey, maybe they validated it with their internal records - that would be maybe as in your guessing/doubting again? they only put what the parent[s] give them. they can't add or subtract info at will.

as buckojo says we have a stand off here. i ain't changing your mind, your not changing mine. you like to cast stones from afar without knowing what your talking about. your dislikes for rightwingers blinds your judgement. seems theres more than a ideological disagreement behind your dislike. are you jealous/envious? did a rightwinger steal your girlfriend? kick your dog? beat you up and take your lunch money?

"the reason why is obama is stonewalling..got it?"
owwww, he was/is defending is right in court. correct - I almost forgot. there are other ways to reveal scandals, you know? they've done it before (and I don't say only Reps did so). but even such objectionable seem to have been necessary.

"the part of the const your referring to IS NOT the only requirement one has to pass to be eligible"
owwww, come on! Requirements (directly cited from the Constitution):
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
So, there are three requirements: * natural born citizens (or citizens at the time of the Constitution's adoption) * at least thirty-five years old * inhabitants for at least fourteen years of the United States. Where the "natural born citizen" isn't really clear, just like I said before. But reading the "natural born citizen" discussion I still can find the "parents" part you refer to in it. So, why do you think it must be so?

"the muslim culture is differnt than the american culture. he very well could have wanted his son to be a muslim."
owwww, this is actually a confirmation of my allegation. otherwise: huh? yes, so what? what is the argument?

"you was commenting just before rob. comment 34."
owwww, I read comment 34, over and over. It doesn't say that everyone can get a BC from Hawaii. He says "Children born outside of the country can be issued Certificates of Live Birth" - So we assume that each and every one could go to Hawaii, even Osama Bin Laden for example, fill out the form and get the BC as Obama shows on his website?

"they can't add or subtract info at will"
owwww, exactly. they will simple copy/paste the info from your request into it.

"you like to cast stones from afar without knowing what your talking about"
owwww, I've heard that before. and it impresses me even less now.

"your dislikes for rightwingers blinds your judgement."
owwww, If you'd read carefully what I wrote...

"seems theres more than a ideological disagreement behind your dislike"
owwww, I'd say, it even less than an ideological disagreement.

"are you jealous/envious? did a rightwinger steal your girlfriend? kick your dog? beat you up and take your lunch money? "
owwww, what level of argument are we going to reach now?

ups, I can't recall what I meant writing "but even such objectionable seem to have been necessary." please ignore it :)

ups, I can't recall what I meant writing "but even such objectionable seem to have been necessary." - you seem to have that problem alot. no sense in continuing this discussion in the comments. i'm sure the other members of HD are tired of it. i started a forum on the subject. if you wanna continue the link is below.

http://www.hubdub.com/e/Topic/Is_Obama_eligible_to_be_president_516

dieseldog, I've been answering to your posts. i'm sure the other members of HD are tired of your comments as well. question: why do you take it to the personal level?

How may idiots have signed that petition? Can we get an update?

Farah's $10,000 birth certificate challenge
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101892

WASHINGTON - WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah is offering a $10,000 reward to anyone who can prove he or she was present at the birth of Barack Obama - and he's asking Americans to donate to the cause in hopes of raising the bounty to an irresistible amount.

"Barack Obama claims to have been born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961," explains Farah. "His entire constitutional claim to the presidency rests on this premise. Yet, he refuses to release a copy of his long-form birth certificate - the only document that could possibly corroborate his claim. Therefore, in the interest of truth, justice and the Constitution, I am making the extraordinary offer to entice someone to come forward with the facts of his birth - whether it took place in Hawaii or elsewhere."

Obama has steadfastly refused to release evidence of that Hawaiian birth - a valid, long-form birth certificate that would show details of the birth, such as the hospital and the attending physician. Because the short-form "certification of live birth" he released to select news organization was at least sometimes issued for foreign births on the basis of an affidavit by one parent, it proves nothing as far as constitutional eligibility - and, in fact, raises suspicions about a foreign birth.

To date, no hospital in Hawaii has come forward to claim this historic birth.

No doctor or nurse has come forward to say they were present for that historic birth.

No witness of any kind has come forward to say they have first-hand knowledge or involvement in that historic birth - at least in Hawaii.

Obama's paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama, claims to have been present for the birth in Mombassa, Kenya.

"It is clear now that Obama will never willingly release his birth certificate," said Farah. "It's time for Americans who still value the Constitution to step up and force the issue. It's time for us to learn the truth of where Obama was born. We may find he was born in Hawaii. We may find he was born elsewhere. I have no pre-conceived ideas. But this issue has haunted the American people long enough. It's time for some truth and transparency."

[More at the link...]

Well, I'm pretty sure Barack Obama can prove he was present at his own birth, so Farah should pay up.

Any nurse, midwife, or obstetrician fully employed 48 years ago is at the very least in his/her early seventies, and most likely much older...or dead. Given that Obama's mother passed away some time ago, then, actually finding someone A) who attended Barack's birth and is both B) alive and C) coherent is gonna be a tough task. On top of that, they may be Republicans, which would lower the chances of them coming forward.

I think Farah's money is safe. :-)

It just occurred to me that George Washington was born in a British colony! So was John Adams! So was William Henry Harrison! And we don't know when Thomas Jefferson was born; he wasn't even sure of his own birth date! And not a single one of those men can produce a single witness to verify where/when they were born! I smell a conspiracy! Where's the outrage! :-)

(As an aside: why would anyone cite World Net Daily? That's like quoting from Weekly World News or The National Enquirer. Oh, wait: both of those are more legitimate than WND.)

@sqlman:

WND is more legitimate than the Huffington Post, which you are so fond of.

@ candelario #148
Let me explain this to you, please pay attention, I will go real slow for you.
1. Look at the question.
2. Click on settlement details link.
3. Scroll down ....
384,012
Hey if you signed it you would be #2 I think sql or kru already did.

reguardless of the source whos providing the $10,000...$10,000 is alot of money. i would think anybody who can prove they was there would be more than happy to collect it. his aunt is still in the USA last i heard. she could use the cash to help fight her deportation. :O)

BORN IN THE USA? What's the difference?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101483

Compare genuine 'long-form' Hawaiian birth certificate with Obama's online form
[See comparison at the link...]

[More at the link...]

It looks like the petition will reach 400,000 by tomorrow!
"A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office." Interesting... they really do want this from becoming a major news story...

Could happen today!
399,818

Retired general, lieutenant colonel join reservist’s lawsuit over Obama's birth status
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/165/story/778482.html?storylink=omni_popular

A controversial suit brought by a U.S. Army reservist has been joined by a retired Army two-star general and an active reserve Air Force lieutenant colonel.

Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed the suit July 8 in federal court here asking for conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction based upon his belief that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.

But before the issue got to court, Cook’s orders to deploy to Afghanistan were revoked. ...
...
Last week Cook filed a request in federal court seeking a temporary restraining order and status as a conscientious objector represented by California attorney Orly Taitz.

The government, in its response to the suit, claims that Cook’s suit is “moot” in that he has already been told he doesn’t have to go to Afghanistan, so the relief he is seeking has already been granted.

...
Taitz argues in a pleading revised following the revocation of Cook’s orders, that the application for preliminary injunction is not moot and that retired Maj. Gen. Carol Dean Childers and U.S. Air Force Active Reservist Lt. Col. David Earl Graeff have joined the suit “because it is a matter of unparalleled public interest and importance and because it is clearly a matter arising from issues of a recurring nature that will escape review unless the Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction.”

Cook’s resubmitted Application for Preliminary Injuction is meant to encompass the possibility of Cook receiving future orders for deployment as well as to address and prevent “negative collateral consequences such as retaliation against Major Stefan Frederick Cook ...”

As to the retaliation issue, the revised suit states Cook lost his job at Simtech, Inc., a corporation that does Department of Defense contracting in the field of information technology/systems integration, because of the suit and has additionally been subjected to “gossip” from people who believed Cook was “manipulating his deployment orders to create a platform for political purposes.”

Taitz, who has also challenged the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency in other courts, filed the original suit with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

In the filing, Cook states he “would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. ... simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties.”
...
[More at the link...]

401,190
It is gaining momentum! # 58 had 616 per day.
Now we have 1372 in two hours!

"What he reported was this: his e-mail from viewers had “become more and more frightening” in recent months, dating back to the election season. From Wednesday alone, he “could read a hundred” messages spewing “hate that’s not based in fact,” much of it about Barack Obama and some of it sharing the museum gunman’s canard that the president was not a naturally born citizen. These are Americans “out there in a scary place,” Smith said"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14rich.html

Comparison and contrast between God and Obama:

Neither have a birth certificate and liberals love Obama.

There may be 400,000 'signatures' on the seldom-visited "World Net Daily" website--which, given that folks can 'sign' as often as they wish, likely translates to just 10,000 or so disgruntled spoilsports--but 69,456,897 individual Americans said in November that Obama is, indeed, fit to lead. Sorta makes the silly WND petition look even sillier, no? ;-)

Poor brave Maj Cook, never heard of the chain of command! I hope Obama personally orders him not to deploy to Afghanistan, then he'll have to go!

What a shame, I really want to see the Birth Certificate now - imagine the expression on NNs face when it says Obama was born in Honolulu!

I have the best laugh at the expense of these resmuglicans who have nothing better to do than spew utter nonsense and accomplish their usual do nothing. No wonder their members are deserting in droves. No wonder young republicans are fed up with the antics of these poor lost souls.

@ bookie. #164 Dont worry there probably is no long form in English. Most people wouldn't know what it said anyway.
@ sql. I suppose there may be some liberals signing the petition. But you might remember that conservatives typically vote once. There is a good book about this "If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat:" http://www.amazon.com/Its-Close-They-Cant-Cheat/dp/0785263195