The Final Word On Obama's Birth Certificate

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

I would contend that it does matter and it's extremely relevant. The entire reasoning behind the law is to defend the office and the country from someone with dishonorable intentions. Our government has been infiltrated before by clandestine operatives. I was watching a documentary on the Manhattan project and they said that the Russians had been able to get so deep into our government that they were aware of the first successes of Manhattan before Truman was. In today's world of sleeper cells and espionage, we need to at least be able to prove that someone was born here before they take over the most important singular office in our government. A Supreme Court Justice is vetted before they're approved, why shouldn't the PotUS be similarly vetted before he takes office? I don't care if it's a Republican or Democrat, it's not stupid or trivial to ask them to provide proof of where they come from.

Exactly what protection would we gain if Obama was born in Hawaii vs. if he was born in Kenya? Do they create sleeper cells out of infants in Kenya? Implant radios into their brains? What is it about the location your mother decided to give birth that makes you more trustworthy than, say, any of those damned Canadians?

barfo
 
A military member is in jail over Obama's refusal to release his BC to the media.

That's a bit of a distortion. He's in jail for refusing to deploy. It's illegal to refuse your commanding officer's orders, unless they are asking you to commit war crimes.

His reasoning for why he committed the crime was "not believing that Obama was really a US citizen," but that belief is not why he's in jail. There are others who choose to believe that, and they're in no danger of being jailed. It was his choice to commit a crime based on that belief that put him in jail.
 
This tit-for-tat stuff isn't good politics. Republicans tried to destroy Clinton, who is a good man and a very good president. Democrats tried to destroy W, who is also a good man with the best of intentions. Now it's Obama's turn.

Those who opposed Bush immediately tried to make the case he was somehow illegitimate (election 2000). Now Obama's facing the same illegitimate claims.

There's not one shred of evidence that he's some sort of Manchurian Candidate, or that he's working deliberately against the best interests of the nation. As misguided as I find his policies, they're not out of whack with the mainstream loony left. As Minstrel pointed out, he may be incompetent, but that should not be confused with some dastardly intention on his part.
 
As Minstrel pointed out, he may be incompetent

I didn't say he was incompetent, I said he didn't make good on promises of transparency. I don't think he tried to make his administration transparent and failed, which would be incompetent. I think he intentionally broke the promise for the sake of political expedience, which is something most politicians do.
 
Also, here is the title from the WaPo article you posted.



That's an op-ed article, and an op-ed headline. Read the comments.

He's a journalist. He writes a regular column for the Washington Post.

Nancy Pelosi’s absurd math on senior citizens losing their meals

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ing-their-meals/2011/04/06/AFUf51rC_blog.html

Looking over his previous columns it seems like he attacks both sides.

Also read the far left hand side of that page,
Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 01/11/2011
Welcome to the new Fact Checker
By Glenn Kessler

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred."
-- C.P. Scott, editor Manchester Guardian, 1921


About the Fact Checker

In an award-winning journalism career spanning nearly three decades, Glenn Kessler has covered foreign policy, economic policy, the White House, Congress, politics, airline safety and Wall Street. He was The Washington Post's chief State Department reporter for nine years, traveling around the world with three different Secretaries of State. Before that, he covered tax and budget policy for The Washington Post and also served as the newspaper's national business editor. Kessler has long specialized in digging beyond the conventional wisdom, such as when he earned a "laurel" from the Columbia Journalism Review* for obtaining Federal Aviation Administration records that showed that then President Bill Clinton had not delayed any scheduled flights when he had a controversial haircut on an airport tarmac. Kessler helped pioneer the fact-checking of candidates' statements during the 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns, when he was chief political correspondent for Newsday, and continued to do it during the last three presidential campaigns for The Post. In 2007, St. Martins Press published his widely acclaimed book on Condoleezza Rice, The Confidante. Kessler appears frequently on television and has lectured widely on U.S. foreign policy.


Our Goal

Welcome to the new Fact Checker column. My colleague Michael Dobbs started the column during the 2008 campaign and now, in 2011, The Washington Post is reviving it as a permanent feature.

We will not be bound by the antics of the presidential campaign season, but will focus on any statements by political figures and government officials--in the United States and abroad--that cry out for fact-checking. It's a big world out there, and so we will rely on readers to ask questions and point out statements that need to be checked. Over time, we hope to build this page into a more interactive feature than the blog it has been.

The purpose of this website, and an accompanying column in the Post, is to "truth squad" the statements of political figures regarding issues of great importance, be they national, international or local. As the 2012 presidential election approaches, we will increasingly focus on statements made in the heat of the presidential contest. But we will not be limited to political charges or countercharges. We will seek to explain difficult issues, provide missing context and provide analysis and explanation of various "code words" used by politicians, diplomats and others to obscure or shade the truth.

The success of this project depends, to a great extent, on the involvement of you--the reader. We will rely on our readers to send us suggestions on topics to fact check and tips on erroneous claims by political candidates, interest groups, and the media. Readers can even vote on what topics they need to have addressed. Once we have posted an item on a subject, we invite your comments and contributions. Write to us at factchecker@washpost.com. You can follow us on Twitter at GlennKesslerWP and also make comments and suggestions via tweets. If you have facts or documents that shed more light on the subject under discussion, or if you think we have made a mistake, let us know. We also want to make sure that the authors of questionable claims have ample opportunity to argue their case. We plan to issue our own opinion on factual disputes (see our rules on the "Pincocchio Test" on this web page) but it can be revised and updated when fresh evidence emerges.

A Few Basic Principles
·


This is a fact-checking operation, not an opinion-checking operation. We are interested only in verifiable facts, though on occasion we may examine the roots of political rhetoric.

· We will focus our attention and resources on the issues that are most important to voters. We cannot nitpick every detail of every speech.

· We will stick to the facts of the issue under examination and are unmoved by ad hominem attacks. The identity or political ties of the person or organization making a charge is irrelevant: all that matters is whether their facts are accurate or inaccurate.

· We will adopt a "reasonable man" standard for reaching conclusions. We do not demand 100 percent proof.

· We will strive to be dispassionate and non-partisan, drawing attention to inaccurate statements on both left and right.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/01/welcome_to_the_new_fact_checke.html
 
I didn't say he was incompetent, I said he didn't make good on promises of transparency. I don't think he tried to make his administration transparent and failed, which would be incompetent. I think he intentionally broke the promise for the sake of political expedience, which is something most politicians do.

The guy's experience is as a community organizer. He's incompetent, but why would we expect anything else? His leadership style seems to be to get out of the way and let the adults run things, and accept whatever happens. He's at his best when he's on vacation.
 
And a state and US senator.



And you live in a country with a lot of people willing to fight and die for your right to an opinion!

Why won't he just release it? Answer that question, and then we'll get to your strawmen.
 
Why won't he just release it? Answer that question, and then we'll get to your strawmen.

What strawmen would those be? My responses have been pretty germane to the posts I was responding to, IMO.

And I have no idea why he won't release it. My theory has been that it doesn't hurt him a bit to keep it locked up and benefits him to have a certain element of the right-wing wasting their time on an issue that the mainstream doesn't care about, as opposed to something like the economy. But that's just a guess.

Maybe there is some stunning secret on that long-form. It's within the realm of possibility. I don't think it's very likely and I also can't say I care.
 
For those who think it doesn't matter, in the craziest of worlds, if it were proven that President Obama were born outside of the United States, what should be the remedy?

1. Immediately have President Obama resign and Joe Biden assume the presidency, keeping all the legislation he had signed.

2. Obama resigns and Biden assumes the office, with all signed legislation being tossed.

3. Obama and Biden resign, McCain and Palin assume the offices for the remainder of the term, with all signed legislation tossed.

4. Have an emergency Constitutional Convention to vote to amend Article II of the Constitution to allow President Obama to continue to serve.

5. Something else I didn't think of, with an explanation.

I'm not asking to be a smartass, I'm just wondering what the positions of posters are on this issue.
 
For those who think it doesn't matter, in the craziest of worlds, if it were proven that President Obama were born outside of the United States, what should be the remedy?

1. Immediately have President Obama resign and Joe Biden assume the presidency, keeping all the legislation he had signed.

2. Obama resigns and Biden assumes the office, with all signed legislation being tossed.

3. Obama and Biden resign, McCain and Palin assume the offices for the remainder of the term, with all signed legislation tossed.

4. Have an emergency Constitutional Convention to vote to amend Article II of the Constitution to allow President Obama to continue to serve.

5. Something else I didn't think of, with an explanation.

I'm not asking to be a smartass, I'm just wondering what the positions of posters are on this issue.

He would be impeached, removed from office. Biden would become President. All legislation would stand but would be challenged in court with it ending up with the Supreme Court to decide. Obama would be charged with campaign fraud, convicted and would be sent to prison. Upon release from prison Obama would be deported to Kenya because he's an illegal alien. After a best selling book and movie deal he would become the next CEO of Halliburton.
 
I don't think throwing out legislation is very realistic. No one (except for libertarians and anarchists, perhaps?) would be wanting that much more chaos. I think the courts would find a reason to rule in favor of the existing laws.

I imagine he'd resign and Biden would become president. I don't think there is any taint on Biden in that case, he's still the VP and next in line. The electoral college elects the VP and President separately, so even if Obama's election were thrown out, it doesn't seem like Biden's would be.

barfo
 
I don't think throwing out legislation is very realistic. No one (except for libertarians and anarchists, perhaps?) would be wanting that much more chaos. I think the courts would find a reason to rule in favor of the existing laws.

I imagine he'd resign and Biden would become president. I don't think there is any taint on Biden in that case, he's still the VP and next in line. The electoral college elects the VP and President separately, so even if Obama's election were thrown out, it doesn't seem like Biden's would be.

barfo

I agree with barfo. Obama's residence is irrelevant to me, and thinking that his laws would be overturned is a fool's errand, IMO. I do believe he was born in Hawaii, and I believe his Word processed Certificate of Live Birth is legit.

I just wonder why he won't release the actual birth record, as did the twin sisters born the day before him, at the same hospital.
 
Exactly what protection would we gain if Obama was born in Hawaii vs. if he was born in Kenya? Do they create sleeper cells out of infants in Kenya? Implant radios into their brains? What is it about the location your mother decided to give birth that makes you more trustworthy than, say, any of those damned Canadians?

barfo

I didn't say anything about Obama in that post. You're making light of the law and I'm explaining why I think the law is important. It's good to know someone's origin. If they were born in Hawaii, they were most likely raised in American schools and are integrated into our society. If they were born in China or the USSR, their learning process might have been different. We don't pluck children from schools at a young age, determine what job they will have when they get older, and start putting them through specific programs to prepare them for that job. I have no idea what life is like in Kenya, but I have a pretty good idea what life is like in Hawaii or any other state in the United States. Someone who is born here, grew up here, and lives here has a much higher chance of being loyal to this country than someone who was born somewhere else, but if you don't see the merit in the law, then I'm not going to argue with you. I just don't think it's a stupid law that should be taken lightly.
 
I didn't say anything about Obama in that post. You're making light of the law and I'm explaining why I think the law is important. It's good to know someone's origin. If they were born in Hawaii, they were most likely raised in American schools and are integrated into our society.

Ok, you aren't talking about Obama, who we know was raised in American schools (aside from 5 years abroad) and I would argue, is integrated into our society.

If they were born in China or the USSR, their learning process might have been different. We don't pluck children from schools at a young age, determine what job they will have when they get older, and start putting them through specific programs to prepare them for that job. I have no idea what life is like in Kenya, but I have a pretty good idea what life is like in Hawaii or any other state in the United States. Someone who is born here, grew up here, and lives here has a much higher chance of being loyal to this country than someone who was born somewhere else, but if you don't see the merit in the law, then I'm not going to argue with you. I just don't think it's a stupid law that should be taken lightly.

Ok, but Obama - whether or not he was literally born here - clearly grew up here. We have lots of evidence of that. So in this case, the issue is not whether he was born and grew up here, but just whether he was born here. So I ask again, what difference does the location of birth make? John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Does that matter? Is he less of an American because he was born down there? I don't think so. It just happens to be where his mom was when she pooped him out. It has nothing to do with him whatsoever.

barfo
 
Last edited:
Ok, you aren't talking about Obama, who we know was raised in American schools (aside from 5 years abroad) and I would argue, is integrated into our society.



Ok, but Obama - whether or not he was literally born here - clearly grew up here. We have lots of evidence of that. So in this case, the issue is not whether he was born and grew up here, but just whether he was born here. So I ask again, what difference does the location of birth matter? John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Does that matter? Is he less of an American because he was born down there? I don't think so. It just happens to be where his mom was when she pooped him out. It has nothing to do with him whatsoever.

barfo

The_real_Arnold_Schwarzenegger.jpg
 
An excellent point, if somewhat orange. But Ahhnold wasn't raised in American schools, so he doesn't meet the NateBishop test.

barfo

Ahhnold also wouldn't be eligible for President, without an amendment to the US Constitution.

I notice nobody wants to answer this simple question.

Why won't Obama authorize the release of his actual Certificate of Live Birth?
 
I notice nobody wants to answer this simple question.

Why won't Obama authorize the release of his actual Certificate of Live Birth?

I want to, but cannot.

Will you answer the simple question? Why won't Obama authorize the release of his actual Certificate of Live Birth?
 
I want to, but cannot.

Will you answer the simple question? Why won't Obama authorize the release of his actual Certificate of Live Birth?

Why do the soccer moms always want to talk to me at the the softball games? My wife is getting jealous.

I guess it has something to do with charisma?!?!
 
Why do the soccer moms always want to talk to me at the the softball games? My wife is getting jealous.

I guess it has something to do with charisma?!?!

Why do birds
fall down from the sky
every time
you walk by...

barfo
 
Why do the soccer moms always want to talk to me at the the softball games? My wife is getting jealous.

I guess it has something to do with charisma?!?!

They sound confused if they're coming to softball games for their kids' soccer matches.
 
For those who think it doesn't matter, in the craziest of worlds, if it had been proven that President Bush really didn't win in 2000 while he was still President, what should have been the remedy?

1. Immediately have President Bush resign and Cheney assumes the presidency, keeping all the legislation he had signed.

2. Bush resigns and Cheney assumes the office, with all signed legislation being tossed.

3. Bush and Cheney resign, Gore and Liebermann assume the offices for the remainder of the term, with all signed legislation tossed.

4. Have an emergency Constitutional Convention to vote to amend Article II of the Constitution to allow President Bush to continue to serve.

5. Something else I didn't think of, with an explanation--the media goes silent for years because Republicans claim that such talk is divisive and unpatriotic.

I'm not asking to be a smartass, I'm just wondering what the positions of posters are on this issue.
 
Bush was elected be the electoral college and was fully qualified. The remedy would be the voters knowing this come reelection time.
 
For those who think it doesn't matter, in the craziest of worlds, if it had been proven that President Bush really didn't win in 2000 while he was still President, what should have been the remedy?

1. Immediately have President Bush resign and Cheney assumes the presidency, keeping all the legislation he had signed.

2. Bush resigns and Cheney assumes the office, with all signed legislation being tossed.

3. Bush and Cheney resign, Gore and Liebermann assume the offices for the remainder of the term, with all signed legislation tossed.

4. Have an emergency Constitutional Convention to vote to amend Article II of the Constitution to allow President Bush to continue to serve.

5. Something else I didn't think of, with an explanation--the media goes silent for years because Republicans claim that such talk is divisive and unpatriotic.

I'm not asking to be a smartass, I'm just wondering what the positions of posters are on this issue.

They should have been forced to vacate the office, and Gore and Lieberman should have taken their place.

Of course, it was demonstrably proven that Gore's recount would have fallen short, by the National Opinion Research Council (affiliated with the University of Chicago) in cooperation with the following right wing organizations: Associated Press, The New York Times, CNN, The Palm Beach Post, The Washington Post and the Tribune Company.
 
Link? If true, Republicans made a big error in not allowing a recount, because they acted as if they had something to hide.
 
The house of cards is starting to collapse...

Hawaii Official and Ex-Official Lie to Cover Their Tracks

But the latest attempt to put out the flames has backfired and exposed some naughty children huddled in a back room playing with matches. Michael Isikoff, MSNBC’s “so-called” national investigative correspondent, was caught with Joshua Wisch, former chairman of Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in Hawaii. Now spokesman for the Hawaii attorney general’s office, Wisch apparently colluded with Fukino to validate Obama’s alleged “Certification of Live Birth.”

“What he got, everybody got,” said Fukino. “He put out exactly what everybody gets when they ask for a birth certificate.”

Not true, Dr. Fukino. When my son, Alan, requested a copy of his birth certificate he got just that—a “Certificate of Live Birth,” not the same as Obama’s. Different titles and different information. Obama’s is sorely lacking information required for obtaining a passport—Mother’s State/Country of Birth and Father’s State/Country of Birth.

Hawaii-Short-form-BC-349x450.jpg


http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/10/hawaii-official-and-ex-official-lie-to-cover-their-tracks/
 
Link? If true, Republicans made a big error in not allowing a recount, because they acted as if they had something to hide.

Gore only wanting 3 counties scrutinized, instead of the entire state, was the mistake. The USSC would have had no equal protection argument had Gore wanted the entire state of Florida counted again and again and again. That tells me that Gore was hiding something, since he wanted some votes treated differently than others.
 
How come Obama's Certification of Live Birth doesn't include the birthplace of his parents? Miki Booth's son just got a short form BC on March 15, 2011, and it includes his parents' birthplaces.

Trump seems to be on to something here. :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top