Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anyone else intrigued? Just a little?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Anyone else intrigued? Just a little?

    Where was our President born?

    It seems an incredibly easy question to answer. However, a substantial controversy has arisen over this seemingly simple issue. I'm not interested in any of the dual-citizen theory crap or the naturalized citizen stuff, I'm just quite curious how such a freaking simple issue, with a one-step solution (if it exists) is being dragged out and blown up. I don't even really care whether or not he IS eligible. You can blame the "Birthers" if you want, but they're just trying to figure out the truth (or at least most are, I think). If you're looking for anyone to blame, aim toward the White House because all that has to be done is for Obama to request the hospital to release an otherwise quite public document.

    I've been back-and-forth about this for a little while. Originally I started this topic about 6 hours ago, did some more research and realized that I probably came off as one of those "Birther" conspiracy theorist kooks. After all, Obama's team released his "short-form" birth certificate, a letter from a Hawaii state official, and a copy of a letter written by Obama to his supposed hospital-of-birth celebrating it's 100-year anniversary. Shouldn't that be enough? To most it is. But there are others, including myself, that are still just a little curious. Of course there are those that are carrying this curiousity to the extreme- the aforementioned "Birthers". If you're completely uninterested, don't waste your time finishing the posts. If you're intrigued, even slightly, consider the following:

    1. Barack Obama has hired a team of lawyers from several law firms, and spent over $800,000, fighting any and all law suits declaring him ineligible to be president. That's not incredibly shocking, but he has also fought, tooth-and-nail, any law suit or claim simply asking him to produce his "long-form" birth certificate. A long-form certificate is what people generally understand as the typical birth certificate- it gives the date, the hospital, the location, those involved (parents and physician), among other information. A short-form certificate is analogous to a "cliff-notes" version of the long-form. Obama has released a "Hawaii Ceritification of Live Birth" however this is a short-form birth certificate- not the original nor a copy of the original long-form. Big, frickin whoop you say? Well it has been clearly documented that Hawaii issued these short-form certificates to babies born outside of the United States on a consistent basis throughout the early 1960s, when Obama was born.

    2. The only living person to claim to have been present at Obama's birth (besides Obama) is his paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama. Should clear it up, right? Wrong. She seems to remember him being born in Mombasa, Kenya. Not exactly Hawaii. Maybe that's why Ghana seems to believe Obama was born in Africa.

    3. For a long time it was stated that Obama was born at Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu. Snopes.com apparently stated this, before revising their account. Numerous press articles have cited Queen's Medical Center as his place of birth. The catch? Obama says he was born at Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu. This in addition to a letter that he wrote to the hospital celebrating it's 100-year anniversary in which he manages to slip in that the hospital was the place of his birth. Link- http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE...;pageId=103306

    4. I became interested in this issue anew because of the soldier in Georgia who refused to go to Afghanistan after receiving deployment orders. His contention is that Obama is ineligible to issue such orders, it is in fact illegal, and he should not have to go. Orly Taitz an online-academy trained lawyer and dentist from Florida (I think ) has decided to handle filing the case. Just the other day the military rescinded the deployment orders without clarification or explanation. This does not signify to me, as it does to Taitz, a direct concession on the part of the military that Obama is an illegitimate president. I am curious, though, does anyone know if it's even slightly common practice for the military to rescind deployment orders without justification? Link- http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE...;pageId=104009

    5. Obama, on his first full day in office signed the Executive Order restricting the release of presidential records. I swear to God that I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but it seems incredibly coincidental following all of the hubbub surrounding his eligibility before the inauguration. Link- http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...entialRecords/

    Whatever the truth is, I'm just curious why it hasn't been established definitively yet. This is not one of those if-he-has-nothing-to-hide-why-is-he-hiding comments. President Obama can spare a lot of frivolous law suits and wasted time (and money$) spent on these cases by the legal system by just releasing a copy of the document most people have to provide to simply get a driver's license. If, as Obama's team contends, the short-form birth certificate contains all the necessary information that the long-form would contain, why release one and not the other? What about the short-form certificate makes it much more allowable for public viewing?
    We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.

  • #2
    Re: Anyone else intrigued? Just a little?

    Dude, you kind of do sound a little like one of those conspiracy theorists. I don't really know anything about the facts of Obama's birth, but their [edit: these "birthers'"] behavior sounds similar to tax protesters -- another kooky fringe group with a strong conspiracy theorist bent, and a group with which I'm quite familiar. Here are a few thoughts.

    (By means of comparison, "tax protesters" generally deny the power of the government to collect income taxes. They use a variety of arguments to support these, all of which are frivolous and most of which involve a deliberate misinterpretation of the law to support their position. E.g., the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional, the 16th amendment is constitutional but doesn't actually authorize an income tax, only DC residents are subject to the income tax, only foreign nationals with US source income are subject to the income tax, etc. etc. etc.)

    1) The fact that the issue has become "dragged out and blown up" does not indicate -- at all -- that there is any validity to the claims. How has the issue become "dragged out and blown up?" For whom is Obama's birth a big issue? Is it discussed widely? Is there general curiosity about it? Are a lot of different groups wondering what the answer is? Or: is the issue really only a controversy among "birthers" and birther sympathizers?

    2) I do not credit, for a second, the assertion that "birthers" are "just trying to figure out the truth." That's a classic claim that conspiracy theorists make to try to insulate themselves from criticism. Instead, I imagine they care about the issue because they've already decided on the outcome and want to find / interpret / bend evidence to support their particular point of view. They're only interested in the truth if the truth confirms their pre-judgments. Have you ever heard of a birther who voted for Obama or could justifiably be labeled left-of-center? Even centrist? I would imagine that most or all birthers carry a particular, irrational hatred for liberals, socialists, communists, the Democratic party, and President Obama (among other groups).

    3) Because these people are probably less interested in the truth than in confirming their twisted worldview, appeasing them isn't a good answer. Maybe Obama could produce a long-form birth certificate, or other evidence. Do you really think that this would satisfy the birthers? Or, do you think it's more likely that they would immediately claim the evidence was either doctored or somehow unsatisfactory? And, even if production of a long-form birth certificate quieted them down, wouldn't there be another conspiracy theory that immediately sprung up?

    Also, "proof by silence" is a favorite method by these groups -- and is not logically persuasive. The IRS gets lots of letters from tax protesters all over the country asking the IRS to prove to these protesters that they have a duty to file. Do you think the IRS does it? No. Because all they're going to get back is more bickering, obstreperous correspondence.

    Granted, the burden on Obama would be a lot less than the burden on the IRS. But the point is twofold. First, you can't disprove a conspiracy theorist because they won't accept it. Second, even trying to disprove a conspiracy theorist encourages them to think their lunacy is entitled to a response. That's a waste of time and resources.

    4) If you *really* don't care whether Obama is eligible, why even do the research or post this? Why are you curious?

    5) Your point 5 seems especially weak. You think it seems weird that one of Obama's first acts as president was to sign a document that broadly dealt with requests for records and claims for executive privilege? Really? REALLY???

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Anyone else intrigued? Just a little?

      http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

      Exactly one google search of "obama born hawaii" led me to this webpage, which I believe is a pretty good indication of the evidence that Obama was born in the United States. I would point out two paragraphs:

      Originally posted by "FactCheck.org"
      The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.
      Sounds like the problem is Hawaii's, not the administration's.

      Originally posted by "FactCheck.org"
      In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:
      Not something easily susceptible of forgery.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Anyone else intrigued? Just a little?

        Not something easily susceptible of forgery.
        And more importantly, why would anyone forge such a thing? I guess his parents really wanted him to be president...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Anyone else intrigued? Just a little?

          Not only wanted him to be, but thought about it back in 1961. And then decided to give him the middle name "Hussein" anyway.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Anyone else intrigued? Just a little?

            I recently ordered a certified copy of my birth certificate from the great state of North Dakota, and they sent me a short form. Never mind the fact that this is The Way Things Are Done (less expensive and really, nobody gives a damn about birth weight), the first thing that went through my head was, "Uh oh, was I really born in Kenya?" After all, what does ND have to hide? Anyway, Mom & Pop insist I really was born in the US, but between you and me, I think they've just drunk the Kool-Aid.

            mocksluzer, you are my favorite person here, ever. I come on once in a while, and you always have some sort of ridiculous thing up where you go "here is some evidence of the intellectual poverty of some people - I'm just WONDERING about it." I mean, I hope you just like pointing out stupidity and not trying to somehow weirdly legitimize these things.

            GS has, in his usual thorough fashion, (and a .3 second google search) dismantled this idiocy. Gawd.
            If we workers take a notion/Fleets and armies/Of all nations/Will at our command/Stand still

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Anyone else intrigued? Just a little?

              Holy cow, it's a CCT sighting! Newer perjurers who haven't bothered yet should figure out what his username is an anagram of.
              [url]www.findjoshua.com[/url]

              "The joy is in the journey."
              -Frosty Westering

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Anyone else intrigued? Just a little?

                Which one Nick? "Excited Utterance" or "Neutered Ex Tactic"?
                Monkey killing monkey killing monkey over pieces of the ground.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Anyone else intrigued? Just a little?

                  Anyone who can properly articulate the "Neutered Ex Tactic" hearsay exception wins 10s on my ballot.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Anyone else intrigued? Just a little?

                    In addition to the other responses (which all make good points), I read that Executive Order and see nothing odd about it at all. All it did was define the process and procedure for the disclosure of docs that might be subject to a claim of Executive Privilege (which probably wouldn't apply to Obama's birth certificate).
                    Mock Trial with J. Reinhold! Mock Trial! Mock Trial with J. Reinhold!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Anyone else intrigued? Just a little?

                      I am kind of curious though: I'm sure mocksluzer's read the posts on this thread. No reply?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Anyone else intrigued? Just a little?

                        The "neutered ex tactic" can best be displayed in Season 5 of the hit Home Box Office teevee family program "The Sopranos" where Tony contaminates the divorce lawyer pool through consults so Carmella can't find a decent attorney. (Episode 61, "Unidentified Black Males&quot

                        Carmella then went on to become a nurse at Bellevue to make ends meet on another network.

                        I'm really glad this thread got hijacked. My mathematical proposition: absurdity > stupidity
                        If we workers take a notion/Fleets and armies/Of all nations/Will at our command/Stand still

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Anyone else intrigued? Just a little?

                          [quote author=Golden Skull link=topic=4242.msg177268#msg177268 date=1248110730]
                          I am kind of curious though: I'm sure mocksluzer's read the posts on this thread. No reply?
                          [/quote]
                          I have read each one very carefully. I'll be happy to reply in full when I have a bit more time. Believe me, I have plenty to say. :gavel:

                          Quick word, though. Obstreperous might be my new favorite word. Also, I'm always happy to brighten your day, CCT.
                          We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Anyone else intrigued? Just a little?

                            "ex neutered tactic" also could apply to the episode in Scrubs where Dr. Cox gets a vasectomy secretly because he doesn't want kids, and then when his wife finds out, she forces him to undo it so they can make the decision together, and finally tells him she wants him to have a vasectomy. Yes, that is three operations involving being neutered, then reversing it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Anyone else intrigued? Just a little?

                              Ooh! Or in 30 Rock where Pete tells Liz the reverse situation: he lied and told his wife that he did have a vasectomy, when really he did not. Though Pete's not an ex, and he wasn't neutered . . .

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X