I don't see it on the front page of any news sites right now. It just seems like it would be odd to start calling press conferences to attack something discussed on conservative blogs and talk shows.

Who's ever done something like that?

The Democrats are doing a decent job of lumping everybody together, and the Republicans do need to contend with that. But I don't see the benefit of speaking out every time the fringe has a wacky theory. If they do it now, they have to do it always, and that's just a pointless responsibility to take on.

obama birth certificate - Google News

2300 news sources including Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, and just about every news outlet in the country.

Please, I googled "horse sex" and got 1,185 hits on Google News.

I'm not talking aboug Google News hits, that will cover blabber back and forth between various talk show hosts.

So how exactly should this be done in a practical sense? Every conservative fringe view that isn't shared by the broader conservative group should be addressed at a weekly radio address or something? How would this help? Would this make Democrats defect? Wouldn't it just highlight the fringe? I'm sure my parents haven't even heard of this birth certificate story, because they don't surf the internet.

You can do what Rep. Castle did in the video posted and say that Obama is a citizen rather than dancing around the issue or feeding the conspiracy. GOP elected officials don't need to announce anything, just slap down the conspiracy when asked and lean on the reps with the birther bill to knock it off.

It's a bigger problem than the birther bill though. Such a large share of the party is off the reservation that it leads to elected officials agreeing that the health plan is a beginning of a forced euthanasia regime, or insisting that stimulus spending can't ever create employment, or the whole damn Schiavo mess. The GOP is stuck relying on southern voters who are disproportionately likely to believe in some crazy stuff.

That being said, I thin they can rebound strongly short term if things go wrong for Obama over the next year. Long term, however, they can't keep relying solely on shrinking demographic groups. If they don't find a way to broaden Latino or African American or youth support they'll be in real trouble a decade from now. The question is will they moderate some positions to attract voters or will they stay "pure" and eventually become the 21st century Whigs?

When asked about it, you say the conspiracy is ridiculous. You say it has no merit. You tell people to get over it. You don't co-sponsor a bill and tell people that you agree with them.

I don't think it's practical for a huge political party to make a conscious effort to change to that degree. That can't announce, "This is what we are now", and then have that be so. It's not like there's this one group of guys at the top of the party who will be there forever and have the ability to change things overnight.

The process is a lot more organic and gradual. People at the state level will look for alternatives, and different kinds of republicans will pop up and fit the bill. In time, those people rise through the ranks. Years from now, leaders of the party will be those who have shown that they have support and can raise money. Whoever those people are - something the people will decide - that's what the party will be. Republicans aren't locked into who they are today. They will be defined, in the future, by those that actually have success - NOT by what today's leader's consciously decide the party will be.

I think some people have this idea that the Republicans will stick to their guns forever and get gradually smaller. That makes no sense. "Republican" is just a party name, it has no inherent ideas or values. In time, it will be whatever the Democratic party isn't, and whatever alternatives people want. Not by choice, but by natural selection.

That's the other problem. The over-dramatization of everything. Obama wants a public health care option so everyone will be dead. Obama spends money and we are communist China. This constant stream of how the country has been destroyed in 6 months and the fabric of our beings have been trampled. Turn on Fox News and you'd literally think the country had collapsed.

This retarded notion that every comment he makes somehow destroys the country. He's a President. We've had a lot of them. They make good and bad decisions. We've survived good and bad ones just fine. We've survived situations that were much more dire than today.

At the risk of annoying larrymcg, didn't we once have a thread here about whether George Bush was the worst leader in the history of the world? Hasn't he been compared to Hitler? Hmm, on the other hand, I actually understand your point in that context, because I think it was the over-the-top-insane Bush hate that pushed me over the edge to leave the Dems entirely (not that all, or most democrats are that exagerated in their views).

Foxnews does not represent all those that disagree with Democrats, just like the Bush-Nazi people don't represent Democrats. And nobody in this thread is saying the country has collapsed.

There's just a lot Democrat chest-thumping about the superiority of their party, and I'm just saying that Dems had their own problem with the fringe when they weren't in power. And to me, the Democratic fringe is just worse, because they're typically more educated.

You must have glossed over what JIMGA has posted.

Two points.

1) I generally agree with your take on how parties evolve, however, what I'm saying is that currently there isn't any movement to moderate the party. The past two election cycles have been devastating for the GOP and yet they have decided after both of them to double down on their core supporters. After 06 when they lost six Senate seats and thirty House seats they should have examined their message. After 08 when they lost another eight Senate seats and twenty-one House seats and they were left with their smallest share of seats in decades it's almost beyond belief to think they would come back with the message they've stuck to.

They can evolve into something that has a much broader base of support, but at this point there's no reason to think they will over the next decade.

2) Parties can change by dissolving as did the Whigs. Certainly times have changed and that's unlikely, but a real third party movement coupled with a determined insistence for the GOP to be the party of Limbaugh might be the best way to strengthen a second party.

Actually, if you haven't read the book The Big Sort, I think you'd really like it, JPhillips. The author's contention is that this is actually happening in both parties, as well as geographically. The blue counties are getting indigo, and the red counties are getting scarlet. In fact, the author claims that only 10% of all Congressmen are "moderate".

It's a problem for Republicans now, but unless the economy picks up it's going to be a bigger problem for the Blue Dogs. I think they're going to get pushed to the right, and I think there's a chance that by 2012 a number of them will have defected to the Republicans in a chance to save their seat. I'd also look for Blue Dog Senators to be less likely to bolt, and more likely to try to run a re-election campaign more to the left (a la Arlen Specter) than their last contest.

I'll check out tat book after my move is over and I'm settled.

There's no question that with computerized gerrymandering and agreements at the state level to make as many districts as possible safe for the incumbent that there's fewer elected officials that need to please those voters that aren't ideologically in tune with them to start. There's also the gradual sifting of the parties towards a more ideological brand. Throughout most of the 20th century there were plenty of liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, but over the past few decades party ID is now much more strongly connected to ideology. So now we have liberals in 10+ party ID districts and conservatives in 10+ party ID districts and none of them have much incentive to compromise with ideological opponents, if anything compromise becomes a negative trait.

The Blue Dogs are interesting. What they don't seem to grasp is that success for Obama will likely mean success for them while failure will be much more likely to put their seat in jeopardy. If Obama is seen as a failure in 2010 it's far more likely that guys in more conservative districts will be replaced by Republicans than be rewarded for helping see Obama fail. Maybe some of them will jump parties, but there's only 52 blue dogs and getting even twenty percent would be a hell of a task.

My prediction is that Republicans will pick up seats in the House, but lose 1-3 in the Senate due to all the retirements and having to defend 2004 gains. In 2012, I have no idea yet. If Obama is strong it will be a rout fr Dems and if he loses it could be a rout for the Republicans. I'll go out on a limb and say one party will be seen as the winner in 2012!

I think that's also a factor of heavily gerrymandered districts.

It seemed to work pretty well for the Republicans back in '94 with the 'Contract With America'.

And that is also known as one of those once-in-a-lifetime political gambits that, amazingly, won.

It is, btw, also the major reason why Gingrich is respected (maybe not by some posters, but by Washington and the pundits) as a political thinker today.

This is actually a great fear of mine. I'm really wishing that Al Gore had pulled out Florida now. That may have brought out a moderate republican in 2004 that would have had a chance. With a quasi moderate running and losing to Obama, I fear that the party hardliners are going to push everything hard right.

When you exclude the moderates of your party, even to the point that you willingly surrender seats, you are doing far worse than just shooting yourself in the foot.

I'm not afraid to answer your questions directly. No I don't think Hawaii is covering for him. At this point, I don't see anyone other than our President who would have a need to produce the original birth certificate.

I simply think the President has an obligation under the circumstances to produce his original birth certificate. I'm not asking for his impeachment for crying-out-loud, I just want him to shut everybody up.

Talk about Mission Impossible.

He produces it, the talk goes from "Why won't he show the original" to "It's a fake, I CAN PROVE IT!"

It's a no-win situation (well, the winning move is to do nothing more than to let the Birthers make a fool of themselves and tar the Republican party with their foolishness)

What percentage of birthers feel he is also a Muslim? 99.6%? :)

Why does he need to produce the original document? He's already presented legally sufficient documents that were upheld by the Supreme Court.

Do you really think that producing the original birth certificate will shut the birthers up? I personally think they will claim that it's a fake also and will want to see a sex tape of Obama's parents (which they will claim is a fake also).

If it's the same thing as what the State of Hawaii provided, then is why is it such a huge deal that he won't produce the original?

Because that won't solve anything. I have no doubt that if Obama produces the original that the birthers will call it a fake as well.

They won't take one legal document, why should Obama expect them to take another?

Exactly, I don't know why it's a huge deal. I don't think you realize how you worded your last statement but it sounds like you agree with every sane Democrat or Republican or Independent. Let's move on to a legit issue liek health care or foreign policy.

Well, I have already stated that I would love to see him show the original to shut people up. Why not? What's the hold up?

"The conservative fringe won't believe me anyway" is kind of an odd reason not to release your original birth certificate, if that's really the reason. Didn't his campaign start an entire webpage to debunk this theory? Why stop short before the most obvious step?

I'm guessing the name "Muhammad" shows up there as a second middle name or something. He kept that hidden for a while, and now he doesn't want to look like he's been hiding anything. Just a guess.

lol

Well why do you think it's such a secret - "because the fringe won't believe me anyway?" Why didn't that reason apply to the other information the campaign provided about this?

I don't think he's hiding lack of citizenship, but he's clearly hiding something.

Not technically true, the Supreme Court has refused to hear any of those cases (as it refuses to hear most cases), and thus it has said nothing about this either way.

i think his mindset is just "i've proved it to (whoever it needed to be proved to so he could run for president), so fuck what all the nutjobs think...there's no way they'd believe anything."

didn't factcheck.org send people to hawaii who actually like held and touched and verified his original birth certificate too?

honestly i think anyone who thinks there's a shred of truth to this whole controversy is either

a) a racist looking for a cover-story

or

b) too stupid to reason with

It may not be that conspiracy, but there's definitely a conspiracy.

That style of reasoning just makes no sense unless there's some detriment to revealing the birth certificate (and there might be a totally legitimate one, I have no idea).

It's like people that refuse to take a breathalizer at a DUI stop, and they say, "what's the point, I'm going to be arrested anyway". Hey, maybe that's true, but if there's ZERO downside to taking the thing, what's the problem?

To make sense, you can't just argue that doing something will have no point, you also have to show that doing the thing is somehow detrimental, or the logic doesn't hold up.

The value of releasing the birth certificate may be limited, but whatever value is has clearly outweights the ZERO detriment to releasing it. So there must be some deteriment to releasing it. Innocent or otherwise.

What if his middle name is Macolmx?

Speaking of the fringe, welcome, DT!

I WANT TO SEE A PIECE OF PAPER THAT PROVES OBAMA WAS BORN!!!! I STILL DONT BELIEVE HE WAS BORN UNTIL I SEE THAT PAPER!!!!!

unless of course it makes the conspiracy theorists perpetually look like a bunch of nutjobs.

It's actually Rasmussen.

If that's the goal, and releasing the original birth certificate won't shut 'em up (which everyone seems to agree on), then wouldn't it make sense to release it and make them look even more like nutjobs?

Spock thinks you might want to stick with your day job...

i agree with panerd. releasing it legitimizes their voice and implies that he is listening to them and concerned about them.

So then what was with the whole website his campaign launched about this? Didn't that legitimize the voice of the opposition? Why release all the information, fight this tooth and nail, but leave out most obvious piece of evidence - the original birth certificate.

Maybe it's a calculated decision to make the nutjobs look ridiculous, but not TOO ridiculous. Now, with the bizarre secrecy surrounding the original birth certificate, even just slightly wacky people can believe there's something amiss. If we had the actual birth certificate, then only the hardcore loonies would keep at it. This way, Obama can carefully infest the Republican party with vast numbers of the slightly wacky people, and then lump them with anyone that opposes him and fellow Democrats!

That's be the quite the conspiracy in its own right. I think it's much more likely the name Muhammad is on there. Or that his father is listed as unknown or something.

Well why did you have to go and make such a partisan attack?

Can't we find the sensible middle ground of this conspiracy?

That would be high on the list of my guesses.

Yeah, he's on the fringe. Certainly not the people demanding the mother's placenta or praying there is some Muslim name on it so they can stir up some xenophobia.

The short form is the same information that's on the hospital birth certificate. It just leaves off the parent's hometowns and doctor/hospital information. This has been reported on numerous times by countless people in the Department of Health in Hawaii.

Not to mention that there are newspapers from that time that list his birth announcement. They don't list a secret middle name or a secret unknown father anywhere.

Welcome to the birther movement!

The fringe would be calling someone racist (or stupid) for questioning an Obama decision that makes no logical sense, don't you think?

Nobody here's demanding a placenta, and I personally wouldn't have any problem with a muslim name or a mysterious father issue.

Have you not followed the news? It's made the birthers and Republican party look like a bunch of racist, backwoods hicks. Why the fuck would he release whatever secret document you think he's hiding? As long as he doesn't, the party will focus on some retarded conspiracy theory instead of real issues. Sane Americans will look and roll their eyes.

What do you think he'd rather have? People scrutinizing over his policies like the stimulus plan that hasn't produced the jobs he said it would? Or some looney conspiracy theory on his birth certificate that most sane people find laughable?

The more people talk about birth certificates, grey poupon, and what beer he drinks, the less they talk about his actual policies. I think it's a savvy political move that all Presidents use to deflect away from actual issues.

He has a Muslim name on it already. And where do you think this Muslim name is? Why wasn't it listed in any of the birth announcements in newspapers?

He doesn't put it out because he doesn't have to. Because it works to his advantage. The same reason why Bush didn't denounce 9/11 conspiracy theories. Better to keep your mouth shut and make your opponents look like fucking idiots to the rest of the public.

There really aren't many of those left any more. After all, look who's in the White House.

I didn't get it as DT calling all birthers racists, but instead saying that racism is a significant factor for some percentage of birthers. Would you really challenge that?

this is true. thanks for clarifying that on my behalf.

It looks like between the massive use of the cash for clunkers fund (looks like they're going to tap another $2 billion in funds from the stimulus package), and this, the economic news is at least brighter.. now if they just can get unemployment going the other way..

BBC NEWS | Business | Obama sees US economy improving

It's going to take quite a while for employment to come back. I think a lot of those jobs in the Midwest are gone for good.

My retirement stuff isn't looking as bad as it was. Feel a little better for my Dad who is on the verge of retirement. He was in mostly safe stuff but still got clobbered. Kind of sucks to lose 25% of your nest egg 5 years before retirement.

What actual issues is the President avoiding?

But the problem is that President Obama WANTS something like health care front and center... mostly because he wants to revive the falling poll numbers for it (which the Blue Dog Dems are reading and thus running away from health care reform).

Hell, his comments on the Gates affair totally overshadowed his speech on health care reform, which he was going to use to try to get a bill through quickly.

Exactly- why go out of your way even more to disprove stupid conspiracy theories when those clamoring about it are your opposition and just marginalize themselves more.

SI

I don't think this has gotten the attention it should :D

(Not "horse sex", per se, but that molson googled it. Now, I'm going to run off and giggle like a little school girl ;) )

SI

Now I feel dirty.

Yeah, I'm not buying it. I realize job numbers don't improve until about 9 months after the economy starts to pick up so it's too early to tell. But jobless claims are still coming in fast and furious and we still have real unemployment of around 17-20%


Yeah, that's what worries me. Those rust belt jobs are gone and aren't coming back. The more I read about the jobless recoveries of the last two recessions, the more convinced I am that we're having this again. It won't be a recovery back to where it was- it will be another fundamental shift where we kicked a lot more jobs overseas for "cost savings" but the dollars will still come back to the top.

This works great until you've squeezed the employment numbers over here so much that no one can buy things and good luck getting some non-first world country where those jobs are to buy bread for $1-2 a loaf when you're paying them that daily or, at least, hourly

SI

It was low hanging fruit :D

SI

Isn't that what's been said about this movement of labor constantly over and over (well, mostly by commies... no seriously)? People in the 1st world will adapt to new technologies and create jobs based on that.

I mean when jobs from the Rust Belt moved to the South, there wasn't too much complaining. It's only when they moved from the South (and what was left of old manufacturing in the Rust Belt) to overseas that it became important.

I get the first paragraph and I don't necessarily agree because I think that removing all protectionism and allowing mostly free trade globally is a significant shift to the rules of the game

To the second paragraph, I don't get what you're getting at. I don't care as much if I have to move around the country. You have to uproot your family and that's a hassle but doable, particularly if you're making a decent wage to compensate. However, if you send it overseas and reduce the pay by 50-90% per person, that's not really a viable option for most workers here.

SI

Has anyone Googled low hanging fruits?

I think its silly to say there is a "significant shift to the rules of the game". The game is just bigger now. It's still the same thing. You had a basically free trade system inside the US (due to the Constitution and early rulings by the SCOTUS), now its just expanded.

As for the second point, people traditionally HAVEN'T moved to where their factory did. When a factory closed down in Detroit and the jobs moved to Alabama, those people didn't say - well, we'll have to move to Alabama. No, they tried to search for a new job close to home.

Or, he can just show it.

Economy, unemployment, lack of impact of the stimulus, health care, and the fact we lost a ton of lives in Afghanistan this last month.

But hey, keep fighting the good fight. Maybe next you can get NASA to admit they faked the moon landing.

But that's the point? Assuming he hasn't already (which he has), how is it possibly in Obama's interest to show his birth certificate? Those who think he's not from here already disagree with him- the number is 0 or at least negligible of those who like him but think he was born elsewhere.

So, basically, you have people who don't like him hammering him on something as stupid as "he's not born here" and marginalizing themselves when it comes to other issues. Even those who disagree with him on some issues will be less attracted to an opposition who keeps going after something this stupid.

SI

I guess we disagree about how significant of a shift it is. We basically opened up our labor market from shifting around internally to a US worker being 200M of roughly a 4B global labor pool.

Many people in, say, Detroit didn't move but many did and that's why you have a lot of us who have moved a lot in our lifetime (I'm up to 4 cities in 3 states and I'm not even 30), more than our parents, and orders of magnitude more than our grandparents.

SI

Yeah, that's a difference in scale, not in the rules of the game.

I think the rule shift is that internal is internal, no matter where you ship it but internal to external is very different. An internal shift still contributed to our economy and the money stayed mostly at home (i.e. less than 1% of the US population spends more then 1% of their income internationally in their lifetime) whereas if you ship the job to, say, China, India, Brazil, Costa Rica, whatever- less than 1% of that money is staying in the US economy.

If you ship a job from Michigan to Alabama, the recipient is still paying US taxes, buying US products, buying US services, etc. If you ship a job from Michigan to one of the aforementioned countries, that's not at all the case. No one in Mumbai is getting a haircut at the corner barber, getting their taxes done at H&R Block, getting food at Kroger/Safeway, buying a tv from Best Buy, or getting a Chevy truck. That money he makes is getting spent at their corner barber, doing their taxes at an Indian accounting firm, getting food at and Indian market, buying a tv at their local store, and buying a car from Tata.

All of that money goes back into their economy not into ours. The US cannot compete with other countries on labor costs because no matter how skilled we are, we aren't worth 5 or even 10 people anywhere else if you can distill a job down to a compartmentalized process (which is what all major companies in all fields are doing).

SI

Which improved the efficiency of the product leading to lower costs for the companies and the consumer. Other jobs took the places of those that were lost in the country (ie, look at the 80s & 90s and growth in technological sectors, driving the US economy). Hell, shipping jobs overseas has resulted in American consumers being able to purchase far more than they ever thought possible due to the lower costs from increased economic efficiency.

In the end, the US has incredibly benefited from the opening up of borders and free trade. To the point where some claim it is exploitative for the US and the West to insist on free trade with 3rd world countries, because its the West that ends up the victors (I don't agree, because I do think the 3rd world countries benefit as well - the benefits take a little longer to realize there, though).

BTW, Dutch, Snopes, FactCheck.org, all have viewed the original form, and they pronounce it legitimate. No matter what Obama does, it's not going to satisfy the birthers (who will pronounce it a fake or a forgery). See the latest cockamamie scheme to "prove" that Obama was born in Kenya?

Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?

Amongst the problems with this document:

First, the hospital is Coast Provincial General Hospital (sometimes said to be Coast Province General Hospital), not Coast General Hospital.

Second, Kenya was a Dominion the date this certificate was allegedly issued and would not become a republic for 8 months.

Third, Mombasa belonged to Zanzibar when Obama was born, not Kenya.

Fourth, Obama's father's village would be nearer to Nairobi, not Mombasa.

Fifth, the number 47O44-- 47 is Obama's age when he became president, followed by the letter O (not a zero) followed by 44--he is the 44th president.

Sixth, EF Lavender is a laundry detergent.

Seventh, would a nation with a large number of Muslims actually say "Christian name" (as opposed to name) on the birth certificate?

Eigth, his father (born in 1961) would have been 24 or 25 when he was born and not 26.

Ninth, it was called the "Central Nyanza District," not Nyanza Province. The regions were changed to provinces in 1970.

in a seperate post:

2. The document is dated 5 August 1964 -- a Saturday. From what I can find, Kenyan guvmint offices close early on Friday and are closed on Saturdays. Oooops [...]

5. This piece of paper certainly looks nice and new to be 45 years old -- unless the Kenyans were using acid-free paper back in 1964. Heh, heh.

6. Finally, Officials of Coast Province General Hospital reported: “We do not have computerized records going back to the 1960’s and can only sort through our archives by hand,” Dr. Christopher Mwanga, an administrator at the Mombasa hospital tells GLOBE. “We have searched for all the names of babies born on Aug. 4, 1961, and have not found the name of Barack Hussein Obama. That is all I can tell you.”


At this point, Obama might as well let the idiots be idiots and ignore them.

It's pointless Fozzie. Conspiracy theories never die. They just evolve based on new evidence. They'll argue this one is real till it's ridiculous. Then they'll blame Democrats for putting it out. Another fake one will come out and we'll do this all over again. It's like the moon landings or 9/11 conspiracists. No matter how much evidence points the other way, they'll continue to change their theory.

I do have to say I'm disappointed in the forgery. If you're going to take the time to create a hoax and trick the fine folks at World Net Daily (I'm sure this wasn't that though), you should put a little more time into your plan. I mean researching the country, the districts, and other stuff would have been helpful. I'm always disappointed when forgerers make little mistakes like this that can be easily verified.

How is it possibly against his interest? And what was the point of releasing the other birth certificate, and starting an entire website to debunk this, if the going theory is "what's the point of contesting this?"

Cripes. I never thought this amount of space would be wasted in this thread regarding a birth certificate. I guess I was wrong. I've underestimated you all.

In what would appear to be much more important news, there are signs that Obama may make the same mistake that Bush Sr. made.......promise no taxes and then proceed to tax those that he said he wouldn't tax. How quickly we go from the comments at Mile High Stadium where the bottom 95% would not see an increase in taxes to the point where the presidential advisors now refuse to rule it out. Didn't even take a year.

2 Obama officials: No guarantee taxes won't go up - Yahoo! Finance

Also, the Republicans are going to vote against the 'Cash for Clunkers' increase. A smart move by them to avoid looking like hypocrites regarding their complaints about the skyrocketing deficit.

In the same post you chastise about raising taxes on X while touting the benefits of a balanced budget.

I dont need to remind you that to get out of a dep/recession you have to increase spending so you cant have it both ways {shrug}.

Well I guess YOU can.

I will agree with you that it will be able to rile up the GOP base, I would bet that most, not all, or VAST, but most (meaning 50+1%) of those that voted for Obama would agree to increased taxes when explained as to why those taxes are going up in the future.

FWIW, The GOP will NEVER raise taxes so even while they argue for lower taxes to get the economy going you would think that once the economy IS going those very same people would want to then balance it out and raise taxes, when you can absorb it....however that has NEVER been the case with the GOP and hence why only Clinton could get us surpluses...but I digress.

I think you're missing the point. It's not about the merits of raising taxes v. not raising them, it's that the reason a lot of us didn't vote for Obama was that we didn't think he could possibly deliver what he promised. I said a couple of time in pre-election threads that if he delivered everything he promised, I'd not only vote for him in 2012, I'd donate heavily to his campaign. But my money will be safe. And really, there's no reason not to lie and overpromise, because his supporters clearly don't care either way.

Why not run on a rational platform, "I think our government can do great things for you but that might mean we'll all have to chip in"? Because he wouldn't have won the election, of course. So just say one thing, get elected, and then do what you want.

Fair enough.

How many times do I have to say this in this thread? It's already been like 3 times in the last day and a half and it's not that complicated

1) He's already shown birth certificate

2) SHOW SUPER DUPER BIRTH CERTIFICATE = give credence to idiots clamoring for it
NOT SHOWING SUPER DUPER CERTIFICATE = let his political enemies continue to look stupid while fixating on this

Anyone silly enough to believe this theory doesn't like him and won't like him even if he could produce a time machine and show each and every one of them his birth while it was happening.

SI

That doesn't answer the two questions I posed, but whatever, since nobody has an answer to why this logic applies only to the new birth certificate, and not the ENTIRE WEBSITE he put out to refute this, I'll stop asking.

I just think it's interesting how the defenses are completely inconsistent with the prior actions, and each other.

If it's good to have the crazies focus on this and look stupid (which is the goal), AND none of them will change their mind if he releases the real birth certificate (which everybody agrees on)....then, won't it make them look even more stupid if he releases the real birth certificate? So why not do it, unless there's some detriment? The only proposed detriment is that it gives credence to those enemies, which doesn't make any sense either because we've already decided that those people are crazy anyway - so how could the real birth certificate possibily support and give credibility to that crazy opposition? The logic doesn't add up.

It could be something as simple as wanting to seem a little mysterious, he obviously has a image that he's worked hard to put out there, this might be part of what a PR firm told him to do, to be cool or whatever.

I really don't care what he does, it's just the logic that is annoying to me, and the view that Republicans are supposed to speak out on this. Why wouldn't that give credence to that view? None of it makes sense.

Better to focus on his campaign lies, I suppose.

Yes to this...and I apologize in advance for another unsolicited rant on the economy & energy...but this is exactly my frustration with the entire Health Care debate even being brought forth at this time. The money is nearly all kept internal to the US (though some argue it is kept in the wrong hands...not interested in those merits ATM).

When you are trying to find the most sustainable ways to maintain the current US lifestyle...or even your own household...you have to start with outgoing expenses (i.e. dependencies on foreign countries). Obviously oil/energy is at the top of this list. Well...guess what? We have 10% of our population doing nothing at the moment...use them to reduce our outgoing expenses by building/staffing/maintaining the next wave of nuclear/wind/solar energy (on our new national energy grid that they can build as well). After you create massive reductions in outgoing expenses..then we look at how to "spread the loot" (i.e. U-HC, etc.).

I'm purposely oversimplifying this just to highlight how silly these giant bills like U-HC are when we have a gaping hole in the window and 2 unemployed and able-bodied teen children sitting around who can help fix it. Yet...we are more worried about cleaning the carpet first because it could get moldy.

Of course they wouldn't like him if he did that. Why would they want to be sent to a secret Islamist birthing center in 1960s Africa? ;)

Nicely done :)

SI

It'll be interesting to see if they go Independent. They'll have the power of the incumbency to offset the loss of party support and while abandoning the Democratic party might lose them some votes, it's probably not nearly as many as they'd lose if they went Republican.

I think the GOP's going to have to change a lot, though, to attract some of these folks.

A bit off-base. I'm not accusing the President of anything. I do admit that I find it curious that he won't/can't produce his original birth certificate. Not much more to it than that.

They faked the moon landings so, any video evidence like this can be faked to. All you need is what, some palm trees, a coconut and a hula dancer and the illusion of Hawaii is set. That or Gilligan's Island.

Why not show it? Because he doesn't need to. He's already proven that he is eligible to serve as President. If he shows more, that doesn't stop it. The birthers will want more. And when they ask for it, those that dislike Obama will do the same song and dance that they don't believe the birthers, but he should just show it to quell any doubts. And then the birthers ask more, and so on.

And there is also the added strategic benefit of watching more and more Republicans get swept up in this, making them look crazy.

you can see it if you want. just pay for a trip to hawaii if you want to see the actual thing. or view it online on any of the websites that have it scanned in.

The state of Hawaii is prohibited by state law from releasing the original or showing it to anybody, and it certainly hasn't been released on the internet.

You'd think the state of Hawaii would want Obama to just release the darn thing, they probably get thousands of requests for it.

There's no real reason to think the original has DIFFERENT information, but it definitely has additional information. It's not logical to contend that that he was born somewhere else, but I think it's a fair question to wonder what else he's hiding.

how is it then that people have seen/touched the original?

Speaking of Gilligan's Island, this thread seems as good a place as any to point out that 71-year old Dawn Wells is definitely a GILF.

Who? I know one Hawaii offical says she has, and she confirmed that he was born in Hawaii.

That's really good enough for me as far as the citizenship angle, I just disagree with the logic about why nobody else gets to see the original.

See got a DUI so, obviously she still likes to par-tay too.

i swear i saw on like factcheck.org or something that they had staff members who had...

"We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. "

The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu. . . . The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.

FactCheck.org: Born in the U.S.A.

(there's photos of it there too, so it most definately can be seen on the internet).


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:
Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.

The wikipedia page on the whole thing says that they were invited to view Obama's hard copy of the short-form (the one that's on the internet).

yes. and the short form is acceptable proof of citizenship by the state department.

controversy over.

But then that's an endless cycle. People could keep asking stuff, and at any point he draws the line, it will be because he's trying to hide something. That's ridiculous.

There's nothing else on that form that has any bearing on his job as President. And I've always hated the argument that someone is obviously hiding something if they don't turn over everything that someone requests. I have nothing to hide in my apartment, but you damn well better believe that I would request a warrant before letting the police search it.

You've seen his original birth certificate? :)


The perception is there. He's a politician, a public figure, and the President of the United States of America. I find it very strange that the President of our country refuses to show us an original birth certificate.


Again, it's curious to me that the only way our President would allow us to see his original birth certificate is by police warrant.