This whole thing is exactly the same as the Muslim controversy. Who the hell cares if he was born in the US? It's a stupid law that should be done away with (even if saying this means that I agree with Schwarzenegger).

Nope, but the additional information that the form contains has no bearing on his job. The only thing on the birth certificate that has any relevance is verifying his age and place of birth. All of that is available on the form that was released to the public.


Has any other president shown us this? The president has proven his eligibility. There's nothing strange about a President not showing private documents that have no relevance to his job.


Because, as I noted before, it doesn't stop there. Soon they'll want more documents. And more. And more. Documents that have nothing to do with his job. And at any point he stops, someone will say "why not show it unless you have something to hide?"

Umm ... the Constitution?

Sorry, I guess I should have bolded this part.

He's my President, I don't expect him, of all people, to be afraid to show his original certificate when asked. As commander-in-chief, he's asked to see every military members birth certificate. I don't understand why he needs to be so secretive about his.

If you can get that changed, have at it.

But I don't think you'd get much traction even with most liberals on that one, at least not a general exception.

Their original birth certificate or the one provided to them by their state of residence? Because the latter is exactly what Obama has provided.

Step 1: Post on FOFC.
Step 2: ?????
Step 3: Get Constitution changed.

Sure, it'd be nice to get it changed, but I'm not going to rage against the machine about it. Just posting my opinion. I could care less where he or anyone else running for President is born.

Surprised how many birthers we have on the board. Must be more mainstream than I thought. :)

Well for those of us who are late to the party, just a simple question. Does he have the original in his possession? Or do we even know that for sure either way?

I don't know how mainstream it is since it's another term that I don't recall hearing until it came up in this thread (much like the teleprompter thing, which I knew was a topic but didn't know it had an acronym)

Not sure. I don't have my original. All I have is a notarized copy sent to me by the state of Florida.

There's more proof that Barack Obama was born in the U.S. than there is that George W. Bush won Florida in 2000.

Discuss.

:D

Is it hard to get another copy of your birth certificate? I haven't needed it since I got my drivers license at 16 I believe. Not sure if my Mom even has it anymore. I should probably get something on file though in case it's required for something.

Or you run for President ;)

Typically no. My wife has gotten certified copies 2 or 3 times in the last 15 years or so (she can't seem to keep up with 'em after she gets 'em)

I provided a copy of my original birth certificate.

I saw this link on Fark.

hxxp://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

In 2007, 35% of Democrats polled believed that Bush had advance notice of the 9/11 attacks.

There are fringies on both sides, sadly. Can we just stage a group mocking and then get back to healthcare? :)

Well, why didn't Bush come out and say he didn't have advance knowledge of 9/11???? :)

If he started a webpage about why he didn't have advance knowledge of 9/11, but then refused to provide his phone records for that morning, it would be kind of weird.

By the way, someone asked whether other presidents have shown their regular birth certificates. I don't know about presidents, but there were some birthers attacking John McCain as well, and one way or another, we got to see the original and short-form (I don't know if McCain released this, or if the military nature of his birthplace makes this a public record somehow).

JohnMcCain: Birth Certificate (long and short form), Colon, Panama, 1936

It seems like a no-brainer to me to require every presidential candidate to authorize direct public access to their original birth certificates. That would quiet a lot of this insanity, and also potentially clear up confusion for potential constitutional questions down the road. Of course, when members of congress tried to pass just such a bill, they were mocked as "birthers".

That's a rather vague question. There was evidence that Bin Laden was planning to strike and even a memo that stated it would be via hijacked planes. Does the question mean that Bush allowed it to happen or that he simply had notice that there could be an attack like that?

The forgery has been torn to shreds primarily because it got the name of the country wrong. But they fixed it and have a new one out already.

http://i32.tinypic.com/281blzk.jpg

There was direct public access to the original birth certificate. It's held by the state and media members such as FactCheck.org were allowed to see it. The long-form is no longer issued by the state upon request. They release the short form which is essentially the same information.

It would be sad to create a law that requires you to have your original birth certificate. It would certainly disqualify those who have states that didn't do good clerical work or individuals who didn't save them over the years.

I still don't see how that matters though. It's about whether or not he's a citizen. The State of Hawaii has confirmed it and released a copy of his birth certificate. There are numerous birth announcements in the local newspaper to confirm as well. He's a citizen according to the State, I don't see what else is needed to show he's qualified. If someone wants to claim the State forged documents or whatever, they are free to do so in a court. But until they win, he's been declared a citizen and I don't see why he needs to do anything else to indulge these morons.

I'm a citizen of the United States but I wasn't born in this country. I also have a birth certificate. *shrug*

My belief is that it's either:

a) He doesn't want to indulge conspiracy nuts which does look rather un-Presidential. I cringe everytime I see NASA try and defend their moon landings. You're fucking NASA, a group filled with brilliant people who accomplished a remarkable task. Why lower yourselves to argue with people who IQs below 60?

b) It's a smart political move. I mean the whole thing is a huge embarassment to the Republican Party and certianly doesn't help them with independents or minorities. Seeing these people run around producing fake birth certificates and sounding like lunatics on TV (you should have seen Orly on MSNBC today) is not good for the GOP. I wouldn't even be surprised to hear that the Dems are pushing the topic out into the forefront.

FWIW

WH says no to any rate hikes on middle class and Im not even saying that that is actually a good thing:

White House says no to tax hike for middle class - Yahoo! News



I guess now we can get back to the idiocy that is birth certificates.

interesting thought that the Dems might actually be pushing this to the fore to keep the drum going for the fringe. interesting.

If Obama manages to keep his promises to not lower taxes and not increase the national debt, I'd definitely vote for him in 2012. For King of the World.

yes, and based on that you could run for president.

i fail to understand your point.

I don't know for sure or anything, but I think if you were a ruthless political mind (Rahm), you would use it. They have made the attempt to paint the GOP as far-far-right. It was the reason they started that campaign of saying Rush was the leader of the party. I don't know why they wouldn't use this to their advantage.

If you look at the timing, it does make sense. He took a hit for the Gates thing, hasn't had much success reaching people on health care, and the economy is still pretty blah. His poll numbers have been dropping a bit too. If I was him, I wouldn't want this story to go away.

Then again, I don't think many Presidents have ever given in to the conspiracy theorists. Whether it be Kennedy, the Moon Landing, 9/11, NWO, Amero, etc. I just don't think it would look real professional if the CIA started constantly debunking every half-brain conspiracy theory on 9/11.

It certainly doesn't make them hypocrites to oppose spending when that's all they wanted to do for the last 8 years.

history that can be talked about started in '09.

Did something in this story happen this week? I thought it just kind of randomly came up here.

sure, the Repubs want to vote against cash for clunkers. A) It's working, and B) Be honest, they're going to say no anyway. It's all they're doing.

Well you gotta do something to distract people from looking atop the fencepost.

Well a bunch of birth certificates from Kenya surfaced in the last week or so. I think a couple networks picked up on it and everyone followed their lead. I believe every network has discussed the story and you can find it in every newspaper.

I don't know if any one thing triggered it, could have just been a slow news week?

It's hard to not say 'no' to most of these policies given the fiscal irresponsibility of the current leaders. I thought the Republicans under Bush were bad enough in regards to spending over their head. Obama and the Democrats have made that spending look like loose change. It's embarrassing stuff.

The rest of you can now return to worrying about Hawaii's free record laws or whatever the hell you're talking about.

It's working... as a subsidy for the auto makers. The money would have been better spent on mass transit as the environmental benefits are really minimal.

Any guess as to which "network" probably picked it up ;)

SI

And there's no real job creation either. All this does is give a paycheck for a week or two more for the remaining dealerships. It's a minimal impact from top to bottom.

The way the question is worded, it's reasonable to think that anyone who knows Bush was briefed in the summer of 2001 on potential attacks by Al Qaeda on the U.S. would answer in the affirmative. So I'd say that's not a clear indication of "fringe".

People who think Bush & Co engineered 9/11 are fringe, but to conclude from this poll that those people equal 35% of Democrats (and 22% of Americans, and 18% of Republicans, all in 2007) is reaching. Like saying that South Dakota is safer than Central Park.

Is this the new liberal "gotcha" way of arguing? Rather than actually discuss a point, you just bring up a piece of rhetoric from a politician?

I mean, if we're talking about reaching, how about saying that the stimulus will save or create 3.5 million jobs, is chock full of shovel-ready projects that would begin shortly after the stimulus was signed, or to bring it back to the national reciprocity argument, that the amendment would have wiped out New York's gun laws and led to an increase in violent crime across the country?

Wow, this is a fun way to argue. Not particularly productive, but fun!

Oh, by the way, does anyone want to agree with Earl Ofari Hutchinson's belief that this spoof of Obama is somehow "dangerous"?

I find it having a tinge of racism in it but thats just me.

Do you mean my substantive reply to your paste-and-run from Rasmussen or the throwaway link I threw in there at the end for fun (because I found it amusing)?


There's 92 words in my post. You've decided to respond to 10 I tacked on to the end for shits and giggles. Who's being productive now?

Slow day on the radio today?

Nope... I just find it hysterical that after a good five years of BusHitler, Bush as the devil, god knows how many Ted Rall cartoons portraying Bush as a bloodthirsty monster that Hutchinson thinks that poster of Obama is "dangerous", and the artist needs to out himself publicly so he can get his comeuppance is mind-bogglingly delusional.

Your "substantive" reply can be boiled down to, "Let's find an excuse for these numbers". I actually didn't consider the first part of your post to be worth a response.

I've completely missed this, to be honest. Do you have a link?

For the record, I don't think the poster is "dangerous". Creepy, though.

I figured as much. It wouldn't be like you to critically examine poll numbers that support your predetermined conclusions. I mean, just throw outcopy-and-paste the poll numbers and your from-the-hip conclusion and cut to commercialhit the "post" button, amirite?