Comments

1.   savage1r

     926 days ago

   So, if I gave you a driver's permit would you think it's a driver's licence?
   
   
2.   Intershame

     926 days ago

   Hmm. Does the driver's permit have the word "permit", "beginner" or "temporary" on it? Then probably not.
   
3.   savage1r

     926 days ago

   Good, because a birth certificate is an actual legal document required by law for things from passports to holding public office, a certificate of live birth is not a valid legal document and if you try to do something as simple as apply for a passport you will not get it because it cannot substitute for a birth certificate. "The long form usually includes parents' information (address of residence, race, birth place, date of birth, etc.), additional information on the child's birthplace, and information on the doctors that assisted in the birth of the child. The long form also usually includes the signature of the doctor involved and at least one of the parents" via wikipedia. So, does the certification of live birth that Obama allowed to be released have all that? No.
   
4.   Comedian70

     926 days ago

   http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html Particularly: "The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above." Have a nice day.
   
5.   savage1r

     926 days ago

   "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." from factcheck.org. YOU have a nice day.
   
6.   savage1r

     926 days ago

   Also, this: http://passportsusa.com/?page_id=209 . Yes everyone, Obama's campaign has provided the SHORT FORM, but like every candidate (except for John McCain as well), a true LONG FORM birth certificate is the actual proof. A certificate of live birth or short form birth certificate does not mean someone was born in the US. http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html . Pay attention to "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country." Is anyone still confused?
   
   
7.   Comedian70

     926 days ago

   
   
   
8.   IAmSane

     926 days ago

   *sigh* savage1r is doing his best to prove you right. no matter what, he's going to go on believing his crazy conspiracy theory.
   
9.   savage1r

     926 days ago

   Well, when you have 'facts'on your side it helps to prove your point. I could sign on with a name "Iamnotcrazy" and point out to you that not releasing an important document which is a requirement for the US presidence is TOTALLY NORMAL and anyone who says otherwise is a nutcase, but I didn't. Do you REALLY want someone to set the prescedent so someone like John McCain or Arnold Schwarzenegger can become president?
   
10.   IAmSane

      926 days ago

    Four points to crazy Savage and then I'm done here: #1 You mention that you need a birth certificate to get a passport in the US. Obama has a passport obviously. So... #2 The "certificate of live birth" has Obama's birthplace on it (Hawaii.) So... #3 Obama's birth was announced in two local newspapers the week after his birth. Are you saying there was some huge conspiracy in 1961 to place Obama's birth in Hawaii? Why? How? #4 I've never seen a single other Presidential, Senator, or Congressional candidate's birth certificate. I've seen Obama's. I've seen that Obama's birth was announced in two papers the week after his birth. It seems that there's actually more proof of Obama being born in the US made public than there is for any other politician. It seems pretty ridiculous to be so concerned about his birthplace considering that. Why don't you go on a crusade to get a copy of your congressman's birth certificate! Oh yeah... I know why. Because this has nothing to do with any sort of logical attempt to find out the truth about anything and everything to do with hysteria and "tinfoil hat" type "thinking." Enjoy being a "birther." Every thinking person in the world is laughing at you.
    
11.   IAmSane

      926 days ago

    "not releasing an important document which is a requirement for the US presidence is TOTALLY NORMAL" Actually, that's what makes this so funny. It is totally normal. Obama releasing a copy of his birth certificate is far beyond what any other candidate has done. Show me a copy of George W. Bush's birth certificate. Or Bill Clinton's. You can't. You know why? Because they never released them. Why should they? Why should Obama? He did it just to shut up lunatics like you, but you keep on being a lunatic no matter what. Because that's your way. Being a stupid fucking ignorant moron. That's your way. Keep on keeping on doing your thing. Being a fucking idiot. That's what you're good at.
    
12.   IAmSane

      926 days ago

    And no, you don't deserve respect. You are a pathetic little mindless child. Just shut the fuck up until you can learn how to reason like an adult.
    
13.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    Wow, namecalling is really making your point more valid. If they issued a certificate of live birth (SHORT FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE) then yes they would announce it in the newspaper and would have gotten it from the health department. It won't tell you whether he arrived in hawaii and was issued a certificate of live birth or if he was actually born in hawaii. I'm pretty sure EVERY public official had to provide their LONG FORM birth certificate to hold office, I had to do so just to join the Navy, it's no different for anyone else. You've never seen any other candidate's birth certificate because none (to this point) have been in question. And YES you have seen Obama's CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH otherwise known as the SHORT FORM birth certificate. How long do I have to use caps before people get it? You heard it folks, IAmSane said that "not releasing an important document which is a requirement for the US presidence is TOTALLY NORMAL" Actually, that's what makes this so funny. It is totally normal". Did I ask for your respect? I don't think I did. Maybe if you read my posts you'll correct that error.
    
14.   Comedian70

      926 days ago

    1) when and where the short form is inappropriate for obtaining a passport, a secondary form of Proof of Citizenship is permitted. 2) I merely argued that what you were suggesting, that somehow it's not a valid document, is incorrect. It is in fact a legal document, perfectly good for everyone involved, except the Passport department, and apparently YOU. I'm so terribly sorry that somehow a document good enough to get you everything other than a passport isn't good enough for you. So, I'll cut you a deal: You go run off with your wonderful conspiracy theory (don't forget the tinfoil hat! whoo-hoo!) and I'll get back to work/ignoring you. Have a nice day!
    
15.   Comedian70

      926 days ago

    I apologize, one more point: The Short Form "may" not be good enough in some states. Check any handy ACTUAL GOVERNMENT sites for this, please. I did. (Enjoy the google search, it's not hard. Well, harder than getting your head around this problem, but hey, what do I care.)This PARTICULAR Short Form? In point of fact it IS good enough. As stated above in FactCheck.org. Enjoy your fail/have a nice day!
    
16.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    I love it when people make my point for me. You just admitted that it is not a valid legal document on it's own (needing secondary form of Proof of Citizenship. AND on TOP of that, that it may not be good enough in some states. I will enjoy your fail, you have a nice day as well.
    
17.   Comedian70

      926 days ago

    Do you READ, friend? Please... point out for me where I said it "wasn't a legal document"? I merely gave you the lee-way of saying that some Short Forms provided by some states are not accepted as Proof of Citizenship. Wow! Silly me. Apparently I can't even be the good gentleman and concede any point to you. But that is ok... if you need me to, I can drop to your level any time you like. I promise, you'll be less-than-pleased if I do. That's all academic, however, and there's no need to hike down that trail. The bottom line, once again, is the FactCheck.org article above... where they point out that the Short Form provided by the Obama campaign is in fact a valid document, and is in fact (look, I can type in all caps too! yay!) AN ACCEPTABLE PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP for the STATE DEPARTMENT. Seriously, friend... you really might want to read everything someone has posted before you run off at the mouth. You may want to just abandon this silly birther cause of yours. In the words of a dear friend of mine: That dog won't hunt.
    
18.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    Well, unfortunately I don't know your friend. I don't understand everyone's having to drop or rise to or from whatever level they are on (apparently you are much higher than my lowly self so I bow before your unyielding glory of logic). I don't believe this argument is academic, in fact, I believe it's extremely practical as it effects anyone who is a US citizen and especially those in the armed forces who are fighting and dying for someone who does not qualify to be POTUS. I have read what you posted and I'm not "running off at the mouth", I am making an argument. I'm not out here bashing you or anyone else, I'm just trying to say my point. Now I will respond to your State Department argument by saying that, yes, the State Department did allow Obama's short form birth certificate (though if I were to attempt that it would be flatly rejected by the same state department). However, as stated here: http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/2009/06/obamas_birth_certificate_not_a.html . "The website of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, however, states clearly the certification of live birth touted by the Obama campaign, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and a host of other Obama defenders is not acceptable as a form of identification to qualify under this program." It's not good enough for ANYTHING in Hawaii, yet somehow it is good enough for the State Department on it's own? How wrong is that? I'm not going to abandon my point of view because it is not in agreement with yours. And even if I have to concede a TINY bit because it was an acceptable document to the State Department, that alone does not invalidate any of the other points I have made. And, by the way, my dog like's squirrels.
    
    
19.   Comedian70

      926 days ago

    We're going to have to agree to disagree. I call you friend out of simple respect for a fellow American, though our positions differ radically, and I admit freely that I have little respect for your position, as it seems to be primarily based on some fairly sketchy web research. This theodoresworld site seems to be pretty good at quoting folks and then not following up. FactCheck on the other hand simply debunk bad conspiracies and all their research is easily checked up on. And to your last point, if it's good enough for the State Department but it's not good enough for Hawaii, that's good enough for me. The State Department does not have to follow the rules and regulations of every state in the nation. If they decide that a state-issued document is valid or acceptable for some purpose, but the state itself does not, that's "funny", but not an eye-opener. A bureaucracy does not make a conspiracy, just a bureaucracy. Hawaii's reluctance to accept it for certain purposes means nothing. Since passports are issued by the State Department, not the great state of Hawaii, that kinda makes things easier, doesn't it? You might want to consider that the main problem that folks like me have with your position is that it implies a GRAND CONSPIRACY! (ooooo, spooky!) What exactly is the point of all this? What was this conspiracy supposed to do? Are you party solely to this one, just because you don't like the idea of a Democrat holding office? Or anything else? (he's a closet muslim, he's black, pick one?) Or are you party to other conspiracies? Or... are you just hanging on this birth certificate issue because it's fun?
    
20.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    I have no problem whatsoever with a Democrat being president, Cynthia McKinney would have been much better (and apparently being a woman and black makes her better, not the fact that she is an honest politician who risks her life for what she believes in: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/30/cynthia-mckinney-on-board_n_223284.html ). So if you're trying to argue that I am a racist(married to a woman of color), hate muslims (I'm hindu by the way), or am a republican(I voted democratically in the congressional elections) then I have to say that you're dog is barking up the wrong tree. I think it's interesting that you have to use the word conspiracy in every other sentence to make my point out to be crazy or loony when, in fact, I'm pointing out grave errors that the government has made regarding the validity of the State Department's decision. Obama might as well submitted a cupcake for his birth certificate and no one would have batted an eyelash. And labeling a website like FactCheck.org the end all-be all of actual facts is a major error in itself. I might as well start a site called TheOneandOnlyTruth.com for the republican, green, or other party and say that anyone who disagrees with my journalistic integrity and fact checking skills is a conspiracy theorist and a nut job. There are more than one site out there arguing for and against this very subject, and limiting your sources to just that one is limiting the credibility of your argument. If I said I got all my info from FOX news I think you'd be pretty skeptical of the validity of my argument (I have submitted a variety of sites some of them actual government websites). I'm not "hanging on this birth certificate issue because it's fun." I'm arguing that it's a serious problem because it sets the precedent for future candidates for POTUS who I have mentioned earlier who would be CLEARLY wrong for the job.
    
    
21.   Comedian70

      926 days ago

    Sooooo... just so we're clear, you're on about this birth certificate thing and nothing else? Otherwise you have no problems with our guy Obie? No other good reason to be concerned about his BC? You imply at the end there that he's clearly wrong for the job. Would this be your reason for 'barking up this tree'? I apologize for lumping you in with the other conspiracy nutbags. The ending to my last post was intended to draw you out if you were. However, just because you personally feel that he's 'clearly wrong' for the job doesn't mean he's not a citizen or that his BC is invalid. His BC was accepted by congress and he was elected by a majority. Your 'opinion' on this matter is a non-starter. I would argue that the precedent set in Florida in 2000 was a significantly worse precedent than accepting a BC as proof of citizenship. And with regard to my trust in FactCheck, the point of the story is simply that all of their research is followed-through. Their article included interviews with officials at the state department, and members of their team actually went out and viewed the document. Your guy at theodoresworld just called one official with the state of Hawaii, asked some leading questions, got what he wanted and ran with it. You want to say all internet-based research is invalid, fine. We can start back at the beginning. But FactCheck.org is respected and used by multiple news organizations, while I've never heard of theodoresworld before.
    
22.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    I have MANY reasons why I think Obama is a bad president, not just because of his birth certificate issue. He said that he'd end the war, end torture of "terrorist suspects", end imprisonment without trial, repeal and put an end to signing statements, put an end to hiring lobbyists, I could go on but I'm starting to get tired, any one of these is a good reason why he's a bad president and none of them have been stopped, not one. I'm not arguing that he wasn't elected by a majority OR that he was accepted by Congress. I'm saying that his Certificate of Live Birth, again, not a true birth certificate, should not have made him eligible, congress should not have accepted it (because it does not prove his citizenship). Does that change the fact that congress and the state department approved him and he was elected regardless of this massive oversight? No of course not. Does that make the decision to ignore something like this right? No, of course not. Just because a news source is respected doesn't mean that it's the one source that everyone should turn to for everything. Dan Rather messed up because his "fact checking" team wasn't exactly on the ball. As I recall, Rather used to be one of the most respected anchors we had. And, speaking as someone who has worked in the news media I have witnessed firsthand accounts of news pieces being delivered not just from parent companies but from government resources and they were simply repackaged and broadcast. So, my acceptance of one place for all information is practically nill because I know how easily incorrect and flat out false information can be fed to respectable news sources.
    
23.   Comedian70

      926 days ago

    In light of your last post, and your experience with news media, I find it very hard to understand why you'd find faith with some self-reinforcing websites like the ones you listed above. It's not about your case, it's about how you make it. You may want to check the news regarding Dan, by the way. He's having his day in court, and he's winning. I'm going to let this dog lie, friend. Have a nice day.
    
24.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    I know, I read the news and I'm glad Dan is getting justice. I think we're missing the main point here though. That point being, a certification of live birth (short form birth certificate) is not proof of citizenship and (according to Hawaii's own government website), says that a resident of Hawaii OR a person not born in the US can be issued one. A birth certificate (long form birth certificate is proof that a person was born in the USA. The fact that congress AND the state department accepted a piece of paper that does not prove citizenship and did not investigate any further is staggering to me. It's as valid as if Obama were to send in his drivers licence, a fruit medly or a singing telegram to congress and they said you're a citizen, OBVIOUSLY. Your argument that I don't rely on your one website for MY facts and that some of the websites I go to find information are not generally accepted by mainstream media (which I have worked for) is an argument of opinion. You don't like my sources, I'm not a fan of yours. Now, throughout our little debate you have made several accusations and assumptions about me and my positions, and most of which you've had to back down on because those accusations and assumptions were proven to be not true. I am not participating in this discussion to force you to believe what I believe. No one can ever make anyone else believe something they don't want to and it is futile to attempt such a thing. I am doing this because by other people reading these posts and seeing our discussion, I hope to persuade them. In the end, all I want is the truth. I want the truth to come out one way or another. The fact that the current administration will not allow that truth to come out bears scrutiny.
    
    
25.   Comedian70

      926 days ago

    The current administration probably considers it childish and puerile, and has much bigger things to worry about than proving to you personally that he's a citizen. At this point, so do I. And once again, you and your long-winded posts imply to me that you think 'something is rotten in Denmark'. I.E.: a conspiracy. If you have a point to make in that direction, please make it.
    
26.   Comedian70

      926 days ago

    And, as you claim to be someone who has worked for the "news media", I am again staggered that you work from the premise that all sources are created equal, whether your point is that all are equally bad or equally good. By way of example, answersingenesis.com and howstuffworks.com are not created equal, if I wanted a source to cite for scientific knowledge. You can tell me that your sources are as good as mine all day. That doesn't make it true.
    
27.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    Likewise. Of course I'm implying 'something is rotten in Denmark', not a conspiracy, just FACTS. If the current administration thinks providing legitimate proof of citizenship is childish and puerile then I don't think they should have taken the oath of office because they will probably view the Constitution the same way. I've pointed it out several times, but I'm still not sure you understand the difference between a long form birth certificate and a short form certification of live birth. Both of which can be sourced from wikipedia or any government website concerning either, and the validity of the short form certification of live birth and what it entails comes from Hawaii's own government website so let's stop arguing about valid sources there. I'm long winded because I'm trying to explain my point, I don't see how that's an issue. The issue is, is it important that the person who is not the POTUS was not only NOT a citizen, but has refused to reveal the documents (again, LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE) that would prove he IS a citizen? Considering that one of THE requirement to be POTUS is that you ARE a citizen. So, if Obama has been intentionally hiding that fact from the American public, does that not concern you at all? Does the president lying to you about his validity to BE president not bother you? Hell, we all know that Bush shouldn't have been president (i.e. your 2000 Florida reference), yet because no one was willing to investigate or do anything about it, he remained president. THAT was wrong. We need to stop being in denial and start realizing that if something 'is rotten in Denmark' ACTUALLY, not CONSPIRACY, then we should do something about it.
    
    
28.   Comedian70

      926 days ago

    Ok, we'll make one more turn around the mulberry bush. IF you'd gone and checked anything I'd said above, you'd know that I DO in fact understand the difference between short-and-long form certificates. Here, I'll be even more plain: MY OWN long-form certificate is not available to me or anyone. The building where it was originally stored back in the 70's burned down. I can obtain a State of Indiana short-form, which is good in the State of Indiana for any proof of citizenship I like. It also happens to be good enough for the State Department. But it also happens to be the sole copy of my BC which is available to me. Does this mean that in your eyes my citizenship is suspect? Does this mean that I cannot be president? Somehow I don't think so. Rather, I think you just don't like Obie's politics. And so, I think you hang on this wretched issue like a drowning man in deep water clutches a barrel. You imply that somehow the fact that it goes "unanswered" gives you further reason to suspect... but you won't go so far as to say what it is you suspect. I believe you refuse to do so because telling the world what you're really thinking here would reveal just how .... "interesting" your suspicions really are.
    
29.   Comedian70

      926 days ago

    Let me be even MORE plain, ok? You continue to state that something is "going on"... that the avoidance of this issue is evidence of it. Fine. Just tell me what it is? Tell me what the big deal is. But before you do... you may want to do yourself a favor and look up Hanlon's Razor.
    
30.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    The issue, if you REALLY don\'t get it, AGAIN, is that the president is NOT eligible to BE president because he is NOT a citizen. Every other post you quote your factcheck.org and how it is an unbiased fact checking website and would never sacrifice it\'s journalistic integrity. Now, just so everyone can read this and understand this CLEARLY. factcheck.org is funded by the Annenberg Foundation: http://www.factcheck.org/about/ . Hopefully you can agree to their own website. A simple google search (which I have no idea how to use) when you use Annenberg, Obama and factcheck.org reveals SEVERAL websites: http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/10/obama-bill-ayers-and-factcheckorg-all-have-ties-to-annenberg-foundation/
    , http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/obama.ayers/ , http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/news/news_show.htm?doc_id=702786 . Notice the last post, Annenberg\'s own website. Obama was a CHAIR in Annenberg and YOU are going to tell ME that factcheck.org, FUNDED PRIMARILY BY THE ANNENBERG FOUNDATION, OF WHICH PRESIDENT OBAMA CHAIRED IS NOT BIASED? I\'m not the conspiracy theorist here. I can\'t make this information up, it\'s on their own website and you\'re going to lecture me about websites with journalistic integrity? You're going to tell me that there was no outside influences on factcheck.org? Your news source is fail, your arguments are fail, your accusations are fail. What do you have left to stand on?
    
    
31.   Comedian70

      926 days ago

    the fact that you're a conspiracy theorist who won't even fill me in on what exactly his theory is?
    
32.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    I thought you could read. I was mistaken. My bad.
    
33.   Comedian70

      926 days ago

    'grats on your fast learning of how to use the slang-term "fail", by the way. Truly awesome.
    
34.   ImALoony

      926 days ago

    Hey savage1r, I hear they're handing out free Xanax at your local mental hospital, you might want to check it out.
    
35.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    The fact you and loony are not able to actually make arguments anymore pretty much invalidates your "attempted" smears. People know what logic is and what "ha ha, you're a poophead" arguments are. Sorry for your loss, I have to claim the win because I'm not going to get into an insult war. I'll debate you rationally, not interested in a flame war.
    
36.   Comedian70

      926 days ago

    Once again, man... Please, just out with it. So Obama personally orchestrated the whole thing, including Factcheck.org, just to grab the presidency? and then what?
    
37.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    I don't know how to explain it to someone who can't read....grr.....ok....Obama knows that he's not a citizen but hides the fact to get elected, Obama was a chair at the Annenberg foundation who completely funds Factcheck.org. Factcheck.org does what Annenberg foundation says. Obama is president. Obama and factcheck bad, unbiased/unfunded by major biased companies that the president didn't work for news sources good. Arrrgh. If you ran a company and did well do you think that company would allow a subsidiary to report bad things about you? I mean, am I REALLY here to hold your hand? Does this not make ANY sense?
    
    
38.   independently inclined

      926 days ago

    I think Obama is a citizen. I have no personally verifiable proof but I accept his short form certificate. I know that governments are complex social entities and can be factually shown to mislead if not out right lie about things that are harmful to them. This transcends politics and is more a function of human nature. I think savage1r has done a better job arguing his point than anyone in this comment section while at the same time I disagree with him. I am an independent who is disdainful of the way people seem to polarize themselves needlessly. Believing or questioning something does not make someone a conspiracy theorist, at least not with the negative connotation people give to the word conspiracy. Use of the word conspiracy has been equated with nutjobs because nutjobs often espouse conspiracies, usually of a nefarious kind. Conspiracy is a word that denotes people working together to a shared end, a plot, a shared plan. It need not be nefarious or be about hiding things. I\'ve read and re-read these posts and I see one person who has not reversed his wording or tried to use semantics or veiled insinuations to discredit anyone and that person is savager1. It\'s dismaying that not one of you has been able to properly present an argument against his case with out resorting to semantic wrangling or emotional pleas or attacks. Please try harder, because if he can come off as reasonable to me I suspect other more involved people like lawyers hostile to the administration can make reasonable seeming cases to judges possibly resulting in actual harm done to the productivity of this administration.
    
    
39.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    Hey Independently Inclined, am I not being clear? I am trying to present my argument and I'm just wondering if what I am saying makes sense. We may not agree, but I would like to know if I am at least arguing this correctly. And thank you, I appreciate your opinion.
    
40.   xenon452

      926 days ago

    Guys, savage1r is a real live one. He's posted this on reddit, under the impression that he won't come off as an idiot there. http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/93mgp/read_the_debate_posts_obama_supporters_go_nuts_in/
    
41.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    Yes I did, I want people to see what's been going on. And I've taken pride in my arguments and I believe they stand as proof that I am not an idiot.
    
42.   xenon452

      926 days ago

    We're very happy for you. Now run along and play, the grown-ups are talking.
    
43.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    Really? Maybe the grown-ups can enlighten me with their wisdom.
    
    
44.   xenon452

      926 days ago

    Scroll up, you'll see many attempts. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
    
45.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    I could say the same thing.
    
46.   nairobired

      926 days ago

    I guess my issue is that Obama has had a passport for years, long before he entered politics. Why then would the State Department issue a passport to him in the first place if he did not have adequate proof of citizenship?
    
47.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    As far as I can tell, he had to have had another form of proof, since the certification of live birth is not sufficient in and of itself. What that other form of proof is I have no idea.
    
48.   nairobired

      926 days ago

    Well, again then, what motivation does the State Department have to issue a passport to a random kid from Hawaii if he does not present sufficient identification?
    
49.   Fauntleroy

      926 days ago

    Do you people think we have the WORST intelligence services in the world, or what? You don't think the FBI would have been like, "Oh hey dudes, this guy's a super secret spy! Don't let him be President!" at some point if there were something to this? Imagine how much the conservative members of the FBI would jump on that. Think about the level of background checks that they run on pretty much every person they encounter. Then think about how deep a background check they'd run on a presidential candidate. The fact is, he's obviously a citizen and he wouldn't have run if he weren't. That would be idiotic to try and hide. And when a year of investigation has yielded a pretty high pile of evidence that he's a citizen and no actual evidence that he isn't, I think it's time to give it up. Asking for a fifth item of proof after four have been delivered is pigheaded. You people are deluding yourselves into thinking you're the Ace #1 Detectives of the world because you can spout somebody else's conspiracy theories. "Oh, just a little bit more pressure, and we'll nab 'em!" It reminds me of apocalypse cults, who can't accept that the prophecied date for the end of the world has already come and gone. They just hold on, thinking that a little longer will prove them right in the end. They place more importance on not being wrong than they do on being right, and live in denial.
    
50.   deepthot42

      926 days ago

    I wonder, savage1r, are you using today's standards of documentation or 1961 standards?
    
    Just curious.
    
    I mean, Hawaii had only officially been a State for three years at that point.
    
    
51.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    People don't want 5 items that are proofs of evidence. They only want one. One long form birth certificate that has been refused at every request. I don't understand how it's confusing or hard or complicated. Just one long form birth certificate. There's no mountain of evidence that he is a citizen, only one piece of paper that could prove it either way. By the way, the FBI is definitely not the brightest bulb in the lamp. I know I'm arguing this part pretty hard and it's an important point, but it's not the only proof that Obama is not an actual citizen of the US. After Hawaii, he moved to Jakarta, Indonesia. At the time, Indonesia did not allow for dual citizenship. In order to go to school there (which he did) Obama would have had to renounce his US citizenship. You can check out the article here: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=72656 . So, even though the certification of live birth argument still stands, this double whammy evidence is more proof that he was not a US citizen.
    
    
52.   nairobired

      926 days ago

    So now the FBI is in on it too, due to sheer incompetence? There is no logic to your arguments. I'll ask my question again: why would the State Department issue a passport to a Hawaiian child if the child's parents are not able to provide sufficient proof of citizenship? Why is whatever they presented to the State Department, which was sufficient enough to issue an American passport, not sufficient enough for you?
    
53.   nairobired

      926 days ago

    And I think if the FBI is going to do anything well, it's probably going to be deep background checks on freakin presidential candidates. Don't think they're going to just let that one slip on by.
    
54.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    Apparently it's not that hard to get a valid US passport: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/14/passport.security/index.html , http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22419963/
    
55.   nairobired

      926 days ago

    Ok, then maybe we've cleared this up. In order to travel to Indonesia from Hawaii, the Obamas would have had to have valid U.S. passports. Upon arriving in Indonesia, which then did not allow dual-citizenship, he is forced to renounce his U.S. citizenship. How could he renounce it if he was not one in the first place?
    
56.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    Renounce is a bad word, according to the article, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=72656 , if he was adopted by his indonesian father and moved to Indonesia he automatically became an indonesian citizen, regardless of whatever his prior citizenship was, be it Kenyan or US (though the US still cannot be proven until the long form birth certificate is produced).
    
57.   nairobired

      926 days ago

    Is there a Kenyan birth certificate then? Can you produce a valid copy of that? You're making farther and farther leaps in logic here, can you not see that? Obviously you're an intelligent person, you just seem to be clinging onto this idea a little desperately. People are agitated with the "birthers" in general because they keep saying this, we just need to see this, and we'll be appeased. If a long form birth certificate is eventually produced, I can already imagine the argument: because it took so long to produce, and because it was produced after his already taken office, then it must be a forgery, a cover-up. We should all accept that no proof will be enough for some people, just like the moon landing conspiracy. It's never going to be enough.
    
58.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    Like I said, all anyone ever needed was the long form birth certificate. Would Obama produce a Kenyan birth certificate if it would help prove his US citizenship somehow? Probably, but I don't see how it would help, only hinder. I'm not making further and further steps. I said from the beginning and I still say now: All anyone needs is the long form birth certificate. If they can produce it and it's authentic then this wouldn't be an issue. There's questions concerning where he was born, if he even kept his US citizenship (if he ever had it to begin with). If there weren't any questions this wouldn't be an issue. It's not crazy, it's really simple. If you have the proof you should produce it, if not, then why?
    
    
59.   jackjustjack

      926 days ago

    Hi, savage1r - I think I've got adequate proof for you that Obama's a US Citizen, but you won't like it: he's the president. This might be a little too anecdotal for you, but it doesn't really matter. No matter how far you carry your campaign, you're not going to find anyone who's as batshit insane as you are AND has the power required to override what the majority of the country accepts as the truth. You're fella lost. Now get down off your cross, and get over it. Oh, and this is TOTALLY a hit-and-run. While I encourage you to yell at me until you're hoarse, and reply until your wee li'l hands cramp, I promise you that I won't be reading it.
    
60.   nairobired

      926 days ago

    Because he already did produce it. All these people clamored for a birth certificate, he produced it, and what do you know, wrong one. At least it was to this strange minority, while to the majority of Americans, government officials, members of Congress, the FBI, CIA, military leaders, and, well basically every one else alive, any doubts were satisfied. Seriously, you think you got something, read something, saw something, that those trying to keep him from being president hasn't? Don't you think they tried their best to keep him from being president, by any means necessary?
    
61.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    Well, I'm going to respond regardless. Yes, he is the president, I don't believe he has the legal authority to be the president though. I know that the 2000 elections were stolen through the election process and Bush became president. Did that make it right? No, of course it didn't. I don't have a cross here, just a cause to debate and inform as best I can. The majority of the world used to think that the earth was flat, did that make it true? My biggest beef is that so many people have become completely complacent to whatever happens and they let other people, the government, whomever walk all over them without any protest. So this is my protest.
    
62.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    I had to produce my long form birth certificate in order to get a passport and to enter the navy. Any person who wishes to do either of those things or hold public office is entitled to do the same. If you do not wish to produce that document then you should not apply. I think that a good portion of those people do know. A serviceman recently won a lawsuit in which he claimed that the president did not have the authority to order him to the middle east and that lawsuit was won because he demanded the president's long form birth certificate and the government refused to do so and rescinded his orders. So, somebody knows. Like I said way early on. I do not like the precedent being set if what I say turns out to be true.
    
63.   nairobired

      926 days ago

    All I can say is there are a lot more worthy causes to protest for.
    
64.   nairobired

      926 days ago

    All I can say is there are a lot more worthy causes to protest for.
    
65.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    Tyranny is the most dangerous cause to protest against.
    
66.   cwhitt

      926 days ago

    Hey, I'm a fool for wading in here, but what the hell, it's a boring Wednesday evening... savage1r: I see your first point. The long form BC has not been released publicly and we do not know if that or some other form of proof was used to supplement the short form, or whether Obama's citizenship was accepted based solely on the short form. Now the tricky part is your statement "he is NOT a citizen" and "he knows he is not a citizen". The fact that we do not have all the evidence used to determine his citizenship several times in the past does NOT logically imply he is in fact a non-citizen. There is simply no way to draw this logical conclusion from evidence presented so far in this discussion. Can we all accept that to travel to Indonesia as a child on a US passport, his citizenship proof must have been given at that time? If so, there are two alternatives: a) Obama was born in the US and legitimately holds citizenship b) Obama was born outside the US and negligence, incompetence or fraud allowed him to gain proof of citizenship as a young child. If a) is true, then to explain the current situation we simply have to believe that the bureaucracies that needed to be convinced Obama is a citizen have been convinced, and the powers that be see no need to produce further evidence. I'm not a US citizen, but from what I've read it seems unusual to reproduce and publicly release the long form birth certificate. In fact as another poster has pointed out, those records can often be lost and a person still has means to prove birth and citizenship by the short form BC. To believe b) we have to believe that there are many people who could have cast doubt on Obama's citizenship but chose to go alone with the deception, over a period of decades. The motivation for such a complicated scenario is unclear, and even if there was one, it is hard to believe that such an accident or manipulation could be carried off so convincingly. So, with alternative b) seeming to be a much more complicated explanation of the known facts, most people apply the principle of Occam's razor: all things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the right one. However, this just says usually, so granted, b) could still be the correct explanation. However, most logical people would agree with a sentiment commonly found in scientific circles: "exceptional claims require exceptional proof". Alternative b) - Obama is an illegitimate president because of mistakes or fraud in accepting his proof of citizenship (probably in the distant past) - is a bit more complicated than the common belief that he is a citizen. Accordingly, we should expect some additional evidence to support this explanation of the observations before we start to think that it might be the correct one. This, I believe, is why another poster asked if you knew of a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama. That would certainly satisfy the requirement for some additional evidence, and probably warrant a deeper investigation into the matter, which is what you seem to want. However, to date, no serious evidence supporting the hypothesis that Obama was born outside the US has surfaced. There is lots of conjecture, and "what-if" scenarios, but none of that counts as evidence. At this point the MOST skeptical person could reasonably say that he isn't SURE that Obama is a citizen, but there is no strong reason to believe he is NOT a citizen. In fact you can probably say that about 97% of the people you meet. I bet (unless you work for INS or something) you haven't checked the long-form BC of very many people you know, but you probably accept that they are US citizens unless you see them waving around a Czech passport or something. Why do you not give Obama the same logical treatment?
    
67.   fuckit

      926 days ago

    This guys is a troll, fuck it dudes... not worth it - everyone that doesn't buy into corporate media agrees. don't stoop down to his level, if he wants to believe it, let him... The best we can hope to do is leave these bastards and move under the ocean - in some sort of sealab.... w/ dolphins.
    
68.   savage1r

      926 days ago

    As the article from WND stipulates, if Obama was adopted by his Indonesian father in Hawaii, he probably did not need a US passport. Now, 30+ million illegal immigrants can give you several reasons why it is preferable to acquire a social security card, drivers license, passport or other document. I can't claim to know how or why Obama was able to receive his. All I know is that the one simple document it would take to clear up this matter has not been produced. I can't conclusively prove that he is a citizen or not, however there is quite a bit of evidence that supports the theory that he is not as mentioned earlier.
    
69.   Billy

      926 days ago

    First things first: why are you people debating citizenship? Schwarzenegger, for example, is a citizen, but cannot (thankfully) become president. Beyond that, I think this debate is a waste of everyone's time, but I would like to make one additional point:
    
    Savage1r writes: "However, as stated here: http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/2009/06/obamas_birth_certificate_not_a.html . "The website of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, however, states clearly the certification of live birth touted by the Obama campaign, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and a host of other Obama defenders is not acceptable as a form of identification to qualify under this program." It's not good enough for ANYTHING in Hawaii, yet somehow it is good enough for the State Department on it's own?"
    
    This is a pretty typical case of how people on fox news like to argue. I'm sure the quote from the website is completely accurate. However, it is completely irrelevant. Do you know what the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands is, or the program to which they are referring? I do. The program gives $1 lifetime leases to PEOPLE WITH DOCUMENTED HAWAIIAN ANCESTRY (look! everyone can write in caps!). OF COURSE THEY WOULDN'T ACCEPT THE SHORT FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE!! Race is self-reported by the parents! THIS IS A RACE-BASED PROGRAM!! It is a far cry to make the jump that a certificate that does not qualify as documentation of race also does not qualify as documentation of place of birth.
    
    Please don't use quotes that you know nothing about just because someone else has used them, and you are parroting their arguments.
    
    
70.   blixa555

      926 days ago

    Billy,
    
    Great catch. Here's another, I am a US citizen, born in a foreign land, but also a 'natural born' citizen, due to the fact my Dad was born in Kansas (much like Obama's mom). EVEN IF OBAMA WAS BORN IN KENYA, he'd still be a 'natural born citizen' because his mother was an US Citizen. John McCain was born in Panama, to US Citizens, he was a 'Natural Born Citizen' because his parents were US Citizens.
    
    By claiming US Citizenship through my father, I was told EXPLICITLY I was claiming to be a 'natural born citizen' thus I was a US Citizen since birth and have always been, including the preceding 6 years. Thus I had to fill out 6 YEARS of IRS returns.
    
    
    Furthermore, IF you don't like the laws of this country, nothing is stopping you from moving.
    
71.   savage2r

      926 days ago

    Yay for loons like Savage! Their warped view of reality makes forums like this fun!!!
    
72.   cwhitt

      926 days ago

    savage1r: "I can't conclusively prove that he is a citizen or not, however there is quite a bit of wild speculation that supports the theory that he is not as mentioned earlier." FTFY
    
73.   AdamSelene

      926 days ago

    Savage1r,
    
    Please go back and read your rant about Factcheck and the Annenberg foundation.
    
    
    Now let me point out the sloppy information that you are using, as well as for your data on other subjects. The point is you want it to be true so you are ignoring flaws and not giving things equal scrutiny.
    
    
    
    The Annenberg Foundation, a charitable family trust, was created on July 1, 1989 by media magnate and former Ambassador to the Court of St. James\'s Walter H. Annenberg. Initial funding of $1.2 billion came from the sale of Triangle Publications, the last media property held by Annenberg. The foundation is based in St. David\'s, Pennsylvania. Currently, The Foundation has a priority on granting funds for reform of elementary and secondary public school systems.
    
    
    The Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) (also referred to as the Annenberg Challenge to Chicago) was a public-private partnership founded in 1995 to improve school performance by what it called \"on the ground\" investments in the form of professional development and technical assistance. Sponsored by the Annenberg Foundation, the CAC received a charter grant of $49.2 million in 1995.[1] The CAC was formally dissolved in January, 2002. It handed over its remaining assets to its successor, the Chicago Public Education Fund.
    
    
    The CAC is the partnership that Ayers and Obama worked at. The relation was that the Annenberg foundation granted money to the partnership, that what it does, it grants money from its trust for education reform.
    
    
    
    Then there is the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which has nothing to do with either of the above. It gets it\'s name from the Annenberg School of Communication of Penn.
    
    
    The Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) is a center for the study of public policy at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. It has offices in Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia, where the University of Pennsylvania is located. The Annenberg Center conducts research, convenes panels of experts, hosts lectures and conferences, and publishes reports on five main areas: Political communication, information and society, media and children, health communication, and adolescent risk.
    
    
    The APPC was established in 1993 by the ambassadors Walter and Leonore Annenberg. It currently has a staff of 54 people. One of the center\'s most notable initiatives is the FactCheck website.
    
    
    This is basic info, easily found. What you did was went looking for something to discredit factcheck.org, found what you posted on someother anti obama/liberal/democratic party site, and posted it. With no checking of the info.
    
    Cause you have to be right.
    
74.   Imagesmith

      926 days ago

    savage1r, i respect you view, however, Comedian70 stated that two local newspapers in 1961 had his birth in the newspaper, now not a valid form of birth, but why would they print this unless he was born locally in 1961?
    
75.   SavageIsNuts

      926 days ago

    I'd like Savage and all other Birther morons to read what Comedian70 said here real closely: "Here, I'll be even more plain: MY OWN long-form certificate is not available to me or anyone. The building where it was originally stored back in the 70's burned down. I can obtain a State of Indiana short-form, which is good in the State of Indiana for any proof of citizenship I like. It also happens to be good enough for the State Department. But it also happens to be the sole copy of my BC which is available to me. Does this mean that in your eyes my citizenship is suspect? Does this mean that I cannot be president?" I think this really gets to the heart of the matter. Crazy Birthers are looking for some specific document even though there's no reason to think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii and tons of evidence that he was.
    
76.   Zardo

      926 days ago

    Wow, congrats for Comedian70 for maintaining his cool in the face of paint-peeling inanity.
    
77.   unemployedme

      925 days ago

    all you people need so start spending less time on forums and more time looking for jobs..coz if we were all employed we wouldnt be here wasting our time
    
78.   comanchepilot

      924 days ago

    I've read all of the comments herein and everyone misses the ball. Even the OP. . . . it is simply irrelevant to the question whether is a citizen. Governor Schwarzenegger is a US citizen; but he is not a natural born citizen. Thus - he cannot be president. The issue is whether Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. There is all sorts of evidence he was - what convinced me was not the 'certificate of live birth' but the birth announcement from August 1961 which appeared in the Honolulu newspaper - it strains credulity that THIS was faked by his mother to prove he was born in Hawaii when it was irrelevant at that point. With the generally accepted rules - the guy is constitutionally qualified to be Prez - give it a rest.