Induced Labor

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:19 am

Seems Mr Obama (note I use Mr. and not President) will at some point in the near future, have to produce a Birth Certificate as to show his nation of origin. Seems a active duty officer in Iraq is refusing to perform his duties until such time as this silly little detail is cleared up.

\"A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an \"impostor\" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief.

The statement was publicized by California attorney Orly Taitz who, along with her Defend Our Freedom Foundation, is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama's birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

\"As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States,\" wrote Scott Easterling in a \"to-whom-it-may-concern\" letter.\"

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89837

Now has anyone seen proof of Mr Obama's birth nation? Was a birth certificate ever produced. More importantly, at this juncture in time, what impact will not being born in the US or not having a valid birth certificate, have on Alfred's presidency?

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:39 am

Lookie, lookie.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... birth.html

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:44 am

Again?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/bi ... ficate.asp

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:04 am

One has to wonder at the reason then, this is being brought up? Enough so that a army officer is risking his career and a atty is going to represent him (I suspect on a Pro Bono basis). Perhaps it will turn out to be another Dan Rather moment.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:48 am

woodchip wrote:One has to wonder at the reason then, this is being brought up? Enough so that a army officer is risking his career and a atty is going to represent him (I suspect on a Pro Bono basis).

Nothing deep, just a couple idiots.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:00 pm

Even if he didn't have one he'd be well in the position and power to have one faked at this point.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:00 pm

agreed, but its pretty much a moot point now, you want to tear this country farther apart. try and remove him from office if it turns out he wasn't born in the US

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:30 pm

Well, I see it as kicking a dead horse. We lost, we're dealing with it. Anybody who's gunna make an issue of this makes us just as bad as Al Gore.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:35 pm

They are going to keep pushing the issue until the State of Hawaii or Obama produces the original document to prove it is authentic. Without producing it the suspicion will just grow deeper.

I find the Snopes article arguing that 'it is absurd to think a candidate would forge a document that could so easily be checked' to be more than a bit weak considering that argument is put up to invalidate the suspicions of anyone who would seek to check the document that the candidate has so far been successful in refusing anyone access to check it!!

The real thing could have put this argument to bed but he refuses to come out with the proof. Has he even, in simple clear language claimed that he has proof he was born in Hawaii? Or has he said something like 'The state of Hawaii has put to rest that argument by verifying they have the document'?

The reason I ask is, politicians are notorious for looking right into the camera and making calculated statements that when caught later let them say something like \"It depends what the meaning of is is.'

Has he sworn he was born in Hawaii or offered up an exercise in plausible deniability? And if so, why?
Maybe he was born there and is just indignant at the accusation...maybe he was born elsewhere and knows he can win this battle.

All he needs to say if the accusation is proven to be accurate is \"My people were dragged in chains to this land, paid with our blood to build your country then paid with our blood to be set free and we'll fight to the death before we now let you white devils deny me citizenship to our new home and steal the Presidency from us the way you stole so much of our ancestors lives and freedom!

Who wants to be the guy that leads that fight?!? Heh, not me!

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:56 pm

The only \"Alfred E\" I see here is Alfred E Woodchip. Keep up the hatred... It suits you.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:05 pm

Will Robinson wrote:They are going to keep pushing the issue until the State of Hawaii or Obama produces the original document to prove it is authentic.

Oh, come on, Will.

You're saying the following isn't enough?

I may not have voted for him, but seriously... this is about as frivolous an accusation as I've seen.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:17 pm

Foil wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:They are going to keep pushing the issue until the State of Hawaii or Obama produces the original document to prove it is authentic.
Oh, come on, Will.

You're saying the following isn't enough?

the birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper

Birth certificate + signature stamp on back + raised seal, all *hand-verified*

Other similar suits dismissed
I may not have voted for him, but seriously... this is about as frivolous an accusation as I've seen.

I'm not claiming to know or believe one side over the other because neither side has offered up anything except photographs and someones opinion of what is in the photograph. You can make a photograph look like anything you want not unlike the photograph of the Bat Boy in the Weekly World News:

We all know loyal followers will say anything to support their man...

The doubt is magnified and perpetuated by the lack of providing the actual document to a neutral party. In this case all it takes is bringing the document to congress where each party can have a document expert look it over and end this. Why it hasn't happened is the key question. Left unanswered it feeds the fires of conspiracy and now some poor soldier is being led out on a limb by his partisan leanings and a bunch of political hacks who will throw him under the bus just to force Obama's hand with the hopes it is true.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:22 pm

Will Robinson wrote:...You can make a photograph look like anything you want...

We all know loyal followers will say anything to support their man...

Oh, now it's a big cover-up?

I'd say it's you "feeding the fires of conspiracy" here.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:38 pm

I find it odd that the Republicans had no problem electing George W. Bush based on a few dangling chads, but now want to throw a fit over something as well documented as this. <sigh>

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:50 pm

That’s right, drag Bush into it, it has to be his fault…

JFTR Kilarin, the press botched the call in Florida, that created the entire mess down there…then never fessed up to causing all the trouble, instead running with the drama (they caused) instead.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:58 pm

This theory is as insane as the \"Bush plotted 9/11\" one. You would NEVER hold yourselves to the same standards because you know its ridiculous and borderline impossible. You guys are just letting lunatic racists/extremists take you for a ride down a one way street named Pathetic.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:32 pm

Foil wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:...You can make a photograph look like anything you want...

We all know loyal followers will say anything to support their man...
Oh, now it's a big cover-up?

I'd say it's you "feeding the fires of conspiracy" here.

You seem to want to put words in my mouth really badly with that lame, very selectively edited summation of my post!

Dan Rather, someone who most of the English speaking world once thought of as objective and truthful and dedicated to getting the truth out, recently helped use forged documents to try and derail Bush's election.
So if Rather can do that....if Clinton can lie to a grand jury and get away with it.... why do you find it so hard to understand that Obama's failure to directly address the accusation will lead to lots of speculation about the issue?!?

What I'm doing is pointing out the reality of the situation, not supporting either side's argument. The truth is most likely that Obama was born in Hawaii but he hasn't tried very hard to prove he was. In fact I can't recall he, or his immediate underlings, even touching the subject directly! Willing democrat supporters have taken up the charge which leaves wide open the whole deniability angle if he ends up being discovered to be a non-citizen!

Why does everyone have to be drinking the Kool-Aid from one party or the other for you to be able to understand their point of view? Why misrepresent my point before addressing it? Why not just deal with the point I made instead of rewriting it to fit your template?

Obama, for what ever reason, has kept this accusation alive as much as anyone else. Why?

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:50 pm

Will wrote:Obama, for what ever reason, has kept this accusation alive as much as anyone else. Why?

It feels like I'm just stating the obvious, but, shoot...
1. Because arguing with idiots makes you look like an idiot.
2. Defending absurd accusations gives credence to them (insofar as they now appear credible enough to require one to have to defend against them).
3. Arguing against the conspiracy would give it more publicity, i.e. something similar to the Streisand effect.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:18 pm

I would also like to point out that getting the original document of your very own birth certificate is virtually impossible. One of the reason's Obama and Congress haven't brought out the original is because they probably can't get it out of the records office where it is kept legally.

If you don't believe me, go ahead and march down to whatever records office your own birth certificate is stored in and ask for the original (not a copy) to take with you. They might let you see the original, but there is a snowballs chance of freezing over hell that they would let you walk out of the building with it. Maybe the Supreme Court could get it, but I think they would be more inclined to throw the whole thing out as preposterous nonsense.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:47 pm

Krom wrote:I would also like to point out that getting the original document of your very own birth certificate is virtually impossible. One of the reason's Obama and Congress haven't brought out the original is because they probably can't get it out of the records office where it is kept legally.

If you don't believe me, go ahead and march down to whatever records office your own birth certificate is stored in and ask for the original (not a copy) to take with you. They might let you see the original, but there is a snowballs chance of freezing over hell that they would let you walk out of the building with it. Maybe the Supreme Court could get it, but I think they would be more inclined to throw the whole thing out as preposterous nonsense.

CMON getting that Document would be SIMPLE.
send in Sandy Berger, problem solved

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:51 pm

As previously linked, the document was allowed to be handled for verification, and they even were allowed to take and publish photos!

But apparently that's not enough. Oh, wait, that's right... it must be a liberal conspiracy to cover it up!

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:08 pm

Spidey wrote:FTR Kilarin, the press botched the call in Florida, that created the entire mess down there

Yes. The final count came out just BARELY in GWBush's favor. It wasn't an attack on Bush, it was just that there were a lot more, and a lot more valid questions about that election than about this one.

If it's legitimate to claim that the photographs of the birth certificate were faked, then it would CERTAINLY be legitimate to say someone faked the last few dangling chads.

I don't like Obama, but this is really stretching.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:14 pm

Yea, and you are comparing something that made national headlines, and ended up in the supreme court, to a bunch of internet jabber.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:31 pm

Krom wrote:I would also like to point out that getting the original document of your very own birth certificate is virtually impossible. One of the reason's Obama and Congress haven't brought out the original is because they probably can't get it out of the records office where it is kept legally....

I shouldn't have said the "original" I mean bring out the official copy that is in question, the one with the questionable differences/imprint/whatever markings that everyone is ranting about. It seems kind of strange that it wasn't made available to the press or Congress but finally made available to some political news internet group who said "Yea, it's real, here's some pictures we took of it..." not exactly a well known source.

Why not ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN,Fox,BBC,ETC.ETC.ETC. they would all love to break it down and fill up some of that empty air time they will inevitably always be trying to fill in between celebrity screw ups like Tom Cruise sacrifices his baby to summon the mothership or Brittany Spears discovers she really does have underwear...but is unsure of how to work them.

I guess I accept he is rebuking the process but when I see a soldier all fired up and taking one for the team (a team that doesn't deserve his efforts) it would be nice to see the Commander in Chief step up and say "OK, look this is silly here, here it is, go carbon date the damn thing if you want to, roll it up and smoke it, check it for the DNA of all known serial killers and father rapers if you want to but otherwise get over it!"

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:28 pm

If you have a contemporaneous announcement from the local paper that verifies the certificate, I don't see that the argument has much merit. What would be the point of faking a birth announcement in 1961 for the local paper. I think this is all a waste of time and energy. If he turns out to be a good president, let's re-elect him; if not, let's t'row da bum out.

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:02 pm

Here's food for thought.

This is the document in question.

Notice how it's laid out.

Ok here's one that is NOT in question.

Speak amongst yourselves.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:11 pm

Good point AlphaDog. The top one did seem a little sparse when I saw it but I had never seen a Hawaii birth certificate before. The bottom one on the other hand, looks just like every other birth certificate I've ever seen before. I wasn't near as suspicious before as I am now.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:14 pm

How dare they change the paper in the last 40 years... They should still be hand written like they were before computers and type writers.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:17 pm

I don't see the problem.

The top one is just like what you get here in Oregon if you get a birth certificate (and you need one to renew your driver's license) while the last one looks like a photostat of the original form that was probably filled out in 63'and submitted to state records.

It's a no brainer. Was anyone here born in Hawaii? go order your birth certificate. It's probably not more than 20 dollars.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:18 pm

Eh? Wasn't this supposed to be a copy of the original? If not then its incredible.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:21 pm

No flip.

if you look really close you can see a stamp near the bottom that dates 2007 ..Nov 2? can't make that out.(it's backwards) If someone is claiming that's an original, they need to get their O2 level checked.

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:22 pm

All I know is I went and got a copy of my birth certificate just last year and it was MORE like the second than it was the first.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:25 pm

Yeah I just looked at mine, my wife's and my 4 children. They all look like the bottom one. In fact, my wife just had to use hers to get a passport just in case and I doubt very seriously if the the top one would have got one for her. The seal also is very plain on all 6. All I can say is the one offered as proof of Baracks citizenship doesn't give me much confidence.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:54 pm

We already jumped into a car and drove off this cliff. I guess someone decided to get into another car and drive off the same cliff again while the other car is still burning at the bottom.

I wonder how many times they're gonna go off it before they go 'hmm maybe we shouldn't drive off this cliff'.

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:05 pm

Need directions?

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:08 pm

maybe we'll fill the hole up next to the cliff with bs.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:48 pm

I'm just shootin' from the hip here based on what AlphaDog posted, but I don't think the \"Certification of Live Birth\" is the same as a \"Certificate of Live Birth\". I have a copy of my Ohio Certificate of Live Birth, obtained 12 years after the fact, and it has a stamp on the back that reads \"I Hereby certify this to be a true transcript of a record on file in the Bureau of Vital Statistics ...\", then signed and stamped by the Registrar. So it looks to me like the Obama Certification document is the same thing, a copy of a transcript of data taken from the original document, produced at a later date (apparently 2007). Still leaves open the question about the actual original document. Why would the Department of Vital Statistics in Hawaii attempt to perpetrate a fraud by issuing a false record? It seems untenable that local government would attempt to pass off a false document. The cost of a revealed forgery would be enormous.

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:52 pm

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Certification+of+Live+Birth

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:15 am

Nice.

the WikiAnswers link there produced this -

In Florida, a \"certificate of live birth\" is the original certificate completed at the time of the child's birth. It is prepared by the hospital and includes the signatures of at least one of the parents and usually the physician or another witness to the birth. Once the \"certificate of live birth\" has been completed, it is sent to the Florida Office of Vital Statistics, who files the document and issues certified copies when requested. When ordering a Florida birth certificate, you can ask for a \"photocopy certificate\" - which is an exact photocopy of the original \"certificate of live birth\". They can only be ordered from the state office in Jacksonville, since that is where the actual certificate is stored.

A \"Certification of Birth\" also known as a \"computer copy\" is a document issued by the Florida Office of Vital Statistics that only includes some of the information from the original \"certificate of live birth\". It usually states only the name, sex, date of birth, place of birth, parents' names, and the state file number. These types of birth certificates are cheaper and can be purchased from any Vital Statistics office in the state of Florida (and each county has one).

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:41 am

Technology sucks doesn't it?

Induced Labor

Induced Labor

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: