Is the obsessive interest in President Obama's birth certificate about Citizenship or Race? (Poll)

Was this poll about Senator McCain or President Obama? What's your point? Obama won the election!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Move on about the dimwit McCain.

Our point is racisim is stupid and asking for a birth certif, seeing it and deneying it is BS and it smacks of racsim. Why don't you focus on the postive? We've got a smart an in office who wants to bring health care to all, end the BS war in Iraq & whos recovery program has the Dow up 9000 points today.

I voted for Obama you A--, I am not a McCain supporter why don't you try reading what I wrote again dimwit!! It's about racism and the stupidity of the argument about Obama not being born in this country....That's the problem with people like you, you don't read. Good point SH, I know he will be successful, if the Repubs. and the ignorant let him do his job!

Reggie, the bigger question should be how do we unite as a nation and work together with the President towards a better future.

We thought that we had the answers, it was the questions we had wrong.
Bono

Reggie,

As this was going on during the election, bringing up the idea that if you were going to question Obama's birth and citizenship, you should have also questioned McCain's, is a perfectly valid point.

And yet, I can guarantee, if McCain had won, people would not be forming conspiracy theories around his origins of birth.

Just for the record. Any US Military Base, no matter in what foreign country, is considered US Soil, therefor by definition McCain was born on US Soil.

MJV,

having been through a few of these boards, I know that I've seen this long winded explanation on how it's possible that McCain wouldn't be considered a citizen because of something or other going on with the base in question. I don't view it any more likely that McCain isn't eligible to be president because of citizenship issues than I do Obama, so I didn't bother to read too much into it, but it is out there. Maybe someone reading this can fill us in?

***Edit*** Besides, it's always possible that McCain was born off base, and knowing that 150 years down the line (that's roughly his age, right?) he'd be running for president, his parents snuck him on base and then paid off the base doctors to say he was born there! And...and...and...yeah, it's just as likely.

JSG, my comment was aimed at the original statement :

Rwitchwoman
McCain wasn't born in the United States he was born in Panama, on a U.S. Base there ...

For the record, I voted neither. I see it as politics not racism. (see my 1.5 post).

@MJV in Wisconsin-

Just for the record. Any US Military Base, no matter in what foreign country, is considered US Soil, therefor by definition McCain was born on US Soil.

Just for the record- Your statement is completely false. U.S. miltary bases are NOT U.S. sovereign soil.

U.S. embassies are (if the land was purchased or leased), but military bases are not. The host country retains sovereignty of the land the base is on.

McCain qas not born in the Canal Zone.

Just for the record. Any US Military Base, no matter in what foreign country, is considered US Soil, therefor by definition McCain was born on US Soil.

I believe congress passed a bill so he could run. If you are born to two US citizens you are automaticallly a natural born citizen no matter where you ar born

I can't believe I'm responding to this stuff again - but I'm taking a break from work.

Checkmate (re: #1.13) -

"Also, McCain was asked about his birth certificate and it was showed. I think that is why you don't hear everyone talk about it. He showed it. The end."

I don't believe that is true. On March 14, 2008 Fred Hollander sued McCain and filed a subpoena requesting that McCain produce his birth certificate. The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees citizenship services, did not hand over the document, citing an improperly served subpoena (source). McCain (or rather, his attorneys) filed a motion to quash Mr. Hollander's complaint arguing, as did Obama in his responses to suits against him, that Hollander did not have standing to make such a request and thus did not turn over McCain's birth certificate. You can read Hollander's complaint and McCain's response at Moritzlaw

On May 2, 2008 Washington Post 'factchecker' Michael Dobbs reported that the McCain campaign had (as of that time) declined to publicly release his birth certificate. However, 'a senior campaign official' did show him a copy of McCain's birth certificate (source).

In July, 2008 Mr. Hollander released what he contended was a copy of McCain's birth certificate in his Surreply to Reply to Objection to Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. See Moritzlaw link above.

Some folks on Sean Hannity's blog mentioned in October 2008 that the McCain campaign had declined to publicly release the senator's birth certificate (source).

I can find no first-hand reporting of the release of McCain's birth certificate. I would think that if he did release it some mainstream media outlet would at least mention it - they haven't. I'm left to the opinion that McCain has not released his birth certificate - regardless of the folks that say he has. If anyone has any proof that he has released it - not just rumors or hearsay that he has - I would be grateful if they would produce it.

MJV in Wisconsin (re: #2.7, with apologies to Jimster for my slow typing) -

"Just for the record. Any US Military Base, no matter in what foreign country, is considered US Soil, therefor by definition McCain was born on US Soil."

Just for the record - as Jimster has said above, US military bases are not US soil. US military bases are foreign territory where all the local laws apply. The status of Americans stationed on those bases is governed by a diplomatic agreement called a Status of Forces Agreement.

When a child is born on a US base with one or more American parents the parent(s) must file paperwork with the US embassy in order to get the child's American citizenship recognized.

The U.S. State Department has declared:

"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth." [7 FAM 1116.1-4(c) - source]

dacincykid (re: #2.14)

"I believe congress passed a bill so he could run. If you are born to two US citizens you are automaticallly a natural born citizen no matter where you ar born "

No - in April, 2008 the U.S. Senate (not Congress) passed a resolution (not a bill) that declared McCain, as far as the Senate was concerned - a 'natural born citizen'. The resolution has no legal standing - it just reflects the sense of the Senate. The second sentence is simply wrong, or at least it hasn't been tested in court yet as far as I'm aware - there's a legal distinction between being a 'citizen' and being a 'natural born citizen'.

Just like I thought. There is no actual link to your opening statement. Hummmmmm?

Reggie,

Who are you talking to there?

I thought the question was if Obama was a citizen? If not does it matter, with liberals in charge they will just change the rules.

On its face, the charge of racism is a legitimate one. President Obama's b.cert. is available, has been shown on MSNBC, read to the audience, and yet the birfers are still questioning his citizenship. Of course, they see the b.cert. shown as a "fake", or question its authenticity. Why is that? The answer is as obvious as their flushed faces. Race.

I'm dead certain that if citizenship were not a requirement to be president, the birfers would be waving some other issue in the air ( such as community organizer ) as "proof" he doesn't meet requirements.

To those who are NOT blinded by hatred and suspicion no proof is needed.

To those that ARE blinded by hatred and suspicion, no proof is ever enough.

It appears that many of you do not actually read what is written on this thread. Regarding if it is race that is causing people to question Obama's citizensship, the answer is certainly no. The people on this thread that are saying it are the same people writting about whether McCain turned over his birth certificate and questioned his citizenship. That alone shows that people were in fact making the same argument about McCain as they are now making about Obama so how is that racism? How in the world can you even make racism out of it while your arguing that McCain refused to turn over his (which I believe is inaccurate)? I guess the answer is simple. Many people like to spew the racism comment when they don't like the real answer, although proof is provided. Always wanting to be the victim. I never saw anyone write anything that accused African Americans of racism when they were requesting McCains birth certificate. You can't have it both ways.

There is no dispute that there is a question about Obama's birth certificate. Look at what he wrote in his own book about visiting Pakistan in 1981. Pakistan was on the "no travel" list for Americans. A simple question then is on what passport to he travel there with, since it could not have been a U.S. passport. Also look at his school records and financial aid. If he is in fact a U.S. citizen, then he lied on his application in order to get federal money to pay for school.

It's a real simple solution. He provides his birth certificate and this all goes away. Wow, imagine that, provide something as simple as your birth certificate and this all goes away. Why did he go out of his way to provide a "certificate of live birth" which only means that he got someone to sign a document that says they personally have reviewed the actually birth certificate so they create this document. Why go through that trouble and not just release the birth certificate.

It's a real simple solution. He provides his birth certificate and this all goes away.

Nonsense. He has provided a legally valid certificate, authenticated by the highest officials of the state that issued it. It is the only form that state currently provides (please do not try to dispute that fact without providing a reliable source). People found excuses to disregard it, and there is no reason to expect them to behave any differently in the future.

Ms CYPRAH

People could start by accepting the president and working with him to improve the economy.

#1, the economy is autonomous and does not take its direction from Washington. #2, the president can't even manage the fiscal affairs of the federal government and I sure as hell don't want him damaging the economy we all depend on. And #3, over the past two decades the economy and the federal government have developed huge excesses. We won't see any improvement until these are worked off, and that will be at least several years.

They will have their chance to vote him out again in a couple of years!

Hopefully he will have resigned long before then.

Dave,

It's really too bad you don't do your homework. Even Obama's admittedly favorite news station, MSNBC, just reported this last night about the "certificate of live birth". Check Chris Matthews website and watch the video. Although he believes there is no dispute, he acknowledges exactly what I wrote. You can not have one of these certificates without seeing the original birth certificate. The Obama administration has said repeadedly that the original birth certificate is in a safe. So why not produce it? It really is very simple Dave so why don't you question why he doesn't.

Mike.

It's really too bad you don't do your homework. The form that has been produced is labeled a "Certification of Live Birth". If you were born in Hawaii and request your Birth Certificate at any time in the last few years, it is the only form you will get.

You can not have one of these certificates without seeing the original birth certificate.

You can not have one of these certificates without a Hawaiian official seeing the original birth certificate. The highest Hawaiian officials have personally vouched for the fact that they have done so.

The Obama administration has said repeadedly that the original birth certificate is in a safe.

The term is vault, actually. (If you're going to accuse others of not doing homework, you might try to get your own facts correct.) It's where the state of Hawaii keeps their records.

So why not produce it?

Because they do not have to, and it's not clear they can. Constitutionally, Hawaii has vouched for his birth, and that may not be questioned by the federal government or any other state. It's also not clear that anyone other than Hawaiian officials are allowed to see it under Hawaiian law.

Dave,

Now you're just showing your ignorance and denial. You want to criticize me for using "certificate" instead of "certification" and use "safe" instead of "vault". Then you just talk out your butt and say Hawaiin law prevnts anyone other than a Hawaiin official can see it. Talk about providing your source. Actually, every hospital in the country keeps a copy of every birth certificate and you and I can contact the hospitals we were born in and request a "certified copy" of the birth certificate, which is an official document. It really is that simple and is only complicated if the have lost the certificate.

He has no legitimate excuse to not relase it. It's interesting you want to talk about " Vault" and "Certification" as opposed to doing your homework and read his book and explain to me how he traveled to Pakistan? If it was not for him traveling to Pakistan, I would tend to lean towards the people that believe he doesn't want to provide his birth certificate because either his mother or father that we are led to believe are his parents, that one of them actually may not be.

Actually,every hospital in the country keeps a copy of every birth certificate and you and I can contact the hospitals we were born in and request a "certified copy" of the birth certificate, which is an official document.

Source? Most people get their certified birth certificates from the state or county of their birth. Hospitals are not governments, and I don't know of any that keep records for over 40 years.

He has no legitimate excuse to not relase it.

He has a huge reason not to release it. How do you like this: I start a rumor about you. Then I drag you into court and say you have an obligation to disprove the rumor. Oh, and by the way, I've made it very clear that if you show up in court to answer me, I will drag you back again and again on every pretext I come up with. That is exactly the situation the birthers have put Obama in, and his only possible response is to refuse to acknowledge their demands, in any way, even once.

The state of Hawaii has declared that he was born there. Top officials of the state have verified it. No evidence has been produced to label them as liars, and under the constitution the nation is required to accept their certification. And if you had done your homework you would know that a trip to Pakistan does not prove them liars (I'll let you figure out why).

Again Dave, you show your inability to seperate fact from what you watch on TV. You must not be very old because hospitals did in fact used to keep all the birth certificates. I happen to be the same age as Obama and I had to get my birth certificate from the hospital like so many other people our age when we got married becuase the family had misplaced it. I don't need to send you a link to support this, it's just reality. Old hospitals all over the country still have thousands of birth certificates in boxes stored away somewhere. Not everyone has made it into the 21st century tech world yet.

These officials of the state that you so vehemently talk about how they did this and did that, where's your sources? To my knowledge, not one has ever spoken up or appeared in court to justify the document. But since nobody has ever spoken up, how can I be calling anyone a liar? How easy is it to get someone a fake document, especially a politician. Wake up, we ahve about 18 million iligal aliens in this country with fake ID's and you don't question how a certificate can be made up? What are you, about twelve years old?

To compare average citizens like us to the president regarding proving rumors is just plain silly and that's probably all that needs to be said. Regarding his trip to Pakistan, why don't you explain how he went there. Maybe with a passport from Indonesia? And you don't understand why people are sceptical. Have fun living in your little world.

Just a side note, regarding hospital issued birth certificates.

In Colorado you cannot use a hospital issued birth certificate as a valid form of ID to get a driver's license. It would have to be state issued. I'm sure it varies from state to state, but given that, wouldn't someone be more disposed to get whatever certification they can from the state, rather than going through a hosptial?

Normally the hospital issued birth certificate is the one with the hand/footprints on it. It is not a legal document.

You have to request an "original" from the Register of Deeds in the county you were born, they will have on record, your birth certificate or certificate of live birth (as either heading could be used depending on the state in which you were born).

The RoD's office will give you a legal copy of the certificate, with a properly embossed (raised) seal on it signifying it is an official copy.

These officials of the state that you so vehemently talk about how they did this and did that, where's your sources? To my knowledge, not one has ever spoken up or appeared in court to justify the document. But since nobody has ever spoken up, how can I be calling anyone a liar?

If you are unaware of the very public statements that have been made over the last year by Hawaiian officials on this subject, then clearly you haven't bothered to research this issue at all. Bye.

Mike/Dave -

I don't want to get covered in the mud that you two are slinging, but I thought I'd step into the mess and quickly answer one question that seems to keep popping up in your messages - about the trip to Pakistan.

There was no travel ban to Pakistan in 1981 - I can't explain how Obama went there - perhaps by train, possibly by airplane - I'm not sure, and I can't see how it really matters. I've done a little of the homework for the two of you - look here - and don't forget to 'click' on the links to the NYT articles by Barbara Crossette who describes her trip to Pakistan in the summer of 1981 - the same summer that Obama was there. You can see the text of the State Department's Travel Advisory (not Travel Ban) by searching the Internet for "Travel Advisory 81-33A".

I hope the above helps. I now return you to your regularly-scheduled mudfest.

Ms. Cyrah - There are people posting on other threads who believe that. G Gordon Liddy was on Chris Matthews tonight making that claim. Apparently this woman whose marriage was illegal in several states in 1961 thought that the product of this marriage would be president one day - because it was such an enlightened time back then - so she organized this huge fraud and cover-up. Pretty impressive. I still say she couldn't have done this alone. I think we need to find out where Ted Kennedy was on Aug. 4 1961.

I think we need to find out where Ted Kennedy was on Aug. 4 1961.

I would wager Teddy was with a prostitute or at a bar or both. Or he could be at the bottom of Lake Chappaquiddick with the girlfriend he left to die... wait ... that is eight years later ... my bad.

And there we have it! Another Kennedy basher. I've always been fascinated and repulsed by the hatred aimed at the Kennedy family.

Here's a family that could have easily led quiet lives of priviledge, traveling the world, buying newspapers and / or broadcast companies, and generally avoiding any unpleasant tasks.

Instead, the Kennedys have been involved in public service since WWII. Losing a son in combat, another as president, and still yet another as a United States senator. Yes, Ted Kennedy has made mistakes. Who hasn't? There are those in the media that have made entire carreers out of bashing the Kennedys ( Robert Novack, Cal Thomas ) and that green eyed loathsome legacy lives on in the bashers we see today STILL reminding the world that Ted Kennedy has made mistakes.

As if we didn't know.

Although bringing Kennedy's into this argument is ridiculous, it's just as ridiculous to put them on that pedastal as well. Please don't make this family out to be the holier than thou that gave up so much to be public servants. Poilitics is how they made their money so please don't make it appear that they gave up so much to go into politics. Although this family has endured more tradegy than anyone should, reality is they also had more scandals than any family could as well. That's hard to do with the Clinton Dynasty still around. By no means should people be bashing the Kennedy's, but they shouldn't be holding them to royalty either.

Az, mistakes? He got away with manslaughter. Why? Because he has the money and the name legacy. If a common person did that, they would have been sent to jail/prison. He was just given a suspended sentece and was on probation and had his license suspended for 6 months.

I don't think anyone wants to wish harm on the Kennedy family. They are just disgusted because someone who has power is able to get away with so much.

And why do people like to remind other people about someone's past? Because some people don't know and might be interested. Plus, it can change their perspective of that person.

Like Laura Bush??

Just Some Guy - you ARE the guy. That was logical, intelligent, truthful, and unbiased. You don't see much of that on these comments. Including myself. Good to see the best of us come out.

Mike in AZ. #3.5

Who put the Kennedy family on a pedastal? All I said was that the Kennedy family made a choice to get involved in the American process, and in doing so has lost 3 sons. I'm certain that if the parents could have traded those young men's lives for private secluded lives, like so many sons of priveledge have, they would have done so.

If you don't care for the Kennedys, fine, but to say they made their fortune in poltics is just a continuation of the carreer making slander that became popular after a certain amount of time had passed. I'd follow J.F.K. into battle anyday.

As for pedastals, that's of your making, not mine.

I agree, SciGuy. The entire wave of hate coming from not only the "birthers" but from Limbaugh, Hannity, Gingrich, etc. is because Barack Obama looks like a black man. If he had inherited his mothers' Caucasian features and had married a white woman we'd still hear the screaming and yelling from the Right but it wouldn't be nearly as nasty.

Personally, I love the guy, "mom" jeans and all. I hope he can get done what he wants to get done.

Now, I am going to say something that might get folks mad but here goes. To the crackpots who want to kill President Obama, please read Theodore Rex by Edmund Morris and change Theodore Roosevelt to Joe Biden.

Are you serious? He is President, as far as I know--there are lingering questions, but as far as I know, anyone who is president can use AirForce I, why wouldn't Mr. Obama be entitled to the use of the plane?

I will admit that this is the first time I've heard of the whole AF I issue.

I would think that the president has the responsibilty to use Air Force 1, not the just right. I can't imagine the nightmare that would insue if he used public transportation to travel the country, not to mention the extreme breach of security not only for himself, but his traveling companions (the public abord the same mode of transportation).

Are you serious? He is President, as far as I know--there are lingering questions, but as far as I know, anyone who is president can use AirForce I, why wouldn't Mr. Obama be entitled to the use of the plane?

The issue was, as I understand it, the President using Air Force One to take his wife on a date to a NYC broadway play.

These are the same people who defended President Bush when he used the same plane to fly to Crawford Texas. They think Obama should... what? Jump on a Greyhound, or walk? I don't think it was Obama's decision... it was the Secret Service's. But some people don't see it that way, sadly.

They think Obama should... what? Jump on a Greyhound, or walk?

Well, since BO and his ilk believe in the stupidity of man-made AGW, I have been advocating BO travel in Air Balloon One. This would be perfect for the environment and show that BO is not just a lying, egotistical liberal that speaks out of both sides of his mouth like Algore. What? BO is above what he in fact believes in? Isn't that what a liberal elitist would do?

If President Obama contemplated any other form of travel, the Secret Service would tell him it isn't viable. The President is a very high profile target for nutters. Barack Obama, with all of the racist commentary and hate speech thrown at him on a daily basis, is easily and undeniably the most threatened President of the past century, and quite possibly in US History. Even the Secret Service has said that President Obama requires elevated resources to protect. So this notion that Obama should opt out of using Air Force One, Marine One, or the Presidential motorcade is nothing short of totally and completely insane.

This is Right On! Unfortunately, I was born to a rascist/sexist father who is almost having seizures that the White House is occupied by a black man and his family. None of this is about the President's birth certificate, neither of my parents have birth certificates. This is purely politics and racism. Not only is he a Democrat, but he's a BLACK Democrat. There goes their stereotype that all Blacks are welfare bums.

We need to distinguish between the people that initiated the accusations from those that have run with it. It began with people looking for ways to discredit Obama politically, but the banner has long since passed to people who simply hate the idea of an ethnic minority as the leader of the nation.

Fundamentally, it comes down to the following mindset: "I cannot accept THAT man in the White House because.... (fill in the blank)."

Just about ANY reason will do -- any excuse that will legitimize their race-based outrage. If it wasn't about a birth certificate, it would be about his middle name. (He's a closet Muslim, you know.)

In addition, there are a handful of unscrupulous politicians and pundits who, although not necessarily racist themselves, have no problem capitalizing on the bigotry of others by fueling their fear and hatred of Obama in order to score political points or further a personal agenda.

These people need to get a life.

ScienceGuy-356641

but the banner has long since passed to people who simply hate the idea of an ethnic minority as the leader of the nation.

I've yet to meet one of them. Sounds like you're distorting a relatively small segment of the population into Godzilla. And while we're on the topic of racism, any problem with these voters? Or do you give them a pass because they voted for your guy? Tell the truth now :P

Not at all, Ms. Cyprah. I call 'em as I see 'em. Thanks for the article. So glad you raised this.

I agree Tracey, you are right on the mark.

Rwitchwoman

I agree Tracey,

No you don't or you wouldn't have said this :

all these racists need to get over themselves, they need to stop spouting their ignorance, and start using the 3 brain cells they have that may be intelligent....I'm sick and tired of the racist attitudes in this Country....

You can't say something completely opposite of someone and then say you agree with them.

...you are right on the mark.

Yes she is.

I was agreeing with her sore loosers remark, and the remark she made about the republicans defaming attitudes....God didn't you read what I wrote!

I read everything you wrote, all of your responses to this article.

I also understand when you do not expound on your statement, that "You agree" with someones statement, that you agree fully, not with just part of it.

In at least 2 of your statements, you referenced racism (at least one of which you outright stated it was racism), and then you stated you agree with someone who stated it wasn't about racism.

Which one is it?

Read my response...Geez...to what you said....DUH

Rwitchwoman

Read my response...Geez...to what you said....DUH

I have read your response (all of them) and from that I garner that you are a "me too" person with no real opinion.

Great comment, Tracey, which goes to the heart of it, but inherent racism also adds an extra factor in the President's case which Clinton didn't have to deal with.

No doubt there is some racism there, and it's not all anti-black racism. There are a lot of people out there who have a major issue with the man's middle name. They're convinced that he's named after Saddam Hussein. The fact that he's named after his father - Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. - just doesn't factor into the equasion for these people. By and large, though, I think that's just one more thing to add to their list of pettiness. The main issue is that they're sore losers. If history is any indicator, they're going to keep up the childishness throughout his entire tenure and into 45's tenure.

....I would have voted for him if he was Pink with Purple Pok-a-dots, and from Russia!

Me too & if he had too heads, just more Obama to like!

Good Point!!

I'm a person who firmly believes that we are going to end up, if not in my lifetime than in my niece's, with a global government. I'm not necessarily against it.

What I wonder is why you automatically assume that, if we ever did have a truely globalized government, we would lost our liberties. Why you automatically assume it's going to be for the worse? I'm not asking to pick a fight, and I know it's off-topic (sorry Ms. Cyprah!), but I really truely want to know. If you don't want to talk about it here, please feel free to e-mail me.

Honestly, I served my country and love it dearly. I value state's rights and many of the perspectives of the founding fathers of the U.S.A. If you read them you have no choice but to admire them. Of course many were wrong in many ways. I have always looked forward to the day of dealing with or reconciling our past sins, (i.e. slavery, social inequalities, international military interference with other nations, corruption) and as a citizen of the U.S.A., participating in a common-sense, God-fearing approach towards dealing with what ills us. I am astonished that many are so comfortable with the Global Community that seeks to remove our special independent identity and replace it with a socialistic and domineering intrusion into all aspects of our lives. History repeats itself over and over and over and over......

Boscoribeesbo,

Thanks for explaining your stance to me. I really do appreciate it, as it gives me a better idea of what concerns you about this.

You said that you didn't understand why many are comfortable with the move towards a global community. The reason why I'm comfortable with it is because things change. While I have a great respect for the ideals of this country, I do not think that it's something that will last forever. There isn't much anyone can do about that, but be ready to adapt.

We have already reached the point where it is more than just a national economy that we have to worry about, but also the global economy as a whole because of how entwined it has all become. There are bound to be ramifications from that, and I truely believe that a global government will be one of those ramifications.

Beyond that, with so many places in the world that could be helped by the rest of the world, would one governing body to oversee the welfare of those developing nations around the planet be such a bad thing?

I see an end to wars between nations, people moving past nationalistic ideals that stop them from realizing that each and every one of us, no matter where we are currently living, is human and deserving of respect.

Who knows what it will really look like, but I honestly have trouble getting worked up and worried about a globalized government. While I may truely believe it's going to happen, I don't know whether it will end up being a good thing or a bad thing. You think that it wil be socialistic and intured ona ll of aspects of our lives. I honestly don't know that that's how it would happen. But that's just me.

Thank you for commenting, I do understand that on paper it sounds like a utopian one government system should be a benefit to the world population. On paper.........

Many of our ills here at home are attributed to our intense dedication elsewhere to "help the world". For instance, tucked into the passed 2010 Military spending bill is an 8 billion dollar appropriation to the International Monetary Fund to "help the world". From this bill, the world also receives a draw of 100 billion dollars line of credit if they need it. By allowing the world to draw off of our already crippled financial condition, there is less urgency for them to deal with their own affairs and reform their own governments to benefit their own peoples. Mine and yours ancestors paid taxes to fund this IMF appropriation and credit line that was inserted to a "military" spending bill. This makes your comments about a world government likely to occur considering the eventual exhaustion of our nation's savings (if there are any left at all) and our children will be forced to accept a new government and constitution that is less likely to afford them liberty.

Ms. Cyprah, I apologize for using your page to talk about things other than what you intended. Your article is interesting and I appreciate the opportunity to read it. I won't say anything more off subject.

Ms Cyprah,

Last comment from on this thread and being off topic. Until the next one.

Bosoribeesbo,

While I understand the concerns you raised regardin the money we are already spending throughout the world, and also how that stops developing countries from reforming their own government, wouldn't a globalized government reduce the problems on both of those issues?

If a globalized government came into being, wouldn't there be more of an effort, by said government, to make sure that instead of the majority of the money coming from one location or another, it's pulled on a more even level from all locations? Wouldn't this reduce the strain on local economies, such as ours, by forcing other local economies that do not contribute as much into the system to do more?

If there were a globalized government, with elected representatives in each location (much as we have now, just with someone that our elected reps report to), wouldn't that help reform governments in developing countries that are having issues with constant corruption?

You mention again that allowing a globalized government would mean that our children would be forced to accept a new government (which is true) and constitution that is less likely to afford them liberty. I ask again, how do we know for sure that there would be less liberty? It all depends on how the government comes together, and what form it takes. And with the entire world having a stake in how it would work, there are far more people who will have a vested interest in making sure that there is something that works for everybody.

Just Some Guy,

I am enjoying tossing these ideas around with you. Thank you for the perspective. The single reason that I fear any establishment of new government or constitution on U.S. soil is to compare the founding fathers in 1770's and the would be "founding fathers" of our era. Built in to our current gov't/constitution are systems of checks and balances to limit the abuse of power by the government. Those men experienced the abuse of power firsthand by the British and the effect it had on their colonial society at the time. I don't want to glorify the original founding fathers too much because they were slave owners and I am sure all had a degree of corruption or self-interest that influenced the establishment of our gov't/constitution. But I will say that at the time there was a healthy fear of God and maybe even a small degree of integrity or honor amongst men. These days men are exceedingly wicked (our leaders in general have no code of integrity or honor). I don't believe that anything they would draw up today would be anything except a smoke and mirror scheme to grapple and maintain power while giving the impression to the masses that it is for the "greater good". I wish I could say sorry for being a pessimist but now a days I don't trust any who occupy a seat of power. That is a giant letdown to acknowledge that but it is what it is. Simply put, the dog (citizens of the U.S.A.) should wag the tail(Federal Government), not the tail the dog. I don't anticipate a solution to our ills.....without a passion for liberty, integrity and a vision based on the two the people will suffer...........

Boscoribeesbo,

I've enjoyed talking with you too. Civil conversation between people with opposing view points and outlooks, that's what a forum like this is all about, right?

I do agree that the founding fathers had to have at least a certain degree of integrity to do everything that they did. And I will admit that it seems to be something missing in many of our elected leaders in the present.

While I cannot say much to alleviate your fears, all I can give is my opinion. I think that there are still far more good people than bad in this world. I think that most of us, if we had the time, would be far more concerned about our fellow man. But we are kept to busy to notice how much our friends or neighbors suffer.

Given all that, I think that when the time comes that a globalized government is established, it will be those good people who stand up and come into power, over those who's only interest is to keep whatever measure of power they have managed to attain. I think that it would be the responsibility of the world to do so, choosing who they want to lead not only based on their own best interests, but on the best interests of the world as a whole.

That responsibility exists now, and I think that a lot more people are realizing it.

Either way, the future is going to be an interesting place to live, if nothing else.

I voted race but I believe that ultimately it is about his politics. Were he black and a NeoCon I don't think the right would have as much of a problem with him.

Then why didn't you vote "neither". The possiblilty of skewing the poll exists by voting one thing and believing another.

MJV you are reading way too much into what people are trying to say, stop trying to pull it apart and undermine other peoples ideas and thoughts. And picking out the little things and trying to castigate the people here, try reading all of what is being written and if you don't understand their point try asking. This type of thing is exactly my point, everybody reads into what is said what they want to hear and believe.

MJV:

Dang. Because race is "surely" a part of the equation and there was no vote fer "politics" consequently it was the closest I could come to an answer. "I don't know" certainly was not an option. Also, I am quite sure the slight skewing of this poll will not adversely affect western civilization, Burb Warriors, the two party system, recalcitrant contortionists, pundits or pole cats.

Best atcha.....

Got that right Tex...This poll will not adversly affect civilization.

Because race is "surely" a part of the equation and there was no vote fer "politics" consequently it was the closest I could come to an answer.

I can accept that, thank you for clarifying your position.

MJV:

You bet.

Best to you

MJV you are reading way too much into what people are trying to say, stop trying to pull it apart and undermine other peoples ideas and thoughts

What you term as pulling apart and undermining peoples ideas and thoughts, I call attempting to clarify their position, just as I am doing with your position in earlier posts.

I never stated his position was right or wrong, just that it could skew the results based on his answer. Just as I have not stated your position (whatever it may be) is right or wrong, just contradictory of itself.

Tex - 988483 I totally agree.

Some of us Democrats, and I am one, just don't like his politics. All you BO fans that drank the kool-aid just can't accept that his race just doesn't really matterand people like me don't agree with you.

In the last election I think we all had 2 "bad" candidates to choose from.

Let me fine tune that statement. We had only 1 candidate to choose from. It was a moral imperative to get the last group of yahoos out of office.

I generally cast my vote for an alternative and radical party in hopes that some sort of voice will at least be heard from that segment of thought. I think Carter was the last vote I cast within the two party system till now. I know. I know. He gets shat upon by about everybody, right and left. Personally, I still like him.

Obama, I don't know about. Still in the wait and see mode with the feller. I liked much of what he said pre election and radically disagreed with other points. Let's just say I voted with high hope and no expectation. I tend to believe that the Machine is too embedded to hope for any vast change or any real social justice but, who knows? Maybe Obama is doing the Machiavellian Boogie and will actually get something done that does indeed balance the scales a bit. Like I sed, we'll see......So far it looks like we have traded the rule of one set of corporations for another. It ain't quite 4th down and a hundred and ten to go as of yet though.....

say for instance it is found that Prince Charles had fathered a son before Diana and this child is older than William, therefore, once paternity is proven, he not William is the heir to the throne......but this son is black.

I believe (but I am not sure) that a bastard (excuse the term) is not allowed to ascend the throne of England, so it would depend on whether Charles was married to this hypothetical persons mother.

But it is a very good study in how things can (or could) differ between countries.

Ms. Cyprah, as usual, thank you for making things clear. I had no idea. You learn something new everyday! :)

I'm sure the birthers are probably seen as pretty daft.

Thanks Ms Cyprah, for validating my assertion in 12.1. I thought that was the case but could find no handy reference to back it up, so I hedged my bet with the text in parenthesis.

It's a conspiracy, man!

LOL

Fast Forward 10 or 20 years and there will be no more LOL. Imagine and be concerned about your children and grandchildren..................

Boscoribeesbo,

I really don't see LOL going away under any form of government. It has become part of our language. It's universal! People from Mars know LOL!

It's even become part of the spoken word. A co-worker has been saying for a year that something or other would make them LOL, and I've found that I've started doing it without realizing it.

Perhaps we should be more concerned with LOLs taking over the world?

I agree. This issue could have been put to bed long ago if the Obama people had wanted it to be. They prefer to leave it dangling so the conspiracy-minded will make them appear to be long-suffering victims of unreasonable and petty racism.

Secondly, there is very little interest - obsessive or not - in this issue stateside. Don't forget that the nature of Newsvine is to amplify the fringe positions.

I just had a co-worker come in and say "here's an e-mail about Obama's ten commandments. Number ten is totally true! And he's not even a U.S. citizen!" So yeah, it goes beyond newsvine.

Just for the record, I didn't say it was a newsvine thing. I meant that newsvine tends to make fringe opinions appear to be more widely held than they actually are. I'll bet if you take a poll at your work place, the overwhelming majority of your co-workers would agree that Obama's a citizen.

I don't know about that Lazarus. The majority of them believed he was a muslim and was willing to abort children up to the age of 6.

If he released it and he was legitimate, I wouldn't give it a second thought.

But if he released it, there's no reason to believe you'd recognize it as legitimate, is there? We already have the authority of the state of Hawaii authenticating the Birth Certificate that has been released and you won't accept that one, will you? No reason to expect you to change.

I don't like it but I'm not so full of @!$%# to claim forgery.

If you refuse to accept the Birth Certificate that has already been released, and authenticated, aren't you claiming it's a forgery? If it's not genuine what else could it be?

Ronald,

I've lost my birth certificat and had to request a new one. The same could have happened for Obama. He requests a new one, and the state of Hawaii issues a form that is given out when the original birth certificate is unavailable for whatever reason. The state of Hawaii acknowledges that this is valid in place of the birth certificate. Why is that not legit?

Yeah, but from what I am hearing is that it wasn't a real birth certificate the was provided. It was just something signed by Pelosi that he showed documents to her. And that is another conspiracy theory. *sighs* Greg on post 19 gave some interesting reasons as why it should be questioned.

His certificate has not been released, a certificate of live birth has been released, which is not the same thing.

It's actually labeled a certification of live birth, and it is exactly the same thing. It has been authenticated by the state of Hawaii and is considered legal proof of birth under Hawaiian law and under the United States Constitution, Article IV, Secion 1.

Just because some birther blog site claims it isn't a valid birth certificate doesn't make it true. The fact that the state of Hawaii says it is a valid birth certificate does make it true. You need to get that through your head.

Because he won't voluntarily release it. He has refused. If it's legit, why is he hiding. Ask yourself that.

Because to respond to the birthers would be to give them legitimacy. Then he'd have to respond to the rest of their tin-foil-hat claims, like how he lost his citizenship when his stepfather registered him for school under "Soetoro".

Checkmate,

Go check out the link I posted way towards the top. It links to the form released from Hawaii by Obama. It's got signatures from Hawaiin officials and what not. It's not just some form Pelosi signed saying it had been taken care of.

Sorry, something happened with my comp. It only posted half of what I wrote:

The state of Hawaii acknowledges that this is valid in place of the birth certificate. Why is that not legit?

Questions:

1. If he doesn't have his birth certificate, wouldn't the hospital he was born in have a copy?

2. If the hospital doesn't have the copy, then what other ways can he prove that he was born in that hospital, let alone, the state?

These are questions that came up as soon as I read your statement. I don't know the answer, therefore, I am asking. Please don't take it as an attack or anything.

Checkmate,

As for why the hospital doesn't have the original, I have no idea. However, they say that this form they gave in it's place is not unusual, and I take them at their word.

Also, to show he was born in Hawaii, there is the much circulated birth announcement placed in the Hawaiian newspaper. Either he was born their and they paid for an announcement, or he was born outside of the country and on the off chance that their kid would grow up to be a U.S. President, they decided to go ahead and pay to have the birth announcement placed, just in case.

Realistically, the hospital probably would not have a copy. Storage space is finite.

What hospital he was born in is irrelevant. There is no need to prove it. Hawaii says he was born in Hawaii. Under the Constitution, that is sufficient proof.

Typically hospitals go through records and destroy them every 4 years, included in that list is x-rays, write ups etc,etc. If a hospital kept all paper work they generated on the primise, the storage would be filled in less than 2 years, and a majority of expenses would soon be spent on storage space. As for getting the hospital to release that particular document if they did have it, good luck, those documents are normally protected by HIPAA, so they cant be legally released without a court order.

Also, to show he was born in Hawaii, there is the much circulated birth announcement placed in the Hawaiian newspaper. Either he was born their and they paid for an announcement, or he was born outside of the country and on the off chance that their kid would grow up to be a U.S. President, they decided to go ahead and pay to have the birth announcement placed, just in case.

True, but there is a flaw in the last part. My friend was born in Poland and his parents put his announcement in the US paper of his town (his father was an American and probably wanted his family in the US to see the birth anouncement). It never said where he was born. If you knew the family in town, and didn't know that they went to Poland, you would have probably thought that he was born in US.

Please don't bring up another conspiracy idea about Obama's parents planning for the presidency. There are way too many out there; we don't need more.

Dave - A "Certification of Live Birth" is not the same thing as a Birth Certificate. The "Certification of Live Birth" is a form used by many states, including Hawaii, to provide a record of birth for persons whose birth certificates have been lost, destroyed, sealed, or whatever. It is possible for a person travelling overseas to give birth unexpectedly in a foreign country but want their child to have a US birth certificate because Mom and Dad are Americans. So you take your foreign birth certificate to the Registrar of Vital Records and get a "Certification of LIve Birth". I have a friend who was born in Hawai'i 2 years after Obama was born. Her birth cert, which I have seen, looks totally different from Obama's which leads me to be suspicious that he may have been born elsewhere and we are entitled to an explanation. When you couple that with the fact the he always said he was born at Queens Hospital in Honolulu but now says he was born at Kapiolani Womens and Children's Hospital, and the fact that European media outlets have run stroies that his grandmother says she was present at his birth in Coastal Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya, there are many reasons that we should demand, and receive, answers from the President. The fact that he will not answer these questions is disrespectful to all of us.

The "Certification of Live Birth" is the only form Hawaii issues, and is considered a legal record of birth in Hawaii.

What version of the form you have is not based on when you were born, but when you ordered a copy. If your friend ordered her BC from Hawaii today, it would look just like Obama's.

Checkmate,

Again, go check out the link. In the birth announcement it gives an address in Hawaii. Either that was his parent's address or the location of his birth. Either way, it's just another thing that adds up to his having been born in Hawaii.

If you add two and two together, the correct answer isn't "Was born out of the country and it's all a huge cover up!"

The "Certification of Live Birth" is not the only form Hawai'i issues because I have seen other forms. It is the form Hawai'i issues to people so they can get a passport or whatever, but the so-called "long form" does exist and has the name of the hospital, doctor, weight, length, etc. If I had been born in Hawai'i in 1961 and wanted a copy of the actual birth certificate, I could get it, and so can Obama.

The "Certification of Live Birth" is not the only form Hawai'i issues because I have seen other forms.

It is the only form they issue today. The fact that they issued some other forms in the past is irrelevant. If you wish to claim otherwise, please provide some source fr your claim.

Greg, I think that Hawaii is like the Southern state I was born in--they used to have different certificates, but no longer do, and only give out this little licensed-sized card now, and I cannot get a copy of the one they used to do! Plus the birth announcement was in the papers there at the time!

Also, to show he was born in Hawaii, there is the much circulated birth announcement placed in the Hawaiian newspaper. Either he was born their and they paid for an announcement, or he was born outside of the country and on the off chance that their kid would grow up to be a U.S. President, they decided to go ahead and pay to have the birth announcement placed, just in case.

They could have sent an announcement to the Hawaiian newspaper to notify friends and family about the birth. It does not have to be just in the off-chance that the kid would become President of the USA. It's for that reason that most of the "birthers" do not count the announcement as proof. Plus, it may have been placed there not by the parents but by another relative.

The hospital's birth certificate will not allow you to get a passport. The passport office wants the certified copy from the county that you were born in.

Just_some_guy

Checkmate,

Go check out the link I posted way towards the top. It links to the form released from Hawaii by Obama. It's got signatures from Hawaiin officials and what not. It's not just some form Pelosi signed saying it had been taken care of.

I went to the website. All I saw was the article, no images. When I went to click on the image for the birth anouncement, it lead me to a page that said that it doesn't or no longer exists. : /

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Is that what you're looking for?

Yeah, that's the website, but I get this for a message when I click the birth anouncement:

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn’t here.

: /

You are quite welcome.

Have to disagree with you Alex but i will say this: There is a large and growing number of people in this country who would prefer to see Obama exit the White House as soon as possible, under whatever circumstances, because of his socialist (or marxist if you prefer) leanings. Many do not want to wait until 2012 to wave good-bye, they want him gone now before his programs to long-lasting damage to the economy and our social institutions.

Actually, I'm inclined to agree with Greg to this extent: There are people who want to see Obama removed, for political rather than racial reasons. Without a legal way to remove him before his term expires, they may desperately grasp at straws.

Not desperate, after all, the Constitution should get some consideration. We are a nation of laws and if Obama is not qualified to be President, he should not be president. Demanding to see his birth certificate is not grasping at straws anymore than my employer asking me to fill out form I-9 and showing him my social security card.

Not desperate, after all, the Constitution should get some consideration.

Although it would seem you want to ignore Article IV, Section 1.

You mean the part that says: "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."?

Until the birth certificate flack erupted, the state of Hawaii didn't even accept its own "Certification of Live Birth" (the same one we are being asked to accept as proof of Obama's eligibility) as proof of identity for benefits extended only to indigenous Hawaiians. Why? Because it was routinely issued to those of foreign birth.

Why? Because it was routinely issued to those of foreign birth.

Totally false (and unsourced, I notice). It was not, by itself, accepted as evidence of Hawaiian ethnicity because it contained insufficent data about the ethnicity of the parents. To be certified as indigenous Hawaiian requires a detailed breakdown of the percentage of Hawaiian ancestry. This form, clearly, lacks that.

Thank you for clearing that up, Dave (though I note that your assertion also is unsourced).

Thank you also for acknowledging that even the state of Hawaii regarded their own Certification of Live Birth as being insufficient identification for certain purposes.

Thank you also for acknowledging that even the state of Hawaii regarded their own Certification of Live Birth as being insufficient identification for certain purposes.

It is insufficient documentation (not identification) of ethnicity. Obama's ethnicity is not the issue here, is it?

Obama's ethnicity is not the issue here, is it?

No. However, his eligibility for the office is, which also carries very specific requirements regarding circumstances of birth; and you have already acknowledged that Hawaii regarded its own documentation as being insufficient for at least one purpose involving circumstances of birth.

Hawaiians by birth are entitled to certain privileges that Haoles (white people) are not entitled to. So ethnicity is crucial to determine whether you are a "real" Hawaiian. Same as determining what percentage American Indian you are.

If the US President were required to be at least 50% Hawaiian native ancestry, then the fact that this certificate cannot by itself be used to certify Hawaiian ancestry might be relevant. However, there is no such requirement.

Both of you make an excellent point: the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth does not provide critical information to determine whether an individual is eligible for certain privileges to which he or she is entitled only by birth; but you wish to emphasize only those privileges pertaining to Hawaiians, whereas there are other such privileges.

Holding the office of President of the United States is one such. Whether or not Obama is 50% indigenous Hawaiian is irrelevant to that privilege: but the State of Hawaii has established the precedent that the document by itself is insufficient to prove an individual's birth identity beyond a reasonable doubt. The state cannot with any degree of credibility then contend, as it has, that it is sufficient to prove this person's identity but not that one's.

but the State of Hawaii has established the precedent that the document by itself is insufficient to prove an individual's birth identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

Totally false. State of Hawaii has established the precedent that the document by itself is insufficient to prove an individual's ethnicity. You may wish to attach some other interpretation, but there is no legal ground to do so. They have established, repeatedly and unequivocally, that the document is sufficient proof of birth. The federal government and all other states are constitutionally required to accept it.

Citizenship matches current polling of who declares themselves republicans.

Race matches current democratic numbers and the ladder matches independent numbers

The people who are claiming that Obama isn't a citizen are all conservatives. Why would they admit that their racists?

I've asked this of people who've commented on an article I posted yesterday regarding this same topic, and I'll ask it here as well:

What motive do "birthers" have to question the President's citizenship, if not racism? Why was this question not raised of any other candidate?

Senator McCain wasn't born in the United States. He was born in the Panama Canal region. Are any of you demanding to see evidence that McCain is an American citizen? No, you aren't. Because he's white. And I'll have you know that there are quite a few republicans who view it as racism as well.

Are you saying that there is no reason other than the color of Obama's skin to challenge his eligibility to President? That's ridiculous.

If a man came here from Argentina waving an Argentine birth certifcate but went to college here and decided to stay and run for President would you say that he should be allowed to run for President? In this instance we have a President surrounded by reasonable suspision that he may not be qualified and you are backing him and calling those who challenge him to be racist. I question Obama's eligibility to be President but am not a racist. My motivation is patriotism and the rule of law.

Okay, then surely you can explain what it is then? What legitimate evidence (speculation and heresay don't cut it) do you have that the President wasn't born in the United States? There's a live birth certificate plastered all over the web. Officials in the State of Hawaii have validated and confirmed that Obama is a natural-born US citizen. Two different Hawaiian newspapers announced Obama's birth in 1961. We have more evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii than we do of any other US President in history. So what exactly is it that makes you think he was born elsewhere?

I've yet to have it proven to me, by any means, that this speculation about Obama's not being born in the US is anything other than racism. The Republicans lost the election by a landslide. They had nothing else to attack him on, and so, guided by racism, they looked at his name, his skin color, and his Kenyan father and said "Bingo! We'll say he isn't really a citizen! That'll do it!"

Racism is the only motive that seems even remotely logical. How else does a person draw this link? Do you have evidence, even speculative evidence, that he was born in another country? No, you do not. You're essentially guessing that Obama was born in some other country... why? Because his name sounds foreign and his skin is dark. If that's not the case, then please, explain to me what exactly "tipped you off" that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. I'm all ears.

Matt - Your statement that we have more evidence that Obama was born in the US than any other president is ridiculous. You could probably pull out a Rand McNally Highway atlas and find the birth place all the presidents prior to Obama whereas if you ask Obama himself where he was born he apparently cannot tell you.

Read #19 and #23.16

Was there some amendment added to the Constitution that I'm not aware of? That says someone is not a native-born citizen unless there is a document that shows what hospital they were born in?

That's the best come-back you have left?

That's the best come-back you have left?

Apparently the best argument you have against Obama's citizenship is that you don't know what hospital he was born in. Do you have an actual argument other than that to dispute the authenticity of his birth?

Still haven't read #19 or #23.16 or just ignoring those arguments?

I'm pretty sure I can open up an atlas and find Honolulu. And I'm pretty sure that anyone whose done a bit of homework can tell you that he was born in the Kapi'olani Medical Center, which is located in... you guessed it... Honolulu. Honolulu is a city found in Hawaii, which is a state in the United States of America. Are you using an atlas from 1958?

Let's compare Obama and Reagan, shall we? Have you seen Reagan's birth certificate? Have you seen announcements from two newspapers citing he was born in the United States? No, you haven't. And here's a better question, while we're asking questions. Did anyone ever ask to see evidence that Reagan was born in the United States? No, that's never been asked. Why? Because Reagan was white, and people never speculate on the citizenship of white people. John McCain wasn't even born in the United States, and openly admits that. There's no speculation, it's a well-known fact. I take it you're up-in-arms about John McCain, too?

I'll ask this again, since you seemingly didn't see it the first two times I asked it: What evidence do you have, other than speculation and heresay, that President Obama was born outside the United States? Any evidence whatsoever will do.

If you can't produce such evidence, then we're left to come to the conclusion that this notion of Obama not being a natural-born US citizen is based entirely on racism, having been drawn from his foreign-sounding name, his skin color, and his African father. I've yet to see any compelling, or even remotely noteworthy, evidence to support any other motive in questioning the President's citizenship. The sooner you come to terms with that, the sooner you can save the crippled conservative movement in this country from going the way of the dodo... or should I say, the Whig.

Edit: And again, everything you posted as motives are nothing but heresay and speculation. Can you debunk the fact that two newspapers announced his birth in Hawaii?

Obviously there is no evidence you would accept or even consider.

There's a lot of evidence I would accept. Let's go through each of your points and show how they're either speculation or heresay:

1. There has not been a copy of his birth certificate released: The document released has been accepted by the state of Hawaii as being legitimate evidence that he was born in Honolulu.

2. The Obama campaign has always maintained that he was born in Queens Hospital, Honolulu. Obama never said he was born in Queens Hospital, nor did anyone from his campaign, at any time, ever. I challenge you to support this claim.

3. The Los Angeles Times Blog published a copy of Obama's Birth Certificate which does not have a seal stamped into it and has never been folded. Yet other websites show a birth cert with creases and a stamp. The birth certificate shown by the LA Times blog is the same exact birth certificate shown by factcheck.org. Here's a direct link: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html. Please note the folds, the raised stamp, and the signature.

4. Obama's paternal grandmother has stated to newspapers in Europe that she witnessed his birth in Coast Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya. No, she hasn't. When you head out on the net trying to find evidence of this, you'll end up finding blogs and editorials about her saying it, but actually finding a first-hand account of her saying it will prove impossible. You'll find links that claim they're going to first-hand accounts, but those links end up going to other blogs, which link to other blogs, and so on. Why? Because this is a rumor. But I encourage you to prove me wrong.

5. the Hawaii Registrar says that he has viewed Obama's birth certificate and his office has treated this adventure in accordance with Hawaiian law. Why not just say that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii? The convoluted verbage seems like there is something being withheld. No, it doesn't. It sounds like he viewed the birth certificate, verified it's authenticity, and is not required to dig any deeper by Hawaiian law. This isn't evidence, it's speculation.

You're not presenting evidence, you're producing speculation and heresay, which is why I told you to present evidence that isn't speculation or heresay. You can't debunk the birth certificate, you can't prove he was born elsewhere, and you can't debunk the two newspapers that both announced Obama's birth in Hawaii 1961. "Birthers" never even mention the newspaper articles because it's direct, undeniable, hard evidence that counters their claims.

Still haven't read #19 or #23.16 or just ignoring those arguments?

You mean your unsourced claim that Hawaii's birth certificate form is not a valid birth certificate? Let's see: Hawaii says it is, you read a blog that says it isn't. You make repeated claims about Hawaii law that are contradicted by the statements of Hawaiian officials. When it comes to the official forms of the state of Hawaii, who is the authority, the state of Hawaii, or a birther blogger? Doesn't seem like that hard a call to make.

http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=125672;title=APFN

Lolo Soetoro listed an alias in order to register him in school. This does not in any way affect Obama's citizenship status. The form also shows his place of birth as Honolulu, Hawaii.

Double post.......