Culture of conspiracy: The Birthers (mainstream decides to cover)

Politico ^ | 3-1-09 | Ben Smith

[STARWISE]

Bill Clinton had the Vince Foster "murder." George W. Bush had 9/11 Truth. And the new administration has brought with it a new culture of conspiracy: The Birthers.

Out of the gaze of the mainstream and even the conservative media is a flourishing culture of advocates, theorists and lawyers, all devoted to proving that Barack Obama isn't eligible to be president of the United States.

Viewed as irrelevant by the White House, and as embarrassing by much of the Republican Party, the subculture still thrives from the conservative website WorldNetDaily, which claims that some 300,000 people have signed a petition demanding more information on Obama's birth, to Cullman, Alabama, where Sen. Richard Shelby took a question on the subject at a town hall meeting last week.

Their confinement to the fringe hasn't cooled the passion of believers; the obscure New York preacher James Manning turned up at a National Press Club session in December to declare the president "the most notorious criminal in the history not just of America, but of this entire planet."

[Michael Michael]

You are the one who said that Obama had never claimed, in any court document, that he would be embarrassed by releasing the documents requested.

And nowhere in any court document has Obama or his lawyers ever claimed they would be embarrassed by releasing the documents requested.

I proved you completely wrong on that point.

You proved no such thing. You only cited something which I had previously made mention of which did not say anything at all what was claimed to have been said.

Again, where do the phrases "legitimate privacy concern" and "particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation" anywhere in that motion?

The answer is, NOWHERE.

Where in the motion does Obama argue that turning over the requested documents would cause serious embarrassment?

The answer again, is NOWHERE.

[Michael Michael]

The one that I've seen had neither the clerk's "signature" rubber stamp marking nor evidence of a raised crimp seal.

You can't really make out any of those on the image that's on Fight the Smears because the sized it down considerably. However you can see evidence of both the embossed seal, the date stamp and the signature stamp in the high resolution versions which were posted on Daily Kos and Fact Check.

The high resolution version of the scanned image can be seen here.

If you zoom in to the full image in your browser, you can see the horizontal marks of the embossed seal just above the date stamp. Also, portions of the signature stamp can be seen bleeding through just above the words "prima facie" as well as some above the words "fact of" in the text near the bottom of the document.

And of course there are the photographs which were taken of the document at Obama's Chicago campaign headquarters which can be seen here.

There's nothing inconsistent between what's shown in the scanned image and the photographic images.

[Red Steel]

Well well confirmation that Ben Smith is the leftist loon that I always said he was.

[Kevmo]

But you don’t think calling one side “Obots” is a personal attack? Hypocrite.
***When did I call them Obots on this thread? And when did I ping a list of these Obots to rub the stuff in their noses?

So does this mean you join me in saying that it WAS abusive? Or is hypocrisy only something you get to accuse others of, it can’t possibly apply to you?

[Kansas58]

"What as posted wasn't a Certificate of Live Birth. A Certificate of Live Birth IS a birth certificate. What was posted was a Certification of Live Birth, which is a certified copy of the birth certificate" says Michael HUH? "Certificates" perform the function of "Certification" you are playing silly word games. On this matter, you are wrong. Even Fact Check (which I do not trust) shows a document that says "Certification of Live Birth" and "Certificate" on the SAME piece of paper: Now, a Certified Copy of a Birth Certificate is an actual PHOTOCOPY of the ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, certified to be accurate by the proper authority. Such a document are called "Certificate of Live Birth"! I have in my hand my own Birth Certificate. It is titled "Certificate of Live Birth" and it is a PHOTOCOPY of the original, certified as such by my State. So, a "Certificate of Live Birth" is a CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPY of the Original Birth Certificate! (Not an abstract of information drawn off of a database and reprinted.) Now, back to Hawaii: Obama has NOT released a copy of his actual, original, birth documents --- whatever you wish to call them. Why? And, my points concerning what was released, primarily go to the point that such document as was released, even if not altered by the Obama camp, does not prove very much. It is rather easy to generate such documents. That a law was passed AFTER Obama's birth, to allow such production, even if a child was born outside the State, in NO WAY says that such production, of such a document, was not possible BEFORE that date. Obama's grandparents would want Obama to qualify for various things. In State tuition, etc. Nobody knows which hospital Obama was born in. Obama's own records and accounts show two different hospitals. It looks like Obama MIGHT have been born out of the country, and then various relatives did various things to "document" said Birth, without doing a very good job of communicating with each other. It was, to say the least, a very dysfunctional family. It is easy to understand how that might have happened. It does NOT make sense for you to claim that he was DEFINATELY born in Hawaii, when there are conflicting indications on which hospital that birth took place. The ORIGINAL Vault Copy Birth Certificate would probably indicate the hospital, if he was even born in a hospital. Here is the way Berg describes the birth certificate, Certificate of Live Birth issue: ----- "The "COLB" hard facts Hawaii does not issue copies of the Certificate of Live Birth, aka, the traditional, long-form birth certificate. What Hawaii issues in its place is the Certification of Live Birth, aka COLB, that is a short transcript of a person's complete birth record on file -- it is only to be given to the person whose name appears under CHILD'S NAME, or to a member of that person's family, or someone authorized by the person to obtain it. When people hear the word, "form," they typically envision a pre-printed document containing blank areas to be filled in later. In reality, nearly every form is of the "fill in the blank" variety. The COLB form is different in that it is not a pre-printed form at all, but a completely computer-generated graphic that is "redrawn" every time a COLB is requested. Although the exact process for how these COLB forms are completed is not known, I imagine that either a computer operator manually enters the information into the blank areas provided, or a computer program automatically fills in these areas with the appropriate information, such as the child's name, parents' names, parents' race, place of birth, island of birth, and the date/time of birth. Perhaps the most important information written onto the form is the Certificate Number which uniquely identifies the birth record. Regardless of whether a person or computer fills in the "blanks," the information for those blanks come from the same place, a birth record database." ---- So, what was presented was NOT a copy of the original. So, what was presented was certainly NOT a certified copy, of the original. What was presented, if valid, only certifies that there is an original record, on file, which contains much more information.

[Red Steel]

I see you’re still shilling for Obama. You cannot discern enough detail from that scanned bogus seal from that bogus document with the naked eye to tell much of anything.

[Kevmo]

Here, kitty kitty...

signed up Jan 27, 2009

I suppose it’s up to you guys to call a spade a spade, since I’ve been told not to hunt for trolls by JimRob.

[Kansas58]

Sorry folks.
My paragraphs do weird things, when I include a pic or graphics.
It looked Ok, before I hit “post” -—

Anyway, I think we should look for another Hawaii document, from that period, that lists “African” under the heading “race” rather than “Negro” or “Black” or “Colored” or any of the other terms that would be a bit more common.

Somehow, I just don't think the term “African” was in common usage, as applies to “race” -—

[Red Steel]

Somehow, I just don't think the term “African” was in common usage, as applies to “race” -—

Yes, it's one of the many incosistancies in Obama's COLB.

[Kansas58]

“II. Discussion

Rule 26(c)(1) authorizes the Court to enter a protective order to protect a party

“from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including an order forbidding the discovery or specifying terms for discovery.”

---

the above taken from Obama’s motion.
-— “oppression” is not the reason, we are talking about the POTUS.
-—”undue burden or expense” is not the reason, he has spent more to defend himself than it would cost to produce the documents in question.

[Michael Michael]

***When did I call them Obots on this thread?

Ummm... just now:

And when did I ping a list of these Obots to rub the stuff in their noses?

So does this mean you join me in saying that it WAS abusive? Or is hypocrisy only something you get to accuse others of, it can’t possibly apply to you?

It means I've never seen you call anyone on using the term "Obot." You seem to be in tacit agreement that using the term "Obot" is just fine, as witnessed by your reply to Candor7:

The Obot Troll Brigade is covering this thread like flies on Watremelon.
***And yet, JimRob doesn’t want some of us to go troll hunting. Things that make you go ‘hmmmmmmm’.

And if calling someone a "Birther" is to be considered abusive, is calling someone an "Obot" or a "troll" necessarily any less abusive?

All I'm saying is that your indignation over "abuse" seems to be rather one-sided. I have seen you and others ping Admin Moderator on those who have done nothing more than simply, and respectfully disagree with you.

You complain that JimRob doesn't want some of you to go "troll hunting." Well maybe JimRob came to realize that not everyone who disagrees with you, or who may have only registered recently, is an Obot or a troll (and I can assure you that they aren't). Maybe JimRob got tired of some of you using Admin Moderator as a skirt to hide behind whenever anyone disagreed with you. Maybe JimRob is telling you, in his own way, to grow up and stop making this place look like a daycare center for children.

Maybe.

I don't deign to speak for JimRob, but if this were my place, that's what I'd be trying to tell you.

[Michael Michael]

the above taken from Obama’s motion.
-— “oppression” is not the reason, we are talking about the POTUS.
-—”undue burden or expense” is not the reason, he has spent more to defend himself than it would cost to produce the documents in question.

You conveniently left out "annoyance." How could you miss it? It came even before "embarrassment."

[Michael Michael]

"Certificates" perform the function of "Certification" you are playing silly word games. On this matter, you are wrong. Even Fact Check (which I do not trust) shows a document that says "Certification of Live Birth" and "Certificate" on the SAME piece of paper:

You're the one playing silly word games, simply looking at literal words without considering their meaning in the context in which they are used. Yes, a "Certification of Live Birth" is, generically, a "certificate" in that it is a document that is attesting to something. And that's why the word "certificate" is used generically in the text near the bottom of the document.

What distinguishes the two documents is that the Certificate of Live Birth directly attests to, or certifies, the facts of birth. The Certification of Live Birth is attesting to, or certifying the information that is on the Certificate of Live Birth. In other words, it's certifying a certificate. They can't both be called a Certificate of Live Birth, because they're not certifying the same things. So the latter is called a Certification of Live Birth rather than a Certificate of Live Birth.

Now, a Certified Copy of a Birth Certificate is an actual PHOTOCOPY of the ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, certified to be accurate by the proper authority. Such a document are called "Certificate of Live Birth"!

Not according to Hawaiian law.

§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.
(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

I have in my hand my own Birth Certificate. It is titled "Certificate of Live Birth" and it is a PHOTOCOPY of the original, certified as such by my State.

I have the same thing. Only it says "Certificate of Birth," rather than "Certificate of Live Birth." But the only reason it says "Certificate of Birth" is because it's a PHOTOGRAPH of my "Certificate of Birth."

So, a "Certificate of Live Birth" is a CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPY of the Original Birth Certificate! (Not an abstract of information drawn off of a database and reprinted.)

Again, read the Hawaiian statute on certified copies.

Now, back to Hawaii: Obama has NOT released a copy of his actual, original, birth documents --- whatever you wish to call them.

No, he didn't release a photostatic copy of his birth certificate.

Why?

Because when you ask Hawaii to send you a copy of your birth certificate, they send you just what they sent Obama, a Certification of Live Birth.

And, my points concerning what was released, primarily go to the point that such document as was released, even if not altered by the Obama camp, does not prove very much.

For Article II purposes, it only needs to show that he was born in the United States. Which it does.

It is rather easy to generate such documents. That a law was passed AFTER Obama's birth, to allow such production, even if a child was born outside the State, in NO WAY says that such production, of such a document, was not possible BEFORE that date. Obama's grandparents would want Obama to qualify for various things. In State tuition, etc.

Now you're off in wild speculation land.

It looks like Obama MIGHT have been born out of the country, and then various relatives did various things to "document" said Birth, without doing a very good job of communicating with each other.

I've not seen any credible evidence of his having been born anyplace other than Hawaii.

[Kevmo]

Ummm... just now: And when did I ping a list of these Obots to rub the stuff in their noses?
***So you were a clairvoyant when you called me a hypocrite ahead of time? It’s INCREDIBLY AMAZING that you are even allowed to operate on this website when it’s so freeping obvious what your agenda is.

You seem to be in tacit agreement that using the term “Obot” is just fine,
***Oh, then hemming and hawwing it will be, soon we’ll see you scurrying back behind that crevice I was talking about. “Tacit Agreement” what a crock. Notice that you don’t even ANSWER the rubbing it in their noses contention.

And if calling someone a “Birther” is to be considered abusive, is calling someone an “Obot” or a “troll” necessarily any less abusive?
***Rubbing their noses by pinging them IS. Calling someone an Obot is what the original poster did. I was quoting them. And calling a newbie with a big mouth & lotsa attitude a troll is a tradition among the viking kitty brigade. But you act like a retread, you’re just a tad too pushy and familiar with how things work to be someone who just recently signed up.

All I’m saying is that your indignation over “abuse” seems to be rather one-sided.
***Back tracking, hemming and hawwing.

I have seen you and others ping Admin Moderator on those who have done nothing more than simply, and respectfully disagree with you.
***Baloney. I posted a post mortem thread on Certifigate where I pointed out that we should have been hitting the abuse button on newbies with big mouths & lotsa attitude & a bit too familiar with the surroundings *hint: retread* so that’s how I’m gonna operate from now on. There’s nothing respectful in the way much of the disagreement has been expressed.

You complain that JimRob doesn’t want some of you to go “troll hunting.” Well maybe JimRob came to realize that not everyone who disagrees with you, or who may have only registered recently, is an Obot or a troll (and I can assure you that they aren’t).
***Maybe JimRob is the owner of a political website that tracks the republican party much more closely than the conservative movement. Maybe it isn’t about those who disagree with me, it’s about those who openly act like, as you put it, “Obot or a troll” and are allowed to get away with it because it has high entertainment value to the owner of the website. And I’m not interested at all in your assurances.

Maybe JimRob got tired of some of you using Admin Moderator as a skirt to hide behind whenever anyone disagreed with you.
***Nope. Dead wrong on that one. Many of us who’ve been around longer than the login “admin mod” have never quite gotten used to the idea of pinging the admin mod, and when we do we don’t get much satisfaction anyways because the process is ripe with capriciousness. So why don’t you just Shut UP?

Maybe JimRob is telling you, in his own way, to grow up and stop making this place look like a daycare center for children.
***Maybe JimRob is winding up to get rid of big mouth newbies and RINOs like he did on the bugzapper thread. Something tells me that you’ll be a retreaded retread by that time.

Maybe.
***Maybe you’re a retread. Maybe.

I don’t deign to speak for JimRob, but if this were my place, that’s what I’d be trying to tell you.
***Maybe, just maybe I signed up 2 months after JimRob and he knows that folks who’ve been here 11 years are a bit more thick-skinned and perceptive than big-mouthed newbies. If this were my place, that’s what I’d be trying to tell you.

[Non-Sequitur]

Any act of Congress, in the mater, would be “naturalization” and could NOT confer “Natural Born” status.

How can Congress define who are naturalized citizens if they don't first identify who are not?

[Non-Sequitur]

TRUE DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

I hope you aren't any fan of Bobby Jindal because if all you posted is true then he isn't a natrual born citizen either.

[Scanian]

“Why don’t you post an article about Obama’s transformation of our culture into his idea of a global socialist utopia?”

Some of us do that on a daily basis. The fact that we post such articles in no way detracts from the extreme doubt that so many FReepers feel about Zer0’s eligibility. A human wrecking ball like Obama needs to be attacked on all fronts. His efforts to sovietize American society appear even worse in view of the STRONG possibility that he was never eligible to run in the first place.

[Scanian]

Anyone on FR who resorts to DU smear words needs to do just that. And bark at the moon while they’re at it.

[Scanian]

You and me both Kitty. The more damage he does, the more concerned I become about whether he even belongs where he is.

[Scanian]

Once we come to that conclusion about a poster, ignoring them is the best policy, don’t you think?