Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Paper Trained



Showing us once again why Hawaii is called "the sense of humor" state, authorities there placed Barack Obama's dog under quarantine until it could prove its identity and show irrefutable documentation.

Which means that at this point, Bo the dog is better documented than the alleged president himself, and more eligible for a future political career than Obama's Aunt Zeituni who has no papers whatsoever (nor, apparently, an invitation to spend Christmas in Hawaii with her alleged nephew).

In order to get out of quarantine, Bo had to get a medical inspection and prove identification. Interestingly, it's far easier to get a Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth," the only document Barack Hussein Obama has ever showed to prove citizenship. All someone has to do is tell a grass-skirted clerk "there's a baby at my house, gimme a certification of live birth" and pay a small fee consisting of pineapples and coconuts.

Such a "certification" is not considered acceptable proof of identity or birth even in Hawaii (which isn't exactly a place where they're sticklers for formality). To get a real birth certificate, you need to have a doctor's signature (or in Bo's case, a veterinarian) along with other verification.

Assuming that such a document even exists, it remains unseen. And just last week, the alleged president refused to show it even though this seemingly simple act would have prevented a military doctor from being sentenced to six months in prison for asking to see it.

Then again, maybe Barry can take the birth certificate out of the vault while he's vacationing in Hawaii...rather than let everyone continue to be dogged by the ongoing mystery.




-

33 comments:

Jim said...

He clearly has something to hide. If it is clean and there is no there there, then there is no reason to keep it hidden. What is so top secret about a birth certificate? Unless of course it would prove that you are in fact not eligible to serve as president.

Daniel said...

I'll let the birthers argue amongst themselves, but I have to correct your statement about LTC Larkin.

Larkin was not sentenced or even prosecuted for asking to see Obama's birth cert. He was sent to jail, correctly, because he refused movement. He was given an order to deploy (not even by the president, but by his superior officers) and he deliberately refused to do so. For that, he should be thrown in jail and then thrown out of the service.

BTW, love the cartoons!

tfhr said...

Waiting for WikiLeaks to get that birth certificate out there.

Suzy said...

LOL tfhr..... I wish!!!!!!

All the Republicans in the country should donate $100 and give a super-bribe to somebody in Hawaii to "accidentally" release it.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

Daniel- I oversimplified the situation with LTC Larkin, but didn't misrepresent it. He was convicted for refusing an order to deploy...but Larkin maintained that any such order was not valid unless the commander in chief was really an American citizen, and so he wanted the birth certificate to be shown to legitimize the presidency and the chain of command. Larkin had served honorably as an Army doctor for 18 years, presumably saving some lives, and presumably might have saved more if he had completed his final 2 years of service instead of getting jail and a discharge. And the soldiers who will now die can have their names engraved on that small locked drawer in a Honolulu vault: "The Tomb of the Unknown Document."

Pete(Detroit) said...

I believe you mean 'documents', plural.
AFAIK, there are NO transcripts, either under OR grad, nothing he wrote while on staff at Harvard Law Review, etc, etc. The man has BEEN nothing, DONE nothing, and left NO positive footprints.

Anonymous said...

My wife had all three of her babies at home or at the midwife's house. I assure you, there are tons of midwives that would have written up each of them as twins if I requested with 2 hundred dollar bills in my hand. I just took the papers she filled out on the day of the birth down to the courthouse and EACH OF THEM has as real and as official a birth certificate at THEIR kids have ( all born in hospitals )

My Dog Brewski said...

That dog would have better odds in a no-kill animal shelter. Bo is just another prop to put on display to show the Obamas as a "normal" family. It's likely that Bo will outlive Jug-ear's presidency, then I wouldn't give you a plug nickel for his chances.

smrstrauss said...

Obama has already shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, which is the only one that Hawaii has sent out since 2001. Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the original birth certificate. It only sends out the new, short-form Certification of Live Birth. The facts on Obama's birth certificate--that he was born in Hawaii in 1961--were confirmed twice by the officials of the department of health and department of vital records of Hawaii, and more recently by the Republican governor (at the time, she is now a former governor), Linda Lingle.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

smrstrauss- Sorry, but you're just flat wrong about that being the "official birth certificate of Hawaii." Granted, the "short form" that Mr. Soetoro has shown the world since 2001 is what Hawaii currently sends out for unimportant uses...but it is not definitive.

By his own admission, the alleged president has the original birth certificate locked in a safe place, and he could show it if he wished to.

Only one state official (in a somewhat shrouded way) concedes that she has laid her own eyes on the physical document and that it exists. And she says (but provides no proof beyond her word) that it validates B. Hussein's citizenship.

(And on a side note, "Republicans" in Hawaii are essentially the equivalent of "Screaming Libs" back here on Earth. It's basically Socialism in Paradise, assuming you consider Paradise to be a state with no industry, no jobs, and increasingly no doctors. Although on the plus side, Hawaiian McDonald's serve Spam happy meals).

But back to the topic. We think a clerk's hearsay is setting the bar a little low to qualify for the most important job in the world. Moreover, it's impossible to believe that the alleged president would spend over a million dollars in legal fees to keep us from seeing everything on that document if he had nothing to hide.

Whatever is on that birth certificate (assuming it exists, which we must take on faith), it would show that the stranger in the Whitehouse is not who he has long claimed to be.

Does he have a different father? Does he have a different birthdate? Is he listed as Muslim? Does his "birth weight" suggest he may actually have been a couple of months old when the certificate was obtained? Is his middle name actually "Death to America?" Does he have a "666" birthmark?

One way or another, Obama is lying about who he is - and anyone who accepts lies without seeing (or even seeking) real proof is unavoidably playing the fool.

Bobo said...

Yeah, Spam Happy Meals! Maybe McD's could serve SHM's in San Francisco as a more nutritious replacement food item than whatever they were banned from selling by "The City" liberals.

BTW...I like spam - but only the kind I get via email.

Anonymous said...

If Baracky Fife's actual birth certificate ever shows up and shows he WASN'T qualified to be POTUS, can we then forbid all who voted for him from voting ever again? Hey, I can dream, can't I?

JustaJeepGuy

Bobo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
smrstrauss said...

Re: “Granted, the "short form" that Mr. Soetoro has shown the world since 2001 is what Hawaii currently sends out for unimportant uses...but it is not definitive.”

Answer. By itself it is definitive because it is the legal birth certificate. Thousands of people use it every year to prove their birth in the USA. And, in Obama’s case the three officials (including the governor) have repeatedly confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. And there were notices in the Hawaii newspapers of Obama’s birth in 1961, and those notices were only sent out by the department of vital records at the time. They were not advertisements; they were ONLY official birth notices sent out by the department. And the department of vital records only sent out the notices for births IN Hawaii, and not for births outside of Hawaii.

Re: "Soetoro"

Answer: Obama used that name when he was in Indonesia, but he never legally changed his name to Soetoro nor was he adopted while in Indonesia, nor for that matter did he ever become an Indonesian citizen, as a call to the Indonesian Embassy in Washington will confirm.

Re: ‘By his own admission, the alleged president has the original birth certificate locked in a safe place, and he could show it if he wished to.”

Answer: What do you mean “by his own admission?” Obama has never said that he has a copy of the original birth certificate. In his first book he said that he had seen a copy, but that was decades ago. People do lose their original birth certificates. In fact, it happens very often.

Yes, the government of Hawaii has the original in its files. BUT Hawaii has not sent out the original birth certificate to anyone since 2001.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Only one state official (in a somewhat shrouded way) concedes that she has laid her own eyes on the physical document and that it exists. And she says (but provides no proof beyond her word) that it validates B. Hussein's citizenship.”

Answer. There were two statements of verification by the officials, and then the governor’s statement. The governor’s confirmation also included a statement that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital, which had not been included in the previous statements, and unless she was deliberately lying (which would be too risky to have done since the proof or disproof is right in the file) she got the fact that Obama was born in that hospital from the file.

Here is a photocopy of Obama’s official birth certificate. Notice the seal on the back. Yes, it is on Factcheck’s site, but the idea that they could forge such a detailed document and the seal is laughable.

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

Here is confirmation that it is the official and only birth certificate that Hawaii issues

(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)

Here is the first of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html

Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate.

Here is the second of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm

Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.

And here is the confirmation by the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

And here is the statement of a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961:

http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece

Re: ‘(And on a side note, "Republicans" in Hawaii are essentially the equivalent of "Screaming Libs" back here on Earth…

Answer: Are you saying that Linda Lingle, and the other two officials, and the clerk who filled in the original form that generated the official birth certificate were all LYING?

I am told that the former attorney general of Hawaii is a conservative Republican. He was attorney general for at least the last two years (probably four). If he thought that there was anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate or the statement of the governor or the officials, he could taken action. But he didn’t.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “it's impossible to believe that the alleged president would spend over a million dollars in legal fees to keep us from seeing everything on that document if he had nothing to hide.”

Answer: Since there was never a lawsuit against Obama just for his birth certificate, the million dollar figure is a myth. Obama has shown the OFFICIAL birth certificate. As for lawsuits that include claims that Obama became an Indonesian citizen, or demand his school, college and kindergarten records (which no president has ever shown), Obama has every right to oppose them.

Re: “Whatever is on that birth certificate (assuming it exists, which we must take on faith), it would show that the stranger in the Whitehouse is not who he has long claimed to be.’

Answer: Baloney. The original birth certificate, which Hawaii does not send out anymore, will show exactly what the four officials (including the clerk) all said, and what the notices in the newspapers in 1961 also indicated, that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.

Re; ‘Is he listed as Muslim? Does his "birth weight" suggest…

Answer: There is no place on the original birth certificate that lists the religion of the child, or for that matter the religion of the parents. And there is no place on it for birth weight either, and I am referring to the ORIGINAL birth certificate.

Obama has already shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, which was the one that Hawaii sent him in 2007. It is also the one that it sends to everyone. It has not sent out the original birth certificate to anyone--even people born before 2001--since it became the official birth certificate in 2001. And, the officials have confirmed the facts on it. And, there is a witness who recalls being told of Obama's birth in Hawaii. And there were the notices in the newspapers.

And, by the way, Obama’s Kenyan grandmother NEVER said that he was born in Kenya. She said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was born in Hawaii, where his father was studying, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii.

Matty said...

I think smrstrauss won that one, eh?

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

Matty- Well, smrstrauss certainly provided an impressive number of links, some of better quality than others, and I concede that there's enough confusing and sometimes contradictory information out there that Obama could successfully clear any legal challenges to his citizenship (of course, OJ was also cleared of his wife's slaughter, so the legal system isn't always synonymous with either truth or justice).

But as Sherlock Holmes reminds us, we should sometimes also pay attention to the dog that doesn't bark in the night. Why has no attending physician come forward to say that he was present beside the manger when Obama was born? Why, at least, hasn't that physician's name - which would be in the records - been released? Why are there conflicting claims about which - if any - hospital Obama was born in?

If there's nothing to hide on Obama's original birth certificate (which smrstrauss oxymoronically notes that Obama doesn't claim to possess, but officials have seen) then why hasn't he given Hawaiian taxpayers a break by letting it be shown, rather than run up so many bills dealing with FOIA requests that the Hawaiian legislature eventually passed a law saying they wouldn't respond to such requests relating to the birth certificate anymore.

As far as the question goes about whether or not I think Hawaiian politicians would actually (gasp!) lie, I'll have to admit that I do. They would lie if it would help assure a friendly and informal stream of federal funds into their increasingly impoverished state (rather than let any inconvenient truths "slip out"). And say, wasn't that Hawaiian Senator Inouye who wrote the Omnibus spending bill...? And as far as having a conservative attorney general who could have investigated this if he wanted, it would have been political suicide for him to even show an interest.

Summing up, I concede - as I always have - that Obama's confusing documentation passes the legal test, but doesn't even come close to passing the sniff test.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “Why has no attending physician come forward to say that he was present beside the manger when Obama was born? “

Answer: It was 49 years ago, a doctor who was 40 at the time would be 89 now, if she or he were still alive. Some young nurses might still be alive, but they have delivered hundreds of thousands of children in their careers, and cannot be certain that they delivered Obama.

Re: “Why, at least, hasn't that physician's name - which would be in the records - been released?”

Answer: Was there one released for George Bush? Clinton? Reagan? Probably Obama does not know the name of the doctor. I don’t know the name of the doctor who delivered me. How many people do? The name is on the original birth certificate, but Hawaii does not send that out anymore.

Re: “Why are there conflicting claims about which - if any - hospital Obama was born in?”

Answer: ONE newsagency got the reporting wrong and birthers think that Obama’ sister said Queens Hospital. She didn’t say it. UPI did, and corrected itself. Obama’s sister, and Obama himself in his book, and the governor of Hawaii and the witness, and the new governor, Neil Abercrombe (quoted a year ago when he was a congressman, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/us/politics/05zeleny.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=abercrombe%20hawaii%20obama%20kapiolani&st=cse) ALL said Kapiolani.

Here is the quote from Abercrombe:

“He was born in Kapiolani Hospital, right down the street from where I lived,” Mr. Abercrombie said. “They had no money. I can’t imagine how they would get to Kenya. It makes no sense at all. It’s an insult to his mother.”

smrstrauss said...

Continued:

Re: If there's nothing to hide on Obama's original birth certificate (which smrstrauss oxymoronically notes that Obama doesn't claim to possess, but officials have seen) then why hasn't he given Hawaiian taxpayers a break by letting it be shown…”

Answer: He cannot let it be shown because Hawaii no longer sends out the originals TO ANYONE. Hawaii sent him the short-form certification, which is what it sends to everyone. He can show that, and he has shown it. He cannot show the original, he does not have it.

He could ask Hawaii to change its rules and start to send out the original again, but that would be asking Hawaii to make a major change, which is surely unnecessary since the fact of is being born in Hawaii has been confirmed by the new official birth certificate, the officials, the former governor, the witness and Abercrombie, and the myth of birth in Kenya is fantastic.

Re: “whether or not I think Hawaiian politicians would actually (gasp!) lie, I'll have to admit that I do. They would lie if it would help assure a friendly and informal stream of federal funds into their increasingly impoverished state (rather than let any inconvenient truths "slip out").’

Answer: The first of two confirmations was BEFORE Obama was elected president (
http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html
).

AND, as to the alleged lies, not only would they be lying, but they would be lying about the contents of a file. That would be a STUPID lie because anyone could come along at any time and look into the file and find out that they were lying. Why would three officials make a STUPID lie that could easily be disproven, if indeed it were a lie. In fact, there would have to be four, the original clerk plus the two officials and the governor. What would the consequences of being found out in that lie be to their careers? Maybe even criminal prosecution?

And this is not even counting the witness and Obama’s Kenyan grandmother (who said that he was born in Hawaii) and Abercrombe. And then there were the notices in the newspapers in 1961 that were sent out by the government, and were only sent out for births IN Hawaii and not for births outside of Hawaii.

Re: “Obama's confusing documentation.”

Answer: Try to grasp this fundamental of logic. If the officials in Connecticut issued lousy, sloppy birth certificates, that would not prove that George Bush was born outside of Connecticut.

For the birther case to be anything other than laughable, the case has to show BOTH that the Hawaii birth certificate was wrong (not that it could have been) and that there is a credible story that Obama was born in another country than the USA. BOTH of them.

So, you are stuck with the Kenya fantasy. (Have you any idea how expensive such a trip would have been in 1961, and how risky late in pregnancy?). Or, you can try to dig up something similar in Canada or Indonesia, or wherever. For all of those countries, a child carried from that country into the USA would have required a US visa on a foreign passport or being entered on his mother’s US passport. If there were any such document, it would have been very easy to find in the files of applications for visas and applications for changes to passports, and the Bush Administration was in charge of the State Department for eight years until January 2009. Nothing has turned up.

The foreign side of the BOTH necessity does not exist. The official proof from Hawaii, and the witnesses and the notices in the newspaper are overwhelming. But it is the absurdity of the Kenya story and the absence of any credible tale of birth in any foreign country that kills the birther myth.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

smrstrauss- You argue your points very well, and I genuinely appreciate your comments.

And your logic is unassailable on the fact that sloppy record keeping would not prove that the birth occurred elsewhere...it simply wouldn't do a very good job of proving that the birth occurred where it was being claimed.

I'll additionally concede that Hawaii isn't "sending out" long form birth certificates - though there's theoretically no reason it couldn't be photographed with Obama's permission (and indeed, multiple articles say that the state will provide copies of the actual long-form document for family members).

Regarding Kenya, it's hard to know if Obama's mother did any such traveling (with or without a child) because her passport records were accidentally destroyed:"in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the State Department released passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham, President Obama's mother – but those records for the years surrounding Obama's 1961 birth are missing. The State Department claims that a 1980s General Services Administration directive had resulted in the destruction of many passport applications and other "non-vital" passport records, including Dunham's 1965 passport application and any other passports she may have applied for or held prior to 1965. Destroyed, then, would also be any records shedding light on whether Dunham did or did not travel out of the country around the time of Barack Obama's birth.

Again, sticking to logic, this doesn't in any way prove that Obama was born outside the United States. But it also negates the use of passport records as proof that he wasn't.

Regarding the stupidity of officials lying about something that could be disproved later, I again agree with you. But there are degrees of truth. These officials say that his official birth certificate is there and that it verifies his birth in Hawaii. Fine. Does it also verify the date? The hospital? The physician? The newborn's declared race? His father's name? The accurate birthplaces of both parents? Their marital status at the time? None of the so-called witnesses to the actual document have gone on record about any of these items.

I can readily agree with you about what has been allegedly seen. But my curiosity remains intact about what else is on that original document that we can't see.

Matty said...

Oh look, you say that it verifies his birth in Hawaii. Which is all the birthers have an issue with in the first place. The proof has been provided that he was born in the US. Why the argument would need to continue beyond that point is bewildering at best. I'm not exactly sure why the point needs to be made that they don't have EVERY SINGLE DETAIL EVER about his birth certificate. If you want to argue his, why not the birth certificates of every President ever? I've never seen Clinton's birth certificate. How do I know he was really from the US? Oh man, I don't even know what to think anymore! But Obama must be be foreign if YOU PERSONALLY haven't seen his original birth certificate. It's just another way for people to pretend like Obama is some sort of plant, or part of some strange conspiracy. I bet he's a remnant of a Cold War-era experiment to establish a Communist state in the US. That sounds about right.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

Matty- Read again; I didn't say that any documentation verifies Obama's birth in Hawaii; I said that the documentation would pass the same level of "legality" that freed OJ.

But let's be clear- my problem isn't where Obama was born, it's where he is now: the Whitehouse. This man hates America and Americans, and is bent on the destruction of our country...tearing it down so he can rebuild it as a socialist state. Don't agree? Fine, this is America and it's your right to be wrong.

So I'd like to see him out of office ASAP, by any legal means available. If that means trying to look into documents that he feels the need to lock away, so be it.

But no, I don't think Obama is a plant or part of a strange conspiracy. I merely think he's the latest arrogant SOB who believes that the only reason socialism has never worked is because the world didn't have a genius like him to run it.

Oops- we'd better make that "alleged" genius. All of his education records have been sealed by presidential order.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "(and indeed, multiple articles say that the state will provide copies of the actual long-form document for family members)."

Answer. NO. They will provide copies of the actual OFFICIAL birth certificate for family members. Not the original. All articles simply say "the birth certificate," and that means the official one, the Certification of Live Birth, which is the only one that Hawaii has sent out since 2001.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "her passport records were accidentally destroyed..."

Once again NO. The only records that were destroyed were APPLICATIONS for passports before a certain date (which I have forgotten). The actual records of the passports themselves were NOT destroyed.

Then why weren't they shown in the FOIA request? Because the birther who requested the files asked only for the applications, not for the records of the passports. Why not? Because, obviously, if it shows that Obama's mother did not have a passport in 1961, the whole birther myth collapses.

But, not to worry, an anti-birther FOIA request is underway, and I believe that it will eventually show that she did not have a passport in 1961.

But, say that she did. Would it show that she had gone to Kenya or not?

NO. You have forgotten that the places where people go are not stored by the US government, unless a copy is made--which is rare. The government does not keep track of where we have visited.

Yet, despite the ENORMOUS expense of a Kenya trip in 1961, the risk of traveling late in pregnancy, and the fact that a child born in Kenya would need a US travel document to get to the USA, and none has been found, you chose to believe that Obama's mother's passport would show that she had been to Kenya.

There is a kind of desperation in your reactions. There has got to be a chance, you seem to say, got to be a chance that ALL the proof of birth in Hawaii is all a lie and ALL the absence of proof of birth in Kenya and ALL the vast improbability of birth in Kenya is all wrong.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Does it also verify the date? The hospital? The physician? The newborn's declared race? His father's name? The accurate birthplaces of both parents? Their marital status at the time? None of the so-called witnesses to the actual document have gone on record about any of these items.'

Answer: So what? Do any of these items have anything to do with Obama's eligiblity to be president? Were any of them shown by Bush or Clinton or any other president?

For what it is worth, the original birth certificate http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=105347 does not have any place on it for the marital status of the parents. It does list the physician, of course, but then who really cares?
Did you really want to know who Bush's physician was?

smrstrauss said...

Re: "All of his education records have been sealed by presidential order. '

You are TERRIBLY, TERRIBLY misinformed. The first thing that you should know, and which you should have remembered from high school civics, is that a presidential order cannot seal or affect in any way the records of a state or a private institution. CANNOT. Why not? Because it is not a a law, which has to be passed by Congress and the president.

Presidential executive orders apply to the federal government (including the military). They have no power over states or private individuals or private corporations--unlesss, of course, they are enforcing an already existing law.

Obama's executive order actually made it harder, not easier, for presidents and former presidents to seal their records. And it applied only to federal presidential records.

So, what about the files that you claim were "sealed?" They are simply private. All college records high school records etc. are private. Most state birth certificate records are private. They are not sealed; they are private. They were private before the executive order. They were just as private after the executive order.

Obama, of course, could ask for his college transcripts (It is not clear whether high school records and kindergarten records exist anymore) and release them. But he doesn't have to. Most likely he is exercising his option to wait to see whether a Republican releases similar records in the next election, and then he would do the same thing.

smrstrauss said...

Let us focus again on the essentials. For the birther case to have any real credibility--and at the moment it is being called crazy by Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly--it has to show BOTH that the Hawaii document and the witnesses are all wrong, and that there is a credible story of his birth in some other country.

Simply focusing on the fact that Hawaii has not sent out the original birth certificate would not get you that. The high expense and risk of the trip to Kenya makes its probability terribly low, and birth in Kenya would require not merely a trip but the return of Obama to the USA without any US travel document (which, by the way would not be stored in his or his mother's passport files but in the files of applications for visas or changes to passports).

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

smrstrauss- You're actually far more interested in the whole "birther" thing than I am. As I explained to Matty (above), I simply have a healthy interest in any legal avenue which might rid our country of this worst of all presidents. And at this stage of his presidency, when his eligibility is a moot point, I'm more concerned with his competency...which is demonstrably laughable.

smrstrauss said...

There is a legal approach specified in the Constitution. It is know as voting against someone. In 2012 there will be another presidential election, so vote against him then.

Since Obama was born in Hawaii and has shown proof, and was not born anywhere else (and the claims of Kenya birth are fantastic and laughable), even if a court were to take the case, it would find for Obama. If a congressional committee were to investigate, it would find for Obama.

Wait till 2012, that is the only legal remedy.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "when his eligibility is a moot point.."

IT ISN'T A MOOT POINT. It would only be a moot point if there were not overwhelming evidence of his birth in Hawaii and if there were a credible story of him being born in some other country other than the USA. BOTH would have to exist, and neither do.

Matty. said...

Mr. Jarlsberg - I was only arguing the birther point. I don't agree with your assessment of the President, but as you said, it's completely within your rights to believe Obama is a horrible President and plans to make the US a Socialist Utopia. Again, I was only making the point that anybody who believes Obama shouldn't be President because they can't see documents that the state hasn't sent out for 10 years (and nobody has yet requested of previous Presidents) is not the most intelligent of human beings.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

smrstrauss- I said that the birth certificate matter was a "moot point" because any legal action would inevitably be protracted by every legalistic means...and so the quickest means of taking the government out of his hands is, as you say, election day.

Matty- Perhaps it's the spirit of Christmas, but I think we're finally in agreement. Anyone whose main problem with Obama's presidency is his birth certificate isn't the most intelligent of beings.