Inhofe: The Birthers "Have A Point," And "I Don't Discourage It"
You can count Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) as a fellow traveller of the Birther movement, the Politico reports, if he's not in fact a full-fledged Birther himself.
"They have a point," said Inhofe. "I don't discourage it. ... But I'm going to pursue defeating [Obama] on things that I think are very destructive to America."
Oklahoma's other Senator, Tom Coburn, previously said he would support the Birther bill if it made it to the Senate. So while Birtherism may be a fringe conspiracy theory, it does have some high-level support in at least one state in the Union.
Late Update: Inhofe's office has given Greg Sargent this statement, explaining the point that the Birthers have -- putting the blame on the White House for failing to address people's doubts: "The point that they make is the Constitutional mandate that the U.S. President be a natural born citizen, and the White House has not done a very good job of dispelling the concerns of these citizens. My focus is on issues where I can make a difference to stop the liberal agenda being pushed by President Obama."















I think Inhoffe may have meant to say that Birthers have pointy little pinheads (gabba, gabba, hey).
July 27, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Thomas Frank could have a series going. It's time for "What's the Matter With Oklahoma, How Loons Took Over the Mind of America"
July 27, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
This guy is a complete asswipe repukeian.
July 27, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Birtherians almost make Scientologists seem ....normal.
July 27, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
They have a point alright and I know exactly where it shoud be stuffed!
July 27, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
High ranking Repub endorsing birthers = merging of same. C'mon, how hard is it going to be to beat them in 2010 and 2012 if that is the party they are condensing into?
July 27, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not very!
The Birtherist threat comes not from the fact that they're getting daily media attention in July of 2009, but that they might NOT be front and center for the cameras in, say, October of 2010 or 2012.
If I were Rachel Maddow, I'd book them NOW (especially that delightfully crazy dentist/lawyer/realtor/au pair/tap dancer/notary public) for those months and just turn my show over to them. "What's on your mind today, Orly? You've got 44 minutes of air time starting... now."
Why should Lou Dobbs have all the fun of destroying what's left of the GOP?
July 27, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Orly Taitz claims she's going to be on the Colbert Report this week, so that's a start.
July 27, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it wrong that I giggle everytime I hear her name?
July 27, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the issues about the "birthers" that bothers many Americans is the fact that they are required to "show" their certified copy of their long-form birth certificate simply to get their driver's license changed from one state to another. Yet here is the President of the United States, occupying the highest office in the land, not required to prove anywhere, nor to anybody, that he has met the requirements of the Constitution.
When I say "show", I mean present your document to a government official. Have them go off somewhere to make a copy. Stamp something on the copy and place it in a file and hand the original back to you.
To date, in fact, Obama has yet to officially present anything to anybody to prove he has met his Constitutional requirements, nothing, zip, nada. All someone has done is post a picture on a website purporting to be Obama's birth certificate, and even that picture has since been taken down. He has also allowed two FactCheck reporters to photograph a document somebody says is Obama's birth certificate. That's it.
What the "birthers" are saying is, "When you look at the history of Obama, as much as is presently available, his foreign born father, his Indonesian adoption, his foreign travels, apparently under a foreign passport it's fair to ask that Obama prove he has met his Constitutional requirements in a little more substantive manner than a picture posted on a website.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, brother. It's the law in Hawaii first of all. Second, the republican governor attested to it's authenticity and that he was born in hawaii as did the head of the Hawaii department of health. Also, the announcement was in the hawaii news papers. What more do you freaking want.
Incidentally, he is an american citizen if he was born in timbuktu, because his mother was an american citizen. Duh. This citizen of kenya crap is really absurd and evidences a complete lack of knowledge of citizenship law.
By the way, I haven't had to show anyone my birth certificate since I got my social security card when I was 15. I have no idea where it is. I would have to get a copy from the state where I was born and would not have an "original." Oh, yeah, I forgot, I'm an angry white guy. I guess I don't have to worry about it.
Pathetic.
July 27, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Attention: davidfarrar! You have done well in your mission to spread disinformation and fear. Return at once to planet Birtheria for further instructions and programming.
Section Leader Glfump, Third Quadrant, 4th Sector.
July 27, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the land of lies, truth is treason...or something to that effect.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”
-Adolf Hitler
July 27, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joseph Goebbels...it was Joseph Goebbels who said that, not Hitler. Jeeezzzzzzz, don't you libs now your history?
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the correction, nutjob.
July 27, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't even get the original birth certificate from my state. They only have one kind that they send us now and it's not 'the original'.
I would like to impeach every senator and representative in congress supporting this bill for conspiracy, ignorance, and stupidity.
July 27, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Certified copy...certified copy...of your original birth certificate.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right up there with the Moon Landing Hoaxers and Creationists on this one, dude. But then I get the sense you're probably okay with that.
July 27, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are arguing with David Farrar? He is not actually even a green card holder, let alone an American himself, he has no business arguing about this.
July 27, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now you are telling people what they can and can't argument about -- nice!
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are not an American citizen, born or naturalized, nor do you hold a green card. Your argument is unimportant.
July 27, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now you're telling me who I am -- that's even better!
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are not a citizen, nor do you have a green card. We all know it, just admit it. You have no place meddling in U.S. politics.
July 27, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spoken like a true lib.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I changed a driver's license from NJ to PA. I then changed from PA to NY. In neither instance was I required to show any sort of birth certificate. I can't think of many instances where I was required to produce even a copy of birth certificate, let alone an original, so this whole line of argumentation: "We need to show our birth certificate for x" is mostly BS. As for the foreign passport issue, that's a red herring. Many people have more than one passport and has zero bearing on their citizenship status (eg, my sister has lived in France for the last fifteen years and married a Frenchman, so she has an EU passport in addition to her US passport. She remains a "natural born" US citizen nonetheless.) And is there anyway to put the whole "foreign-born father" thing to rest? Think people. When the Constitution was written, most Americans had foreign-born parents, being a group of former colonies and all that. That's why citizenship in the US gives prominence to your place of birth. Many countries do not give automatic citizenship to people born within their borders. It depends on the citizenship of the parents, in most cases. In the US, it does not, and that is one of its unique features. So, the fact that his father is not a US citizen means diddly-squat, so why do birthers keep bringing it up? Hmm, I might have to ponder that one.
July 27, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
When the Constitution was written most Americans were born in this country. Indeed, a majority of the authors of the Constitution were "natural born' citizens, that is, both of their parents were born in this country.
As a matter of historical record, Georgia Washington's parents were both born in this country, as was every other President, with the exception of Chester Arthur and Barack Obama.
I am glad you, too, agree with me that obtaining U.S. passport is a red herring and has zero bearing on a person's citizenship status, because that is precisely the example Obama's people use to justify his present (short form) Certification of Live Birth document.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. Both of Andrew Jackson's parents were Irish immigrants who came to this country just a few years before Jackson was born.
Next?
July 27, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
What do you expect...he was a Democrat!
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
What do you know? You've been outed as a lying idiot who know zilch about history and all you can say "he was a democrat."
Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat Republican. Wanna disown this "founding father", too, since his mother was a foreigner?
Next?
July 27, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I said "Jackson", not Jefferson. Now calm down and re-read my post. Thank you very much.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't read very well, do you? That explains a whole lot about your perception of things.
He knows you said "Jackson". Did you happen to notice the "too" at the end of his sentence? That word means "also". With that in mind, try reading the comment again.
July 27, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can't be serious?
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy crap. Do you even read your own posts?
July 27, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "too" referred to Jefferson. But his point is completely irrelevant because both Jefferson and Jackson would have come under the "grandfather" clause of Art. ll of the U.S. Constitution.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Duh, dumbshit.
Seriously, it's not even worth it.
July 27, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, no credible response.
July 27, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Thomas Jefferson's mother was born in London.
July 27, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thomas Jefferson falls under the exception, if I am not mistaken.
And as far as Jackson is concerned...if both of his parents had become U.S. citizens prior to Jackson's birth, Jackson, himself, would have been a "natural-born" citizen.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. You don't know basic historical facts.
Both of Andrew Jackson's parents were Irish immigrants. They were not citizens when Jackson was born. In fact, Jackson's father died before Jackson was born.
2. This is not about whether there was some foreign born exception. You clearly and wrongly stated that Obama and Arthur were the only presidents with foreign born parents. Thomas Jefferson's mother was born in London in 1820.
History lesson: we fought a very bloody significant war with England. Talk about potential for divided loyalties.
July 27, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is an exception in Article ll, Section l, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Without checking, I believe Jefferson would have come under that exception. As far a Jackson is concerned, I will have to double check on the citizenship status of his parents.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Duhhh. The exception is that the PRESIDENT could have been a citizen of another country (England) because there was no one born in the USA who was old enough to be president when the country was formed.
They were called "original citizens."
The exception said NOTHING about their parents birthplace.
Remmember: your original statement has been proven categorically false. Twisting yourself into a pretzel with "logic" does not change that.
Next!
July 27, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
After a short look-see into Andrew Jackson's upbringing, I would think he also came under the "grandfather" clause of Art. ll of the U.S. Constitution.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jefferson comes under the "grandfather" clause exception of Art. ll. Jeeeezzzz, don't you guys read the Constitution?
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Duh, most of the framers were colonists and/or british citizens. The country did not exist yet and there was no country to be a citizen of.
By the way, I guess mcbush was not qualified either as he was born in panama. Oh, that's right, he's white.
July 27, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check your histroy, please, as I have done. I stand by my statement.
ex animo
davidfarrar,
July 27, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, like I said, the country did not exist. Do you know anything about history? Remember 1776 and all that? The American Revolution? Uh, by the way, this country was by and large founded and built by immigrants, but, but, they were white. The slaves and indians didn't count, right?
Pathetic.
July 27, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you would re-read my post, I said "born in this country", not "U.S. citizens", thank you very much.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
THE COUNTRY DID NOT EXIST. THEY WERE COLONISTS AND/OR BRITISH CITIZENS OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE.
Does that help?
July 27, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
It may help you. But that was the very reason I said "born in this country" and not "U.S. citizens".
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
how could they have been "born in this country" when it did not exist? They were born in a British colony, not "this country."
It's like saying a 5 year old Russian kid was born in the Soviet Union. That would be impossible since there was no Soviet Union in 2004.
July 27, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Country" as in land mass, not a political unit.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You stand by the patently false statement that only Obama and Chester Arthur had foreign-born parents?
Again: Andrew Jackson (Ireland). Thomas Jefferson (England)
July 27, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I said...I'll check on Jackson, but Jefferson falls within the exception.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your post was not about exceptions for the "original citizens."
You said Chester Arthur and Obama were the only presidents whose parents were not born in the US.
Are you ready to admit you were dead wrong or shall you continue to make a fool of yourself?
July 27, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I pick option two.
July 27, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand corrected. Chester Arthur and Barack Obama are the only two people who have thus far managed to obtained the office of the Presidency of the United States without meeting the requirements of Art. ll, Sec. l, Cl. 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand by my original assertion that only Chester Arthur and Barack Obama obtained the office of the Presidency of the United States without being a "natural born" U.S. citizen as required under Art. ll, Sec. l, Cl. 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Yep!
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>I stand by my original assertion that only Chester Arthur and Barack Obama obtained the office of the Presidency of the United States without being a "natural born" U.S. citizen as required under Art. ll, Sec. l, Cl. 5 of the U.S. Constitution.>>
That was not your original assertion. Here is your exact quote:
"As a matter of historical record, Georgia Washington's parents were both born in this country, as was every other President, with the exception of Chester Arthur and Barack Obama."
You can't even tell the truth about what you wrote this morning when it's still here in black and white.
You're great for the liberals. Where can we get 100 more just like you?
LOL.
July 27, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if his original assertion was what he said it was, he's dead wrong about Chester Arthur and Barack Obama not being natural-born citizens of the US. Just because their fathers were foreign-born does not mean that they are not natural-born citizens. Both had American-born mothers. (And both, incidently, have American roots on their mother's side that go very deep.)
July 27, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know you're just making things up, right? Since when is this the definition of natural born citizen?
July 27, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has always been the case. Indeed, being a "natural born" U.S. citizen lies at the very cornerstone of American exceptionalism. It is who we are on the world stage. It is what made us different from our British counterparts. It was one of the reasons we fought and why American blood was shed in the War of 1812. This is no small matter to which I speak. It is who we are.
All we are asking Barack Obama to do is prove he has met the standard that any true, red-blooded American can and should be very, very proud to met whenever asked to do so. And a growing number of Americans are wondering why Barack Obama has not come proudly forward and slapped down his birth certificate to all who would question his birthrighht, his American birthright, just like John McCain did when asked to do.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolutely wrong about that and everything else in your egregious post. You either have no idea what you are talking about, or you are deliberately lying.
July 27, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a matter of historical record, you pathetic toad, George Washington's parents could not have been born in this country, because the United States did not in fact exist then. They may well have been born in a British colonial settlement, which is not remotely the same thing.
Stupid and proud of it, aren't you?
July 27, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that all you got; semantics and infantile name-calling?
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all you deserve, you blathering potatohead.
July 27, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Revolution occurred in the midst of a huge Scotch-Irish immigration wave. Not to mention that there were immigrants from a good many other places during the 18th century as well. I don't have statistics at hand to know whether they constituted a majority, but they were certainly a very large minority, at least, and there were lots of people who were part of the independence movement who were not born on US soil. Some of them served in the first Congress.
Thomas Paine, author of "Common Sense" and "The Crisis," was born in England. Alexander McDougall, one of the leaders of the Sons of Liberty in New York City, and a general in Washington's Continental Army, was born in Scotland. Alexander Hamilton, who wrote most of the Federalist Papers in support of the 1787 Constitution (and who was one of Washington's aides during the Revolution) was born in the West Indies. Hamilton might well have become president of the US himself had he not been killed by Aaron Burr in a duel.
There were plenty of Scotch-Irish immigrants among the footsoldiers of the Continental Army.
July 27, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
When was that? The law may have changed since 2001; I know it has in Virginia. I mistakenly let my driver's license expire last year, because I thought I had through the end of the month of my birthday to renew it, when it actually expired on my birthday. And even though it was just a matter of a couple of days, in order to get the license re-issued, I had to show either a certified birth certificate or a passport, though I think that was more just for positive proof of identity than for establishing citizenship, because there were a number of other documents that also would have been acceptable.
July 27, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how Obama got his drivers license and passport, then? He sure is one clever guy, he fools the DMV, the State Department, and now all of us!
July 27, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's an interesting question. The guy who could have answered those questions, particularly the one about Obama's passport was murdered, so he won't be saying much. However, before his sad and untimely death, he was a key witness in a federal case involving one of Obama's close associates.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about the guy who placed the birth notice in the Honolulu Advertiser? Was he murdered, too? Or did he phone it in from Kenya?
July 27, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
What guy? Who placed that ad in the Hawaiian newspapers? Does anybody know besides us birthers?
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that one's easy: it was the person two years ago who knew Obama was going to win the presidency so he jumped in the time machine they keep at Area 51 and travelled back to 1960 to place the ad in the newspaper.
Simple. I defy anyone to come up with something certified to prove me wrong.
July 27, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are automatically placed there by Hawaiian Health officials as a matter of routine. The information is provided by whomever originally filling in the blanks on the COLB application.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you admit that the state of Hawaii issued a birth certificate for Barack Obama in 1961?
July 27, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard that he was murdered by the same hit-man that killed Vince Foster.
July 27, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You may have head that, but not from a "birther", I'll wager.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. The same guy who organized the Moon Landing Hoax. Though he is getting on in years at this point. Plus global warming is a myth and the Earth is only 4000 years old. And flat. And the sun goes around it.
July 27, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, sweet Jesus. Not this "murder" shit again.
July 27, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the first I've heard of this one. Who is it who is supposed to have been murdered this time?
July 27, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its Politics, period. Anything to discredit the President from either side, Dems or GOP.
For Clinton it was his escapades with other women.
For Bush it was "The GOP stole the election".
For Reagan it was his ?"Hollywood" background.
For Kennedy he was Catholic.
For Nixon he was paranoid.
And For Obama its the "Birth Certificate".
It may dog him to the end, it may fizzle out.
who knows, but every president gets "branded" with something.
For Obama there may be more to come because he is black. but so far it looks like politics as usual to me.
July 27, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Claiming that Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster and was involved in a cocaine trafficking conspiracy is hardly the same thing as Reagan being from "Hollywood".
And FYI, the tapes and Watergate pretty much prove that Nixon was indeed paranoid and in case you were unsure, Kennedy was Catholic. Those "brands" were true. Unless you truly believe that Obama was born in Kenya, then I'm not sure your comparison holds up.
Not everything is relative.
July 27, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody ever claimed that Nixon, Kennedy, Reagan, or Clinton were not legitimately elected presidents.
There was contention over Bush's election in 2000, but that was based on real events, not made-up paranoia.
No, this "birther" nonsense is a whole 'nuther kettle of fish. It is not "politics as usual."
July 27, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
He hasn't fooled all of us, not by a long shot. Just you libs.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's fun when birthers come around. They say the silliest things. There is no state in the nation that "requires" a birth certificate for a driver's license. U.S. Passport or SSN # (on the original card, or in most states on a tax return) are primary ID and all that is required. If you don't have either of those, most states require 2 forms of "secondary" ID which can include a birth certificate, DL from another state, Homeland Security ID card, etc...
Naturalization laws of 1961 only deal with the children of those seeking naturalization. Since no one is arguing that Mama Obama was a furrener, bringing it up makes you look stupid.
July 27, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Texas requires a birth certificate, but not the long form one or whatever it is the birthers demand of Obama. A COLB will suffice.
July 27, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest checking on that:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/driver_licensing_control/identificationrequirements.htm
the relevent part regarding PRIMARY identification:
"These items are complete within themselves and require no supporting instruments: These documents must contain the applicant's complete name and full date of birth."
Types of primary accepted: Texas Driver License, unexpired U.S. Passport, U.S. Citizenship certificate or certificate of naturalization, Unexpired DHS ID card (green card, etc.), Foriegn passport AND proof of legal temp. immigration, Unexpired military ID.
July 27, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
They kept telling me to bring a birth certificate. In any event, those other options require a birth certificate to get, so we are sort of back to square one.
But Texas will take a Certificate of Live Birth, or some other form of certification from the appropriate department from whichever state in which you were born. You don't have to have the original document created on the day you were born(or shortly thereafter). So the Birther's argument that some states require a birth certificate (assuming it's true) is specious in light of the fact that those states that do require one (or effectively require one) will accept a Certificate of Live Birth.
And this argument is consistent with a common theme we've seen in many of the Birther's arguments: Assuming their points are true, it doesn't change the fact that Obama still qualifies to be President. Even if he was born in Kenya. Unless they are also arguing that Ann Dunham is not his mom. I have yet to see that claim made, but I'm sure it's out there, or on it's way.
July 27, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should add: Obama has produced a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth, we've all seen it. So he could get his driver's license in whatever states require a birth certificate. Or at least he could in Texas.
I am still waiting for a davidfarrar to provide a list of states that require the original. Not holding my breath. . .
July 27, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
A "Certificate of Live Birth" IS a birth certificate.
I suspect that what some people may be confused about is the document with the footprints on it that is given to the parents by the hospital. That is not a document that is accepted as an official birth certificate.
July 27, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
After 9/11 and the Homeland Security Act was passed, you are required to present a certified copy of your birth certificate to change your diver's license from one state to the next. I know it just happened to be as recently as three years ago.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really, I changed my license from a state on one coast to the other since 9/11 and I didn't have to show my birth certificate. Oh, that's right, I'm an angry white guy. Wow, making up laws as well. Oh, that's right, that's the repuke way. Just make crap up, just like the king and darth vader did for 8 years.
July 27, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not true. Not true at all.
You said Chester Arthur and Obama were the only presidents whose parents were not born in the US.
Are you ready to admit you were dead wrong or shall you continue to make a fool of yourself?
July 27, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, try again.
From the Connecticut DMV:
Identification: You must present your current out of state license, which must be surrendered at the time a Connecticut license is issued, plus your Certified Birth Certificate (hospital issued certificates are not acceptable) or a valid Passport.
From the California DMV:
State law requires every applicant for an original California identification (ID) card and driver license to show verification of birth date and proof of legal presence within the United States to help safeguard the accuracy and integrity of departmental documents.
If your current name no longer matches the name on your birth date/legal presence document, see "True Full Name" and "How to Change Your Name" for more information.
Only the original or a certified copy of one of the following documents is acceptable:
US Birth Certificate
US Certificate or Report of Birth Abroad
Federal Proof of Indian Blood Degree
INS American Indian Card
Birth Certificate or passport issued from a US Territory
US Passport
OK, that's two states. Try again, ok?
July 27, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now from the "pulling shit out my ass" department...
I too have changed my driver's license post Homeland Security Act TWICE. Don't have my birth certificate. Couldn't even begin to tell you where it is (deep in a file at my still-living parents house maybe?)
The Federal Gevernment has NOTHING to say about STATE driver's licenses. It's not in the HSA. (Try reading it or even ctrl+f the text for what you claim "0" on driver "0" on drivers, "0" on license, "0" on drivers license) You're full of shit and you've been caught.
July 27, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. From the GA DMV website:
http://www.dds.ga.gov/drivers/DLdata.aspx?con=1744173714&ty=dl
So, while a certificate is an acceptable form of ID, it is not the only form of ID.
Personally, I think all the raging liberals around here are in on the conspiracy.
July 27, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't be serious.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but no. Why should I take your word for it?
I would like to see the original copy filed by the state and then I would like affadavits of all those alive at the time attesting that they, in fact, saw the form that was sent to the newspaper. In addition, I would like to see affadavits from those people working at the newspaper who were there when said forms arrived. Until then, I will continue to believe that this is all a conspiracy involving Area 51 and a time machine.
I now have my fingers in my ears and I'm yelling "la, la, la, la, la...."
July 27, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry...this was meant as a reply to your post about the newspaper announcement.
As far as this post is concerned, what am I not serious about? You claimed that a birth certificate was required to obtain a drivers license when someone was already licensed in another state. The website from the GA DMV clearly states that that is not the case, meaning that you're totally full of crap.
July 27, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever Texas requires, short or long forms, Obama has done neither. All his campaign has done to date is post a jpg on a website and allowed two FactCheck reporters 15 minutes to photograph a document. That's it. Obama, himself, has never acknowledged that these pictorials were even his. And even the jpg that Obama's campaign posted on their website has since been taken down as soon as forgery allegations have come to light by more and more respectable and highly qualified forensic document experts.
One of the first points of agreement between all of these experts is that there is no way to authenticate a document through a jpg representation on a website, or from photographs.
So Obama has failed to do what millions of Americans are ask everyday to do, bring in some documentarey evidence that will prove you are who you say you are.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the issues about the "birthers" that bothers many Americans is the fact that they are required to "show" their certified copy of their long-form birth certificate simply to get their driver's license changed from one state to another.
I've lived in five states: New York, California, Mississippi, Massachusetts and Connecticut. I've never had to show my birth certificate when exchanging drivers' licenses. Never. So which states were you referring to?
July 27, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...his foreign travels, apparently under a foreign passport..."
Where in the world is this coming from? Are you referring to his travel to Pakistan during a time in which Americans were legally traveling to Pakistan? A travel advisory means that travelers should be careful; it does not mean that no one can travel there.
July 27, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was NO ban on Americans traveling to Pakistan in 1981 or since. This according to the US State Department.
Also, if there was a ban on US travel to Pakistan in 1981, why would the NYT Travel section publish an article on what to do when you visit Pakistan?
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/travel/lahore-a-survivor-with-a-bittersweet-history.html?sec=travel&spon=&pagewanted=1
July 27, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You lost me at Obama's "Indonesian adoption."
July 27, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Farrar, Obama HAS presented his documentation to officials. The state of Hawaii OFFICIALLY confirmed his birth there. The GOP governor of Hawaii OFFICIALLY confirmed his birth there. Two Hawaiian newspapers recorded the event in 1961.
Obama has been checked out by the FBI and the Secret Service. He has the highest security clearance in the country. The McCain oppo research crew checked him out. No one found anything to even remotely call his citizenship into question.
Factcheck.org reported that they have seen the documentation. Hawaii, BTW, went to an all eletronic system in 2001, and no longer have the files for ANY of their citizens for easy access. Obama, contrary to the birthers' complaints, has ALREADY gone to extraordinary lengths, which have NEVER been asked of other presidents, to prove his citizenship.
It's a done deal. It's over. He's a citizen. He proved it. It's official. He has a passport, the highest security clearance in the country, and there are no questions about his citizenship from any OFFICIAL source.
I truly, truly hope that Obama doesn't blink. I will be very disappointed in him if he gives you morons the time of day. Why should he? You've convinced yourself that there is a conspiracy going on, some sort of dastardly plot, otherwise the mountains of evidence would have satisfied you.
At this point, I think it's safe to say, that if Obama actually went to a birthers' house, knocked on the door, was invited downstairs into the dungeon, could get past the swastikas on the wall and the pictures of Hitler in drag, and handed said birther THE copy of his long form birth certificate, said birther would see all of that as just one more part of the conspiracy.
Obama should NOT fall for it.
July 27, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK you pathetic tool, riddle me this then: If Obama, like the other Americans you reference above, had to show his birth certificate to get his driver's license transferred (since he's lived in multiple states in his driving years) and obtain his passport, which you skipped, then has that question not been settled?
Or are you simply blathering on for the bloggular equivalent of hearing yourself talk?
There are no realistic alternatives, you realize.
July 27, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect that if you really want to see the certificate, you could apply to the state of Hawaii Divn. of Public Records, send in whatever the cost is and maybe they'd print your very own certified copy for you. Then you could frame it and hang it on the wall.
Hmmm. Natural-born citizen ... does that mean someone born by Caesarian section couldn't even be a citizen? By the birthers' twisted logic, I guess not.
July 28, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
THE BIRTHERS ARE EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR REPUBLICANS!!!
July 27, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
"his foreign born father"
What about his American Mother who had resided in the U.S. all her life before giving birth to him? I had a foreign-born father and I am still an American.
I can see you wrote this to attempt to be "reasonable" but it's a just a cover for the fact that you can't stand the fact that a Black Man, with Foreign as well as Amercian roots for a change, is President of the United States.
I won't say "Get over it." I say STFU
July 27, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
This has nothing to do with the color of a man's skin anymore than it did with the color of John McCain's skin when his credentials were challenged. To imply anything different would be racist in itself.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, the old "I'm rubber and you are glue..." you ARE a clever puppy.
"To make an accusation of racism is to be a racist."
So clever.
But your avatar fits... all mouth.
July 27, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know this is flippingly obvious but if Obama was named Barry O'Bama and his late father was a white Irish guy studying in Hawaii when his son was born, would we even be talking about this?
July 27, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course we wouldn't.
And this needs to be pointed out, again and again and again.
This is nothing but ugly racism.
July 27, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. Heck you don't have to even be Irish, just Republican. As I said, John McCain's presidential credentials were summarily called into question. And what did McCain do, he promptly presented a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate to every member of the Senate.
If Obama would follow such a path, I am sure we can clear this up pronto!
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, but he was born in panama. And I am sure that's false anyway. He didn't show anybody squat and no body challenged his ability to be president even though he was born in panama. Oh, that's right he was an angry white guy, just like you and me. We're in a special club. Minorities need not apply.
July 27, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what did McCain do, he promptly presented a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate to every member of the Senate.
Really? Care to provide a link to this? I am unable to find a single news story detailing how McCain settled this issue by presenting a copy to every member of the Senate.
July 27, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. John McCain's credentials were NEVER called into question.
2. EVERYBODY readily accepted that McCain was born were he claimed -- in Panama.
3. The dispute was over whether a person born in Panama could be president.
4. John McCain never showed his birth certificate long or short because his birth place was not in dispute.
5. The Senate passed a law saying that he was eligible to be president.
6. Birthers are calling Obama a liar. No one has ever claimed McCain is lying about where he was born.
July 27, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
My children are 3-years and 20-months-old. My youngest, my daugher, is adopted from China. We got a birth certificate for my 3-year-old son soon after he was born. It's the only copy I have and we got it soon after we returned from the hospital. I have to assume that it's an "original". We got my daughter's a few months after we returned from China. Both were issued in the same state - NJ. And they are virtually identical. The only difference is that my son's list the town in NJ where the hospital in which he was born is located. My daughter's birthplace is listed as China. (If Obama was born in Kenya, why doesn't his Hawaii certificate list "Kenya" as his birthplace, just as my daughter's - even though it's an NJ certificate - lists China as hers?) Neither includes the hospital where they were born, neither includes the attending physician's name or signature, both include the seal of the state of NJ and both are titled, "Certificate of Birth".
And they both look a lot like the publicly released copy of Obama's Hawaii birth certificate. I'd have to double check but I don't think my or my wife's birth certificate names a hospital or doctor and were both pushing 40. And neither of us has has any idea here our "original" birth certificates are...they were lost years ago. The copies we have now were provided recently by our respective birth states, based on digital records and reproduced using those records on current stationery.
Do these people even know what state issued birth certificates - or marriage certificates, or adoption decrees, etc. - look like? Maybe the lady at the Mike Castle Q&A who kept hers sealed in a ziploc back from the day of her birth has one that looks different but I think that the document that these people are looking for - signed in triplicate (and in blood) by the attending physician, listing the hospital name and room number, sealed in wax - just doesn't exist in any state.
Once again, if our president were a white dude, would we even be having this conversation if all of the other circumstances were the same?
July 27, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I could answer your questions other than to point out: I am not sure your adopted daughters would be able to meet the requirements to be President of the United States either.
But there are statutory provisions in the case of adoptions as it relates to U.S. citizenship. But as to the "natural born" provision of the Constitution, as far as my understanding of the term goes -- that would be an uphill argument to make, but not an impossible one.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You really are stupid. Of course children born in China and adopted here would be ineligible to be President. It WOULD be an impossible argument to make. I don't think the person you were replying to meant to imply that his or her kids could be President, they were talking about details of birth certificates.
July 27, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've never accused the birthers of being smart or of having good reading comprehension skills...they are just skilled in repeating conspiracy theories published on places like WorldNetDaily.
My son, by the way, is a natural born citizen, born to two US citizens who were both born in the US. My daughter was adopted from China. And the point I was making as that their ORIGINAL US birth certificates are exactly the same, except for the birthplace. My son's is listed as NJ, my daughter's is listed as China. If Obama was born in Kenyna and, like my daughter, was able to get a birth certificate from his US state of residence, why didn't it list "Kenya" as his birthplace, just as my daughter's lists "China". Just because a state issues a birth certificate to a foreign born citizen (my daughter became a citizen the moment she stepped off the plane from China) doesn't mean they would list a city in that state - for example, Honolulu - as the birthplace.
My second point was that neither my kid's birth certificates nor my of my wife's lists the hospital in which we were born nor the attending physician. This is understandable for my daughter - she was abandoned outside of a factory as a newborn - but my wife, my son, and I were born in US cities in US hospitals - yet our birth certificates do not list the hospital or the doctor who delivered us...and they certainly aren't signed by that doctor.
My final point was the my children's birth certificates are original and they look almost exactly the same as Obama's. As for me and my wife, what we have are certified copies of our birth certificates (issued by the states of our birth, like Obama's) based on information stored digitally from our originals. The originals are parents obtained after we were born were lost years ago and the originals the state had on file were likely thrown out after they moved all of the information from paper to digital, as most states have done these days.
Clear enough for you, birther?
July 27, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The law in Hawaii says that Obama's birth certificate cannot be released without Obama's permission. So if Obama wishes his birth certificate to be released, Hawaian Health officials would certainly comply. Yet to date, Obama has not seen fit not to release a certified "copy" of his birth certificate.
Secondly, all the Republican Governor of Hawaii and Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health have attested to is the fact that, indeed, Obama does have a long-form birth certificate and that it is on file in the State of Hawaii; that it? If you don't believe me, read Dr. Fukino's statement yourself:
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
The naturalization laws in 1961 prevented young women of a certain age from bestowing U.S. citizenship by rights of birth. This was done for their protection, if for nothing else. Obama's mother was too young to pass the right of U.S. citizenship on to Obama if he was, in fact, born outside of the U.S.
As far as showing your birth certificate to obtain your social security card goes, with all due respect; we are talking about meeting Constitutional requirements to occupy the highest office in the land, the Presidency of the United States, not obtaining one's social security card or having a passport issued to you.
Lastly, for the record: Birthers are only asking Obama to present a certified "copy" of his long-form birth certificate, not his original birth certificate.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh brother. Go crawl back under your rock. That is not accurate about the hawaii law. Incidentally, everything is computerized now and has been since 2000 in Hawaii.
Here is a classic to point out the racist absurdity of this nonsense.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/23/jon-stewart-eviscerates-t_n_243383.html
July 27, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. The only thing worse than a admitted racist is a cowardly racist. In other words, a birther who thinks there is a valid point and is too cowardly to admit that they are really just a racist. As is obvious by their comments.
July 27, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note to davidfarrar:
The President of the United States is a black man.
Deal with it.
July 27, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you need to get a hobby, like knitting or bird watching or volunteering at a homeless shelter, something that wouldn't keep you awake at night worrying about idotic conspiracy theories that occupy your every waking moment. You've obviously got too much time on your hands and you're filling it with fabricated details on subjects you know nothing about.
There is NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING in the 1961 natualization law that says his mother (who was an American citizen) was too young to bestow citizenship on her child. I don't know where you pulled that one from. Out of your ass I suppose. She was born in this country and she gave birth to Obama in Hawaii.
Really, get a hobby. It will help fill that void in your life.
July 27, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The act applies to U.S. citizens giveng birth outside of the U.S.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And therefore doesn't apply in this instance.
July 27, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And even if it applied, it would not bar Obama from being a US citizen by right of birth. If I recall correctly what I have read about the law that was in effect at the time, it required that if only one of the parents of a child born outside the US was a US citizen, then that parent had to have resided in the United States for five years, at least two of them after the age of 14, for the child to be considered a US citizen by right of birth. And Obama's mother would have fit those criteria, even had she given birth to him in Kenya, which there is no documented evidence to suggest happened anyway, and plenty of documented evidence that he was born in Honolulu.
July 27, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comments, and your steadfast albeit pigheaded defense of them, reminds me of something my father used to say, "Never wrestle with a pig. You'll get dirty and the pig likes it".
Good luck with you completely insane, totally wrong crackpot theory. We live in the best country on earth, one that allows people like you to say and think what they want. I just don't want to get down in the slop and argue with you about it.
July 27, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Republican governor of Hawaii has in fact verified that the president was born in Hawaii. The hospital Obama was born in recently celebrated their 100th anniversary and included Obama as one of their children born in their hospital.
Are you also one of those birthers that is falsely claiming that Michelle was disbarred or forced to discontinue practicing law? Because birthers can't understand the nuance of someone who is an attorney who chooses to use her legal education in other ways than to practice law in the courtroom?
Birthers are ignorant racists who can't accept that they got whooped bad in the presidential election. Get used to it, because 2012 is going to be a repeat.
July 27, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's also convinced that the Whitey Tape is going to resurface any day now.
July 27, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Explain this to me, please.
No State government will allow anyone access to YOUR certificate of live birth. Only you have access to it and any government function within the US as long as they have your permission. And your access is only a certified copy of the original, not the original - you aren't allowed to get near it. It's all done to protect your privacy and keep others away who might try to use your COLB without your knowledge or permission.
Secondly, COLB's have never been a requirement for public office. One would think if Obama was a Senator from Illinois, the COLB was a done deal and not an issue, especially since he wasn't born in Illinois.
Finally, the foreign passport lacks any substance - it's all conjecture. If there were such a passport, I guarantee you the State Department would be well aware of it. It's the one item a person has in their possession that is carefully managed and tracked not only within the US but in foreign countries as well. If there's a question at a border crossing, the nearest Embassy, staffed with State Department personnel, can pull up information on you in a heartbeat.
The birther movement is nothing more than a masquerade to hide the fact there some white people realize within 10 to 15 years, they'll be a minority and the Latinos and Blacks with be the controlling majority.
July 27, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Constitutional requirements differ between those required for Congress and those for the Presidency.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no "long-form" birth certificate in Hawaii. You're demanding that Obama produce what does not exist. What is issued in Hawaii is exactly what was displayed on the web. And that was a scan of a certified copy.
July 27, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hawaiian health officials had stated they have his long form birth certificate on record.
In any event, since when have to known any government agency to destroy state records?
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 27, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hawaiian officials have stated that there is no such thing as a "long form" birth certificate in their state.
Government agencies destroy records all the time, especially paper copies of records that have been digitized. Try finding an 1800 federal census record for Virginia. Try finding an 1810 federal census record for New Jersey. Try finding an 1865 state census record for the city of New York. Try finding an 1890 federal census record from anywhere in the country. There are only a fragmentary few left. The rest have been destroyed.
Believe it or not, governments do have schedules for destroying old records. There wouldn't be room to keep all of the paper otherwise.
July 27, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply