Cheat Sheet

When do you think they caught on to Alaska?

You honestly don't realize how absolutely ridiculous you sound do you? Get a life or go crawl back under your rock.

Could be? But I have a certificate stating that I was born in Saginaw (MI) at St. Mary's Hospital and that the first man that ever touched me was A.A. Claytor M.D. Where and who was the first person to touch Mr. Obama.

Conservatives love this type of argument. Remember when "the ball was in Saddam Hussein's court" to prove that he DIDN'T have weapons of mass destruction? Of course you can't prove a negative, but that didn't stop the Bush Administration from asserting over and over again that if he COULDN'T prove that it WASN'T true, then we had to assume that it was. Remember?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

Pay close attention to the "Burden of Proof" section.

pr54321, you got it all wrong. Showing a CERTIFICATE AND NOT A CERTIFICATION is proving a positive. Either Mr Obama has a CERTIFICATE or he has not. AND I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT A CERTIFICATION.

Let's look at the words: CERTIFICATE/CERTIFICATION. My BA from a respectable university is a CERTIFICATE that proves my CERTIFICATION as a Bachelor of Arts. The two words are, in most repects, interchangeable.

No, you've got it all wrong. Because Obama has already submitted proof of his citizenship, the quality of which would be accepted by any reasonable person under any other circumstances, your argument shows all the signs of BEGINNING with the assumption that his presidency is illegitimate, and it therefore demands that OBAMA, not YOU, prove YOUR allegations, that he is an illegitimate president, incorrect. That's the argument from ignorance. In other words, you're demanding evidence from Obama, meeting YOUR standards of proof, that his presidency ISN'T illegitimate. Making an illicit assertion and then raising the standard of proof each time a new piece of evidence is introduced is one of the time-honored ways of trying to destroy a political opponent.

"in this country anyhow"

More importantly, it's true logically. If you make an assertion with a burden of proof that exceeds reasonable limits, then it is your responsibility, not the accused party's, to prove the assertion. This argument, after all, isn't about a document. It's about whether Obama meets the qualifications for his office. If you assert that his proof of qualificiation is invalid, then it's your responsibility to provide evidence for your assertion. The birthers can't provide such evidence, I'm sure, and so their assertions are meaningless.

My birth certificate is a typewritten statement on hospital letterhead stating the vital stats and my parents names an birthplace. I was born in Japan during the occupation to American citizens. Are you saying I am not an American since my birth statement does not meet your criteria? It us good enough for the USA to issue me a SS number and passport.

Your argument
Is rational pr-
Therefore meaningless.

pr54311,
Let us for a moment accept your argument that the burden is on the "birther" to prove Obama is not qualified. Ultimately, the birther can only be vindicated or proven wrong by the information contained in Obama's vital records. The same records that the Hawaii director of health says he has seen.

The problem is that President Obama will not let anyone look at the vital records.

This is one Birther who would shut up if I saw doctor and hospital. Have a good one!

@dave

So should Obama placate to every fringe belief from now on?

The Hawaiian government says he is a citizen, has was born there. Why should anyone listen to nutty people who won't accept this?

You are a fruit loop if you're still harping about this tripe.

davidu94607
You demand to know the hospital and doctor. Well, the doctor who delivered me has been dead for forty years and the hospital I was born in was closed converted to condos ten years ago. My birth certificate was a daguerreotype with my footprints on it, a process no longer utilized. Birth certificates or certifications have evolved over the years, and what was valid then (technically) may not even be valid now. My children's certificates are not anywhere as charming as mine. No footprints and beautiful handwriting alas; only computer type and a blue and red mass produced seal of the District of Columbia. I am sure neither we have would pass your muster. So you be sure and have a good one, and shut the hell up !

Also davidu
I am sure you would be able to find no shortage of people who would say the condos that replaced the hospital where I was born was never a hospital. Just because THEY do not know it as anything other than condos and, they, of course, know everything. Ignorant, selfish people will do anything to hide the fact that they aren't masters of the universe.

cheenthere
I am not demanding anything. Merely stating without doctor and hospital then I wonder. Mr Obama was born in 1961 and I do not think Hawaii was using a daguerreotype at the time. It seems like you have your CERTIFICATE. My doctor has been dead for some 40 years, but there are still records in Michigian of his existence, likewise the hospital. You google my doctor's name and you will find a school with his name. The most chaming thing about my certificate is the block which states "Was mother's blood tested for shphillis?" Then you will see a type "Yes". Sadly, there is no answer just the fact the blood was tested. So if I am the wacko you think I am, at least I have an excuse.

daviddu94607
The VDRL test was still, by law, being given when I had the last of my children in 1972, and nowhere is there any mention of this test on their birth certificate issued by the District of Columbia. Their certificate is very succinct, and states that they indeed were live born ,my birth last name, and where they were born-- WDC, US. It is only slightly bigger than a SS card.That is it. This is what they took to the Dept.of State when they applied for and received a passport. Apparently the certification from the hospital is what YOU yourself are going by, not your birth certificate, since it is loaded with nonsense, including the possibility of a deep dark hidden secret (NO, you don't have an excuse, if your mother had venereal disease, you both would have been treated--the LAW then, (and since those two particular dreaded diseases are under control, no longer required) in addition to the nutty info.on who the first person to touch you was.

PS Not everybody has a doctor who has a school named after them they can trace back, and not every hospital is still in operation- why do you think the government got involved, and issued birth certificates with info. derived and certified from the then sources. There are no state archives that could possibly hold all the information that would be needed to trace this info. ergo one short concise form issued at birth by the govt. Compri- or maybe your mother got a false negative, and you do have an excuse.

You're right, David. This would be one of the largest conspiracies in our nation's history, but you're wrong about the possible explanations.

Your option one is based on a false premise: the US government, CIA and FBI have not gotten involved in this matter and wouldn't know about the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.

That point aside, here is the statement from Hawaii Health Director, Dr. Fukino, as reported by the AP:

"I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen."

This statement implies (among other things) that there are vital records on file with the state of Hawaii that contain information about Barack Obama. These are the same records that Barack Obama has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to keep from being released to the public.

Now I am not a rich or powerful man like president Obama, but even if I were, I think I would choose to release my birth certificate (vital records) to the public for two reasons:

1. If I held the highest public office in the land, I would do everything I could to assure the American people that I met the minimum qualifications to hold that office.

2. Releasing the document requires much less time, energy and money than keeping it concealed.

Any rational person would do the same, unless of course the negative consequences of releasing the certificate outweighed the cost of concealing it.

We can safely conclude from the president's decision to conceal his vital documents that the cost to conceal his birth certificate (and transcripts, school work, college applications etc.) are less than the negative consequences of releasing them.

This begs the question: what could those consequences possibly be?

What is funny about david's posts? He apparently is extremely troubled by his birth information, especially since he is still wondering why his mother had a test for a venereal disease, which did not state the outcome of the test. He does not seem to be aware of history at the time he was born, and why his mother was tested. Poor soul. So he is demanding that the President do something to cure his problems by buying into the birther bs.

To clarify David appears troubled by his own birth information that he is in possession of, not President Obama's. I noted no sarcasm in his posts, after all, he is one of many who are still calling out for the President to put forth what the President already has, and then goes on and on demanding more. If he is joking, then all of the "birthers" have been joking, and now O'Reilly, Coulter et all are backing off, oh, and they have been joking all along too. Puleeze., but not surprising.

NDM1973....your comment is the funniest i've read all day.

Ritarita
Good to hear you. And such a funny post !!! What a good belly laugh.

Isn't that strange? How did ole dubya get in office anyway?

Ritarita
Carole65 already crowing that O'Reilly and Coulter down, and Malkin too, but who knew about her, only Carole. In five hours flat. Imagine.

Think TDoff comment tongue in cheek, GVidal.