(03-28-2011 01:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  That's a start...keep researching...

SHould it really be that hard, with certifiable documentation, to determine where somebody was born? My daughter has to provide a real birth certificate to get a learners permit

again... it's not about the validity... it's about the charade. you guys with your constant, "if you don't see it, I won't help you" or "find it yourself" are only following the same unnecessarily evasive path.

Of course you get the lefter slant from CBS. But hey, Obama is making it a big issue.

Donald Trump keeps pushing "birther" claims

March 28, 2011 3:33 PM

Donald Trump on Monday again espoused a "birther"-style suspicions regarding whether President Obama was born in the United States, telling Fox News he was "really concerned" about Obama's citizenship, and adding that "I'm starting to wonder myself whether or not [Obama] was born in this country."

Trump, who has in recent months been openly (if somewhat dubiously) toying with a presidential bid, also brought up the birther issue on a recent episode of "The View," where he tussled with co-host Whoopi Goldberg over his call for Mr. Obama to produce his birth certificate.

And he said earlier this month that "The reason I have a little doubt, just a little, is because he grew up and nobody knew him."

"If I got the nomination, if I decide to run, you may go back and interview people from my kindergarten. They'll remember me. Nobody comes forward. Nobody knows who he is until later in his life. It's very strange," he said. The comments came despite the existence of numerous, easy-to-find interviews with people from Mr. Obama's childhood.

In a Monday interview on the Fox News show "Fox & Friends," Trump said that in the days since he initially raised doubt over Obama's origins, "a lot of facts are emerging, and I am starting to wonder myself whether he was born in this country."

"They give you a certificate of live birth which anybody can get. Just walk into the hospital. This guy either has a birth certificate or he doesn't. I didn't think it was such a big deal, but I will tell you, it is turning out to be a very big deal," Trump said. "People are calling me from all over saying please don't give up on this issue. If you weren't born in this country, you cannot be President."

Trump went on to claim that, "You have no doctors that remember, you have no nurses -- this is the President of the United States -- that remember. Why can't he produce a birth certificate?"

Trump's comments conflict with reality in a number of ways. For starters, he seems to suggest that Mr. Obama has not put out his certificate of live birth, the document provided by the state of Hawaii when a birth certificate is requested. Yet Mr. Obama's campaign released a copy of his birth certificate in 2008, and it has been publicly available ever since.

Experts have also verified the authenticity of Mr. Obama's birth certificate, and disputes over his citizenship have been thoroughly debunked by a number of experts and journalists. Like many birthers, Trump has apparently chosen to simply disregard the overwhelming evidence that Mr. Obama was born in the United States, including newspaper announcements of his birth.

During the Fox interview, Trump stood up for his fellow birthers -- after noting that he "was a great student at the best college in the country."

"I don't like the term 'the birthers.' I think it's unfair to them," he said. "These are people that want to see a birth certificate. They want to know the president was born here."

Also on Monday, Trump released his birth certificate to Newsmax. "It took me one hour to get my birth certificate. It's inconceivable that after four years of questioning, the President still hasn't produced his birth certificate," he said. "I'm just asking President Obama to show the public his birth certificate. Why's he making an issue out of this?"

CBS Full Story Pict. and Links

Quote:Donald Trump keeps pushing "birther" claims

March 28, 2011 3:33 PM

Donald Trump on Monday again espoused a "birther"-style suspicions regarding whether President Obama was born in the United States, telling Fox News he was "really concerned" about Obama's citizenship, and adding that "I'm starting to wonder myself whether or not [Obama] was born in this country."

First of all, the term "birther" is straight out of the Democratic lexicon. Unbiased press shouldn't use this term. It is a slight to people with legitimate questions about his honesty on the issue.

Quote:"They give you a certificate of live birth which anybody can get. Just walk into the hospital.

...

Trump's comments conflict with reality in a number of ways. For starters, he seems to suggest that Mr. Obama has not put out his certificate of live birth, the document provided by the state of Hawaii when a birth certificate is requested. Yet Mr. Obama's campaign released a copy of his birth certificate in 2008, and it has been publicly available ever since.

Is the second paragraph in any way an accurate description of the first? Not even close.... and a certificate of live birth is NOT the document the state gives you when you request a birth certificate. My mother was born there. When we renewed/replaced her lost passport, we requested and received a birth certificate, not a certificate of live birth. By the way, you can request an amended "certificate of birth" if (among other things) you had a legal name change, if your parents names changed, or if you were adopted and have a registered birth certificate on file. Something tells me THIS, or something related to it is what all the fuss is about. Hawaii.gov.

Quote:Experts have also verified the authenticity of Mr. Obama's birth certificate, and disputes over his citizenship have been thoroughly debunked by a number of experts and journalists. Like many birthers, Trump has apparently chosen to simply disregard the overwhelming evidence that Mr. Obama was born in the United States, including newspaper announcements of his birth.

First of all... unless I've missed it, NOBODY has verified the authenticity of his birth certificate.... because he hasn't produced it. If he had, this issue would be dead. Last I heard, the governor of Hawaii said he was going to reveal it to end this whole thing, then mysteriously decided not to? WTH??

Second, a newspaper announcement of his birth isn't a legal document.... and is the only specific evidence mentioned. There are "experts and journalists" who have debunked the moon landing and the JFK assasination.



and the BEST line

Quote: "It took me one hour to get my birth certificate. It's inconceivable that after four years of questioning, the President still hasn't produced his birth certificate," he said. "I'm just asking President Obama to show the public his birth certificate. Why's he making an issue out of this?"

BELIEVE me, other than Franks and Pelosi, BIDEN is the LAST person I want in the WH. I sure as HECK don't want him out of office by something like this. I just don't like being lied to... over and over and over and over again... especially by someone who promised transparency over and over. It's insulting.

(03-28-2011 11:39 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And you guys take the work of James O'Keefe at face value. I can barely keep a straight fact typing this...LOL

You sure like to divert attention away from the people and what they said that O'Keefe caught on tape.

Because he can't be trusted! Would you go to court or bet your house with his reputation? What about Michael Moore. Do you find his reporting credible?

And SOAF, before 1972 the first three digits of SSN's were issued in the state YOU FILED YOUR REGISTRATION IN. Not the state of residence. It is very likely that Obama mailed in his application to a Connecticut office of the SSA. Possibly while he was being educated in a Madrassa

Also, the SSA does not reissue numbers and they only allow for number changes on extreme rare occasions. So for Obama to have thirty some as these wacko's claim you really have to suspend all rational thought and fall in line with the Taitz loons. You have to realize how incredibly stupid that makes you look.

(03-29-2011 08:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Because he can't be trusted! Would you go to court or bet your house with his reputation? What about Michael Moore. Do you find his reporting credible?

I don't take the work of Michael Moore or James O'Keefe or anyone else at face value. There's a lot can go on between what goes into a camera/recorder and what ends up on screen.

But when either one shows me someone speaking clearly and unequivocally, and it is verified who that person is, and the video does not appear to have been altered to make the person appear to say words other than those he or she actually said, then I'm going to conclude that the person in the video said the words I'm hearing, and that those words mean what a straightforward interpretation of the English language would suggest they mean. By that standard, both the ACORN folks and the NPR folks have incriminated themselves.

If you can explain to me how they didn't really say those things, then you have something. But if you can't explain that, then the fact that it went through James O'Keefe's camera and editing, or through Michael Moore's, means nothing. If you want to argue that things were taken out of context, than provide the correct context and explain how that changes the meaning of the plain English words that were spoken.

Again, those ACORN fools on the tape were fools and several were fired. With O'Keefe I just can't be sure that the questions they were answering to on the tape were the actual questions asked.

Can I prove it? No, but with the guys pattern and associations I just can't trust him...sorry.

Was ACORN perfect? Far from it. However, they were never found by anyone to have done anything illegal in the O'Keefe 'sting'. I know...splitting hairs, but that is a fact.

(03-29-2011 11:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Again, those ACORN fools on the tape were fools and several were fired. With O'Keefe I just can't be sure that the questions they were answering to on the tape were the actual questions asked
Can I prove it? No, but with the guys pattern and associations I just can't trust him...sorry.
Was ACORN perfect? Far from it. However, they were never found by anyone to have done anything illegal in the O'Keefe 'sting'. I know...splitting hairs, but that is a fact.

Postulate what question they COULD have been asking that would have made their comments appropriate. Complaining about "taking out of context" is valid only when the context would have mattered.

And the statement that they were not found to have done anything illegal is meaningless when you consider the the agency charged to investigate them (justice department) is clearly playing partisan political games. Governments seldom find the acts of favored partisans to be illegal, because they seldom investigate them thoroughly or objectively.

(03-29-2011 08:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Because he can't be trusted! Would you go to court or bet your house with his reputation? What about Michael Moore. Do you find his reporting credible?

And SOAF, before 1972 the first three digits of SSN's were issued in the state YOU FILED YOUR REGISTRATION IN. Not the state of residence. It is very likely that Obama mailed in his application to a Connecticut office of the SSA. Possibly while he was being educated in a Madrassa

Also, the SSA does not reissue numbers and they only allow for number changes on extreme rare occasions. So for Obama to have thirty some as these wacko's claim you really have to suspend all rational thought and fall in line with the Taitz loons. You have to realize how incredibly stupid that makes you look.

Obama's application for SS was sent in after 1972. He was born August 4, 1961, he was 11 yrs old in 1972. Children did not apply for their SS card until 17 or 18 when they complied with Selective Service.

Dismissing and marginalizing people as loons for their opinion, make you look like a professional left tool. All these questions cannot be explained away. Just as the slight of hand of the lefters in the above article where the Certificate of Live Birth and the Birth Certificate are being used interchangeably. That's pure deception. Another lefter slight of hand, pointing to the Birth Announcement in a newspaper as proof. When all that needed is a phone call for that to happen. Would a birth announcement be good for proof of your birth, and WTF, why should the American People have to rely on a birth announcement as some far-fetched proof? No man, we are purposefully being deceived. The reason is unknown to us.

(03-29-2011 01:58 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(03-29-2011 08:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Because he can't be trusted! Would you go to court or bet your house with his reputation? What about Michael Moore. Do you find his reporting credible?

And SOAF, before 1972 the first three digits of SSN's were issued in the state YOU FILED YOUR REGISTRATION IN. Not the state of residence. It is very likely that Obama mailed in his application to a Connecticut office of the SSA. Possibly while he was being educated in a Madrassa

Also, the SSA does not reissue numbers and they only allow for number changes on extreme rare occasions. So for Obama to have thirty some as these wacko's claim you really have to suspend all rational thought and fall in line with the Taitz loons. You have to realize how incredibly stupid that makes you look.

Obama's application for SS was sent in after 1972. He was born August 4, 1961, he was 11 yrs old in 1972. Children did not apply for their SS card until 17 or 18 when they complied with Selective Service.

Dismissing and marginalizing people as loons for their opinion, make you look like a professional left tool. All these questions cannot be explained away. Just as the slight of hand of the lefters in the above article where the Certificate of Live Birth and the Birth Certificate are being used interchangeably. That's pure deception. Another lefter slight of hand, pointing to the Birth Announcement in a newspaper as proof. When all that needed is a phone call for that to happen. Would a birth announcement be good for proof of your birth, and WTF, why should the American People have to rely on a birth announcement as some far-fetched proof? No man, we are purposefully being deceived. The reason is unknown to us.

You do know that is about 80% of your post volume right?

(03-29-2011 02:04 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(03-29-2011 01:58 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(03-29-2011 08:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Because he can't be trusted! Would you go to court or bet your house with his reputation? What about Michael Moore. Do you find his reporting credible?

And SOAF, before 1972 the first three digits of SSN's were issued in the state YOU FILED YOUR REGISTRATION IN. Not the state of residence. It is very likely that Obama mailed in his application to a Connecticut office of the SSA. Possibly while he was being educated in a Madrassa

Also, the SSA does not reissue numbers and they only allow for number changes on extreme rare occasions. So for Obama to have thirty some as these wacko's claim you really have to suspend all rational thought and fall in line with the Taitz loons. You have to realize how incredibly stupid that makes you look.

Obama's application for SS was sent in after 1972. He was born August 4, 1961, he was 11 yrs old in 1972. Children did not apply for their SS card until 17 or 18 when they complied with Selective Service.

Dismissing and marginalizing people as loons for their opinion, make you look like a professional left tool. All these questions cannot be explained away. Just as the slight of hand of the lefters in the above article where the Certificate of Live Birth and the Birth Certificate are being used interchangeably. That's pure deception. Another lefter slight of hand, pointing to the Birth Announcement in a newspaper as proof. When all that needed is a phone call for that to happen. Would a birth announcement be good for proof of your birth, and WTF, why should the American People have to rely on a birth announcement as some far-fetched proof? No man, we are purposefully being deceived. The reason is unknown to us.

You do know that is about 80% of your post volume right?

There is no deception in my posts. 80%? are you counting or did you pull that number out of you a$$. Someday you will quit blaming your parents for your shortcomings and find that truth and faith were always not so far away.

Why...answer the question why? Then answer the question how? How many people are involved...why are they involved...for how long have then been involved.

Dude, you are not thinking rationally here?

You have no clue when his registration was submitted or where. I offer a plausible reason and you immediately ignore it!

And how can you explain the SSA issuing him multiple SSN's? He filed numerous tax returns before he was a senator. You do realize the IRS checks SSN's don't you? Can you explain any of this?

Again. This is making you look like a total loon when I know you are not!

(03-29-2011 02:27 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(03-29-2011 02:04 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(03-29-2011 01:58 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(03-29-2011 08:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Because he can't be trusted! Would you go to court or bet your house with his reputation? What about Michael Moore. Do you find his reporting credible?

And SOAF, before 1972 the first three digits of SSN's were issued in the state YOU FILED YOUR REGISTRATION IN. Not the state of residence. It is very likely that Obama mailed in his application to a Connecticut office of the SSA. Possibly while he was being educated in a Madrassa

Also, the SSA does not reissue numbers and they only allow for number changes on extreme rare occasions. So for Obama to have thirty some as these wacko's claim you really have to suspend all rational thought and fall in line with the Taitz loons. You have to realize how incredibly stupid that makes you look.

Obama's application for SS was sent in after 1972. He was born August 4, 1961, he was 11 yrs old in 1972. Children did not apply for their SS card until 17 or 18 when they complied with Selective Service.

Dismissing and marginalizing people as loons for their opinion, make you look like a professional left tool. All these questions cannot be explained away. Just as the slight of hand of the lefters in the above article where the Certificate of Live Birth and the Birth Certificate are being used interchangeably. That's pure deception. Another lefter slight of hand, pointing to the Birth Announcement in a newspaper as proof. When all that needed is a phone call for that to happen. Would a birth announcement be good for proof of your birth, and WTF, why should the American People have to rely on a birth announcement as some far-fetched proof? No man, we are purposefully being deceived. The reason is unknown to us.

You do know that is about 80% of your post volume right?

There is no deception in my posts. 80%? are you counting or did you pull that number out of you a$$. Someday you will quit blaming your parents for your shortcomings and find that truth and faith were always not so far away.

WHAT????

(03-26-2011 05:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Just accept Owl...there is just nothing there...no dirt...he was just a student like most kids in college.

Yea most college kids sue to keep their transcripts or thesis work from being released...

Hell just the other day I had to take a news organization to court because some work I did on optical computer processing might have been released to the general public!

(03-29-2011 03:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Why...answer the question why? Then answer the question how? How many people are involved...why are they involved...for how long have then been involved.

Dude, you are not thinking rationally here?

You have no clue when his registration was submitted or where. I offer a plausible reason and you immediately ignore it!

And how can you explain the SSA issuing him multiple SSN's? He filed numerous tax returns before he was a senator. You do realize the IRS checks SSN's don't you? Can you explain any of this?

Again. This is making you look like a total loon when I know you are not!

Are they all SSN's?? I know that I was given a different tax-id to use for my nanny... and my wife's business has another one.

Why would you assume all the SSN's were actually his?

(03-29-2011 11:43 PM)Claw Wrote:  Why would you assume all the SSN's were actually his?

From what I gather, they are not. The supposed 30+ is just a bunch of people in a records database known to have a ton of errors and includes people with similar but different names.

Again, it's all ridiculous. One person using 30+ different SSN's for something would surely be found by either the IRS or the SSA as they use this number to sort everything.

Look... We shouldn't be having this conversation. It is CRAZY to be having a conversation about something as trivial as someone's birth certificate and Social Security numbers.

WHY are we doing it?

Because he said he'd get us out of Iraq, and we're still there.
He said he'd close Gitmo, and it's still open
He said he'd improve the economy, and things have gotten worse.
He said he'd rid the world of Nuclear weapons, and he just bombed the only country in the past 2 decades to STOP pursuing them
He said he'd get rid of "business as usual" in Washington, yet his friends keep getting contracts paying them millions

He said he'd have a transparent government...
but we can't see his birth certificate
or his college grades
or his thesis papers
and other than those he keeps seeming to do favors for, he's distanced himself from a great number of people who put him where he is

So yeah... It's STUPID that we're still talking about this.

(03-30-2011 09:56 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Look... We shouldn't be having this conversation. It is CRAZY to be having a conversation about something as trivial as someone's birth certificate and Social Security numbers.

WHY are we doing it?

Because he said he'd get us out of Iraq, and we're still there.
He said he'd close Gitmo, and it's still open
He said he'd improve the economy, and things have gotten worse.
He said he'd rid the world of Nuclear weapons, and he just bombed the only country in the past 2 decades to STOP pursuing them
He said he'd get rid of "business as usual" in Washington, yet his friends keep getting contracts paying them millions

He said he'd have a transparent government...
but we can't see his birth certificate
or his college grades
or his thesis papers
and other than those he keeps seeming to do favors for, he's distanced himself from a great number of people who put him where he is

So yeah... It's STUPID that we're still talking about this.

As I have said...His record is plenty damaging enough to get him tossed without even breaching this subject.

(03-30-2011 09:56 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Look... We shouldn't be having this conversation. It is CRAZY to be having a conversation about something as trivial as someone's birth certificate and Social Security numbers.

WHY are we doing it?

Because he said he'd get us out of Iraq, and we're still there.
He said he'd close Gitmo, and it's still open
He said he'd improve the economy, and things have gotten worse.
He said he'd rid the world of Nuclear weapons, and he just bombed the only country in the past 2 decades to STOP pursuing them
He said he'd get rid of "business as usual" in Washington, yet his friends keep getting contracts paying them millions

He said he'd have a transparent government...
but we can't see his birth certificate
or his college grades
or his thesis papers
and other than those he keeps seeming to do favors for, he's distanced himself from a great number of people who put him where he is

So yeah... It's STUPID that we're still talking about this.

Hambone:

It's politically stupid to have the conversation (Crazy) but his citizenship is not a trivial issue. I agree with Medved on this, its a no win situation

1) He does produce it in the weeks before the election which would be a publicity boom!
2) He does not produce it which is the static quo
3) Somehow its proven he was (1) born somewhere else or (2) surrendered his citizenship when he took an Indonesian passport

#3 would mean drawn out court battles well past election day and a media spinning 'should the son be guilty regarding the sins fo the father'

Best to take our lumps put in place new checks for office holders (producing a reasonable paper trail should be mandatory for anyone running for federal office).