To Birther or Not To Birther, That is the Question


Recommended Posts

Jonathan,

If it has been altered, it won't be the first time an amateur tried to present something like that on a national scale.

Dan Rather lost his reputation over someone on his team presenting a false document of Bush's record, and he endorsed it without checking.

Michael

I doubt that the document is altered. It's just odd that the green background was added, and that what should have been presented as a simple, clear jpeg file ended up instead being this layered, oversharpened/filtered pdf. It just makes it look like total ineptitude or manipulation, and the dedicated Birthers are going to see it as the latter.

One possible explanation for the added green background is that any official copies that the Hawaiian state registrar makes might be printed on paper which has the patterned background.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A possible explanation for "African" is his father was identified as from Kenya, West Africa and it was a carry over from that. I don't think it not saying "Negro" is going to get anyone anywhere.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin,

I'm old enough to know what a long-form birth certificate looks like.

But I agree with Nick Gillespie on the main issue. He says of the Obama White House:

As that conversation gets all the focus, you may wish that you never closed out this inane topic.

Yup, they wanted to keep this topic alive as long as possible, in order to discredit their opponents.

I would never cast a vote for Donald Trump. But he's called Obama's bluff.

Robert Campbell

Best explanation I've seen.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

Goulding's explanation is clear and straightforward.

I suspect they layered the original birth certificate over the green background (in use today, probably not in use in 1961).

And if you see an uncropped version of the thing (e.g., on the Wall Street Journal site), the birth certificate, with binding curl along the left edge, sits in a rectangular frame, surrounded by a flat expanse of green background, with the signature of the official who released the thing to the bottom right.

I really do think Obama and his handlers would have preferred to see the Corsi book come out, giving them a new round of opportunities to make their opponents look like wackadoodles.

Instead, the release of the birth certificate has made the Corsi book worthless before it's even published.

Robert Campbell

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the pertinent thing about the Birth Certificate is it was verified as authentic by the State Registrar. If it was phony it'd probably take him down. Who'd do that and for what?

--Brant

we badly need to get beyond this crap or 2012 will be an absolute farce--maybe regardless, considering the way all the politicians continue to slip and slide trying not to go down the drain with the rest of the country

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 10 months later...

It's BAAACK just when you thought it was safe...

Sheriff Joe held a press conference today...

This is the major preliminary finding of a six-month ongoing Sheriff's Cold Case Posse law enforcement investigation into the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate and his eligibility to be president.

Having developed probable cause to believe the long-form birth certificate was most likely a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obama's life history.

Investigators additionally have developed credible evidence suggesting:

• President Obama's Selective Service card was most likely a forgery, revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document;

• Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights originating outside the United States in the month of August 1961, examined at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., are missing records for the week of President Obama's birth, including the dates Aug. 1, 1961 through Aug. 7, 1961.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/sheriff-joes-posse-probable-cause-obama-certificate-a-fraud/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...

This thread was excerpted today in the Donald Trump Marathon thread.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15329&p=246051

Edited by william.scherk
Link to post
Share on other sites

The conservatives are saying Cruz is a natural born citizen because his parents are citizens so it doesn't matter where he was born.

If true, and the law seems to support it, then Obama is a natural born citizen for his mother was a citizen--period, it not mattering who his daddy was. You only need one parent so designated.

It doesn't matter a whit, but I now think Obama was born in Hawaii to an American citizen and that his father was a Cuban who impregnated her on her coincident trip there--that the Dad on the birth certificate was a dad of convenience to avoid stigma.

--Brant

nope, I'll come with no references on the Cuban daddy thingy, for it's of no public import

Link to post
Share on other sites

The conservatives are saying Cruz is a natural born citizen because his parents are citizens so it doesn't matter where he was born.

If true, and the law seems to support it, then Obama is a natural born citizen for his mother was a citizen--period, it not mattering who his daddy was. You only need one parent so designated.

--Brant

Correct. That's why it was not much of an issue with O'bama.

There was a minor possible wrinkle regarding living for a certain amount of years which Barack's may have been a few months short.

Meaningless.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

we badly need to get beyond this crap or 2012 will be an absolute farce

Prescient, prescient words.

I now think Obama was born in Hawaii to an American citizen and that his father was a Cuban who impregnated her on her coincident trip there--that the Dad on the birth certificate was a dad of convenience to avoid stigma. [...] nope, I'll come with no references on the Cuban daddy thingy, for it's of no public import

I am glad that you have partially moved beyond the original Mystery Birth fracas. The Cuban Obama Baby Daddy thingy is pure unadulterated fantasy freekball, in my opinion. It is the zaniest thing I have heard from you all month, though see below our blog exchange today.

Here is why there will be no 'references' to Ann Dunham's trip to Cuba -- not because it is of no public import (it's here, it's public, it's epistemologically absurd, always an Objectivish topic) -- because some people can't be bothered with good cognitive housekeeping. They don't want to let you into their House of Reasoning, because we might think it messy.

TinyMonsters-04.jpg

Brant, you can answer this first question without providing a reference to anything, even if the answer appears only in your mind ...

  1. At what time and place was Anne Dunham in Cuba?
  2. Have you ever read Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things? (I am not an unalloyed supporter of Shermer, but the book is a minor classic of Cognitive Housecleaning. See this balanced and critical Reason review)
  3. Can you imagine why a man like me with interests in Weird Beliefs asks you questions about your Cuban Baby Daddy zaniness?

From the Reason review:

Although the book certainly offers valuable insights and pleasure, sometimes it falls short of Shermer's own standards. For instance, in a chapter on Satanic cult panics, he merely presents the believers' case and declares it obviously absurd. Well, sure, but we expect a better argument than that for our $22.95. And the book doesn't entirely live up to its title: Shermer doesn't spend much time really addressing the question of why people believe the strange things they believe.

But that choice actually makes this a better book. While the psychology of believers is an interesting topic in its own right, it is not the most important element in the skeptical debunker's strategy. To debunk, the most important thing is not to explain people's possibly twisted reasons for believing what they believe, but to challenge those beliefs with logic and evidence. After all, if logic and evidence aren't sufficient, then casting aspersions on motives isn't going to get the debunker anywhere either, except with people who believe (wrongly) that bad motives equal bad arguments.

There was a minor possible wrinkle regarding living for a certain amount of years which Barack's may have been a few months short.

Meaningless.

Yup.

To expand my yupping, I first note the passive construction. "There was a minor wrinkle." Who made the wrinkle? A wrinkle in what? "A certain amount of years." Well, if it is a certain number, what is that number?

"Barack's was a few months short." Barack's (x) was a few months short of what? What is (x)?

I put this together and get a mess of unset fudge: Somebody made a wrinkle in something at some time, a kind of wrinkle in time, and that wrinkle was Obama's wrinkle and it was a few months short of something. Or ... "Entities wrinkled time and left Obama short."

I'd expect this from an instructor of Rhetoric, as an example of Word Salad. At least Brant's zany impacted beliefs tell a story.

I haven't contributed too much on the Cruz birther thing because I think it will die out pretty shortly. I see it as background noise to fill silence, not anything fundamental.

You might be right that Cruz Birtherism will die out -- but that is not the hope of your man Donald. The smartest thing Trump did was to pretend, "I am just asking questions for the good of Ted." Good spin. Complete bullshit, but good spin.

To me, the birther thing is important only when it's Obama.

When it's my guy, who the hell cares?

Well, I expect that if Polls Show Birther Doubts Hit Cruz Hard In Southern Primaries, you will be chortling quietly. It is a political circus with clear end goals for you -- Winning. So I understand if you do not take an interest in background hum unless and until it either helps or harms your guy appreciably.

Trump dropped the seed pebble in the pond. After a certain amount of thrashing and hoopla**, the waves will break in the mind of early voters. I think if Trump drops the pebble a few more times before Iowa, then we will know that he will do anything to win. And I guess that is a good thing to know.

On the whole I agree with you on the probable impact of Birtherism in 2016. It was a marginal if entertaining distraction for the Obama runs, and it will likely turn out similarly for Cruz in the long run. Certainly if he gets schtupped by Trump, it will not be because of the Birther fringe, even if Trump encouraged the activity and secretly chortles at the Birther headlines dogging Cruz**.

Here is a update on William and Brant's drive along Reason Street. From Obama, descended from The Arab

Now, William, go use your considerable brainpower on a more important subject. Nothing seems to bore you within the Liberal Arts matrix and I don't know why. You don't seem to have much of an hierarchy of intellectual values.

You are telling me to stop discussing the Birther opinions you hold, and to stop from answering your questions? [...]

Here's the pith of what I wrote, Brant, in answer to the first of your questions -- Naming a child does not confer either 'Arab' ethnicity or 'Muslim' religious beliefs. The 'Hussein' was kind of like what the Russians call a Patronymic -- it carries forward a name. Vladimir Putin's middle name, then, is Vladimirovich, which only means that his father's name was Vladimir. [...]

I will stick to the topic and your questions and comments and rationale above. You can come and go as you please. I am blocked from commenting on your blog.

As always, I will leave Brant the last word, and repair to the lively discussion underway between me and him and Roger.

____________________________

** Trump_Cruz_Birther_Google_News_Page.png

Edited by william.scherk
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not answering questions from the context Brant is some kinda idiot. But one: 1960 or 1961.

"Now, William" was a response to your condescending "Now, Brant." The rest is filler. You can swim around in your bitherisms' paradise til the cows come home.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still going to leave Brant with the final William-killing word in this thread, but wanted to point out that if you do not click links, you might miss a joke.

I now think Obama was born in Hawaii to an American citizen and that his father was a Cuban who impregnated her on her coincident trip there--that the Dad on the birth certificate was a dad of convenience to avoid stigma. [...] nope, I'll come with no references on the Cuban daddy thingy, for it's of no public import


I'm not answering questions from the context Brant is some kinda idiot. But one: 1960 or 1961.

Did you click that link? I do not in any way mean to imply you are an idiot. You are anything but an idiot -- logic and well-warranted evidence is important to you as it is to me.

It is because you are attached to reason and capable of great sustained argumentation that I give you some lip, brother. It isn't to knock you down, but to knock your argument up. There is a cold, implacable, logical, hard-minded side of you that gives me a thrill, especially when it is you telling a story of your life and understanding of Rand and Objectivism. Hard-eyed, implacable, informed, and having spent time, thought and heartache before coming to your conclusions. Yours is a very valuable contribution to Objectivist culture, your perceptions, judgments, observations and syntheses of events.

On a few issues I pursue your reasoning.

Please forgive me for being pointed about things that are important to me, and I hope, to you.

For those who I Never Read His Long Stuff and I Never Click His Links, a screenshot of the material at the link. Exeunt stage right.

2016_01_09_14_02_53_The_Manufacturing_of

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 years later...
On 1/9/2016 at 7:56 PM, Brant Gaede said:

The birther issue will be of future interest when the future has an interest in it.

Brant,

It looks like the future is arriving.

Does anyone think this will not grow? Think about the sheer amount of fake news, in-your-face lying and condescension that has been piled on over President Trump's first term. And of course, the in-your-face fraudulent election bolstered by bullying and uniform subterfuge.

America is ripe to look at that issue again, and look at it seriously.

The doubts about former President Obama's birth certificate didn't go anywhere. They were just shouted down for a while.

Shouting down never convinces the one silenced, but it does lull the shouter into thinking he got agreement and won an argument.

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now