That was easy - Team Obama has finally bestirred themselves and requested a copy of Obama's original Certificate of Live Birth, presumably hoping to silence those pesky critics who thought Obama had something to hide just because he was hiding something.
My Official Editorial Rumination was that there was no reason for the White House to hide it other than Obama's practice of managing his brand by hiding everything (leaving critics and skeptics unsure which haystack actually conceals a needle which may or may not exist.) Now Trump has moved on to Obama's school records.
ERRATA: Worth checking - there were some very well researched guesses made about Obama's likely certificate number, based on the known number of someone else born the same day or week. It would be interesting to back-test that.
WHAT LIBS LIKE TO BELIEVE: Ta Nehsi Coates, who thinks he understands the motivations of the birthers, offers this understanding of the legal background:
My understanding was that it was against the law for a person to give out copies of the literal birth certificate. I just looked up the law:
§338-18 Disclosure of records.(a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record.The law then goes on to define "tangible interests" as essentially the registrant, an agent of the registrant, their parents, spouse and some others. Apparently the Hawaiin government decided to make an exception in this case...
"Make an exception"? The NY Times was quite clear that Obama was entitled to see his own records when they "covered" this a year ago:
By Hawaiian law, birth records can be released only to people with “a direct and tangible” interest in them — a person born in the state, say, or certain relatives or their estates.
And CNN made a similar point earlier this week.
But people committed to Obama's faith-based initiative, such as Andrew Sullivan and, apparently, Mr. Coates, persuaded themselves that Obama's hands were tied. Despite the clear language of the law, these true believers imagined that neither Barack Obama as President nor the Obama family in their inevitable role at the inevitable Obama Presidential Library would ever get their hands on these records, which would simply molder in some vault somewhere beyond the reach of history. Seriously?
Well. Since they knew Obama's hands were tied, they were able to deduce that the critics and skeptics had other motivations. Back here in reality, people who understood Obama's options figured either he was hiding something or was playing this issue for political advantage.
Mr. Coates conclusion is inadvertently self-referential:
Evidently not.
FWIW: Here is the standard electronic summary; the original adds the name of the hospital and the attending physician to our store of knowledge, as well as background on the parents (age, place of birth, occupation).
Ignatz- I'm offended. That does not meet my standard of high quality artistic nudity.
Posted by: MayBee | April 27, 2011 at 12:56 PM
Love this from Fight the Smears that JMH linked.
From the Chicago Democratic Socialist of America website, New Ground 42
He signed a contract with the New Party but he didn't solicit the endorsement! Screen capped for posterity!
Posted by: Rocco | April 27, 2011 at 12:57 PM
Section 9 of the long form, Race of Father: African
Is African a race?
Posted by: BB Key | April 27, 2011 at 01:00 PM
Does anyone really believe Obama has quit smoking?
Posted by: Frau Rauchen Verboten | April 27, 2011 at 01:02 PM
BBKey- it has been said that the certificate just reflects the race the parent stated.
Posted by: MayBee | April 27, 2011 at 01:02 PM
Clarice:
"how can the green patterned background of the document's safety paper be so seamless?"
They probably use software that essentially ignores what would be the white background in a standard photocopy, so that the content can be printed out ("seamlessly") on the patterned green "safety" paper used for official documents. I don't think there's anything suspicious about that, and I really don't doubt that this is the real thing.
Posted by: JM Hanes | April 27, 2011 at 01:02 PM
MayBee-
I think you're being awfully harsh on Appalled. You could have made your point without making such an insulting comparison.
Posted by: Foo Bar | April 27, 2011 at 01:08 PM
I refer you to TM's later comments. He corrected his own post to reflect the docs on the White House website.
He wanted it to be indisputable. But it's simply not credible that "sitting on a copy" was wrong . . . you just can't prove it with the available paperwork.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 27, 2011 at 01:09 PM
Things that make you go hmmmm.
The hospital on the LFBC didn't exist in the name given until 1978. LUN
Posted by: peter | April 27, 2011 at 01:12 PM
Think of all the people Obama caused extra work and money for with this:
Lawyers fighting Phiip Berg
The State of Hawaii employees who complained about all the work the extra requests were causing them
Mike Isikoff, who had to print a lie
CNN, who went to Hawaii to report the hoops Obama would have to jump through to have this released.
Mostly, the State of Hawaii must be wondering, WTF Obama?
Posted by: MayBee | April 27, 2011 at 01:13 PM
Obama may have gone to the well one too many times with his "blame the press" method. LUN is Jake Tapper explaining how much attention the President and the economy actually got vs. the birth certificate
Posted by: MayBee | April 27, 2011 at 01:16 PM
Peter- that is the same name on the Nordyke Twins' birth certificates.
Posted by: MayBee | April 27, 2011 at 01:20 PM
Maybee:
What catches my eye is the headline of Tapper's story:
"President Obama Tells Untruth in Birth Certificate Press Briefing"
Ouch!
Posted by: Appalled | April 27, 2011 at 01:23 PM
WKA holding:
WKA is no good for the "natural born" simplifiers. What else did you have?
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 27, 2011 at 01:25 PM
--"WKA apparantley extended "citizen at birth" to pretty much any child born here not explicitly excluded and threw in "natural born" to boot."--
No Boris, they did not. Others would have you believe they did.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 27, 2011 at 01:30 PM
Yeah, Appalled. Ouch indeed. And I know the WH reads Tapper's blog.
Obama did this once before, I remember he said he had done interviews with the networks and none of them asked him about XYZ, they all wanted to focus on Palin(?). Which turned out to be absolutely untrue.
Posted by: MayBee | April 27, 2011 at 01:30 PM
LUN. He was complaining about his coverage in Asia.
Posted by: MayBee | April 27, 2011 at 01:34 PM
T.C., This is for you.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 27, 2011 at 01:39 PM
Obama's demeanor today is that of a man who is pissed off that he has to do what he's doing. If Obama really thought he'd beaten Trump in this round, he'd be smirking.
Great point, Porch. Trump was the one smirking.
Posted by: Extraneus | April 27, 2011 at 01:43 PM
Posted by: Foo Bar | April 27, 2011 at 01:08 PM
Ha ha ha ha ha! I am such a jerk.
Posted by: MayBee | April 27, 2011 at 01:43 PM
"Others would have you believe they did ..."
IIRC DoT did on a single ocassion provide a lower court ruling based on WKA that did. Think it was the last long thread on the subject.
Posted by: boris | April 27, 2011 at 01:43 PM
Think of all the people Obama caused extra work and money for with this:
Maybee, don't forget about the soldier that went to jail.
Posted by: Ann | April 27, 2011 at 01:45 PM
"I fear that if TK keeps pressing the natural born thing, we are going to have to look at semi naked women again."
PLEEEEEEEEEASE don't throw me inna that briar patch, Br'er Fox! i begs you!
Posted by: macphisto | April 27, 2011 at 01:49 PM
Rush has mentioned how critical legal studies,
Marxist law, (which Derrick Bell pioneered)
was the fad back when Obama was at Harvard.
And in the LUN, Rubin taking Dana Milbank to school, again
Posted by: narciso | April 27, 2011 at 01:59 PM
What else did you have?
Go back and read it all again.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2011 at 01:59 PM
Video: “Another Supreme Court Justice again discusses Natural Born Citizen term in the U.S. Constitution before the House Appropriations Committee of Congress... April 14, 2011”
Wow! In the second video Clarence Thomas says they are “evading” the topic. I thought the “matter of law” would have come out of their mouths. Better forward your research to these Justices, DoT.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 27, 2011 at 02:05 PM
From Cornell:
CLS (Critical Legal Studies)was officially started in 1977 at the conference at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, but its roots extend back to 1960 when many of its founding members participated in social activism surrounding the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War. Many CLS scholars entered law school in those years and began to apply the ideas, theories, and philosophies of post modernity (intellectual movements of the last half of the twentieth century) to the study of law. They borrowed from such diverse fields as social theory, political philosophy, economics, and literary theory. Since then CLS has steadily grown in influence and permanently changed the landscape of legal theory. Among noted CLS theorists are Roberto Mangabeira Unger, Robert W. Gordon, Morton J. Horwitz, Duncan Kennedy, and Katharine A. MacKinnon.
Arghhh! All this going on while I was working and raising a family. Pfui!
LUN
Posted by: Frau Rechtsverdreher | April 27, 2011 at 02:12 PM
Oopsie! - correct LUN
Posted by: Frau Rechtsverdreher | April 27, 2011 at 02:14 PM
Oh that reminds me, D'Souza, mentions Unger as someone who shaped Obama's wordview
Posted by: narciso | April 27, 2011 at 02:14 PM
TK, the entire concepts of "standing" and "political question" are ways of "evading" a particular topic.
Though if we get bored enough during the summer I might suggest a way to prepare a case. Depends on (non)compliant election officials in two appellate jurisdictions and a lucky draw for a panel in (probably) the Fourth Circuit.
Posted by: Walter | April 27, 2011 at 02:17 PM
Obama wasn't lying..The Trump charge may have been the #4 story but hte # 1 story to O is always the campaign and from that perspective the Trump charge was numero uno.
Posted by: clarice | April 27, 2011 at 02:18 PM
What catches my eye is the headline of Tapper's story:
"President Obama Tells Untruth in Birth Certificate Press Briefing"
Rush was quoting this and laughing
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 27, 2011 at 02:20 PM
Okay, at the risks of making myself sound like a total conspiracy theorist...
By all means, let's get Charles Johnson on the case.
I just looked at the .pdf file again. Then I looked at it magnified. I noticed that all the text has a thin white background... which might (I said MIGHT) hint at information PhotoShopped in from elsewhere.
Now -- I have no problem with the green background. It's perfectly possible that a black-and-white microfilmed copy was magnified and printed, and the green paper was used to indicate that there was no tampering. But the white background looks weird to me. And what's with the capital K of "Kansas"? Other capital Ks aren't raised and cut off in that fashion.
Now, I'm no expert in such matters. And I know that the President would have to be an utter idiot to release a PhotoShopped document. But I think there's room for reasonable doubt here.
Posted by: Daniel in Brookline | April 27, 2011 at 02:24 PM
Tammy Bruce is hammering the Repukes for letting Trump do the heavy lifting on what an opposition party is supposed to do in terms of setting the narrative. Duke & Duke employees reportedly drinking heavily.
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 27, 2011 at 02:28 PM
Better forward your research to these Justices, DoT
Why? They never have considered, and never will consider the issue, for the reasons I have stated.
I have said--repeatedly--that the courts will never adjudicate the matter, and the law will stand as it is today, even without such adjudication.
And as I have said--repeatedly--the only federal judge who has ever considered the question to my knowledge indicated that, were he to rule on the merits, he would hold that 8 US Code Section 1401 settles the question.
As I say, the matter will continue to be argued on the fringes, but it is not a serious legal question for the great majority of scholars. And that's the way it will always remain.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2011 at 02:29 PM
Unger has quite a history in recent Brazilian politics. Only a "narciso" can remember all the characters in the action. It seems that Unger managed to politicize an apolitical body.
Another case of two guys in the neighborhood?
Posted by: Frau Rechtsverdreher | April 27, 2011 at 02:30 PM
If anyone is interested, go to TK's link and watch Justice Thomas as he says "we're evading that one." Ask yourself who would consider his statement as meaningful on the issue that so obsesses TK.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2011 at 02:33 PM
And Kurtz pointed out, that West started out at Union Theological Seminary, where James Cone, the father of Black Liberation was at.
Derrick Bell was who Obama used, to frame
the cases for his civil right law case,
Posted by: narciso | April 27, 2011 at 02:34 PM
Does anyone really believe Obama has quit smoking?
Only in the sense with which he irritated Brokaw by quitting and then starting again.
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 27, 2011 at 02:36 PM
More comedy gold from TK's site:
Oh, there's going to be a carnival of retroactive gloating on this one. As is my nature, I'll be participating with gusto.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2011 at 02:37 PM
Didn't watch the videos?
If it is the law it truly needs no adjudication. The Justices had no reason to be vague.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 27, 2011 at 02:37 PM
See if this doesn't sound familiar:
n June 2007, Unger became a government minister during Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's second term, as head of the newly established Long-term Planning Secretariat, part of the executive office of the president.The appointment raised some controversy as in November 2005, Unger described Lula's government as "the most corrupt of Brazil's history" and called for his impeachment.[4] As part of his newly-created ministry, Unger will also be responsible for the Institute of Applied Economic Research, or IPEA, a government think tank previously attached to the Planning Ministry.[5] Unger's nomination was reported to cause fear within the IPEA that he would politicize the institution, which has traditionally been seen as apolitical and independent.[6][7] The Estado de São Paulo newspaper ran an editorial on May 4, 2007, warning of the potential politicization of the IPEA under Unger.[8] On September 7, 2007, the Folha de S. Paulo, Brazil's largest newspaper, reported that Unger would disband a long-standing IPEA workgroup, dubbed the Grupo de Conjuntura (English: Conjuncture Group), which had existed for the past 30 years. Still according to Folha, the group had previously sparred with the Finance Minister Guido Mantega, who thought the group was composed of sympathizers of the opposition PSDB party.[9]
On September 26, 2007, the Brazilian senate voted on whether to enact the temporary measure which created Unger's secretariat, into law. The Senate rejected the temporary measure, meaning that the nearly 600 appointed employees would be fired and the secretariat disbanded. The vote lacked the support of the centrist PMDB party. The party's leader, Valdir Raupp, was quoted saying he did not oppose the secretariat, but disapproved of the government's decision to create hundreds of jobs by decree.[10] President Lula recreated the ministry on October 4, utilizing a presidential decree instead of a temporary measure. This has been challenged in the Supreme Federal Tribunal by the opposition PSDB and DEM parties as unconstitutional, citing article 48 of the Constitution of Brazil which states that only congress, with consent of the president, may authorize the creation or abolishment of ministries and all other government jobs.[11]
Since Unger's appointee to head the IPEA, Mário Pochmann, took office in August 2007, 5 of the 6 main directors of the IPEA have been replaced. Four economists, Fábio Giambiagi, Otávio Tourinho, Regis Bonelli and Gervásio Rezende, were placed on administrative leave and are expected to leave the IPEA by December 2007.[12] All four had previously published papers or espoused opinions which are contrary to the current administration's economic development philosophy. They will be replaced by economists which are generally considered to be "aligned" with the current government.[13] In an interview, Pochmann explained the replacement by citing the fact that both Giambiagi and Toutinho were "on loan" from the BNDES, and that their loan arrangements were not being renewed, citing their objectives as having been "completed". As for Bonelli and Rezende, which had been at the IPEA for over 40 years, Pochmann stated that both were officially retired from the institution, and by continuing to work for the IPEA, both were in an "irregular" situation.[14] The move gained wide coverage in the press was criticized by both media and politicians. Delfim Netto, former Minister of Finance from 1979 to 1985, criticized the move, citing that even under the military dictatorship, the IPEA was not censored even when it openly criticized the military.[15]
Posted by: narciso | April 27, 2011 at 02:38 PM
I was posting at the same time. Thanks for watching the videos. Good job reading the extras from the same site. You do very well with the non-topic stuff to attempt to make your point.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 27, 2011 at 02:40 PM
RE: clarice@11:24
The original BC appears to be on plain white paper. The scanned image was then printed or photoshopped onto the patterned background.
I concur that part of the original is unobservable in this PDF image and that there are some immediately inexplicable faint pencil(?) markings.
August 4, 1961 fell on a Friday. If the birth took place at 7:24 PM as indicated, it is not unreasonable to assume a delay of a few days to gather the requisite signatures and file with the registrar.
Posted by: NoelArmourson | April 27, 2011 at 02:40 PM
Rocco:
I think one of the reasons that Obama's paper trail was so completely disappeared is because his enablers decided there was just no way to go back and erase all the inconvenient details without leaving gaping holes in the fabric.
The polling may have been a prime mover in getting Obama to put his birth certificate table, but I also think he must be really worried about further high profile challenges from from Trump on much more sensitive issues, like the NP, in his blank slate past. Having produced the document in question here, he can now just say, sheesh, there's just no pleasing some folks and revert to the fringe elements narrative.
Posted by: JM Hanes | April 27, 2011 at 02:55 PM
narc, the Ewok is in full ShariaPundit/Eeyore mode on one of the greatest days ever. Nobody kills a buzz as well as he does.
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 27, 2011 at 02:55 PM
If you don't like BC threads, Insty keeps plugging away on the health news while TM dallies in Old News: "Cut Carbs to Cut Liver Fat."
LUN
Posted by: Frau Rechtsverdreher | April 27, 2011 at 03:01 PM
Threadkiller:
What exactly are you trying to accomplish?
Posted by: JM Hanes | April 27, 2011 at 03:04 PM
If it is the law it truly needs no adjudication
It is the law, and it won't be adjudicated. Whether or not it "needs" adjudication is not a sensible question.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2011 at 03:05 PM
Didn't watch the videos?
I did watch them. Only a fool of the kind who runs that site would consider them significant.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2011 at 03:07 PM
I have noticed that no has mentioned Jerome Corsi's new book "Where's the Birth Certificate" as a reason for The Won to get out ahead of this and release the LFBC. The book which reached number 1 at Amazon doesn't come out until May 17th. Looks like the pre-emption was more a reason for smothering the book than anything else.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | April 27, 2011 at 03:11 PM
JMH:
What exactly are you trying to accomplish?
What is Threadkiller's handle?
Posted by: Appalled | April 27, 2011 at 03:13 PM
I hope Corsi has not made a ninny of himself. His book on Kerry was solid. If he is laughable on this one, it can certainly tarnish the other.
Posted by: Frau Rechtsverdreher | April 27, 2011 at 03:14 PM
Team Obama were afraid of being Swift Birthered. LOL
Posted by: fdcol63 | April 27, 2011 at 03:15 PM
I seem to recall there were a couple of issues with respect to his Kerry book as well (not that it bothered me). With this one he may end up as a weapons-grade laughingstock.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2011 at 03:16 PM
lol, indeed, fdcol63.
Corsi already had a run-in with the Kenyan Kops, didn't he?
Posted by: Frau Rechtsverdreher | April 27, 2011 at 03:19 PM
I understand the publisher is considering a new working title of "Oh! There it is."
Posted by: Ignatz | April 27, 2011 at 03:20 PM
I'm friends with a cousin of Corsi. I don't recall any major issues with his Kerry book although with the MFM always calling the Swift Boaters "discredited" anything is possible on perceptions.
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 27, 2011 at 03:22 PM
When my son was born, a woman with a clipboard came around to take the info for his birth certificate. The first time she came, I was unavailable due to a medical procedure, the 2nd time she came, my son was undergoing his circumcision and I was unavailable. I was in the hospital for 5 days and finally met up with the woman just minutes before being discharged so his certificate wasn't filed for about 8 days after his birth. I never saw it other than to sign as the woman filled everything out.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | April 27, 2011 at 03:22 PM
--“ Threadkiller:
What exactly are you trying to accomplish?”--
To quote DoT, ”Go back and read it all again.”
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 27, 2011 at 03:23 PM
Sara, when our son was born, my wife had a similar experience to yours. Since she'd had a C-section, she was also heavily medicated when the BC info taker came around, and just scanned what had been prepared instead of reading it carefully.
We didn't notice until several weeks later, when we finally got my son's BC, that my birthdate had been misreported.
And it's been impossible to correct.
Posted by: fdcol63 | April 27, 2011 at 03:26 PM
JiB
((Jerome Corsi's new book "Where's the Birth Certificate" as a reason for The Won to get out ahead ))
I find it odd how every Republican I know thought Corsi was entirely credible on the swiftboat issue. But anything and everything he has written on the bc issue has been labeled by many of those same Republicans as "fringe" and "wingnut".
Posted by: Chubby | April 27, 2011 at 03:27 PM
Notice how perfectly centered all of the names are in each box....pretty good for a typewritten document in a hospital where one would think documents are rather abruptly executed.
Posted by: Art | April 27, 2011 at 03:28 PM
((Notice how perfectly centered all of the names are in each box....pretty good for a typewritten document ))
yup there was a time when typists were really that good ... especially if they'd filled in several thousand of the same form, which was likely in that scenario.
Posted by: Chubby | April 27, 2011 at 03:33 PM
The Donald appears to have been putting in some major overtime with the ol' knife and fork.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2011 at 03:34 PM
OT but funny-
My mom was showing me a family bible that was at least 120 years old. As a history geek I am looking at the family names and realized my mom had been misspelling, dropped a letter, her name for years.
Rick-Why Democracies Perish has arrived. There is something eerie about all these fine, still pertinent library books with "Withdrawn" stamped on them.
Posted by: rse | April 27, 2011 at 03:35 PM
His Iran book was pretty good, but Freddoso had a better take on Obama, and his turns at 9/11 denialism and protectionism hasn' t helped things
Posted by: narciso | April 27, 2011 at 03:35 PM
Section 9 of the long form, Race of Father: African
Is African a race?
Who knows in Hawaii. In the rest of the country in 1961 it would have been Negroid.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | April 27, 2011 at 03:36 PM
I eagerly await the emergence of the Forgery Wing of the birther movement. I'll be checking in regularly with the kooks at TK's site to see how it's shaping up. This is gonna be fun.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2011 at 03:37 PM
Isn't it though, DoT? Pass the martinis.
Posted by: clarice | April 27, 2011 at 03:39 PM
((My mom was showing me a family bible that was at least 120 years old.))
one of the biggest regrets of my life was throwing out an old falling apart family Bible when I was on a decluttering kick
Posted by: Chubby | April 27, 2011 at 03:41 PM
"That's me all right, Chubby, Ms prescience."
Bah, you want prescience? I'll give you prescient.
Yesterday, right here at JOM, in a comment posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:21 PM, I read the Tea Leaves perfectly.
"May 7th, 11:22 AM, 2056. That's when we'll finally see Obama's Birth Certificate."
Mr Prescience, that's me!
Posted by: daddy | April 27, 2011 at 03:48 PM
fdcol63: My husband's first name, Henry, was spelled Henery on his BC, his middle name, William, was spelled Wilaim and his birth date of 4/28/xxxx was 3/28. He was born at home and the BC was filled out by the doctor, who obviously was a better doctor than a speller or data compiler. My mother-in-law used to defend the doctor because he was overworked and frazzled as my husband's first cousin was also born at home, in the same house, just 9 hours earlier.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | April 27, 2011 at 03:48 PM
LOL, daddy that's the one that's in the Peruvian temple, meanwhile just as you showcased the example of the oil expert
who was banned from the oil commission,
the reverse is not true, in the LUN.
Posted by: narciso | April 27, 2011 at 03:51 PM
My son had an error on his original birth certificate, too. It's been corrected but you can also still see the error. Weird.
I was visiting my BFF in the hospital soon after she had her baby when the birth certificate clerk came in. We realized she kept addressing all of her comments and questions to both of us. Poor woman thought we were partners. It was pretty funny.
Posted by: MayBee | April 27, 2011 at 03:51 PM
The first thing I notice on the LFBC is how horrible Ann Dunham Obama's handwriting is. She writes like a 9 year old boy, certainly not like a teenage girl. /snarc
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | April 27, 2011 at 03:52 PM
Maybe Jerome Corsis upcoming Birther book prompted the release...that would be my bet. I'd like to hear his take on this entire situation.....
Posted by: Mary | April 27, 2011 at 03:53 PM
JMH
If that's the case and it makes perfect sense, that will be his default answer to everything and Trump did him a big favor.
Daniel in Brookline
I know exactly what you're talking about! When I photoshop an image from one picture to another, I have to trace the outline of the image with my mouse, then cut and paste (sort of) it onto another image. If the image I'm tracing is on a light background, I always seem to leave part of that light background on the image I'm cutting and pasting. And you're right, there is definately a white border around all the letters and words on the BC. We need an expert!
Posted by: Rocco | April 27, 2011 at 03:54 PM
Whew. I just checked, and found an old bible my late mother once gave me as a birthday gift. I had never opened it, but I just did and see a note one one of the opening pages that instructs me to pass it down to my first son. Thanks for bringing that up!
Posted by: Extraneus | April 27, 2011 at 03:58 PM
--I'd like to hear his take on this entire situation.....--
God &*%6$&*#&*%#$&*% it!!!!!
Posted by: Ignatz | April 27, 2011 at 03:59 PM
And I'm sorry about yours, Chubby. If it helps, you probably saved mine with that comment.
Posted by: Extraneus | April 27, 2011 at 03:59 PM
I'm into genealogy, too, but I've learned you can't trust everything even if it's written in stone.
For example, my paternal grandmother's maiden name was misspelled on her tombstone when she passed away in the early 1980's, and no one in the family was aware of it until I noticed it about 4-5 years ago.
Posted by: fdcol63 | April 27, 2011 at 04:00 PM
It’s sure is nice to see that Obama came to the aid of Boehner and Ryan.
I’ve said for a long time that this was a issue that only Obama could resolve, but meanwhile his own minions were out there churning the waters of discontent.
Posted by: Neo | April 27, 2011 at 04:00 PM
Back to Corsi's BC book.
What if the book is more than just "show the BC"? What if it is also about Seattle, Indonesia, other passports, SSN, Pun'ahou, Occidental, the lost years at Columbia, Ayers and company, etc. Something with more paper-proof than Kurtz had.
Then this preemption really, really makes the book irrelevant and the only ones who will buy it are the folks over at TK's link. Curiosity killed the cat but satisfaction brought it back.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | April 27, 2011 at 04:01 PM
How many different stories did the Wh or its allies throw at this before coming clean?
One site names these:
(1) The original was burnt in a fire
(2) The COLB is the original
(3) Abercrombie says he's seen the original in the records and will produce it--then he says it doesn't exist
(4) The Hawaiian officials using artful language suggest no one can get the original
Anything else?
Posted by: clarice | April 27, 2011 at 04:02 PM
Vanderleun asks, "What too so long?" and then goes on to speculate about how long it took to find the right paper, typewriter, and ribbon, and to change 100 BCs in either direction so numbers match up and kill or bribe the doctor with smothering Samoans. All tongue in cheek. But he ends with this:
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | April 27, 2011 at 04:03 PM
And another thing about those white borders. If you look at the words on the page to the left, the one that's cut off, you'll notice there are no white borders around the few words and letters on that cut off page...very strange indeed!
Posted by: Rocco | April 27, 2011 at 04:07 PM
From Neo's link:
Ha ha ha ha ha.
He's been talking about this for years. If he had no patience for it, it would have put it to rest years ago.
OR he could have made his case about the right the President has to privacy to explain he why he wouldn't release it.
These guys are such hacks.
Posted by: MayBee | April 27, 2011 at 04:12 PM
Sumthin's fishy.....Hannity just reported that the BC was transported in a super secret vault to an unknown location before it was released to the public.
Fire away! :)
Posted by: OldTimer | April 27, 2011 at 04:12 PM
After years of legal successes – some 70 lawsuits challenging Obama’s birthplace had been dismissed by the courts – the legal team took the extraordinary step of reopening a case that they themselves considered closed.
How much money is Obama willing to waste?
Posted by: MayBee | April 27, 2011 at 04:13 PM
"How much money is Obama willing to waste?"
A billion .... and that's just for his re-election campaign.
Posted by: fdcol63 | April 27, 2011 at 04:17 PM
Tom I wonder what you think of the idea that this was a MacGuffin designed by Axelrod to discredit anyone who wants to examine Obama?
Posted by: motionview | April 27, 2011 at 04:19 PM
fdcol63: Genealogists know that the most unreliable sources are death and burial records, including tombstones, since the info is given by 3rd parties based only on hearsay.
As the family genealogist and record keeper, I've been called more than once by a distant cousin to see if I have info in my files as to actual names, dates, or places of birth or even parent names that they need for the death certificate or tombstone inscription. I'm amazed sometimes just how little so many people know about their own parents or grandparents.
My first cousin called me one day to ask about her little brother, who died when he was just 2 years old and my cousin was only 3. She knew his first name and that he was 2 when he died, but it wasn't until she was trying to fill in her own Family Group Sheet, that she realized she neither knew his actual birthday nor his actual date of death, nor his middle name.
I asked her why she was calling me instead of asking her own mother, who was still alive. She said that my aunt refused to ever speak little Alfred's name again after he died and would not have been forthcoming with the info. Fortunately, I had gotten a copy of both his birth and death certificates for my files and could help her out.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | April 27, 2011 at 04:19 PM
I should clarify: I had no big problem with Corsi's book insofar as it discussed Kerry's time in the Swift boats, but I thought he went over the top on his post-Vietnam antics.
On the incident where he was awarded the Silver Star I thought Kerry performed quite well except for the bizarre bit about his going back to make his own video documentary of the thing. The Silver Star was a gross over-decoration, but that's on Adm. Zumwalt, not Kerry.
Anyway, I think Corsi has walked into the propeller blade on this one.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2011 at 04:23 PM
((May 7th, 11:22 AM, 2056. That's when we'll finally see Obama's Birth Certificate."
Mr Prescience, that's me!
))
Going by one of your more recent posts, I thought you were Mr. Matter but certainly not Auntie Matter.
Posted by: Chubby | April 27, 2011 at 04:23 PM
Can you see the white border around the words and letters on the right but not on the left?
Posted by: Rocco | April 27, 2011 at 04:23 PM
Without The Donald's noodging, what excuse would Pres. Transparency have had to preempt Corsi's release date? Without Trump's goading, wouldn't it have been strange to cough it up after all the painful, carpy excuses? Was Trump being a willful stooge? Is there an ambassadorship to England in it? Does this drink make my liver look fat?
Posted by: Frau Rechtsverdreher | April 27, 2011 at 04:25 PM
I'm not getting why anyone would photoshop anything on the LFBC innocently. To photoshop in the hashed green background is crazy suspicious to me. It is like they wanted to set up some kind of strawman just to keep the suspicions going.
I have more than a hundred different BC copies from many different states in my genealogy files and this is the first "copy" I've seen that looks so pristine and on green hashed paper that wasn't even used for many years after 1961. In fact, most of them are in reverse, white print on black backgrounds, although those pre-1920s or so just look like Xerox copies although they do have current stamps on them showing the dates the copies were produced and then they all have certification stamps by the Dept issuing the certificates (like stamps notaries use).
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | April 27, 2011 at 04:29 PM
((And I'm sorry about yours, Chubby. If it helps, you probably saved mine with that comment.))
Seriously Ext, if a family Bible of yours will be saved by my foolish mistake, it will take some of the sting out of it for me.
Posted by: Chubby | April 27, 2011 at 04:29 PM
Obama had grown incredulous at the overall debate.
What a load of s*#t. He could have done this at any time.
and Clarice at 4:02 is exactly right.
(2) The COLB is the original - that was the main one until fairly recently. All of a sudden they started admitting there was a "long form" but the COLB should be good enough.
Posted by: Janet | April 27, 2011 at 04:31 PM