Mr. Fusion says:

#99, Granite,

All the birthers have are questions that they morph into reasons. They have no evidence. It doesn’t matter if there were any photos from the wedding, baby pictures, etc. This was 1960-61. I also don’t know where Obama’s parents were married and that too is irrelevant.

None of this is about Obama’s parents, grandparents, or stepfather. This is only about Obama being born in Hawaii and issued a birth certificate.

Any other point or question is irrelevant. IF the birth certificate is fraudulent then the birthers need to produce the evidence. It is not up to you, me, or even Obama to go out of our way to produce any further evidence than what the State of Hawaii has validated as the official birth certificate.

All conspiracy followers follow the same theme. Just keep asking questions and keep repeating the questions until they appears as a fact. Then demand why they refuse to answer the question.

Alfred Persson says:

#101 You need to replay the recording, so you can discern my McCullough (not a birther) is now “beginning to wonder.”

The long form BC wasn’t found in the records, and neither hospital has any record of his birth…= forgery for what he has displayed, or complete incompetence on the part of Hawaii and the hospitals.

Many have inspected the online version, and have declared it a fake.

Granite1 says:

Re: “so why is the headline:

Hawaii governor claims record of Obama’s birth ‘exists in archives’ but can’t produce the vital document

Read more: http://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348916/Hawaii-governor-says-Obamas-birth-record-exists-produce-it.html#ixzz1BjPcP1VB”

Answer: Both WND and the Daily Mail are wrong, Abercrombie never said that the original birth certificate cannot be found.

But, what I said was–and what is true–is that Obama has already published the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, which has also been certified by Hawaii, with the official seal in the proper position (one the back) and in addition to the OFFICIAL BC itself, the officials of Hawaii, members of a Republican governor’s administration, have repeatedly confirmed the facts that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.

Alfred Persson says:

Re 93-4 Its predicted Obama will take on the deficit Hawks, who prefer spending cuts to tax increases, illogically arguing borrowed money stimulates the economy.

That’s impossible as Friedman documented, its like scooping water from one end of the tub, and putting less of it (after waste, fraud and corruption steals some of it) back into the tub somewhere else.

Granite1 says:

Continuing:

Here is the first of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

http://kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html

Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate.

Here is the second of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

http://usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm

Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.

And here is the confirmation by the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

It is the first of these three confirmations that we are discussing now, the ORIGINAL birth certificate in Obama’s file.

You allege that the Republicans may have lied for Obama. Baloney. Sure they would have. They would have run the risk of being prosecuted by the attorney general of Hawaii, a CONSERVATIVE Republican. And, there would have to be a total of four who lied, including the clerk who filled in the form.

And in addition to the risk of such a lie, what would have been the point? The first of the confirmations was before the 2008 election.

But, say that that all four of them did lie. Would that prove that Obama was born outside of the USA? No. If George Bush’s birth certificate from Connecticut disappeared, it would not mean that he was born in Canada.

So, IF all four officials lied (and they didn’t), there would still have to be a convincing story that indicates that birth outside of the USA was reasonably possible. And, the story also has to account for the fact that there is no evidence from a foreign country that he was born there (except for obviously forged “birth certificates).

Obama’s Kenyan grandmother, by the way, NEVER said that he was born in Kenya. She said repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii in the taped interview. And she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii.

For Obama to have been born in any other country than the USA requires the combination of:

(1) Travel by his mother during late pregnancy (highly unlikely because of the high expense and high risk of such a trip in 1961. A round trip to Kenya for two has been estimated to have cost around $20,000 in 2010 terms, and there was high risk of stillbirth, and of Yellow Fever in Kenya [a Yellow Fever shot itself is risky during pregnancy]);

(2) Birth outside of Hawaii (also unlikely);

(3) Birth abroad despite the absence of any foreign documents or photographs showing either that Obama was born in a foreign country or that his mother was in the country at the time (highly unlikely);

(4) The willingness of the parents to lie about his place of birth (unlikely since it would be a crime to file a false government document, and the lie would be unnecessary since for most purposes naturalizing a foreign-born child would be just as good as his being born in the country);

(5) Successfully smuggling the child into the USA without a US travel document (extremely unlikely), and;

(6) Convincing the officials in Hawaii that he was born in Hawaii (also extremely unlikely. There are good reports that Hawaii demanded the written statements of doctors or midwives whenever birth outside of a hospital was claimed.).

ALL of these six things would be required for there to be a reasonable case that he was born in any other country than the USA. What are the odds of all six of them happening?

The willingness to believe that Obama was born outside of the USA despite the overwhelming odds against it and despite all the evidence that he was born in Hawaii is why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly all call birthers crazy.

Granite1 says:

Birthers have also never explained how a child whom they claim was born in a foreign country could have been admitted into the USA without either a US visa or being entered on his mother’s US passport.

If either of those took place, then the application for such a document would be easy to find (particularly in Kenya, which is the main place where birthers claim Obama was born), but no such document has been found.

And Obama’s Kenyan grandmother NEVER said that he was born in Kenya. She said on the taped interview that he was born in Hawaii, where his father was studying, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii.

So there is no proof (except for obviously forged “Kenyan birth certificates”) that Obam was born in Kenya.

On the Hawaii side, in contrast, there is an official birth certificate and the confirmation of THREE Republican officials.

Notices of Obama’s birth appeared in the Hawaii newspapers about ten days after his birth. They were NOT advertisements. Hawaii newspapers did not accept birth announcements in those days. They only published the notices sent to them by the department of vital records. That department only sent out notices for births IN Hawaii.

And, Hawaii did not allow “walk in” registrations. It insisted on proof when there was a claim that the child was born outside of a hospital. Proof in the form of a witness statement, such as from the doctor or midwife.