Hawaii Very Officially Verifies Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate

It's No Yolk -- Sheriff Joe Has Major Egg on His Face After Casting His Lot in With the Birthers

It's No Yolk -- Sheriff Joe Has Major Egg on His Face After Casting His Lot in With the Birthers

Upon receipt of a request that they were legally able to comply with, the Hawaii State Department of Health has provided clear official verification that the information in the long form birth certificate image posted last April on the White House web site does indeed match that on the birth certificate in their files.

The official verification was obtained by lawyers for the Mississippi Democratic Party, and made public in connection with a court case in which birther attorney Orly Taitz is suing the aforementioned party.

The release of this verification once again highlights the astonishing lack of discernment and reality of the press conference three months ago in which Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio (popularly known as “America’s Toughest Sheriff”) and the “Marikopa Kops Birther Posse” publicly claimed that the President’s birth certificate was a “forgery.”

This week’s newly released official verification from the State of Hawaii — complete with the hand-written initials of the State of Hawaii’s chief Registrar Alvin T. Onaka — clearly states that Obama’s original Certificate of Live Birth is on file with the Hawaii Department of Health, and that the information on that original document matches the information that was published at the White House web site.

You really can’t say it much more clearly than that. The birthers, of course, will continue to demand a microfilm copy, and will insist that somebody at the Hawaii Department of Health — actually, a lot of somebodies — must be “covering for” a “badly made forgery.”

Except there never was any decent technical evidence at all that the file released by the White House was a forgery. I hate to say, “I told you so,” but — I told you so… nine months ago.

As I’ve noted many times both before and after Arpaio’s press conference, not one single substantive point in the analysis referenced has ever been successfully refuted.

Actually, I began telling you so within 10 days after the birth certificate was released. I took a lot of heat for simply speaking the truth, but the truth was and is the truth.

So, birther cheerleaders and donors — how does it feel now to have been used, for the past year, by the propagandists?

An image of Hawaii’s official letter of verification can be seen here.

The entire motion that the letter of verification was filed with can be seen here.

This entry was posted in Conclusions, I Told You So, What's Happening. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Hawaii Very Officially Verifies Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate

  1. John Woodman says:

    This is sooo official and such current news that I could hardly resist noting it in a brief post while still working on getting together my final, wrap-up post for this blog.

  2. i think this is about to expand again this month john. more new info will be arriving soon.
    with appearances by frank marshall davis and breitbart, punctuated by trump (whom i think is an oppotunist using the work of others).

    and i don’t think we’ve heard the last of larry sinclair, and of course the terrorist/traitor bill ayers.
    good article though. why do you think o’reilly said obama senior lived in ct. for years ?

    what about this latest cnn fiasco. do you think the mainstream media is trustworthy. do you think obama is corrupt or has ties to corrupt people in chicago ??

    • John Woodman says:

      I’ll put it this way. Reagan, in dealing with the Soviets, said: “Trust — but verify.”

      One always does well to trust — but verify. When it comes to news reports (whether from the mainstream media or non-mainstream media), claims of politicians, or business deals, one always does well to trust — but verify.

      And lack of accuracy in media is not always deliberate. Probably most of the time it’s not deliberate. But deliberate or not, it leads to a failure to communicate the truth.

      As for the latest CNN thing:

      1) I am in full agreement that the negative-image birth certificate they depicted in their video is not Obama’s. Whether its inclusion and their making it sound as if it’s his was deliberate or an editing mistake, it’s not his certificate.

      It’s also worth noting, however, what they are saying in the audio:

      “But Dr. Fukino says even if she hadn’t seen the original certificate here in the Health Department Building, this document, the President’s computer-generated certificate, which was made public four years ago, had already proven he was born in Hawaii.”

      And they actually show the correct computer-generated short form certificate during the first half of that sentence, but switch to the negative-image not-Obama’s-long-form when the narrator says “this document.”

      And that the negative-image, obviously NOT computer-generated long form document does not even match what the narrator is talking about is quite obvious to anybody who knows very much at all about the issue.

      Here’s the bottom line: CNN showed a long-form certificate that wasn’t Obama’s, while talking about a short-form certificate that WAS his.

      Did that depiction communicate anything more to the audience than continuing to focus on the green short-form computer generated certificate would have? I frankly don’t see that it communicated anything other than what the narrator said. If anything, it caused them to fail to get their message across as clearly as it might have done.

      That being the case, I hardly see how it was any kind of deception on the public. Goofup? Yes. Deception? Not in this case.

      So was the depiction inaccurate? Absolutely. Does it rise to the level of “fraud?” I think that’s a bit of a stretch.

      2) Note what the entire hubbub among birthers regarding that video has been about. It’s about the fact that CNN showed a long-form certificate that wasn’t Obama’s while talking about his short-form computer-generated certificate — which also appeared on the screen.

      It is a focus on what, in the end, amounts to irrelevant minutiae. Inaccurate? Yes. Annoying? Yes. Important? No.

      Here’s the point: The birthers have completely bypassed the important information in the video to focus on a few seconds of unimportant information.

      What’s the important information in the video? The clear, absolute and unambiguous statements from Republican Chiyome Fukino, who states she has absolutely no doubt that Obama was born in Honolulu. “It was absolutely authentic, he was absolutely born here in the State of Hawaii.”

      3) Finally, it’s well worth noting that BirtherReport and similar sources of news do not hesitate for one moment in charging CNN with deliberate fraud in a case in which they briefly displayed the wrong certificate while verbally making a point that was at least arguably correct.

      But people who say what they like to hear can tell falsehood after falsehood after falsehood — and instead of identifying what is CLEARLY a type of genuine fraud as what it is, they continue to cover big whoppers that they like as the “truth.”

      The fact is, virtually everything of any substance that has been said by birthers has turned out to be false, and provably so. Dozens of times in a row, they have claimed to have good evidence or outright proof that the birth certificate is a forgery. Dozens of times in a row, in each and every case, those claims have been false. Dozens of times in a row, they have claimed that various authorities prove the claim that it takes two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen. And each and every time, the claim has also turned out to be false.

      And all of this is verifiable. Go to the original sources. Verify it for yourself.

      Trust — but verify. It applies to the birther sources of information as well. And since the entire birther movement has been built on literally nothing but a wall of falsehoods and deceptions, it applies far more to the birther movement than it does to CNN.

      Not that I trust CNN. But on the trustworthiness scale from 1 to 100, if CNN merits a B, the birther movement gets a solid F.

      And I’m not talking about a “50%” F. I’m talking about something like a “10%” F.

  3. Mike Smith says:

    “states that Obama’s original Certificate of Live Birth is on file with the Hawaii Department of Health, and that the information on that original document matches the information that was published at the White House web site”. What matches? So the birthers were correct—-this was not a scanned copy of the original birth certificate but a “made up copy” by a computer. Can I do this when I go to get my driver’s license? This is so phony—-if there was an original copy it would have been scanned like everyone else and this would have been posted.

    • John Woodman says:


      I don’t know how you can possibly get, from the statement that the information in Obama’s original birth certificate matches the information on the image published at the White House web site, that “the birthers were correct—-this was not a scanned copy of the original birth certificate but a ‘made up copy’ by a computer.”

      It simply does not follow.

      It’s like my looking at a photo of Brad Pitt published on a web site and stating, “Yes, that looks exactly like Brad Pitt,” and you concluding from that statement that the image isn’t a photo, but is instead a hand-created digital painting. The conclusion simply makes not the slightest amount of sense.

    • Northland10 says:


      What is important is the information. When a donor asks for a list of their contributions, they do no receive the actual checks or even a copy but a computerized list of their contributions. The key is to make the information on the computerized list match that actual data on file. Hawaii has stated the information matches (i.e President Obama was born in Hawaii on 4 August 1961 to Barack Obama, Sr., from Kenya, and Stanley Ann Dunham, from Kansas). Since Hawaii is entrusted in keeping that information, their word is final.

      The only thing that could require further investigation into their word is credible evidence of birth elsewhere. If the eligibility deniers could come up with that, I suspect John might consider taking up a new challenge. So far, Birthers demand that people must inspect Hawaii’s evidence of birth but make no demands that somebody inspect the record of a Kenya birth.

  4. john says:

    Quite interesting. The lawyers in MS failed to fill out the request form which is required by the Hawaii DOH rules and instead simply wrote a letter.

    “Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies.”

    I suspect this was deliberate because the lawyers would have run into problems like Bennett did.

    The Hawaii DOH broke its own rules and responded to the lawyers.

    • Jim says:

      john says: “Quite interesting. The lawyers in MS failed to fill out the request form which is required by the Hawaii DOH rules and instead simply wrote a letter.”

      And how do you know they didn’t fill out the request form and just not submit to court because they felt it wasn’t necessary?

  5. Jim says:

    Sorry John, couldn’t resist posting this from Mario:

    Blogger Puzo1 said…

    “The attorneys for the Tennessee Democratic Party have opened the door which will allow Orly Taitz access to all the original Obama records contained in the Hawaii Health Department. Those attorneys and Dr. Onaka have done an end run around the defendant having to provide a certified true copy of Obama’s birth certificate to the Court as true evidence that Obama, his attorneys, and the Hawaii Department of Health have not engaged in a fraud upon the court as Orly Taitz alleges. They have done that end run under the guise that the verification is needed for purposes of litigation. Well, Ms. Taitz also has litigation needs. She has to be able to access all available evidence that supports her allegation of a fraud upon the court. Since the defendants have introduced the verification into evidence for purposes of opposing her allegation, Ms. Taits also has the due process right to test the validity of that evidence by being able to subpoena Dr. Onaka for cross examination and subpoena the original documents upon which he says he relied in producing his Verification of Birth. As the old saying goes, what good for the goose is good for the gander.”

    I think he’s got analogy backwards. It’s up to Taitz to PROVE her allegations, not the MDEC.

    • Northland10 says:

      He cannot even get the state correct. Orly’s case is in Mississippi not Tennessee.

      • John Woodman says:

        Hey, they border. Close enough for government work.

      • John Woodman says:

        I must confess, it is at moments like these — particularly given the incident the day before yesterday, when he went into a 7-point criticism of the wrong verification from Hawaii — when I at least momentarily waver in my conviction that Mario can be nothing other than an absolute, disingenuous liar, and think that there is at least a remote chance that the guy might be sincere in his lunatic ravings after all.

  6. think he’ll end up opening the vault ?

    i wish the whitehouse would leak the combination.

    if he’s not re elected, i might have to wait fifty years to know for sure right ??

    btw: as a birther i don’t feel used. and i haven’t had a change of heart or gut feeling. and i think obama wins the propaganda game. 20 $ coffee cups, T-shirts and hoodies… seriously ? the mug is obama’s, the coffee is pure kenyan.

    i still think the players in hawaii are dirty and hiding stuff.

    wait… are you retiring again ??

    • Well whadayaknow, chicken Scottie emerges from his hiding place. 😆

    • John Woodman says:


      You will never know more than you know now. Not in fifty years, and not in a hundred.

      Obama’s original birth certificate will never be paraded before the public. Nor is the birth certificate of any other President ever likely to be, either.

      You will also never know for certain that George Washington didn’t have a secret love child, or that Franklin Roosevelt wasn’t faking illness that required him to sit in a wheelchair, or that John Wilkes Booth was really the assassin of Abraham Lincoln.

      Who knows? Maybe a woman was standing out in the hall with a gun, and she did the actual shooting, and then Booth took the gun from her, leaped on the stage, and took the blame.

      All kinds of things can be speculated. You can create any imaginative tale, about anybody, that you want. Maybe Obama really did teleport to Mars and back during the 1970s in a secret CIA-sponsored program? Or maybe he really is a reptilian from another planet, wearing a human skin.

      Those who demand an absolute proof — of anything — are likely to be disappointed.

      Are you sure that I exist? Maybe you dreamed me. Or maybe I dreamed you. For that matter, are you sure that Obama exists?

      There are people (and you may be one of them) who will go on for the rest of their lives, believing — or at least suspecting — that Barack Obama was never eligible to be President of the United States.

      For the rest of us, though, there is the standard of reasonable proof.

      I reasonably believe that Australia exists, even though I’ve never been there. I reasonably believe that Albert Einstein, Julius Caesar, George Washington, Amelia Earhart and Elvis Presley were all real people, even though I never met them.

      I also reasonably believe that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are stories and not real beings.

      The evidence that Barack Obama is eligible, at this point, easily meets the standards of reasonable proof — for the vast, vast majority of people in the world. It even meets my standards of proof — and I’m a skeptic.

      I personally do not have any real doubt at all that Mr. Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President.

      Does that necessarily make him a good President? No. But you don’t have to be a good President, or a good candidate, to be elected and serve in the office.

      In any event, you’re free to believe absolutely anything you want to believe. I once had a friend, back when I was a boy many years ago in grade school, who insisted quite seriously that he was from another planet. I doubted it, but at the time I was just a boy and not entirely certain what to believe. My college roommate once convinced a friend of mine that his parakeet was “part owl.” I also knew a girl, in high school, who believed Santa Claus was real because she had seen it on TV.

      That’s the wonderful thing about a free country. You can believe whatever you want to believe. So I say, go for it. Believe whatever you want. But you’ll have to excuse me, and others, if we choose to reject unreasonable beliefs for which there is no good evidence at all, and choose reasonable beliefs instead. 😉

    • John Woodman says:

      Oh — and in answer to the question, “am I retiring again” — the answer is a quite definite yes.

      I’m trying to get my final article on the birther issues done. It’s going more slowly than I envisioned — partly because I haven’t been spending much time on it — and right now one bit of it is defiantly demanding to be posted separately. We’ll see how it goes. Anyway, I want to wrap this up within a few days if possible.

  7. gsgs says:

    > You will never know more than you know now.

    maybe Obama wants to keep some info for his memoirs.
    To make them more interesting,more exclusive

  8. gsgs says:

    isn’t that a strange formulation :
    > The information contained in the ”Certificate of Live Birth” published at
    > http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form birth-certificate
    > and reviewed by me on the date of this verification, a copy of which is attached
    > with your request, matches the information contained in the original
    > Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, is on file with the
    > State of Hawaii Department of Health.

    is it normal, is it used in the same way in similar documents ?
    I couldn’t find it with google.

    Why not just say that the two documents contain the same information ?

    If something were deleted, left out in the WH-document
    would that reduced information still “match” the original ?

    The contained information would be a subset of the original information.
    Like a puzzle-piece may “match” into a vacancy of a larger image.

    > I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file
    > with the DoH was used to verify the facts of the vital event

    only the information was used , not the record itself ?
    Where did they get the information from ? the WH ?

    • gorefan says:

      When the verification that was sent to SoS Bennett was first published some people got all excited because Dr. Onaka did not repeat the request exactly as it was put to him by Secretary Bennett. For this second verification he repeated almost verbatim the MDEC request.

      From the MDEC request:

      Pursuant to Sections 338-14.3 and 338-18 (g)(4), MDEC Counsel recently submitted a written request to the Hawaii Department of Health, seeking verification of the following:

      1. The original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II, is on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health.

      2. The information contained in the “Certificate of Live Birth” published at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth- certificate, a copy of which is attached to this request, matches the information contained in the original Certificate of Live birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health.

      From Dr. Onaka’s verification:

      Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-14.3, I verify the following:

      1. The original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II, is on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health.

      2. The information contained in the “Certificate of Live Birth” published at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth- certificate and reviewed by me on the date of this verification, a copy of which is attached to this request, matches the information contained in the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health.

      I guess Dr. Onaka is damned no matter what he writes because someone will always find a nit to pick.

    • Is this gsgs asking or Frau Butterdizillion?

      • gorefan says:

        Or scott erickson?

        • I am not implying gsgs is anyone else but this is the same tactic Butter uses. She parses statements to make ridiculous inferences that they are putting out some hidden message rather than what they plainly say.

          • gorefan says:

            I’m not implying anything either but scott also likes to ask leading questions.

            • It is a Birther thing but Butterdizillion (Nellie Ristvedt) has developed parsing what is not there too a fine art.

            • gorefan says:

              MissTickly was also a master parser.

            • John Woodman says:

              Miss Tickly. Now there’s a name I haven’t heard in a while.

              Her blog seems to be currently marked private.

              I think it’s at last becoming clear to some of the birthers that they placed big bets on the wrong horse.

              All pages at birthersummit.org now seem to redirect to an announcement:

              Birther Summit USA

              The Birther Summit Offers Refunds.
              If you purchased a registration and would like a refund, please click here to send an email with your request by June 11, 2012.

              Thank you.

              For information about the initiatives in Connecticut, please contact Cort Wrotnowski at [email address deleted to help avoid spambot harvesting]

              I compliment Mr. Haskins on having the integrity to issue refunds.

          • John Woodman says:

            gsgs is in Germany.

            One of the things I wonder from time to time is what is the attraction of the issue for folks who are outside of the United States. For example, why has MichaelN over in Australia latched onto the issue?

            This blog also has lots of visitors from literally all over the world. Most are from Europe such as gsgs, but also Asia — places like China, Japan, Thailand, Indonesia — as well as Australia, Latin America, Africa. Not so many from Africa.

            I can only conclude that the attraction of the issue is something people can relate to anywhere. It’s the attraction of the big conspiracy. What if the birthers are right? What if the President of the United States is a secret usurper, propped up by a corrupt conspiracy of enormous proportions? The narrative is movie-drama stuff.

            Except that’s all it is. Narrative.

    • gsgs says:

      I was reading the Klayman letter

      seems that Klayman now argued the same way:
      The information on WH matches the information in the Hawaii original.
      You could maybe also view this true if WH were empty or nonexistent.
      It could be a matter of language, I’m not sure.
      Klayman concludes that the BC was late or altered and that info was
      deleted by WH.
      Hawaii could have avoided that -possible- ambiguity by stating that the
      documents contain the same information. Or by formulating it the other
      way round: the information on the Hawaii original matches the information
      in WH. Or even better : give an electronically signatured file of the copy-image. The WH could then still decide whether they publish it.

      AZ(May 22): “the information [in the attached copy] matches the original record”
      MS(May 31): “the information [in the COLB-part of WH-pdf] matches the information ib the original”
      So they realized their error, that information can’t match a record but only other information.
      What they presumably mean is that the information expressed by the mere (ASCII)-text
      matches. The original contains more information. Like color-details, smudges, paper-fibers,
      ink-molecules, radiation…

      You could argue that one information “matches” another one, if the file of the typed and stored text
      is exactly the same. I’d tend to this interpretation, but I’m not sure.
      Or that the one file is contained in the other one. The text-information in WH matches
      with some text in the original. The original may contain additional information,
      like some text in field 23 or further pencilmarks or ink from another document that lay above it
      or some text on the backside or text written with ink that doesn’t show up on the
      used scanner or whatever.

      Of course, Obama still has the 2 papercopies and the 2008-COLB which could
      be used as proof in Court or shown to Bauer and the DNC..

      • gsgs says:

        Klayman writes:
        > Likewise, the only legal reason for not
        > verifying that the posted long-form
        > “is a true and accurate representation of
        > the original record in [the DOH] files”
        > is if it is not.
        > There is no other plausible explanation.

        there is. What if Onaka just doesn’t know ?
        It is not clearly defined what “is a true and
        accurate representation”. Each US-judge may
        have his own interpretation of this.
        Apparently it is the strategy of the US-legal
        system to keep such things open and undefined,
        (so they have more flexibility in new cases
        and are not bound by previous decisions ?)
        WH is compressed, it has a halo, some letters
        are not clearly readable. The text is only
        1-bit (dark-colored or background) while in the
        original there are levels of grey.
        The resolution is “only” ~8.4M pixels.
        338-14.3 only applies to “vital events that pertains
        to the certificate”. Not representations thereof.

        > … key birth facts [city,island,names] were also
        > not verified by Mr.Onaka …

        but that’s because Bennett not asked for those.
        Onaka’s list essentially “matches” Bennett’s.
        Obviously Bennett’s list was just copied and
        points 1.) and 2.) were added.

        > the legal presumption at this point must,therefore,
        > be that the certificate (image) posted on the
        > whitehouse.gov website as well as the “original” record
        > on file with the HIDOH are not legally valid or
        > binding;i.e.,its probative value can only be determined
        > by the public official before whom it is being
        > “offered as evidence.”

        then Klayman continues that the BC was altered (although
        Hawaii says it was not) and that the BC and the verifications
        were not probative, although Hawaii says they are.

        > the sanctity of the ballot, for which countless
        > brave men and women have given their lives.
        > I pray that you will honor your own sacred duty …

        hmm, ballots are holy,sacred in USA and
        people gave their lives for ballots and
        registrars have sacred duties ??

        • gorefan says:

          I don’t understand the part about,

          “key birth facts [city,island,names] were also
          > not verified by Mr.Onaka”

          Item one in Dr. Onaka’s verification clearly says that President Obama was “born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”

          And he goes on to verify the name of the hospital, how likely is it that there is a “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” in Kenya?

      • Of course Klayman conveniently forgot to include the fact that a late or altered BC would be clearly marked as such.

        §338-16 Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates. (a) Birth certificates registered one year or more after the date of birth, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”.

        I expect Mr. Bauer is still laughing at Klayman’s letter.

  9. gsgs says:

    sorry, I had missed this. Presumably because I forgot to subscribe to this thread.
    Isn’t it strange that you find it strange ? In USA you are a birther or antibirther,
    there are no neutral people who are just curious and want to figure out the truth,
    who is right and who wrong. They are birther or antibirther from the beginning,
    they won’t change position. John Woodman may differ, he says he was skeptic at
    first. But that he was it only for <1month and now he is an antibirther since more than a year.
    And this "system" that was established also means that a birther _never_
    brings up an antibirther argument and vice versa. Should they happen to find
    one, they must suppress it and not spread it (maybe even in the hope it
    gets debunked this way). That doesn't really make sense logically.

    • John Woodman says:


      It’s been my experience that it is has been rare for a person who’s been involved in the conversation to change their position, or at least to do so publicly.

      By the way, the only ones I know of are a few who changed from being birthers to being non-birthers. I can think of a guy said he changed his mind after my book was published. “Squeeky Fromm” is a former birther. And as you noted, I changed my position from an initial suspicion that Mr. Obama was probably born somewhere other than the US, or otherwise had something on his birth certificate he wanted to hide.

      I think there are others who have changed their mind, but not announced that publicly. I know from past experience that when you win a debate in the public sphere, most of the time those who were debating the other side don’t say, “Well, you were right.” Most of them just quietly slink away, and the conversation goes silent.

      As far as being an “anti-birther,” it actually took me probably close to a year of research and these discussions to begin to think of myself as being an “anti-birther.” I don’t think I began drawing any conclusions on the “natural born citizen” claims until last fall. I know that by March, however, I had decided that there was nothing to those as well. But I was not at all quick to make up my mind, and only did so on the basis of a lot of evidence.

      It is now, 14 months after the birth certificate PDF was released, perfectly clear to me that there is nothing to ANY of the many DOZENS of birther claims. I have arrived at that conclusion the painful, old-fashioned way: By honestly investigating the claims in complete detail.

    • John Woodman says:

      By the way: The reason that I present very little to no evidence in favor of the birther claims is that, properly understood, there IS very little to no evidence for their claims.

      In my final article, I do have at least one point in their favor. But honestly, that’s about the only one I could even find.

      • gsgs says:

        I think people start to take a position since they must take _some_ position
        to start participating in the discussing. Then they get attacked, provoked and they defend themselves
        and that brings they deeper and deeper into that initial position.
        I saw it with other subjects .

        • John Woodman says:

          I do think that’s a possible reason why people “dig in” on a particular position.

      • gsgs says:

        the main pro-birther argument for me is the handling
        by Obama et.al. The dismissing lawsuits,
        not replying to questions, ridiculing, timing
        of announcements, wording

        • So your belief is based on the fact that the President’s attorneys have not yielded anything to a small band of kooks that even the leadership of their own (Republican) party wish would go away?

          • gsgs says:

            I don’t understand the question. Can you say it in normal English ?

            • Jim says:

              Starting before the election in 2008, President Obama wrote to the State of Hawaii and received his birth certificate which he then showed to an independent news agency and allowed them to take pics, handle the document, etc. These pics were then posted on the web. WND said at that time that the BC was authentic, and called Orly Taitz a crackpot. Sometime later, WND realized that there was money to be made by claiming the BC was a forgery and backing Taitz. The BC has been backed up by the State of Hawaii as accurately reflecting that President Obama was born there with 2 statements, and twice attesting to the accuracy of the documents that appear on the web…to the SOS of Arizona and
              to the lawyers for the Democratic Party of Mississippi. On top of that, there are birth announcements in the papers at that time that were placed by the Hawaii DOH, an independent person who confirms the birth with a statement, and documented evidence that the President’s father was in Hawaii at the time of the birth and never left. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence that President Obama was born ANYPLACE ELSE. NONE. ZILCH. NADA. These folks are snake-oil salesmen trying to make a buck off the uninformed. I just hope you weren’t taken in by them and sent them money, cause you was robbed!

            • Is that a serious question or an attempt at humor? (I am serious. If you are just snarking I will not waste time by replying other than this.)

          • Suranis says:

            But isn’t there a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
            00000000001% chance it could be forged? Then birthers are reasonable people, you have to send in the marines to invade Hawaii to get the microfilm (after all theres a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
            0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance Hawaii really does store stuff on microfilm so the marines need to get it, No excuses), and Orly needs to be appointed to the supreme court. (there’s a o.o*E10,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance she actually is right and everyone else is wrong so you have to take everything she says seriously)

            There is actually someone out there who thinks this is a persuasive argument.

  10. gsgs says:

    my main agenda in internet since Dec. 2005 was to get expert
    estimates for the likelyhood of the threatening H5N1-pandemic.
    Experts were very concerned but didn’t give anything that could
    be really understood by laymen. Then I created a thread
    at ideafutures about it and watched the prices as an indicator
    for the likelyhood. Iowa electronical markets had also some flu-claims
    then I found intrade etc. On their forums this also meant
    controverse discussion about these topics.
    Before that
    I was always interested in these controverse things and who
    finally was found to have been right. One major example was
    coldwar East-TV (GDR, “the black channel”) vs. West TV
    (FRG,NATO,..). Also math-puzzles, math-proofs since childhood.
    So I became interested in the birther thing, it was discussed
    on other forums where I did post.

    • John Woodman says:

      And how likely do you think an H5N1 pandemic to be?

      Scary scenario, by the way.

      • gsgs says:

        my maximum was 15% per year in 2006. Now 5% per year.
        I started polls in the flu-forums and people usually estimated
        50%-90% per year

        • John Woodman says:

          You do seem to be more level headed than most. 😉

          If that is accurate, it still gives a 2/3rds chance within the next 20 years.

          • gsgs says:

            it should go further down the next years.
            What’s my subjective probability for the next 20 years
            of at least one H5N1-pandemic ?
            I’ll have to think about it. 30%

Comments are closed.