patrick.net

tatupu70 says

loej–
That’s a very good point. Bill O’Reilly may or may not have raped and murdered that girl–I just don’t understand why he hasn’t presented the proof? It just raises a lot of questions that he hasn’t answered…

Tat, all else about this entertaining thread aside, you're a pretty smart guy and we've discussed "logic" before. I'm sure you realize that there is a significant difference between proving a positive and proving a negative, right?

Paralithodes says

tatupu70 says

loej–
That’s a very good point. Bill O’Reilly may or may not have raped and murdered that girl–I just don’t understand why he hasn’t presented the proof? It just raises a lot of questions that he hasn’t answered…

Tat, all else about this entertaining thread aside, you’re a pretty smart guy and we’ve discussed “logic” before. I’m sure you realize that there is a significant difference between proving a positive and proving a negative, right?

Para--

it's tongue in cheek. Maybe not as funny as Nomo, but I try occasionally.

shrekgrinch says

You just proved that your point is utter crap and that you don’t even understand what the ‘point’ is. The cable bill is utter nonsense? Try getting a CA ID or DL w/o proof of residing where you claim you now do — regardless of whatever bullshit you brought with you from Hawaii. Again: See how far that gets you. I dare you.

Ooooh. Do you double dog dare me? My point was that the cable bill has no bearing on this discussion. We weren't talking about what I'd need to get a DL. What does establishing residency have to do with Obama being born in Hawaii?

shrekgrinch says

Hell, if some state wants to accept a handwritten note signed by Mickey Mouse on the back of a Denny’s napkin that says, “[So and so] was born at [time] on [date] in Pahrump, Nevada” as valid proof of birth, they can do that too.
No, I am not being sarcastic either. They can damn well do that too. Seriously.

No, they seriously can't. If you read your own citation a little more closely, it says the Supreme Court has held that states can mandate term limits. Nothing else. Not sure how that relates to this discussion....

shrekgrinch says

MarkInSF says

Yeah, like “breaking news” on a “Kenyan” Obama birth certificate that was proven to be a forgery. And even after the admitted it was a forgery

So you just proved that you don’t know the difference between reporting and editorializing? WMD was must ‘reporting’ what others were saying. The NY Times does it all the time (like releasing info that WikiLeaks was going to, saying so and getting a free ride from the government for doing so). That’s what journalists do.

Just reporting what other were saying? Yeah, from somebody that was obivously lying, because of their previous forgery. Or are you claiming that the forgerly is real?

Why in the world would you read or refer to such a website that presents lies as "editorials" or whatever you want to call it?

shrekgrinch says

tatupu70 says

The short form is an acceptable document to prove natural born citizenship. You can use it to obtain a passport, a drivers license or any other document that requires proof of natural birth

A minor nitpick: Since when is ‘natural birth’ a requirement for a driver’s license? Main response: The ’short form’ is only valid if the ACCEPTING agency ACCEPTS it. THAT is WHY THE ISSUE here is the fact that several states are changing that for candidate registration requirements. AND THEY CAN DO JUST THAT.

Again, you make claims that you cannot back up. Where in the Constitution does it say a birth certificate does not provide proof of citizenship?

Again, the Arizona law, if ever actually passed, would be found unconstitutional.

You need to read the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Then take a look at the 12th Amendment.

14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Arizona does not get to decide if Obama is a citizen or not. Hawaii gets that privilege.

A Birther is someone who questions Obama's citizenship. -Shrekgrinch passes the test
A Birther also believes Obama's birth certificate is not adequate proof of citizenship. - Shrekgrinch passes that test too.

Walks like a duck,
Quacks likea duck,
It's a duck, folks.

Found this great chart:

Vicente says

Found this great chart:

Sounds like a rock song, "More Hitler Than Hitler".

Hitler isn't half the Hitler he used to be.

Vicente says

Found this great chart:

I see that you enjoy resurrecting this topic. Hopefully you will find the following article more educational. It was written by Lawrence Solum (a law professor at UIUC in Urbana, Illinois and former Harvard Law Review Editor):
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/107/solum.pdf

Short excerpt:
"What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a “natural born citizen.”

nos, shorter excerpt:

"Grasping the original meaning of the natural born citizen clause may lead us to the conclusion that the constitutional text does not provide the answer to all of our questions about eligibility for the office of President."

Keep whacking at that piñata.

Anyhoo, there's only two choices here, citizen or not-citizen at birth.

Obama by all indications -- birth notice in the papers, apparently official verification from Hawaii (with filing number right in sequence of 1961 issuances to boot) -- was a US citizen at birth and not a foreigner.

John Jay's letter in 1787:

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen

highlighting his concern, which was then incorporated into the Constitution was satisfied by Obama's American citizenship he received at birth.

Trying to parse 18th century legal dictionaries to undo the results of the 2008 election is just nutty, but par for the course for Republicans these days.

Keep it up, I don't think you and your nut brigade is going to find any more electoral victories this decade.

Troy says

Anyhoo, there’s only two choices here, citizen or not-citizen at birth.
Obama by all indications — birth notice in the papers, apparently official verification from Hawaii (with filing number right in sequence of 1961 issuances to boot) — was a US citizen at birth and not a foreigner.
John Jay’s letter in 1787:
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen
highlighting his concern, which was then incorporated into the Constitution was satisfied by Obama’s American citizenship he received at birth.
Trying to parse 18th century legal dictionaries to undo the results of the 2008 election is just nutty, but par for the course for Republicans these days.
Keep it up, I don’t think you and your nut brigade is going to find any more electoral victories this decade.

Natural born citizen is not the same as citizen at birth.

Professor told you that there is a general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a “natural born citizen".

This is the only definition of a citizen at birth that does not have to be specifically mentioned in the US Naturalization law. A natural born citizen does not have first generation tie to a foreign country - neither by place of birth nor by parents' citizenship.

Any other citizen at birth has a first generation tie to a foreign country.

nosf41 says

Natural born citizen is not the same as citizen at birth.

Uttterly wrong by your own cite:

"Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a “natural born citizen.” Anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of naturalization is not a natural born citizen."

By your own stupid cite Obama was either a natural born citizen or he became a naturalized citizen later.

Given his certificate of live birth was filed in the week after his birth in Hawaii, he was a US citizen at birth and thus not a naturalized citizen.

"it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth"or" by birth" -- Congressional Research Service, 2009

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens." -- United States v. Rhodes, 1866

Professor told you that there is a general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a “natural born citizen”.

Great, you've just destroyed your own stupid argument.

Your own cite is just dealing with McCain's own citizenship issues and spends a lot of words but goes nowhere.

James Madison, 1789:

"It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

"Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen."

Lynch v. Clarke, 1844

The 14th Amendment trumps all legislation (and prior constitutional jurisprudence for that matter). It states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

If Obama was born in the United States, he was a natural born citizen. The judge in the 2009 upheld this.

Birthers have nothing but vague bullshit in response.

Nomograph says

Oh man that wnd.com site. I haven't dipped into Derp! like that in a long time. Although I have to say they may be vague about facts/sources and timelines, they are never vague about consequences. The consequence is always quite vivid like:

"As We Move Closer And Closer To Orwell's 1984..."

or perhaps

"We’re Literally Standing on the Brink of Tyranny!"

I'm reminded sharply of numerous apocalypse cults.

This thread is still going?

My question still stands, shrekgrinch.

MarkInSF says

shrekgrinch says

MarkInSF says
Yeah, like “breaking news” on a “Kenyan” Obama birth certificate that was proven to be a forgery. And even after the admitted it was a forgery
So you just proved that you don’t know the difference between reporting and editorializing? WMD was must ‘reporting’ what others were saying. The NY Times does it all the time (like releasing info that WikiLeaks was going to, saying so and getting a free ride from the government for doing so). That’s what journalists do.

Just reporting what other were saying? Yeah, from somebody that was obivously lying, because of their previous forgery. Or are you claiming that the forgerly is real?
Why in the world would you read or refer to such a website that presents lies as “editorials” or whatever you want to call it?

Troy says

nosf41 says

Natural born citizen is not the same as citizen at birth.

Uttterly wrong by your own cite:
“Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a “natural born citizen.” Anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of naturalization is not a natural born citizen.”
By your own stupid cite Obama was either a natural born citizen or he became a naturalized citizen later.
Given his certificate of live birth was filed in the week after his birth in Hawaii, he was a US citizen at birth and thus not a naturalized citizen.
“it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase “natural born Citizen” would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth”or” by birth” — Congressional Research Service, 2009
“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.” — United States v. Rhodes, 1866
Professor told you that there is a general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a “natural born citizen”.
Great, you’ve just destroyed your own stupid argument.
Your own cite is just dealing with McCain’s own citizenship issues and spends a lot of words but goes nowhere.
James Madison, 1789:
“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
“Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”
Lynch v. Clarke, 1844
The 14th Amendment trumps all legislation (and prior constitutional jurisprudence for that matter). It states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
If Obama was born in the United States, he was a natural born citizen. The judge in the 2009 upheld this.
Birthers have nothing but vague bullshit in response.

The US Naturalization Act from 1790 says the following:
"...And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens..."

The law was changed 5 years later in 1795:
"...and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States..."

This example tells us that early Congress made a distinction between phrases "natural born Citizen" and citizen (at birth).

In addition, both laws say the following: "That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States"

The last sentence illustrates thinking of those early legislators: they would not consider a child born to an alien, non-resident, father either as a citizen or a natural born Citizen.

Obama's father was a foreign student who never intended to establish a residence in the US. He returned to Kenya as soon as he finished studies here.

MarkInSF says

This thread is still going?

It won't die. If you can't prove your point logically, with facts and stuff, it's always best to beat everyone into submission by repeating yourself ad nauseum. If they were in the room with us at a party, they'd be saying it loudly while standing over us (pounding the table like the mentally ill homless guy who talks to himself) until we work our way to the door and sneak out to Denny's.

I love chocolate.

nosf41 says

This example tells us that early Congress made a distinction between phrases “natural born Citizen” and citizen (at birth).

It may tell you and other wishful-thinkers that but there's no other jurisprudence that supports this. The alternative explanation is simply that they realized "natural born citizen" is a constitutional term of art (meant to exclude naturalized citizens from the Presidency) and Congress' job was limited to defining only citizenship -- who is and isn't a "natural born citizen" would, uh, naturally fall out from that.

The last sentence illustrates thinking of those early legislators: they would not consider a child born to an alien, non-resident, father either as a citizen or a natural born Citizen.

For people not born in the US, yes. Obama doesn't have this problem.

Nomograph says

It doesn’t matter if various arguments completely contradict each other, as long as they lead to the desired conclusion they will believe it.

You've forgotten the obvious: that Simcha claims to like chocolate. However, there's no quantifiable evidence to support his position. He purposefully didn't offer any additional information and I demand to know more about his position on this ever important issue. Does he purport to like dark chocolate, milk chocolate, white chocolate (which, according to Wikipedia, is "a confection of sugar, cocoa butter and milk solids with a pale yellow or ivory appearance..." - in other words, not really chocolate at all!). Does he claim to like have a propensity for chocolates - like See's or the super-expensive kinds like Godiva, or is he a store-bought candy bar kind of dude?

Simcha has mentioned his fondness of chocolate on at least two different threads, which leads me to wonder what he's hiding... Does he have a chocolate fetish and this is his way of telling the world about it? This man (or freak, depending upon what he does with the chocolate...) must come clean and provide us with more information.

Does he mean to tell us that Obama likes chocolate too? Is he in the know? Did Obama's parents like chocolate, and therefore any person who likes chocolate must prove his citizenship?

Too many questions and not enough answers. Simchaland, I demand that you defend yourself against the following with a yes or no answer:
Do you like chocolate more than you like your country and, if so, are you prepared to take a test (the long form) to prove your loyalty to the US of A?

Nomograph says

Birthers have a preconceived conclusion (e.g. that Obama is not eligible to be President) and will fall hook and line for ANY argument that leads to this conclusion.

Nomo, you are not giving Birthers enough credit.

The will fall hook line and SINKER, let's not be niggardly eh?

Can we get a mod to lock this thread?

It's clear that all the arguments have been presented.

It's continuing life serves no purpose.

frodo says

Can we get a mod to lock this thread?
It’s clear that all the arguments have been presented.
It’s continuing life serves no purpose.

So you don't care what kind of chocolate Simchaland, and by extension, Obama, might like? That's downright unAmerican.

This thread died long ago. Now we're just screwing around.

simchaland says

I love chocolate.

Good point.

Nomograph says

frodo says

It’s continuing life serves no purpose.

It serves to continually mock the Tea Party Birthers nutjobs like shreckgrinch, nosf41, and RayAMerica.
That alone is enough reason to keep it immortalized.

Ahh yes leave to Nomo to point out something I had not thought of.

You are indeed correct sir.

I rescind my request in light of this convincing perspective.

OK, yeah, Ill screw with them a little more.

Here is a line of discussion I have not seen pursued.

Suppose he wasn't born in America. Someone comes up with incontrovertible proof of this (Ahahahahahahaaaaaa Oh Ho ho hahahahahahah . . . harrumph. . . . . Snooort.) So anyway, I was saying that the entire population of the world, including Obama, agrees that he was not born on US soil.

Waddayougonnadoaboutit?

Impeach him? The way they impeached Clinton? ;) Imagine you do impeach him, and manage to get him to leave office; you get Biden for your troubles.

Stop being so short sighted. All of your wordplay cannot give credence to this absurd topic. Bow you friggen head and move on. There are other battles to be fought, birthers lost this one. Of course we all know that none of them have any intent beyond misdirection and provocation.

The foot soldiers who fight for this cause are tools. Tools and slaves.

Actually if it came out that President Obama lied about being a US citizen at birth, that is a prima-facie slam-dunk instant impeachment, and I would fully support it.

That's why I don't dismiss all this crap 100%. The birthers have every right to verify the Certification of Live Birth is not fraudulent.

Troy says

Actually if it came out that President Obama lied about being a US citizen at birth...

...he'd be a fucking child prodigy well beyond any other child, ever. Even my kids (who were the smartest and cutest kids in the entire world, with the possible exception of my future grandchildren) couldn't speak at birth.

frodo says

Someone comes up with incontrovertible proof of this (Ahahahahahahaaaaaa Oh Ho ho hahahahahahah . . . harrumph. . . . . Snooort.)

Stop right there, young man! Just by saying "Ahahahahahahaaaaaa Oh Ho ho hahahahahahah . . . harrumph. . . . . Snooort" you've provided incontrovertible proof that "Ahahahahahahaaaaaa Oh Ho ho hahahahahahah . . . harrumph. . . . . Snooort" exists, thereby completely nullifying your argument about the doubtfulness of the concept.

Meanwhile, Simchaland skirts the issue (sorry, didn't mean to call your manhood into question but "pants" the issue simply doesn't make sense, nor does "tighty-whities...") that I raised: What kind of chocolate?

bob2356 says

simchaland says

I love chocolate.

Good point.

Bob weighs in now - it's a conspiracy!

What I don't understand is, why are the Birthers pussyfooting around with this LAWYER nonsense.

They want the man out of office ASAP, there are long-established and cheap ways to achieve that. Steer an irresistible intern into the office, or have one of his opponents challenge him to a duel, or heck just BLOW HIS BRAINS OUT with a sniper rifle. Some Teabagger at a recent town hall sounded like he was putting out feelers for the right candidate for that job:

http://athenscms.com/blogs/2487/

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

I saw a picture of the Kenyan Interloper drinking water - PROOF POSITIVE that he is a hybridized plant designed to look like a human, developed by extraterrestrials.
This is EXACTLY what happened in an episode of the Dick Van Dyke show in which Rob found out that Laura was an alien!
PROOF at LAST!

Endoftheworldprocreator has a point - Lucy Arnaz was the Vitameatavegamin girl, and the next thing you know Dezi was gone... MTM got her own new show which was much more popular than the Hope Lange/Dick Van Dyke show... and Jerry Van Dyke's mother was a car until he got a coaching job... It all leads to the obvious:

Obama is part of a sitcom - there will be a sequel starring Michelle and her new husband, Bam Margera - it'll be called Bam's house. Crazy goings on will happen, with Michelle holding down the fort while Bam and his crew run amuck in Washington. Sasha & Melia become goth... this, while Barak traces his roots on a teevee show and finds out that he's really Dutch-Irish with a heavy tan.

Excuse me, I've got to take my meds now.

Shrekgrinch has company. One of the 2012 Presidential hopefuls has come out to say he believes Obama was born in Kenya!

Huck-a-bee. Huck-a-bee. Huck-a-bee.

The Republican primary debates are going to be a hoot as these fools stammer around talking about inane differences between birth certificates and magic long forms as the President gives speaches addressing the foreign policy of the nation.

I wonder who's going to look more Presidential? Hmmmm...

Anyone else just skim past all of nosf41's 18th century jibber jabber and legalese posts? He puts a lot of thought and work into the Birther conspiracy and I feel guilty for not educating myself on the minutiae he clearly cares so much about.

Then I remember Abraham Lincoln had no birth certificate, no certificate of live birth, no long form, no short form, no medium form, no proof of natural born citizenship, no proof of citizenship via birth, no citizenship papers, and no record at all of his entry into the world within the borders of the United States.

From the Southern Gentleman's Slavery Gazette in 1862:

Tis a sorrowful Day in the Republic as We, peoples Free and White, Ponder the ineligibility of the President of the United States. Master Lincoln continues to fail to provide the Lengthy scribe Journal proving his Birth in our Fair Republic! I dare Say this Man may Not be a Man atall, But a Clever slave baby Who crept Silently into the Lincoln families Log Cabin Under the cover of A Dark and Clouded Moon!

Poor Troy is the only guy willing to get into the weeds with this stuff.

Ditto, no patience for the long screeds.

Whole swaths of generations of Americans had little proof of their birth or life history, beyond notes scribbled in the blank pages of the Family Bible, and maybe some headstones.

SoCal Renter says

Anyone else just skim past all of nosf41’s 18th century jibber jabber and legalese posts? He puts a lot of thought and work into the Birther conspiracy and I feel guilty for not educating myself on the minutiae he clearly cares so much about.
Then I remember Abraham Lincoln had no birth certificate, no certificate of live birth, no long form, no short form, no medium form, no proof of natural born citizenship, no proof of citizenship via birth, no citizenship papers, and no record at all of his entry into the world within the borders of the United States.
From the Southern Gentleman’s Slavery Gazette in 1862:

Tis a sorrowful Day in the Republic as We, peoples Free and White, Ponder the ineligibility of the President of the United States. Master Lincoln continues to fail to provide the Lengthy scribe Journal proving his Birth in our Fair Republic! I dare Say this Man may Not be a Man atall, But a Clever slave baby Who crept Silently into the Lincoln families Log Cabin Under the cover of A Dark and Clouded Moon!

Poor Troy is the only guy willing to get into the weeds with this stuff.

Don't the personal cards that proclaim Lincoln's mother is no longer with child and therefore ready to resume working as a shopgirl count for something? Have we become so jaded that we don't count the whittling Lincoln's father wrote on the cabin walls as a proclamation of live birth?

Jeesh, youse guys...

elliemae says
Don’t the personal cards that proclaim Lincoln’s mother is no longer with child and therefore ready to resume working as a shopgirl count for something? Have we become so jaded that we don’t count the whittling Lincoln’s father wrote on the cabin walls as a proclamation of live birth?
Jeesh, youse guys…

Forgeries by Lincoln's operatives. Anyone can simply put out a fake newspaper birth announcement or a fake personal card. A southern slave catching expert in 1862 examined the whittlings on the cabin walls and reported that the crude marks were clearly made by a devious slave child.

There is a tremendous amount of evidence that Lincoln was not eligible to be President of the United States. When the rest of the Tea Party finally gets into Congress, they will be able to rectify this situation and show that the South actually won the Civil War because all of Lincoln's decisions were illegal.

SoCal Renter says

There is a tremendous amount of evidence that Lincoln was not eligible to be President of the United States. When the rest of the Tea Party finally gets into Congress, they will be able to rectify this situation and show that the South actually won the Civil War because all of Lincoln’s decisions were illegal.

I would faithfully submit that George Washington wasn't eligible to run as president because he wasn't born in the United States of America! He was born February 22, 1732, yet the USofA became a country in 1776. His entire presidency (which began in 1789) should be stricken from the record, and every piece of legislation including the Bill of Rights (1791) is no longer valid.

...and every presidency until that of Martin Van Buren, who was born in 1782, doesn't count either. Then, we took a step backward with Wm Henry Harrison who was born a full three years before the USA was born. So his presidency doesn't count either.

It's a fucking conspiracy at the highest levels, why can't youse guys see that?

Tenouncetrout says

I find it Ironic, I’ve heard every side to this story 10 ways to Sunday, and have yet to hear the commandeered and Chief, officially say or do anything on the subject. That’s messed up for a guy that is supposed to be a leader, and talked about “bipartisanship’ early on. This isn’t some frivolous document in dispute here, it’s the BC of the President of the United States. By now, there should be an official page at the Whitehouse website specially dedicated to an official birth certificate.

Did George W. Bush have an official White House page specially dedicated to HIS birth certificate? Has ANY president had such a page?

shrekgrinch says

The only thing I have seen is a ’short form’ cert that by Hawaiian state law only means that Hawaii has the real, long form one or an out of state/out of country one filed.

Well, I looked through this whole disaster of a thread, and I do not see anywhere that you have provided any evidence for this statement. What is your proof that the certificate provided is a "short form" and that Hawaiian law says what you claim? Also, what is your evidence that this form is not valid proof of birth?

gameisrigged says

What is your proof that the certificate provided is a “short form” and that Hawaiian law says what you claim? Also, what is your evidence that this form is not valid proof of birth?

The difference is between "Certification of Live Birth" and "Certificate of Live Birth".

The former is the "short form" and is just a print out of data kept in the state's records.

It's also what the Obama campaign publicized back in 2008, and is all that the State of Hawaii is releasing to anyone who requests their birth certificate, since it is sufficient for the purposes of being a "birth certificate".

A "Certificate of Live Birth" is a photocopy of the original birth certificate as originally filed.

That Obama hasn't released that does allow the conspiracy theorists some room to charge fraud or whatever.

Troy says

The difference is between “Certification of Live Birth” and “Certificate of Live Birth”.
The former is the “short form” and is just a print out of data kept in the state’s records.
It’s also what the Obama campaign publicized back in 2008, and is all that the State of Hawaii is releasing to anyone who requests their birth certificate, since it is sufficient for the purposes of being a “birth certificate”.
A “Certificate of Live Birth” is a photocopy of the original birth certificate as originally filed.

You have simply re-stated the assertion. I asked for evidence that it is true, not just for the bald assertion to be repeated. I understand the CLAIM that is being made, but I do not see any reason that I ought to believe said claim.

Merely SAYING a thing does not make it true.

So again, I am asking him:

What is your proof that the certificate provided is a “short form” and that Hawaiian law says what you claim? Also, what is your evidence that this form is not valid proof of birth?

gameisrigged says

You have simply re-stated the assertion. I asked for evidence that it is true, not just for the bald assertion to be repeated...Also, what is your evidence that this form is not valid proof of birth?

Game, you crack me up. What Troy said is as easy to verify as the fact that the legal drinking age in California is 21. And BTW, look again. He did not even assert that it was not valid proof.