- NEW!
by HasntBeen on October 31st, 2008
Here you go:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-birth.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Note: the factcheck.org site is quite objective, dedicated to investigating and debunking various political mixups and falsehoods. It's just as harsh on Obama as it is on McCain, for example it takes him to task for false statements about McCain's health care plan.
The article shows blowups of the birth certificate's seal and other details, as well as discussion about the origins of the rumors and blog-swamp-quality accusations regarding this item.
by tomsims on October 31st, 2008
It has been done, but rumor mongers still prey on gullible people.
by 1858 Remington 1-21-13 on February 22nd, 2009
Because his authentic birth certificate will show that he was born somewhere else than in America, such as maybe, Kenya.
by Im Alec has abandoned this account on February 17th, 2009
He did produce his birth certificate - to the relevant authorities. Just as you produce your drivers licence to the relevant authorities - but not to any bum on the street. There is a very positive system for checking elegibility for all major elections, which Obama and McCain both had to go through. Are you accusing the people responsible for this system of corruption?
by NeverWas on February 17th, 2009
To quell pre-election rumors, he produced his Certificate of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii. What do you want, a video of JFK watching his birth at the foot of Mount Kilauea?
by redcatt63 is around here somewhere...... on February 17th, 2009
This question has been beaten to death. He HAS produced his birth certificate. A challenge was brought before the Supreme Court and it's been thrown out. How is someone born in the U.S. (Hawaii) to an American mother still questioned as to whether he is a citizen? He IS a citizen and he was legally elected to the office of President by a majority vote.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
by Jan51601 on January 17th, 2009
http://www.politifact.com/media/img/graphics/birthCertObama.jpg
Click on the magnifier in the lower right corner to read it better.
by QuartzKitty on September 3rd, 2009
Why should he?
First off, he can't, even if he wants to. Hawaii law forbids it.
Second off, the birther morons would never believe it, even if he did.
Third, by refusing to acknowledge the birther idiots, he's denying them credibility. If he produces the birth certificate, that could be interpreted as leading credence to the birther's claims.
Anyone who believes he could ever have been elected President if he WASN'T a citizen is a complete moron.
Background checks are run on EVERYONE who runs for political office, or gets a civil service job. You can't even run for dogcatcher without getting a thorough screening to make sure you are eligible. Does anyone think a Presidential candidate would escape the same scrutiny? Really?
I am sure that the NSA would run background checks on all who seek to run foir President. And, on top of that, I suspect the candidate's party, the Secret Service, and probably the FBI and CIA, would ALL run their own investigations. Does anyone who isn't an idiot honestly think that someone could get by the screening process of at least 5 separate agencies?
Furthermore, Presidents have the highest security clearance in the country. People don't realize what kind of a background check the NSA does to qualify you for even the most basic security clearance. Anything even remotely shady, can you deny you any clearance.
Spent any time outside of the US in the past 10 years? Denied clearance. Ever been in a mental hospital, for any reason? Denied clearance. Born outside the US? Denied clearance.
Hell, I'm pretty sure you can be denied security clearance if they find that your best friend in 5th grades brother's girlfriend's cousin's mother has an unpaid parking ticket.
So, Obama would have to fool NUMEROUS background checks from numerous government agencies. Does anyone really think that could be done? That would be the greatest act of governmental incompetence in American history.
And if those agencies could be fooled like that, why would anyone expect them to protect us from terrorism?
by RustyShackleford on August 14th, 2009
I'm not a big fan of many of Obama's policies. I believe in arguing against them on the merits.
However, I'm all in favor of calling out the birth certificate conspiracy theories for the nonsense that they are. They distract from real issues which we should be debating in a far more mature, intelligent manner.
He has produced a birth certificate to the people he needed to show it to, establishing his eligibility to run for President. Has it occurred to you conspiracy theorists that he hasn't made his birth certificate publicly available because he has more important things to worry about besides satisfying a few nutcases on the Internet, and that these accusations don't merit a response? Not being a huge fan of Bush, either, I'm reluctant to make a positive comparison, but why do you think he didn't spend much, if any, time directly addressing the accusations that 9/11 was an inside job? The claims are so absurd, they don't deserve to be dignified with a response.
You can even go through an old newspaper from his hometown in Hawaii which has his birth announcement (of course, some people will simply claim that it was faked, with no evidence - doing mental gymnastics to convince themselves that solid evidence against the existence of a conspiracy is somehow actually evidence supporting a conspiracy).
They're like the people who claim that the moon landing was faked - they HAVE to believe this conspiracy theory, no matter how outlandish it is, because otherwise, their whole ridiculous worldview would collapse. As a result, they have no choice but to ignore the evidence.
People like 1858 Remington lack the solid intellectual and philosophical grounding to make principled arguments against policies with which they disagree. So instead, they cling to conspiracy theories. When you present evidence that directly contradicts their views, they just scream "THAT'S FAKE!" while presenting no evidence of their own.
It doesn't help that many of them don't understand federal court procedure, and that this Berg idiot has consistently misrepresented what's been going on in his case - he touts the filing of any document with the court, which all parties are required to file, as some major victory.
His lackeys take a proposed order, which he wrote, and the court unequivocally rejected, as proof that a court has done the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it actually did.
It's pathetic, and though they probably won't admit it, much of it stems from the fact that they just don't like having a black president.
by bigtime on February 22nd, 2009
people keep talking about the vote, the vote,
but the vote does not mean anything if he was not eligiable in the first place,
its like paying for a car, and driving it but not having a drivers licence, just because everyone thinks you look great behind the wheel doesnot mean your legally aloud to drive,
this matter needs to be investigated until a conclusion is meet, he is hiding something, what. who knows. but i will say this for the moment he is our president and i will support him, but if any evidence comes out that he is not legally eligible to be in office, he needs to be removed, i dont know what the next step would be, maybe bush is re-instated until there is a new election,
ps: i have to remind the people who keep talking about obamas mom being an american citizen and that automatically making him an american, but thats just not the case, she had to have been living in the united states for a period of 10 years after leaving indonesia, after the age of 17, and when you do the math even if obama was born in HI, his mothers travels abroad, could, and i emphisis could disqualify obama,s citizenship, and dont know and i dont know if we will ever know. but before he gets to any constitutional matters this and all of the other questions regarding his eligibility should and must be answered or none of his actions in office should be honered,
and his stimulis package is a joke, yea that 10-20.00 a week will really boost the economy alright, it will do nothing, the money should have went into programs that would support those wishing to purchase new homes, who could not qualify because of prior forclosures or bad credit, same with new car purchases, the government could have backed loans for anyone financially able to repay a new home or car loan, that would have fixed the economy and created millions of new jobs, and put people in there own homes, something for them to be proud of. instead of throwing there money away every month on rent they would be building equity in something they could call there own, while putting contractors, lumber mills. vinal siding companies, insulation manufactures and all other phases of home construction back to work,
that would have work, what they have approved and passed will do nothing
by purplecows on December 9th, 2008
Why?
Only Obama knows for sure.
And maybe his lawyers.
by Anonymous on October 31st, 2008
In an objection to the other answers, this is a very valid question. Obama has been ordered by a district court to provide proof of a live birth in America, and proof he took the oath and affirmation of loyalty due to his previous citizenship. Yet, he continues to refuse to do so.
I am inclined to believe that Obama is a natural born citizen. However, why won't he provide these documents to the court?
by johndetroit on October 13th, 2010
Unfortunately the records are sealed. We will never know in our lifetime what his real birth certificate says. Nor will be know what passports he had. If he was not black, he would have never made it to the first primary. But those who financed this farce needed a player. The only benefit is that Carter will not go down as the dumbest and worst US president in history.
Is there a fee to change your name on your Social Security card?
by Answerbag Staff on May 20th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
How much money will I need to change my first name?
by Answerbag Staff on May 20th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
The million-dollar question: Do you think US pres. Obama's birth certificate is real or fake?
by Curiosity Killed the Cat on April 28th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Where would I get a duplicate of my birth certificate?
by Answerbag Staff on May 17th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
IF MY DAD NAME IS NOT ON MY BIRTH CERTIFICATE,WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO GET HIS NAME ON THERE? I'M IN CLEVELAND,OHIO AND HE WANT IT ON THERE
by ANNA_Y29 on May 2nd, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Why doesn't Obama just produce his real birth certificate so the rumors will die?
- which can also be phrased in the following ways:
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Thats not a birth certificate- its a certificate of live birth which can be issued after the fact and can be bogus.
by Sarita1 Goes Bollywood on October 31st, 2008
Do you think it's bogus? Is there any reason to believe that it's been forged?
by HasntBeen on October 31st, 2008
Here's a more thorough discussion of the charges and responses: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
by HasntBeen on October 31st, 2008
Two points: First, Obama has yet to provide the documentation to the court in Berg v. Obama. So the question is valid. Second, FactCheck.org is as biased as every other such organization. They are no different than FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) and AIM (Accuracy in Media), both of which claim to be objective truth seekers, yet always find opposing "truths." This is not to say that they are inaccurate here, but I point this out based on your ill focused faith in the organizations supposed objectivity.
by Anonymous on October 31st, 2008
Umm... why would I have more faith in the claims of an Anonymous commentor on Answerbag than in the Annenberg Foundation or the L.A. Times? At least cite some sources if you're going to rise to the level of this conversation.
And your statement "ill focused faith in the organizations supposed objectivity" is presumptive. My faith is limited to the information I've seen so far, and subject to revision with EVIDENCE, which you have not supplied.
by HasntBeen on October 31st, 2008
Furthermore, the claims against Obama's eligibility seem quite dubious based simply on the fact that the McCain campaign is ignoring them. Surely nobody has more incentive or resources than McCain to investigate and expose the fraud here. I would bet my car that they've investigated to their own satisfaction and decided that there's no smoking gun.
by HasntBeen on October 31st, 2008
Did you forget what you wrote? Let me quote you: "Note: the factcheck.org site is quite objective, dedicated to investigating and debunking various political mixups and falsehoods." Well, I cited you two other organizations with an identical purpose, yet they all disagree on the "facts" on numerous issues. There is no so blind as he who refuses to see."
by Anonymous on October 31st, 2008
You still have supplied no evidence, and your argument about the veracity of the source is laughably dubious -- your opinion of two "similar" sources. Then you capped it off with an insulting quote. You are not even on the scale of someone who sounds credible yet. Cite your EVIDENCE, not your opinion about unrelated sources. Stop insulting my intelligence.
by HasntBeen on October 31st, 2008
And for evidence: See http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-281573. Berg requested that Obama provide, among other things, his birth certificate in August 2008. You can read through all the pleadings in which Obama makes every legal argument to get the case dismissed on standing grounds (which was successful), but he never turned over the documents. If you have nothing to hide, why not provide this?
by Anonymous on October 31st, 2008
I can speculate about his reasons, or rather his lawyer's reasons. But that is not evidence, that's speculation... you are speculating, and you're asking me to speculate. Again... EVIDENCE, not opinion, speculation, or insults. That's your key to being taken seriously.
by HasntBeen on October 31st, 2008
Yes, people make spurious claims like "laughably dubious" only when they are rationalizing their faith in a source, but have no real basis of its veracity. But I digress. Again, Mr. Obama could have simply provided his proof of citizenship in August and avoided a three month court battle. Yet, instead, he refused and fought it on standing grounds. So again, if you have nothing to hide, why not provide the information?
by Anonymous on October 31st, 2008
Obviously you do not know what "evidence" is. Evidence is anything that makes a fact or occurrence more or less probable." But I digress again, because all I need to do is point out that you are spending so much time rationalizing your opinion, that you contradicted yourself. The question is: "Why doesn't Obama just produce his real birth certificate so the rumors will die?" You indicate that he has, but now openly admit that he hasn't, but that you "can speculate about his reasons."
by Anonymous on October 31st, 2008
Which brings us back to the original question. You are running for public office. Why not simply provide the requested evidence? Despite your ignorance about what "evidence" is; the fact that he has refused to provide the information is evidence he has something to hide.
by Anonymous on October 31st, 2008
Apparently you are one of those people who call anything that supports what you want to believe "evidence," and anything that refutes it "speculation." How convenient!
by Anonymous on October 31st, 2008
You haven't read the material I posted, or you would not be making these statements. Until you can demonstrate a level of familiarity with the material equal to the links I posted, this is a waste of my time.
by HasntBeen on October 31st, 2008
As I said. You simple rejected evidence that does not support your position, and only accept evidence that supports it. The question is valid. Obama had three months to provide the requested documents, but did not. If he has nothing to hide, why not save the attorney's fees and be transparent?
by Anonymous on October 31st, 2008
You're calling for speculation again. 3 months is nothing in a court action, it can take that long just to get the parties to agree on a date to hear a single motion. You're delusional, insulting, arrogant, and ignorant. I'm done talking to you.
by HasntBeen on October 31st, 2008
Of course you are. You cannot refute the evidence I provided, so your only course of action is to eject yourself. And your three months argument only makes sense if there was no filings over that period. Yet, Obama filed numerous documents with the court. So instead of going through all that, why not simply supply the requested documents?
by Anonymous on October 31st, 2008
see top answer here:
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1042550
by purplecows on December 2nd, 2008
for every site you can provide to proove he has one there is a site to proove he doesnt. We'll never know 100% of the truth and that is what politicians want.
by DukeG on December 9th, 2008