Has Obama spent a million dollars to hide his birth certificate?

[gonzomax]

Don123, how's it coming with those cites showing Obama paying legal fees to avoid showing his birth certificate? You know, the ones you've been asked for at least three times, to support your own statements? AKA the subject of this thread?

Susanann, feel free to provide them too, if you have them. Assuming you're actually a different person from Don123.

Why ,they spent over a million dollars apiece covering up his birth certificate. They have to get their moneys worth.

[Frostillicus]

I would say that arguing with a birther is like arguing with a brick wall, except that would insult the reasoning ability of brick walls.

[Cinebar]

I would say that arguing with a birther is like arguing with a brick wall, except that would insult the reasoning ability of brick walls.

No shit.

[Lobohan]

I wonder of Don and Sus would do us the favor of admitting they were wrong?

One of the defining characteristics of Birthers seems to be that they have no intention of admitting that something they said is incorrect, even when shown directly.

[tomndebb]

Assuming you're actually a different person from Don123.Do not accuse other posters of being sock puppets. If you have a serious reason to believe that about a poster, (beyond simply thinking that you don't like their similar arguments), then Report the situation.

[ /Moderating ]

[Steve MB]

Perhaps you can answer a question that I am not able to find. Who is qualified to bring court suit against a person, or an organization as the Democratic Party, running for president that has doubtful born citizenship?

I'm a lawyer and I've been following this business from the beginning, and all I can tell you is, no one seems to know. There are no relevant statutes or constitutional provisions as to who would have such standing. Nor is there any precedent for challenging the native-citizenship status of a POTUS or presidential candidate.

Given the way the Founders set up the Electoral College as a filter between direct democracy and the Presidency, most likely they saw it as the electors' job to satisfy themselves that they were electing an eligible candidate. They have made and rendered their determination.

[Steve MB]

I never said obama’s mother denounced his US citizenship, but the question remains can a person with duel citizenship be president?

The answer from this legal article is clearly NO.

This assertion is idiotic even by birther standards.

"I shall issue a decree making all Americans also citizens of Kookistan! They shall have NO ONE eligible to be their President and fall into CHAOS!!!! MWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!"

[Steve MB]

TLDR

TSDR (Too Stupid, Didn't Read)

[Don123]

Don, you know anything about Civics and American History? You know this guy named George Washington? Father of our Country? Great and good man, Mr. Washington. For more reasons than you can possibly imagine.

Now, he and the rest of the Founding Fathers formed the first government formed by the great Constitution of the United States of America. And one of the things they worked out was how the courts were going to work. And one of the things they did involved the first Supreme Court. You know, led by John Jay. Now, one day in 1790, Alexander Hamilton... you've heard of him, right? Asked Mr. Jay if he would give his opinion on the constitutionality of legislation involving the US assuming the debts of the states. What Mr. Jay said was, the Court's business was only involving actual cases it had a right to hold before it, not over things it did not have any business mucking in, like potential legislation.

This is what standing and jurisdiction is.




Obviously you do not have a clue of what is legal standing and Jurisdiction ---so let me help you out and do your home work.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm



STANDING, legal definition:



The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.

In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx's declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing).

Standing is founded "in concern about the proper--and properly limited--role of the courts in a democratic society. " Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he "is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury." Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that "federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.' " Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.

[[shortened]]

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/j013.htm

JURISDICTION


A power constitutionally conferred upon a judge or magistrate, to take cognizance of and decide causes according to law and to carry his sentence into execution. The tract of land or district within which a judge or magistrate has jurisdiction, is called his territory and his power in relation to his territory is called his territorial jurisdiction.

Every act of jurisdiction exercised by a judge without his territory, either by pronouncing sentence or carrying it into execution, is null. An inferior court has no jurisdiction beyond what is expressly delegated.

[[shortened]]

[Wheelz]

Obama spent (over) a million dollars hiding the fact that there is no birth certificate of obama being born in Hawaii.Please provide your calculations and any documentation which led you to this figure. Thank you.

1. obama was not born in HawaiiPlease provide any evidence you have located which supports this assertion. Thank you.

2. Obama's father was not an American citizen, but rather, his father was a British citizen which prevented obama from being an American Please provide a quote from the Constitution which states that one parent being a non-US citizen precludes a child from being a US citizen by birth. Thank you.

A "Certificate of Live Birth" is not a "birth certificate".Please explain (cites would be great too) the actual difference between these two, and why a "birth certificate" would serve as legal proof that a person was born at a particular time in a particular place, yet a "certificate of live birth" does not serve as legal proof of such. Thank you.

John McCain eagerly, quickly, and thoroughly gave us all the documentation and proof of his birth records. He also gave us his military, school, and medical records.Please provide a link to these documents which John McCain has provided. Thank you.

[Don123]

Given the way the Founders set up the Electoral College as a filter between direct democracy and the Presidency, most likely they saw it as the electors' job to satisfy themselves that they were electing an eligible candidate. They have made and rendered their determination.


Don:


Then there would not be a reason for Article II, Section 1 stating the requirements of the presidency.

That does not make any sense to me. Frauds abound in the election process, so you are saying if the public is lied to, factual information is withheld from the public, there is no recourse and safe guards? You are saying there is no law or standing nor court jurisdiction that forces a presidential candidate to present his birth records in the original form? That the constitution Article II, Section 1 is void and worthless words on paper?

We survived Nixon and Carter so I suppose we will survive the BS, lies, and insanity of Obama.


Don

[Don123]

The actual figures of attorney bills and court cost are sitting on obama’s desk, go get them for us, I will wait, but I doubt obama has reviewed them.

Do the math---

The political action committee 'Obama for America' paid $1,066,691.90 to the Perkins Coie law firm between Oct. 16, 2008 and March 30, 2009, to fight every request to release Obama's original birth records. [10] Partial listing of cases courtesy of WND.com [1]

New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress did not properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of President.
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama. [11]
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming that Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's Secretary of State, making a similar argument to Donofrio's. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied. [12]
Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff. [13]
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. [14]
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility:
In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed. [15]
In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed. [16]

[CannyDan]

TLDR

TSDR (Too Stupid, Didn't Read)

Obviously you do not have a clue of what is legal standing and Jurisdiction ---so let me help you out and do your home work.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm



STANDING, legal definition: <snip>

And now we go for TIDR (Too Irrelevant, Didn't Read)

[Ravenman]

Don: please show me where John McCain put his birth certificate out in public for everyone to view.

And what do you say to the fact that there is no record, other than this mysterious birth certificate that only the McCain campaign would show selected people, that McCain was born at the hospital he says he was born at?

It is not relevant to the conversation where McCain was born as what ever is legally decided in obama’s case would also apply to him or to any one else for that matter running for president or VP. It is relevant to this discussion in that you are stating that there is no (or little) evidence to support Obama's status as a natural born citizen, but loads of evidence of McCain's being a natural born citizen. Your ability to interpret facts as they exist, without bias to one's political views, is entirely a legitimate issue. Your refusal to acknowledge deficiencies in McCain's claims against the historical record bears directly on your ability to support unsubstantiated claims against Obama.

The USA base in Panama was a territory of the USA and/or under USA jurisdiction, and never had duel citizenship so he is qualified. The fact his mom may have used a local hobital for birthing is not relavant. If she used a local hospital, then he was not born on a US military base. Obama, on the other hand, was born in Hawaii, on American soil. It would seem to me that on this point, Obama has a greater claim to American citizenship since we do not actually know where John McCain was born. He could have been born in Russia for all the non-existent Panamanian hospital records tell us.

But I do not have a problem examining McCain in full detail on another thread, but I’m running out time to post here for a while. To imply how one person is so bad, then every can be the same, is not sound reasoning. You seem to have plenty of time to post when Obama is the issue. And the question isn't whether Obama or McCain is more American, the question is your ability to understand established facts and create a coherent argument around them. So far, you have given us no reason to believe that your insistence that Obama isn't an American, and McCain is 100% born and bred here, is based on anything else than the fact that you don't like Obama, and you do like McCain.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Obviously you do not have a clue of what is legal standing and Jurisdiction ---so let me help you out and do your home work.

So what do you make of the fact that even the cases where the plaintiffs were found to have standing have been dismissed?

[Steve MB]

Given the way the Founders set up the Electoral College as a filter between direct democracy and the Presidency, most likely they saw it as the electors' job to satisfy themselves that they were electing an eligible candidate. They have made and rendered their determination.
That does not make any sense to me.
Now you know how everyone else feels upon reading your "arguments".

Frauds abound in the election process, so you are saying if the public is lied to, factual information is withheld from the public, there is no recourse and safe guards?
The electors are not the general public. The electoral system was established by the Founders precisely to create a level of vetting between the general public and the selection of the President. (The state governments also provided a level of vetting in those days; direct popular votes in Presidential elections only really got established during the Jacksonian era.) It stands to reason that the Founders took it for granted that, if there was some serious question of a Presidential candidate's legal qualificaions, the electors would consider it and withhold their votes if they decided that the candidate was ineligible.

Fortunately, we have never had any serious question of any elected President's ineligibility, so the issue has not arisen.

[Marley23]

Thanks for providing links, Don123, but again, you copied two entire pages from the Lectlaw website - the entire entries on standing and jurisdiction. Don't do that. Use a reasonably short quote. Just the part that proves your point.

[Don123]

Please explain (cites would be great too) the actual difference between these two, and why a "birth certificate" would serve as legal proof that a person was born at a particular time in a particular place, yet a "certificate of live birth" does not serve as legal proof of such. Thank you.

Don:

I think you know the answer and are just being silly. A certificate of live birth simply means the child was presented (brought into the hospital wrapped in a blanket) and the hospital staff said—YEP the child is alive, date and time, place of the observation, parents name blah blah blah.


Birth certificate is this child was physically born and delivered at this hospital--- and the information of who what when and where.

Hawaii commonly, at the time, gave out live birth certificates, why is that? Because many children were born at home without doctors but with midwives. Hawaii was a high traffic place of foreigners and any one could get their child registered in Hawaii USA.


Other posible reasons; At the time the hospital did not care one way or the other, an untrained staff, state laws were not consolidated, the child may have gotten a check up the hospital could get paid for, a paying customer is never turned down, bribes, the Hawaii natives wanted to increase their numbers and anything but white would work, there simply was not a law against it, the hospital made its own policy and was influential to state regulations.

But that is all besides the point, that is what Hawaii did at the time, there is no doubt about it.

You know Wheelz, you could do some of your own home work, just a little bit will not hurt you.


Don

[Don123]

Thanks for providing links, Don123, but again, you copied two entire pages from the Lectlaw website - the entire entries on standing and jurisdiction. Don't do that. Use a reasonably short quote. Just the part that proves your point.

Don:

Thank you for the correction, I will make a note of it, sorry about that and I will be careful.


Don

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No, a certificate of live birth is exactly the same as a birth certificate. You are misinformed. Sorry. You also seem to keep ignoring the fact that the state of Hawaii has confirmed it has the original birth certificate, you're ignoring the the two birth announcements, youir ignoring the Sate Department's confirmation in 1967 that he was born in Hawaii and you haven't presented any evidence at all that he was born anywhere else.

[CannyDan]

Don:

I think you know the answer and are just being silly. A certificate of live birth simply means the child was presented (brought into the hospital wrapped in a blanket) and the hospital staff said—YEP the child is alive, date and time, place of the observation, parents name blah blah blah.


Birth certificate is this child was physically born and delivered at this hospital--- and the information of who what when and where.

Hawaii commonly, at the time, gave out live birth certificates, why is that? Because many children were born at home without doctors but with midwives. Hawaii was a high traffic place of foreigners and any one could get their child registered in Hawaii USA.

Do you really contend that Hawaii offered two different certifications/certificates in 1961, one for births in hospitals and another for births elsewhere? So some percentage of all people born in Hawaii at that time would have one kind and the remainder would have the other? But both are legitimate documents issued by the State of Hawaii? You wouldn't by any chance want to offer some kind of cite for that, would you? M'kay.


Other posible reasons; At the time the hospital did not care one way or the other, an untrained staff, state laws were not consolidated, the child may have gotten a check up the hospital could get paid for, a paying customer is never turned down, bribes, the Hawaii natives wanted to increase their numbers and anything but white would work, there simply was not a law against it, the hospital made its own policy and was influential to state regulations.

But that is all besides the point, that is what Hawaii did at the time, there is no doubt about it.

You know Wheelz, you could do some of your own home work, just a little bit will not hurt you.


Don

Well, I am prepared to admit that you have no doubt about it. And I am sure that you believe one or more of these fantastical circumstances applies to Obama, and it somehow disqualifies him for-- elected office? citizenship? humanity?

The rest of us though (I know I'm going out on a really skinny limb here, but what the heck!), well, the rest of us are not yet convinced.

Maybe another irrelevant three page block quote will do it.

[Don123]

That does not make any sense to me.
Now you know how everyone else feels upon reading your "arguments".

Frauds abound in the election process, so you are saying if the public is lied to, factual information is withheld from the public, there is no recourse and safe guards?
The electors are not the general public. The electoral system was established by the Founders precisely to create a level of vetting between the general public and the selection of the President. (The state governments also provided a level of vetting in those days; direct popular votes in Presidential elections only really got established during the Jacksonian era.) It stands to reason that the Founders took it for granted that, if there was some serious question of a Presidential candidate's legal qualificaions, the electors would consider it and withhold their votes if they decided that the candidate was ineligible.

Fortunately, we have never had any serious question of any elected President's ineligibility, so the issue has not arisen.


You are talking about the Electoral College? Yes?

They do not have the power to vet a candidate, demand information, request a public hearing, gather witnesses, cross examine, call in professionals, and challenge the evidence. Not that I have ever read or studied. That was never brought up in my law classes. But I’m willing to learn.

Though they are not required to vote for the popular candidate, they wanted to have house to come to that was not burned down if they did other wise.

All through out history they were nothing but a rubber stamp, a drunken party time in Washington, with a little bit status so they can brag to their friends, and that is all.

What can you count, a half a dozen times one went renegade and didn’t vote the way they were instructed to do?

Two to three state are seriously considering doing away with the Electoral College.

The main intent was to stop small states from being drowned out by the larger ones by population. That every state will have (some what) equal influence and will get equal attention by the candidates for president. It was suppose to level the playing field so to speak.

Kind of new to me that the Electoral College could have hearings to disqualify a candidate and tell (demand) the political party to run some one else for president or VP. And I do not think that is the case then or now. So what am I missing here?


Don

[Don123]

No, a certificate of live birth is exactly the same as a birth certificate. You are misinformed. Sorry. You also seem to keep ignoring the fact that the state of Hawaii has confirmed it has the original birth certificate, you're ignoring the the two birth announcements, youir ignoring the Sate Department's confirmation in 1967 that he was born in Hawaii and you haven't presented any evidence at all that he was born anywhere else.


http://freedomedium.com/2009/07/birth-certificate-vs-certification-of-live-birth/


And for you Obamanites who claim that there is no difference between a Certification of Live Birth and a Birth Certificate, we, as well as the State of Hawaii, would have to disagree with you.

Pay close attention to the following Hawaiian legal statute:

“[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.

(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]”

Everybody get that?

As long as an adult can walk into Hawaii’s version of the Department of Records and provide proof that they are a legal resident of Hawaii, the document is issued.

The child, on the other hand, could have been born in Hawaii, Kenya, or a back-alley in Budapest.

How much more proof do you disciples of the Messiah need before you will admit that there are legitimate reasons to demand answers on this issue?

Of course the fact that Obama may have been elected to our nation’s highest office in direct violation of the United States Constitution is not something that would greatly trouble a dedicated Kool-Aid drinker.

Did you like this? If so, please bookmark it,

Don:

Now you can tell me you have NO idea of legal wording and Obama is God in the flesh, untouchable by human hands, and drifts up heaven in all his prayers recieving instuctions on how to lead this nation.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Your cite is a paranoid, right wing conspiracy blog that links to other right wing conspiracy blogs to cite it's claims. I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

How do you respond to the fact that the state of Hawaii has confirmed it has the orginal certificate? The additional confirmation by the State Department? The birth announcements?

I think I'm pretty much done trying to argue with you. You clearly inhabit your own reality where facts can gain no purchase. Hope that works out for you.

[Marley23]

That doesn't say a certificate of live birth will be issued, Don123. It says "birth certificate." You were just arguing those two things aren't the same, so you can't treat them as the same thing. The Hawaii State Department of Health's page about the birth certificate. (http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html)

[tomndebb]

I think you know the answer and are just being silly. A certificate of live birth simply means the child was presented (brought into the hospital wrapped in a blanket) and the hospital staff said—YEP the child is alive, date and time, place of the observation, parents name blah blah blah.


Birth certificate is this child was physically born and delivered at this hospital--- and the information of who what when and where.I don't know where you are getting this stuff, but I just went and looked at my birth certificate (notarized in the county of birth) and my two kids' birth certificates, similarly notarized, and none of those documents include anything like the hospital name, the doctor's name, or any other similar information.

They note the name, the sex, the date of birth, the date when the birth was recorded, the names of the parents (including mother's maiden name), the city of birth, (in my case the city where my parents resided and not the different city where the hospital was located), and, for some odd reason, the state in which the mother was born. That is it.
I do have a document from the hospital that indicates the other information, but that is NOT the birth certificate. So, I have three documents from two states that establish that your claim is nonsense. Sticking to it at this point just makes you look silly.

[Steve MB]

You are talking about the Electoral College? Yes?

They do not have the power to vet a candidate, demand information, request a public hearing, gather witnesses, cross examine, call in professionals, and challenge the evidence.

Irrelevant. They have the power to elect the President. They therefore have the responsibility of deciding whether or not the person for whom they vote is eligible to be President. End of argument, as far as the political system created by the Founders and described in detail by the Constitution is concerned.

Not only is your statement irrelevant, it is also false. Electors most certainly do have the power to demand that a candidate provide information, enforced by their power to take their votes elsewhere if they are not satisfied by the candidate's response.

[Bosstone]

That doesn't say a certificate of live birth will be issued, Don123. It says "birth certificate." You were just arguing those two things aren't the same, so you can't treat them as the same thing. The Hawaii State Department of Health's page about the birth certificate. (http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html)That link is to Don's blog cite.

[Marley23]

That doesn't say a certificate of live birth will be issued, Don123. It says "birth certificate." You were just arguing those two things aren't the same, so you can't treat them as the same thing. The Hawaii State Department of Health's page about the birth certificate. (http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html)That link is to Don's blog cite.
Crap. I meant to link to this page. (http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html) I went back and fixed it.

[Steve MB]

That link is to Don's blog cite.

deleted in response to correction

[El_Kabong]

[Quote]How much more proof do you disciples of the Messiah need before you will admit that there are legitimate reasons to demand answers on this issue?

Since you have actually presented essentially zero proof of any of your claims, and appear to be factually wrong on several of them (such as whether holding dual citizenship makes one ineligible to run for President) I'd say the answer is "quite a lot".

Oh yeah, and claiming that anyone who questions your specious claims is an Obama-worshipper doesn't really do a while lot to strengthen your argument.

[Antinor01]

My own Certificate of Live Birth, which I used last year to get my US passport, says that my father is a man my mother didn't even meet until I was three years old. Does that mean I can't be president?

[silenus]

Sticking to it at this point just makes you look silly.

At this point? He's looked silly since the beginning, as have all of the Birthers.

[Cagey Drifter]

Can I just ask, Don123, aside from the legal technicalities involved with respect to presidential qualifications, why does it matter where someone is born? It seems like a rather silly point to attempt to invalidate a presidency on such technical grounds rather than on grounds of competency. I have a cousin born in Malaysia, but he's been here his entire life except for a few months. Frankly, I think the fact that he's studied foreign relations at Georgetown makes him more qualified to be president than a lot of people who have spent their entire lives here.

This whole "birth certificate" argument gives the appearance that that Obama detractors are arguing backwards from a conclusion, and finding a legal path to illegitimate someone that they simply don't like on the grounds of personal philosophy. In response, I would ask not that you find proof of deception on Obama's part, but rather that you intellectually justify the need for someone to be born on US soil for him to be considered valid for presidency.

[Lobohan]

Could someone point me to where Don shows that a "Certificate of Live Birth" isn't a "Birth Certificate"?

It seems like if your moronic conspiracy theory hitches on some fact you should probably mention it a lot.

[Don123]

Ok so here is how it happened

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html


We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn't release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama's citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: "[We] couldn't get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we've found out it's pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 - 010641


Don:

Ha ha ha, you could not make this crap up if you tried. So from the text above, here Obama is running for president with NO idea that he has to show proof of birth in the USA---but yet he has a law degree from Harvard.

Obama is giving speeches and raising money, kissing babes I mean babies, and all of a sudden—from the evil right whites--- comes a strange thought, HEY were you born in the USA?


Obama responds, “UDUAH--- UH –uh, YES!” (OH HELL WHERE DID I PUT THAT DAMN PAPER WORK?”)

So his staff gets into high gear to clean up Obama’s office, and no birth certificate found.

So Obama’s staff, that flushes his toilet, contacts the State of Hawaii and request (in an orgasmic heated rush) all the paper work they have on Obama. And bingo, up pops a photo copy of a life birth certificate, as if we did not know Obama was a live birth.

But a strange thing happened on the way to press meeting with the NEW and improved digital copy of a live birth certificate--- the code numbers got blacked out and NO ONE saw it! It must be God’s will! It is a secret code! NO one will notice this big blacked out area on the corner.

Obama did not even look at the certificate and if he did, they do not teach how to read numbers at Harvard law school so it must be Bush’s fault. Whites are such racist. The RUSH did it! You know the radio guy.


But NO matter the certificate was posted on the net for the world to see and the damned, evil-minded, white-right said, “HEY, what is that big black blotch on the corner of the paper, there are supposed to be code numbers.”

Numbers, OH you want numbers--- not a problem. Obama is 53 point ahead in the polls. NO the other numbers, the ones God made disappear from the birth certificate, because we were to busy and not watching it. --- OH those numbers, we put them some where—Oh here they are as Obama pulls out phone book and give out zip codes, or what ever popped into his Harvard trained mind. But it is not relivant, the stupid public will believe anything.


It is a good thing Obama is a good community organizer, maybe he could organize his paper work knowing that running for president will require proof of birth in the USA. But what is a Harvard Law Graduate, that sat on the Harvard law Review news paper to do?


What can we say other than, Obama is so heavenly minded he is no earthly good. He had NO idea before making public his birth certificate to call the state of Hawaii (more than once if they do not answer the phone at lunch time) and ask--- what are those numbers on the corner of the paper? Is that a code that only God knows about, and NO human can mention it?

Harvard does not teach how to do research to students that arrive by Affirmative Action. And by the way--you sure you have the date right this time?


Don

[Really Not All That Bright]

You know, you were actually starting to make some sense. Then you took this great steaming dump on your own arguments, and we're back where we started.

[tomndebb]

Don123 writes:

> Palin also put her birth records on public file as being born in Alaska to USA
> parents.

Don123, you never do any research, do you? Palin was born in Idaho.I dunno. Since Don seems to have this "fact," is this not proof that Palin and her cronies lied? :D

[Marley23]

Ha ha ha, you could not make this crap up if you tried.
Thank you for agreeing that this is not made up.

But a strange thing happened on the way to press meeting with the NEW and improved digital copy of a live birth certificate--- the code numbers got blacked out and NO ONE saw it! It must be God’s will! It is a secret code! NO one will notice this big blacked out area on the corner.
They later released a copy that did not have the numbers blacked out. I already linked to a picture of it.

This has already happened, Don123, and people who believe what you believe have not responded to any of it. That's why only a tiny minority of people can take these arguments seriously. Obama made his own birth certificate public early in the primary campaign in response to rumors that his middle name was really Muhammad. Suddenly there were rumors he hadn't been born in the U.S., and in response Later a copy of the birth certificate was posted at an Obama campaign website (http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html). This did not kill the rumors either. People said a certificate of live birth is not the same as a birth certificate; they said there was no seal on the certificate; they said the copy was fake. The campaign then let people see their copy of the birth certificate (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html). They took pictures. (http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg) It has the appropriate Hawaii certification (http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_9.jpg). It has the raised seal. (http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_1.jpg) They showed the certificate number. (http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg) The governor and the director of the Hawaii state department of both said they have seen the real version and it's legit. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp) And announcements of his birth (http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif) appeared in two newspapers (http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg), as we all know.

[pravnik]

NM

[Diogenes the Cynic]

So from the text above, here Obama is running for president with NO idea that he has to show proof of birth in the USA
Show it to who? Since when ahs any Presidential candidate had to produce his birth certificate? Mccain didn't. Palin didn't. GWB never did. neither did Reagan. Where do you get this crap? How could Obama have forseen this particular crackpot conspiracy theory before it happened? It has absolutely no evidentiary basis, after all, and there is no more reason to question his birthplace than to question anyone else's who's ever run.

Was the US Department of State in on the conspiracy in 1967? Answer that.

[Ravenman]

Ha ha ha, you could not make this crap up if you tried. So from the text above, here Obama is running for president with NO idea that he has to show proof of birth in the USA---but yet he has a law degree from Harvard.Question: if Obama is not a natural-born citizen, when did he become a citizen?

[silenus]

Was the US Department of State in on the conspiracy in 1967? Answer that.

Of course they were. The Illuminati are four steps ahead of you. Always.

[BrainGlutton]

So from the text above, here Obama is running for president with NO idea that he has to show proof of birth in the USA--- . . .

Because he doesn't have to show proof of birth in the USA, no more than any presidential candidate before him had to.

[Cagey Drifter]

Question: if Obama is not a natural-born citizen, when did he become a citizen?

He's an illegal alien. Dude jumped the fence between Kenya and Hawaii.

[Don123]

You are talking about the Electoral College? Yes?

They do not have the power to vet a candidate, demand information, request a public hearing, gather witnesses, cross examine, call in professionals, and challenge the evidence.

Irrelevant. They have the power to elect the President. They therefore have the responsibility of deciding whether or not the person for whom they vote is eligible to be President. End of argument, as far as the political system created by the Founders and described in detail by the Constitution is concerned.

Not only is your statement irrelevant, it is also false. Electors most certainly do have the power to demand that a candidate provide information, enforced by their power to take their votes elsewhere if they are not satisfied by the candidate's response.



So you are saying they are limited to taking their vote to the other person, and that is it.

I would not call that a vetting process as is commonly understood. But rather than argue the definition of a word, I will fall back to what the federal judge said (I wish I could remember his name). The entire argument is moot at this point; the USA people have accepted Obama's citizenship regardless of the facts or omissions.

This might be a point of historical interest in a hundred years but no one, not the courts, nor congress, is going to do anything about it now. Indeed by the USA legal system in the USA nothing can be done about it; the federal and state courts deny jurisdiction, the Supreme Court will not try the case though they have looked at two of the many cases, and no citizen or organization has legal standing.


The consequences of deciding the case, Obama v. presidential qualification, would affect the immigration laws of the USA, and the courts just don’t have the balls for that.

To rule against Obama would put the court in charge of removing a president and I believe that power is left up to congress. It would be a show down fight between them. That is not going to happen, lie and hide for the better good of the nation is what you end up with.

Look, we only about two years left, if we do not like Obama then we vote against him, and that is about as far as it goes.

Pleasure taking to you.


Don

[Lobohan]

Don:

Ha ha ha, you could not make this crap up if you tried. So from the text above, here Obama is running for president with NO idea that he has to show proof of birth in the USA---but yet he has a law degree from Harvard.Are you incapable of reading? There is no official "birth certificate release protocol" that American presidential candidates have to follow.

Obama is giving speeches and raising money, kissing babes I mean babies, and all of a sudden—from the evil right whites--- comes a strange thought, HEY were you born in the USA?Do you have any evidence that Obama cheated on his wife? That is what you're suggesting isn't it? Are you honest enough to admit that?

Obama responds, “UDUAH--- UH –uh, YES!” (OH HELL WHERE DID I PUT THAT DAMN PAPER WORK?”)He posted the document when people bitched about it. Why are you characterizing it like that? Other presidents haven't had to post their birth certificates. Why would he think he had to?

So his staff gets into high gear to clean up Obama’s office, and no birth certificate found. Many people lose their birth certificates. Especially when moving or when a parent dies early. Why is ordering a new birth certificate something that is sinister? Do you understand that ordering new birth certificates happens all the time?

So Obama’s staff, that flushes his toilet,Why are you making pathetic attacks like this? Is your feeling that your argument is so weak that you have to bolster it with childish statements that aren't true?

contacts the State of Hawaii and request (in an orgasmic heated rush) all the paper work they have on Obama. And bingo, up pops a photo copy of a life birth certificate, as if we did not know Obama was a live birth.Can you cite where the rush is orgasmic? Or is that some silly thing you are making up? Why can't you state your argument without saying things that you have no evidence for?

Also, do you know that a certificate of live birth is a birth certificate? Why don't you know that? You've been shown it multiple times in this thread.

Are you able to learn and assimilate new information once you've made up your mind?

But a strange thing happened on the way to press meeting with the NEW and improved digital copy of a live birth certificate--- the code numbers got blacked out and NO ONE saw it! It must be God’s will! It is a secret code! NO one will notice this big blacked out area on the corner. They didn't know if it was okay to post that. The un-redacted version is here (http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg).

You should know that just because you state something with sinister phrasing, that doesn't make it sinister. Do you know that?

Obama did not even look at the certificate and if he did, they do not teach how to read numbers at Harvard law school so it must be Bush’s fault. Whites are such racist. The RUSH did it! You know the radio guy.Do you understand that what you wrote there is incoherent? Why do you resort to gibberish to make you case? Is it that you don't have an intelligent case to make?

But NO matter the certificate was posted on the net for the world to see and the damned, evil-minded, white-right said, “HEY, what is that big black blotch on the corner of the paper, there are supposed to be code numbers.”Did you not read the thing you cited? The person posting the document didn't know if it was okay to post those numbers. I'm a graphic designer. I've scanned and posted documents and I might have made the same call.

Just because you don't understand what's going on doesn't mean it's sinister. It means you need to make an honest effort, but you aren't doing that, you're grasping at straws.

Numbers, OH you want numbers--- not a problem. Obama is 53 point ahead in the polls. NO the other numbers, the ones God made disappear from the birth certificate, because we were to busy and not watching it. --- OH those numbers, we put them some where—Oh here they are as Obama pulls out phone book and give out zip codes, or what ever popped into his Harvard trained mind.They covered up the numbers because they thought they might be confidential. This was done by his campaign graphic designers. Are you unable to understand this? Why are you suggesting that Obama is stupid? How does that make your point? If anything, Obama is surely smart enough to understand that he was born in America.

Why don't you click here (http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg)if you want to see the numbers.

But it is not relivant, the stupid public will believe anything. Members of the stupid public will believe that Obama isn't an American citizen, that much is certain.

It is a good thing Obama is a good community organizer, maybe he could organize his paper work knowing that running for president will require proof of birth in the USA. But what is a Harvard Law Graduate, that sat on the Harvard law Review news paper to do?Are you upset that Obama is accomplished? Why else the childish attacks?

What can we say other than, Obama is so heavenly minded he is no earthly good. He had NO idea before making public his birth certificate to call the state of Hawaii (more than once if they do not answer the phone at lunch time) and ask--- what are those numbers on the corner of the paper? Is that a code that only God knows about, and NO human can mention it? Presidents aren't required to post birth certificates. It is because of hysterical conspiracy theorists like you that he posted it. If you wouldn't have redacted the text, that's because you weren't smart enough to think that it might be confidential. In any case, the un-redacted document is available above.

Harvard does not teach how to do research to students that arrive by Affirmative Action. And by the way--you sure you have the date right this time? That's just pathetic. Your argument isn't being laughed at because of some infatuation with Obama, it's being laughed at because someone so utterly unequipped to debate is flailing around promulgating it.

[Marley23]

This might be a point of historical interest in a hundred years but no one, not the courts, nor congress, is going to do anything about it now.
In 100 years this fantasy might turn into a full-blown religion. It's pretty close as it is, and I figure that as the historical players die off and some of the facts become more obscure Birtherism could become a kooky little church.

[Really Not All That Bright]

God hates Certificates of Live Birth!

[Lobohan]

God hates Certificates of Live Birth!The Certificate of Live Birth is the Muslim version of a Birth Certificate. Hmm...

[Wheelz]

Ok so here is how it happened

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html


We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn't release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama's citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: "[We] couldn't get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we've found out it's pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 - 010641


Don:

Ha ha ha, you could not make this crap up if you tried. So from the text above, here Obama is running for president with NO idea that he has to show proof of birth in the USA---but yet he has a law degree from Harvard.

Obama is giving speeches and raising money, kissing babes I mean babies, and all of a sudden—from the evil right whites--- comes a strange thought, HEY were you born in the USA?


Obama responds, “UDUAH--- UH –uh, YES!” (OH HELL WHERE DID I PUT THAT DAMN PAPER WORK?”)

So his staff gets into high gear to clean up Obama’s office, and no birth certificate found.

So Obama’s staff, that flushes his toilet, contacts the State of Hawaii and request (in an orgasmic heated rush) all the paper work they have on Obama. And bingo, up pops a photo copy of a life birth certificate, as if we did not know Obama was a live birth.

But a strange thing happened on the way to press meeting with the NEW and improved digital copy of a live birth certificate--- the code numbers got blacked out and NO ONE saw it! It must be God’s will! It is a secret code! NO one will notice this big blacked out area on the corner.

Obama did not even look at the certificate and if he did, they do not teach how to read numbers at Harvard law school so it must be Bush’s fault. Whites are such racist. The RUSH did it! You know the radio guy.


But NO matter the certificate was posted on the net for the world to see and the damned, evil-minded, white-right said, “HEY, what is that big black blotch on the corner of the paper, there are supposed to be code numbers.”

Numbers, OH you want numbers--- not a problem. Obama is 53 point ahead in the polls. NO the other numbers, the ones God made disappear from the birth certificate, because we were to busy and not watching it. --- OH those numbers, we put them some where—Oh here they are as Obama pulls out phone book and give out zip codes, or what ever popped into his Harvard trained mind. But it is not relivant, the stupid public will believe anything.


It is a good thing Obama is a good community organizer, maybe he could organize his paper work knowing that running for president will require proof of birth in the USA. But what is a Harvard Law Graduate, that sat on the Harvard law Review news paper to do?


What can we say other than, Obama is so heavenly minded he is no earthly good. He had NO idea before making public his birth certificate to call the state of Hawaii (more than once if they do not answer the phone at lunch time) and ask--- what are those numbers on the corner of the paper? Is that a code that only God knows about, and NO human can mention it?

Harvard does not teach how to do research to students that arrive by Affirmative Action. And by the way--you sure you have the date right this time?


DonSo wait.... You post a link to a site that rationally, coherently, utterly and thoroughly torpedoes your own argument, then attempt to refute it with a barely literate, unintelligible rant about babies and toilets and zip codes and affirmative action?

It's a wonder you aren't changing more minds here.

[Lemur866]

Look, here in the U-nited States of America, the real enforcers of the rules are the American people. If we really don't think Obama is qualified to be president, then there's a pretty easy way to not make him president.

If you can't convince people not to vote for him because he's not an American citizen, well, it turns out you lost that argument. Take it up with the American people. You haven't convinced anyone here, so I don't know why you think it will work better next time. Obama was put on the ballot in 50 states by 50 state election authorities, so none of them doubted his credentials either. He could be impeached by congress if you convince them that he's ineligible, but there's no movement there, even among republicans (because they're too scared that the blacks will riot, I guess).

So either get the election authorities involved to not put him on the ballot, or get the courts involved to rule him ineligible, or get the voters not to vote for him, or get the electors not to vote for him, or get congress to impeach him. If you can't do any of those things, well, Obama is president.

Of course, that doesn't mean you're right. Of course the reason you couldn't do any of those things is because you're wrong. I'm just saying that even if you were right, to prevent Obama from becoming president you would have had to do one of those things, and you haven't.

[Steve MB]

Don123 writes:

> Palin also put her birth records on public file as being born in Alaska to USA
> parents.

Don123, you never do any research, do you? Palin was born in Idaho.I dunno. Since Don seems to have this "fact," is this not proof that Palin and her cronies lied? :D

The fact that we've discovered an inconsistency that raises questions all but proves that Palin was actually born in Kenya.

[BrainGlutton]

Can I just ask, Don123, aside from the legal technicalities involved with respect to presidential qualifications, why does it matter where someone is born? It seems like a rather silly point to attempt to invalidate a presidency on such technical grounds rather than on grounds of competency. I have a cousin born in Malaysia, but he's been here his entire life except for a few months. Frankly, I think the fact that he's studied foreign relations at Georgetown makes him more qualified to be president than a lot of people who have spent their entire lives here.

I always wondered why they put in that clause. I think it was to keep any European prince from being installed as "president" of the U.S. -- the country was newly independent then and very touchy on the point.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Not any European prince. Specifically, King George, who in some circles was still quite popular.

[El_Kabong]

You know, post #286 could be used in a textbook on how not to argue a convincing case.

Seriously, Don, walk away, man, just walk away.

[Don123]

So from the text above, here Obama is running for president with NO idea that he has to show proof of birth in the USA
Show it to who? Since when ahs any Presidential candidate had to produce his birth certificate? Mccain didn't. Palin didn't. GWB never did. neither did Reagan. Where do you get this crap? How could Obama have forseen this particular crackpot conspiracy theory before it happened? It has absolutely no evidentiary basis, after all, and there is no more reason to question his birthplace than to question anyone else's who's ever run.

Was the US Department of State in on the conspiracy in 1967? Answer that.

Don:

So any one from the world at large can come to the USA and run for president without constitutional restraints---- OK, I didn't know that. (ha ha ha) You must part of that new world order; all international boundaries no longer exist.

You must be an illegal Mexican in the USA---ha ha ha

You are funny. And YES the senate had voted on a resolution that on examining the evidence declared McCain is eligible for the high office.


Now why don’t they do the same for obama? I know it is the evil, racist, white right conspiracy set out to dethrone God-obama.

Talk about closing your ears to the facts--

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224.html

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 2, 2008

The Senate has unanimously declared John McCain a natural-born citizen, eligible to be president of the United States.

(snip)

…that McCain is a natural-born citizen because the United States held sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone at the time of his birth, on Aug. 29, 1936; because he was born on a U.S. military base; and because his parents were U.S. citizens.

(snip)

…his father was legaly deployed to Panama while on active military duty.

(snip)

…A senior official of the McCain campaign showed a reporter a copy of the senator's birth certificate issued by Canal Zone health authorities, recording his birth in the Coco Solo "family hospital."


Don continues:

So we have the hands on copy of McCain’s birth records and the Senate has unanimously (including all the Democrats) declared John McCain a natural-born citizen eligible to be president of the United States.

OK I’m satisfied, I’m just trying to help you out by doing your home work.


Don

[Chronos]

You are funny. And YES the senate had voted on a resolution that on examining the evidence declared McCain is eligible for the high office.


Now why don’t they do the same for obama? I know it is the evil, racist, white right conspiracy set out to dethrone God-obama.Because in McCain's case, there was a legitimate question as to whether he was a natural-born citizen, but in Obama's case, there isn't. It's the same reason the Senate never resolved that Reagan was eligible, or Clinton, or either Bush.

[Ravenman]

You are funny. And YES the senate had voted on a resolution that on examining the evidence declared McCain is eligible for the high office. And members of Congress had the power to challenge the validity of the election of President Obama when the Electoral College presented their votes. They did not.

Therefore, the issue is closed. Congress, by not acting to stop the vote count, has made its determination that the election is valid. Obama is the President. Full stop.

By the way, when you begin your posts with "Don:" who are you addressing?

[Cagey Drifter]

Does anyone know if there's something like Poe's Law for conservative nutballism?

[Marley23]

So any one from the world at large can come to the USA and run for president without constitutional restraints---- OK, I didn't know that. (ha ha ha)
Yes, anyone can run for president. The Constitution does not set any limits on who can run. Some people are ineglible to serve, which might make it pointless for them to run and prevents them from being put on the ballot in some states. But they can run if they so choose. The Socialist Workers Party candidate in 2008 was Roger Calero, who was born in Nicaragua and is a resident alien, not a citizen. And just for good measure, he's a convicted felon. He got about 7,200 votes in the general election.

[Don123]

Your cite is a paranoid, right wing conspiracy blog that links to other right wing conspiracy blogs to cite it's claims. I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

How do you respond to the fact that the state of Hawaii has confirmed it has the orginal certificate? The additional confirmation by the State Department? The birth announcements?

I think I'm pretty much done trying to argue with you. You clearly inhabit your own reality where facts can gain no purchase. Hope that works out for you.


Since when is the Hawaiian state statute a right wing conspiracy blog?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Don

Pay close attention to the following Hawaiian legal statute:

“[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.

(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

[Marley23]

Since when is the Hawaiian state statute a right wing conspiracy blog?
I already pointed out that your cite says "birth certificate," not "certificate of live birth." And you also ignored his main point - which has been made by many other posters (including me):

How do you respond to the fact that the state of Hawaii has confirmed it has the orginal certificate? The additional confirmation by the State Department? The birth announcements?
You also said there should be lots of people who were involved in the birth who are selling their stories. A cite was then provided showing that the obstetrician who delivered him is dead, and there is a teacher who discussed the birth with the obstetrician at the time and remembers the conversation.

[BrainGlutton]

Your cite is a paranoid, right wing conspiracy blog that links to other right wing conspiracy blogs to cite it's claims. I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

How do you respond to the fact that the state of Hawaii has confirmed it has the orginal certificate? The additional confirmation by the State Department? The birth announcements?

I think I'm pretty much done trying to argue with you. You clearly inhabit your own reality where facts can gain no purchase. Hope that works out for you.


Since when is the Hawaiian state statute a right wing conspiracy blog?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Don

Pay close attention to the following Hawaiian legal statute:

“[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.

(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

That does not authorize the director of health to certify as born in Hawaii any baby who wasn't. What is your point?

[Don123]

So any one from the world at large can come to the USA and run for president without constitutional restraints---- OK, I didn't know that. (ha ha ha)
Yes, anyone can run for president. The Constitution does not set any limits on who can run. Some people are ineglible to serve, which might make it pointless for them to run and prevents them from being put on the ballot in some states. But they can run if they so choose. The Socialist Workers Party candidate in 2008 was Roger Calero, who was born in Nicaragua and is a resident alien, not a citizen. And just for good measure, he's a convicted felon. He got about 7,200 votes in the general election.


Oh get it, I'm learning stuff all the time.

So one person robs a bank, so every can do it--its LEGAL!

It sounds like you support Waters and Rangel.


Don

[Marley23]

Oh get it, I'm learning stuff all the time.

So one person robs a bank, so every can do it--its LEGAL!
This could not be more irrelevant. If you want to convince someone, try sticking to your argument.

It sounds like you support Waters and Rangel.
Nope. Not Rangel, anyway. I don't know much about Waters' situation.

[pravnik]

Since when is the Hawaiian state statute a right wing conspiracy blog?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Don

Pay close attention to the following Hawaiian legal statute:

“[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.

(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

You forgot the last past.

(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

The "1982" annotation is the year that that law was passed. Moreover, Obama's birth certificate was filed on August 8, 1961, four days after his birth. Moreover moreover, that does absolutely nothing to explain why the birth certificate (excuse me, the "certification of live birth") shows his date of birth to be August 4, 1961, at 7:24 PM, on the island of Oahu, in the city of Honolulu.

[El_Kabong]

Don, you said in Post 286:

So from the text above, here Obama is running for president with NO idea that he has to show proof of birth in the USA---but yet he has a law degree from Harvard.

You should be able to answer the following simple questions, then:

1. To what legal authority must a candidate for President present his or her proof of birth in the USA?

2. At what point in the process of running for President must this be done?

3. Was this done for Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43?

For the first two questions, and since your credibility as an authority on this subject is highly suspect, I would prefer to see a reference to a specific document or legislative item. Thanks in advance.

[Hakuna Matata]

OK, I've already posted a link to Obama's birth certificate. If McCain showed his, too, then give us a link.


A "Certificate of Live Birth" is not a "birth certificate".

Honolulu handed out Certificates of Live Birth like candy on Halloween. obama's Indonesian-born sister has a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth, the president of China-born Sun Yet Sen has a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth.
.

Wow--you still trotting out this bull Susanann? I am still waiting for your response from last time you trotted this out. Don't you get embarrassed about not backing up your story? So again as asked below, can you provide a cite to what you posted above and below? I have been waiting patiently since February for you to back up your claims. Methinks I will be waiting awhile longer don't you?

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12116914&postcount=34

[silenus]

By the way, when you begin your posts with "Don:" who are you addressing?

Why himself, of course. He's the only person here that believes his blather. Except Susanann, who is probably just another of the voices in his head.

[Marley23]

You forgot the last past.

(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

The "1982" annotation is the year that that law was passed. Moreover, Obama's birth certificate was filed on August 8, 1961, four days after his birth. Moreover moreover, that does absolutely nothing to explain why the birth certificate (excuse me, the "certification of live birth") shows his date of birth to be August 4, 1961, at 7:24 PM, on the island of Oahu, in the city of Honolulu.

Well done! Just for the sake of being complete, here's a link to the law at the state website (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.HTM). And kudos to Hanuka Matata as well. It's always nice to see somebody put forth the effort to cite an argument in full.

[Steve MB]

I already pointed out that your cite says "birth certificate," not "certificate of live birth."

So, insofar as there is a differece between the two, it means exactly the opposite of what the Birthers say it means (i.e. the "certificate of live birth" is the one that specifically affirms the person's birthplace).

Fitting, given that Birtherism is based on Bizarro World logic.

[Steve MB]

I'm learning stuff all the time.

Cite?

I have to ask, because frankly it doesn't seem that you have learned a blessed thing from all the facts and arguments offered to you.

[Don123]

OK one step at a time--- (see above for the Hawaiian citation of state laws)


(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor,

This easy to understand, you do this and director of health does that but here are the restraints:


(b) provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

YOU, the applicant, can be living OUT SIDE the State of Hawaii, BUT has declared the state as their legal residence. And this has to happen before the child is born in a period of at least ONE year before a birth certificate can be issued.

It says nothing about factually being physically born in the state of Hawaii, but rather if can you (the applicant or parent) show residence for one year in the state.

Accordingly the child could be physically born any where on this earth.

This is state law, I did not write it.

The results is, the Hawaiian birth certificate of Obama is NOT proof positive that he was born in the state of Hawaii. And it makes NO matter if the governor of the state says he reviewed the document or not--- the document is NOT proof positive.

So here is what can happen to any woman. You get into Hawaii, rent a shack, get banged up and pregnant by Kenyan national on vacation, the woman then leaves the state for one year, but keeps her residence, delivers the child in Kenya--- gets back to Hawaii and says here is my baby, here is my proof of residence in Hawaii for one year (rent payments on the shack) give him a Hawaiian birth certificate; and the director “MUST” by state law hand over the document.

The governor of the state looks at the certificate and says—YEP every thing is in order it is a valid document as to state laws.

Was the child born in Hawaii—NOT AT ALL.

Is this what happened to Obama? It is a massive gaping hole in state laws whereby the certificate is NOT proof positive of physical birth in Hawaii.

This why obama’s attorneys never argued the birth certificate, but rather jurisdiction, court proceedings, legal standing, along with legal maneuvering and delays. But NEVER bring up the Hawaiian state laws, or the birth certificate. They did not want to advertise the gapping hole in Hawaiian state laws to give reasonable doubt. And it seems Obama got his million dollars worth in attorney fees.

Those that say “No doubt obama was born in Hawaii”, have been spoon fed propaganda and are ignorant of Hawaiian state laws, and that you cannot get out of.

That is the point, here is the state law, you read it, apply yourself. You cannot hold obama’s birth certificate, and Hawaiian state statutes and say PROOF, obama was born in Hawaii—as there is a reasonable doubt. You, NOR I, know where Obama was born. And that is the point.

In the case Of McCain—there is NO confusion, it is a straight line to a conclusion with no holes in the road. Two married American parents, dad is on active military duty, the place is USA territory under USA laws and USA authority, place of birth is the USA military base—NO questions, no loop holes, case closed, all the paperwork and the laws are in order.

And McCain is just used as a diversion anyways and is not relevant.


Don

[Marley23]

OK one step at a time--- (see above for the Hawaiian citation of state laws)
Your citation was edited in a misleading way, as pravnik showed. You are citing a law that was passed 20 years after Obama was born. So it does not apply to him. And he is also correct that the certificate specifically states that he was born in Hawaii, which it would not if he was born in Kenya. The idea that Hawaii is required to give any child a birth certificate saying he was born in Hawaii is ridiculous.

[Don123]

Your citation was edited in a misleading way, as pravnik showed. You are citing a law that was passed 20 years after Obama was born. So it does not apply to him. And he is also correct that the certificate specifically states that he was born in Hawaii, which it would not if he was born in Kenya.

OK show the 20 year old law at the time obama was born, and use correct citations so it can be found.

Your opion of the law is not relevent.

Don

[Steve MB]

OK show the 20 year old law at the time obama was born, and use correct citations so it can be found.

Let me attempt to explain a simple principle -- one so simple that everybody here takes it as a matter of course that need not be stated explicitly:

When you make an assertion, it is your job to come up with the relevant facts.

Get back to us when you understand this concept.

[Bosstone]

You are citing a law that was passed 20 years after Obama was born.

OK show the 20 year old law at the time obama was born, and use correct citations so it can be found.what is this I don't even

[Marley23]

OK show the 20 year old law at the time obama was born, and use correct citations so it can be found.

Your opion of the law is not relevent.
This is not an opinion issue: the law was passed in 1982. It's a fact that it did not apply before then. And meanwhile you still haven't responded to a variety of questions. I'd post the law if I could find it, but I'm not sure why I am supposed to do your homework for you.

[[removed edit]]

[holmes]

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
If you click on the 'previous' and 'next' links, you can see which law came before and after.

Holmes, homework helper

[Giles]

In the case Of McCain—there is NO confusion, it is a straight line to a conclusion with no holes in the road. Two married American parents, dad is on active military duty, the place is USA territory under USA laws and USA authority, place of birth is the USA military base—NO questions, no loop holes, case closed, all the paperwork and the laws are in order.
Yes, well there clearly is confusion.

(1) A U.S. military base outside the U.S. is not U.S. territory. (For example, the U.S. base at Guantanamo is not part of U.S. territory, but is part of Cuban territory. A child born there to Cuban parents would be a Cuban citizen, and not a U.S. citizen.)

(2) Admiral McCain's job is irrelevant.

(3) Senator McCain is a U.S. citizen because he was born to U.S. citizen parents who had resided in the U.S.

[Marley23]

Come to think of it, the law that was passed in 1982 is the one that allows certificates to be issued to babies born outside the state of Hawaii. There's no reason to believe there was a law authorizing those certificates to be issued before 1982. If anything that proves Obama would not have been issued a certificate if he hadn't been born in Hawaii.

That's on top of the newspaper announcements and everything else, including the birth certificate that says he was born in Hawaii that's been certified repeatedly by the state of Hawaii.

[Don123]

I'm learning stuff all the time.

Cite?

I have to ask, because frankly it doesn't seem that you have learned a blessed thing from all the facts and arguments offered to you.


Yes I have learned a few good things, and the people here seem reasonable and by far less combative than other places I post.

I don’t mind a few insults, it is fun, and I smile a lot. I think this is an important argument, busting up propaganda on a national level is always a good thing to me. There have some challenges, good writing and well thought out responses. And YES my mind can be changed with more facts please.

Don

[Marley23]

There have some challenges, good writing and well thought out responses.
Is there a reason you have not answered them?

YES my mind can be changed with more facts please.
Unfortunately you're not giving anyone else reason to believe this. What facts are you looking for?

holmes, the link shows other state regulations, not laws that were superceded by more recent laws.

[Don123]

Come to think of it, the law that was passed in 1982 is the one that allows certificates to be issued to babies born outside the state of Hawaii. There's no reason to believe there was a law authorizing those certificates to be issued before 1982. If anything that proves Obama would not have been issued a certificate if he hadn't been born in Hawaii.

That's on top of the newspaper announcements and everything else, including the birth certificate that says he was born in Hawaii that's been certified repeatedly by the state of Hawaii.

My training is not to give much credence to news papers, but not much you can do about it, some times that is all you have to go on. Any one can place an add in a news paper. Computer generated copies are a dime a dozen.

It seems to me Obama’s mom was kind of dippy, perhaps not too smart—no insult intended and I’m not trying to hurt her with words. I think her mother gave her some good advice at times, took her in, helped her out, gave her shelter, and was anchor for her in Hawaii when things got bad. But off she went again to another country.

Her mom could have easily funded, and advised, to place a news paper adds no matter where obama was born.

The better argument is going to primary sources of information as state laws.

Don

[Marley23]

My training is not to give much credence to news papers, but not much you can do about it
What training do you have? It looks like you took someone's word about what that birth certificate law said- or else you left out the part showing it passed in 1982. Am I wrong?

It seems to me Obama’s mom was kind of dippy, perhaps not too smart—no insult intended and I’m not trying to hurt her with words.
Certainly when I'm not trying to insult a dead person, I say they're not too smart. I assume you also have a Ph. D. and raised a future president?

Her mom could have easily funded, and advised, to place a news paper adds no matter where obama was born.
Two newspaper ads. And why she would have done this is unclear.

The better argument is going to primary sources of information as state laws.
Which is useless unless you read the laws correctly. And you didn't.

[Don123]

There have some challenges, good writing and well thought out responses.
Is there a reason you have not answered them?

YES my mind can be changed with more facts please.
Unfortunately you're not giving anyone else reason to believe this. What facts are you looking for?

holmes, the link shows other state regulations, not laws that were superceded by more recent laws.

I get hammered with many questions at once, it takes time get to them all.

I would like to see the state laws and regs at the time of obama's birth, that would be a good argument either way. I have not explored that yet.

Don

[Jas09]

It seems to me Obama’s mom was kind of dippy, perhaps not too smart—no insult intended and I’m not trying to hurt her with words.Ann Dunham had a PhD in anthropology.

[Giles]

It seems to me Obama’s mom was kind of dippy, perhaps not too smart—no insult intended and I’m not trying to hurt her with words.Ann Dunham had a PhD in anthropology.
I suspect that Ann Dunham was "dippy" in the sense of being a non-conformist, and rebelling against conventional social roles. However, a single mother who is "not too smart" is unlikely to bring up a son as smart as Barack Obama.

[Marley23]

I get hammered with many questions at once, it takes time get to them all.
You've been asked the same question many times, and you're still not answering.

I would like to see the state laws and regs at the time of obama's birth, that would be a good argument either way. I have not explored that yet.
I'm not sure they will be readily available, since laws that are off the books are marked "repealed." But it's worth pointing out again that the law you are talking about was passed in 1982. That means it's possible that babies born outside of Hawaii to Hawaiian parents were not able to get birth certificates from the state. (And again, if they could, why would those certificates say the babies were born in Hawaii?)

[Lobohan]

Ann Dunham had a PhD in anthropology.
I suspect that Ann Dunham was "dippy" in the sense of being a non-conformist, and rebelling against conventional social roles. However, a single mother who is "not too smart" is unlikely to bring up a son as smart as Barack Obama.Remember, Don thinks that Obama is horribly stupid. He thinks his staff wipe his ass for him, that he is an affirmative action hire and doesn't actually understand the law.

It seems like Don simply has an unreasoning hatred of Obama, so he's willing to believe anything negative anyone says about him. No matter how much proof there is to the contrary.

Sad, really.

[pravnik]

You know, if she actually did have a baby in Kenya, then flew to Hawaii four days later to somehow scam the state into falsely certifying that he was born in Honolulu and/or that she had resided there for over a year, and then planted fake birth announcements in the local papers all in the hopes that he could run for president in 45 or 50 years, I'd say that was pretty damn smart. Fiendishly clever, even.

[Steve MB]

You know, if she actually did have a baby in Kenya, then flew to Hawaii four days later to somehow scam the state into falsely certifying that he was born in Honolulu and/or that she had resided there for over a year, and then planted fake birth announcements in the local papers all in the hopes that he could run for president in 45 or 50 years, I'd say that was pretty damn smart. Fiendishly clever, even.

And doing all that with a black kid was the perfect way to throw everybody off the trail -- who in 1961 would have believed that he ever had any possibility of someday being elected President?

[Chronos]

You know, if she actually did have a baby in Kenya, then flew to Hawaii four days later to somehow scam the state into falsely certifying that he was born in Honolulu and/or that she had resided there for over a year, and then planted fake birth announcements in the local papers all in the hopes that he could run for president in 45 or 50 years, I'd say that was pretty damn smart. Fiendishly clever, even. No, smart would have been to save the cost of the plane fare and not risk the kid to third-world medicine, and just stay in Hawaii to have him.

[Don123]

I get hammered with many questions at once, it takes time get to them all.
You've been asked the same question many times, and you're still not answering.

I would like to see the state laws and regs at the time of obama's birth, that would be a good argument either way. I have not explored that yet.
I'm not sure they will be readily available, since laws that are off the books are marked "repealed." But it's worth pointing out again that the law you are talking about was passed in 1982. That means it's possible that babies born outside of Hawaii to Hawaiian parents were not able to get birth certificates from the state. (And again, if they could, why would those certificates say the babies were born in Hawaii?)



http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d29-Barak-Obama-must-release-Original-1961-Hawaii-Certificate-of-Live-Birth

[copied text deleted.]

[Marley23]

see picture here at the site listed above, it is not anything like the one posted on obamabat web sites, not even close.
Obamabat? Is he Dracula now? The form pictured says "certificate of live birth;" the one that was released says "certification of live birth." That's probably what is released when someone writes the state of Hawaii with a request for a copy of a birth certificate. The state of Hawaii has verified the original is on file. None of this explains why Obama's birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, and why it was filed four days after that.

[Wendell Wagner]

Don123 writes (about the Electoral College):

> All through out history they were nothing but a rubber stamp, a drunken party
> time in Washington, with a little bit status so they can brag to their friends, and
> that is all.

You have never done any research on American political history, have you? The Electoral College certainly was more than a rubber stamp as the writers of the Constitution conceived it. They expected that most politics would be at a state level. They expected that there wouldn't be any national parties. They therefore came up with the Electoral College because they figured that a direct election of a President would simply end up with a lot of candidates with little recognition beyond their own state. The idea was that the voters of the state would each elect a group of men from their own state who had a better grasp on national issues than the voters themselves (who the writers of the Constitution thought wouldn't be able to make any useful decisions about national issues). This small elected group of men would then come together and decide among themselves who the President would be.

The problem was that very quickly national political parties developed. It turned out that the ordinary voters did have a good grasp on national political issues. So within a few decades the Electoral College began to seem irrelevant, since the person who they chose as President was nearly always the same as the one chosen by the sum of the popular votes in each of the states. Furthermore, the Electoral College has never been a drunken party. The electors arrive in Washington, go to the place where they meet, and vote. It's over quickly and then they go back home. No one gets any additional status. It's considered a boring and pointless trip in general.

The fact that you don't know anything about the history of the Electoral College and don't know where Sarah Palin was born tells me more about you than the fact that you're just repeating the same Birther arguments. You're copying the Birther arguments because you've decided that anybody who disagrees with them is wrong, so you don't have to read anything else and can just dismiss anybody else as being part of a big conspiracy. However, when you get facts like Palin's birthplace and the Electorial College wrong, it's a bigger problem. You're not doing it because it supports the Birther cause, because both of those facts are irrelevant to the Birther cause and other Birthers don't make those mistakes. The fact that you get the Palin and Electoral College facts wrong shows that you don't actually care about facts at all. You apparently make those mistakes because you can't be bothered to look up anything. You apparently think that anything you write down is automatically correct and you don't have to check anything, regardless whether it supports your arguments.

[E-Sabbath]

How did Obama's mother get out of the country and back in, without a passport, Don?

[E-Sabbath]

The fact that you don't know anything about the history of the Electoral College and don't know where Sarah Palin was born tells me more about you than the fact that you're just repeating the same Birther arguments. You're copying the Birther arguments because you've decided that anybody who disagrees with them is wrong, so you don't have to read anything else and can just dismiss anybody else as being part of a big conspiracy. However, when you get facts like Palin's birthplace and the Electorial College wrong, it's a bigger problem. You're not doing it because it supports the Birther cause, because both of those facts are irrelevant to the Birther cause and other Birthers don't make those mistakes. The fact that you get the Palin and Electoral College facts wrong shows that you don't actually care about facts at all. You apparently make those mistakes because you can't be bothered to look up anything. You apparently think that anything you write down is automatically correct and you don't have to check anything, regardless whether it supports your arguments.


And this is key. Don, you're not a very good citizen, if you don't know how the government works. You're a bad American.

[Frank]

The electors arrive in Washington, go to the place where they meet, and vote.
The only electoral voters who meet in Washington are the ones selected by Washington. The rest meet in the capitals of their respective states and send a Certificate of Vote to the President of the Senate.

[Wendell Wagner]

Thanks, Frank. So it's even clearer that it's not a drunken party. The electors go to their state capitals, vote, and go home.

[Don123]

So I have posted with reference 4 different ways that Obama could be certified as a live birth in the state of Hawaii in 1961.

Pick one, any one, that shows proof positive that obama was physically born in that State.
You simply do not have it and you never will until Obama releases the original birth records and not a computer generated short form copy.

You have no more idea of where obama was born than the man in the moon, and you cannot lie to yourself any longer. You, nor I, simply do not know with the evidence that is on the table. Every thing else is speculation, insults, and political propaganda.

Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health can say what he wants, he has NOT told the public what form was used to register obama's birth, so all he has to say is moot. And he did NOT say Obama was born in Hawaii.

Here are his exact words:

“…Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

YES, at the time it would valid, under Hawaiian law, to mail in a report and the child not ever seen and the parent not even living in Hawaii.

YES, that law was repealed for its stupidity, but it was in effect at the time of Obama birthday. see the posting above.

Why were there 4 different procedures at the time of Obama’s birth to register a live birth? We can speculate, not on conspiracy, but on events at the time.

Look at the history of Hawaii. A slaughtered and slaved native population by the whites, total destruction of the native kingdom, invaded and exploited, lands stripped from the local population, forced conversions to Christianity at gun point and starvation, destruction of the natural environment, and out voted by invading whites to be a territory and by the military force of the USA, and beat in votes by the non-natives to become a State. Foreigners poured in from about every country on this planet hardly restricted having children and bringing their children. In addition, two complete generations of natives had to be killed or die out naturally to promote a total cultural change to USA standards.

NOW who is a citizen of Hawaii?

It took time to get this straightened out, consolidate the laws to be compatible with the USA federal government, as Hawaii had become a state in 1959 and obama was born in 1961, only about two years between the events. Of course the laws will change, as the people are trained to enforce them. But what we are interested in are the laws at the time of Obama’s birth.

This is not a conspiracy it is an honest search of the facts, and the ability to face the truth no matter how much it hurts.

So here is where we stand in this argument. You don’t know where obama was born—you have no idea. To say other wise you have to discredit my reference as to state laws at the time of obama’s birth. And I’m not sure you can do that with the resources on the net, but either way it will be a task. But you are welcome to try. This is where the rubber meets the road, as until we get past this point the USA constitution chapter 2 sec, 1 is not applicable, and that is a different argument.

Name calling is fun, insults make me giggle, you have some inventive minds out there, and I have learned more than the last time I took on this subject, and I think I’m better for it.

so have at it and what you can get.

Don

[El_Kabong]

The only electoral voters who meet in Washington are the ones selected by Washington. The rest meet in the capitals of their respective states and send a Certificate of Vote to the President of the Senate.

Hang on; is it a Certificate of Vote or a Certificate of Live Vote? There's a difference, you know.

[gonzomax]

It seems to me Obama’s mom was kind of dippy, perhaps not too smart—no insult intended and I’m not trying to hurt her with words.Ann Dunham had a PhD in anthropology.

Yes ,but Don 123 took Birther 101 at Liberty College.

[Bryan Ekers]

NOW who is a citizen of Hawaii?

Nobody, apparently. The entire state is a moral dead zone, by your argument.

[Ludovic]

I have this magic pet rock that can fly around the room all by itself—and NO you cannot see it, the pet rock only likes me--- HAHA you would think I’m crazy and rightly so.

I burning your certificate!

[Don123]

Answering El Kabong

To what legal authority must a candidate for President present his or her proof of birth in the USA?

I’m not sure, perhaps to the State department, or at least some one there should know—maybe. And I am not sure that you have to notify any one in the federal government if you are running independently. I would assume if you are running on a party ticket, then before public announcement of your candidacy you get the paper work straight with the party leaders, or the party’s main office i.e. the secretary if nothing else.

2. At what point in the process of running for President must this be done?

I would say a person should prepare all the paper work, birth certificate and such the like, BEFORE going public.

3. Was this done for Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43?

I can assume it was, but I do not find that relevant to this thread, but what ever Nixon said, after he was a proven liar, would be double checked 100 times.

But on a side note: I assume that obama knew of his massive birth certificate problems, prepared for it extensively but decided not to bring it up until the press did. Then attack all who would not buy into his bull shit. Obama did not plan out his presidency, others did---he was just the big mouth part, a talking head, an a empty suit, playing out the race card, and trying not to look stupid as a 42 year old virgin on a first date. Nothing new here.

Don

[Lobohan]

Answering El Kabong

To what legal authority must a candidate for President present his or her proof of birth in the USA?

I’m not sure, perhaps to the State department, or at least some one there should know—maybe. And I am not sure that you have to notify any one in the federal government if you are running independently. I would assume if you are running on a party ticket, then before public announcement of your candidacy you get the paper work straight with the party leaders, or the party’s main office i.e. the secretary if nothing else.

2. At what point in the process of running for President must this be done?

I would say a person should prepare all the paper work, birth certificate and such the like, BEFORE going public.

3. Was this done for Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43?

I can assume it was, but I do not find that relevant to this thread, but what ever Nixon said, after he was a proven liar, would be double checked 100 times.

But on a side note: I assume that obama knew of his massive birth certificate problems, prepared for it extensively but decided not to bring it up until the press did. Then attack all who would not buy into his bull shit. Obama did not plan out his presidency, others did---he was just the big mouth part, a talking head, an a empty suit, playing out the race card, and trying not to look stupid as a 42 year old virgin on a first date. Nothing new here.

DonYou are basing that on nothing but conjecture and awe-inspiring ignorance of factual issues.

Just because you hate Obama, doesn't mean that every conspiracy theory you hear about him is true. The fact that you're calling a very accomplished man stupid, when you are having trouble grasping the fundamental basics of evidence and logic is kinda ironic, don't you think?

[gonzomax]

Answering El Kabong

To what legal authority must a candidate for President present his or her proof of birth in the USA?

I’m not sure, perhaps to the State department, or at least some one there should know—maybe. And I am not sure that you have to notify any one in the federal government if you are running independently. I would assume if you are running on a party ticket, then before public announcement of your candidacy you get the paper work straight with the party leaders, or the party’s main office i.e. the secretary if nothing else.

2. At what point in the process of running for President must this be done?

I would say a person should prepare all the paper work, birth certificate and such the like, BEFORE going public.

3. Was this done for Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43?

I can assume it was, but I do not find that relevant to this thread, but what ever Nixon said, after he was a proven liar, would be double checked 100 times.

But on a side note: I assume that obama knew of his massive birth certificate problems, prepared for it extensively but decided not to bring it up until the press did. Then attack all who would not buy into his bull shit. Obama did not plan out his presidency, others did---he was just the big mouth part, a talking head, an a empty suit, playing out the race card, and trying not to look stupid as a 42 year old virgin on a first date. Nothing new here.

Don

When you call him an empty suit, stupid and playing out the race card, you have shown what you are. That is why nobody takes you seriously. That, and the fact this is an old and stupid idea that has been disproved over and over. Yet you persist that he should do it again. He should tell you to blow it out your ass. There is no proof possible when your ridiculous opinions are emotionally held.

[Don123]

NOW who is a citizen of Hawaii?

Nobody, apparently. The entire state is a moral dead zone, by your argument.

I did not even get started, look at any big USA city today and political crimes abound from bribes, to glad handing, lies, and you name it.

Hawaii was a USA military base in WW2 and the territory civil government was not worth shit along with law enforcement. Capitalism of the worst kind prevailed and anything for a dollar ruled the day.

After the war, lacking any civil government worth spit, any one could be a Hawaiian citizen for a few dollars, or having a friend in government office. Look at the forms I posted--- you did not even have to show up, mail in the information.

You think people were willing to pay for that service to be a USA citizen—OH YEAH--- look at Mexico and the USA---nothing has changed.

OH the USA is SOOO righteous---ha ha ha. We are righteous all right when get all these crooks, scams, and lying cheats under our foot and smash them like a bug.

Man has not changed, look at Chicago and Blago. You thing Hawaii was any different---get real.

The USA wanted to do the same thing to Cuba, as Hawaii, but Castro would not take the bait, and the Russian step into play.

I think I’m off topic here. The moderators are going to yell at me again for being bad, so I had better stop.

Don

[Ludovic]

I did not even get started, look at any big USA city today and political crimes abound from bribes, to glad handing, lies, and you name it.

Take Des Moines, Iowa, for example.

[diksichik]

But there are records that obama in his early 20’s used his Indonesia passport to go to Pakistan, that at the time was a NO travel zone to USA citizens.

Don

I'm very near Obama's age and an American. I traveled to Pakistan in my 20's. We were friendly with them. No visa was required for Americans.

[El_Kabong]

Answering El Kabong

To what legal authority must a candidate for President present his or her proof of birth in the USA?

I’m not sure, perhaps to the State department, or at least some one there should know—maybe. And I am not sure that you have to notify any one in the federal government if you are running independently. I would assume if you are running on a party ticket, then before public announcement of your candidacy you get the paper work straight with the party leaders, or the party’s main office i.e. the secretary if nothing else.

OK, so, no idea. Strike one.

2. At what point in the process of running for President must this be done?

I would say a person should prepare all the paper work, birth certificate and such the like, BEFORE going public.

Why? As you just said a moment ago, you haven't a clue to whom such documents might have to be presented to legally run for President. Strike two.

3. Was this done for Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43?

I can assume it was, but I do not find that relevant to this thread, but what ever Nixon said, after he was a proven liar, would be double checked 100 times.

Why not? How do you know any of them were born in the United States? Anyway, direct answer is no idea. Strike three.

But on a side note: I assume that obama knew of his massive birth certificate problems, prepared for it extensively but decided not to bring it up until the press did.

Based on the proven inaccuracy of many of your other assumptions, I will give that all the consideration it is due.

Sorry, at this point I think I've heard pretty much every argument you are likely to make and see nothing whatsoever that suggests Obama was not born in Hawaii. You are of course welcome to flog this expired equine as long as you want. Goodbye.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

i did not even get started, look at any big usa city today and political crimes abound from bribes, to glad handing, lies, and you name it.

take des moines, iowa, for example.

look at it! Look at the soil!

[BrainGlutton]

You simply do not have it and you never will until Obama releases the original birth records and not a computer generated short form copy.

N.B.: It is not his to "release."

[Wendell Wagner]

Don123, let me get this straight. You think that capitalism of the worst sort prevailed at the time of Obama's birth. Because of this terrible capitalism, Obama was allowed to get a fake birth certificate, so that 47 years later he could be elected President, where he is actually a socialist (or so Birthers claim).

[Really Not All That Bright]

Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health can say what he wants, he has NOT told the public what form was used to register obama's birth, so all he has to say is moot. And he did NOT say Obama was born in Hawaii.

Here are his exact words:

“…Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
Well, those are some of his words. Here are some more:
"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."
Happy now? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm)

[BrainGlutton]

Don123, let me get this straight. You think that capitalism of the worst sort prevailed at the time of Obama's birth. Because of this terrible capitalism, Obama was allowed to get a fake birth certificate, so that 47 years later he could be elected President, where he is actually a socialist (or so Birthers claim).

Hmmm . . . That is a puzzler . . . Who could be to blame for that? Who's behind both capitalism and Communism? It's on the tip of my . . .

[Leaper]

An aside: Dr. Chiyome Fukino is most definitely NOT a "he." (http://hawaii.gov/health/about/admin/directorbio.html)

[Bryan Ekers]

I did not even get started, look at any big USA city today and political crimes abound from bribes, to glad handing, lies, and you name it.

Hawaii was a USA military base in WW2 and the territory civil government was not worth shit along with law enforcement. Capitalism of the worst kind prevailed and anything for a dollar ruled the day.

After the war, lacking any civil government worth spit, any one could be a Hawaiian citizen for a few dollars, or having a friend in government office. Look at the forms I posted--- you did not even have to show up, mail in the information.

You think people were willing to pay for that service to be a USA citizen—OH YEAH--- look at Mexico and the USA---nothing has changed.

OH the USA is SOOO righteous---ha ha ha. We are righteous all right when get all these crooks, scams, and lying cheats under our foot and smash them like a bug.

Man has not changed, look at Chicago and Blago. You thing Hawaii was any different---get real.

The USA wanted to do the same thing to Cuba, as Hawaii, but Castro would not take the bait, and the Russian step into play.

I think I’m off topic here. The moderators are going to yell at me again for being bad, so I had better stop.

Don

So it's not Obama you have a problem with, per se, but America itself.

[Don123]

How did Obama's mother get out of the country and back in, without a passport, Don?

The biggest obstacle to your question is that the passport records of families, and employees, directly related to the president are now sealed by the State Department, as I have read, under National Security.

Also, for some reason the government of Kenya, has sealed any information (including passport data) of anything relating to Obama. I would like to say that Biden’s trip to Kenya in the last two weeks to give Kenya about 350 million for birth control is to pay off people to keep those records sealed. Of course we know the 350 million will never go toward birth control as it is handed over to one of the most corrupted governments on this earth.

More conspiracy theories? Yes, with facts woven in as speculation. That is the problem when the public is spit on by presidents by their BS and his lying team, and they learn how to fraud to get elected, and keep us voters in the dark by withholding the facts; all for the good of the country. Go figure that out and you get a prize.

Don

[Marley23]

More conspiracy theories? Yes, with facts woven in as speculation.
Other than "Barack Obama was born," I don't think you've posted a fact yet. Most of the assertions you've made have been wrong, including your recent statement that presidential candidates need to present birth certificates.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

More conspiracy theories? Yes, with facts woven in as speculation.
I think you've got that backwards.

[Bryan Ekers]

More conspiracy theories? Yes, with facts woven in as speculation.
Other than "Barack Obama was born,"

Wait a sec, what's your source on that?

[Hakuna Matata]

(See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).


Please post a link where we can review these sections. If you want me (or any of us) to take you seriously provide links that support your position. Citing an article by a birther is NOT proof. If the author of this article wrote this, then it means they had access to these sections and thus can provide a link, or a photo copy of the statutes. Or will you be like Susanann and post items without support? The decision I suppose is yours, but your lack of posting reviewable data does speak volumes about your intent.

An online search for them produces nothing except more references to birther sites. Hell I could post that section 57-10 contradicts Section 57-8 & 9 and without the document how can anyone prove or disprove it. The ball is in your court my friend.

[Bryan Ekers]

An online search for them produces nothing except more references to birther sites. Hell I could post that section 57-10 contradicts Section 57-8 & 9 and without the document how can anyone prove or disprove it. The ball is in your court my friend.

Indeed. And he doesn't even address the Finn Amendment. How can you take anyone seriously when he's ignorant of the Finn Amendment? Why, without the Finn Amendment, there'd be chaos!

[DoctorJ]

It's worth noting that even if one did prove that it was possible to get a Hawaii birth certificate in 1961 without being born in the US--and that has most certainly not been proven--it's a long way from saying that it didhappen like that.

Those who believe that Obama was born outside the US have to believe it despite the fact that 1.) there's no evidence for it; 2.) there is considerable evidence to the contrary; and 3.) maintaining such a fiction would require a massive and thus far completely airtight conspiracy involving dozens if not hundreds of people, set into motion 50 years ago by an 18-year-old pregnant girl for no discernible reason.

I've never been clear about whether Obama really could release the sort of super duper birth certificate the birthers keep asking for--but even if he could, why would he? It wouldn't put anything to rest; anyone who can be convinced has already been convinced. Meanwhile, every time the birthers open their mouths--and every time more sensible Republicans stand by silently--it makes Obama look better.

I think all birthers should have to present a "vault copy" of their kid's birth certificate when they sign him up for soccer. Those official BCs issued by the state are apparently not worth the paper they're printed on, so why should we trust it to tell us your kid is under 12?

[Don123]

Don123, let me get this straight. You think that capitalism of the worst sort prevailed at the time of Obama's birth. Because of this terrible capitalism, Obama was allowed to get a fake birth certificate, so that 47 years later he could be elected President, where he is actually a socialist (or so Birthers claim).

Hmmm . . . That is a puzzler . . . Who could be to blame for that? Who's behind both capitalism and Communism? It's on the tip of my . . .




I grant that is my speculation with good reasoning. Did someone, or foreign country have an over all plan for Obama? Your guess. I do not believe in gods and preordained destiny. Was obama a pick of the litter to be groomed? OR did he take advantage of opportunities that that fell in his path? Your guess. It sounds like your are the one that believes in gods, as you apply events 40 years after they happen to destiny, as if there is some master plan--NOT I.

Though I'm monetarily filthy rich using freedoms and capitalism as tools, there is a dark side to capitalism and you know it.

What it seems you are trying to do is set up an impossible master plan, and then close with that is not possible, so every thing is clean with Obama. Good luck.

when I was selling mangoes in Florida to colored town at age six, pulling my wagons filled with fruit for sale door to door to poor blacks, did I realize that I would have over a million bucks cash before I was 27, all by my own hard earned work---after taxes? I did not have a clue. It was one day at a time. I'm not bragging, though I have the rights, but I do have the experience that shapes my opinions. I Doubt obama had any idea what he was up to before age 12.
NO ONE loves prosperity more than I, and I have NO problem with Obama being wealthy and exploiting opportunities that come along just as I did. But I will NOT tolerate GD bullshit, lies, and fraud--not from any that claims power over me.

I'm not trying to capture the moral high ground to be persuasive-- I'm a stinking racist, and my loyalty is to my white kind. Though there are some blacks I have respect for, I count them winners and a pride to their race by high standards; Obama is not one of them.

Look, had obama said up front: my paperwork as to being a natural born citizen is a mess. The laws of Hawaii were loose at the time I was born, and some what idiotic by today’s standards. I was adopted, traveled over seas, and made it back to the USA as an adult. I present to you the voting public what I have, what the records shows, here are all the originals, and you decide if I'm qualified to be President. I believe my natural born citizenship is close enough, and I'm going for the presidency.

I may have voted for him, as I understand the state of affairs of Hawaii at the time. To give Obama tolerance "after the fact" of his gross bull shit and blatant lies does not cut it. To say that was his "intent" all along is nothing but blind speculation based on propaganda, wishful thinking at most, as you have NO facts to back it up.

Instead of a forth right person of smarts, all I have is this boot legger, carpet bagger, that is pissing on my back and telling me it’s raining---NO deal.
But the topic is, do you know for fact that Obama was born in Hawaii? OK, how do you know, as everything else is speculation and opinions.

Don

[GIGObuster]

I may have voted for him, as I understand the state of affairs of Hawaii at the time. To give Obama tolerance "after the fact" of his gross bull shit and blatant lies does not cut it. To say that was his "intent" all along is nothing but blind speculation based on propaganda, wishful thinking at most, as you have NO facts to back it up.

Instead of a forth right person of smarts, all I have is this boot legger, carpet bagger, that is pissing on my back and telling me it’s raining---NO deal.
But the topic is, do you know for fact that Obama was born in Hawaii? OK, how do you know, as everything else is speculation and opinions.

Don
The speculations are just coming from the birthers.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over."

In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:


Obama's birth announcement


The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.
Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.

[suranyi]

You simply do not have it and you never will until Obama releases the original birth records and not a computer generated short form copy.



If I wanted to send you my Pennsylvania birth certificate, the only thing I could get for you would be the computer generated short form copy. My original birth records do not exist anymore. No matter how much I, myself would scream, the state of Pennsylvania wouldn't do any better. That is the way records are kept nowadays.

[Don123]

It's worth noting that even if one did prove that it was possible to get a Hawaii birth certificate in 1961 without being born in the US--and that has most certainly not been proven--it's a long way from saying that it didhappen like that.

Those who believe that Obama was born outside the US have to believe it despite the fact that 1.) there's no evidence for it; 2.) there is considerable evidence to the contrary; and 3.) maintaining such a fiction would require a massive and thus far completely airtight conspiracy involving dozens if not hundreds of people, set into motion 50 years ago by an 18-year-old pregnant girl for no discernible reason.

I've never been clear about whether Obama really could release the sort of super duper birth certificate the birthers keep asking for--but even if he could, why would he? It wouldn't put anything to rest; anyone who can be convinced has already been convinced. Meanwhile, every time the birthers open their mouths--and every time more sensible Republicans stand by silently--it makes Obama look better.

I think all birthers should have to present a "vault copy" of their kid's birth certificate when they sign him up for soccer. Those official BCs issued by the state are apparently not worth the paper they're printed on, so why should we trust it to tell us your kid is under 12?


Fact is YOU do not KNOW if obama was born in Hawaii or not--- you have NO paper trail to follow—NONE. I have posted, with reference, the 4 Hawaiian laws (regulations) at the time of his birth regarding birth applications. They are ambiguous to the hilt, if not criminal by today’s standards. Without the originals you have NO idea what happened.

The only thing you have is the paper trail that Obama’s parents left behind—if any. And you do not have access to it, NO one does but Obama. Accordingly all you have is big cloud of smoke and mirrors.

Regardless of what you think of me, you are hammed hard, boxed in, and you have no solid ground to retreat.

You do NOT know if Obama was born in Hawaii, neither do I> YOU Can rephrase yourself to save face. YOU “believe” Obama was born in Hawaii. And you can believe what ever you want to but YOU do not “know”. Every thing else is propaganda, conspiracy, speculation, projections, bias, opinion, and wishful thinking; until you have the facts on the table that Obama refuses to deliver.

The consequences of you admitting to yourself “ YOU do not know” if Obama was born in Hawaii are sever. You just might have to rethink all those lies Obama has been telling you.


PS, It is a common piece of paper with writting on it, what is there to hide?

Don

[Hakuna Matata]

I have posted, with reference, the 4 Hawaiian laws (regulations) at the time of his birth regarding birth applications. They are ambiguous to the hilt, if not criminal by today’s standards. Without the originals you have NO idea what happened.


You have NOT posted anything with references. Please post the cites or stop stating this. Section 57-10 disputes everything you are stating. See two can play this silly game. But if you post the actual references then I can tell if you are yanking my chain or if you are serious. I am willing to keep an open mind if you can provide something tangible, but you haven't done that.

If these 4 Hawaiian laws (regulations) exist it seems it would be a fairly easy thing for you to post a link. Please do so or admit you have no evidence. It isn't that difficult.

I am off to bed, some of us actually earn our money honestly. I will check in the morning for my cites. I trust you will be able to find them by then!

[Don123]

I will try again--delete this

[Lobohan]

Fact is YOU do not KNOW if obama was born in Hawaii or not--- you have NO paper trail to follow—NONE.You don't KNOW that you weren't born in Japan to a coke-whore and a pedophile priest and sold to the people you think are your parents.

There is no evidence for this, but you don't KNOW that it isn't the case.

What you need to realize is that you are believing things with no evidence. You're being no better than someone who believes in astrology or homeopathic medicine.

Rational people believe things because of evidence. Not because they can't find evidence that it didn't happen.

[Don123]

I have posted, with reference, the 4 Hawaiian laws (regulations) at the time of his birth regarding birth applications. They are ambiguous to the hilt, if not criminal by today’s standards. Without the originals you have NO idea what happened.


You have NOT posted anything with references. Please post the cites or stop stating this. Section 57-10 disputes everything you are stating. See two can play this silly game. But if you post the actual references then I can tell if you are yanking my chain or if you are serious. I am willing to keep an open mind if you can provide something tangible, but you haven't done that.

If these 4 Hawaiian laws (regulations) exist it seems it would be a fairly easy thing for you to post a link. Please do so or admit you have no evidence. It isn't that difficult.

I am off to bed, some of us actually earn our money honestly. I will check in the morning for my cites. I trust you will be able to find them by then!


Posted here on this thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=527526&page=7

here is the post--


http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portl...-of-Live-Birth

In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an “original birth certificate” on record. They varied greatly in their reliability as evidence. For convenience, I’ll call them BC1, BC2, BC3, and BC4.

BC1. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

Actual long form Certificate of Live Birth similar to one Obama refuses to release

(see picture here at the site listed above, it is not anything like the one posted on obamabat web sites, not even close.)

BC2. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.” It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in. In addition, if a claim was made that “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.” (Section 57-8&9) I asked the Dept of Health what they currently ask for (in 2008) to back up a parent’s claim that a child was born in Hawaii. I was told that all they required was a proof of residence in Hawaii (e.g. a driver’s license [We know from interviews with her friends on Mercer Island in Washington State that Ann Dunham had acquired a driver’s license by the summer of 1961 at the age of 17] or telephone bill) and pre-natal (statement or report that a woman was pregnant) and post-natal (statement or report that a new-born baby has been examined) certification by a physician. On further enquiry, the employee that I spoke to informed me that the pre-natal and post-natal certifications had probably not been in force in the ‘60s. Even if they had been, there is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii.

BC3. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, a “Delayed Certificate” could be filed, which required that “a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing or the alteration [of a file] shall be endorsed on the certificates”, which “evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.” The statute provided that “the probative value of a ‘delayed’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.” (See Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).”

[In other words, this form of vault birth certificate, the Delayed Certificate, required no more than a statement before a government bureaucrat by one of the parents or (the law does not seem to me clear on this) one of Barack Obama’s grandparents. If the latter is true, Ann Dunham did not have to be present for this statement or even in the country.]

BC4. If a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.) In 1955 the “secretary of the Territory” was in charge of this procedure. In 1960 it was transferred to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor (“the lieutenant governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office” §338-41 [in 1961]).

[Don123]

Fact is YOU do not KNOW if obama was born in Hawaii or not--- you have NO paper trail to follow—NONE.You don't KNOW that you weren't born in Japan to a coke-whore and a pedophile priest and sold to the people you think are your parents.

There is no evidence for this, but you don't KNOW that it isn't the case.

What you need to realize is that you are believing things with no evidence. You're being no better than someone who believes in astrology or homeopathic medicine.

Rational people believe things because of evidence. Not because they can't find evidence that it didn't happen.


It does not matter where I was born, I'm not the president nor running for president.

That was easy, and I think everything is spelled correctly.

Don

[Bryan Ekers]

So the only reason you have to doubt BC1 is the claim that Obama refuses to release a document he doesn't actually have?

[Lobohan]

That was easy, and I think everything is spelled correctly. It was easy because you didn't do anything. You're pretending to make points, not actually making them.

[Don123]

I may have voted for him, as I understand the state of affairs of Hawaii at the time. To give Obama tolerance "after the fact" of his gross bull shit and blatant lies does not cut it. To say that was his "intent" all along is nothing but blind speculation based on propaganda, wishful thinking at most, as you have NO facts to back it up.

Instead of a forth right person of smarts, all I have is this boot legger, carpet bagger, that is pissing on my back and telling me it’s raining---NO deal.
But the topic is, do you know for fact that Obama was born in Hawaii? OK, how do you know, as everything else is speculation and opinions.

Don
The speculations are just coming from the birthers.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over."

In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:


Obama's birth announcement


The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.
Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.


Don’t be silly, it is highly possible that obama’s Grand mother knew the "over all" value of USA citizenship and her wayward daughter, perhaps out of the country, did not. The Grand mother had the wisdom of age and obama’s mom had the child out of lust, it happens all the time. That is what some families do.

You can speculate all you want, and you have nothing at all. You are grabbing straws because you do not have the facts. I have the laws (regulations) of Hawaii regarding issuing birth certificates and you do not. If you think a mail in registration, and NO authority needs to see the child, is valid proof of physical birth in Hawaii then good for you. That was perfectly valid Hawaiian registration at the time of Obama’s birth. But you do not even know that without seeing the original.

Don

[Wendell Wagner]

Don123 writes:

> when I was selling mangoes in Florida to colored town at age six, pulling my
> wagons filled with fruit for sale door to door to poor blacks, did I realize that I
> would have over a million bucks cash before I was 27, all by my own hard
> earned work---after taxes?

. . .

> I'm a stinking racist, and my loyalty is to my white kind.

Your biography is even more confused than your arguments. You made whatever money you have by starting by taking advantage of some poor blacks. Now you admit you're a racist. If this biography is correct (and we have no way of checking), you ought to instead thank every poor black you meet. You made your money by working the system better than them. If Obama actually did anything you claim that you say he did, he worked the system better than you did. I don't see that you have any loyalty to anyone except yourself.

[Bryan Ekers]

obama’s mom had the child out of lust

Yeesh, not only is the citizenship of every Hawaiian called into question, but motherhood is now a "lust" thing.

[Don123]

So the only reason you have to doubt BC1 is the claim that Obama refuses to release a document he doesn't actually have?

We do not know if it is BC1-4, however obama has the authority to make the record public, and to date he has done nothing but lied about it, done everything but get it up.

Untill he does, the USA has been scamed, gutted, and hung out to rot.

Good luck to you.


Don

[Don123]

obama’s mom had the child out of lust

Yeesh, not only is the citizenship of every Hawaiian called into question, but motherhood is now a "lust" thing.

NO, it is only obama as he is the president and may run again--so the problem is HIS to put up or shut up.

It is not a matter of him being a citizen of the USA but rather his physical place of birth. Once that is established then we can move on to the requirements of a president in the USA constitution.

But even setting that aside, fact is obama has made claims he cannot and will not support. All you get is a bucket load of political slimy crap.

Don

[Bryan Ekers]

Hey, he ain't my president... Besides, he was educated from grade 5 onward in the U.S., went to a prestigious law school in the U.S., held elected office in the U.S., speaks fluent English and as far as I can tell has political views that are not at all atypical for Americans. If anything is being called into question, it's the need for the "natural born" requirement.


I've suggested in the past making a small tweak whereby eligibility is determined by having been a U.S. citizen for 35 years. For the native-born, nothing changes. For a naturalized immigrant, 35 years is more than enough time to thoroughly assimilate. Arnold Schwarzenegger would be eligible in 2018.

It's not clear to me that the stakes are high enough to require more evidence than has already been made available to you.

[bdgr]

Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health can say what he wants, he has NOT told the public what form was used to register obama's birth, so all he has to say is moot. And he did NOT say Obama was born in Hawaii.

Here are his exact words:

“…Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
Well, those are some of his words. Here are some more:
"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."
Happy now? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm)

I think this should be brought back to the top....

[E-Sabbath]

How did Obama's mother get out of the country and back in, without a passport, Don?

The biggest obstacle to your question is that the passport records of families, and employees, directly related to the president are now sealed by the State Department, as I have read, under National Security.
Don

I'm sorry, Don, but no. We have her passport application records, and she got her first in 1965.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35161730/Stanley-Ann-Dunham-Obama-Soetoro-Passport-Application-File-Strunk-v-Dept-of-State-FOIA-Release-FINAL-7-29-10
You see, it was valid until July 18th, 1970, when extended. It's right there.
In the 1960s, passports were good for three years, with a two year extension.
So that puts us at her first passport showing up in 1965.
Which is a bit after 1961. I can tell these things.
The reason it's not sealed, by the way, is because she's dead.

Also, happy birthday, Mr. President!

[Steve MB]

Rational people believe things because of evidence. Not because they can't find evidence that it didn't happen.

Oh, great. Now I have Criswell's voice stuck in my head asking, "Can your heart stand the shocking facts about BIRTH RECORDS FROM OUTER SPACE?"

[Cinebar]

obama’s mom had the child out of lust

Yeesh, not only is the citizenship of every Hawaiian called into question, but motherhood is now a "lust" thing.

Yes, and Obama was the "pick of the litter." :rolleyes:

[Really Not All That Bright]

I think this should be brought back to the top....
Somehow, I knew before opening the thread that he wouldn't have addressed it.

[Ludovic]

NO, it is only obama as he is the president and may run again--so the problem is HIS to put up or shut up.

Actually, it seems more like it's your problem. How's that birthy, tinfoily thing workin' out for you?

[BrainGlutton]

So the only reason you have to doubt BC1 is the claim that Obama refuses to release a document he doesn't actually have?

We do not know if it is BC1-4, however obama has the authority to make the record public, . . .

No, he doesn't. State call, not federal.

. . . and to date he has done nothing but lied about it, done everything but get it up.

What has he ever said about it, about any of this, that we have any reason to think is a lie?

[ivan astikov]

He's a politician; he lies for a living. Or avoids having to lie by pretending not to know.

[ivan astikov]

Whatever you think of "Birthers" as a group - as if they are all one fixed entity - their questions have raised a ridiculous situation in American governance, whereby someone can become president without ever having had his birth credentials authenticised by a relatively trustworthy group. And now we've realised we don't even have that "relatively trustworthy group", or at least not one that both sides can agree upon.

[GIGObuster]

You can speculate all you want, and you have nothing at all. You are grabbing straws because you do not have the facts.
Nope, the link I gave you has reporters that did the research and it reports not only the newspaper birth announcement, but also the testimony and evidence from the Hawaii state health director.

Besides speculating on a trip to Kenya made by the mother (with no evidence or testimony whatsoever), you are also speculating that from an even more underdeveloped time people in Kenya had reliable ways of communicating with newspapers in Hawaii, it was demonstrated in recent interviews that the grandmother in Kenya needs translators to make interviews, it does strain credibility to assume that the grandmother back then had the means or the money or the opportunity to contact newspapers in Hawaii.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Whatever you think of "Birthers" as a group - as if they are all one fixed entity - their questions have raised a ridiculous situation in American governance, whereby someone can become president without ever having had his birth credentials authenticised by a relatively trustworthy group. And now we've realised we don't even have that "relatively trustworthy group", or at least not one that both sides can agree upon.
Well, their questions have certainly not helped increased your understanding of American governance.

A dozen courts, the secretaries of state of all fifty states, the House of Representatives and the Senate, and Vice President Dick Cheney have all determined that Obama is a natural born citizen.

As don 123 quite rightly noted, it wouldn't matter if God himself came down from on high to inform us that Obama is a natural born citizen; some people have simply chosen not to have a fucking clue.

[CannyDan]

You have NOT posted anything with references. Please post the cites or stop stating this. Section 57-10 disputes everything you are stating. See two can play this silly game. But if you post the actual references then I can tell if you are yanking my chain or if you are serious. I am willing to keep an open mind if you can provide something tangible, but you haven't done that.

If these 4 Hawaiian laws (regulations) exist it seems it would be a fairly easy thing for you to post a link. Please do so or admit you have no evidence. It isn't that difficult.

I am off to bed, some of us actually earn our money honestly. I will check in the morning for my cites. I trust you will be able to find them by then!


Posted here on this thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=527526&page=7

here is the post--


http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portl...-of-Live-Birth

In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an “original birth certificate” on record. They varied greatly in their reliability as evidence. For convenience, I’ll call them BC1, BC2, BC3, and BC4.

BC1. <snip>

BC2. <snip>

BC3. <snip>

BC4. <snip>

OK, c’mon. You know you didn’t write this. I know you didn’t write this. We all know you didn’t write this. The sentence structure, the spelling, the punctuation, even the appearance of rationality are orders of magnitude beyond anything you’ve typed anyplace in this thread.

Oh, and the Examiner link doesn’t work. Now why don’t you be a good little boy and go off and find an actual cite for your assertions, like Hakuna Matata asks, m’kay?

By the way, Examiner appears to be nothing more than a glorified blog, an “experiment in citizen journalism” (cite) (http://techcrunch.com/2008/10/22/the-examinercom-now-wants-to-become-a-bastion-of-citizen-journalism/) so I don’t think I’ll be putting much faith in it even if the link worked. Try again for a real citation.

[Marley23]

I grant that is my speculation with good reasoning.
Your reasoning is absurd.

Did someone, or foreign country have an over all plan for Obama? Your guess. I do not believe in gods and preordained destiny. Was obama a pick of the litter to be groomed? OR did he take advantage of opportunities that that fell in his path? Your guess.
This is not guessing, it's ridiculous.

I'm monetarily filthy rich
Good for you.

I'm a stinking racist, and my loyalty is to my white kind.
People who believe what you believe usually are.

Look, had obama said up front: my paperwork as to being a natural born citizen is a mess.
It's not a mess, though. There's a lot of proof he was born in Honolulu in 1961. (Certainly there's more evidence for that than there is for you being a rich guy who used to sell mangoes.) There's no evidence he was not born exactly where he says he was. What there is is speculation and imagination based on supposed loopholes. That's not becase he has failed to provide any records, it's because people who believe what you believe refuse to accept the obvious.

[Steve MB]

Whatever you think of "Birthers" as a group - as if they are all one fixed entity - their questions have raised a ridiculous situation in American governance, whereby someone can become president without ever having had his birth credentials authenticised by a relatively trustworthy group.

Nonsense. As I have repeatedly noted, part of the purpose of the Electoral College was that the electors were expected to serve as a vetting group of last resort in case the Teeming Millions (or, in those days, their elected representatives at the state level) did something crazy like attempt to elect a President who was not legally eligible.

[Tom Scud]

Other than "Barack Obama was born,"

Wait a sec, what's your source on that?

I believe the phrase is "begotten, not made".

[Marley23]

OK, c’mon. You know you didn’t write this. I know you didn’t write this. We all know you didn’t write this. The sentence structure, the spelling, the punctuation, even the appearance of rationality are orders of magnitude beyond anything you’ve typed anyplace in this thread.

Oh, and the Examiner link doesn’t work. Now why don’t you be a good little boy and go off and find an actual cite for your assertions, like Hakuna Matata asks, m’kay?
The link did work yesterday and I read the cite. (I agree that it's not particularly credible because it does not link to the laws or to any sources at all.) Don123 did copy and paste much of the entry wholesale, which, again, I've asked him not to do. What is called for is a short quote (meaning a few paragraphs at most) or even better, a summary. We can follow the link and read the text ourselves. Okay, Don123?

[GIGObuster]

Whatever you think of "Birthers" as a group - as if they are all one fixed entity - their questions have raised a ridiculous situation in American governance, whereby someone can become president without ever having had his birth credentials authenticised by a relatively trustworthy group. And now we've realised we don't even have that "relatively trustworthy group", or at least not one that both sides can agree upon.
:rolleyes:

The leadership of the party affected (the Republicans) agree with the evidence and testimony presented by the authorities from Hawaii, the fact that some Republicans are making noises or equivocating to birthers is just evidence of pandering.

[Don123]

Don123 writes:

> when I was selling mangoes in Florida to colored town at age six, pulling my
> wagons filled with fruit for sale door to door to poor blacks, did I realize that I
> would have over a million bucks cash before I was 27, all by my own hard
> earned work---after taxes?

. . .

> I'm a stinking racist, and my loyalty is to my white kind.

Your biography is even more confused than your arguments. You made whatever money you have by starting by taking advantage of some poor blacks. Now you admit you're a racist. If this biography is correct (and we have no way of checking), you ought to instead thank every poor black you meet. You made your money by working the system better than them. If Obama actually did anything you claim that you say he did, he worked the system better than you did. I don't see that you have any loyalty to anyone except yourself.



As I said I’m not trying take the moral high ground. I like being around my own kind, and seeing the prosperity and longevity of my own white race. We whites have error all over the place and not hardly living up to the standards we set for others. But none the less we will keep raising the bar until we get it right. I’m proud of the good thing my race has done, and I want to make things better, and we are not going back to the dark ages of stupid filthy savages and low life. So you can take the black African culture and flush to where the sun does not shine. In public life, and in civil rights, I’m law abiding and tolerant. The focus is on the money, not the color. I would hire a green thing from Mars if it is legal and I can make a dollar, no one gets hurt, and it is a fair deal for all. That is as good as I get.

Don

[Don123]

I grant that is my speculation with good reasoning.
Your reasoning is absurd.


This is not guessing, it's ridiculous.


Good for you.


People who believe what you believe usually are.

Look, had obama said up front: my paperwork as to being a natural born citizen is a mess.
It's not a mess, though. There's a lot of proof he was born in Honolulu in 1961. (Certainly there's more evidence for that than there is for you being a rich guy who used to sell mangoes.) There's no evidence he was not born exactly where he says he was. What there is is speculation and imagination based on supposed loopholes. That's not becase he has failed to provide any records, it's because people who believe what you believe refuse to accept the obvious.

Yeah but I moved up to buying real estate in Florida with my own cash money and no debt when I was 12 with my mom as a cosigner. Things are getting better all the time.

You don’t think Obama’s history is a mess? Then why are all the recorded sealed? Here a guy is on the Harvard law reviews perhaps the editor, but yet was never published, never wrote an article on law. That makes any sense to you? Yeah you have a million excuses. Hey if he was Joe off the street no one would care, but he makes these claims being a high profile celebrity then seals the records—NO deal.

Don

[Wheelz]

As I said I’m not trying take the moral high ground. I like being around my own kind, and seeing the prosperity and longevity of my own white race. We whites have error all over the place and not hardly living up to the standards we set for others. But none the less we will keep raising the bar until we get it right. I’m proud of the good thing my race has done, and I want to make things better, and we are not going back to the dark ages of stupid filthy savages and low life. So you can take the black African culture and flush to where the sun does not shine. In public life, and in civil rights, I’m law abiding and tolerant. The focus is on the money, not the color. I would hire a green thing from Mars if it is legal and I can make a dollar, no one gets hurt, and it is a fair deal for all. That is as good as I get. I tend to think most people would prefer to set the bar a bit higher for themselves. But kudos to you for at least being honest about your low moral aspirations, I guess.

[Bridget Burke]

Don123 writes:

> when I was selling mangoes in Florida to colored town at age six, pulling my
> wagons filled with fruit for sale door to door to poor blacks, did I realize that I
> would have over a million bucks cash before I was 27, all by my own hard
> earned work---after taxes?

. . .

> I'm a stinking racist, and my loyalty is to my white kind.

Your biography is even more confused than your arguments. You made whatever money you have by starting by taking advantage of some poor blacks. Now you admit you're a racist. If this biography is correct (and we have no way of checking), you ought to instead thank every poor black you meet. You made your money by working the system better than them. If Obama actually did anything you claim that you say he did, he worked the system better than you did. I don't see that you have any loyalty to anyone except yourself.



As I said I’m not trying take the moral high ground. I like being around my own kind, and seeing the prosperity and longevity of my own white race. We whites have error all over the place and not hardly living up to the standards we set for others. But none the less we will keep raising the bar until we get it right. I’m proud of the good thing my race has done, and I want to make things better, and we are not going back to the dark ages of stupid filthy savages and low life. So you can take the black African culture and flush to where the sun does not shine. In public life, and in civil rights, I’m law abiding and tolerant. The focus is on the money, not the color. I would hire a green thing from Mars if it is legal and I can make a dollar, no one gets hurt, and it is a fair deal for all. That is as good as I get.

Don

Well, we hired a light brown-colored man (not a "thing") to be President. Because most of us who bothered to vote thought he would be better than the white Republican candidate. And definitely better than that white female "thing" running for VP.

Get over it. But thanks for emphasizing that the Birther cause is 100% racism!

[Hakuna Matata]

Posted here on this thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=527526&page=7

here is the post--


http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portl...-of-Live-Birth

In the State of Hawaii, ... clip ... governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office” §338-41 [in 1961]).

That is not proof--it is journalistic freedom to interpret something. That is all I have found as well which is NOT what I asked for. Find me the actual Statute or Sections this is based on. This is an article supposedly based on the statute but does the actual statute say this. See the articles all say the same thing " (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961)."

Yet they ALL conveniently don't link to anywhere where you get to see those sections. Those sections are critical to the basis of your claim. As I stated previously you may be correct but I have no way to verify it. You will understand if I don't take the word of a right wing birther site don't you? I would never ask you to take the word of a ...er.. what do you call it? A Obamabat site? But if you give me the actual Sections to read then I can determine this for myself. Again as I mentioned earlier if I state that Section 57-10 contradicts or reverses Section 57-8 & 9 you would want to read Section 57-10 wouldn't you? So extend me the same courtesy and find me the actual citations OR quit claiming this as fact. I assume you want to read these Sections as well for your own understanding of the facts at that time period, you aren't taking the reporters words as facts are you?

If someone is claiming they can claim some property of mine under some bogus Section 57-8 & 9, I can pretty much guarantee you that both me and my attorney would be reading up on those sections, no matter how difficult they are to obtain, as they are critical to the basis of the claim. It just seems logical to me that if these Sections are so critical to the Birther movement that they would be available to read, especially when they are cited in the article to see them. Let me see them please.

Something like this is what I am after : http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/

which eventually will allow us to find the actual section, such as this one on Certification:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm

So either put up or shut up. You are the one claiming the law when he was born states this. Prove it. President Obama has provided the proof the law requires as well as the majority of the electorate, more then enough proof. It may not satisfy 'you' but that isn't relevant.

You are proposing something totally outlandish--that the sitting President of the United States is NOT qualified to be in office. A pretty bold statement wouldn't you say? All the evidence and facts we have point to President Obama being 100% qualified. A reasonable person would determine based on the evidence at hand that the President is indeed qualified unless some factual item can prove otherwise. You do not need to seek an outlandish scenario when the most logical explanation works. Supposition and theory are NOT enough proof. Given the outlandish nature of the claim, the burden of proof is on the person bringing the claim.

Now in Mango door to door land, facts and proof may not be important. But in my profession they are critical and extremely important. I do NOT rely on a online blog to support my positions. I either find the original source or try to find non biased citations. You have done neither.

However if you want to change your approach and say 'in my OPINION" rather then 'these are the facts' then I have no beef with you. But you are not stating the facts of the situation.

[Really Not All That Bright]

You don’t think Obama’s history is a mess? Then why are all the recorded sealed? Here a guy is on the Harvard law reviews perhaps the editor, but yet was never published, never wrote an article on law. That makes any sense to you? Yeah you have a million excuses. Hey if he was Joe off the street no one would care, but he makes these claims being a high profile celebrity then seals the records—NO deal.
What records are sealed?

Editors of the Harvard law review rarely publish their own work. They're allowed to publish one article of their own choosing, and typically choose their 3L papers (as Obama did).

You understand what editors do, right? They edit. In any event, about two thirds of the material in any given issue of the HLR is unsigned notes written by Review staff. If Obama did write or contribute to some of them, there's no way to verify that.

Bill Keller is the editor of the New York Times. He publishes an article of his own maybe once every six months, and often less than that.

[silenus]

Can the Moderators just give these lunatics a custom label (like "Racist Moron" or something similar) when it becomes obvious what they are? It would save a whole lot of skimming.

[Bryan Ekers]

How critical is it that every aspect of a candidate's life be open to scrutiny, anyway? Seems to me all you'd end up doing is making everyone but Ned Flanders unelectable.

Besides, Obama's performance at Harvard Law is not relevant to his legitimacy to be elected President. All he had to do is be born a U.S. citizen (he was) and be at least 35 years old (he was).

[Love Rhombus]

Tiny hijack: Dick Cheney agreed that Barack Obama is a US Citizen eligible to be president? I would not have expected that-I thought he was right alongside the Birthers.

And Don123-one simple statement I'd like you to answer: Do you understand that Obama can not-CAN NOT-order his "vault copy" birth certificate shown to anyone? At all? So it can't be put on the net for your perusal.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Tiny hijack: Dick Cheney agreed that Barack Obama is a US Citizen eligible to be president? I would not have expected that-I thought he was right alongside the Birthers.
Well, he certified the results of the election. I assume that anyone who seriously doubted Obama's eligibility would have refused.

[recessiveMeme]

If anything demonstrates the truth of the adage that "you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themself into" more than "debating" a conspiracy theorist, I don't know what it is.

The birthers, much like the grassy knoll people, the 16th Ammendment people, the 13th'ers, the "loose change" people, et al. long ago decided the nature of "the truth" and nothing- nothing- will ever dissuade them. This is the nature of a conspiracy theorist.

Where information that seems to support their view is concerned, they are credulity personified. Where reality intrudes they steadfastly ignore it or dismiss it as part of the conspiracy. There is no victory to be found here.

[Marley23]

Yeah but I moved up to buying real estate in Florida with my own cash money and no debt when I was 12 with my mom as a cosigner.
Wake me up when you get to the part where Warren Buffet asks you for financial advice. If this is true, congrats, but it has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

You don’t think Obama’s history is a mess?
No.

Then why are all the recorded sealed?
He's released the birth certificate. That's the only thing he can make public. Several state of Hawaii officials have verified that the certificate is legit and on file. We've also seen newspaper announcements and a witness who remembers discussing the birth. Given that his mother and the doctor who delivered him are dead, that's about as good as it's going to get. There is still no evidence that he was born anywhere else, and there never has been. Of course, releasing everything available didn't satisfy you, but that's no surprise. Even if he were able to release other documents, why would you think those are genuine? Couldn't he or someone else have those just as easily? This is where conspiracy logic always goes: there's always a brilliant and secretive plan that somehow has holes in it that a layman can detect.

Here a guy is on the Harvard law reviews perhaps the editor, but yet was never published, never wrote an article on law. That makes any sense to you?
Amazing as it is, we have also discussed this issue around here. He was president of the law review for one year, elected from a group of editors. He did not publish his own paper in the review, which most law review presidents do.* Would you like to explain your view of the significance of this factoid?

Yeah you have a million excuses.
These aren't excuses. You have a boatload of irrelevant complaints that are not supported by the facts, and yet on and on you go.

he makes these claims being a high profile celebrity then seals the records—NO deal.
He did not seal the records. The state of Hawaii did.

*Editors of the Harvard law review rarely publish their own work. They're allowed to publish one article of their own choosing, and typically choose their 3L papers (as Obama did).
I thought he did not do that, but maybe I'm wrong.

[Lobohan]

Whatever you think of "Birthers" as a group - as if they are all one fixed entity - their questions have raised a ridiculous situation in American governance, whereby someone can become president without ever having had his birth credentials authenticised by a relatively trustworthy group. And now we've realised we don't even have that "relatively trustworthy group", or at least not one that both sides can agree upon.Obama did release his birth credentials. Only people who are unable to think clearly are confused by this.

Just because people are gullible enough to believe everything they read, doesn't mean there is actually a problem. It only exists as a paranoid delusion.

[Marley23]

Can the Moderators just give these lunatics a custom label (like "Racist Moron" or something similar) when it becomes obvious what they are? It would save a whole lot of skimming.
Comments like this belong in the Pit, not here. Or ATMB if you're making a semi-serious suggestion. ;)

[SteveG1]

Well, we hired a light brown-colored man (not a "thing") to be President. Because most of us who bothered to vote thought he would be better than the white Republican candidate. And definitely better than that white female "thing" running for VP.

Get over it. But thanks for emphasizing that the Birther cause is 100% racism!
Yeah. Where do "these guys" come from"????

[Lobohan]

Yeah but I moved up to buying real estate in Florida with my own cash money and no debt when I was 12 with my mom as a cosigner. Things are getting better all the time.You don't understand your memories. 12 year olds can't sign contracts. Your mother wasn't a co-signer, she bought it for you.

You don’t think Obama’s history is a mess? Then why are all the recorded sealed?Because he isn't required to give out his records? If he did, every B grade he got would be harped on hysterical conspiracy theorists like yourself.

Here a guy is on the Harvard law reviews perhaps the editorNot perhaps. Can't you relate facts truthfully? Is there some reason that you try to hide facts you don't like?

, but yet was never published, never wrote an article on law.Sure he did. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12705.html)

That makes any sense to you?Even if it were true it would. His job wasn't to write articles.

Yeah you have a million excuses. Hey if he was Joe off the street no one would care, but he makes these claims being a high profile celebrity then seals the records—NO deal. He hasn't sealed any records. Why are you unable or unwilling to understand that? His birth certificate is released. The other records you want, the ones the state has cannot be released. You're just stamping your feet because you don't understand the issue.

Is there any wonder that Birthers are laughed at? Wretched ignorance and facts that are not true are the only thing they can muster.

[gonzomax]

I think his birth certificate was being held in the twin towers, where it was destroyed by planned demolition of the sites. It shows how far Obama would go to hide it. There is a copy in Afghanistan. That is all you need to know.

[Bryan Ekers]

Because he isn't required to give out his records? If he did, every B grade he got would be harped on hysterical conspiracy theorists like yourself.

A-grades, too, I expect, with cries of grade inflation, tokenism, favouritism, cheating, etc. The next demand will be for copies of all of Obama's homework assignments to prove he deserved the grade he got. Failure to produce implies willful concealment.

[Really Not All That Bright]

*Editors of the Harvard law review rarely publish their own work. They're allowed to publish one article of their own choosing, and typically choose their 3L papers (as Obama did).
I thought he did not do that, but maybe I'm wrong.
He didn't. That "as Obama did" was a fragment of something I typed and discarded. Should have proofread my own work.

[Don123]

Posted here on this thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=527526&page=7

here is the post--


http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portl...-of-Live-Birth

In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an “original birth certificate” on record. They varied greatly in their reliability as evidence. For convenience, I’ll call them BC1, BC2, BC3, and BC4.

BC1. <snip>

BC2. <snip>

BC3. <snip>

BC4. <snip>

OK, c’mon. You know you didn’t write this. I know you didn’t write this. We all know you didn’t write this. The sentence structure, the spelling, the punctuation, even the appearance of rationality are orders of magnitude beyond anything you’ve typed anyplace in this thread.

Oh, and the Examiner link doesn’t work. Now why don’t you be a good little boy and go off and find an actual cite for your assertions, like Hakuna Matata asks, m’kay?

By the way, Examiner appears to be nothing more than a glorified blog, an “experiment in citizen journalism” (cite) (http://techcrunch.com/2008/10/22/the-examinercom-now-wants-to-become-a-bastion-of-citizen-journalism/) so I don’t think I’ll be putting much faith in it even if the link worked. Try again for a real citation.


I’m a little confused here, I never made the claim I wrote the article. For clarity I did not write the article.

I do see you are upset and do not have a valid response so you go after host site.
Let me help you out—go look up these references and get back to me.


BC1. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
BC2. (Section 57-8&9)
BC3. (See Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
BC4. See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.)

But I will tell what will happen, you will never do the study, you will never look up the links, you will never look up the reference, you only read the first few sentences (or words) of a post, and then you will go back to making the claim that the article was not cited, was not posted, links don’t work, and it is just a stupid blog that no one should read written by a birther. Or worse yet, the article was written by underhanded, evil, white, attorney shark that wants to sell advertising.

But GOD forbid you should look up state laws and learn something! Shit, that would take brain work, when insults are so much easier and fun….ha ha ha

Don

[Lobohan]

Because he isn't required to give out his records? If he did, every B grade he got would be harped on hysterical conspiracy theorists like yourself.

A-grades, too, I expect, with cries of grade inflation, tokenism, favouritism, cheating, etc. The next demand will be for copies of all of Obama's homework assignments to prove he deserved the grade he got. Failure to produce implies willful concealment.How do we know he actually wrote those assignments? Unless he produces the typewriter for forensic examination, how can we be sure that he actually wrote them?

It's funny, I mean he has the typewriter, it's in his garage, why won't he just release it to make all this go away?



What I just wrote up there, is more clear and rational than anything Don has written in this thread. :(

[Bryan Ekers]

But GOD forbid you should look up state laws and learn something! Shit, that would take brain work, when insults are so much easier and fun….ha ha ha

What's to learn? He was born in a Hawaii hospital. The various hypothetical alternatives as covered by law are at best academic.

[Marley23]

I do see you are upset and do not have a valid response so you go after host site.
Let me help you out—go look up these references and get back to me.
Don123, you are the one asserting they are valid. Shouldn't you be the one to prove they are what you say they are? I see that text has made the rounds on Birther blogs. I do not see a single link to a state of Hawaii website showing it is an accurate representation of a law.

But GOD forbid you should look up state laws and learn something! Shit, that would take brain work, when insults are so much easier and fun….ha ha ha
You've got no grounds for saying this when you're the one who screwed up your original cite in the first place. Other people looked up the law and learned it was passed in 1982. You had no idea.

[Lobohan]

But GOD forbid you should look up state laws and learn something! Shit, that would take brain work, when insults are so much easier and fun….ha ha ha You should be ashamed of your beliefs, not because they aren't socially acceptable, but because they are the result of shamefully sloppy thinking.

When someone points out your sloppy thinking, it isn't an attack, it's them trying to help you to discard your ignorance. You believe things that are not true, and you try to frame things that are prosaic as sinister. If you persist in posting factually untrue snippits and irrational chains of reasoning, people are going to keep pointing out that your beliefs are incorrect.

If you want agreement in this thread you'll need to make an attempt to think for yourself and actually understand the issues.

[Marley23]

Here's the short version of this claim about BC1-4 as I see it:

BC1 applies to births attended by a physician. Obama's birth was attended by a physician; he was born in a hospital and we know the name of the doctor who was on duty that night. Therefore he is the one who certified the facts, including that Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. This certificate was filed on August 8, 1961.

If we assume that that didn't happen even though there is no evidence for that view, we then get to a series of events where allegedly the parents or grandparents could have filed a birth certificate by mail saying he'd been born at that time and place and the state would accept it as genuine without question. There's no evidence for this view: BC2 needs requires an examination of the child, which would not have been possible if the family was not in Hawaii. BC3 is described as a "Delayed Certificate," and nowhere on the birth certificate does it say that it is a delayed certificate. This would not explain why the form was filed on August 8, either. And BC4 would have required someone to convince the state of Hawaii that he was born there - and there's no discussion of what evidence would have been required, so we don't know that simple testimony from the grandmother would have been enough. And there is still no evidence that they were not in the country at the time, and no explanation of when, where, and why that would've happened. Especially if his mother didn't have a passport in the first place.

[Valgard]

Amusingly enough, this little snippet was just on CNN's website:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/04/cnn-poll-quarter-doubt-president-was-born-in-u-s/

Hawaii governor Lingle is quoted:

Around that time, Lingle - who campaigned for Sen. John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008 - criticized questions about the president's birth.

In a WABC interview before signing the legislation, Lingle said, "...I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health." Lingle added, " … The president was in fact born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact."

"It's been established he was born here," the governor continued. "I can understand why people want to make certain that the constitutional requirement of being a, you know, natural born American citizen … but the question has been asked and answered. And I think just we should all move on now."

(Not that this will make a damn bit of difference to the idiots who have already made up their minds and don't wish to be confused with actual facts)

[Really Not All That Bright]

I posted that on Page 2 or 3, and it was promptly ignored.

[Valgard]

I posted that on Page 2 or 3, and it was promptly ignored.

Well that's because after all these years President Obama still hasn't released the exact distribution of steel on all levels of WTC1 and 2. Why not?

:D

[Don123]

Lobohan wrote to Don:

You don't understand your memories. 12 year olds can't sign contracts. Your mother wasn't a co-signer, she bought it for you.

Don responds:

Minors can certainly sign contracts and enter into contracts, it is done all the time. Every time a child gets on a school bus they enter into a contract. However, all contracts with minors are violable by state laws, the reason being the child might be unduly harmed by reason of age (meaning lack of life experience).

Seller be aware, as the child is innocent and cannot be found wrong. Accordingly, at age 12 I needed a legal guardian, or an attorney, to back up my signature on the real estate sales contract, and closing papers. My mom became legally responsible for my actions by her signature, and that is a co-signer. The sellers were willing because I had the cash and adult back up.

I earned that money independently by my own hard work, ingenuity, creativity, in sales and service. As the bible says, money answers all things, Ecclesiastes 10:19, even a child can understand this.

More on another thread perhaps?

Don

[Really Not All That Bright]

If you were paying for the land in cash you did not need a co-signer. A co-signature is a declaration that a debt arising out of contract will be paid by a third party if the contracting party defaults.

As an unemancipated minor, your mother would be legally responsible for your actions regardless of whether or not she signed anything, anyway.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

None of this is going to matter to people like Susanna or Don123, they just don't want to believe that a black man with a Muslim sounding name is legitimately the president of the US and will look for any far-fetched reason to deny it. As far as the President goes, he has no reason to try and squash these conspiracies; having fringe people on the right calling the Republican administration of Hawaii liars and insinuating that the (often conservative) judges that dismiss these cases are somehow part of some Kenyan/Islamic conspiracy can only help him and the Democratic party in general. Too funny for words!

[Hakuna Matata]

Let me help you out—go look up these references and get back to me.


BC1. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
BC2. (Section 57-8&9)
BC3. (See Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
BC4. See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.)

But I will tell what will happen, you will never do the study, you will never look up the links, you will never look up the reference, you only read the first few sentences (or words) of a post, and then you will go back to making the claim that the article was not cited, was not posted, links don’t work, and it is just a stupid blog that no one should read written by a birther. Or worse yet, the article was written by underhanded, evil, white, attorney shark that wants to sell advertising.

But GOD forbid you should look up state laws and learn something! Shit, that would take brain work, when insults are so much easier and fun….ha ha ha

Don

Don
I am willing to study them--please provide a link. I assume given your confidence that you have access to them? If so, please provide me a link so that I can have the same level of confidence. You have read the links right? Right? I mean to be all righteous like you are above certainly implies that.

I haven't insulted you..yet. I rarely insult people in reality, here or in real life. But I do hold people and their facts accountable. I have just asked for citations. Please provide them for the third time or stop claiming they are facts.

[ivan astikov]

None of this is going to matter to people like Susanna or Don123, they just don't want to believe that a black man with a Muslim sounding name is legitimately the president of the US and will look for any far-fetched reason to deny it.


Actually, I'm from the UK and don't particularly give a shit who is in office. My biggest question regarding all this is, why didn't those dumb fuckers on the right raise this issue prior to the elections?

[Marley23]

Actually, I'm from the UK and don't particularly give a shit who is in office. My biggest question regarding all this is, why didn't those dumb fuckers on the right raise this issue prior to the elections?
They did. It was totally debunked long before the election, but it made no difference to them. Instead of admitting they were wrong, they started filing legal challenges to Obama's presidency - and then complaining about all the money he's supposedly spent responding to their pointless lawsuits.

[sugaree]

I am completely in awe at how Don123 can get so much so wrong. Every single fact, whether it be pertinent to the debate or no, on subjects ranging from U.S. contract law to Fukino's gender: wrong wrong wrong. It's quite impressive, really.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Actually, it was raised by those damn fuckers on the left prior to the elections. Specifically, by the Clinton campaign.

[Lobohan]

Actually, I'm from the UK and don't particularly give a shit who is in office. My biggest question regarding all this is, why didn't those dumb fuckers on the right raise this issue prior to the elections?They did. And it isn't an issue. You don't know what you're talking about and you're believing fairy stories because it plays into your conspiracy-theory mentality.

To sum up: There is no issue. He has the same kind of birth certificate as anyone else in America. He has released it.

He doesn't personally have access to the Hawaii State archives. He can't release the Hawaii state papers any more than you can (or more on point, any American citizen). Which doesn't matter, because he has the same kind of birth certificate as Dubyuh, as Clinton, as any person born the last century.

You are not informed if you think this is an issue, it is purely about people who have an axe to grind or are too incompetent, stupid or gullible to fully appreciate the issue.

[ivan astikov]

Look, if I was going to diss Obama, it'd be for being a Council on Foreign Relations lackey and being too big a coward to really throw any worthwhile political weight around. Where he came from is the least of my concerns about the man.

[Czarcasm]

I earned that money independently by my own hard work, ingenuity, creativity, in sales and service. As the bible says, money answers all things, Ecclesiastes 10:19, even a child can understand this.

More on another thread perhaps?No need. You would be just as wrong in another thread as you are in this one, so why waste the effort?

[Lobohan]

Minors can certainly sign contracts and enter into contracts, it is done all the time. Every time a child gets on a school bus they enter into a contract. However, all contracts with minors are violable by state laws, the reason being the child might be unduly harmed by reason of age (meaning lack of life experience). Wrong. If you signed a contract, your mom was humoring you. It has no legal weight.

I earned that money independently by my own hard work, ingenuity, creativity, in sales and service. As the bible says, money answers all things, Ecclesiastes 10:19, even a child can understand this. You are unlikely to have actually done that. You may think you earned enough money for a house at 12, but unless you are a child movie star or a teen-aged evangelist it's highly unlikely. What's more likely is that your parents were patting you on your head, trying to build up your confidence. But ultimately, I don't care if you somehow lucked into money ass-backwards, you didn't sign a contract with any legal standing.

More on another thread perhaps?The issue is closed. You misunderstood what was happening around you. It doesn't need another thread.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

I earned that money independently by my own hard work, ingenuity, creativity, in sales and service. As the bible says, money answers all things, Ecclesiastes 10:19, even a child can understand this.

More on another thread perhaps?No need. You would be just as wrong in another thread as you are in this one, so why waste the effort?

I thought he was offering post the OP of his own pitting.

[Don123]

Amusingly enough, this little snippet was just on CNN's website:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/04/cnn-poll-quarter-doubt-president-was-born-in-u-s/

Hawaii governor Lingle is quoted:

Around that time, Lingle - who campaigned for Sen. John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008 - criticized questions about the president's birth.

In a WABC interview before signing the legislation, Lingle said, "...I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health." Lingle added, " … The president was in fact born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact."

"It's been established he was born here," the governor continued. "I can understand why people want to make certain that the constitutional requirement of being a, you know, natural born American citizen … but the question has been asked and answered. And I think just we should all move on now."

(Not that this will make a damn bit of difference to the idiots who have already made up their minds and don't wish to be confused with actual facts)


Yes he could say that and be right, as to the registration. Here are the types of registrations that were state law at the time.

Registration BC1. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
Registration BC2. (Section 57-8&9)
Registration BC3. (See Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
Registration BC4. See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.)

Only BC1 requires the child to be physically inspected and examined. The others could be mailed in from a foreign country, or even the child as an adult or teen could make the case to the director and being convincing that he was born in Hawaii, the paper work would say so. Also one year was allowed after the birth for the parent make the case to the director, verbally or in written letters, and it could be accepted as born in Hawaii.

You do not get it, it is NOT the consequences of Obama being born outside of Hawaii, that is a different subject and argument. The fact is under Hawaiian state law at the time YOU do not know if Obama was literally born in Hawaii or not.

Let me try and explain with this example.

A child of age 17 falls into the wrong crowd, commits a felony, arrested, jailed, fined, and then set free. He has this on his record. Being set free he repents of his evil life, gets educated, is law abiding, and progress to a model and prosperous citizen. After 10 years he can go to court and get is youthful crimes expunged from all public records. Even his legal filings to have the records destroyed are removed.

His crimes never happened even if the governor of the state hires 309 attorneys to search every document in the state’s control.

The governor could say in full honesty the crimes by Mr. X never happened, any one that says Mr. X did the crimes are blatant liars (and no doubt white, evil, racist and blundering fools).

But in fact the crimes were committed by Mr. X.

Going by the laws of Hawaii in 1961 this is what you have, and a mail in birth registration is NOT evidence that the child was born in the state. The governor can only say what they found; Yep here is the certificate of birth, NOT the method used to obtain that certificate that would be listed on the original paperwork that Hawaii says they have on file. And it is ALL legal.

Back to the example, supposing after the expunged records there was one paper left in the back file of Mr. X being issued jail garments, and it is made public by the state. What happens? Mr. X could sue the state for millions of dollars. And it would be a hail storm of legalities to say the least.

OR millions of dollars in public campaign of all kinds of propaganda being in denial by Mr. X

What could you say as an outsider? The best would be YOU DO NOT KNOW one way or the other about Mr. X.

And that is where it stands with Obama.

Don

[Really Not All That Bright]

Even assuming that "we don't know", which, you have to admit, is a fringe view; you still have to prove that he wasn't born in Hawaii. Good luck with that.

[RedFury]

This thread is one big whoosh, right? 'cuase, quite frankly, it sure reads like one. Fictional characters included...

[Marley23]

Here are the types of registrations that were state law at the time.
We don't know that these were state law. You've been asked to show that they were, but at this point all you have is a copy and paste of a blog post.

Only BC1 requires the child to be physically inspected and examined.
And assuming this stuff was state law, we have no reason to believe the examination was not done.

[Leaper]

Aside: Governor Lingle is ALSO not a "he." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Lingle) :D

[Don123]

Minors can certainly sign contracts and enter into contracts, it is done all the time. Every time a child gets on a school bus they enter into a contract. However, all contracts with minors are violable by state laws, the reason being the child might be unduly harmed by reason of age (meaning lack of life experience). Wrong. If you signed a contract, your mom was humoring you. It has no legal weight.

You are unlikely to have actually done that. You may think you earned enough money for a house at 12, but unless you are a child movie star or a teen-aged evangelist it's highly unlikely. What's more likely is that your parents were patting you on your head, trying to build up your confidence. But ultimately, I don't care if you somehow lucked into money ass-backwards, you didn't sign a contract with any legal standing.

More on another thread perhaps?The issue is closed. You misunderstood what was happening around you. It doesn't need another thread.



Then you are simply being stupid or utterly, and ugly, ignorant when it comes to contract law--and yes case closed on this thread. Go look up your own state laws and get educated, and do not blame me.

Don

[Don123]

Here are the types of registrations that were state law at the time.
We don't know that these were state law. You've been asked to show that they were, but at this point all you have is a copy and paste of a blog post.

Only BC1 requires the child to be physically inspected and examined.
And assuming this stuff was state law, we have no reason to believe the examination was not done.


Marly, I have done as you requested. You should know. What evidance do you require?


Don

[Marley23]

This goes for everybody: considering this thread is probably a waste of time to begin with, I will shut it down if the insults continue.

[Marley23]

Marly, I have done as you requested. You should know. What evidance do you require?
I want to see that these laws were actually on the books in Hawaii. We showed you the actual birth certificate law (the one you didn't mention was passed in 1982) on a Hawaii state webpage. You're showing us an unsourced statement on a blog, and I'm asking for proof it's genuine. People have certainly made up ridiculous garbage about Obama before, including a goofy fake Kenyan birth certificate. After you prove that law is genuine, maybe you could get around to showing it means what you say it means, and then you can post the evidence that the Obamas were not in Honolulu at the time he was born- because who cares what they could have done when the evidence says they were in Hawaii at the time anyway?

[CannyDan]

OK, c’mon…..

I’m a little confused here, I never made the claim I wrote the article. For clarity I did not write the article.

I do see you are upset and do not have a valid response so you go after host site.
Let me help you out—go look up these references and get back to me.
Confused, yes indeed, you are confused.

You wrote/copied in a way that made it appear you were posting your own words. Your inability to either use the QUOTE tool or otherwise indicate quotations is only one of your failures.

I’m not in the least upset though. Not one jot or tittle of the nonsense you have spouted could disturb my equanimity. I’m serene in the knowledge that nonsense is nonsense. And I’m having quite a happy time with all the point-and-laugh opportunities. So please, keep it up.

BC1. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
BC2. <snip>
But GOD forbid you should look up state laws and learn something! Shit, that would take brain work, when insults are so much easier and fun….ha ha ha

Don

These aren’t cites, and repeating them as you do does not constitute research. Hell, I could title a page “Section 57-8 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act” and write any damn thing I want onto it. Wouldn’t make it a citation of Hawaii state law.

I do see you are upset and do not have a valid response so you go after host site.
Let me help you out—go look up these references and get back to me.
Don123, you are the one asserting they are valid. Shouldn't you be the one to prove they are what you say they are? I see that text has made the rounds on Birther blogs. I do not see a single link to a state of Hawaii website showing it is an accurate representation of a law.

But GOD forbid you should look up state laws and learn something! Shit, that would take brain work, when insults are so much easier and fun….ha ha ha
You've got no grounds for saying this when you're the one who screwed up your original cite in the first place. Other people looked up the law and learned it was passed in 1982. You had no idea.

And what Marley23 said. :D


Let me help you out—go look up these references and get back to me.


BC1. <snipped again>

Don

Don
I am willing to study them--please provide a link. I assume given your confidence that you have access to them? If so, please provide me a link so that I can have the same level of confidence. You have read the links right? Right? I mean to be all righteous like you are above certainly implies that.

I haven't insulted you..yet. I rarely insult people in reality, here or in real life. But I do hold people and their facts accountable. I have just asked for citations. Please provide them for the third time or stop claiming they are facts.

And what Hakuna Matata said.

Oh, again, please keep up the entertainment though. There aren’t enough opportunities in life for good old fashioned belly laughs, especially belly laughs at the expense of a self avowed racist, so I believe I can speak for pretty much all of us here when I say “Keep up the great work!”.

ETA-- Oh crap Marlee, I'm sorry, just saw the cautionary post. You want I should delete this whole thing? I didn't think it too insulting, given what has gone before.

[ivan astikov]

If some of you would remove your tongue from Obama's ass a moment, you might just get enough light to see that if the shoe was on the other foot and you were Republican's - forgive the ridiculous suggestion! - you would likely be reacting in a similar way.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I am neither favorable nor unfavorable to Obama. I initially liked him, and my position has since mellowed to neutrality.

In any case, you are utterly, demonstrably wrong. At the very least, we would have let the whole thing drop if the Democratic Governor of Hawaii told us that she'd seen Hypothetical Hawaiian Republican's birth certificate and that he was born in Hawaii.

[Czarcasm]

If some of you would remove your tongue from Obama's ass a moment, you might just get enough light to see that if the shoe was on the other foot and you were Republican's - forgive the ridiculous suggestion! - you would likely be reacting in a similar way.That's not a reason to do something-that's a childish excuse for when you get caught doing something.

[ivan astikov]

@ RNATB

Why? Because she's a Democrat and she wouldn't defend a Republican? Are you really that naive?

[gonzomax]

If some of you would remove your tongue from Obama's ass a moment, you might just get enough light to see that if the shoe was on the other foot and you were Republican's - forgive the ridiculous suggestion! - you would likely be reacting in a similar way.

How much noise was made over McCain's birth questions? Some where around zero .

[Tom Scud]

This no doubt explains why 9/11 Truthers are held in such high esteem on this board.

[Marley23]

If some of you would remove your tongue from Obama's ass a moment, you might just get enough light to see that if the shoe was on the other foot and you were Republican's - forgive the ridiculous suggestion! - you would likely be reacting in a similar way.
You're not in the Pit, ivan astikov. Knock it off. If you want to attempt an argument, do it without the childish comments.

[ivan astikov]

If some of you would remove your tongue from Obama's ass a moment, you might just get enough light to see that if the shoe was on the other foot and you were Republican's - forgive the ridiculous suggestion! - you would likely be reacting in a similar way.That's not a reason to do something-that's a childish excuse for when you get caught doing something.

Never said anything about it being a good reason; only that it is natural from their pov. Unless you want to make the blanket statement that EVERYONE who has even the slightest doubt is either a crackpot or a shit-stirrer?

[Really Not All That Bright]

@ RNATB

Why? Because she's a Democrat and she wouldn't defend a Republican? Are you really that naive?
Because she's the person ultimately responsible for establishing whether or not HHR was actually born in Hawaii, and the fact that she's a Democrat makes it highly unlikely that she would lie for partisan reasons.
Never said anything about it being a good reason; only that it is natural from their pov. Unless you want to make the blanket statement that EVERYONE who has even the slightest doubt is either a crackpot or a shit-stirrer?
Orly Taitz and Jerome Corsi are certainly a crackpot and a shit-stirrer, respectively. I assume that most people who aren't sure are simply unfamiliar with Snopes, Politifact and FactCheck.org.

[ivan astikov]

If some of you would remove your tongue from Obama's ass a moment, you might just get enough light to see that if the shoe was on the other foot and you were Republican's - forgive the ridiculous suggestion! - you would likely be reacting in a similar way.
You're not in the Pit, ivan astikov. Knock it off. If you want to attempt an argument, do it without the childish comments.

It's called "straight-talkin'" where I come from.

[Marley23]

It's called "straight-talkin'" where I come from.
And where I come from it's called insulting and moronic. If you want to tell people they have their tongues in Barack Obama's ass because they disagree with you, do it in the Pit.

[ivan astikov]

@ RNATB

Why? Because she's a Democrat and she wouldn't defend a Republican? Are you really that naive?
Because she's the person ultimately responsible for establishing whether or not HHR was actually born in Hawaii, and the fact that she's a Democrat makes it highly unlikely that she would lie for partisan reasons.
But she couldn't be bought, threatened or in the same "old boys network", could she? No, American politics is too clean for THAT.
Never said anything about it being a good reason; only that it is natural from their pov. Unless you want to make the blanket statement that EVERYONE who has even the slightest doubt is either a crackpot or a shit-stirrer?

Orly Taitz and Jerome Corsi are certainly a crackpot and a shit-stirrer, respectively. I assume that most people who aren't sure are simply unfamiliar with Snopes, Politifact and FactCheck.org.

That's 2. What about the rest of them?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If some of you would remove your tongue from Obama's ass a moment, you might just get enough light to see that if the shoe was on the other foot and you were Republican's - forgive the ridiculous suggestion! - you would likely be reacting in a similar way.
What shoe? You mean like if someone was making baseless accusations that a Republican Presidential candidate wasn't really a natural born citizen? That did happen with McCain and we ridiculed McCain birthers just as much as we ridicule Obama birthers. We also ridicule 9/11 Truthers here. Conspiracy theorists, no matter what their political stripe, do not fare well on this message board.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

That's 2. What about the rest of them?
All crackpots and shit-stirrerers, every one. The most I'm willing to concede is that some of them are just guilelessly simple-minded and gullible rather than paranoid, consumed by wishful thinking, or cynically manipulative.

[Really Not All That Bright]

But she couldn't be bought, threatened or in the same "old boys network", could she? No, American politics is too clean for THAT.
What is your point, assuming you have one? The director of the state department of health, who I presume is a career civil servant, also confirmed that Obama's birth certificate is legit.

Ms. Lingle could have been bought off, sure... but why would you consider that possibility when there is no evidence that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (aside from Orly Taitz' absurd forgeries)? If you are going to assert that anyone who verified Obama's birth might have been bought off, there is no point discussing this with you.

Ms. Taitz, for the record, is currently pursuing a lawsuit against the California Republican Party, asserting that her opponent for the Republican nomination for Secretary of State(who defeated her in the primary by a margin of 3 to 1) isn't really a Republican. I'm sure you can see why people are not filled with confidence in her claims.
That's 2. What about the rest of them?
You want me to address the beliefs of each individual Birther? Really?

Hmmm. No.

[bdgr]

Well, those are some of his words. Here are some more:
"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."
Happy now? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm)

Don, did you miss this earlier?

[Algorithm]

Well, those are some of his words. Here are some more:

Happy now? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm)

Don, did you miss this earlier?

Section 44-12b-f of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961 clarifies the immateriality of testimony from directors of the Hawaii State Department of Health when resolving the validity of a presidential candidate's citizenship.

Prove me wrong!

[Don123]

[QUOTE=Don123;12762189]


Posted here on this thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=527526&page=7

here is the post--


http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portl...-of-Live-Birth

In the State of Hawaii, ... clip ... governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office” §338-41 [in 1961]).


Some fast notes as I am running out time, and it may be a few days before I can get back to you.

The citations may not be legally correct as written, but close enough to find the material. But you are wanting a web site address and not a citation—ha ha.

As to your comment, "So either put up or shut up," you do your own damned home work, you are not paying me to teach a class. I set the trail marker, you can follow it if you like or get the hell off.

I have made repeated statements that the consequences of Obama not being born in Hawaii are not relevant to the topic that is, was Obama physically born in Hawaii? As that is what this thread has come down to. My intent is only to show reasonable doubt.

It is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the courts are not going to touch this case, NO ONE in the country has legal standing present the case, that is ridicules but yet shown; and absurd (mind blowing) as it sounds YES, federal courts have said the case is out of their jurisdiction, unbelievable but that is what they said. The US Supreme court looked at it twice, but there is NO legal option that they should hear the case, so they did no.

I have referenced all this since I have joined this thread. GO back and look.
What is left is truth by authority by people in Washington DC, like Waters and Rangle, that are only repeating what Obama has said, and the Hawaiian governor repeating what his understudy said, and the understudy said yeah I saw it, it is a legal document. But OH NO we cannot show it to you, Hell that would be evidence, and you cannot have that.

YOU SAY YOU want the full force of sound reasoning, then you should KNOW truth by authority is the least valuable in any argument. According you should admit—YOU DO NOT KNOW if Obama was born in Hawaii or not, that is if you want to be self honest. If you want to lie to yourself for political or racial reasons have at it, I would not dare try to stop you.

Don

[Marley23]

As to your comment, "So either put up or shut up," you do your own damned home work, you are not paying me to teach a class. I set the trail marker, you can follow it if you like or get the hell off.
This is not how an argument works. You made an assertion, and if you expect anybody to even think about believing you, you need to back it up. I already did a web search on the purported law and found nothing except quotes on Birther blogs. I did not see any citation from the state of Hawaii. So I did your homework for you and it looks like you've got nothing.

My intent is only to show reasonable doubt.
You're failing.

What is left is truth by authority by people in Washington DC, like Waters and Rangle
They have no relevance to this issue.

the Hawaiian governor repeating what his understudy said
The Governor of Hawaii is a woman.

and the understudy said yeah I saw it, it is a legal document.
Correct, at long last. (So did another relevant authority, the man who stamped the copy of the document.)

But OH NO we cannot show it to you
Because Hawaii law does not allow it.

then you should KNOW truth by authority is the least valuable in any argument.
I believe you're referring to appeals to authority. But since the birth certificate has been made public and so have contemporary newspaper announcements, it's not just an appeal to authority.

[Hakuna Matata]

Some fast notes as I am running out time, and it may be a few days before I can get back to you.

The citations may not be legally correct as written, but close enough to find the material. But you are wanting a web site address and not a citation—ha ha.

As to your comment, "So either put up or shut up," you do your own damned home work, you are not paying me to teach a class. I set the trail marker, you can follow it if you like or get the hell off.

...

Don

Well unfortunately when you make a wild claim it is on you to support it. If I claimed that President Obama (see how easy it is to give proper title to elected officials?) was born in England or Spain or the Moon, it is then my responsibility to present my case in a factual manner that can be verified by an independent source. What you stated above is that you have NOT read the laws, how do you know they are close enough if you haven't read them? It is supposition at best. I do not believe those laws exist or I would be able to find them somewhere online especially if they go to the heart of your position.

You have failed my friend, and unfortunately failed pretty miserably. You have proven by your actions that you are NOT after the truth at all. If you were you would be willing to stand by your position. You have abandoned your position by saying it is my responsiblity to prove your case! What kind of Mango horseshit is this?

Your Mangos are killing people. People get cancer from them. Medical Reference ~56-15 in the American Medical Journal supports this. That is the equivalent to what you gave me. Look it up Don--I have done the trail marker. But you know what--that isn't enough. My claim (like yours) is outlandish and not supported by facts, so citing some vague journal doesn't cut it here on the Dope.

Frankly if you worked for me and brought me such weak evidence I would be forced to fire you--mango's be damned.

I am also off for a few days on vacation with my family. Maybe by then you or Susanann can actually provide some evidence (real evidence that can be independently verified) to support your position. Somehow I doubt it.

[Lobohan]

What we have here is a situation where:

Evidence Obama was born in Hawaii:
A certified birth certificate.
The word of Hawaii's Republican Governor who was backing McCain.
The word of Hawaii's records guy.
Two birth notices done at the time in Hawaiian newspapers.
His mother had never been out of the country until after he was born.
His immediate family's word.


Evidence Obama was born outside the country:
Don's visceral hate and disdain for Obama.


This isn't an argument. This is you ranting incoherently against the moon.

[CannyDan]

Going someplace without internet access, eh? Convenient.

PS, the link to your glorified blogger site still doesn't work for me. Not that it matters if it merely recapitulates the truthiness that you yourself have displayed for our amusement.

You have "referenced" nothing beyond your own racist and crackpot opinions and those of your fellow conspiracy theorists.

Have fun, and be sure to check in when you get back. We'll all be waiting for another session of play-time.

[Deeg]

If some of you would remove your tongue from Obama's ass a moment, you might just get enough light to see that if the shoe was on the other foot and you were Republican's - forgive the ridiculous suggestion! - you would likely be reacting in a similar way.
If there was any possible truth to the accusations of Obama's birth the RNC would have been all over it. McCain himself dismissed the allegations as groundless. (http://washingtonindependent.com/52474/mccain-campaign-investigated-dismissed-obama-citizenship-rumors) Did McCain have his tongue up Obama's ass?

I voted for McCain and I think the birther stuff is retarded.

[Don123]

But GOD forbid you should look up state laws and learn something! Shit, that would take brain work, when insults are so much easier and fun….ha ha ha You should be ashamed of your beliefs, not because they aren't socially acceptable, but because they are the result of shamefully sloppy thinking.

When someone points out your sloppy thinking, it isn't an attack, it's them trying to help you to discard your ignorance. You believe things that are not true, and you try to frame things that are prosaic as sinister. If you persist in posting factually untrue snippits and irrational chains of reasoning, people are going to keep pointing out that your beliefs are incorrect.

If you want agreement in this thread you'll need to make an attempt to think for yourself and actually understand the issues.

ha ha ha, what a bucket of crap and you do not know that minors can enter into a contract. ha ha ha

Hange around you do make me giggle. You are better than a black that bashes his own race and thinks it funny.

Don

[Don123]

If some of you would remove your tongue from Obama's ass a moment, you might just get enough light to see that if the shoe was on the other foot and you were Republican's - forgive the ridiculous suggestion! - you would likely be reacting in a similar way.
If there was any possible truth to the accusations of Obama's birth the RNC would have been all over it. McCain himself dismissed the allegations as groundless. (http://washingtonindependent.com/52474/mccain-campaign-investigated-dismissed-obama-citizenship-rumors) Did McCain have his tongue up Obama's ass?

I voted for McCain and I think the birther stuff is retarded.


McCain does now, and drilling for oil.


Don

[pravnik]

Some fast notes as I am running out time, and it may be a few days before I can get back to you.

The citations may not be legally correct as written, but close enough to find the material. But you are wanting a web site address and not a citation—ha ha.

As to your comment, "So either put up or shut up," you do your own damned home work, you are not paying me to teach a class. I set the trail marker, you can follow it if you like or get the hell off.

I have made repeated statements that the consequences of Obama not being born in Hawaii are not relevant to the topic that is, was Obama physically born in Hawaii? As that is what this thread has come down to. My intent is only to show reasonable doubt.

It is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the courts are not going to touch this case, NO ONE in the country has legal standing present the case, that is ridicules but yet shown; and absurd (mind blowing) as it sounds YES, federal courts have said the case is out of their jurisdiction, unbelievable but that is what they said. The US Supreme court looked at it twice, but there is NO legal option that they should hear the case, so they did no.

I have referenced all this since I have joined this thread. GO back and look.
What is left is truth by authority by people in Washington DC, like Waters and Rangle, that are only repeating what Obama has said, and the Hawaiian governor repeating what his understudy said, and the understudy said yeah I saw it, it is a legal document. But OH NO we cannot show it to you, Hell that would be evidence, and you cannot have that.

YOU SAY YOU want the full force of sound reasoning, then you should KNOW truth by authority is the least valuable in any argument. According you should admit—YOU DO NOT KNOW if Obama was born in Hawaii or not, that is if you want to be self honest. If you want to lie to yourself for political or racial reasons have at it, I would not dare try to stop you.

As to your comment, "So either put up or shut up," you do your own damned home work, you are not paying me to teach a class. I set the trail marker, you can follow it if you like or get the hell off.

I have made repeated statements that the consequences of Obama not being born in Hawaii are not relevant to the topic that is, was Obama physically born in Hawaii? As that is what this thread has come down to. My intent is only to show reasonable doubt. See, here's the thing. Several pages ago it was pointed out to you that the WND's oft-repeated claim that Obama has spent 1.7 million dollars of his own money hiding his birth certificate is, on its face, horse shit. The birther lawsuits are overwhelmingly answered by govenrment lawyers, either the DoJ on Obama's behalf in his capacity as president, or by the attorneys general of the various state government being sued, none of who Obama pays personally. Moreover, those government attorneys say that these lawsuits generally get thrown out for procedural mistakes or on summary judgment, and accordingly don't take up a great deal of their time or money, being more nuisances than anything else. You respond by again repeating that Obama has spent over 1.7 million dollars of his own money hiding his birth certificate. It's hard to argue with that sort of logic - very, very, very hard.

You then claim that a law exists that could have allowed Obama's mother to get a birth certificate for him even if he was born in Kenya. This is pointed out to be unlikely since the certificate was filed for four days after his birth, irrelevant since it clearly says he was born in Honolulu, and impossible since that law didn't come into existence until 20 years later. Undaunted, you advance an entirely new argument, carefully researched by you just now on a blog you found that you agree with, that a former CIA agent has uncovered exciting new information from 50 years ago that there were in fact four different ways to get a birth certificate in Hawaii, most of which obviated the necessity of showing that anyone had been born to anyone anywhere at any time ever, essentially tuning birth certificates of the era into holographic instruments, being handwritten on the backs of envelopes or in the interior doors of bathroom stalls, as necessary.

At this point, what's the point of refuting you? If it's painstakingly shown that the former secret agent's claim is completely false and the only way to get a birth certificate at the time was to have the Governor personally present in the delivery room, you'll simply continue to present convoluted argument after argument until you hit on one that's completely unfalsifiable: that you have personal knowledge that a former clerk for the State of Hawaii made false entries of records regarding Obama's birth in return for 10 million dollars, then erased her own identity and disappeared forever.

You show that "reasonable doubt" exists when the other party has the burden of proof. When you're making the claim, you have the burden of proof and you prove, or you don't.

[Chronos]

Wait, if even Obama's rival for the position of President has his tongue up Obama's ass, then this whole issue is irrelevant. If the dude's that popular, then he deserves to be President, American or not.

[Really Not All That Bright]

See, here's the thing. Several pages ago it was pointed out to you that the WND's oft-repeated claim that Obama has spent 1.7 million dollars of his own money hiding his birth certificate is, on its face, horse shit. The birther lawsuits are overwhelmingly answered by govenrment lawyers, either the DoJ on Obama's behalf in his capacity as president, or by the attorneys general of the various state government being sued, none of who Obama pays personally. Moreover, those government attorneys say that these lawsuits generally get thrown out for procedural mistakes or on summary judgment, and accordingly don't take up a great deal of their time or money, being more nuisances than anything else. You respond by again repeating that Obama has spent over 1.7 million dollars of his own money hiding his birth certificate. It's hard to argue with that sort of logic - very, very, very hard.
Well, Obama's PAC did spent just over a million dollars fighting these lawsuits (prior to his election).

I don't understand why that should matter; everyone knows that defending lawsuits is expensive, no matter how frivolous.

[pravnik]

Well, Obama's PAC did spent just over a million dollars fighting these lawsuits (prior to his election).

I don't understand why that should matter; everyone knows that defending lawsuits is expensive, no matter how frivolous.WND's claim is that Obama's campaign has spent 1.7 million dollars since the election fighting these lawsuits. It's ridiculous.

WorldNetDaily has noted that FEC filings show that Obama's presidential campaign has paid out more than $1.7 million since the election to the law firm of Perkins Coie. Until recently, that firm was home to Obama's campaign lawyer, and now White House counsel, Robert Bauer—the very same DC lawyer, says WND, who has defended Obama in many of the birther lawsuits. Ergo, WND concluded, Obama must be devoting that entire $1.7 million to crushing birthers in court. This is a ridiculous claim: Even after an election is over a presidential campaign has plenty of need for lawyers as it winds down operations and meets campaign finance law requirements.

What's Obama's Birther Legal Bill? (http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/whats-obamas-birther-legal-bill)

[Trepa Mayfield]

Because she's the person ultimately responsible for establishing whether or not HHR was actually born in Hawaii, and the fact that she's a Democrat makes it highly unlikely that she would lie for partisan reasons.
But she couldn't be bought, threatened or in the same "old boys network", could she? No, American politics is too clean for THAT.


Orly Taitz and Jerome Corsi are certainly a crackpot and a shit-stirrer, respectively. I assume that most people who aren't sure are simply unfamiliar with Snopes, Politifact and FactCheck.org.

That's 2. What about the rest of them?

Ivan: do you believe that Obama is eligible to be president or not?

[Don123]

Going someplace without internet access, eh? Convenient.

PS, the link to your glorified blogger site still doesn't work for me. Not that it matters if it merely recapitulates the truthiness that you yourself have displayed for our amusement.

You have "referenced" nothing beyond your own racist and crackpot opinions and those of your fellow conspiracy theorists.

Have fun, and be sure to check in when you get back. We'll all be waiting for another session of play-time.


It works for me, and I am forbidden by the management of this board to post the entire text-- so you need to get with management and file a complaint.

Now you wonder why on relevant articles to particular people or to the over all good to the thread (in my opinion), and to settle a point, I have post the text and not my edited short form. Least I am accused of cherry picking info, changing context, manipulating emotions, altering general public understanding, and lined up with my white devil nature.

Best of luck to you, it was a great article, you would have loved it.

Don




Don

[Marley23]

It works for me, and I am forbidden by the management of this board to post the entire text-- so you need to get with management and file a complaint.
Uh, Don123? You linked to the article. We can read it. It is missing information.

[tomndebb]

Don123, you have been told about the rules for Fair Use and against copyright violations.

This is a Warning that you need to stop quoting entire articles and begin posting in your own words, using small quoted sections to support your point.

[ /Moderating ]

[samclem]

Don123

How are your Florida real estate investments doing the last 2-3 years? Are you back to half your investment?

[SteveG1]

More "birther" nonsense, I see. It doesn't matter how often you "raise the question". It doesn't matter how you "rephrase the question". It doesn't matter what tangent you go off on (now it's how much he spent to hide his "alien status").

It's still the same tired and worn out lie. At this point, no one can use the excuse that they didn't know or were misinformed, so it has to be deliberate. That's all I can figure.

[Troy McClure SF]

I don't understand how Obama can't just get this "vault" copy...original copy or whatever and settle the issue once and for all.

It is settled once and for all.

A handful of nutbags, no matter how loud they are, does not have any effect on that fact (nor the overwhelming evidence for evolution, or that the towers were brought down by planes, or that I post on the SDMB under the name "Troy McClure SF").

[Czarcasm]

Hange around you do make me giggle. You are better than a black that bashes his own race and thinks it funny.A black what?

[Czarcasm]

I don't understand how Obama can't just get this "vault" copy...original copy or whatever and settle the issue once and for all.Umm..because we elected him President, not king? If the rules say he can't do it, then he can't do it.