Somehow, I knew before opening the thread that he wouldn’t have addressed it.
Actually, it seems more like it’s your problem. How’s that birthy, tinfoily thing workin’ out for you?
No, he doesn’t. State call, not federal.
What has he ever said about it, about any of this, that we have any reason to think is a lie?
He’s a politician; he lies for a living. Or avoids having to lie by pretending not to know.
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.
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.
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.
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) so I don’t think I’ll be putting much faith in it even if the link worked. Try again for a real citation.
Your reasoning is absurd.
This is not guessing, it’s ridiculous.
Good for you.
People who believe what you believe usually are.
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.
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.
I believe the phrase is “begotten, not made”.
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?
: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.
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
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
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.
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!
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 : 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.
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.
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.