# Birthers Lay an Egg



## Bfgrn

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Without dissent, the House declares President Obama a native of Hawaii.

The 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii: So resolved the House of Representatives yesterday, by a 378-*0* vote. The broader purpose of the nonbinding resolution was to assert that the House recognizes and celebrates the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.

Best of the Web Today: Birthers Lay an Egg - WSJ.com


----------



## manu1959

ooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhh....so now we trust the government.......


----------



## jillian

manu1959 said:


> ooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhh....so now we trust the government.......



more trustworthy than nutbar conspiracy theorists.


----------



## del

ah, the majestic power of the non-binding resolution.

did they name an official hawaiian state cookie, too?


----------



## WillowTree

Gotta be the white chocolate-macadamia nut cookie!


----------



## del

WillowTree said:


> Gotta be the white chocolate-macadamia nut cookie!



i'd go with the milk chocolate version, myself.
that's why these resolutions are so valuable.


----------



## concept

Did the sing Kumbaya too?


----------



## Big Black Dog

> Without dissent, the House declares President Obama a native of Hawaii.



Sounds like they finally decided on the official State nut of Hawaii.


----------



## del

concept said:


> Did the sing Kumbaya too?



all four verses in the round- there wasn't a dry eye in the house.


----------



## Lycurgus

Another new low Obama has taken us to. It is never ending!


----------



## Old Rocks

378 to 0! Damned RINOs, kick them all out of the Rushpublican Party!!!!


----------



## William Joyce

del said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta be the white chocolate-macadamia nut cookie!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'd go with the milk chocolate version, myself.
> that's why these resolutions are so valuable.
Click to expand...


As a supporter of integration, I fully endorse a mixture of white AND milk chocolate with the macademia nuts for the official state cookie of Hawaii.


----------



## mskafka

William Joyce said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta be the white chocolate-macadamia nut cookie!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'd go with the milk chocolate version, myself.
> that's why these resolutions are so valuable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a supporter of integration, I fully endorse a mixture of white AND milk chocolate with the macademia nuts for the official state cookie of Hawaii.
Click to expand...


Hehehehehe!  Let me grab and scratch my scrotum and spit mah backer juice.


----------



## Emma

Sweet 

This was hilarious, too: 



> Twenty-five percent of my people believe the Pentagon and Rumsfeld were responsible for taking the twin towers down, said Rep. Collin Peterson, a Democrat who represents a conservative Republican district in Minnesota. Thats why I dont do town meetings.


----------



## DiveCon

Emma said:


> Sweet
> 
> This was hilarious, too:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty-five percent of my people believe the Pentagon and Rumsfeld were responsible for taking the twin towers down, said Rep. Collin Peterson, a Democrat who represents a conservative Republican district in Minnesota. Thats why I dont do town meetings.
Click to expand...

hes not likely to get re-elected and he probably known it


----------



## Lonestar_logic

jillian said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhh....so now we trust the government.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more trustworthy than nutbar conspiracy theorists.
Click to expand...


Was that your belief during the Bush administration?


----------



## Care4all

When the Republicans held the majority in the Senate, the senate did a Sense of the Senate, non binding resolution stating that McCain was a USA natural born citizen....

not much different than the house, non binding resolution


----------



## DiveCon

Care4all said:


> When the Republicans held the majority in the Senate, the senate did a Sense of the Senate, non binding resolution stating that McCain was a USA natural born citizen....
> 
> not much different than the house, non binding resolution


it was before the election for one, and still stupid and unneeded


----------



## Contessa_Sharra

del said:


> ah, the majestic power of the non-binding resolution.
> 
> did they name an official hawaiian state cookie, too?


 

It is something with Macadamia nuts and coconut, no doubt, and dark chocolate chips, lol.......


----------



## Gunny

Bfgrn said:


> Tuesday, July 28, 2009
> 
> Without dissent, the House declares President Obama a native of Hawaii.
> 
> The 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii: So resolved the House of Representatives yesterday, by a 378-*0* vote. The broader purpose of the nonbinding resolution was to assert that the House recognizes and celebrates the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.
> 
> Best of the Web Today: Birthers Lay an Egg - WSJ.com



Only one that lays an egg here is the House, and people like you.  You can't just legislate a decree like that.  This would a PERFECT example of when corroborating documentation should be provided.

Otherwise, nothing is solved.  The courts refuse to hear the case, and the House has a made a divine decree.  Might want to dampen that towel you're wiping that shit off your face with.


----------



## Bfgrn

Gunny said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuesday, July 28, 2009
> 
> Without dissent, the House declares President Obama a native of Hawaii.
> 
> The 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii: So resolved the House of Representatives yesterday, by a 378-*0* vote. The broader purpose of the nonbinding resolution was to assert that the House recognizes and celebrates the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.
> 
> Best of the Web Today: Birthers Lay an Egg - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only one that lays an egg here is the House, and people like you.  You can't just legislate a decree like that.  This would a PERFECT example of when corroborating documentation should be provided.
> 
> Otherwise, nothing is solved.  The courts refuse to hear the case, and the House has a made a divine decree.  Might want to dampen that towel you're wiping that shit off your face with.
Click to expand...


LOL Gunny...so YOU are a birther too...

WHAT this does prove is all those Republicans in the House that are birthers too don't have the guts or character to stand up for their beliefs...


----------



## tigerbob

Bfgrn said:


> Tuesday, July 28, 2009
> 
> Without dissent, the House declares President Obama a native of Hawaii.
> 
> The 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii: So resolved the House of Representatives yesterday, by a 378-*0* vote. The broader purpose of the nonbinding resolution was to assert that the House recognizes and celebrates the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.
> 
> Best of the Web Today: Birthers Lay an Egg - WSJ.com



So basically, they voted for something that doesn't mean shit, right?  And they actually got paid for doing this?  What a joke!  Whose idea was it?  

The more I understand about American politics the less sense it makes.  What's the fucking point of voting on a non binding resolution?

And on that basis what was the point of bolding the *0* votes against in the OP if it doesn't mean a damn thing?  Isn't something supposed to be resolved by a resolution, or maybe I just don't understand the word correctly?


----------



## paperview

tigerbob said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuesday, July 28, 2009
> 
> Without dissent, the House declares President Obama a native of Hawaii.
> 
> The 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii: So resolved the House of Representatives yesterday, by a 378-*0* vote. The broader purpose of the nonbinding resolution was to assert that the House recognizes and celebrates the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.
> 
> Best of the Web Today: Birthers Lay an Egg - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, they voted for something that doesn't mean shit, right?  And they actually got paid for doing this?  What a joke!  Whose idea was it?
> 
> The more I understand about American politics the less sense it makes.  What's the fucking point of voting on a non binding resolution?
> 
> And on that basis what was the point of bolding the *0* votes against in the OP if it doesn't mean a damn thing?  Isn't something supposed to be resolved by a resolution, or maybe I just don't understand the word correctly?
Click to expand...

Yes, it was a non-binding resolution, but congresscritters introduce them all the time.

Try integrating this thought into what the purpose and effect of the yes or no votes: symbolism.


----------



## tigerbob

Care4all said:


> When the Republicans held the majority in the Senate, the senate did a Sense of the Senate, non binding resolution stating that McCain was a USA natural born citizen....
> 
> not much different than the house, non binding resolution



Both sound like crap to me.


----------



## tigerbob

paperview said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuesday, July 28, 2009
> 
> Without dissent, the House declares President Obama a native of Hawaii.
> 
> &#8220;The 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii&#8221;: So resolved the House of Representatives yesterday, by a 378-*0* vote. The broader purpose of the nonbinding resolution was to assert that the House &#8220;recognizes and celebrates the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.&#8221;
> 
> Best of the Web Today: Birthers Lay an Egg - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, they voted for something that doesn't mean shit, right?  And they actually got paid for doing this?  What a joke!  Whose idea was it?
> 
> The more I understand about American politics the less sense it makes.  What's the fucking point of voting on a non binding resolution?
> 
> And on that basis what was the point of bolding the *0* votes against in the OP if it doesn't mean a damn thing?  Isn't something supposed to be resolved by a resolution, or maybe I just don't understand the word correctly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it was a non-binding resolution, but congresscritters introduce them all the time.
> 
> Try integrating this thought into what the purpose and effect of the yes or no votes: symbolism.
Click to expand...


Oh, I'm aware of what it is supposed to symbolize, and the first line of the OP ("Without dissent, the House declares President Obama a native of Hawaii.") makes it clear how "symbolism" is often mistranslated into reality.

I now intend to write to my representative to ask why he and apparently all his colleagues are wasting their time doing this.  I'm hoping he doesn't include the word symbolism in his response.


Why does symbolize have a z but symbolism have an s?  I've never understood what prompted some retard to change that.


----------



## paperview

Non-binding resolutions are games they sometimes play as well.

Take for example last year when there was House Resolution to vote in support of Mothers day.  (who could be against that, right?)

Well...
*Republicans vote against Mother&#8217;s Day. *

                     On Wednesday, the House took up the seemingly uncontroversial H. Res. 1113, &#8220;Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother&#8217;s Day.&#8221; The resolution initially passed 412 to 0, until Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) rose in protest:Mr. Speaker, I ask for a recorded vote because *I&#8217;m sure every member wants their mother to know that they have supported the goals of Mother&#8217;s Day*. ​Tiahrt&#8217;s mother, however, may be disappointed to know that her son did not support Mother&#8217;s Day. *He and 177 other Republicans decided to cast their vote against mothers. *
Watch it: 

 [flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2008/05/48248dfa5cbc.320.240.flv] 

When asked why the GOP switched their votes, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said, &#8220;Oh, we just wanted to make sure that everyone was on record in support of Mother&#8217;s Day.&#8221; (Even though he also was actually on record against Mother&#8217;s Day.) The Washington Post&#8217;s Dana Milbank reports that this move was a procedural tactic to &#8220;bring the House to a standstill.&#8221; 





Think Progress » Republicans vote against Mother&#8217;s Day.


----------



## tigerbob

paperview said:


> Non-binding resolutions are games they sometimes play as well.
> 
> Take for example last year when there was House Resolution to vote in support of Mothers day.  (who could be against that, right?)
> 
> Well...
> *Republicans vote against Mother&#8217;s Day. *
> 
> On Wednesday, the House took up the seemingly uncontroversial H. Res. 1113, &#8220;Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother&#8217;s Day.&#8221; The resolution initially passed 412 to 0, until Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) rose in protest:Mr. Speaker, I ask for a recorded vote because *I&#8217;m sure every member wants their mother to know that they have supported the goals of Mother&#8217;s Day*. ​Tiahrt&#8217;s mother, however, may be disappointed to know that her son did not support Mother&#8217;s Day. *He and 177 other Republicans decided to cast their vote against mothers. *
> Watch it:
> 
> [flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2008/05/48248dfa5cbc.320.240.flv]
> 
> When asked why the GOP switched their votes, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said, &#8220;Oh, we just wanted to make sure that everyone was on record in support of Mother&#8217;s Day.&#8221; (Even though he also was actually on record against Mother&#8217;s Day.) The Washington Post&#8217;s Dana Milbank reports that this move was a procedural tactic to &#8220;bring the House to a standstill.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think Progress » Republicans vote against Mother&#8217;s Day.



Well, thanks for providing another example of gross stupidity among politicians (or was your point about the stupidity of Republicans in particular?), but it still doesn't tell me what's the frickin point of wasting time with this shite in the first place.

If someone wants to give Hawaii a pat on the back and a piece of cake so be it.  But what's the point of voting?  And why add in the contentious stuff about Obama when it is well known to be contentious?  It's everything that is worst about politics in this country.


----------



## DavidS

Lycurgus said:


> Another new low Obama has taken us to. It is never ending!



Yes! It's absolutely deplorable that Obama forced the House of Representatives, EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, to force them to pass a resolution stating Obama's native birth. Horrible president!!!


----------



## Political Junky

Bfgrn said:


> Tuesday, July 28, 2009
> 
> Without dissent, the House declares President Obama a native of Hawaii.
> 
> The 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii: So resolved the House of Representatives yesterday, by a 378-*0* vote. The broader purpose of the nonbinding resolution was to assert that the House recognizes and celebrates the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.
> 
> Best of the Web Today: Birthers Lay an Egg - WSJ.com


It's so funny that even the ones who wouldn't say they believed Obama was a citizen in interviews, or gave answers like, I never saw the paper work, all voted for the resolution. They didn't want to be known as "Birthers" on the congressional record.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

It's so perfect that since Obama can't really prove he was born in Hawaii, Congress just says that he was.

Why is Congress calling his grandma and half brother and half sister liars?


----------



## Care4all

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's so perfect that since Obama can't really prove he was born in Hawaii, Congress just says that he was.
> 
> Why is Congress calling his grandma and half brother and half sister liars?



They are not....it was hogwash that they said they witnessed his birth in kenya...

the grandma said SEVERAL TIMES in trying to correct the radio host that kept trying to put words in her mouth, that he was born here, in the usa.

I listened to the tape first hand....several times up to the halfway point, where i just COULD NOT listen to it any longer with that slimy, scummy, dirty, deceitful, antichrist of a radio host just went way too far....trying manipulate by offering her a Bible... for her to show him where obama was born in kenya all the while she is saying and trying to correct him, saying that obama was born in the states....

pure trash, if that is what you are basing your comment on?

Care


----------



## paperview

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's so perfect that since Obama can't really prove he was born in Hawaii, Congress just says that he was.
> 
> Why is Congress calling his grandma and half brother and half sister liars?


Give it up Frank.

His half-brother or half-sister never said it -

and his Kenyan step Grandmother clarified HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII!


----------



## paperview

Care4all said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's so perfect that since Obama can't really prove he was born in Hawaii, Congress just says that he was.
> 
> Why is Congress calling his grandma and half brother and half sister liars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not....it was hogwash that they said they witnessed his birth in kenya...
> 
> the grandma said SEVERAL TIMES in trying to correct the radio host that kept trying to put words in her mouth, that he was born here, in the usa.
> 
> I listened to the tape first hand....several times up to the halfway point, where i just COULD NOT listen to it any longer with that slimy, scummy, dirty, deceitful, antichrist of a radio host just went way too far....trying manipulate by offering her a Bible... for her to show him where obama was born in kenya all the while she is saying and trying to correct him, saying that obama was born in the states....
> 
> pure trash, if that is what you are basing your comment on?
> 
> Care
Click to expand...

He could be told a hundred times, and he'll still keep saying it.


----------



## Care4all

paperview said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's so perfect that since Obama can't really prove he was born in Hawaii, Congress just says that he was.
> 
> Why is Congress calling his grandma and half brother and half sister liars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not....it was hogwash that they said they witnessed his birth in kenya...
> 
> the grandma said SEVERAL TIMES in trying to correct the radio host that kept trying to put words in her mouth, that he was born here, in the usa.
> 
> I listened to the tape first hand....several times up to the halfway point, where i just COULD NOT listen to it any longer with that slimy, scummy, dirty, deceitful, antichrist of a radio host just went way too far....trying manipulate by offering her a Bible... for her to show him where obama was born in kenya all the while she is saying and trying to correct him, saying that obama was born in the states....
> 
> pure trash, if that is what you are basing your comment on?
> 
> Care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He could be told a hundred times, and he'll still keep saying it.
Click to expand...


Isn't that the description and definition of "Brain washed"?   j/k....

Honestly, these people believe what they believe and no matter what is shown them, they continue to believe it...I suppose this is covered by freedom...they do have the right to believe what they believe and to express themselves, no matter how silly it seems to us, that are SANE, imho! hahahahahaha!

care


----------



## HUGGY

Bfgrn said:


> Tuesday, July 28, 2009
> 
> Without dissent, the House declares President Obama a native of Hawaii.
> 
> The 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii: So resolved the House of Representatives yesterday, by a 378-*0* vote. The broader purpose of the nonbinding resolution was to assert that the House recognizes and celebrates the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.
> 
> Best of the Web Today: Birthers Lay an Egg - WSJ.com



OUCH!  SMACKDOWN!!!! Hey pale pole rider..ya think it will leave a mark?  Don't let that stop you...If it is the last thing you ever do in your miserable existance I hope you find that missing birth certificate.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Granny (pre-Obama Candidacy): I saw Barack being Born at Coastal Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya

Obama declares his candidacy and tells Granny: "Unless you want to find yourself under the bus you shut your fucking piehole about seeing me born in kenya"

Granny post-Conversion: Oh yesssssir, I saw Barack born in one of two hospitals in Hawaii" (his family gave 2 different accounts of where he was born)


----------



## paperview

CrusaderFrank said:


> Granny (pre-Obama Candidacy): I saw Barack being Born at Coastal Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya
> 
> Obama declares his candidacy and tells Granny: "Unless you want to find yourself under the bus you shut your fucking piehole about seeing me born in kenya"
> 
> Granny post-Conversion: Oh yesssssir, I saw Barack born in one of two hospitals in Hawaii" (his family gave 2 different accounts of where he was born)


That's BULLSHIT and you KNOW it Frannie.  
That one interview - who propagandists brainwashed you into repeating like a brain dead goat over and over - went like this:

No matter, though, because people who believe in a conspiracy theory simply hear what they want to hear. So some Birther sites have posted transcripts and  YouTube clips *that end abruptly with the mistranslation and don't include the corrections*. 

McRae, for his part, included the full translation in his affidavit -- he thinks it's all just part of the conspiracy. "Some few younger relatives, including [translator Vitalis Akech Ogombe]," McRae wrote in his court filing, "have obviously been versed to counter such facts with the common purported information from the American news media that Obama was born in Hawaii."


Here's the conversation:MCRAE: Could I ask her about his actual birthplace? I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Was she present when he was born in Kenya?


     OGOMBE: Yes. She says, yes, she was, she was present when Obama was born.


     MCRAE: When I come in December. I would like to come by the place, the hospital, where he was born. Could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?


     OGOMBE: No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.


     MCRAE: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.


     OGOMBE: No, he was born in America, not in Mombasa.


     MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.


*OGOMBE: Hawaii. Hawaii. Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there. The state of Hawaii.*​


----------



## Emma

paperview said:


> No matter, though, because people who believe in a conspiracy theory simply hear what they want to hear.



More than that. They take any evidence to the contrary as *proof* of the wider conspiracy.


----------



## eagleseven

My response to all Birth Certificate questions:

*Who gives a fuck?*


----------



## paperview

eagleseven said:


> My response to all Birth Certificate questions:
> 
> *Who gives a fuck?*


Another good reason they are called "birthers."


----------



## DiveCon

paperview said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> My response to all Birth Certificate questions:
> 
> *Who gives a fuck?*
> 
> 
> 
> Another good reason they are called "birthers."
Click to expand...

wouldnt it be more fitting to call em "berfers"

kinda like the 9/11 truthers are called troofers
LOL


----------



## WillowTree

*Pay attention people,, nobody watches Fox News but me,, but here's what I caught the other night.. O'Reilly says his investigative team has done exhaustive research on this,, Obama was born in Hawaii,, there are two newspaper birth announcements. published when he was born, in Hawaii!  time to move on to the next conspiracy,, such as the one where he is trying to wreck the US of KKKA. now that one I believe!*


----------



## EriktheRed

Lycurgus said:


> Another new low Obama has taken us to. It is never ending!



And just how has the president taken us to this low?


----------



## EriktheRed

CrusaderFrank said:
			
		

> It's so perfect that since Obama can't really prove he was born in Hawaii, Congress just says that he was.
> 
> Why is Congress calling his grandma and half brother and half sister liars?







			
				CrusaderFrank said:
			
		

> Granny (pre-Obama Candidacy): I saw Barack being Born at Coastal Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya
> 
> Obama declares his candidacy and tells Granny: "Unless you want to find yourself under the bus you shut your fucking piehole about seeing me born in kenya"
> 
> Granny post-Conversion: Oh yesssssir, I saw Barack born in one of two hospitals in Hawaii" (his family gave 2 different accounts of where he was born)


----------



## 007

Since this appears it's going to stay in the politics section, I'll follow it up with a little tid bit of my own.

Now I ask anyone who reads this, "if the government is so all fired convinced barry soetoro qualifies as a "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN," then why are officials signing on left and right to make sure that ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THEIR REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE?" Why would they be so worried to have to go through this trouble if they all truly believed obama was born in Hawaii? Looks to me like that "certification of live birth" thingie they're all so willing to overlook isn't good enough for them after all. Keep telling yourself everything is A-OK with obama... but it isn't, and the shit is going to hit the fan, sooner or later...


*
No. 11 Signs Onto Demand For Eligibility Proof*


*Former judge now cosponsor for Posey plan*

A former judge now serving in Congress has agreed to cosponsor a bill demanding that future presidential candidates provide proof that they are eligible to hold the office.

Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas has become the 11th supporter of the bill proposed by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.

The provisions of H.R. 1503 are straightforward:

_ "To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."_

It also provides:
_
    "Congress finds that under &#8230; the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."_

The sponsors' goal is to have the bill become effective for the 2012 presidential election, and it now is pending in a committee of the U.S. House
of Representatives.

Other cosponsors are Reps. Kenny Marchant, R-Texas; Dan Burton, R-Ind.; Ted Poe, R-Texas; Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.; John Campbell, R-Calif.; John R. Carter, R-Texas; John Culberson, R-Texas; Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.; and Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas. 

*A participant at a forum on a political website noted "average citizens have to have a copy of our birth certificate just to apply for a passport, but the president of the United States doesn't have to show theirs??? This doesn't make sense at all."*

Besides the support growing in the U.S. House, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., has said he's in favor of both state and federal demands that future presidential candidates have a formal procedure to document their qualifications.

"The bill requires any federal candidates' campaign committee filing with the Federal Election Commission to produce a copy of the candidate's birth certificate," Coburn has written. "If the bill makes it to the Senate, I will likely support it." 

No. 11 signs onto demand for eligibility proof


----------



## 007

And another thing... here's a little chart for you people that think somehow little barry could have been made a citizen just from his mother... wrong...


----------



## DiveCon

for anyone that wants to read the whole bill

H.R. 1503: To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of... (GovTrack.us)

however, no where in it does it define what suffices as "Birth Certificate"
and my take on it, the HI COLB would qualify


----------



## 007

So go ahead now you obama ass lickers with your BRAIN DEAD, MORONIC, INANE, SENSELESS, CLASSLESS, BULL SHIT and INSULTS... because you're REALLY PROVING OBAMA QUALIFIES AS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN DOING THAT.... fucking idiots.


----------



## 007

DiveCon said:


> for anyone that wants to read the whole bill
> 
> H.R. 1503: To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of... (GovTrack.us)
> 
> however, no where in it does it define what suffices as "Birth Certificate"
> and my take on it, the HI COLB would qualify



No, it wouldn't DC, or they wouldn't be doing this. Your opinion is not going to ride. Clearly there is a DIFFERENCE between a COLB and a BC. If COLB was what they meant, then that's what they'd have said, but they didn't. They said "BIRTH CERTIFICATE," together with THIS...* together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution," *ALL of which obama signed an executive order to keep HIDDEN! Your pumping sewer gas if you're going to try and convince people that what congress has in mind isn't the real deal and then some. They know the mess they have on their hands, and they're looking to never have another one like it. They would NOT put together some watered down shit that didn't have anymore teeth than what we already have now.


----------



## DiveCon

Pale Rider said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> for anyone that wants to read the whole bill
> 
> H.R. 1503: To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of... (GovTrack.us)
> 
> however, no where in it does it define what suffices as "Birth Certificate"
> and my take on it, the HI COLB would qualify
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't DC, or they wouldn't be doing this. Your opinion is not going to ride. Clearly there is a DIFFERENCE between a COLB and a BC. If COLB was what they meant, then that's what they'd have said, but they didn't. They said "BIRTH CERTIFICATE," together with THIS...* together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution." *Your pumping sewer gas if you're going to try and pull that shit off.
Click to expand...

its what the state of HI issues for a Birth Certificate
it would be passable for what that bill would require


----------



## 007

DiveCon said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> for anyone that wants to read the whole bill
> 
> H.R. 1503: To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of... (GovTrack.us)
> 
> however, no where in it does it define what suffices as "Birth Certificate"
> and my take on it, the HI COLB would qualify
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't DC, or they wouldn't be doing this. Your opinion is not going to ride. Clearly there is a DIFFERENCE between a COLB and a BC. If COLB was what they meant, then that's what they'd have said, but they didn't. They said "BIRTH CERTIFICATE," together with THIS...* together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution." *Your pumping sewer gas if you're going to try and pull that shit off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its what the state of HI issues for a Birth Certificate
> it would be passable for what that bill would require
Click to expand...


No DC, it's not. Or are you purposely ignoring the recent brewhaha about the Hawaiian official that said she's seen obama's REAL birth certificate. THAT is what the new bill talks about. THAT is what ALL Presidential candidates should be required to produce, or a photo copy there of, with information on it like DOCTORS NAME, HOSPITAL, WITNESSES, etc.. What obama produced was nothing more than a certification that was given to people even that hadn't even been born in Hawaii. It proves nothing, and you KNOW that.

Let me ask you... why do you deny the facts of this situation so vehemently when you know the truth of the matter? Why do you NOT want obama to produce this REAL birth certificate that is said to be in existence? Aren't you just a little bit curious why all the secrecy? Aren't you curious why he signed an executive order and is spending reportedly hundreds of thousand of dollars to keep it hidden? What could be the reason behind all that DC? Got a good answer for that?


----------



## DiveCon

Pale Rider said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't DC, or they wouldn't be doing this. Your opinion is not going to ride. Clearly there is a DIFFERENCE between a COLB and a BC. If COLB was what they meant, then that's what they'd have said, but they didn't. They said "BIRTH CERTIFICATE," together with THIS...* together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution." *Your pumping sewer gas if you're going to try and pull that shit off.
> 
> 
> 
> its what the state of HI issues for a Birth Certificate
> it would be passable for what that bill would require
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No DC, it's not. Or are you purposely ignoring the recent brewhaha about the Hawaiian official that said she's seen obama's REAL birth certificate. THAT is what the new bill talks about. THAT is what ALL Presidential candidates should be required to produce, or a photo copy there of, with information on it like DOCTORS NAME, HOSPITAL, WITNESSES, etc.. What obama produced was nothing more than a certification that was given to people even that hadn't even been born in Hawaii. It proves nothing, and you KNOW that.
> 
> Let me ask you... why do you deny the facts of this situation so vehemently when you know the truth of the matter? Why do you NOT want obama to produce this REAL birth certificate that is said to be in existence? Aren't you just a little bit curious why all the secrecy? Aren't you curious why he signed an executive order and is spending reportedly hundreds of thousand of dollars to keep it hidden? What could be the reason behind all that DC? Got a good answer for that?
Click to expand...

HE HAS

he produced what the State of HI sends out when you request a new BC


----------



## 007

DiveCon said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> its what the state of HI issues for a Birth Certificate
> it would be passable for what that bill would require
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No DC, it's not. Or are you purposely ignoring the recent brewhaha about the Hawaiian official that said she's seen obama's REAL birth certificate. THAT is what the new bill talks about. THAT is what ALL Presidential candidates should be required to produce, or a photo copy there of, with information on it like DOCTORS NAME, HOSPITAL, WITNESSES, etc.. What obama produced was nothing more than a certification that was given to people even that hadn't even been born in Hawaii. It proves nothing, and you KNOW that.
> 
> Let me ask you... why do you deny the facts of this situation so vehemently when you know the truth of the matter? Why do you NOT want obama to produce this REAL birth certificate that is said to be in existence? Aren't you just a little bit curious why all the secrecy? Aren't you curious why he signed an executive order and is spending reportedly hundreds of thousand of dollars to keep it hidden? What could be the reason behind all that DC? Got a good answer for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HE HAS
> 
> he produced what the State of HI sends out when you request a new BC
Click to expand...


DC... sorry buddy, but you got a lot to learn, because you are rudely mistaken. Obama has NEVER produced a ****REAL****, get that, ****REAL**** BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Please, do some research. I hate to see you act so misinformed. What he produced is as I've already gone over, and I hate to think you were unable to understand it or you just plain don't want to admit the truth. I didn't think you would be so blind drunk on obama kool aide. I thought you were more sensible than this. But to just point out one thing, if what obama produced WAS all he had as you mention above, then there is no way possible he could qualify as a natural born citizen, no possible way, not according to our constitution. Because what he produced proves absolutely NOTHING as far as WHERE HE WAS BORN. What part about that is so hard to understand?

Oh well, I said I wasn't going to debate this anymore here and I meant it. So you go on believing what ever the hell you want to believe. I'll just wait for the shit to hit the fan, and it will. It's coming. This issue gets bigger every day. There's over a dozen new court cases filed and new judges willing to hear the case now. So no amount of you people's denials or insults will stop it. Obama WILL have to come up with a valid BC sooner or later, and then we'll know. But until that day, obama has never proven he qualifies as a natural born citizen, period, end of story.


----------



## DiveCon

Pale Rider said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> No DC, it's not. Or are you purposely ignoring the recent brewhaha about the Hawaiian official that said she's seen obama's REAL birth certificate. THAT is what the new bill talks about. THAT is what ALL Presidential candidates should be required to produce, or a photo copy there of, with information on it like DOCTORS NAME, HOSPITAL, WITNESSES, etc.. What obama produced was nothing more than a certification that was given to people even that hadn't even been born in Hawaii. It proves nothing, and you KNOW that.
> 
> Let me ask you... why do you deny the facts of this situation so vehemently when you know the truth of the matter? Why do you NOT want obama to produce this REAL birth certificate that is said to be in existence? Aren't you just a little bit curious why all the secrecy? Aren't you curious why he signed an executive order and is spending reportedly hundreds of thousand of dollars to keep it hidden? What could be the reason behind all that DC? Got a good answer for that?
> 
> 
> 
> HE HAS
> 
> he produced what the State of HI sends out when you request a new BC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DC... sorry buddy, but you got a lot to learn, because you are rudely mistaken. Obama has NEVER produced a ****REAL****, get that, ****REAL**** BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Please, do some research. I hate to see you act so misinformed. What he produced is as I've already gone over, and I hate to think you were unable to understand it or you just plain don't want to admit the truth. I didn't think you would be so blind drunk on obama kool aide. I thought you were more sensible than this. But to just point out one thing, if what obama produced WAS all he had, then there is no way possible he could qualify as a natural born citizen, no possible way, not according to our constitution. Because what he produced proves absolutely NOTHING as far as WHERE HE WAS BORN. What part about that is so hard to understand?
> 
> Oh well, I said I wasn't going to debate this anymore here and I meant it. So you go on believing what ever the hell you want to believe. I'll just wait for the shit to hit the fan, and it will. It's coming. This issue gets bigger every day. There's over a dozen new court cases filed and new judges willing to hear the case now. So no amount of you people's denials or insults will stop it. Obama WILL have to come up with a valid BC sooner or later, and then we'll know. But until that day, obama has never proven he qualifies as a natural born citizen, period, end of story.
Click to expand...

i HAVE researched it
that is why i'm not one to join in with you on your foolish quest


----------



## 007

DiveCon said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> HE HAS
> 
> he produced what the State of HI sends out when you request a new BC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DC... sorry buddy, but you got a lot to learn, because you are rudely mistaken. Obama has NEVER produced a ****REAL****, get that, ****REAL**** BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Please, do some research. I hate to see you act so misinformed. What he produced is as I've already gone over, and I hate to think you were unable to understand it or you just plain don't want to admit the truth. I didn't think you would be so blind drunk on obama kool aide. I thought you were more sensible than this. But to just point out one thing, if what obama produced WAS all he had, then there is no way possible he could qualify as a natural born citizen, no possible way, not according to our constitution. Because what he produced proves absolutely NOTHING as far as WHERE HE WAS BORN. What part about that is so hard to understand?
> 
> Oh well, I said I wasn't going to debate this anymore here and I meant it. So you go on believing what ever the hell you want to believe. I'll just wait for the shit to hit the fan, and it will. It's coming. This issue gets bigger every day. There's over a dozen new court cases filed and new judges willing to hear the case now. So no amount of you people's denials or insults will stop it. Obama WILL have to come up with a valid BC sooner or later, and then we'll know. But until that day, obama has never proven he qualifies as a natural born citizen, period, end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i HAVE researched it
> that is why i'm not one to join in with you on your foolish quest
Click to expand...


Well, I guess because I and millions of others aren't willing to deny the facts and you are, that makes me a fool in your eyes. Pretty fucked up but whatever.

We'll see who the fool turns out to be, and I don't think it's going to be me.

Just be ready to eat your words, and I'll do the same, because the day of reckoning is coming.


----------



## DiveCon

Pale Rider said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> DC... sorry buddy, but you got a lot to learn, because you are rudely mistaken. Obama has NEVER produced a ****REAL****, get that, ****REAL**** BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Please, do some research. I hate to see you act so misinformed. What he produced is as I've already gone over, and I hate to think you were unable to understand it or you just plain don't want to admit the truth. I didn't think you would be so blind drunk on obama kool aide. I thought you were more sensible than this. But to just point out one thing, if what obama produced WAS all he had, then there is no way possible he could qualify as a natural born citizen, no possible way, not according to our constitution. Because what he produced proves absolutely NOTHING as far as WHERE HE WAS BORN. What part about that is so hard to understand?
> 
> Oh well, I said I wasn't going to debate this anymore here and I meant it. So you go on believing what ever the hell you want to believe. I'll just wait for the shit to hit the fan, and it will. It's coming. This issue gets bigger every day. There's over a dozen new court cases filed and new judges willing to hear the case now. So no amount of you people's denials or insults will stop it. Obama WILL have to come up with a valid BC sooner or later, and then we'll know. But until that day, obama has never proven he qualifies as a natural born citizen, period, end of story.
> 
> 
> 
> i HAVE researched it
> that is why i'm not one to join in with you on your foolish quest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I guess because I and millions of others aren't willing to deny the facts and you are, that makes me a fool in your eyes. Pretty fucked up but whatever.
> 
> We'll see who the fool turns out to be, and I don't think it's going to be me.
> 
> Just be ready to eat your words, and I'll do the same, because the day of reckoning is coming.
Click to expand...

i didnt call you a fool
i said your quest is foolish


----------



## tigerbob

Pale Rider said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> DC... sorry buddy, but you got a lot to learn, because you are rudely mistaken. Obama has NEVER produced a ****REAL****, get that, ****REAL**** BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Please, do some research. I hate to see you act so misinformed. What he produced is as I've already gone over, and I hate to think you were unable to understand it or you just plain don't want to admit the truth. I didn't think you would be so blind drunk on obama kool aide. I thought you were more sensible than this. But to just point out one thing, if what obama produced WAS all he had, then there is no way possible he could qualify as a natural born citizen, no possible way, not according to our constitution. Because what he produced proves absolutely NOTHING as far as WHERE HE WAS BORN. What part about that is so hard to understand?
> 
> Oh well, I said I wasn't going to debate this anymore here and I meant it. So you go on believing what ever the hell you want to believe. I'll just wait for the shit to hit the fan, and it will. It's coming. This issue gets bigger every day. There's over a dozen new court cases filed and new judges willing to hear the case now. So no amount of you people's denials or insults will stop it. Obama WILL have to come up with a valid BC sooner or later, and then we'll know. But until that day, obama has never proven he qualifies as a natural born citizen, period, end of story.
> 
> 
> 
> i HAVE researched it
> that is why i'm not one to join in with you on your foolish quest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I guess because I and millions of others aren't willing to deny the facts and you are, that makes me a fool in your eyes. Pretty fucked up but whatever.
> 
> We'll see who the fool turns out to be, and I don't think it's going to be me.
> 
> Just be ready to eat your words, and I'll do the same, because the day of reckoning is coming.
Click to expand...



Can it fucking hurry up and get here?

 one way or the other.


----------



## Gudrid

So, if Obama is not a natural born citizen, how should the state of Hawaii be punished for its treachery in officially verifying that he is?


----------



## Emma

Gudrid said:


> So, if Obama is not a natural born citizen, how should the state of Hawaii be punished for its treachery in officially verifying that he is?


They're going to have to take a number. The list of co-conspirators is a mile long.


----------



## NYcarbineer

eagleseven said:


> My response to all Birth Certificate questions:
> 
> *Who gives a fuck?*



Apparently a lot of people who aren't getting any.


----------



## 007

Gudrid said:


> So, if Obama is not a natural born citizen, how should the state of Hawaii be punished for its treachery in officially verifying that he is?



Better yet, what would happen to every single piece of legislation that obama has signed, or obama himself for that matter.... so now you're starting to understand why the reluctance and resistance on behalf of our government to look into this. It will be the biggest scandal and upheaval this country has ever seen. It could easily plunge us into another Civil War when the blacks start rioting.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Never in the 6000 year history of this planet has there been a wackier theory.


----------



## Emma

Pale Rider said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if Obama is not a natural born citizen, how should the state of Hawaii be punished for its treachery in officially verifying that he is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better yet, what would happen to every single piece of legislation that obama has signed, or obama himself for that matter.... so now you're starting to understand why the reluctance and resistance on behalf of our government to look into this. It will be the biggest scandal and upheaval this country has ever seen. It could easily plunge us into another Civil War when the blacks start rioting.
Click to expand...

Well he brings up a good question. In another post I listed the HUGE number of people who would have had to be in on this conspiracy. Assuming for a moment that what you believe is true, what should happen to those folks? How _should_ they be punished for perpetrating the biggest election fraud---ever?


----------



## HUGGY

Pale Rider said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if Obama is not a natural born citizen, how should the state of Hawaii be punished for its treachery in officially verifying that he is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better yet, what would happen to every single piece of legislation that obama has signed, or obama himself for that matter.... so now you're starting to understand why the reluctance and resistance on behalf of our government to look into this. It will be the biggest scandal and upheaval this country has ever seen. It could easily plunge us into another Civil War when the blacks start rioting.
Click to expand...


And you think you are qualified to be a mayor?  Is there a chance you might do the citizens a favor and have a mental evaluation?

I'm not kidding.  You seem pretty stuck on some wack shit.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Pale Rider said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> DC... sorry buddy, but you got a lot to learn, because you are rudely mistaken. Obama has NEVER produced a ****REAL****, get that, ****REAL**** BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Please, do some research. I hate to see you act so misinformed. What he produced is as I've already gone over, and I hate to think you were unable to understand it or you just plain don't want to admit the truth. I didn't think you would be so blind drunk on obama kool aide. I thought you were more sensible than this. But to just point out one thing, if what obama produced WAS all he had, then there is no way possible he could qualify as a natural born citizen, no possible way, not according to our constitution. Because what he produced proves absolutely NOTHING as far as WHERE HE WAS BORN. What part about that is so hard to understand?
> 
> Oh well, I said I wasn't going to debate this anymore here and I meant it. So you go on believing what ever the hell you want to believe. I'll just wait for the shit to hit the fan, and it will. It's coming. This issue gets bigger every day. There's over a dozen new court cases filed and new judges willing to hear the case now. So no amount of you people's denials or insults will stop it. Obama WILL have to come up with a valid BC sooner or later, and then we'll know. But until that day, obama has never proven he qualifies as a natural born citizen, period, end of story.
> 
> 
> 
> i HAVE researched it
> that is why i'm not one to join in with you on your foolish quest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I guess because I and millions of others aren't willing to deny the facts and you are, that makes me a fool in your eyes. Pretty fucked up but whatever.
> 
> We'll see who the fool turns out to be, and I don't think it's going to be me.
> 
> Just be ready to eat your words, and I'll do the same, because the day of reckoning is coming.
Click to expand...


You won't eat your words, because in classic conspiracy theorist style, you have and will just keep the bar one step above any and all evidence that was is or would be available.


----------



## paperview

Almost 50% of Southerners either believe or are unsure Obama was born in the US:







The Washington Monthly

And people wonder why some folks think  southern style ideology is fucking up the GOP.


----------



## Missourian

paperview said:


> Almost 50% of Southerners reject Obama was even born here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Washington Monthly
> 
> And people wonder why some folks think southern style ideology is fucking up the GOP.


 
So where is the "Do you wonder why President Obama doesn't just present his birth certificate?" poll?

I was firmly in the 'Yes' camp until Obama continued to flatly refuse to reveal the evidence the so called birthers are demanding.

Now I have moved slowly to 'Unsure' as this easily extinguished allegation over the birth certificate is allowed to continue to smolder by Obama and his advisers.

The longer it smolder, the more people wonder why.

As the old adage goes...where there's smoke, there's fire.


----------



## NYcarbineer

paperview said:


> Almost 50% of Southerners reject Obama was even born here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Washington Monthly
> 
> And people wonder why some folks think  southern style ideology is fucking up the GOP.



I heard a claim the other day of a survey that found that half of Americans believe the earth is around 6000 years old;  I haven't seen the actual survey if it exists, but I'm not about to be surprised if it's true.


----------



## paperview

Missourian said:


> The longer it smolder, the more people wonder why.
> 
> As the old adage goes...where there's smoke, there's fire.


And where there are conspiracy theorists, there's a whole lot of stupid going on.


----------



## paperview

NYcarbineer said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost 50% of Southerners reject Obama was even born here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Washington Monthly
> 
> And people wonder why some folks think  southern style ideology is fucking up the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I heard a claim the other day of a survey that found that half of Americans believe the earth is around 6000 years old;  I haven't seen the actual survey if it exists, but I'm not about to be surprised if it's true.
Click to expand...

I would guess the break-down graph on that question would look about the same.


----------



## paperview

I want to make a correction: I read the graph fast.  My statement should read _about half say no or are unsure of the fact he was born here._


I need more coffee.


----------



## NYcarbineer

paperview said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost 50% of Southerners reject Obama was even born here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Washington Monthly
> 
> And people wonder why some folks think  southern style ideology is fucking up the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I heard a claim the other day of a survey that found that half of Americans believe the earth is around 6000 years old;  I haven't seen the actual survey if it exists, but I'm not about to be surprised if it's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would guess the break-down graph on that question would look about the same.
Click to expand...


Yes, because 62% of southern Republicans have been abducted by aliens and anally probed, and the other 38% are fugginay glad it wasn't them!!


----------



## Missourian

paperview said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The longer it smolder, the more people wonder why.
> 
> As the old adage goes...where there's smoke, there's fire.
> 
> 
> 
> And where there are conspiracy theorists, there's a whole lot of stupid going on.
Click to expand...

 
Deflection, *argumentum ad hominem* and a piss-poor attempt at that.

Why doesn't Obama just produce the documentation that is being requested?


----------



## paperview

NYcarbineer said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard a claim the other day of a survey that found that half of Americans believe the earth is around 6000 years old;  I haven't seen the actual survey if it exists, but I'm not about to be surprised if it's true.
> 
> 
> 
> I would guess the break-down graph on that question would look about the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because 62% of southern Republicans have been abducted by aliens and anally probed, and the other 38% are fugginay glad it wasn't them!!
Click to expand...

And 32% enjoyed the anal probing.


----------



## Missourian

paperview said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The longer it smolder, the more people wonder why.
> 
> As the old adage goes...where there's smoke, there's fire.
> 
> 
> 
> And where there are conspiracy theorists, there's a whole lot of stupid going on.
Click to expand...

 
Deflection, *argumentum ad hominem* and a piss-poor attempt at that.

Why doesn't Obama just produce the documentation that is being requested?

*crickets chirping*


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Missourian said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The longer it smolder, the more people wonder why.
> 
> As the old adage goes...where there's smoke, there's fire.
> 
> 
> 
> And where there are conspiracy theorists, there's a whole lot of stupid going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deflection, *argumentum ad hominem* and a piss-poor attempt at that.
> 
> Why doesn't Obama just produce the documentation that is being requested?
> 
> *crickets chirping*
Click to expand...


Name: Barack Soetoro
Place of Birth: Coast Provincial Hospital, Mombasa Kenya

Any questions?


----------



## paperview

CrusaderFrank said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where there are conspiracy theorists, there's a whole lot of stupid going on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deflection, *argumentum ad hominem* and a piss-poor attempt at that.
> 
> Why doesn't Obama just produce the documentation that is being requested?
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name: Barack Soetoro
> Place of Birth: Coast Provincial Hospital, Mombasa Kenya
> 
> Any questions?
Click to expand...

When do they serve the next round of medications for you at "the home" 

and do the nurses there really call you Mr. Slurpypants?


----------



## Missourian

paperview said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deflection, *argumentum ad hominem* and a piss-poor attempt at that.
> 
> Why doesn't Obama just produce the documentation that is being requested?
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name: Barack Soetoro
> Place of Birth: Coast Provincial Hospital, Mombasa Kenya
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When do they serve the next round of medications for you at "the home"
> 
> and do the nurses there really call you Mr. Slurpypants?
Click to expand...

 
How about less ad hominem deflection and more answering the simple question:

*Why doesn't Obama just produce the documentation that is being requested?*

>
>
>


----------



## Navy1960

For many years I heard  democrats harp and harp about how Bush lied about his Military Service even  though all of his flight school records including pictures were there for all to see. Then there was the Building 7 people , the ones that went  around raving about how the building was  brought down in a controlled demolition and that somehow that was the evil Bush Administration that had with no one watching  planted enough explosives to bring the building down. Of course there is also the  Moon landing people too , the ones that claim the US built a Saturn V rocket and and while million of people watched live  including this ex-aviator somehow faked the moon landings. Now we have the Obama birth issue, his BC has been released by the state for all to see.  *done deal"   Let's suppose for a moment that it was a fake, his mother is American.  *done deal" 

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874): The Court stated (pp. 16768): 
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. *It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.*

So lets get past this nonsense and move on to something that is really pressing shall we.


----------



## paperview

Missourian said:


> ....
> 
> *Why doesn't Obama just produce the documentation that is being requested?*
> 
> >



Just to piss guys like you the hell off.


----------



## DiveCon

NYcarbineer said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> My response to all Birth Certificate questions:
> 
> *Who gives a fuck?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently a lot of people who aren't getting any.
Click to expand...

so wouldnt that be they dont GET a fuck?


----------



## DiveCon

Navy1960 said:


> For many years I heard democrats harp and harp about how Bush lied about his Military Service even though all of his flight school records including pictures were there for all to see. Then there was the Building 7 people , the ones that went around raving about how the building was brought down in a controlled demolition and that somehow that was the evil Bush Administration that had with no one watching planted enough explosives to bring the building down. Of course there is also the Moon landing people too , the ones that claim the US built a Saturn V rocket and and while million of people watched live including this ex-aviator somehow faked the moon landings. Now we have the Obama birth issue, his BC has been released by the state for all to see. *done deal" Let's suppose for a moment that it was a fake, his mother is American. *done deal"
> 
> Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874): The Court stated (pp. 16768):
> The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. *It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.*
> 
> So lets get past this nonsense and move on to something that is really pressing shall we.


 this is it exctly
Bush produced everything he could produce, yet the false claims never stopped

at least the Obama camp learned something from Bush


----------



## Bfgrn

CrusaderFrank said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where there are conspiracy theorists, there's a whole lot of stupid going on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deflection, *argumentum ad hominem* and a piss-poor attempt at that.
> 
> Why doesn't Obama just produce the documentation that is being requested?
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name: Barack Soetoro
> Place of Birth: Coast Provincial Hospital, Mombasa Kenya
> 
> Any questions?
Click to expand...


Yea, how many stories was the fall? Did your head crack the concrete?


----------



## EriktheRed

Missourian said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost 50% of Southerners reject Obama was even born here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Washington Monthly
> 
> And people wonder why some folks think southern style ideology is fucking up the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where is the "Do you wonder why President Obama doesn't just present his birth certificate?" poll?
> 
> I was firmly in the 'Yes' camp until Obama continued to flatly refuse to reveal the evidence the so called birthers are demanding.
> 
> Now I have moved slowly to 'Unsure' as this easily extinguished allegation over the birth certificate is allowed to continue to smolder by Obama and his advisers.
> 
> The longer it smolder, the more people wonder why.
> 
> As the old adage goes...where there's smoke, there's fire.
Click to expand...



He didn't need to reveal anything that hasn't already been revealed. You guys can just go on being like the Diebold conspiracy fanatics after the '04 election. Everybody else is moving on without you.


----------



## EriktheRed

CrusaderFrank said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where there are conspiracy theorists, there's a whole lot of stupid going on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deflection, *argumentum ad hominem* and a piss-poor attempt at that.
> 
> Why doesn't Obama just produce the documentation that is being requested?
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name: Barack Soetoro
> Place of Birth: Coast Provincial Hospital, Mombasa Kenya
> 
> Any questions?
Click to expand...



Yeah, where's the birth certificate from Kenya?


----------



## RadiomanATL

DiveCon said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> My response to all Birth Certificate questions:
> 
> *Who gives a fuck?*
> 
> 
> 
> Another good reason they are called "birthers."
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wouldnt it be more fitting to call em "berfers"
> 
> kinda like the 9/11 truthers are called troofers
> LOL
Click to expand...


I vote for "Birfers". The "e" just changes the word too much.


----------



## DiveCon

EriktheRed said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost 50% of Southerners reject Obama was even born here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Washington Monthly
> 
> And people wonder why some folks think southern style ideology is fucking up the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where is the "Do you wonder why President Obama doesn't just present his birth certificate?" poll?
> 
> I was firmly in the 'Yes' camp until Obama continued to flatly refuse to reveal the evidence the so called birthers are demanding.
> 
> Now I have moved slowly to 'Unsure' as this easily extinguished allegation over the birth certificate is allowed to continue to smolder by Obama and his advisers.
> 
> The longer it smolder, the more people wonder why.
> 
> As the old adage goes...where there's smoke, there's fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't need to reveal anything that hasn't already been revealed. You guys can just go on being like the Diebold conspiracy fanatics after the '04 election. Everybody else is moving on without you.
Click to expand...

you mean you "diebold nutters" gave up?


----------



## Missourian

Navy1960 said:


> For many years I heard democrats harp and harp about how Bush lied about his Military Service even though all of his flight school records including pictures were there for all to see. Then there was the Building 7 people , the ones that went around raving about how the building was brought down in a controlled demolition and that somehow that was the evil Bush Administration that had with no one watching planted enough explosives to bring the building down. Of course there is also the Moon landing people too , the ones that claim the US built a Saturn V rocket and and while million of people watched live including this ex-aviator somehow faked the moon landings. Now we have the Obama birth issue, his BC has been released by the state for all to see. *done deal" *Let's suppose for a moment that it was a fake, his mother is American. *done deal" *
> 
> Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874): The Court stated (pp. 167&#8211;68):
> The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. *It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.*
> 
> So lets get past this nonsense and move on to something that is really pressing shall we.


 
I had heard and read many reasons why Obama would not be a citizen if he was born in Kenya to an American mother and a foreign national father, so I went straight to the source...the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

Here is a link to the relevant section - 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act Title3 Chapter1

Note section 301 (a)(7)

Barack Obama's mother Stanley Ann Dunham would have had to reach the age of 19 before the date of his birth, she was only 18 as thus does not meet the requirement of:
"was physically present in the United States or it's outlying possessions for a period or periods totalling not less than 10 years, *at least five of which were after attaining the age of 14 year*"​Barack Obama was born August 4th, 1961

Stanley Ann Dunham was born on November 29, 1942

18 and three quarters does not meet the threshold for citizenship.



Here is another link to the same document at a different site..please don't take my word for it, read it for yourselves: 
1952 Immigration and Nationality Act Title 3 Chapter 1​


----------



## RadiomanATL

tigerbob said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> i HAVE researched it
> that is why i'm not one to join in with you on your foolish quest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess because I and millions of others aren't willing to deny the facts and you are, that makes me a fool in your eyes. Pretty fucked up but whatever.
> 
> We'll see who the fool turns out to be, and I don't think it's going to be me.
> 
> Just be ready to eat your words, and I'll do the same, because the day of reckoning is coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can it fucking hurry up and get here?
> 
> one way or the other.
Click to expand...


As often as I have asked, no one can give me a date on this one. When is the drop dead date on this when the birfers will STFU and move on? After Obama leaves office in 3 1/2 or 7 1/2 years? The Vince Foster/Clinton Death list loonies didn't shut up until Clinton had left office, and the Cindy Sheehan matzo balls seemed to have shut since Bush has left. Do we really have to put up with years more of this crap? Can we get a hard date from the USMB birfer posters as to when they will consider it a moot point?


----------



## RadiomanATL

Missourian said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost 50% of Southerners reject Obama was even born here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Washington Monthly
> 
> And people wonder why some folks think southern style ideology is fucking up the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where is the "Do you wonder why President Obama doesn't just present his birth certificate?" poll?
> 
> I was firmly in the 'Yes' camp until Obama continued to flatly refuse to reveal the evidence the so called birthers are demanding.
> 
> Now I have moved slowly to 'Unsure' as this easily extinguished allegation over the birth certificate is allowed to continue to smolder by Obama and his advisers.
> 
> The longer it smolder, the more people wonder why.
> 
> As the old adage goes...where there's smoke, there's fire.
Click to expand...


I'll repeat again....


(from another thread)
The lunatic fringe of the Republican party is making the whole Republican party look nuttier than a can of Planters, which lets the Democrats solidify and expand their base. Which by the way also helps the Democrats steamroll their large steaming brown piles of legislation over America.

Kinda like the Cindy-Sheehan-Michael-Moore-type loonies did nothing but marginalize and make Democrats the laughing stock in '04.

OF COURSE Obama wants to keep this one going...


----------



## Missourian

paperview said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> *Why doesn't Obama just produce the documentation that is being requested?*
> 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to piss guys like you the hell off.
Click to expand...

 

Do the spiders make you do it?


----------



## Gudrid

The State of Hawaii has stated he was born there.  I read they went paperless in 2001 - don't know how accurate that is.  But the concept that Hawaii is lying is just plain absurd to me.

Either way, the guy's president.  All the birther-ing is not going to change that, and the concentration on it is simply contributing to the party's "lunatic fringe" reputation.  The obsession with the birth certificate works against the Republican party as whole in my opinion.


----------



## DiveCon

Gudrid said:


> The State of Hawaii has stated he was born there.  I read they went paperless in 2001 - don't know how accurate that is.  But the concept that Hawaii is lying is just plain absurd to me.
> 
> Either way, the guy's president.  All the birther-ing is not going to change that, and the concentration on it is simply contributing to the party's "lunatic fringe" reputation.  The obsession with the birth certificate works against the Republican party as whole in my opinion.


i bet you would find that most of the birfers are not republicans
most seem to be indies to me


----------



## Gudrid

The one's I've encountered have been Republicans.  Whether it's independents or not, it's Republicans who are getting the rap for it, and a few of the politicians aren't really helping much with that.


----------



## paperview

Gudrid said:


> The one's I've encountered have been Republicans.  Whether it's independents or not, it's Republicans who are getting the rap for it, and a few of the politicians aren't really helping much with that.


One thing they almost all have in common: they are conservatives.


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> WHAT this does prove is all those Republicans in the House that are birthers too don't have the guts or character to stand up for their beliefs...



Well, since there are 435 seats in the house and only 378 voted, I'd say you are probably right that there were 57 who didn't have the guts to stand up and say, "I believe there is a conspiracy here".

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

DiveCon said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Hawaii has stated he was born there.  I read they went paperless in 2001 - don't know how accurate that is.  But the concept that Hawaii is lying is just plain absurd to me.
> 
> Either way, the guy's president.  All the birther-ing is not going to change that, and the concentration on it is simply contributing to the party's "lunatic fringe" reputation.  The obsession with the birth certificate works against the Republican party as whole in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> i bet you would find that most of the birfers are not republicans
> most seem to be indies to me
Click to expand...


That is because President Bush caused a tidal wave of conservatives to leave the Republican Party and become Indies.  I must admit to being one of those.

Immie


----------



## Gudrid

Yeah, well, I was Indie when Indie wasn't cool.


----------



## Missourian

This scenerio is not as far fetched as it may seem at first blush.

Stanley Armour Dunham, Ann's father, is a former Servicemen. He enlisted during WWII and served in Europe.

Stanley and Madelyn Dunham move to Honolulu Hawaii, within 3 miles of Pearl Harbor Naval base in 1960.

Ann Dunham was their only child. Barack was their first grandchild.

As a former servicemen, Granddad Dunham likely had some knowledge of the guidelines for citizenship of children born overseas.

Even if he didn't, isn't it at least possible that they shared news of the birth of their first grandchild with friends from the base, and that one of them made the connection "that child won't be a US Citizen". 

What laypersons are more familiar with the laws regarding citizenship than servicemen.

We now know that Obama WOULD NOT BE A U.S. Citizen if he was born in Kenya.

Isn't it at least* possible* that Grandpa and Grandma Dunham, wanting the best for the child, did everything in their power to ensure their grandchild Barack gained US citizenship? 


Link to Stanley Armour Dunham at Wikipedia for your fact checking convenience - Stanley Armour Dunham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Gudrid

He'd still be a US citizen, just not a natural born one.


----------



## Missourian

Gudrid said:


> He'd still be a US citizen, just not a natural born one.


 
Not from my understanding of the law...he would be a citizen of Kenya who would have to immigrate and be naturalized.


----------



## Care4all

Missourian said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> He'd still be a US citizen, just not a natural born one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not from my understanding of the law...he would be a citizen of Kenya who would have to immigrate and be naturalized.
Click to expand...

immigrate from where?  even if he was born in kenya, he never lived there...his parents both were legal residents of the united states, (one a natural born citizen, the other a legal resident of the usa on a legal visa, even if he was born there?

wonder how the law would handle something like that....he would have had no place to ''immigrate'' from, no legal address there, no parents who bore him, residing there....just wondering.....neither parent had legally been living in kenya the previous year, they both were legally in the USA only there on vacation not living there...just not certain how that all really worked?????


care


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> He'd still be a US citizen, just not a natural born one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not from my understanding of the law...he would be a citizen of Kenya who would have to immigrate and be naturalized.
Click to expand...


So where is the record of him being naturalized?


----------



## Missourian

Emma said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> He'd still be a US citizen, just not a natural born one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not from my understanding of the law...he would be a citizen of Kenya who would have to immigrate and be naturalized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is the record of him being naturalized?
Click to expand...

 
"You can't open the book of my life and jump in the middle"
- Captain Malcolm Reynolds​


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not from my understanding of the law...he would be a citizen of Kenya who would have to immigrate and be naturalized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where is the record of him being naturalized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "You can't open the book of my life and jump in the middle"
> - Captain Malcolm Reynolds​
Click to expand...

Sorry. Too vague for me at this hour. 

Where is the record of his naturalization ceremony? Or for that matter his "green card"? Both are public record.

Unless you believe he's an illegal alien who has resided in the US all these many years.


----------



## DiveCon

Emma said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is the record of him being naturalized?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You can't open the book of my life and jump in the middle"
> - Captain Malcolm Reynolds​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry. Too vague for me at this hour.
> 
> Where is the record of his naturalization ceremony? Or for that matter his "green card"? Both are public record.
> 
> Unless you believe he's an illegal alien who has resided in the US all these many years.
Click to expand...

i think he is making a case for fraud
that he didnt have a naturalization, but they faked the BC


i dont agree


----------



## Emma

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You can't open the book of my life and jump in the middle"
> - Captain Malcolm Reynolds​
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. Too vague for me at this hour.
> 
> Where is the record of his naturalization ceremony? Or for that matter his "green card"? Both are public record.
> 
> Unless you believe he's an illegal alien who has resided in the US all these many years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i think he is making a case for fraud
> that he didnt have a naturalization, but they faked the BC
> 
> 
> i dont agree
Click to expand...


"They" being the state of Hawaii?


----------



## DiveCon

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. Too vague for me at this hour.
> 
> Where is the record of his naturalization ceremony? Or for that matter his "green card"? Both are public record.
> 
> Unless you believe he's an illegal alien who has resided in the US all these many years.
> 
> 
> 
> i think he is making a case for fraud
> that he didnt have a naturalization, but they faked the BC
> 
> 
> i dont agree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "They" being the state of Hawaii?
Click to expand...

could be
could also be the parents/grandparents


----------



## Emma

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> i think he is making a case for fraud
> that he didnt have a naturalization, but they faked the BC
> 
> 
> i dont agree
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "They" being the state of Hawaii?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> could be
> could also be the parents/grandparents
Click to expand...


Ah. 

Well, they (state and family) are part of the conspiracy in any case.


----------



## Emma

Ah, ok. I should have read back a bit. 

So Missourian, what do you think his maternal grandparents did to ensure he obtained citizenship ?


----------



## DiveCon

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> "They" being the state of Hawaii?
> 
> 
> 
> could be
> could also be the parents/grandparents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah.
> 
> Well, they (state and family) are part of the conspiracy in any case.
Click to expand...

could also be the nefarious "they"
lol
the nameless group of evil doers that are never named


----------



## Emma

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> could be
> could also be the parents/grandparents
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.
> 
> Well, they (state and family) are part of the conspiracy in any case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> could also be the nefarious "they"
> lol
> the nameless group of evil doers that are never named
Click to expand...


Well, in this case, "they" encompasses such a huge number of people and assorted government agencies, it's simpler just to say "they" and leave it at that.


----------



## DiveCon

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.
> 
> Well, they (state and family) are part of the conspiracy in any case.
> 
> 
> 
> could also be the nefarious "they"
> lol
> the nameless group of evil doers that are never named
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in this case, "they" encompasses such a huge number of people and assorted government agencies, it's simpler just to say "they" and leave it at that.
Click to expand...

YOU were the one asking WHO
LOL


----------



## Missourian

Emma said:


> Ah, ok. I should have read back a bit.
> 
> So Missourian, what do you think his maternal grandparents did to ensure he obtained citizenship ?


 

A possible theory?

How about this one?

Grandma and Grandpa have the couple fly back to Hawaii,  take the baby to the hospital and say they delivered it at home.

It would be as good a reason as any why Obama is fighting so hard not to release the long form.

If it says he was not delivered at a hospital, then he has a real problem.


----------



## Emma

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> could also be the nefarious "they"
> lol
> the nameless group of evil doers that are never named
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in this case, "they" encompasses such a huge number of people and assorted government agencies, it's simpler just to say "they" and leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU were the one asking WHO
> LOL
Click to expand...

It's late, I'm half-asleep. 


Scratch that. 

3/4 asleep....


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, ok. I should have read back a bit.
> 
> So Missourian, what do you think his maternal grandparents did to ensure he obtained citizenship ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A possible theory?
> 
> How about this one?
> 
> Grandma and Grandpa have the couple fly back to Hawaii,  take the baby to the hospital and say they delivered it at home.
> 
> It would be as good a reason as any why Obama is fighting so hard not to release the long form.
> 
> If it says he was not delivered at a hospital, then he has a real problem.
Click to expand...


He was born late in the evening on a Friday. The announcements (which come from the DOH records) were printed in the Sunday paper 9 days later. 

Now back in the day, women weren't sprung after giving birth on the first or second day as they are now. 

And the DOH would have had to release the records by Friday the 11th, in order for their publication on Sunday. 

So that gives us from Saturday the 5th until Friday the 11th for the grandparents to have whisked her back into the country from half a world away. At what point during those seven days do you feel a woman who has _just_ given birth would be capable of flight of that length? Either as a matter of comfort for her, or for her physical safety? (and the safety of the newborn, for that matter)

Now we have the matter of the DOH giving the information out to the papers. 

How quickly do you _really_ think a government bureaucracy can move from the time it obtains the information to verifying it is correct and complete? 

As far as the mom, I don't see her being able to endure that sort of travel before Monday or Tuesday... and that would really be pushing it. 

So (in your scenario) grandparents whisk a now 3 day infant to the hospital to inform them he was born at home. Assuming they believe the story, they would still examine the child, etc., so now we've wasted yet another day. 

So that makes it Wednesday (at the earliest) the hospital notifies the DOH of the birth. 

And in _two days_, the DOH has received the information, verified it and given it their stamp of approval. All in time to beat the deadline on Friday for publication in the newspaper on Sunday morning. 

Yeah. 

That's a likely scenario.


----------



## Missourian

Emma said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, ok. I should have read back a bit.
> 
> So Missourian, what do you think his maternal grandparents did to ensure he obtained citizenship ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A possible theory?
> 
> How about this one?
> 
> Grandma and Grandpa have the couple fly back to Hawaii, take the baby to the hospital and say they delivered it at home.
> 
> It would be as good a reason as any why Obama is fighting so hard not to release the long form.
> 
> If it says he was not delivered at a hospital, then he has a real problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was born late in the evening on a Friday. The announcements (which come from the DOH records) were printed in the Sunday paper 9 days later.
> 
> Now back in the day, women weren't sprung after giving birth on the first or second day as they are now.
> 
> And the DOH would have had to release the records by Friday the 11th, in order for their publication on Sunday.
> 
> So that gives us from Saturday the 5th until Friday the 11th for the grandparents to have whisked her back into the country from half a world away. At what point during those seven days do you feel a woman who has _just_ given birth would be capable of flight of that length? Either as a matter of comfort for her, or for her physical safety? (and the safety of the newborn, for that matter)
> 
> Now we have the matter of the DOH giving the information out to the papers.
> 
> How quickly do you _really_ think a government bureaucracy can move from the time it obtains the information to verifying it is correct and complete?
> 
> As far as the mom, I don't see her being able to endure that sort of travel before Monday or Tuesday... and that would really be pushing it.
> 
> So (in your scenario) grandparents whisk a now 3 day infant to the hospital to inform them he was born at home. Assuming they believe the story, they would still examine the child, etc., so now we've wasted yet another day.
> 
> So that makes it Wednesday (at the earliest) the hospital notifies the DOH of the birth.
> 
> And in _two days_, the DOH has received the information, verified it and given it their stamp of approval. All in time to beat the deadline on Friday for publication in the newspaper on Sunday morning.
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> That's a likely scenario.
Click to expand...

 

You're making a huge assumtion...that Obama was actually born on the fourth of August.

Could you tell a 1 day old baby from a week old baby?

Not a chance.

Could he not have been born the 28th of July for example?

Who would know the difference?


----------



## DiveCon

Missourian said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> A possible theory?
> 
> How about this one?
> 
> Grandma and Grandpa have the couple fly back to Hawaii, take the baby to the hospital and say they delivered it at home.
> 
> It would be as good a reason as any why Obama is fighting so hard not to release the long form.
> 
> If it says he was not delivered at a hospital, then he has a real problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was born late in the evening on a Friday. The announcements (which come from the DOH records) were printed in the Sunday paper 9 days later.
> 
> Now back in the day, women weren't sprung after giving birth on the first or second day as they are now.
> 
> And the DOH would have had to release the records by Friday the 11th, in order for their publication on Sunday.
> 
> So that gives us from Saturday the 5th until Friday the 11th for the grandparents to have whisked her back into the country from half a world away. At what point during those seven days do you feel a woman who has _just_ given birth would be capable of flight of that length? Either as a matter of comfort for her, or for her physical safety? (and the safety of the newborn, for that matter)
> 
> Now we have the matter of the DOH giving the information out to the papers.
> 
> How quickly do you _really_ think a government bureaucracy can move from the time it obtains the information to verifying it is correct and complete?
> 
> As far as the mom, I don't see her being able to endure that sort of travel before Monday or Tuesday... and that would really be pushing it.
> 
> So (in your scenario) grandparents whisk a now 3 day infant to the hospital to inform them he was born at home. Assuming they believe the story, they would still examine the child, etc., so now we've wasted yet another day.
> 
> So that makes it Wednesday (at the earliest) the hospital notifies the DOH of the birth.
> 
> And in _two days_, the DOH has received the information, verified it and given it their stamp of approval. All in time to beat the deadline on Friday for publication in the newspaper on Sunday morning.
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> That's a likely scenario.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a huge assumtion...that Obama was born on the fourth.
> 
> Could you tell a 1 day old baby from a week old baby?
> 
> Not a chance.
> 
> Could he not have been born the 28th of July for example?
> 
> Who would know the difference?
Click to expand...

i bet a doctor could
there would be scars involved

like from cutting the cord


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> You're making a huge assumtion...that Obama was actually born on the fourth of August.
> 
> *Could you tell a 1 day old baby from a week old baby?*
> 
> Not a chance.
> 
> Could he not have been born the 28th of July for example?
> 
> Who would know the difference?



Yes, I could tell the difference... and that's not even my specialty.


----------



## Missourian

DiveCon said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was born late in the evening on a Friday. The announcements (which come from the DOH records) were printed in the Sunday paper 9 days later.
> 
> Now back in the day, women weren't sprung after giving birth on the first or second day as they are now.
> 
> And the DOH would have had to release the records by Friday the 11th, in order for their publication on Sunday.
> 
> So that gives us from Saturday the 5th until Friday the 11th for the grandparents to have whisked her back into the country from half a world away. At what point during those seven days do you feel a woman who has _just_ given birth would be capable of flight of that length? Either as a matter of comfort for her, or for her physical safety? (and the safety of the newborn, for that matter)
> 
> Now we have the matter of the DOH giving the information out to the papers.
> 
> How quickly do you _really_ think a government bureaucracy can move from the time it obtains the information to verifying it is correct and complete?
> 
> As far as the mom, I don't see her being able to endure that sort of travel before Monday or Tuesday... and that would really be pushing it.
> 
> So (in your scenario) grandparents whisk a now 3 day infant to the hospital to inform them he was born at home. Assuming they believe the story, they would still examine the child, etc., so now we've wasted yet another day.
> 
> So that makes it Wednesday (at the earliest) the hospital notifies the DOH of the birth.
> 
> And in _two days_, the DOH has received the information, verified it and given it their stamp of approval. All in time to beat the deadline on Friday for publication in the newspaper on Sunday morning.
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> That's a likely scenario.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a huge assumtion...that Obama was born on the fourth.
> 
> Could you tell a 1 day old baby from a week old baby?
> 
> Not a chance.
> 
> Could he not have been born the 28th of July for example?
> 
> Who would know the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i bet a doctor could
> there would be scars involved
> 
> like from cutting the cord
Click to expand...

 
Doubtful...it wouldn't be a scar yet, just a scab.

And I doubt a doctor would be scrutinizing too closely or be in any way suspicious, just routine birth exam to an American mother...10 fingers, 10 toes,  yada, yada, yada.


----------



## Missourian

Emma said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a huge assumtion...that Obama was actually born on the fourth of August.
> 
> *Could you tell a 1 day old baby from a week old baby?*
> 
> Not a chance.
> 
> Could he not have been born the 28th of July for example?
> 
> Who would know the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I could tell the difference... and that's not even my specialty.
Click to expand...

 
How?


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> Doubtful...it wouldn't be a scar yet, just a scab.
> 
> And I doubt a doctor would be scrutinizing too closely or be in any way suspicious, just routine birth exam to an American mother...10 fingers, 10 toes,  yada, yada, yada.



LOL

No, it wouldn't be a "scab". 

A pediatrician would most certainly notice the age of the cord stump. And the presence of (or rather lack of) meconium. Just to name a couple of clues they _would_ pick up on if the child were older than stated.


----------



## KittenKoder

Missourian said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a huge assumtion...that Obama was born on the fourth.
> 
> Could you tell a 1 day old baby from a week old baby?
> 
> Not a chance.
> 
> Could he not have been born the 28th of July for example?
> 
> Who would know the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> i bet a doctor could
> there would be scars involved
> 
> like from cutting the cord
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doubtful...it wouldn't be a scar yet, just a scab.
> 
> And I doubt a doctor would be scrutinizing too closely or be in any way suspicious, just routine birth exam to an American mother...10 fingers, 10 toes,  yada, yada, yada.
Click to expand...


Wow ... just wow ... two people pointed out that it's possible, I know it's not only possible but extremely easy, a day old wound looks a lot different from a week old wound, and you are talking about an umbilical cord to, which looks very different a week later. Not to mention that there is a lot of "straightening" of bones during the first few days, the most happens in the first day, the skull isn't even "normal" for the first day, and it's easy to spot. Just ... wow, that you would know so little about human infants.


----------



## Emma

And let's not forget Mom, either. If the grandparents are so caring that they'd risk breaking the law to make sure their grandson was made a citizen at birth, you know they got their daughter a postpartum exam. Especially since she gave birth in a third-world country. 


And yeah. I can tell the difference there, too


----------



## Emma

KittenKoder said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> i bet a doctor could
> there would be scars involved
> 
> like from cutting the cord
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doubtful...it wouldn't be a scar yet, just a scab.
> 
> And I doubt a doctor would be scrutinizing too closely or be in any way suspicious, just routine birth exam to an American mother...10 fingers, 10 toes,  yada, yada, yada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow ... just wow ... two people pointed out that it's possible, I know it's not only possible but extremely easy, a day old wound looks a lot different from a week old wound, and you are talking about an umbilical cord to, which looks very different a week later. Not to mention that there is a lot of "straightening" of bones during the first few days, the most happens in the first day, the skull isn't even "normal" for the first day, and it's easy to spot. Just ... wow, that you would know so little about human infants.
Click to expand...


Their appearance, the cord stump, their stools, their shape, their behaviour... a doctor would have spotted a lie about the child's age in a heartbeat.


----------



## DiveCon

Emma said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doubtful...it wouldn't be a scar yet, just a scab.
> 
> And I doubt a doctor would be scrutinizing too closely or be in any way suspicious, just routine birth exam to an American mother...10 fingers, 10 toes,  yada, yada, yada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, it wouldn't be a "scab".
> 
> A pediatrician would most certainly notice the age of the cord stump. And the presence of (or rather lack of) meconium. Just to name a couple of clues they _would_ pick up on if the child were older than stated.
Click to expand...

and doesnt the babies skin coloring somewhat change after the first day as well?
it would set off all kinds of red flags if someone brought a 3 day old into the hospital and claimed it had just been born at home


at least it SHOULD


----------



## KittenKoder

Emma said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doubtful...it wouldn't be a scar yet, just a scab.
> 
> And I doubt a doctor would be scrutinizing too closely or be in any way suspicious, just routine birth exam to an American mother...10 fingers, 10 toes,  yada, yada, yada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow ... just wow ... two people pointed out that it's possible, I know it's not only possible but extremely easy, a day old wound looks a lot different from a week old wound, and you are talking about an umbilical cord to, which looks very different a week later. Not to mention that there is a lot of "straightening" of bones during the first few days, the most happens in the first day, the skull isn't even "normal" for the first day, and it's easy to spot. Just ... wow, that you would know so little about human infants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their appearance, the cord stump, their stools, their shape, their behaviour... a doctor would have spotted a lie about the child's age in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...


According to pediatricians, the greatest amount of development happens within the first two weeks, if I remember correctly. Which means a lot of changes, and many are physical. I just can't believe that someone thinks there is not enough of a difference between a day old infant and a week old infant. I wonder if they know what color they are when they are born. It's just annoying that people know so little about their own species.


----------



## DiveCon

KittenKoder said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow ... just wow ... two people pointed out that it's possible, I know it's not only possible but extremely easy, a day old wound looks a lot different from a week old wound, and you are talking about an umbilical cord to, which looks very different a week later. Not to mention that there is a lot of "straightening" of bones during the first few days, the most happens in the first day, the skull isn't even "normal" for the first day, and it's easy to spot. Just ... wow, that you would know so little about human infants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their appearance, the cord stump, their stools, their shape, their behaviour... a doctor would have spotted a lie about the child's age in a heartbeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to pediatricians, the greatest amount of development happens within the first two weeks, if I remember correctly. Which means a lot of changes, and many are physical. I just can't believe that someone thinks there is not enough of a difference between a day old infant and a week old infant. I wonder if they know what color they are when they are born. It's just annoying that people know so little about their own species.
Click to expand...

gotta wonder if hes ever seen a baby being born


----------



## Emma

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doubtful...it wouldn't be a scar yet, just a scab.
> 
> And I doubt a doctor would be scrutinizing too closely or be in any way suspicious, just routine birth exam to an American mother...10 fingers, 10 toes,  yada, yada, yada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, it wouldn't be a "scab".
> 
> A pediatrician would most certainly notice the age of the cord stump. And the presence of (or rather lack of) meconium. Just to name a couple of clues they _would_ pick up on if the child were older than stated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and doesnt the babies skin coloring somewhat change after the first day as well?
> it would set off all kinds of red flags if someone brought a 3 day old into the hospital and claimed it had just been born at home
> 
> 
> at least it SHOULD
Click to expand...


Yes, of course. And more so if they brought in an even older child and claimed it was younger. 

In the first day or two acrocyanosis (bluish color of hands and feet) is expected/normal.


----------



## KittenKoder

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doubtful...it wouldn't be a scar yet, just a scab.
> 
> And I doubt a doctor would be scrutinizing too closely or be in any way suspicious, just routine birth exam to an American mother...10 fingers, 10 toes,  yada, yada, yada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, it wouldn't be a "scab".
> 
> A pediatrician would most certainly notice the age of the cord stump. And the presence of (or rather lack of) meconium. Just to name a couple of clues they _would_ pick up on if the child were older than stated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and doesnt the babies skin coloring somewhat change after the first day as well?
> it would set off all kinds of red flags if someone brought a 3 day old into the hospital and claimed it had just been born at home
> 
> 
> at least it SHOULD
Click to expand...


A few color changes in the first day, the first hour they are blue fading to purple then red, then to pink eventually, as the blood finally begins to absorb oxygen on it's own. I don't think "black" babies are black until several hours after, skin pigmentation doesn't usually happen until fully oxygenated. It's like that for all mammals really, though smaller ones go through it much faster (like kittens and puppies, of which I have a ton of experience) though most species fur covers it and you don't notice unless the mother trusts you enough to actually pick them up. Human muscular movements are extremely erratic the first day, almost no control, but after a couple of days they start moving more like they are in little more control. Also the eyes are closed, I think for the first couple of days, a commonality in live births of all species. There are just so many changes that happen which are easy to spot.


----------



## Emma

KittenKoder said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow ... just wow ... two people pointed out that it's possible, I know it's not only possible but extremely easy, a day old wound looks a lot different from a week old wound, and you are talking about an umbilical cord to, which looks very different a week later. Not to mention that there is a lot of "straightening" of bones during the first few days, the most happens in the first day, the skull isn't even "normal" for the first day, and it's easy to spot. Just ... wow, that you would know so little about human infants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their appearance, the cord stump, their stools, their shape, their behaviour... a doctor would have spotted a lie about the child's age in a heartbeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to pediatricians, the greatest amount of development happens within the first two weeks, if I remember correctly. Which means a lot of changes, and many are physical. I just can't believe that someone thinks there is not enough of a difference between a day old infant and a week old infant. I wonder if they know what color they are when they are born. It's just annoying that people know so little about their own species.
Click to expand...

Well, I posted why his scenario would be unlikely. He countered with the baby being born earlier than August 4th. Which makes it even MORE unlikely, because there are significant changes in that period of time.


----------



## Missourian

Emma said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doubtful...it wouldn't be a scar yet, just a scab.
> 
> And I doubt a doctor would be scrutinizing too closely or be in any way suspicious, just routine birth exam to an American mother...10 fingers, 10 toes, yada, yada, yada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, it wouldn't be a "scab".
> 
> A pediatrician would most certainly notice the age of the cord stump. And the presence of (or rather lack of) meconium. Just to name a couple of clues they _would_ pick up on if the child were older than stated.
Click to expand...

 
Would it be that obvious?

My wife said the little ones cord took 3 weeks to dry up and fall off.

And as to meconium,  Wikipedia says "Meconium is normally stored in the infant's intestines until after birth, but *sometimes it is expelled into the amniotic fluid prior to birth or during **labor and delivery*."


----------



## Missourian

DiveCon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their appearance, the cord stump, their stools, their shape, their behaviour... a doctor would have spotted a lie about the child's age in a heartbeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to pediatricians, the greatest amount of development happens within the first two weeks, if I remember correctly. Which means a lot of changes, and many are physical. I just can't believe that someone thinks there is not enough of a difference between a day old infant and a week old infant. I wonder if they know what color they are when they are born. It's just annoying that people know so little about their own species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gotta wonder if hes ever seen a baby being born
Click to expand...

 
No I haven't...I was deployed.


----------



## Emma

DiveCon said:


> gotta wonder if hes ever seen a baby being born



Brand-new newborns (especially vaginal delivery) are swollen, lizardy looking things LOL. If only based upon that, I could tell a 1 day old from a 1 week old.


----------



## KittenKoder

Missourian said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doubtful...it wouldn't be a scar yet, just a scab.
> 
> And I doubt a doctor would be scrutinizing too closely or be in any way suspicious, just routine birth exam to an American mother...10 fingers, 10 toes, yada, yada, yada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, it wouldn't be a "scab".
> 
> A pediatrician would most certainly notice the age of the cord stump. And the presence of (or rather lack of) meconium. Just to name a couple of clues they _would_ pick up on if the child were older than stated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be that obvious?
> 
> My wife said the little ones cord took 3 weeks to dry up and fall off.
> 
> And as to meconium,  Wikipedia says "Meconium is normally stored in the infant's intestines until after birth, but *sometimes it is expelled into the amniotic fluid prior to birth or during **labor and delivery*."
Click to expand...


First, Wicrapedia is *not* a reliable source for much more than opinion pieces, even if you had typed the link in correctly. Secondly that has no bearing on what we already pointed out ... so what's your point? You proved nothing. The reason this debate is just so stupid is because of idiotic claims like "he could have been older" ... it's making you sound like ... Terral and Eots denying the moon landing.


----------



## Missourian

KittenKoder said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, it wouldn't be a "scab".
> 
> A pediatrician would most certainly notice the age of the cord stump. And the presence of (or rather lack of) meconium. Just to name a couple of clues they _would_ pick up on if the child were older than stated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be that obvious?
> 
> My wife said the little ones cord took 3 weeks to dry up and fall off.
> 
> And as to meconium, Wikipedia says "Meconium is normally stored in the infant's intestines until after birth, but *sometimes it is expelled into the amniotic fluid prior to birth or during **labor and delivery*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, Wicrapedia is *not* a reliable source for much more than opinion pieces, even if you had typed the link in correctly. Secondly that has no bearing on what we already pointed out ... so what's your point? You proved nothing. The reason this debate is just so stupid is because of idiotic claims like "he could have been older" ... it's making you sound like ... Terral and Eots denying the moon landing.
Click to expand...

 

Give me a break KK...we can't all be blessed with knowing everything like you.


----------



## KittenKoder

Missourian said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be that obvious?
> 
> My wife said the little ones cord took 3 weeks to dry up and fall off.
> 
> And as to meconium, Wikipedia says "Meconium is normally stored in the infant's intestines until after birth, but *sometimes it is expelled into the amniotic fluid prior to birth or during **labor and delivery*."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, Wicrapedia is *not* a reliable source for much more than opinion pieces, even if you had typed the link in correctly. Secondly that has no bearing on what we already pointed out ... so what's your point? You proved nothing. The reason this debate is just so stupid is because of idiotic claims like "he could have been older" ... it's making you sound like ... Terral and Eots denying the moon landing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break KK...we can't all be blessed with knowing everything like you.
Click to expand...


Funny, never claimed to know "everything" ... just common knowledge ... which is what this should be. Unless you are not human, you should know how your biology works at least a little bit. Seriously ... no wonder the doctors can scam people out of fortunes so easily.


----------



## Missourian

I've had enough for tonight...I'll get back with you after some sleep.


----------



## KittenKoder

Missourian said:


> I've had enough for tonight...I'll get back with you after some sleep.



Read a book to, Junior High Biology, please.


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doubtful...it wouldn't be a scar yet, just a scab.
> 
> And I doubt a doctor would be scrutinizing too closely or be in any way suspicious, just routine birth exam to an American mother...10 fingers, 10 toes, yada, yada, yada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, it wouldn't be a "scab".
> 
> A pediatrician would most certainly notice the age of the cord stump. And the presence of (or rather lack of) meconium. Just to name a couple of clues they _would_ pick up on if the child were older than stated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be that obvious?
> 
> My wife said the little ones cord took 3 weeks to dry up and fall off.
> 
> And as to meconium,  Wikipedia says "Meconium is normally stored in the infant's intestines until after birth, but *sometimes it is expelled into the amniotic fluid prior to birth or during **labor and delivery*."
Click to expand...

The cord does take a couple to three weeks to fall of completely, but it changes appearance over that time. There is a big difference in the appearance of the cord on a 1 day old versus a 1 week (or older) child. And a doc would certainly pick up on that (the cord exam is a routine part of the exam for any newborn). 

Meconium is normally expelled in the first 2-3 days, and the stools start to change over to yellow after the child starts taking milk. It isn't usually normal for the fetus to expel meconium in utero at birth... that can mean they are in distress. Big time. The baby passing meconium like this prior to birth is NOT a normal situation. It can be an obstetrical emergency. 

meconium stained fluid - Google Search

Not only could they be in distress and at risk during labor and at birth, but afterward they are at high risk of respiratory complications (from 'breathing' in the contaminated fluid). 

With my youngest, I went into a sudden hard contraction; there was no build up in the strength as is normal---it was literally off the graph and didn't stop. The L&D nurse saved both our lives; she noticed the tonic contraction and the stained fluid and got the doc in immediately for an emergency c-section. I'd had an abruption, where the placenta separates from the wall of the uterus. I was hemorrhaging and my daughter was dying. She ended up in NICU for about a week. 

The point of this (sorry to go on) is that if he'd passed meconium prior to birth, he'd have been a sick kid. And there would have been more to come out regardless after the birth.


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to pediatricians, the greatest amount of development happens within the first two weeks, if I remember correctly. Which means a lot of changes, and many are physical. I just can't believe that someone thinks there is not enough of a difference between a day old infant and a week old infant. I wonder if they know what color they are when they are born. It's just annoying that people know so little about their own species.
> 
> 
> 
> gotta wonder if hes ever seen a baby being born
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I haven't...I was deployed.
Click to expand...


God bless you. That had to have been hard for you. 

I realize if you have not been around a new newborn and watched the changes that occur in the first hours and days and weeks, it's hard to imagine. There are changes, and I don't agree that it's necessarily common knowledge. I know from my schooling (nurse) and being a Mom. I do know for a fact that a doctor would pick up on these inconsistencies.


----------



## Emma

The bottom line is I believe that scenario to be very implausible, either as a less-than-week old and especially as an older baby. I just don't see how they could have pulled it off.


----------



## EriktheRed

DiveCon said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is the "Do you wonder why President Obama doesn't just present his birth certificate?" poll?
> 
> I was firmly in the 'Yes' camp until Obama continued to flatly refuse to reveal the evidence the so called birthers are demanding.
> 
> Now I have moved slowly to 'Unsure' as this easily extinguished allegation over the birth certificate is allowed to continue to smolder by Obama and his advisers.
> 
> The longer it smolder, the more people wonder why.
> 
> As the old adage goes...where there's smoke, there's fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't need to reveal anything that hasn't already been revealed. You guys can just go on being like the Diebold conspiracy fanatics after the '04 election. Everybody else is moving on without you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean you "diebold nutters" gave up?
Click to expand...


Whattya mean "*you* diebold nutters"? I was never one of them. Some are still out there, though; they still keep clinging to it.


----------



## tigerbob

Care4all said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> He'd still be a US citizen, just not a natural born one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not from my understanding of the law...he would be a citizen of Kenya who would have to immigrate and be naturalized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> immigrate from where?  even if he was born in kenya, he never lived there...his parents both were legal residents of the united states, (one a natural born citizen, the other a legal resident of the usa on a legal visa, even if he was born there?
> 
> wonder how the law would handle something like that....he would have had no place to ''immigrate'' from, no legal address there, no parents who bore him, residing there....just wondering.....neither parent had legally been living in kenya the previous year, they both were legally in the USA only there on vacation not living there...just not certain how that all really worked?????
> 
> 
> care
Click to expand...


Correct.  My son is a U.S. citizen despite being born in Britain.


----------



## Old Rocks

There is really one big illogical point here. Who in the hell would go to all this trouble to establish the citizenship of a baby just born? So they knew at his birth that President Obama was going to have the smarts to earn the Presidency of the United States? 

And, as pointed out by anyone with even a little bit of smarts, it didn't matter where he was born, his mother was a US citizen, and that automatically makes him one.


----------



## bodecea

Emma said:


> Sweet
> 
> This was hilarious, too:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty-five percent of my people believe the Pentagon and Rumsfeld were responsible for taking the twin towers down, said Rep. Collin Peterson, a Democrat who represents a conservative Republican district in Minnesota. Thats why I dont do town meetings.
Click to expand...


I'm sure that percentage goes up the lower the latitude.


----------



## Missourian

Emma said:


> The bottom line is I believe that scenario to be very implausible, either as a less-than-week old and especially as an older baby. I just don't see how they could have pulled it off.


 
Yeah, after our discussion this morning,  I'm with ya.

If there was a medical exam...and I don't know what the protocol was in 1961 Hawaii for at home births...the flight home/older baby scenario is implausible. 

Do you recall where you saw the DOH timeline info?

Appreciated the helpful info   I owe ya some rep.


----------



## bodecea

DavidS said:


> Lycurgus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another new low Obama has taken us to. It is never ending!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! It's absolutely deplorable that Obama forced the House of Representatives, EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, to force them to pass a resolution stating Obama's native birth. Horrible president!!!
Click to expand...


Should be an entire chapter in the Birther Conspiracy Lexicon, don't you think?


----------



## Missourian

Old Rocks said:


> There is really one big illogical point here. Who in the hell would go to all this trouble to establish the citizenship of a baby just born? So they knew at his birth that President Obama was going to have the smarts to earn the Presidency of the United States?
> 
> And, as pointed out by anyone with even a little bit of smarts,* it didn't matter where he was born*, his mother was a US citizen, and that automatically makes him one.


 
In 1961 it mattered.

As I pointed out earlier...*if he was born in Kenya (or anywhere outside the U.S. or it's possession) he would NOT be a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth.*



I understand why people believe all children born to American citizens are automatically American citizens...it is a commonly held misconception (one that I also held until recently)...but as the old saying goes...

...the devil is in the details.



Missourian said:


> I have heard and read many reasons why Obama would not be a citizen if he was born in Kenya to an American mother and a foreign national father, so I went straight to the source...the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
> 
> Here is a link to the relevant section - 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act Title3 Chapter1
> 
> Note section 301 (a)(7)
> 
> Barack Obama's mother Stanley Ann Dunham would have had to reach the age of 19 before the date of his birth, she was only 18 as thus does not meet the requirement of:
> "was physically present in the United States or it's outlying possessions for a period or periods totalling not less than 10 years, *at least five of which were after attaining the age of 14 year*"​Barack Obama was born August 4th, 1961
> 
> Stanley Ann Dunham was born on November 29, 1942
> 
> 18 and three quarters does not meet the threshold for citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another link to the same document at a different site..please don't take my word for it, read it for yourselves:
> 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act Title 3 Chapter 1​


 
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ama-makes-all-the-difference.html#post1384713


----------



## Navy1960

*There is an asymmetry in the way children born overseas to unmarried parents, only one of whom is a U.S. citizen, are treated. Children born abroad to unmarried American mothers are automatically considered natural-born citizens*, as long as the mother has lived in the US for a continuous period of at least one year, anytime prior to the birth. But children born to American fathers unmarried to the children's non-American mothers are not considered natural-born citizens (or citizens at all) unless the father takes several actions:

Provide financial support to the child until he reaches 18, 
Establish paternity by clear and convincing blood evidence, 
Acknowledge his paternity formally before the child has reached his 18th birthday 
This last element can be shown by acknowledging paternity under oath and in writing; having the issue adjudicated by a court; or having the child otherwise "legitimated" by law. USC § 1409(a). 


In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who

is born in the United States 
of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power 
whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States 
whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject 
becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Although any language in Wong Kim Ark that suggests the Court's opinion and rationale could be expanded to include the children of illegal immigrants would be mere dicta as Wong's parents were in the country legally.[24] Children born to foreign diplomats or, hypothetically, to hostile enemy forces or born on U.S. territory while it is under the control of a foreign power, are not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore are not citizens at birth.[25] The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[26]

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[27] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[24] When accorded automatic birthright citizenship based on birth on American soil, a newborn's status is generally unaffected by the legal status or citizenship of that individual's mother or father



Doesn't matter where he was born , let's look at this  issue  with a little logic.  A. The state of Hawaii has certified that he was born in Hawaii, so that in and of itself by law is enough to make the issue mute. B. His mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth and regardless of where he was born the courts have determined that any child born of an American citizen is by the tenants of the 14th Amendment a citizen. So while I understand the passion behind the issue and can fully understand the frustration of those that cannot  understand  why Barack Obama has not released his BC in the end  this issue is  a mute point and there are  more pressing issues that IMO that should be debated as to merits of this presidents abilites.


----------



## Care4all

Missourian said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is really one big illogical point here. Who in the hell would go to all this trouble to establish the citizenship of a baby just born? So they knew at his birth that President Obama was going to have the smarts to earn the Presidency of the United States?
> 
> And, as pointed out by anyone with even a little bit of smarts,* it didn't matter where he was born*, his mother was a US citizen, and that automatically makes him one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961 it mattered.
> 
> As I pointed out earlier...*if he was born in Kenya (or anywhere outside the U.S. or it's possession) he would NOT be a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth.*
> 
> 
> 
> I understand why people believe all children born to American citizens are automatically American citizens...it is a commonly held misconception (one that I also held until recently)...but as the old saying goes...
> 
> ...the devil is in the details.
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard and read many reasons why Obama would not be a citizen if he was born in Kenya to an American mother and a foreign national father, so I went straight to the source...the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
> 
> Here is a link to the relevant section - 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act Title3 Chapter1
> 
> Note section 301 (a)(7)
> 
> Barack Obama's mother Stanley Ann Dunham would have had to reach the age of 19 before the date of his birth, she was only 18 as thus does not meet the requirement of:
> "was physically present in the United States or it's outlying possessions for a period or periods totalling not less than 10 years, *at least five of which were after attaining the age of 14 year*"​Barack Obama was born August 4th, 1961
> 
> Stanley Ann Dunham was born on November 29, 1942
> 
> 18 and three quarters does not meet the threshold for citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another link to the same document at a different site..please don't take my word for it, read it for yourselves:
> 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act Title 3 Chapter 1​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ama-makes-all-the-difference.html#post1384713
Click to expand...


And since that was the law back in 1961, then beyond a reasonable doubt, the State of Hawaii would NOT have ever issued Obama a birth certificate, saying that he was born in honolulu, hawaii at 7:45 pm on august 4th, 1961.

Unless you believe the State of Hawaii broke the law, for Obama when he was born?

You realize that when Mccain was born, the law was that he was NOT a citizen of the united states at birth....it wasn't until a year later that congress passed a law saying those born in the panama canal zone to American citizen parents, were citizens at birth?

btw these laws you have writen have case law that may one up it...law judged in the courts, which trumps legislative laws, on constitutional grounds....

in other words we can not just merely state how the law was writen but how the courts have interpreted it, in order to get the full meaning...  Navy made an attempt at such...

Care


----------



## Care4all

Does Kenyan law state that if you are born on their soil you are automatically a Kenyan citizen, back in 1961?

Does usa law state that if both parents of the child born overseas live in the united states, (one a natural born citizen who lived in the united states her entire life, including the time of birth, and the other a legal immigrant residing in the united states for 2 years already), but born overseas when their parents are on vacation, that this child being born while on vacation has to go through the same process as an American citizen LIVING ABROAD on foreign soil?

I mean as mentioned earlier....how do you naturalize him in to the system if there is no where to naturalize him from, because BOTH his parents were residents of the united states when he was born?

I am CERTAIN there is more to this law than meets the eye....and it is in regards to Americans LIVING ABROAD when they have their kids....

it is hard to believe it is in regards to Americans that just happen to be on vacation and plop their kid out on foreign soil, who do not live there?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Missourian said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name: Barack Soetoro
> Place of Birth: Coast Provincial Hospital, Mombasa Kenya
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> When do they serve the next round of medications for you at "the home"
> 
> and do the nurses there really call you Mr. Slurpypants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about less ad hominem deflection and more answering the simple question:
> 
> *Why doesn't Obama just produce the documentation that is being requested?*
> 
> >
> >
> >
Click to expand...


Because nothing will satisfy the birthers at this point.  This is in 'staged moon landing' territory now.  Treating the birthers like sane, rational people at this point falls into the category of enabling.


----------



## Navy1960

§ 1409. Children born out of wedlock
How Current is This?(a) The provisions of paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (g) of section 1401 of this title, and of paragraph (2) of section 1408 of this title, shall apply as of the date of birth to a person born out of wedlock if&#8212; 
(1) a blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence, 
(2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the person&#8217;s birth, 
(3) the father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the person reaches the age of 18 years, and 
(4) while the person is under the age of 18 years&#8212; 
(A) the person is legitimated under the law of the person&#8217;s residence or domicile, 
(B) the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or 
(C) the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court. 
(b) Except as otherwise provided in section 405 of this Act, the provisions of section 1401 (g) of this title shall apply to a child born out of wedlock on or after January 13, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, as of the date of birth, if the paternity of such child is established at any time while such child is under the age of twenty-one years by legitimation. 
*(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person&#8217;s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year. *


----------



## Navy1960

§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
How Current is This?(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality&#8212; 
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or 
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having *attained the age of eighteen years*; or 
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if 
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or 
(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or 

enough said.... this issue  should be left  in the drawer for more important ones.


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is I believe that scenario to be very implausible, either as a less-than-week old and especially as an older baby. I just don't see how they could have pulled it off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, after our discussion this morning,  I'm with ya.
> 
> If there was a medical exam...and I don't know what the protocol was in 1961 Hawaii for at home births...the flight home/older baby scenario is implausible.
> 
> Do you recall where you saw the DOH timeline info?
> 
> Appreciated the helpful info   I owe ya some rep.
Click to expand...


No need  but thanks. I googled the announcement to see when it had been placed. I checked a bunch of links to be sure. They all said Sunday the 13th.


----------



## Missourian

NYcarbineer said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> When do they serve the next round of medications for you at "the home"
> 
> and do the nurses there really call you Mr. Slurpypants?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about less ad hominem deflection and more answering the simple question:
> 
> *Why doesn't Obama just produce the documentation that is being requested?*
> 
> >
> >
> >
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because nothing will satisfy the birthers at this point. This is in 'staged moon landing' territory now. Treating the birthers like sane, rational people at this point falls into the category of enabling.
Click to expand...

 

You realize the catch 22 involve here don't you.

I'm a relatively sane, middle of the road kinda guy. I've been around here for a year this month and I don't think the people who know me think I'm too far out in left field (or should I say right field?).

And Obama's stonewalling *created* my skepticism.

If he had released the birth certificate long form I would have been just like the rest of you. "Ho-hum, another conspiracy theory bites the dust."

But that hasn't happen? Why?

It is a legitimate question. 

I'm not insisting 9/11 was an inside job or convinced that the moon landing was faked, posting thread after thread to *convince you* that I'm right and you are wrong.

I'm asking why.



Is that now an indicator of one mental stability?

If so, we'll need another 700 billion dollar stimulus just to build asylums for everyone.


PS - I haven't received a single logical response to my question.

Why doesn't Obama just release the documentation requested instead of actively working to prevent it's release?


----------



## Emma

Care4all said:


> And since that was the law back in 1961, then beyond a reasonable doubt, the State of Hawaii would NOT have ever issued Obama a birth certificate, saying that he was born in honolulu, hawaii at 7:45 pm on august 4th, 1961.
> 
> Unless you believe the State of Hawaii broke the law, for Obama when he was born?



I've seen it claimed that what Obama produced was actually an _amended_ BC, but that doesn't wash either. 

Hawai&lsquo;i State Department of Health (describes who is eligible for an amended certificate)

And it would be obvious the certificate had been amended: 



> An original entry on a birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate may be amended by either the private request of an individual or an order of a court of competent jurisdiction. An amendment includes changes, corrections, additions, deletions, or substitutions...
> 
> *When information originally entered on a certificate is amended:, 1) a line is drawn through the incorrect entry and the correct data is inserted, 2) what information was amended and on what authority, the date of the action and the initials of the reviewer are entered on the certificate, and 3) the notation "altered" is written or stamped on the certificate.*


Hawai&lsquo;i State Department of Health


----------



## RadiomanATL

Missourian said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about less ad hominem deflection and more answering the simple question:
> 
> *Why doesn't Obama just produce the documentation that is being requested?*
> 
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because nothing will satisfy the birthers at this point. This is in 'staged moon landing' territory now. Treating the birthers like sane, rational people at this point falls into the category of enabling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You realize the catch 22 involve here don't you.
> 
> I'm a reletively sane, middle of the road kinda guy.  I've been around here for a year this month and I don't think the people who know me think I'm too far out in left field.
> 
> And Obama's stonewalling *created* my skeptisism.
> 
> If he had released the birth certificate long form I would have been just like the rest of you.  "Ho-hum,  another conspiracy theory bites the dust."
> 
> But that hasn't happen?  Why?
> 
> It is a legitamate question.  I'm not insisting 9/11 was an inside job or convinced that the moon landing was faked, posting thread after thread to *convince you* that I'm right and you are wrong.
> 
> I'm asking why.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that now an indicator of one mental stability?
> 
> If so,  we'll need a 700 billion dollar stimulus just to asylums.
Click to expand...


Because letting the conservative nutcases stew about this in the media and on the internet only helps him, not hurts him.

If he came out with conclusive proof that would satisfy these people, they would still be against him. But now they may have moved on to a more credible issue that is actually grounded in reality. Thus robbing Obama of the opportunity to make his opponents look like 'tards.

First rule in politics: Never waste an opportunity to make your opponents look like they rode the short bus. Which is what the birfers are doing to those of us who oppose Obama's policies. Which pisses me off even more against them.


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about less ad hominem deflection and more answering the simple question:
> 
> *Why doesn't Obama just produce the documentation that is being requested?*
> 
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because nothing will satisfy the birthers at this point. This is in 'staged moon landing' territory now. Treating the birthers like sane, rational people at this point falls into the category of enabling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You realize the catch 22 involve here don't you.
> 
> I'm a relatively sane, middle of the road kinda guy. I've been around here for a year this month and I don't think the people who know me think I'm too far out in left field.
> 
> And Obama's stonewalling *created* my skepticism.
> 
> If he had released the birth certificate long form I would have been just like the rest of you. "Ho-hum, another conspiracy theory bites the dust."
> 
> But that hasn't happen? Why?
> 
> It is a legitimate question.
> 
> I'm not insisting 9/11 was an inside job or convinced that the moon landing was faked, posting thread after thread to *convince you* that I'm right and you are wrong.
> 
> I'm asking why.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that now an indicator of one mental stability?
> 
> If so, we'll need another 700 billion dollar stimulus just to build asylums for everyone.
Click to expand...

Well as someone who has followed this peripherally since the beginning, every time a charge has been answered or refuted, it's used as "proof" that the conspiracy is even deeper and more convoluted than they expected. There really IS no satisfying them. It just keeps feeding upon itself. 

As far as the "long form", the BC that Obama produced (COLB) is the _only_ type Hawaii issues when a request is made for a birth certificate.


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> If he had released the birth certificate long form I would have been just like the rest of you. "Ho-hum, another conspiracy theory bites the dust."
> 
> But that hasn't happen? Why?



The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individuals birth.  The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a persons birth.  *Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.*


Applying for Hawaiian Home Lands &mdash; Department of Hawaiian Home Lands

(what I referenced in my above post)


----------



## Missourian

Care4all said:


> Does Kenyan law state that if you are born on their soil you are automatically a Kenyan citizen, back in 1961?
> 
> Does usa law state that if both parents of the child born overseas live in the united states, (one a natural born citizen who lived in the united states her entire life, including the time of birth, and the other a legal immigrant residing in the united states for 2 years already), but born overseas when their parents are on vacation, that this child being born while on vacation has to go through the same process as an American citizen LIVING ABROAD on foreign soil?
> 
> I mean as mentioned earlier....how do you naturalize him in to the system if there is no where to naturalize him from, because BOTH his parents were residents of the united states when he was born?
> 
> I am CERTAIN there is more to this law than meets the eye....and it is in regards to Americans LIVING ABROAD when they have their kids....
> 
> it is hard to believe it is in regards to Americans that just happen to be on vacation and plop their kid out on foreign soil, who do not live there?


 
The law deals with citizenship, residency is a non-issue.

I quoted the law, I sourced it, I linked it and I invited everyone to read it.

If you find a reason why it would not hold true, I'll be glad to read it and reassess my position. 

*Until then, as far as the law is concerned, Obama would not have been a citizen of the U.S. if he was born in Kenya in 1961.*

*The law today still contains a clause relating to age in it's 1996 update...it is now at least two years after 14 but it is not retroactive* (the proviso is the section beginning at the capitalized word 'Provided', which is also contained in the 1952 law). It is now section Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 301 (g). 
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT TITLE III​I've read Navy's post with interest, as he is excellent post writer and very knowledgeable, but as far as I can tell, none relate to this particular situation.


----------



## Missourian

Emma said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he had released the birth certificate long form I would have been just like the rest of you. "Ho-hum, another conspiracy theory bites the dust."
> 
> But that hasn't happen? Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individuals birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a persons birth. *Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.*
> 
> 
> Applying for Hawaiian Home Lands &mdash; Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
> 
> (what I referenced in my above post)
Click to expand...

 

From Vanderbilt University:

*"The controversy over President Obamas birth certificate will not go away as long as he refuses to release sealed records, including the original birth certificate, according to Carol Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University. 
* 
I believe that the president should end the speculation by being transparent about all aspects of his background, Swain said. In fact, it can be argued that the president belongs to the people and to scholars, biographers and others who are entitled to know every aspect of his past. Only great men can ascend to this height, and their lives should be examined and studied for the lessons they offer. 

Swain said that what is posted online for the president is a certificate of live birth. It is the failure to release the long form that keeps suspicion alive, she said. Swain noted that she strongly disagrees with those who want to criticize Americans, including journalist Lou Dobbs, who continue to raise the issue. 

Other sealed records that Swain has called for the president to release include those pertaining to his education, foreign travel and state legislative business."

Why Obama's birth certificate issue won't go away: Vanderbilt expert - VUCast: Vanderbilt University's News Network​


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he had released the birth certificate long form I would have been just like the rest of you. "Ho-hum, another conspiracy theory bites the dust."
> 
> But that hasn't happen? Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individuals birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a persons birth. *Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.*
> 
> 
> Applying for Hawaiian Home Lands &mdash; Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
> 
> (what I referenced in my above post)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From Vanderbilt University:
> 
> *"The controversy over President Obamas birth certificate will not go away as long as he refuses to release sealed records, including the original birth certificate, according to Carol Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University.
> *
> I believe that the president should end the speculation by being transparent about all aspects of his background, Swain said. In fact, it can be argued that the president belongs to the people and to scholars, biographers and others who are entitled to know every aspect of his past. Only great men can ascend to this height, and their lives should be examined and studied for the lessons they offer.
> 
> Swain said that what is posted online for the president is a certificate of live birth. It is the failure to release the long form that keeps suspicion alive, she said. Swain noted that she strongly disagrees with those who want to criticize Americans, including journalist Lou Dobbs, who continue to raise the issue.
> 
> Other sealed records that Swain has called for the president to release include those pertaining to his education, foreign travel and state legislative business."
> 
> Why Obama's birth certificate issue won't go away: Vanderbilt expert - VUCast: Vanderbilt University's News Network​
Click to expand...


That doesn't matter. The state no longer issues 'long form' birth certificates.


----------



## Missourian

Emma said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> From Vanderbilt University:
> 
> *"The controversy over President Obamas birth certificate will not go away as long as he refuses to release sealed records, including the original birth certificate, according to Carol Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University. *
> 
> I believe that the president should end the speculation by being transparent about all aspects of his background, Swain said. In fact, it can be argued that the president belongs to the people and to scholars, biographers and others who are entitled to know every aspect of his past. Only great men can ascend to this height, and their lives should be examined and studied for the lessons they offer.
> 
> Swain said that what is posted online for the president is a certificate of live birth. It is the failure to release the long form that keeps suspicion alive, she said. Swain noted that she strongly disagrees with those who want to criticize Americans, including journalist Lou Dobbs, who continue to raise the issue.
> 
> Other sealed records that Swain has called for the president to release include those pertaining to his education, foreign travel and state legislative business."
> Why Obama's birth certificate issue won't go away: Vanderbilt expert - VUCast: Vanderbilt University's News Network​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't matter. The state no longer issues 'long form' birth certificates.
Click to expand...

 

It's not what they issue...it's what they now verify exists.
Posted on: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 
*Hawaii officials confirm Obama's original birth certificate still exists*


By Dan Nakaso
Advertiser Staff Writers

Hawaii's Health Department confirmed yesterday that it has President Obama's original Aug. 4, 1961, birth certificate in storage, but the announcement is unlikely to satisfy conspiracy theorists who insist Obama was born in Kenya.

"We don't destroy vital records," Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said. "That's our whole job, to maintain and retain vital records."

The Health Department's director reiterated yesterday that she has seen Obama's birth records.
Hawaii officials confirm Obama's original birth certificate still exists | HonoluluAdvertiser.com | The Honolulu Advertiser​


----------



## Missourian

Missourian said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't matter. The state no longer issues 'long form' birth certificates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not what they issue...it's what they now verify exists.
> Posted on: Tuesday, July 28, 2009
> *Hawaii officials confirm Obama's original birth certificate still exists*
> 
> 
> By Dan Nakaso
> Advertiser Staff Writers
> Hawaii's Health Department confirmed yesterday that it has President Obama's original Aug. 4, 1961, birth certificate in storage, but the announcement is unlikely to satisfy conspiracy theorists who insist Obama was born in Kenya.
> 
> "We don't destroy vital records," Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said. "That's our whole job, to maintain and retain vital records."
> 
> The Health Department's director reiterated yesterday that she has seen Obama's birth records.
> Hawaii officials confirm Obama's original birth certificate still exists | HonoluluAdvertiser.com | The Honolulu Advertiser​
Click to expand...

 

Important passage from the article cited:
"The law further states that the Health Department "shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records,* or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record."*

Those who have "direct and tangible interest" are generally limited to the person named in the record, the spouse, parent, descendant, or personal representative, or by someone who is involved in marital, parental or death litigation involving the named person's vital record or other legal reason established by a court order, and various official agency or organization representatives, including the state director of health, according to the law."​So President Obama could release this document at anytime he should so choose.

Why doesn't he?


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> It's not what they issue...it's what they now verify exists.
> Posted on: Tuesday, July 28, 2009
> *Hawaii officials confirm Obama's original birth certificate still exists*
> 
> 
> By Dan Nakaso
> Advertiser Staff Writers
> 
> Hawaii's Health Department confirmed yesterday that it has President Obama's original Aug. 4, 1961, birth certificate in storage, but the announcement is unlikely to satisfy conspiracy theorists who insist Obama was born in Kenya.
> 
> "We don't destroy vital records," Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said. "That's our whole job, to maintain and retain vital records."
> 
> The Health Department's director reiterated yesterday that she has seen Obama's birth records.
> Hawaii officials confirm Obama's original birth certificate still exists | HonoluluAdvertiser.com | The Honolulu Advertiser​


?

I never said they didn't have original records. They no longer issue the long form, only COLB.


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't matter. The state no longer issues 'long form' birth certificates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not what they issue...it's what they now verify exists.
> Posted on: Tuesday, July 28, 2009
> *Hawaii officials confirm Obama's original birth certificate still exists*
> 
> 
> By Dan Nakaso
> Advertiser Staff Writers
> Hawaii's Health Department confirmed yesterday that it has President Obama's original Aug. 4, 1961, birth certificate in storage, but the announcement is unlikely to satisfy conspiracy theorists who insist Obama was born in Kenya.
> 
> "We don't destroy vital records," Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said. "That's our whole job, to maintain and retain vital records."
> 
> The Health Department's director reiterated yesterday that she has seen Obama's birth records.
> Hawaii officials confirm Obama's original birth certificate still exists | HonoluluAdvertiser.com | The Honolulu Advertiser​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Important passage from the article cited:
> "The law further states that the Health Department "shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record."
> 
> Those who have "direct and tangible interest" are generally limited to the person named in the record, the spouse, parent, descendant, or personal representative, or by someone who is involved in marital, parental or death litigation involving the named person's vital record or other legal reason established by a court order, and various official agency or organization representatives, including the state director of health, according to the law."​So President Obama could release this document at anytime he should so choose.
> 
> Why doesn't he?
Click to expand...


How can he release a document _the state no longer issues?_


----------



## DiveCon

Emma said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not what they issue...it's what they now verify exists.
> Posted on: Tuesday, July 28, 2009
> *Hawaii officials confirm Obama's original birth certificate still exists*
> 
> 
> By Dan Nakaso
> Advertiser Staff Writers
> Hawaii's Health Department confirmed yesterday that it has President Obama's original Aug. 4, 1961, birth certificate in storage, but the announcement is unlikely to satisfy conspiracy theorists who insist Obama was born in Kenya.
> 
> "We don't destroy vital records," Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said. "That's our whole job, to maintain and retain vital records."
> 
> The Health Department's director reiterated yesterday that she has seen Obama's birth records.
> Hawaii officials confirm Obama's original birth certificate still exists | HonoluluAdvertiser.com | The Honolulu Advertiser​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Important passage from the article cited:
> "The law further states that the Health Department "shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record."
> 
> Those who have "direct and tangible interest" are generally limited to the person named in the record, the spouse, parent, descendant, or personal representative, or by someone who is involved in marital, parental or death litigation involving the named person's vital record or other legal reason established by a court order, and various official agency or organization representatives, including the state director of health, according to the law."​So President Obama could release this document at anytime he should so choose.
> 
> Why doesn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can he release a document _the state no longer issues?_
Click to expand...

magic?


----------



## Emma

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Important passage from the article cited:
> "The law further states that the Health Department "shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record."
> 
> Those who have "direct and tangible interest" are generally limited to the person named in the record, the spouse, parent, descendant, or personal representative, or by someone who is involved in marital, parental or death litigation involving the named person's vital record or other legal reason established by a court order, and various official agency or organization representatives, including the state director of health, according to the law."​So President Obama could release this document at anytime he should so choose.
> 
> Why doesn't he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can he release a document _the state no longer issues?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> magic?
Click to expand...


I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.


----------



## Missourian

Emma said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not what they issue...it's what they now verify exists.
> Posted on: Tuesday, July 28, 2009
> *Hawaii officials confirm Obama's original birth certificate still exists*
> 
> 
> By Dan Nakaso
> Advertiser Staff Writers
> Hawaii's Health Department confirmed yesterday that it has President Obama's original Aug. 4, 1961, birth certificate in storage, but the announcement is unlikely to satisfy conspiracy theorists who insist Obama was born in Kenya.
> 
> "We don't destroy vital records," Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said. "That's our whole job, to maintain and retain vital records."
> 
> The Health Department's director reiterated yesterday that she has seen Obama's birth records.
> Hawaii officials confirm Obama's original birth certificate still exists | HonoluluAdvertiser.com | The Honolulu Advertiser​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Important passage from the article cited:
> *"The law further states that the Health Department "shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record."*
> 
> Those who have "direct and tangible interest" are generally limited to the person named in the record, the spouse, parent, descendant, or personal representative, or by someone who is involved in marital, parental or death litigation involving the named person's vital record or other legal reason established by a court order, and various official agency or organization representatives, including the state director of health, according to the law."​So President Obama could release this document at anytime he should so choose.
> 
> Why doesn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can he release a document _the state no longer issues?_
Click to expand...

 
Did you read it?

I clearly states he can get a certified copy of the original.


----------



## Missourian

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Important passage from the article cited:
> "The law further states that the Health Department "shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record."
> 
> Those who have "direct and tangible interest" are generally limited to the person named in the record, the spouse, parent, descendant, or personal representative, or by someone who is involved in marital, parental or death litigation involving the named person's vital record or other legal reason established by a court order, and various official agency or organization representatives, including the state director of health, according to the law."​So President Obama could release this document at anytime he should so choose.
> 
> Why doesn't he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can he release a document _the state no longer issues?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> magic?
Click to expand...

 
Yeah DC...the magic of Xerox...Ooooh..Aaaaah...next we'll introduce you to the DVD.


----------



## DiveCon

Missourian said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can he release a document _the state no longer issues?_
> 
> 
> 
> magic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah DC...the magic of Xerox...Ooooh..Aaaaah...next we'll introduce you to the DVD.
Click to expand...

when the state of HI doesnt do that by Hawai'ian state law?


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Important passage from the article cited:
> *"The law further states that the Health Department "shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record."*
> 
> Those who have "direct and tangible interest" are generally limited to the person named in the record, the spouse, parent, descendant, or personal representative, or by someone who is involved in marital, parental or death litigation involving the named person's vital record or other legal reason established by a court order, and various official agency or organization representatives, including the state director of health, according to the law."​So President Obama could release this document at anytime he should so choose.
> 
> Why doesn't he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can he release a document _the state no longer issues?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read it?
> 
> I clearly states he can get a certified copy of the original.
Click to expand...

Not quite. It says you can get a certified copy of any such record; it doesn't say _original_. But as also noted by the state site I quoted, all they issue upon such a request is the COLB.


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can he release a document _the state no longer issues?_
> 
> 
> 
> magic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah DC...the magic of Xerox...Ooooh..Aaaaah...next we'll introduce you to the DVD.
Click to expand...


But the point is, the state no longer issues the long form. 

I wonder how the records are stored? I know it wouldn't be paper copies. Microfiche? Do they still use that?


----------



## Missourian

Emma said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can he release a document _the state no longer issues?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read it?
> 
> I clearly states he can get a certified copy of the original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not quite. It says you can get a certified copy of any such record; it doesn't say _original_. But as also noted by the state site I quoted, all they issue upon such a request is the COLB.
Click to expand...

 
"Certified copy of any record or part or part thereof"  means just what it says....A certified copy....read the article.


----------



## Emma

http://markrileymedia.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/obama-birth-certificate1.jpg

Oh btw, getting back to the scenario of him being born elsewhere, etc. I forgot about this... the date filed by registrar was August 8th, meaning the time line I described was cut even shorter. 

But what about the notation at the bottom of the certificate?


----------



## DiveCon

Missourian said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read it?
> 
> I clearly states he can get a certified copy of the original.
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. It says you can get a certified copy of any such record; it doesn't say _original_. But as also noted by the state site I quoted, all they issue upon such a request is the COLB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Certified copy of any record or part or part thereof"  means just what it says....A certified copy....read the article.
Click to expand...

but they dont issue a certified copy, just the COLB


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read it?
> 
> I clearly states he can get a certified copy of the original.
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. It says you can get a certified copy of any such record; it doesn't say _original_. But as also noted by the state site I quoted, all they issue upon such a request is the COLB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Certified copy of any record or part or part thereof"  means just what it says....A certified copy....read the article.
Click to expand...


Yes I did. 


"*Our Certificate of Live Birth is the standard form*, which was modeled after national standards that are acceptable by federal agencies and organizations," Okubo said. "With that form, you can get your passport or your soccer registration or your driver's license."

The standard "Certification of Live Birth" *that Hawai'i health officials now issue*...

*The modern-day birth certificates issued to anyone seeking their Hawai'i birth records* have spaces for the names and races of the parents, as well as information such as the time of birth.

Nordyke's 1961 birth certificates required much more information, such as the ages, occupations and birthplaces of the babies' parents.

In November 2008, The Advertiser reported that the first published mention of the future president appeared in a Sunday Advertiser birth announcement that ran on Aug. 13, 1961:

"Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4."

The identical announce- ment ran the following day in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

Birthers wave off those birth announcements, saying that Obama family members 48 years ago could have phoned in false information to both newspapers.

*Such vital statistics, however, were not sent to the newspapers by the general public but by the Health Department, which received the information directly from hospitals, Okubo said.*

-------------

And, independently, you have a Hawaiian state government website stating unequivocally that "Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, *the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.*


----------



## RadiomanATL

This whole thread is talking in circles now.


----------



## Emma

RadiomanATL said:


> This whole thread is talking in circles now.



I've come to the conclusion I must be a masochist. Apparently I enjoy beating my head against the wall...


----------



## Missourian

The Hawaiian State law stipulates that a certified copy may be made at the behest of the person named in the record.
*"The law further states that the Health Department "shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record."*​Unless you can provide a link to a law that requires that a certified copy cannot be issued (by law, not policy), what the state issues now in lieu of a Certificate is moot.

I have some errands to run,  but I'll check back later.


----------



## paperview

Emma said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This whole thread is talking in circles now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've come to the conclusion I must be a masochist. Apparently I enjoy beating my head against the wall...
Click to expand...

Kenya believe it Emm?  It's been a solid year now saying the same things over and over and over and over again. No shit.  A solid year.  Between the two of us, it has to be at least 5,000 posts - easy. 

Just a revolving circle game.  

But I too must be a masochist, cause here I am.  Still.  Batting at the thing they call

The BC.


----------



## Emma




----------



## paperview

From hereon forward, Emm, we shall know, till we are old and cratchety, practically every single law and statute pertaining to every minute detail, nuance and nitpiddlyfucking detail  of Hawaiian Birth Certificates. 

Much more than we ever needed to know.

Information, surely, that could be occupied in the gray matter for more important stuff. 



Like_ how many ounces *are* in an anagram_?


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> Unless you can provide a link to a law that requires that a certified copy cannot be issued (by law, not policy), what the state issues now in lieu of a Certificate is moot.
> 
> I have some errands to run,  but I'll check back later.


http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0011.htm

_§338-11  Form of certificates.  The forms of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, *subject to approval of and modification by the department of health*._ 

PART II

§338-41  Issuance; procedure.  (a)  *The department of health may make regulations respecting the form of Hawaiian birth certificates and certified copies of such certificates and other matters relating to Hawaii birth certificates as appear necessary and the regulations, when approved and made in accordance with chapter 91, shall have the force of law.  The department shall furnish the form of the certificates and copies made therefrom.*



(*"Our Certificate of Live Birth is the standard form, which was modeled after national standards that are acceptable by federal agencies and organizations," Okubo said.*

 i.e. the law gives the state DOH legal authority to determine the form they will issue as long as they fit those standards, and their determination has the force of law. They only issue COLB, as provided by LAW)

---------

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0016.htm

(just as a point of interest for those who say his COLB was amended)

---------


----------



## Emma

paperview said:


> From hereon forward, Emm, we shall know, till we are old and cratchety, practically every single law and statute pertaining to every minute detail, nuance and nitpiddlyfucking detail  of Hawaiian Birth Certificates.
> 
> Much more than we ever needed to know.
> 
> Information, surely, that could be occupied in the gray matter for more important stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> Like_ how many ounces *are* in an anagram_?




Lord, ain't that the truth LOL


----------



## Navy1960

Prior to Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court had held that birthplace by itself was not sufficient to grant citizenship (Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 1884). *U.S. citizenship law since Wong Kim Ark has acknowledged both jus soli (citizenship through place of birth) and jus sanguinis (citizenship inherited from parents). *Wong Kim Ark's case was subsequently cited in two major Supreme Court decisions on citizenship: Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) (involving a U.S.-born woman who was alleged to have lost her U.S. citizenship when her naturalized US citizen Swedish immigrant parents took her back to Sweden with them when she was a baby); and Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) (involving a naturalized U.S. citizen who subsequently moved to Israel and was alleged to have lost his U.S. citizenship after voting in an Israeli election).

*Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a social policy by which nationality or citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having an ancestor who is a national or citizen of the state. It contrasts with jus soli (Latin for "right of soil").*



1790 First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.




"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States".


1934 Act of May 24, 1934, Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.




"Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization."

1940 The Nationality Act of 1940, Section 201, 54 Stat. 1137.




"Section 201. The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:




"(g) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, has had ten years' residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, at least five of which were after attaining the age of sixteen years, the other being an alien: Provided, That in order to retain such citizenship, the child must reside in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling five years between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one years: Provided further, That, if the child has not taken up a residence in the United States or its outlying possessions by the time he reaches the age of sixteen years, or if he resides abroad for such a time that it becomes impossible for him to complete the five years' residence in the United States or its outlying possessions before reaching the age of twenty-one years, his American citizenship shall thereupon cease.




(h) The foregoing provisions of subsection (g) concerning retention of citizenship shall apply to a child born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934."


1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act).




"Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:




"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;




"(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

History of US citizenship laws

The point I have been trying to make here is that the the United States has clearly recognized that when one parent is  a citizen , regardless of where that child is born , that child is considered a citizen of this nation.  There have been several cases that have dealt with the issue of citizenship in the SCOTUS  while none specifically dealing with the matter of jurisdiction, however from time to time it has been mentioned as was the case in Dred Scott.  While as I have said earlier  I do understand why someone would question Barack Obama on this issue and  his not respnoding to the issue has made it more of an issue that it need be. The issue of Obama's citizenship is IMHO a settled issue, and with many other issues that this president is  involved in , this one tends to take away from the much focus upon the others.


----------



## Emma

The birthers need to give it up. 

It's been proven to be part of God's plan: 

Did Jesus actually reveal name of the 'antichrist'?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgHUZXgNAWo]YouTube - UPDATED VERSION! - DID JESUS GIVE US THE NAME OF THE ANTICHRIST?[/ame]


----------



## Navy1960

Per Hawaiian law, Statue 338.13, any certified copies of the original document can serve the same purpose as the original document.


*"(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original*, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18."

Usually the certification is stamped and signed on the lower reverse side of the document and says "I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health

Vital records (birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates) for events that occurred in Hawaii are received and preserved by the Office of Health Status Monitoring, a unit of the Department of Health. In Hawaii, access to vital records is restricted by statute (HRS §338-18

Who is Eligible to Apply for Certified Copies of Vital Records?

A certified copy of a vital record (birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate) is issued only to an applicant who has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons are considered to have such an interest:

the registrant (the person whom the record is concerned with); 
the registrant&#8217;s spouse; 
the registrant&#8217;s parent(s); 
a descendant of the registrant (e.g., a child or grandchild); 
a person having a common ancestor with the registrant (e.g., a sibling, grandparent, aunt/uncle, or cousin); 
a legal guardian of the registrant; 
a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant; 
a personal representative of the registrant&#8217;s estate; 
a person whose right to obtain a copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction; 
adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child&#8217;s natural or legal parents; 
a person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony; 
a person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and 
a person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.




I find myself in the position of trying to understand how this is an issue, other than the fact that Obama won't take the time to apply for his original and just say "here it is". Other than that IMO aside from the fact he did attend school in another country and under another name as a minor child I can find no law where that would automatically disqualify him to run for office.  In fact Obama's background is riddled with enough question marks to keep a person busy for some time, but  IMO unless  there is  absolute proof of dual citizenship after the age of 18 or  Obama renouncing his citizenship I'm afriad I cannot see where  he would not meet the qualifications under the 14th Amendment.


----------



## paperview

Emma said:


> The birthers need to give it up.
> 
> It's been proven to be part of God's plan:
> 
> Did Jesus actually reveal name of the 'antichrist'?
> 
> YouTube - UPDATED VERSION! - DID JESUS GIVE US THE NAME OF THE ANTICHRIST?


Oh my dear Lord save me. 

I actually listened to that whole freakin dolphin-flipping piece of crap.

Please don't tell me  there are those who walk among us who actually believe this canyon-deep pill of bullshit.

Please?


----------



## Emma

paperview said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> The birthers need to give it up.
> 
> It's been proven to be part of God's plan:
> 
> Did Jesus actually reveal name of the 'antichrist'?
> 
> YouTube - UPDATED VERSION! - DID JESUS GIVE US THE NAME OF THE ANTICHRIST?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my dear Lord save me.
> 
> I actually listened to that whole freakin dolphin-flipping piece of crap.
> 
> Please don't tell me  there are those who walk among us who actually believe this canyon-deep pill of bullshit.
> 
> Please?
Click to expand...


But of course. However, if they are _true_ Christians they will realize the futility of their attempted interruption of God's plan and give it up.


----------



## EriktheRed

Real Time New Rules July 31, 2009


----------



## DiveCon

Emma said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> The birthers need to give it up.
> 
> It's been proven to be part of God's plan:
> 
> Did Jesus actually reveal name of the 'antichrist'?
> 
> YouTube - UPDATED VERSION! - DID JESUS GIVE US THE NAME OF THE ANTICHRIST?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my dear Lord save me.
> 
> I actually listened to that whole freakin dolphin-flipping piece of crap.
> 
> Please don't tell me  there are those who walk among us who actually believe this canyon-deep pill of bullshit.
> 
> Please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But of course. However, if they are _true_ Christians they will realize the futility of their attempted interruption of God's plan and give it up.
Click to expand...

they are making an extreme stretch
especially since Jesus didnt speak in Hebrew


----------



## Emma

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my dear Lord save me.
> 
> I actually listened to that whole freakin dolphin-flipping piece of crap.
> 
> Please don't tell me  there are those who walk among us who actually believe this canyon-deep pill of bullshit.
> 
> Please?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But of course. However, if they are _true_ Christians they will realize the futility of their attempted interruption of God's plan and give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they are making an extreme stretch
> especially since Jesus didnt speak in Hebrew
Click to expand...


They did admit he spoke in Aramaic (did I spell that right lol) then did some sort of convoluted translation back into Hebrew. Allegedly.


----------



## RadiomanATL

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my dear Lord save me.
> 
> I actually listened to that whole freakin dolphin-flipping piece of crap.
> 
> Please don't tell me  there are those who walk among us who actually believe this canyon-deep pill of bullshit.
> 
> Please?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But of course. However, if they are _true_ Christians they will realize the futility of their attempted interruption of God's plan and give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they are making an extreme stretch
> especially since Jesus didnt speak in Hebrew
Click to expand...


Jesus spoke jive


----------



## Emma

EriktheRed said:


> Real Time New Rules July 31, 2009





Don Ho singing in the background LOL


----------



## Missourian

Emma said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you can provide a link to a law that requires that a certified copy cannot be issued (by law, not policy), what the state issues now in lieu of a Certificate is moot.
> 
> I have some errands to run, but I'll check back later.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0011.htm
> 
> _§338-11 Form of certificates. The forms of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, *subject to approval of and modification by the department of health*._
> 
> PART II
> 
> §338-41 Issuance; procedure. (a) *The department of health may make regulations respecting the form of Hawaiian birth certificates and certified copies of such certificates and other matters relating to Hawaii birth certificates as appear necessary and the regulations, when approved and made in accordance with chapter 91, shall have the force of law. The department shall furnish the form of the certificates and copies made therefrom.*
> 
> 
> 
> (*"Our Certificate of Live Birth is the standard form, which was modeled after national standards that are acceptable by federal agencies and organizations," Okubo said.*
> 
> i.e. the law gives the state DOH legal authority to determine the form they will issue as long as they fit those standards, and their determination has the force of law. They only issue COLB, as provided by LAW)
> 
> ---------
> 
> http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0016.htm
> 
> (just as a point of interest for those who say his COLB was amended)
> 
> ---------
Click to expand...

 

And the Department of health has NO REGULATION against making exact copies of vital records...in fact they have an entire page of their website dedicated to just that, for geneology and such.



> Who is Eligible to Apply for a Genealogy Request?
> Any private individual or individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental or private organization or agency, working on genealogy projects *may apply for issuance of copies of vital records on file with the Department of Health**.* *Any applicant seeking issuance of copies of vital records of events that occurred seventy-five years or less prior to the current year must establish a direct and tangible interest in the records to be eligible for them (see Certified Copies for more information).*
> 
> An applicant need not establish a direct and tangible interest in vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year to apply for these records.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How to Apply for a Genealogy Request
> 
> Applications for issuance of copies of vital records by an individual working on genealogy projects must be submitted in writing. No telephone or Internet (e-mail) requests will be accepted. Send applications by postal mail to:
> 
> State Department of Health
> Office of Health Status Monitoring
> Issuance/Vital Statistics Section
> P.O. Box 3378
> Honolulu, HI 96801


http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/genealogy.html


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you can provide a link to a law that requires that a certified copy cannot be issued (by law, not policy), what the state issues now in lieu of a Certificate is moot.
> 
> I have some errands to run, but I'll check back later.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0011.htm
> 
> _§338-11 Form of certificates. The forms of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, *subject to approval of and modification by the department of health*._
> 
> PART II
> 
> §338-41 Issuance; procedure. (a) *The department of health may make regulations respecting the form of Hawaiian birth certificates and certified copies of such certificates and other matters relating to Hawaii birth certificates as appear necessary and the regulations, when approved and made in accordance with chapter 91, shall have the force of law. The department shall furnish the form of the certificates and copies made therefrom.*
> 
> 
> 
> (*"Our Certificate of Live Birth is the standard form, which was modeled after national standards that are acceptable by federal agencies and organizations," Okubo said.*
> 
> i.e. the law gives the state DOH legal authority to determine the form they will issue as long as they fit those standards, and their determination has the force of law. They only issue COLB, as provided by LAW)
> 
> ---------
> 
> http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0016.htm
> 
> (just as a point of interest for those who say his COLB was amended)
> 
> ---------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the Department of health has NO REGULATION against making exact copies of vital records...in fact they have an entire page of their website dedicated to just that, for geneology and such.
> <snip>
Click to expand...


Nothing there about getting an exact copy of an original. Their regulations (which, as pointed out above, have force of law) are that they only issue COLB for a request of birth certificate. 

Here's something you can try, if you're so inclined. 

This person was born more than 75 years ago. So you don't have to have a 'tangible interest' in order to get her records. Apply to get her birth records and see what shows up, then post it for us.


----------



## Emma

> Any applicant seeking issuance of copies of vital records of events that occurred seventy-five years or less prior to the current year must establish a direct and tangible interest in the records to be eligible for them (see Certified Copies for more information).



This part of your link shows that the state only issues certified copies of records less than 75 years old. And the only certified copies they issue now are COLB.


----------



## Emma

http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf

There is no choice as to what type ('long' form or COLB) you can order.  

http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

Of particular relevance to this is the last line. In other words, his request for a copy of his birth certificate was handled just as any other.


----------



## oreo

Uh--doesn't our congress have more important things to do --*LIKE READ THE 1017 PAGE HEALTH CARE BILL?*


----------



## Missourian

Emma said:


> Who is Eligible to Apply for a Genealogy Request?
> 
> Any private individual or individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental or private organization or agency, working on genealogy projects *may apply for issuance of copies of vital records on file with the Department of Health**.*
> 
> *Any applicant seeking issuance of copies of vital records of events that occurred seventy-five years or less prior to the current year must establish a direct and tangible interest in the records to be eligible for them (see Certified Copies for more information).*
> 
> An applicant need not establish a direct and tangible interest in vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year to apply for these records.
> 
> http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/genealogy.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This part of your link shows that the state only issues certified copies of records less than 75 years old. And the only certified copies they issue now are COLB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says no such thing...it is directing you to more info on what constitutes a direct and tangible interest.
Click to expand...


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> It says no such thing...it is directing you to more info on what constitutes a direct and tangible interest.


_In order to obtain certified copies_.

 And the only certified copies the DOH provides are COLB.


----------



## Care4all

Can someone PLEASE tell me WHAT they expect to see on the long form that is not on the computer generated form that would CONFIRM his birth in Honolulu any more than the short form?


----------



## KittenKoder

Care4all said:


> Can someone PLEASE tell me WHAT they expect to see on the long form that is not on the computer generated form that would CONFIRM his birth in Honolulu any more than the short form?



I have no idea, hell, birth certificates are easy to forge to, just need a decent printer and the 3D stamp thingy to make one.


----------



## DiveCon

KittenKoder said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone PLEASE tell me WHAT they expect to see on the long form that is not on the computer generated form that would CONFIRM his birth in Honolulu any more than the short form?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea, hell, birth certificates are easy to forge to, just need a decent printer and the 3D stamp thingy to make one.
Click to expand...

DOH

there go a whole slew of NEW conspiracies


----------



## KittenKoder

DiveCon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone PLEASE tell me WHAT they expect to see on the long form that is not on the computer generated form that would CONFIRM his birth in Honolulu any more than the short form?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea, hell, birth certificates are easy to forge to, just need a decent printer and the 3D stamp thingy to make one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DOH
> 
> there go a whole slew of NEW conspiracies
Click to expand...


Ooops ... oh well.

The point I was trying to make is that if he really wasn't a citizen then not only would he have gotten them to say he is, he would have presented a forged B/C just to shut people up. Fact is, the people obsessed over this are too busy right now to do anything to stop his policies so they are eating it up.


----------



## Care4all

DiveCon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone PLEASE tell me WHAT they expect to see on the long form that is not on the computer generated form that would CONFIRM his birth in Honolulu any more than the short form?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea, hell, birth certificates are easy to forge to, just need a decent printer and the 3D stamp thingy to make one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DOH
> 
> there go a whole slew of NEW conspiracies
Click to expand...




darn, i gotta spread some before repping again!


----------



## paperview

Emma said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real Time New Rules July 31, 2009
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don Ho singing in the background LOL
Click to expand...

That was great!

Thanks for sharing that. 

"Talking Truth to stupid...."  lol


----------



## Missourian

Emma said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says no such thing...it is directing you to more info on what constitutes a direct and tangible interest.
> 
> 
> 
> _In order to obtain certified copies_.
> 
> And the only certified copies the DOH provides are COLB.
Click to expand...

 

It doesn't say certified copies on the genealogy request page...it just says copies.



> Who is Eligible to Apply for a Genealogy Request?
> 
> Any private individual or individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental or private organization or agency, working on genealogy projects may apply for issuance of *copies of vital records on file* with the Department of Health.
> 
> Any applicant seeking issuance of *copies of vital records* of events that occurred seventy-five years or less prior to the current year must establish a direct and tangible interest in the records to be eligible for them (see Certified Copies for more information).
> 
> An applicant need not establish a direct and tangible interest in vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year to apply for these records.
> 
> http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/genealogy.html


Your argument is faulty -just because the DOH doesn't issue a certified copy of the long form as *proof of birth* doesn't mean they can't provide regular (non-certified) copies for other uses,  such as genealogical research.

In fact we've proved that they do provide copies for genealogical research.


----------



## Care4all

Missourian said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says no such thing...it is directing you to more info on what constitutes a direct and tangible interest.
> 
> 
> 
> _In order to obtain certified copies_.
> 
> And the only certified copies the DOH provides are COLB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say certified copies on the genealogy request page...it just says copies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Eligible to Apply for a Genealogy Request?
> 
> Any private individual or individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental or private organization or agency, working on genealogy projects may apply for issuance of *copies of vital records on file* with the Department of Health.
> 
> Any applicant seeking issuance of *copies of vital records* of events that occurred seventy-five years or less prior to the current year must establish a direct and tangible interest in the records to be eligible for them (see Certified Copies for more information).
> 
> An applicant need not establish a direct and tangible interest in vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year to apply for these records.
> 
> http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/genealogy.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument is faulty -just because the DOH doesn't issue a certified copy of the long form as *proof of birth* doesn't mean they can't provide regular (non-certified) copies for other uses,  such as genealogical research.
> 
> In fact we've proved that they do provide copies for genealogical research.
Click to expand...


I can't remember if I had asked you this question before missourian, but what is it on the original birth certificate, that the Birthers think they will see, that will confirm that he was born in Hawaii as the Certified and Stamped certified with signature (Notarized) Certification of Live Birth stated?

The original, will have all other information redacted imo, that does not relate to the one and only issue at hand, where it says Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii....we are not tracing his genealogy...?

Even if the Birthers had their day in court and got the original, all other info on the original not on the COLB, would be redacted imo.


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says no such thing...it is directing you to more info on what constitutes a direct and tangible interest.
> 
> 
> 
> _In order to obtain certified copies_.
> 
> And the only certified copies the DOH provides are COLB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say certified copies on the genealogy request page...it just says copies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Eligible to Apply for a Genealogy Request?
> 
> Any private individual or individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental or private organization or agency, working on genealogy projects may apply for issuance of *copies of vital records on file* with the Department of Health.
> 
> Any applicant seeking issuance of *copies of vital records* of events that occurred seventy-five years or less prior to the current year must establish a direct and tangible interest in the records to be eligible for them (see Certified Copies for more information).
> 
> An applicant need not establish a direct and tangible interest in vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year to apply for these records.
> 
> http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/genealogy.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument is faulty -just because the DOH doesn't issue a certified copy of the long form as *proof of birth* doesn't mean they can't provide regular (non-certified) copies for other uses,  such as genealogical research.
> 
> In fact we've proved that they do provide copies for genealogical research.
Click to expand...

Well, as far as Obama goes, a copy that isn't 'certified' wouldn't mean squat. So I'm not sure what your point is regarding the possible issuance of long forms for genealogy. But I've seen nothing here that proves they provide _"long"_ copies for that purpose (and sorry, the link you provide isn't loading, server down... I'll try again in a bit). 

This would be mind-numbingly easy for the BC crowd to prove. All they need to do is find someone who was born in Hawaii (preferably in the early 60's so we'd know the form would be similar to Obama's) to request a long form of their birth certificate from the state DOH. 

Or, to prove what you're saying, simply get names of people born over 75 years ago and request long forms for genealogy research. 

Have they done either?


----------



## paperview

New, funny as hell twist.

The idiot birthers via Orly Tits, are now claiming they found his Kenyan Birth Certificate,

Yee Haw! huh?

One problem:  The document says "Republic of Kenya" on it - except...Wait for it:

Kenya was not a Republic when the "document" was signed!



 !


----------



## Missourian

Care4all said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> _In order to obtain certified copies_.
> 
> And the only certified copies the DOH provides are COLB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say certified copies on the genealogy request page...it just says copies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Eligible to Apply for a Genealogy Request?
> 
> Any private individual or individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental or private organization or agency, working on genealogy projects may apply for issuance of *copies of vital records on file* with the Department of Health.
> 
> Any applicant seeking issuance of *copies of vital records* of events that occurred seventy-five years or less prior to the current year must establish a direct and tangible interest in the records to be eligible for them (see Certified Copies for more information).
> 
> An applicant need not establish a direct and tangible interest in vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year to apply for these records.
> 
> http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/genealogy.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument is faulty -just because the DOH doesn't issue a certified copy of the long form as *proof of birth* doesn't mean they can't provide regular (non-certified) copies for other uses, such as genealogical research.
> 
> In fact we've proved that they do provide copies for genealogical research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't remember if I had asked you this question before missourian, but what is it on the original birth certificate, that the Birthers think they will see, that will confirm that he was born in Hawaii as the Certified and Stamped certified with signature (Notarized) Certification of Live Birth stated?
> 
> The original, will have all other information redacted imo, that does not relate to the one and only issue at hand, where it says Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii....we are not tracing his genealogy...?
> 
> Even if the Birthers had their day in court and got the original, all other info on the original not on the COLB, would be redacted imo.
Click to expand...

 

I really don't know Care.

I don't follow all the lawsuit stuff.  All I know about that is what I have read here.

The points that I believe I've proven in this thread are:
1)  If Obama was not born in Hawaii, by law he would not be a citizen of the United States.

2)  Obama could release the documentation being sought at any time he chooses.

3)  These two points should be enough to at the absolute minimum pique the interest of any reasonable person,  but instead the sanity of persons asking them is repeatedly attacked for asking the simple question 'why'.  No answers...just ad hom after ad hom for merely posing a question.

​So again I ask,  why doesn't President Obama,  the defender of transparency,  just release the documentation that is being requested,  instead of actively blocking it's release?


----------



## Missourian

Emma said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> _In order to obtain certified copies_.
> 
> And the only certified copies the DOH provides are COLB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say certified copies on the genealogy request page...it just says copies.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Eligible to Apply for a Genealogy Request?
> 
> Any private individual or individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental or private organization or agency, working on genealogy projects may apply for issuance of *copies of vital records on file* with the Department of Health.
> 
> Any applicant seeking issuance of *copies of vital records* of events that occurred seventy-five years or less prior to the current year must establish a direct and tangible interest in the records to be eligible for them (see Certified Copies for more information).
> 
> An applicant need not establish a direct and tangible interest in vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year to apply for these records.
> 
> http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/genealogy.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument is faulty -just because the DOH doesn't issue a certified copy of the long form as *proof of birth* doesn't mean they can't provide regular (non-certified) copies for other uses, such as genealogical research.
> 
> In fact we've proved that they do provide copies for genealogical research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, as far as Obama goes, a copy that isn't 'certified' wouldn't mean squat. So I'm not sure what your point is regarding the possible issuance of long forms for genealogy. But I've seen nothing here that proves they provide _"long"_ copies for that purpose (and sorry, the link you provide isn't loading, server down... I'll try again in a bit).
> 
> This would be mind-numbingly easy for the BC crowd to prove. All they need to do is find someone who was born in Hawaii (preferably in the early 60's so we'd know the form would be similar to Obama's) to request a long form of their birth certificate from the state DOH.
> 
> *Or, to prove what you're saying, simply get names of people born over 75 years ago and request long forms for genealogy research.*
> 
> Have they done either?
Click to expand...

 
Don't need to go that far.


Hawaii state law allows direct access to data for people doing research on people born over 75 years ago.
(e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.
HRS 338-18 (e) 
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm
​Got to go fishin' now...BBL.


----------



## Emma

Care4all said:


> I can't remember if I had asked you this question before missourian, but what is it on the original birth certificate, that the Birthers think they will see, that will confirm that he was born in Hawaii as the Certified and Stamped certified with signature (Notarized) Certification of Live Birth stated?
> 
> The original, will have all other information redacted imo, that does not relate to the one and only issue at hand, where it says Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii....we are not tracing his genealogy...?
> 
> Even if the Birthers had their day in court and got the original, all other info on the original not on the COLB, would be redacted imo.



The long form has the name and address of the hospital, age and birthplace of the parents, and signature of the person attending the birth. None of that is relevant to his eligibility. The COLB contains all the pertinent information from the birth record that is necessary to prove citizenship.

 I'd love to hear the reason _why_ the birthers think any of the additional information would even matter.


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say certified copies on the genealogy request page...it just says copies.
> 
> ​Your argument is faulty -just because the DOH doesn't issue a certified copy of the long form as *proof of birth* doesn't mean they can't provide regular (non-certified) copies for other uses, such as genealogical research.
> 
> In fact we've proved that they do provide copies for genealogical research.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as far as Obama goes, a copy that isn't 'certified' wouldn't mean squat. So I'm not sure what your point is regarding the possible issuance of long forms for genealogy. But I've seen nothing here that proves they provide _"long"_ copies for that purpose (and sorry, the link you provide isn't loading, server down... I'll try again in a bit).
> 
> This would be mind-numbingly easy for the BC crowd to prove. All they need to do is find someone who was born in Hawaii (preferably in the early 60's so we'd know the form would be similar to Obama's) to request a long form of their birth certificate from the state DOH.
Click to expand...

Ok. Thanks. 

Then we move on to my other question. And here's someone y'all can get to prove it: 

Unveiled! Hawaii's 1961 long-form birth certificates

Have _her_ request a long form BC from the state DOH. That would be perfect... her children were born the day after President Obama.


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> [/INDENT]So again I ask,  why doesn't President Obama,  the defender of transparency,  just release the documentation that is being requested,  instead of actively blocking it's release?



_Because the state only issues COLB upon request for a birth certificate._ I've shown you this several times.


----------



## paperview

Have you seen this Emm?

Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?


----------



## Emma

paperview said:


> New, funny as hell twist.
> 
> The idiot birthers via Orly Tits, are now claiming they found his Kenyan Birth Certificate,
> 
> Yee Haw! huh?
> 
> One problem:  The document says "Republic of Kenya" on it - except...Wait for it:
> 
> Kenya was not a Republic when the "document" was signed!
> 
> 
> 
> !



Unveiled! Hawaii's 1961 long-form birth certificates

Check out the link in the WND story.




> Meanwhile, an image of an apparently fraudulent Kenyan certificate of birth circulated on the Web today from an unknown source. It alleged Obama was born in Mombasa. But a contributor at FreeRepublic.com debunked it, declaring "Busted!"
> 
> He pointed out that the background text, in Dutch, explained, in a rough translation, "This is not a government document. This is political commentary."


----------



## Missourian

Emma said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/indent]So again I ask, why doesn't President Obama, the defender of transparency, just release the documentation that is being requested, instead of actively blocking it's release?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Because the state only issues COLB upon request for a birth certificate._ I've shown you this several times.
Click to expand...

 

You keep saying it but it proves nothing.

I agree that the state of Hawaii only issues COLB *as proof of birth*.

I have proved that Obama could request a copy of his original birth certificate if he chose to do so.

Have you posted a credible link that states that if Obama sought a copy of his long form it would be refused?

If you have would you mind reposting it...I missed it.



Now for real I'm going fishing...I'll be back on tonight.


----------



## Care4all

Emma said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say certified copies on the genealogy request page...it just says copies.
> 
> ​Your argument is faulty -just because the DOH doesn't issue a certified copy of the long form as *proof of birth* doesn't mean they can't provide regular (non-certified) copies for other uses, such as genealogical research.
> 
> In fact we've proved that they do provide copies for genealogical research.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as far as Obama goes, a copy that isn't 'certified' wouldn't mean squat. So I'm not sure what your point is regarding the possible issuance of long forms for genealogy. But I've seen nothing here that proves they provide _"long"_ copies for that purpose (and sorry, the link you provide isn't loading, server down... I'll try again in a bit).
> 
> This would be mind-numbingly easy for the BC crowd to prove. All they need to do is find someone who was born in Hawaii (preferably in the early 60's so we'd know the form would be similar to Obama's) to request a long form of their birth certificate from the state DOH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. Thanks.
> 
> Then we move on to my other question. And here's someone y'all can get to prove it:
> 
> Unveiled! Hawaii's 1961 long-form birth certificates
> 
> Have _her_ request a long form BC from the state DOH. That would be perfect... her children were born the day after President Obama.
Click to expand...


that certificate shown is the original, given to parents at birth, NOT a copy of the copy, of the original, the state holds on to....???

and the number for obama makes PERFECT SENSE as the mother stated of the twins, she entered the hospital in labor PRIOR to mrs obama...  the numbers are all close enough in sequence....and PERFECT EXAMPLE of how this WILL NOT STOP with the original being shown....btw, do you have a copy of president bush's ORIGINAL birth certificate, what hospital he was born in, the doc's name, the address of parents when born etc???

the information not pertaining to place/country of birth will be redacted and should be redacted including personal information to the parents....

care


----------



## EriktheRed

Emma said:


> Check out the link in the WND story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, an image of an apparently fraudulent Kenyan certificate of birth circulated on the Web today from an unknown source. It alleged Obama was born in Mombasa. But* a contributor at FreeRepublic.com debunked it*, declaring "Busted!"
> 
> He pointed out that the background text, in Dutch, explained, in a rough translation, "This is not a government document. This is political commentary."
Click to expand...


*LOLOL!!*

There are even *Freepers* who are getting tired of this birther horseshit!


----------



## Emma

paperview said:


> Have you seen this Emm?
> 
> Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?



"Republic of Kenya" ROFLMAO!!!!!

They are dumb as a bag of hammers 



> Constitution:
> 
> 12 December 1963; _amended as a republic 1964_



http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Kenya.pdf

_*"Kenya became independent on December 12, 1963, and the next year became a republic and joined the Commonwealth."*_


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/indent]So again I ask, why doesn't President Obama, the defender of transparency, just release the documentation that is being requested, instead of actively blocking it's release?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Because the state only issues COLB upon request for a birth certificate._ I've shown you this several times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying it but it proves nothing.
> 
> I agree that the state of Hawaii only issues COLB *as proof of birth*.
> 
> I have proved that Obama could request a copy of his original birth certificate if he chose to do so.
> 
> Have you posted a credible link that states that if Obama sought a copy of his long form it would be refused?
> 
> If you have would you mind reposting it...I missed it.
> 
> 
> 
> Now for real I'm going fishing...I'll be back on tonight.
Click to expand...

Have fun fishing. 

You haven't proved Obama can get a long form on request (unless you believe he is over 75 years of age). I have proven that state law gives the DOH the authority to regulate what forms they use and issue (and such has the force of law), and that they ONLY issue COLB. 

But again. It would be simple for the bc crowd to prove this wrong. Simply get someone to request a long form BC. That woman in the WND article would be perfect for this.


----------



## Emma

Care4all said:


> that certificate shown is the original, given to parents at birth, NOT a copy of the copy, of the original, the state holds on to....???



The one the woman is holding wasn't issued to her at birth. Without clicking on the link again, I believe it says 1966 or '65. Probably the copy she got to enroll her kids in school.


----------



## Care4all

Emma said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Thanks.
> 
> Then we move on to my other question. And here's someone y'all can get to prove it:
> 
> Unveiled! Hawaii's 1961 long-form birth certificates
> 
> Have _her_ request a long form BC from the state DOH. That would be perfect... her children were born the day after President Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that certificate shown is the original, given to parents at birth, NOT a copy of the copy, of the original, the state holds on to....???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one the woman is holding wasn't issued to her at birth. Without clicking on the link again, I believe it says 1966 or '65. Probably the copy she got to enroll her kids in school.
Click to expand...


ahhhhh....ty, well my original was black like that, so i presumed....?

i lost it, my copies all looked like obama's....i have lost it, SEVERAL TIMES....though i am certain they are all in a SAFE place somewhere around here!


----------



## Emma

Missourian said:


> Now for real I'm going fishing...I'll be back on tonight.



Who's going to ride the merry-go-round with me


----------



## paperview

Emma said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen this Emm?
> 
> Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Republic of Kenya" ROFLMAO!!!!!
> 
> They are dumb as a bag of hammers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitution:
> 
> 12 December 1963; _amended as a republic 1964_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Kenya.pdf
> 
> _*"Kenya became independent on December 12, 1963, and the next year became a republic and joined the Commonwealth."*_
Click to expand...

It didn't become a republic till some 10 months later.

Oily Tits and her gang really fucked up on that one.  lol.


----------



## Emma

paperview said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen this Emm?
> 
> Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Republic of Kenya" ROFLMAO!!!!!
> 
> They are dumb as a bag of hammers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitution:
> 
> 12 December 1963; _amended as a republic 1964_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Kenya.pdf
> 
> _*"Kenya became independent on December 12, 1963, and the next year became a republic and joined the Commonwealth."*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It didn't become a republic till some 10 months later.
> 
> Oily Tits and her gang really fucked up on that one.  lol.
Click to expand...


Yeah they did. Big time


----------



## DiveCon

paperview said:


> New, funny as hell twist.
> 
> The idiot birthers via Orly Tits, are now claiming they found his Kenyan Birth Certificate,
> 
> Yee Haw! huh?
> 
> One problem:  The document says "Republic of Kenya" on it - except...Wait for it:
> 
> Kenya was not a Republic when the "document" was signed!
> 
> 
> 
> !


actually, if you look at when that document was signed(it has the date at the bottom) Kenya was a republic then


----------



## Emma

Care4all said:


> ahhhhh....ty, well my original was black like that, so i presumed....?
> 
> i lost it, my copies all looked like obama's....i have lost it, SEVERAL TIMES....though i am certain they are all in a SAFE place somewhere around here!


That's a photocopy or something lol. The word escapes me.


----------



## DiveCon

Emma said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen this Emm?
> 
> Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Republic of Kenya" ROFLMAO!!!!!
> 
> They are dumb as a bag of hammers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitution:
> 
> 12 December 1963; _amended as a republic 1964_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Kenya.pdf
> 
> _*"Kenya became independent on December 12, 1963, and the next year became a republic and joined the Commonwealth."*_
Click to expand...

quit laughing emma
the document was signed after it became a republic
he clearly didnt READ the document too well


----------



## paperview

A thread on the Freeper site was started today on the kenyan BC smoking gun!  

It's over 2500 posts already.


----------



## paperview

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen this Emm?
> 
> Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Republic of Kenya" ROFLMAO!!!!!
> 
> They are dumb as a bag of hammers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitution:
> 
> 12 December 1963; _amended as a republic 1964_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Kenya.pdf
> 
> _*"Kenya became independent on December 12, 1963, and the next year became a republic and joined the Commonwealth."*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> quit laughing emma
> the document was signed after it became a republic
> he clearly didnt READ the document too well
Click to expand...

When DId Kenya declare itself as a Republic, Dive?

<jeopardy song plays>


----------



## Emma

DiveCon said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> New, funny as hell twist.
> 
> The idiot birthers via Orly Tits, are now claiming they found his Kenyan Birth Certificate,
> 
> Yee Haw! huh?
> 
> One problem:  The document says "Republic of Kenya" on it - except...Wait for it:
> 
> Kenya was not a Republic when the "document" was signed!
> 
> 
> 
> !
> 
> 
> 
> actually, if you look at when that document was signed(it has the date at the bottom) Kenya was a republic then
Click to expand...


Not on February 17, 1964 they weren't. 




> Order in Council or instrument in consequence of Kenya having become a Republic, may be made so as to have effect from 12th December 1964.


Kenya Republic Act 1965 (c.5)

Besides that, it has an _awfully_ modern look for something that issued in '64 (and the paper is pretty crisp and clean for something 45 years old). Dan Rather, anyone?


----------



## paperview

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> New, funny as hell twist.
> 
> The idiot birthers via Orly Tits, are now claiming they found his Kenyan Birth Certificate,
> 
> Yee Haw! huh?
> 
> One problem:  The document says "Republic of Kenya" on it - except...Wait for it:
> 
> Kenya was not a Republic when the "document" was signed!
> 
> 
> 
> !
> 
> 
> 
> actually, if you look at when that document was signed(it has the date at the bottom) Kenya was a republic then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not on February 17, 1964 they weren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Order in Council or instrument in consequence of Kenya having become a Republic, may be made so as to have effect from 12th December 1964.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kenya Republic Act 1965 (c.5)
> 
> Besides that, it has an _awfully_ modern look for something that issued in '64 (and the paper is pretty crisp and clean for something 45 years old). Dan Rather, anyone?
Click to expand...

But it's got foldies in it and everything!, 

How long you suppose Slappy, the guy who forged it, carried it around folded in his back pocket?


----------



## EriktheRed

paperview said:


> Have you seen this Emm?
> 
> Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?





> Taitz told WND that the document came from an anonymous source who doesn't want his name known because "he's afraid for his life."



Pretty convenient, huh? It also helps bolster that "Obama is a thug" meme, too.

So how will they explain "Republic of Kenya" being on there 10 months before it was "Republic of Kenya", I wonder....


----------



## Emma

I found the real Kenyan BC. 

http://osmoothie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/25hlhmp.jpg


----------



## Emma

paperview said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, if you look at when that document was signed(it has the date at the bottom) Kenya was a republic then
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not on February 17, 1964 they weren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Order in Council or instrument in consequence of Kenya having become a Republic, may be made so as to have effect from 12th December 1964.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kenya Republic Act 1965 (c.5)
> 
> Besides that, it has an _awfully_ modern look for something that issued in '64 (and the paper is pretty crisp and clean for something 45 years old). Dan Rather, anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's got foldies in it and everything!,
> 
> How long you suppose Slappy, the guy who forged it, carried it around folded in his back pocket?
Click to expand...


And it's a _copy_! It's just _an image on a computer screen!_ _Computer type!_

_I want to see the original!_ Not a reissued image on the interwebs!


----------



## paperview

Emma said:


> I found the real Kenyan BC.
> 
> http://osmoothie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/25hlhmp.jpg


RACE: Captivatingly Kenyan.

lol


----------



## Emma

'Course, this Kenyan BC claims he was born on August 4th. So that goes back to what I'd posted earlier regarding the birth announcements in the HI papers...

The timeline doesn't work. No way in hell they could have flown back to HI and had the DOH release the information to the newspapers in time for the announcements to appear on Sunday the 13th. 

The idiot who forged the document should have at least made the date of birth a week or two earlier. But then, we get into all the stuff we discussed above about how they couldn't have fooled anyone into believing this was a brand-new newborn.


----------



## Emma

paperview said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found the real Kenyan BC.
> 
> http://osmoothie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/25hlhmp.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> RACE: Captivatingly Kenyan.
> 
> lol
Click to expand...

B-Rock "The Islamic Shock"


----------



## DiveCon

paperview said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Republic of Kenya" ROFLMAO!!!!!
> 
> They are dumb as a bag of hammers
> 
> 
> 
> http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Kenya.pdf
> 
> _*"Kenya became independent on December 12, 1963, and the next year became a republic and joined the Commonwealth."*_
> 
> 
> 
> quit laughing emma
> the document was signed after it became a republic
> he clearly didnt READ the document too well
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When DId Kenya declare itself as a Republic, Dive?
> 
> <jeopardy song plays>
Click to expand...

1964
read the bottom where it is signed
LOL

btw, i'm not saying its REAL
lol
just that your claim doesnt fit


----------



## Emma

DiveCon said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> quit laughing emma
> the document was signed after it became a republic
> he clearly didnt READ the document too well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When DId Kenya declare itself as a Republic, Dive?
> 
> <jeopardy song plays>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1964
> read the bottom where it is signed
> LOL
Click to expand...


LOL

Read my post above...


----------



## paperview

DiveCon said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> quit laughing emma
> the document was signed after it became a republic
> he clearly didnt READ the document too well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When DId Kenya declare itself as a Republic, Dive?
> 
> <jeopardy song plays>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1964
> read the bottom where it is signed
> LOL
> 
> btw, i'm not saying its REAL
> lol
> just that your claim doesnt fit
Click to expand...

What DATE in 1964?  That's kind of important here.

And thanks for calling me a stupid moron - with a ref.  lol


----------



## DiveCon

paperview said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> When DId Kenya declare itself as a Republic, Dive?
> 
> <jeopardy song plays>
> 
> 
> 
> 1964
> read the bottom where it is signed
> LOL
> 
> btw, i'm not saying its REAL
> lol
> just that your claim doesnt fit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What DATE in 1964?  That's kind of important here.
> 
> And thanks for calling me a stupid moron - with a ref.  lol
Click to expand...

because it doesnt matter what the date was
its fake
since the state of HI says he was born there
and
they could have called themselves a republic before it was widely known outside of the country
that is possible
so that alone doesnt prove it being fake


----------



## Emma

DiveCon said:


> because it doesnt matter what the date was



Sure it does.


----------



## DiveCon

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> because it doesnt matter what the date was
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does.
Click to expand...

it matters what date they put on a clearly fake document?
why?

so if they made the date feb 1965 that would make it authentic?


----------



## paperview

Kenyan Leader Announces Plans for Republic; State Will Sever Last Tie ... - Free Preview - The New York Times


----------



## Emma

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> because it doesnt matter what the date was
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it matters what date they put on a clearly fake document?
Click to expand...


Because it proves that it IS fake, that's why.


----------



## Emma

paperview said:


> Kenyan Leader Announces Plans for Republic; State Will Sever Last Tie ... - Free Preview - The New York Times



Excellent find 



> By ROBERT CONLEYSpecial to The New York Times
> *August 15, 1964*, Saturday
> Page 3, 333 words
> 
> NAIROBI, Kenya, Aug. 14 -- *Kenya will become a republic Dec. 12*, the first anniversary of her freedom from British rule, Prime Minister Jomo Kenyatta said today.



_Busted!_


----------



## DiveCon

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does.
> 
> 
> 
> it matters what date they put on a clearly fake document?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it proves that it IS fake, that's why.
Click to expand...

see my edit
LOL


----------



## 007

Emma said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is the record of him being naturalized?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You can't open the book of my life and jump in the middle"
> - Captain Malcolm Reynolds​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry. Too vague for me at this hour.
> 
> Where is the record of his naturalization ceremony? Or for that matter his "green card"? Both are public record.
> 
> Unless you believe he's an illegal alien who has resided in the US all these many years.
Click to expand...

The first thing obama did when he hit the Oval Office, and I mean the FIRST thing, was sign an executive order SEALING ALL his personal records, BC, passport, college records, health records, immigration records, everything.

Is that the transparency he was talking about? I keep coming back to that quote from obama saying, _"if I hide anything from you, I'll tell you why."_ Gee, seems to me asking why obama is hiding his BC is one of those things he should be telling us why he's hiding it... don't you?


----------



## bk1983

The republican governor who actively campaigned for McCain/Palin verified the states possession of Obama's original BC. 

The state registrar verified it.

Director of department of health verified it.

Authentic Hawaii COLB posted online.

2 separate birth announcements in our 2 local papers. 

If all that does not prove he is a citizen, then I am pretty sure no one born in Hawaii is. When I request a BC, I get the same thing Obama posted, a COLB, also our certification of marriages are in a similar format as well.


----------



## bk1983

Missourian said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Important passage from the article cited:
> *"The law further states that the Health Department "shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record."*
> 
> Those who have "direct and tangible interest" are generally limited to the person named in the record, the spouse, parent, descendant, or personal representative, or by someone who is involved in marital, parental or death litigation involving the named person's vital record or other legal reason established by a court order, and various official agency or organization representatives, including the state director of health, according to the law."​So President Obama could release this document at anytime he should so choose.
> 
> Why doesn't he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can he release a document _the state no longer issues?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read it?
> 
> I clearly states he can get a certified copy of the original.
Click to expand...


Wrong! What they will send you for the $10 is a COLB. Not original BC.   Call the office and verify for yourself (808) 586-4533


----------



## DiveCon

bk1983 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can he release a document _the state no longer issues?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read it?
> 
> I clearly states he can get a certified copy of the original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong! What they will send you for the $10 is a COLB. Not original BC. Call the office and verify for yourself (808) 586-4533
Click to expand...

i'm sure they have been harrassed enough already


----------



## bk1983

DiveCon said:


> bk1983 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read it?
> 
> I clearly states he can get a certified copy of the original.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! What they will send you for the $10 is a COLB. Not original BC. Call the office and verify for yourself (808) 586-4533
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i'm sure they have been harrassed enough already
Click to expand...


The answering message should say "Hello you reached the Hawaii State Dept of Health if you are calling for vital records press 1, if you are calling about Obama's birth certificate get a life. Thank you and have a nice day"


----------



## DiveCon

bk1983 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bk1983 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! What they will send you for the $10 is a COLB. Not original BC. Call the office and verify for yourself (808) 586-4533
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they have been harrassed enough already
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answering message should say "Hello you reached the Hawaii State Dept of Health if you are calling for vital records press 1, if you are calling about Obama's birth certificate get a life. Thank you and have a nice day"
Click to expand...

that would only get them to say "see, its a cover up"


but, that would be damned funny


----------



## bk1983

DiveCon said:


> bk1983 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they have been harrassed enough already
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answering message should say "Hello you reached the Hawaii State Dept of Health if you are calling for vital records press 1, if you are calling about Obama's birth certificate get a life. Thank you and have a nice day"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that would only get them to say "see, its a cover up"
> 
> 
> but, that would be damned funny
Click to expand...


So are you trying to tell me this is not one giant cover up? The more you dig the more you see how much people were actually involved in this conspiracy. 





> "Take a second and think about that," wrote Robert Farley of the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times' Pulitzer Prize winning Web site PoliticFact.com on July 1. "In order to phony those notices up, it would have required the complicity of the state Health Department and two independent newspapers  on the off chance this unnamed child might want to one day be president of the United States."
> 
> Birthers wave off those birth announcements, saying that Obama family members 48 years ago could have phoned in false information to both newspapers.
> 
> Such vital statistics, however, were not sent to the newspapers by the general public but by the Health Department, which received the information directly from hospitals, Okubo said.



Hawaii officials confirm Obama's original birth certificate still exists | HonoluluAdvertiser.com | The Honolulu Advertiser


Good thing I get all my news from WND, they are the only news I can trust that is not controlled by the Obamassiah..


----------



## EriktheRed

Hey there, Birthers!


Now you - yes, YOU! - can get in on the act with your own Kenyan Birth Certificate Generator!

Playing a part in confirming your own hateful, delusional fantasies has never been so much fun!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

EriktheRed said:


> Hey there, Birthers!
> 
> 
> Now you - yes, YOU! - can get in on the act with your own Kenyan Birth Certificate Generator!
> 
> Playing a part in confirming your own hateful, delusional fantasies has never been so much fun!



The Kenyan Certificate is a much better forgery than the Hawaiian COLB


----------



## paperview

It's sad Frank -- what you have become.


Really sad.


----------



## Emma

paperview said:


> It's sad Frank -- what you have become.
> 
> 
> Really sad.



I've never known him to be any different.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

paperview said:


> It's sad Frank -- what you have become.
> 
> 
> Really sad.



Me, Granny Obama and H.E. Peter Ogaga are the original birthers.  

Leave us alone to our "sadness"


----------



## DiveCon

EriktheRed said:


> Hey there, Birthers!
> 
> 
> Now you - yes, YOU! - can get in on the act with your own Kenyan Birth Certificate Generator!
> 
> Playing a part in confirming your own hateful, delusional fantasies has never been so much fun!


OMG TFF


----------



## EriktheRed

CrusaderFrank said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey there, Birthers!
> 
> 
> Now you - yes, YOU! - can get in on the act with your own Kenyan Birth Certificate Generator!
> 
> Playing a part in confirming your own hateful, delusional fantasies has never been so much fun!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Kenyan Certificate is a much better forgery than the Hawaiian COLB
Click to expand...


whatever you say...keep harping about ACORN, too.


----------



## Navy1960

Every President of the United States of  America represents every single American of this nation , while many might not like what the president stands for, myself among them, the office is still entitled to the dignity and respect it deserves.  While I'm not advocating  blindly following anyone without asking questions, what I am saying is that the man that is in the office  currently is our president and  as for myself,  I like to use the same  set of rules  I operated under when I was in the  Navy.  I will at all times respect the  my commander and chief because he  represent(s) the people of the nation I love and  would willingly lay down my life for.  Barack Obama is my president and while I am in no way shape or form a supporter of his policies, it is clear to me that he is  as much as an American as I am.  President Obama deserves at least the benefit of the doubt even though the last president was rarely accorded the same.  I would also add this, those that would call into question his citizenship are exercising their rights as American citizens  and holding those that lead them to the editcs of the constitution. There is absolutly  nothing wrong with this, and in fact if more of were to actually hold our leaders to the powers that are given them in the constitution, perhaps they might begin to remember it is they who work for us an not the other way around. 

*"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent."
-- Abraham Lincoln, October 16, 1854*


----------

