Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Supreme Court Chief Justice Orders Obama to Provide Valid Birth Certificate by Dec. 1 (Page 11)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 16 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16   
Author Topic: Supreme Court Chief Justice Orders Obama to Provide Valid Birth Certificate by Dec. 1
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As if producing some other form of document would have any convincing effect. People who are determined enough can pretty much invent any argument to support their preferred story and cling to it as if it were the truth that only they know.

Any document produced at this stage in the game will be "a forgery" to the birthers, just like any further evidence of the moon landing will just be more trickery from NASA for the moon-deniers.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, birthers, a question: do you believe the state of Hawai`i forged the short-form certificate that they released?

Yes or no, please, or a percentage of how likely you think it is.

Because if they released it, and that's the standard birth certificate they release to everyone, and it says he was born in Hawai`i, and his mother is a US citizen, then the ONLY reason to still be talking about it is that you think someone in the government there forged it.

And you must think the long-form will say something else.

Do I have this right? I mean, it's not about Obama's refusal to provide everything you *want* and legitimize all your theories, right? It's about finding out the truth?

I guess what I don't get is, if you think that Hawai`i is forging documents, why aren't you attacking *that*, instead of asking for yet another document from a government you already believe capable of producing forgeries?

And really, if they *were* going to release forged documents as part of a conspiracy, why wouldn't they just forge the long-form too and release it? I mean, if you ever manage to get it, won't it be forged too, *if* they are already forging things?

So you should be trying to find evidence of forgery at this point, not chasing after evidence that is certain to match the short-form, whether it's forged or legit.

I mean, Obama is a natural-born citizen no matter what, since his mother is a US citizen, just as McCain was despite being born in Panama. So I know you don't think he isn't qualified to be President on those grounds... right? You just want to nail down precisely where he was born, and you've got reason to believe all the documentation out of Hawai`i is forged... even though they wouldn't need to do so, since he'd still be a citizen even if he *had been* born in Kenya.

Do I have this right?

What if, when Obama's term of office is up, he whips out his long-form, which he had all along, and says he only didn't release it because he thought it was funny to see the birthers get all rabid on the subject?

Because a big part of the birther "argument" is "why doesn't he just release it if he's not hiding anything?" Well, what if it turns out the answer was "because it's funny." Or is that not a possible answer? You didn't like the "it would weaken him to condescend to address such obvious nut-jobs" answer either...

Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What if, when Obama's term of office is up, he whips out his long-form
Too bad Bill Clinton couldn't wait that long to whip out his long-form...

(I'm so sorry. I just had to). [Big Grin]

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Onto more dignified matters, I think Mormegil pretty much has it in a nutshell. Nothing is going to make these people happy.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They don't have to forge anything.

Has anyone ever been granted a birth certificate based on the presumption and assertion that they were born in America even when they were not?

Has Hawaii ever done this?

Let me tell you a little secret. It happens all the time.

If the state made a legitimate document but it was based on false premises, the legitimate document can become illigitimate. Maybe they are worried that information, or lack of information, or some formatting irregularity in the long form could lead to all kinds of questions. Questions they don't have answers for or just don't want to answer.

It may be that the officials there in Hawaii don't want their competency called into question. Maybe they aren't perpetrating a fraud as much as just being lazy. Maybe they are protecting some lazy people from a long time ago. Maybe they are protecting the President. Maybe both. Maybe nothing.

Who knows? Pretty much nobody. And we won't know until we have ALL the information.

The birthers aren't nearly as scary as the people who insist we accept everything any government official tells us as the final word. Even when they tell us they aren't going to tell us everything they know.

Imagine if a government official said he looked at the Bush Guard records and was satisfied that Bush was a malingerer. Case closed. No, you don't need to see it. Here's a summary of our report though. Nothing more to do here folks. Show's over. Move along citizen.

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

As for the birthers not being happy with the long form, I'd say "prove it".

Produce it and see what happens. Speculating about whether it'd make birthers happy or not is as silly as me speculating on what might or might not be on the long form. We're not going to know until something happens.

Obviously, a lot of people have a vested interested in not knowing. You know it's a sad day in America when people proudly stand up straight and tall and absolutely demand to be kept ignorant.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/birther-day.html
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why should he have to? There is no official requirement in any case whatsoever for the long form. I can walk in to the US embassy with the short form and get a new passport. The short form is what the law requires. If the governor and sec. state of the state where I was born bother to validate it, that's above and beyond. If the papers, at the time, got the info on my birth from the hospital, long before it became an issue... that would be proof enough for anyone not absolutely addicted to the idea that Obama is the "other".
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Obviously, a lot of people have a vested interested in not knowing. You know it's a sad day in America when people proudly stand up straight and tall and absolutely demand to be kept ignorant
Ahh, the unintended irony.
quote:
As for the birthers not being happy with the long form, I'd say "prove it".
Well, if you take a quick look at the Wikipedia entry on the 'controversy', you will see several groups that claim the long form would be beside the point: these are people who believe he either gave up his US citizenship (if he ever really had it) or that he travelled to Pakistan using a non-US passport, or that he has dual citizenship, or that his paternal step-grandmother claims he was born in Kenya (trumping any fake paper documents). There are a slew of secondary conspiracy theories that would survive the production of a certified, original, birth certificate document.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I hope this is not off thread but this must have come up before so someone will be able to give me an answer.

I’ve been reading a few sites lately that make a case for President Obama having UK/USA dual nationality and therefore unfit to be President. It’s a long piece, with laws from both Countries, but even if it were correct about the dual nationality would it matter.

Example

quote:
This all leads to the question of how can Obama be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was at birth both a U.S. citizen (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and a British citizen which alone disqualifies him from having that status? But to make matters worse, Obama continues to be a British citizen at a time that he is currently the President of the United States. Can we reasonably conclude that the Founding Fathers, who had just fought a war with Great Britain and who did not want a foreigner to occupy the Office of President, would have allowed a British citizen, who carries that status not only from birth but also to the time he occupies the Office, to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of its Military? Another question is how can a would-be President and Commander in Chief of the Military with current dual citizenship obtain a security clearance which he would need to access classified U.S. government information needed by him to carry out the sensitive functions of that Office?
Another Example

Surely if it was good enough for George Washington it should be good enough for Barack Obama.

Posts: 715 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From Wikipedia:
quote:
In spite of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which states that anyone born in any state is a citizen, some campaigners, such as Leo Donofrio, have asserted that Barack Obama is ineligible for the Presidency even if born in Hawaii. According to those believing in the theory, since Obama's father was Kenyan with British citizenship and not a US citizen, they argue that Obama held dual citizenship when born, or that he did not qualify for US citizenship in the first place.

In August 2008, the Rocky Mountain News ran an online article asserting that Obama is both a US and a Kenyan citizen. This turned out to be incorrect. Although the paper published an apology for the mistake, it provided more fuel for online rumors about Obama's eligibility for the presidency. FactCheck noted that Obama had indeed been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) by virtue of his descent from a Kenyan father at a time when Kenya was a British colony, and lost CUKC citizenship and became a Kenyan citizen when that country gained independence in 1963. However, Kenya's constitution prohibits dual citizenship in adulthood. Obama had therefore automatically lost his Kenyan citizenship at age 21, in 1982, by failing to formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.


Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for that Donald and I’m sure Wiki is the font of all knowledge but the article states

quote:
These provisions made Obama’s father and Obama citizens of Kenya, respectively. But neither Kenya’s independence from Great Britain nor the Kenyan Constitution caused Obama to lose his British citizenship with which he was born. Obama concedes that his citizenship converted from British to Kenyan but he adds that he then lost this Kenyan citizenship when he did not confirm it upon reaching the age of 21. There are no known statements from either Obama or his campaign contending that he eventually lost his British citizenship.


Is this quote true, has President Obama actually said he renounced British Citizenship.
Posts: 715 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lina Inverse
Member
Member # 6361

 - posted      Profile for Lina Inverse   Email Lina Inverse       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It automatically converted when Kenya became free; I don't think he could've kept it, at least not without some active effort on his part. Otherwise every random Kenyan villager who was alive at that time and didn't actively renounce their British citizenship is still British.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The rules for CUKC's becoming British citizens are well defined: basically, it requires UK and island ancestry (either born or naturalized) which Obama did not and does not have; or 5 years residence in the UK and islands prior to 1983 together with settled status (again, no); or, if a woman, marriage to a man who possessed right of abode (oh God, I hope not).

So no, Obama is not a UK citizen. But what about Kenyan? well, here's the thing: at the time of Kenyan independence, all Kenyan CUKCs automatically became Kenyans, losing their CUKC status. From the Kenyan constitution:
quote:
Chapter VI, Section 87:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963...

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

Following 1963, Obama was neither a citizen of the UK nor a citizen of the UKC - the article posted is categorically wrong on that point.

Moving on, up until he was 21 years old Obama was a dual citizen of Kenya and the US. However, at the age of 21 and not having renounced his US citizenship, Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship. Also, by being born outside of Kenya, Obama would additionally have needed to have registered a declaration with the Kenyan government of his intention to keep his Kenyan citizenship - this he also had not done. From Section 97 of the Kenyan constitution:
quote:
97. Dual citizenship
A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya. made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.

And this is a wonderful example for cherry that Obama providing his original birth certificate would not in fact put an end to the birthers nonsense.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They don't have to forge anything.

Has anyone ever been granted a birth certificate based on the presumption and assertion that they were born in America even when they were not?

Has Hawaii ever done this?

Let me tell you a little secret. It happens all the time.

That's your argument? Really? Okay, so I gave you every chance to come up with even a theory that *sounded* good, to convince me, an Obama-hating bystander, and that was it? Oi.

Okay... so why do you care about the long-form then? What possible relevance could the long-form have UNLESS it is DIFFERENT from short form?

If there are forgers at work, they would surely for it as well.

If the state was simply duped, then since the short form is based on info on the long form, then the long form would NOT be different.

So why do you want so badly to see it? Only if it is different will it further your cause... do you even have a theory that it IS different and why it would be?

I know one thing. if I were Obama, I would DEFINITELY never do anything that might shut up the birthers (if such be possible, that is). They are like the Westboro Baptist Church for Republicans, only with sheer idiocy instead of hate.

If I didn't know some of you better, I'd swear you were closet Obamaphiles trying to smear the Republicans, that's how awful this issue makes you look.

Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You know it's a sad day in America when people proudly stand up straight and tall and absolutely demand to be kept ignorant.


Ignorant of knowing what make birthers happy? Proud to be so uninformed, sir, deeply proud. what makes ignorant lunatics happy is the kind of ignorance I cherish.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks again Donald for that. I know the US Supreme Court has already ruled on this and I’m not trying to score Brit points. It was the question of a President with dual nationality that intrigued me and its possible connection with the Governor of California but that definitely is another thread.
Posts: 715 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> Mormegil

> Okay, so I gave you every chance to come up with even a theory that *sounded* good, to convince me...

Theory to convince you?

Theories shouldn't be convincing. EVIDENCE is convincing. And right now it's being withheld.

Theories about this are only toys to play with and amuse ourselves speculating about. Asking for more than that is just being silly. What people should be asking for is evidence. It exists. It is just being withheld.

What would it really prove?

Again, nobody knows. Maybe nothing. Maybe everything. But coming to any decision before having all the evidence is just whistling in the wind. It may make you feel good, but it's all just hot air.

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

> And this is a wonderful example for cherry that Obama providing his original birth certificate would not in fact put an end to the birthers nonsense.

Those are different issues and should be decided based on their own merits. "Birthers" are the ones who wonder if Obama was born in America. If people concede he was born in America but have other issues, then defining them as birthers is not really accurate.

As for court rulings in Obama's favor, so far all of them have ruled that we don't need to see all of the evidence. That's kind of weird. Definitely suspicious.

Allegedly, Obama isn't just ignoring this. He's spent over 800,000 dollars paying his lawyers to actively keep his long form from being released. Now there is a group offering 25 million dollars for Obama to release his long form. People want to know the truth, whatever that may be. Do the people have a right to know the truth?

Apparently, not in the new ObAmerica.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Evidence that evidence is necessary to the actual purpose (presidential legitimacy) has yet to be provided. Evidence that a few corner-cranks want evidence to cease their whining is, alas, amply available.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A note of a more functionally relevant note:

let us assume, for sake of argument, that technically Obama isn't a USA citizen qualified to be POTUS. By what is clearly known, such a distinction would be, indeed, a trifling technicality.

Obama has proven himself, through his actions, to be a genuine American aristocrat, someone who bootstrapped himself from modest roots to high achievement culminating in the Oval Office.

By this model, I see no meaningful objection to be raised at Obama being president. The only argument I can see deserving more than a moment's passing attention and subsequent consignment to the Ignore list, is the slippery slope argument that if we let one such technical deviation occur, this will result in us letting, oh, born and raised North Koreans to be elected president.

The current furor over Obama's legal right to be president, raised by a vocal few, shows that this slippery slope would not be allowed to create further slippage. The issue would become large enough to incite a major movement toward Constitutional amendment, and whatever form that amendment would take, it would reflect the will of an American majority, and I doubt an American majority would approve persons, say, raised in Austria, to become POTUS.

But then, maybe they would? We have offshore American corps seeking tax havens, yes? The very definition of nationalism has been eroding for decades.

Either way, I don't see significant merit in the current belief by some that some gnat's hair of distinction could make Obama unqualified to be POTUS, any more than I saw in the silly nonsense some raised about McCain's lineage of citizenship should be construed as reason to disqualify a man who served in the Armed Forces to be POTUS.

By any meaningful test, this is silly horse****, and horse****, silly or not, stinks.

[ August 07, 2009, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Those are different issues and should be decided based on their own merits. "Birthers" are the ones who wonder if Obama was born in America.
Actually, if you look at birthers.org, you will see that at least some self-identifying "birthers" reject that being born in America is sufficient for Obama to be considered 'natural born'. Look, you may not like it, but the term 'birther' had its bastard origins in the 'truther' nutbars following 9/11; it's a handy nick used to label the entire lunatic fringe attempting to prove that Obama is illegitimate. The fact that many of the conspiracy theories surround his birth was handy in coming up with the label, but it is no longer (if it ever was) exclusive to those flavours.

But this is all beside the point being made, which was that production of his original birth certificate would significantly stanch the conspiracies' life blood. It wouldn't.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
'Apparently, not in the new ObAmerica."

I own that trademark and order you to cease and desist.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was wondering where I picked that up from...
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder what the difference would be between
(1) Obama, hypothetically, if he had been born in Kenya
(2) George Bush, if he had violated his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Now lets see - who would be the most ineligible?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
>Theory to convince you?

Not to convince me of your position. To convince me your position isn't irrational on its face. Incidentally, you failed miserably.

> Again, nobody knows. Maybe nothing. Maybe everything.

You don't even have a *guess*? You can't even map out the likely outcomes? I guess you never learned to plot a Truth Table in school.

I mean, come on. Humans can make guesses about unknown events. You're in school and you're summoned to the principal's office. Why?

A) You're in trouble
B) You've won an academic award
C) He wants to play strip poker with you

Can you see that C is probably VERY unlikely, and your own knowledge of your recent conduct may give you a guess as to whether A or B is more likely?

Or would you say "Wow, I have NO IDEA why the principal wants to see me. I can't begin to guess." Of course not. You can figure out a number of possible explanations, if you bother to try.

But here you are, demanding to see the long form birth certificate, and when asked what you expect to see, you have NO CLUE. It could have a picture of Barbara Eden in an Arabian Harem outfit on it, for all you know.

The rest of us expect it, with rather high probability, to contain the same info as the short form. If you expect us to care about your position AT ALL, you should tell us what you think might be on there that's important. Otherwise it's just a document you want, cause you want it, I guess, but why should we care? And if you don't expect us to care, why are you on the internet talking about it?

Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I wonder what the difference would be between
(1) Obama, hypothetically, if he had been born in Kenya
(2) George Bush, if he had violated his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Now lets see - who would be the most ineligible?

The former is unable to become president, the latter would be able to become president, but might lose it if convicted of that charge.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Morm - your right except that in this particular case, there are a few possibilities. Cherry has already provided examples of things that could or could not be on his birth certificate. Cherry is not suggesting that "any"thing could be on the certificate, its the question of certain things that are in question. You really should have extrapolated that from the eleven pages of thread about this.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My position is that we don't have ALL the evidence that exists so we don't have enough information to come to any definitive conclusions.

I shouldn't have to convince anyone of that. If people can't gather that from the facts already on the table, that's not my problem.

If people don't care, that's their problem.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know, we don't yet have all the facts that Obama is not a Martian. Heck, we didn't have all the facts to rule out Bush or Clinton as Martians, either.

Oops.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And is that the sort of thing that is being suggested? You are trying to equate completely ridiculous claims with ones that have at least some foot hold in probability. Please take my word "completely" very seriously. There is 0% chance Obama is a Martian. There is certainly an infinitely greater chance that President Obama is not U.S. born, even if that probability is very very low.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I really....really haven't read too much on this story, or bothered looking into many of the related issues regarding this topic - I may wear a tinfoil hat when it comes to Globalist One World Governance conspiracy theory...but I'm no "birther."

Hell, I haven't read anything beyond the first and last page of this now 11 page thread.

But i do have this little line of questioning to pose here:

From what I have gathered, Obama has shown a green colored certificate of live birth - the printout we get here in Hawaii from the Dept. of Health.

This is not the same as the actual birth certificate - the black paper with white text (a microfiche friendly negative document I guess) on it, giving the details of a birth.

So there is some merit to people calling for Obama to produce the original, and not the green duplicate form.

But whether or not that really matters....what gets me is this:

I had to show my original Birth Certificate to a number of authorities and institutions throughout my life to do certain things like get a SS card, get my first drivers license, my State ID, register for school, apply for scholarships, apply for my marriage license.

I've been required as a US citizen to keep my BC and present it for a number of reasons.

Why is it outrageous that some people demand the US President produce the same document We the People have to do all the time?

Oh, and I haven't checked recently, but one can certainly buy their own BC duplicates form the DOH.

If Obama really wanted this issue to go away, it would be a matter of picking up the phone and having the HI DOH issue him a duplicate.

We the Sheeple of Hawaii would have to go down to the DOH on Punchbowl and Beretania St., pull a number, wait in a line and pay the fees and than wait about 20 min to an hour and we could get our duplicate BC....but I'm sure they'd not require Barack to do the same.

It IS rather weird that if he is in fact born here in HI, and is a de facto US citizen, why doesn't he simply produce the document that would end this garbage instantly?

Really...I don't care. I believe we've had Presidents for almost 100 years now that have been Unconstitutional in many ways, shapes and forms...Obama violating the constitution is nothing new, unprecedented or ground breaking.

In fact, it's par for the course.

So really....those of you that make jokes, Daily News styled sarcastic quips making fun of people asking a perfectly legitimate question..

If we, average Joe citizen, has to produce the actual BC for a number of qualifications, why should BO be any different?

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I had to show my original Birth Certificate to a number of authorities and institutions throughout my life to do certain things like get a SS card, get my first drivers license, my State ID, register for school, apply for scholarships, apply for my marriage license.
Perhaps you should read the thread. According to the state of Hawaii, the form Obama has produced is the only form required for any of those things.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don;t have my original birth certificate, and I know few people who do. Most of us have certified copies of one form or another. They'e not necessarily facimiles nor do they all contain the same precise information. They're simply certificates of a basic fact: person A was born at locale B on such a date.

I'm confused: does Obama's certificate not convey this information?

Horse****, horse****, horse****.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
President Obama benefits from not settling this once and for all: making some of his enemies keep on screaming for it marginalizes them. As Cherry has pointed out, it distracts from the issue of the bill he wants to pass, which his enemies do have some traction against him with. He suffers a bit, as seen from the criticism he gets here. But he may be banking on a net gain. I personally think its gotten to the point now where:

If he is legit, then it seems that to continue to actively not show that he is, is merely a political scheme, which he has claimed to be above.

If he is not legit, he should never have run for office, and should certainly stand down now.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"making some of his enemies keep on screaming for it marginalizes them."

I suppose you didn't mean to state it that way, but still, for the record: no one is making birthers scream about anything, that I know of, but themselves.

But yes, for loons to so loudly display their lunacy is a beneficial cautionary example to others.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If he is legit, then it seems that to continue to actively not show that he is, is merely a political scheme, which he has claimed to be above.
It's to his benefit to not do anything the birthers want, because their screaming does marginalize them. And of course it's a political scheme, and if he claimed to be above such things, he was LYING, because he's a **politician**. Saying "I'm above political schemes" IS a political scheme.
Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Update:

http://cwnewz.com/content/view/1358/2/

Written by Leah Jones

Monday, 21 June 2010

"Christian Web News - The former Honolulu elections official who said Obama was “definitely” not born in Hawaii is now reaffirming those claims to a network television affiliate.

Tim Adams, the former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu was interviewed by Gene Birk of ABC affiliate WBKO-TV in Bowling Green, Ky.

Video of the 9-minute interview has been posted on YouTube and is embedded here:

"As of the time I was in Hawaii working in the elections office," said Adams, "we had many people who were asking about the eligibility of Senator Obama to be president. I was told at the time there is no long-form birth record, which would have been the case if President Obama was born in [a] hospital in Honolulu. There is no such form in Hawaii."

As WorldNetDaily first reported June 10, Honolulu's current elections administrator, Glen Takahashi, confirmed that Tim Adams was indeed "senior elections clerk" in 2008, in charge of verifying voters' identity, especially those involving absentee ballots.

Adams, 45, also noted he's willing to testify about his claims in a court of law.

He continued in his TV interview: "[Obama] does have a [Certification] of Live Birth, which is given to children of families who are residents of Hawaii when children are born outside the state. So, I assert that he was born outside of Hawaii. Now, we can't tell you where he was born. Some of his family members said that he had been born while his mother was on a trip overseas.

"When I mentioned this, it got people's attention. They also did not like my conclusions that since President Obama does have a [Certification] of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii, that he was born a U.S. citizen. And during the initial part of the campaign, when questions about his eligibility to be president came up – including Senator McCain because he was born in Panama – that both these men were vetted by the same process as any other presidential candidate. So, while we may not agree, some people say that because of Article 2 of the Constitution, President Obama was not eligible to be president. That's not a question that we can answer."

"... Adams' claims are very different from those of the White House.

"The noble truth is that the president was born in Hawaii, a state of the United States of America," Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told WND.

Linda Lingle, the Republican governor of Hawaii, has also publicly voiced the alleged exact location of Obama's birth, saying "the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii..."

"..."There is no birth certificate," he said. "It's like an open secret. There isn't one. Everyone in the government there knows this."

"I had direct access to the Social Security database, the national crime computer, state driver's license information, international passport information, basically just about anything you can imagine to get someone's identity," Adams explained. "I could look up what bank your home mortgage was in. I was informed by my boss that we did not have a birth record [for Obama]."

At the time, there were conflicting reports that Obama had been born at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, as well as the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children, also located in the capital city. So Adams says his office checked with both facilities.

"They told us, 'We don't have a birth certificate for him,'" he said. "They told my supervisor, either by phone or by e-mail, neither one has a document that a doctor signed off on saying they were present at this man's birth."

No Hawaiian hospital has provided documented confirmation Obama was born at its facility so far.

Adams, 45, stressed, "In my professional opinion, he definitely was not born in Hawaii. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that he was not born in Hawaii because there is no legal record of him being born there. If someone called and asked about it, I could not tell them that person was born in the state..."

"...President Obama has yet to provided simple, incontrovertible proof of his exact birthplace. That information would be included on his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate, which Obama has steadfastly refused to release amid a flurry of conflicting reports.

The White House has only proffered on the Internet a "Certification of Live Birth" to assert he was born in Hawaii, but that document was available to children not born in Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth.

Many people remain unaware a child could be born somewhere else and still receive a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth. State law specifically allows "an adult or the legal parents of a minor child" to apply to the health department and, upon unspecified proof, be given the birth document.

"Anyone can get that [Certification of Live Birth]," said Adams. "They are normally given if you give birth at home or while traveling overseas. We have a lot of Asian population [in Hawaii]. It's quite common for people to come back and get that."

As WND reported last July, the Kapi'olani Medical Center trumpeted – then later concealed – a letter allegedly written by President Obama in which he ostensibly declares his birth at the facility.

"As a beneficiary of the excellence of the Kapi'olani Medical Center – the place of my birth – I am pleased to add my voice to your chorus of supporters," Obama purportedly wrote.

But the authenticity of that letter remains in doubt. Since WND raised questions about the veracity of the letter itself and its content, the White House has refused to say if the message is real and if its text originated with the president.

Besides his actual birth documentation, documentation that remains concealed for Obama includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records."

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

That sure is a lot of non-transparency from the guy who ran on full disclosure.

He won't even confirm or deny that he wrote a letter praising the hospital in which he was supposedly born. He ought to know whether or not he wrote a letter.

As Obama chalks up one failure and broken promise after another, this is going to be of greater and greater concern, especially to many of his former supporters. After all the people President Obama has thrown under the bus, it's not going to be much longer until his karma catches up to him.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*sigh* WND is simply never going to admit that they were wrong about this, will they? And as long as whackjobs can repeat themselves, they'll just keep this going.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, I'm curious, what do you find to be so insanely improbable or fantastical about what is stated in Cherry's link? For some reason I think you have a journalism background. If that's true, I would guess that you have some experience with the inner twists and turns of bureaucracies like hospitals and governments. Personally, I read hospital records and government records all day long. I see inconsistencies like this on a regular basis. I've seen critical details get missed by experienced lawyers only to be dredged up years later. Documents don't always agree. One document says one thing, another document says something else.

Now honestly, if we stripped this situation of all context and simply evaluated the claim on the merits, don't you think there's at least a substantial possibility that the claims are true? Or do you maintain that a bureaucratic glitch (which is basically what is being described in Cherry's link) is on the same level of probability as the faked moon landing or aliens at Area 51? What incontrovertible evidence proves that the claims are false beyond reasonable doubt?

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Now honestly, if we stripped this situation of all context and simply evaluated the claim on the merits, don't you think there's at least a substantial possibility that the claims are true?
It's not the "claims" that bother me, jason; it's the perceived importance. Whether it's a bureaucratic glitch or an elaborate conspiracy put into motion before Obama was born, the simple truth of the matter is that the entire topic is an irrelevant distraction -- and is being cynically and knowingly used as a distraction. Let us, as you say, grant the possibility that these "claims" -- which amount to the observation that a single nonessential document is missing -- mean that Obama may have been born elsewhere; the simple truth is that the other documents on file certify his citizenship to the satisfaction of the law. In other words: even given the absolute best-case scenario for the birther argument, there is no case to be made for any action in the direction they'd like to see. They are spitting into the wind.

Heck, consider some of the other items on that list. Do you imagine that Obama is willfully concealing his kindergarten records or adoption records? Why, for that matter, would anyone think that Obama's articles written as a professor are being "concealed?"

There are very real issues to be criticized in the Obama presidency. Hanging on this point is absolutely senseless, and it's senseless to the point of being tiresome. Why, for example, are they not complaining about executive power and secrecy? I know WND's probably not in a good place to do that, if only because of accusations of hypocrisy, but it'd still be nice to see them trying to be relevant.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree Tom that the practical consequences (in terms of his ability to be a good President) are non-existent. But legally, speaking, how can you say that it's "irrelevant" that the claims are true, when this would have the consequence of invalidating his Presidency?

Moreover, if (as you seem to be implying) you agree that there is at least a substantial possibility (let's say 5%, to pick an arbitrary number) that Obama is not born where he says he was born and does not meet the legal requirement of "natural born" citizen, isn't it disingenuous to dismiss the birthers as "whackjobs" for a different reason (namely, that you think their allegations, even if true, shouldn't matter)?

You do admit that Obama being born in a country other than the United States is not on the same plausibility continnum as, say, holocaust denial or 911 conspiracies?

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 16 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1