Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Cover-up worse than the crime?

Cover-up worse than the crime?
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2011, 03:37 PM
 
Please be patient with me.

I'm not trying to stoke the fires of controversy, or call for anyone's head.

I'm also not trying to fan the flames that fuels the fires of nutty conspiracy theorists.

So, having said that (and please, don't just attack the source):

Hawaii governor can't find Obama birth certificate

I've been one that hasn't been all that bothered by the status of Obama's citizenship. I figure that if he somehow managed to provide what the powers that be says is required (and have his birth printed in the local paper) then I wasn't going to sweat it. His powers to manipulate (if such a thing where true) would be something we should use for good, and have him on "our side!

However, my gut has always whispered that there has to be a reason Obama would never just pony up the "long form" birth certificate and end all the speculation forwarded by the "birthers". I figured that there would be some information given on that document which would go contrary to some other claimed fact, or something that might be potentially embarrassing to him. So, they just refused to budge since they had the "certificate of live birth."

Apparently after much investigation, the fact has been discovered that that you could get someone who was not born in Hawaii a certificate of live birth for Hawaii just by going down to the Health Department and showing you had been a Hawaii resident for the past year. The address that the COLB uses is that of his grandparents who lived there at the time - not either of his parents.

The newspapers also didn't get their info from the Hospitals - but rather the state dept. of vital statistics and there was no real vetting of the information, so his grandparents going down to the health department to try to ensure that he'd still be counted as a "US Citizen" would have generated the newspaper announcements in question.

So, absent a "long form" that was always filled out by the hospital, it does appear that Obama could very well not be a US Citizen as the letter of the law outlines and is required to be President of the United States. The nutty birthers could STILL be right!

Absent a long form, and including the fact that we know that Obama's parents traveled extensively and that at least one of Obama's family members had already stated clearly that Obama was born in Africa, not the United States, I think that there is "reasonable doubt" here that Obama is actually a citizen.

Could someone else take a look at the article, their evidence, and poke holes in their argument? I can't, but I'm biased in thinking that there's something here to be discovered. If I'm missing something, let me know.

If it's discovered that Obama isn't legally a citizen (according to the letter of the law) where does that lead us? Should rational people call for his removal from office? I'm not sure such a stringent application of the "letter of the law" is helpful. But, what kind of precedent would that set? What about the fact that Obama and his people likely knew about all this, but didn't come forward with the truth? Is the "cover-up" truly worse than the "crime?" (rhetorical question - we all know this only applies to wrong doing by Republicans, not Democrats, otherwise Bill Clinton would have been been removed from office for felony libel while President )

Any feedback? I'm not looking for personal attacks against "Birthers" or off-topic attacks on Obama. No silly parodies either.

What do you think?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2011, 03:58 PM
 
I just wonder if the legislation he signed would still be valid if he wasn't a citizen. Why didn't the news media check up on this?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2011, 04:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Why didn't the news media check up on this?
I'm sure FOX is right on it.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2011, 04:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Absent a long form, and including the fact that we know that Obama's parents traveled extensively and that at least one of Obama's family members had already stated clearly that Obama was born in Africa, not the United States, I think that there is "reasonable doubt" here that Obama is actually a citizen.
No, there isn't. According to your article, anyway, the next-most-likely place Obama would have been born, based on the movements of his mother, was Seattle, so I'm not sure what the relevance is. And no, Sarah Obama did not say that he was born in Kenya.

Spend more time worrying about reality.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2011, 04:15 PM
 
No smoke without fire.

And the charges are treason and wire fraud (for Barry)... ...conspiracy to treason (for everyone else, including those who voted for him).
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2011, 04:46 PM
 
WND is not a credible news organization.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2011, 05:25 PM
 
Why do you say that? What specifically makes WND non-credible? Because it reports on stories that some find distasteful or disturbing? Because it has a pro-Christian bias? (I don't hold that fact against them.) Because you should take its stories with grains of salt, as you should all media?

If it is eventually uncovered that Obama isn't a natural born citizen, the Left will respond by saying that that portion of the Constitution is outdated, unneeded and racist, and we'll also hear that you can't blame a child for the geography of his birth.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jan 19, 2011 at 05:35 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2011, 06:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
WND is not a credible news organization.
FAIL

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
No, there isn't. According to your article, anyway, the next-most-likely place Obama would have been born, based on the movements of his mother, was Seattle, so I'm not sure what the relevance is.
That's given as a possibility. They've shown that she was in Seattle just shortly after his birth. They don't however try to specifically claim where she was when he was born. Others have claimed that the Obamas went to Kenya to meet his parents and claim that hospital officials there have seen records of his birth there. I wasn't really considering any of this credible until it's now become clear that Obama could have been born in Kenya, and still have easily had the "paper trail" he has that would make it appear that he was a citizen even though he legally did not meet the federal requirements.

no, Sarah Obama did not say that he was born in Kenya.

Spend more time worrying about reality.
Read the rebuttals already. People who know Sarah Obama and speak her native tongue say that she clearly stated that he was born in Mombassa and that it was the interpreter that continually tried to interject Hawaii as the location of his birth. She herself didn't change her answer. The guy answering for her did. You can hear her affirm "Mombassa" but you don't hear anything from her when the interpreter insists on "Hawaii". At least that's what the interviewer and people who speak Mrs. Obama's native tongue say happened and what you hear on the tape.

That's not "proof" of anything, but it is circumstantial evidence. If there is no physical "Long Form", then the evidence would seem to point to Obama's not being born in Hawaii, and rather an after-the-fact report was given at the Department of Health, as was legal at the time.

Could have been in Seattle, but why not just say so if that was the case, since a Seattle birth would have also given him citizenship? I'm guessing because then there would have to be a "long form" record of his birth in Seattle as well and if there isn't one there either?!?! If Obama was born in the United States, there should be a hospital filled out "long form" which lists his parents and their addresses. Absent that, and since we know of his parents history of extensive travel (and the fact that his grandmother DID say he was born in Mombassa, even if the interpreter disagreed with her) I think that's more than ample "reasonable doubt" to require more information.

Not enough for proof that he's not eligible, but more than enough for it to be a fair point for further requests for info. Something really does not add up.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2011, 06:45 PM
 
Sane people don't care about this anymore.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2011, 06:45 PM
 
Ah, WND, the world's "free" press that often links to for-pay sites.

It seems as if they're only searching for birth records in hospitals, which is a major issue.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2011, 07:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Something really does not add up.
It only "does not add up" if you pile speculation on top of speculation as you have just done here, or in other words, "stoke the fires of controversy" and "fan the flames that fuels the fires of nutty conspiracy theorists," which you claimed you are not interested in doing.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2011, 07:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Why do you say that? What specifically makes WND non-credible?
Because they do crap like this:

"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2011, 07:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
wnd is not a credible news organization.
this
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2011, 08:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
Sane people don't care about this anymore.
I was at a meeting of the sane people this afternoon. The asked me to politely ask you to stop speaking on their behalf.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
this
Fail #2

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Ah, WND, the world's "free" press that often links to for-pay sites..
Fail #3

Really...is following directions requested in a thread really too much to ask?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2011, 08:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
It only "does not add up" if you pile speculation on top of speculation as you have just done here, or in other words, "stoke the fires of controversy" and "fan the flames that fuels the fires of nutty conspiracy theorists," which you claimed you are not interested in doing.
1. It's not "speculation" that Obama's grandmother said he was born in Kenya. You can hear that on the audio that was taken of the interview in question. What is speculation is whether or not she understood the question. People who were there apparently say that it was the interpreter, not the grandmother who insisted he was actually born in Hawaii. Others say that they information was corrected by the grandmother even though you can't hear her doing it.

2. It's not "speculation" that Obama could have been born in Kenya and still had the exact same "paper trail" that has currently been provided for him. WND provided the laws and regulations as where in place at the time of Obama's birth that shows that all that would have to happen to get a "certificate of live birth" without a hospital provided "long form" would be for someone to show up at the health department on behalf of his parents and provide an address where at least one of the parents are claimed to have lived the past year. This would also generate the appropriate paperwork that the local newspaper used for their birth announcements.

3. It's not "speculation" that Obama refuses to request that his "long form" birth certificate that could clear up matters of his address at the time of his birth and these vital details in regards to his parents.

1. and 3. have been known for some time, but until 2. was clear, most "sane" people would assume that if Obama was born out of the country that it would take an unbelievable effort to falsify the Hawaii vital records to show that Obama was born in Hawaii, and go back in time to plant newspaper notices of his birth there.

Now, due to real investigative reporting, we know the "evidence" provided to support the claim that Obama qualifies for citizenship doesn't really prove anything. No longer do you have to "suspend your disbelief" to accept what had previously had seemed would be an improbable chain of events, given the policies and procedures of the time.

At this point, the only "speculation" that is important is whether or not an actual "long form" birth certificate exists. If it does, and it is produced, it should settle the matter. If it does not exist, it would appear likely that Obama was not born in Hawaii as claimed and additional questions would need answered, with evidence to support.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2011, 08:46 PM
 
This "long-form birth certificate" nonsense is just that. Nonsense.

1. A "Certification of Live Birth" from the state of Hawaii is prima facie evidence of the fact of Hawaiian birth for all legal purposes. It says that right on the bottom of the form.

2. A "Certification of Live Birth" from the state of Hawaii has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport.

3. A "Certification of Live Birth" from the state of Hawaii is in fact a "birth certificate" in all senses of the term produced from a state database. The state of Hawaii does NOT issue "long form birth certificates" which are produced by hospitals.

4. A "long form birth certificate" does not in any way "supersede" the "Certification of Live Birth" in the state of Hawaii. See #1 and #3.

5. And for those who insist that the image of President Obama's birth certificate that the Obama campaign released in 2008 was "fake" (i.e. the author of the WND article, et al), FactCheck.org sent staffers to personally review the actual form itself. Let's take a look ....









6. This WND article by renowned "birther" Jerome Corsi is full of sh*t right off the bat with the headline "Hawaii governor can't find Obama birth certificate". Let's examine how the article starts off ...

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.
And now let's examine what the Star Advertiser article he cited actually said ....

Q: You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plans to release more information regarding President Barack Obama's birth certificate. How is that coming?

A: I got a letter from someone the other day who was genuinely concerned about it; it is not all just political agenda. They were talking on Olelo last night about this; it has a political implication for 2012 that we simply cannot have.

(Abercrombie said there is a recording of the birth in the State Archives and he wants to use that.)

It was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down ...

...What I can do, and all I have ever said, is that I am going to see to it as governor that I can verify to anyone who is honest about it that this is the case.

If there is a political agenda then there is nothing I can do about that, nor can the president.
So first of all .... the headline of Mr. Corsi's article uses the term birth certificate. Whereas the text of the article uses the term long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. This is the standard "birther" refrain of trying to equate the two ... even though this notion has no legal validity in the state of Hawaii. And moreover, at no point in Gov. Abercrombie's answer regarding this issue did he ever say that he couldn't find anything. Of any sort. Long form. Short form. His car keys. Nada. Nor did he "suggest" this either. Allow me to dismantle that BS argument ....

Abercrombie did not report to the newspaper that he or the Hawaii Department of Health had found Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. The governor only suggested his investigations to date had identified an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives.
So in Mr. Corsi's mind ... because Gov. Abercrombie did not explicitly state that he had found a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate then that was a suggestion that it did not exist. According to the text of the article. And then somehow that magically "justifies" the explicit assertion that Gov. Abercrombie can't find the birth certificate at all in the sensationalized headline.

Need I even continue to show that clearly Mr. Corsi is playing "fast and loose" with the facts here?

But wait it gets worse!

Let's look at what Gov. Abercrombie had to say about all of this back in December when he kicked all of this off ....

So now Governor Abercrombie wants to do something to dispute claims the president's parents somehow lied about their son's birth place.

"It's an insult to his mother and father. How would anybody like to have their mother and father in that kind of a situation? I was friends with his mom and dad. The president of the United States is entitled to the respect of his office," Abercrombie said.

Exactly how Abercrombie will be able to produce additional evidence is still unclear.

"We have to take a look at what we can do with that. But I can't imagine that we can't find some way to see to it that those who are honest about it, who don't have a personal agenda, could have no further argument about it," he said.

As for those who have a political agenda, Abercrombie said they will probably never change their mind.
Abercrombie offended by Obama citizenship questions - Hawaii News Now - KGMB and KHNL Home

Now keep in mind that the interviewer in the Star Advertiser asked Gov. Abercrombie about his "plans to release more information regarding President Barack Obama's birth certificate". And his reply was ....

It was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down ...

...What I can do, and all I have ever said, is that I am going to see to it as governor that I can verify to anyone who is honest about it that this is the case.

If there is a political agenda then there is nothing I can do about that, nor can the president.
Now the part in blue is in reference to the question he was asked about "more information". He was NOT asked about a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate! So the fact that he did not state that he had explicitly found it is totally irrelevant. Furthermore, the part in green essentially the same statement he made back in December. And from that it is quite evident that at no point ... then or now .... did Gov. Abercrombie ever say that he was going to produce a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate.

7. Let's see what 2009 Pulitzer Prize winner Politifact.com had to say about it ....

At PolitiFact.com, we're all about original sources. We don't take anyone at their word or take the reporting of other media organizations as proof. We go to the heart of the story, the source of the truth — original, corroborating documents.

When the official documents were questioned, we went looking for more answers. We circled back to the Department of Health, had a newsroom colleague bring in her own Hawaii birth certificate to see if it looks the same (it's identical). But every answer triggered more questions.

And soon enough, after going to every length possible to confirm the birth certificate's authenticity, you start asking, what is reasonable here?

Because if this document is forged, then they all are.

If this document is forged, a U.S. senator and his presidential campaign have perpetrated a vast, long-term fraud. They have done it with conspiring officials at the Hawaii Department of Health, the Cook County (Ill.) Bureau of Vital Statistics, the Illinois Secretary of State's office, the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois and many other government agencies.

Sounds like a Vince Flynn novel.

....

And there's the rub. It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world's biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything's possible.

But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what's reasonable has to take over.

There is not one shred of evidence to disprove PolitiFact's conclusion that the candidate's name is Barack Hussein Obama, or to support allegations that the birth certificate he released isn't authentic.


And that's true no matter how many people cling to some hint of doubt and use the Internet to fuel their innate sense of distrust.
PolitiFact | Obama's birth certificate: Final chapter

8. If there were a video posted on YouTube with President Obama coming out of his mother's snatch in front of a "Honolulu City Limits" sign while she was holding up a copy of the local paper dated Aug. 4, 1961 in her hand ... these wingnut "birthers" STILL wouldn't believe it!

Can we give it a rest already now? Like seriously?

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jan 19, 2011 at 08:58 PM. )
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2011, 08:52 PM
 
The Federal courts have determined that Mr. Obama was qualified to run for president. The Constitution puts the responsibility to verify candidate qualifications in the hands of the courts. If the courts ruled that Mr. Obama was actually a distinctive shade of chartreuse and that he'd been born in a flying submarine, but was still qualified to serve as president, then he is still qualified to serve as president.

In the US, we don't have to provide our "papers" to any and everyone who demands them. Our system assumes that one is entitled to the various protections and rights of citizens and legal residents unless shown otherwise. On the other hand, candidates for president must apply to the Federal Election Commission to be vetted as qualified under the Constitutional requirements. The FEC routinely requests birth records and did so in Mr. Obama's case.

Finally, his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth. That makes him a US citizen according to the 14th Amendment and Title 8 section 1401, just as surely as John McCain is a US citizen, even though he was born to US parents who were living in Panama at the time (his father was stationed at a naval base there).

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2011, 09:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman
At this point, the only "speculation" that is important is whether or not an actual "long form" birth certificate exists. If it does, and it is produced, it should settle the matter. If it does not exist, it would appear likely that Obama was not born in Hawaii as claimed and additional questions would need answered, with evidence to support.
speculate:
verb (intrans.)
1. form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence

By your own admission, you are speculating about the intended statement by Obama's paternal step-grandmother during the phone conversation (for example, the questioner repeatedly accidentally referred to Obama as her "son," perhaps contributing to the confusion).

You have described a situation where it might be possible for certain records to have been created (whether this scenario is realistic or not I don't care -- it's immaterial to my argument), but you are speculating that the likelihood of such a thing happening is high enough to warrant any consideration. For example, it's completely realistic (as in, within the realm of possibility) to think that perhaps the person writing this is not the SpaceMonkey that you have come to know and love in past interactions. But you would have no reason to think that such a thing is likely. To propose it as a possibility for active consideration would be speculation.

I hope that clears up the definition of speculation for you. Now, I'm not interested in having an argument with you based entirely on speculation, so I will leave the thread. But as I do, I will leave one final thought.

I wouldn't say, as ort888 did, that "sane people don't care about this anymore." However, he is on to something. Conspiracy theories, almost by definition, are unfalsifiable. People who are not interested in conspiracy theories don't care about this topic anymore because they know that any attempt to answer the questions posed will just lead to more questions, even if Obama was to release the so-called "long form" certificate first thing tomorrow. And you have even laid the groundwork for them: There must be a reason why Obama hasn't released the certificate by now! What has he been hiding for all this time? Why is he releasing the certificate now all of a sudden? By the way, remember that grandmother of his who said he was born in Kenya? Are we sure this certificate is really accurate?

"Sane" people know that most of the people who are not convinced that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen are not really interested in the truth of it one way or the other. Conspiracy theories as a rule are not about answering a question ("Who killed Kennedy?" "Where was Obama born?"). They are about some people's need to understand changes in history in a way that satisfies their built-in biases ("Kennedy/Democrats are/were soft on Communism--I wonder if the CIA/military-industrial complex killed him?"; "A black guy with a funny name shouldn't be president--I wonder if he is even American?").

Therefore I would urge you to assess your own interest in pursuing this spew of unsatisfiable speculation and conjecture, because your persistence really does undermine your own claim that you are uninterested in "nutty conspiracy theorists." Have fun with your thread.
( Last edited by SpaceMonkey; Jan 19, 2011 at 09:40 PM. )

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Across the river from Trump Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2011, 09:42 PM
 
meh

I thought the thread was going to be about John Edwards from the title

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 12:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
This "long-form birth certificate" nonsense is just that. Nonsense.
Not at all if dishonest manipulation was used in order to get a COLB, when in fact Obama was prohibited by federal law of getting US citizenship.

1. A "Certification of Live Birth" from the state of Hawaii is prima facie evidence of the fact of Hawaiian birth for all legal purposes. It says that right on the bottom of the form.

2. A "Certification of Live Birth" from the state of Hawaii has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport.

3. A "Certification of Live Birth" from the state of Hawaii is in fact a "birth certificate" in all senses of the term produced from a state database. The state of Hawaii does NOT issue "long form birth certificates" which are produced by hospitals.

4. A "long form birth certificate" does not in any way "supersede" the "Certification of Live Birth" in the state of Hawaii. See #1 and #3.
No one's suggesting otherwise.

However, the question remains if simply getting a "certificate of live birth" from the State of Hawaii because there was a security loophole that allowed you to be able to get one even though you aren't actually legally eligible for citizenship, allows one to be an actual, legal citizen of the United States. If I don't tell the truth on a document, am I legally entitled to all the rights to the document once it's found out that I really wasn't eligible for it? Was it actually legal for the State of Hawaii to state that someone who was born of only one parent who was a citizen of the United States to be able to claim US Citizenship when they were born outside of Hawaii, just because Hawaii's COLB vetting process was lax?

Up until just recently, even the State of Hawaii did not allow just COLB's to be used when applying for services derived from the state since it was so easy to get one.

So first of all .... the headline of Mr. Corsi's article uses the term birth certificate. Whereas the text of the article uses the term long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. This is the standard "birther" refrain of trying to equate the two ... even though this notion has no legal validity in the state of Hawaii. And moreover, at no point in Gov. Abercrombie's answer regarding this issue did he ever say that he couldn't find anything. Of any sort. Long form. Short form. His car keys. Nada. Nor did he "suggest" this either. Allow me to dismantle that BS argument ....
Your quote says that there is a "recording of the birth." That would seem to imply not hospital records, but merely what is claimed - a record given to the Health Dept. of a birth.

While the author seems to have exaggerated the point a little, one fact remains - no one can seem to come up with Obama's hospital generated birth certificate, while peers born shortly before or after him have no problems requesting them from Hawaii's vital statistics department and we know you didn't have to be eligible to be a US Citizen under federal laws to be able to get a COLB from the State of Hawaii.

You can go on and on about the fact that somehow, Obama got a COLB from the State of Hawaii. However, if he got one after manipulating the system and being born outside the US with a father who was not an American citizen, he by law is not eligible to be President. Federal courts have ruled all kinds of crazy things.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 12:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Finally, his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth. That makes him a US citizen according to the 14th Amendment and Title 8 section 1401, just as surely as John McCain is a US citizen, even though he was born to US parents who were living in Panama at the time (his father was stationed at a naval base there).
A. Both of McCain's parents where citizens. Obama's where not. I believe that you only get automatic citizenship if both parents are citizens or you where born in the US.

B. I believe that there are exemptions for military stationed overseas.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 12:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
speculate:
verb (intrans.)
1. form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence

By your own admission, you are speculating about the intended statement by Obama's paternal step-grandmother during the phone conversation (for example, the questioner repeatedly accidentally referred to Obama as her "son," perhaps contributing to the confusion).
I'm not speculating as to what she said. We have direct evidence of that. If you want to suggest that what she said wasn't what she meant, then that by definition is speculation.

You have described a situation where it might be possible for certain records to have been created (whether this scenario is realistic or not I don't care -- it's immaterial to my argument), but you are speculating that the likelihood of such a thing happening is high enough to warrant any consideration.
I'm saying that the law allowed for a loophole that would allow non-citizens to be able to obtain documents showing citizenship. That isn't speculation. I'm saying that Obama's grandmother said he was born in Kenya. That is not speculation. All else is.

Given those two facts, it's not unreasonable to request more information, especially given the ease to which the additional information could be obtained. I'm guessing that within a matter of minutes, the hospital "long form" could be produced and all questions answered. Obama refuses to do that. THAT is not speculation either.

I wouldn't say, as ort888 did, that "sane people don't care about this anymore." However, he is on to something. Conspiracy theories, almost by definition, are unfalsifiable.
Production of a copy of his long-form hospital birth certificate, the same document that many people born shortly before or after him have requested and reproduced, would provide evidence one way or another. This is the document that Obama refuses to request the release of. There is no real, rational reason for him not to do so unless he knows the document does not exist (because he was not born in Hawaii and his grandparents applied for a COLB using their address) or because there is contradictory or embarrassing information on the document that he does not want released. At first, I was leaning towards the latter because I couldn't really believe that all the stuff in question could be forged. However, now that it's been reported how easy it was to get a COLB (and as part of the process, the newspaper announcements) I'm leaning to the former.

People who are not interested in conspiracy theories don't care about this topic anymore because they know that any attempt to answer the questions posed will just lead to more questions, even if Obama was to release the so-called "long form" certificate first thing tomorrow.
I'm pretty sure I would be deemed sane by medical professionals and have an above average intelligence (based on the last professional IQ test I took). Because of Obama's insistence on not releasing the "long form" I'm thinking he's hiding something. He could make that suspicion go away with the production of his "long form." I'm guessing that there probably are a huge number of people in the same situation I'm in. Obama is either hiding something, or he's pissing away his credibility with people like me.

"Sane" people know that most of the people who are not convinced that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen are not really interested in the truth of it one way or the other.
This is a very easy, though not very bright, cop-out. The "long form" is essentially the evidential "line drawn in the sand." Obama refuses to cross that line and always has. His people have thrown up smoke screens, sideways attacks and verbal confusion - but just never have been able to cross that line. At this point, the evidence points to Obama not manning up and his critics being right. If he'd cross that "line," he would then have the moral "right away" to dismiss his critics. It's like saying that if you had the chance, you'd kick someone's ass, but when given the chance saying that you refuse because the other guy would probably fight dirty.

Sorry...that doesn't really wash intellectually.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 12:32 AM
 
Let's tally up the rebuttals so far.

1. Several "attacking the messenger" logical fallacies.

2. Lot's of "they are crazy" the truth doesn't matter so we won't provide the evidence excuses. Very lame cop-out and intellectually dishonest. Falls into the "I could kick your ass, but I won't" category.

3. A few misinterpretations of the law.

4 At least one "well, even if Obama wasn't/isn't eligible to be a citizen, a federal court said he was". ::yawn::

I was hoping to be talked out of thinking again that something was amiss. So far, you guys have been an argumentative disappointment.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 01:06 AM
 
ah, this stuff is so entertaining!
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 01:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Not at all if dishonest manipulation was used in order to get a COLB, when in fact Obama was prohibited by federal law of getting US citizenship.
I'll simply suggest you take a look at SpaceMonkey's post about speculation above.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No one's suggesting otherwise.
Well now we are getting somewhere. And since you don't take issue with points 1 - 4 then I'll just point out that per the State of Hawaii, the State Department, the Federal Election Commission, and the Federal Courts .... President Obama was born in Hawaii and is therefore is a citizen of the United States. The burden of proof is upon his detractors to either a) produce evidence that the COLB was forged, or b) produce evidence that "dishonest manipulation" was used to obtain the COLB. To date this has not happened. Not even a little bit. All that is produced is speculation ... and that simply will not do.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Up until just recently, even the State of Hawaii did not allow just COLB's to be used when applying for services derived from the state since it was so easy to get one.
Well let's just examine what that was all about shall we?

Moreover, WorldNetDaily claims even the state of Hawaii doesn't accept "Certification of Live Birth" as proof that an individual was physically born in Hawaii.

They point to a policy from the Hawaii Department of Home Lands, which stated on its Web site:

"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."

That's actually a misnomer, said Lloyd Yonenaka, a spokesman for DHLL. In order to be eligible for their program, you must prove that your ancestry is at least 50 percent native Hawaiian. And when he says native, he means indigenous. They don't even care if you were born in Hawaii. They use birth certificates as a starting point to look into a person's ancestry. Very different.

Here's what the DHLL site says now: "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."
PolitiFact | Obama's birth certificate: Final chapter. This time we mean it!

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Your quote says that there is a "recording of the birth." That would seem to imply not hospital records, but merely what is claimed - a record given to the Health Dept. of a birth.
I'll simply point out that these are the words of the author of the Star Advertiser article .... not Gov. Abercrombie. Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier ... Gov. Abercrombie has never stated that his intention was to produce "hospital records".

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
While the author seems to have exaggerated the point a little,
You think?

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
one fact remains - no one can seem to come up with Obama's hospital generated birth certificate,
Because the "hospital generated birth certificate" is irrelevant.

Now beyond that ....

When we spoke to a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, she said too much was being made of the difference between the so-called "long" and "short" forms.

"They're just words," said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. "That (what was posted on the Internet) is considered a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii."

"There's only one form of birth certificate," she said, and it's been the same since the 1980s. Birth certificates evolve over the decades, she said, and there are no doubt differences between the way birth certificates looked when Obama was born and now.

"When you request a birth certificate, the one you get looks exactly like the one posted on his site," she said. "That's the birth certificate."

As for the theory that Obama's original birth certificate might show he was foreign-born, Okubo said the "Certification of Live Birth" would say so. Obama's does not. Again, it says he was born in Honolulu.
So apparently ALL of these government officials from various departments in the State of Hawaii are lying. Even the Republicans.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
You can go on and on about the fact that somehow, Obama got a COLB from the State of Hawaii. However, if he got one after manipulating the system and being born outside the US with a father who was not an American citizen, he by law is not eligible to be President. Federal courts have ruled all kinds of crazy things.
You would do well to cogitate on the difference between possibility and probability ....

We have one more thing. We talked to reporter Will Hoover, who wrote a well-researched story for the Honolulu Advertiser on Nov. 9, 2008, about Obama's childhood years in the the Aloha State. It ran under the headline "Obama Slept Here."

In researching the story, he went to the microfilm archives and found the birth announcement for Obama. Actually, he found two of them, one in his Honululu Advertiser on Aug. 13 , 1961, and in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin the next day . They both said the same thing: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, son, Aug. 4."

But here's the thing. Newspaper officials he checked with confirmed those notices came from the state Department of Health.

"That's not the kind of stuff a family member calls in and says, 'Hey, can you put this in?'" Hoover explained.

Take a second and think about that. 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.
This entire discussion is a prime example of why I say that common sense isn't always that common.

Now what we really ought to be talking about is ....

 


OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jan 20, 2011 at 01:16 AM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 01:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
So far, you guys have been an argumentative disappointment.
Are you new here or something?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 02:44 AM
 
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 08:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I'll simply suggest you take a look at SpaceMonkey's post about speculation above.
Since Obama refuses to just authorize the release of his "long form", even though it would clear most of the controversy up, all we can do is speculate. He's fueling the fire here due to his lack of transparency. Logic would seem to dictate that if you could do something that would take a minute or two, and be able to claim that you've done everything in your power to clear up the controversy (if you want to make it go away), that you would do it. That is unless it would cause you some kind of additional trouble.

Of course, I think that's what I would do if I had nothing to hide.

Well now we are getting somewhere. And since you don't take issue with points 1 - 4 then I'll just point out that per the State of Hawaii, the State Department, the Federal Election Commission, and the Federal Courts .... President Obama was born in Hawaii and is therefore is a citizen of the United States.
You are still missing the point. You can get any number of government agencies and legal authorities to approve of things with unknowingly falsified documentation.

Again, the fact is that Obama could have been born in Kenya (or Canada for that matter) with one parent a non-US citizen and easily gotten the document that has been used to prove citizenship, due to the lax administration of the State of Hawaii. If that document can be shown to have been the result of dishonest manipulation and that he in fact was never eligible for it in the first place, then I'm pretty sure that all the entities you've named would have to take another look at the matter.

His citizenship has been challenged. There is evidence available which would show if he got Hawaii citizenship via means that jive with Federal Law or not. No "long form" and he's got a parent who is not a US citizen would point to him not being legally qualified for citizenship himself. It's really not all that complicated. Stating over and over the number of government agencies and courts who have signed off on a possibly falsified document isn't going to change that.

The burden of proof is upon his detractors to either a) produce evidence that the COLB was forged, or b) produce evidence that "dishonest manipulation" was used to obtain the COLB. To date this has not happened. Not even a little bit. All that is produced is speculation ... and that simply will not do.
Investigation into whether there is a "long form" would provide that evidence, given that his father was not a US citizen, given the fact that it's been shown that getting the COLB was an easy process as long as you had someone who would sign a declaration of habitation in Hawaii for one year. I'm guessing that there would probably be citizenship qualifiers on the form as well, but that is speculation.

So again, we can determine if he was eligible for citizenship with the production of a single document. This is the document Obama refuses to produce. It doesn't take a rocket scientist at this point to figure out why.

Because the "hospital generated birth certificate" is irrelevant.
To a claim that his COLB was gotten via a lax vetting process by the state which allowed just about anyone with an address from the State of Hawaii to get citizenship?

Not at all.

Just as your example for the state in vetting Hawaiian ancestry, there are times when it's necessary to go back to the original documentation to check status beyond someone simply getting a COLB. If Obama's was born in Hawaii, and didn't just get a COLB via a "backdoor" method when he wasn't actually eligible, there will be a certificate of live birth. Again, this would be very easy to clear up, and it's something that Obama will not do. It makes little sense not to do this unless Obama really was not born in Hawaii.

Here we have a reasonable motive, means and an opportunity. That's all it takes in a criminal investigation, and it's more than enough to cast reasonable doubt on the matter.

So apparently ALL of these government officials from various departments in the State of Hawaii are lying. Even the Republicans.
I just explained why "ALL of these government officials" could be telling the truth and Obama STILL not have been eligible for citizenship at the time of his birth. Absent a Certificate of Live Birth, and the fact that his father was not a US citizen, and the fact that the address given in his birth announcements was that of his grandparents and not the known address of his father, and the fact that his grandmother DID say he was born in Kenya (though some speculate that she did not understand the question) NONE of the people in question would be lying if they simply said that his COLB was accurate as to what was submitted to the Health Department at the time of Obama's birth.

Are you not reading all of the threads?

You would do well to cogitate on the difference between possibility and probability ....
Obama won't allow his Certificate of Birth to be revealed. Investigators have shown that all it took to get a COLB in the sixties was to go down to the Health Department and fill out some forms and show evidence that you lived in Hawaii. There's a ton of circumstantial evidence that points to Obama may not have been born in Hawaii, other than just having a COLB (speculation, agreed).

So, based on all that, I'd say it's probable that there is likely NO Certificate of Live birth on record. Occam's razor would seem to point to some important reason Obama won't ask for it's release. The only rational explanation I've seen is because one doesn't exist. Others have gone on record as saying that one does not exist based on the knowledge they have.

Really, this isn't all that difficult. Basically, the only argument there is here for why Obama refuses to do what would clear this up is that he's got a document in his hand, though possibly gotten due to lax controls, which would let him slide even though he's not eligible to be President. Is that really the standard you want to set for honesty and transparency?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 09:20 AM
 
I'm and sick and tired of hearing about this. We don't need the "Natural-Born" clause anymore anyway, nobody even knows what it means. Forget about Obamacare, Let's repeal this son-of-a-bitch. And let's do it now, so we can have Obama vs. Schwarzenegger in 2012!
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 10:33 AM
 
Wait...Obama's middle name is Hussein??
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 10:42 AM
 
So far the most compelling argument is that Obama has a document, and that document is what is required for legal purposes. This is essentially the same argument that is offered time and again in many different ways. It's the same argument the administration uses as well.

Basically, you could make an argument with the same level of credibility in the following scenario:

A brother and a sister with different last names who hadn't grown up in the community they currently live in decides they are in love and want to get married. They go to the local official and fill out the paperwork to get a marriage license. A license is issued, due to the government not knowing that they actually aren't legally eligible for a marriage license even though they paid the fee, filled out the forms, and got the document in question and it was filed with the government.

All known government agencies and courts simply require a marriage license be applied for, granted and on record to have that marriage status legally recognized. The brother and sister in question can get all the rights, privileges and responsibilities all people who are legally entitled to a marriage license gets.

A community member who grew up with the brother and sister believes that they recognize the couple and reports to the authorities that they believe that the couple are engaged in an illegal and incestuous relationship. Of course the authorities investigate and find out that the couple were not in a legal marriage. This is the case regardless of the fact that local authorities, agencies and the courts accept the document that the couple could produce as evidence of a legal marriage.

This of course isn't a far fetched scenario, because it has happened before. We know that just because someone has been given a legal status and that the powers that be will accept that legal status as being valid doesn't mean that the those in question are actually legally entitled to the status they were given or that they can not have that legal status removed from them on further investigation.

The same argument made about Obama in this case essentially would be that they were given legal status, so there is nothing more that can be done and no further investigation can be had even if there is a valid challenge. I don't think that's a very credible argument.
( Last edited by stupendousman; Jan 20, 2011 at 11:44 AM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 10:44 AM
 
Do you think this is a valid avenue for anyone to worry about with the current woes of our country? Really?

How about this. All liberals can concede Obama isn't a citizen when all conservatives concede Bush stole the election in '01. That should keep the nutcases on both sides happy, agree?
( Last edited by sek929; Jan 20, 2011 at 10:56 AM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 11:00 AM
 
Uhm, no. I'm not even a liberal and disagree with that.
let's hear it for the nutcases!
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 11:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
A. Both of McCain's parents where citizens. Obama's where not. I believe that you only get automatic citizenship if both parents are citizens or you where born in the US.

B. I believe that there are exemptions for military stationed overseas.
If one parent is a US citizen and one is another citizen, you choose your citizenship at 18. In the case of John McCain, births on US military installations abroad are birth on US soil.
Also figure out how to use "where" and "were."
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 11:04 AM
 
Damn, my days as mediator of the crazies are over as quickly as they began.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 11:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Damn, my days as mediator of the crazies are over as quickly as they began.
But at least you tried.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 11:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Do you think this is a valid avenue for anyone to worry about with the current woes of our country? Really?
Who claimed that it was?

How about this. All liberals can concede Obama isn't a citizen when all conservatives concede Bush stole the election in '01. That should keep the nutcases on both sides happy, agree?
I would be happy to concede if Bush were refusing to allow information to be released that would prove that he either did or did not steal the election. Even independent analysis says that a. according to the law he won, b. even if you counted all the reasonable votes and gave some to Al, he still wouldn't have won Florida.

On the other hand, Obama can act in a way which would allow us to know the status of his birth - if he was born ini Hawaii or if some relative just signed up for a COLB after the fact.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 11:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Damn, my days as mediator of the crazies are over as quickly as they began.
What exactly is it that I've written that is "crazy"?

I offered an honest opportunity to rebut. Some took me up on it, but generally got down to the "married siblings" defense. An honest effort, but not one that really provides a strong argument.

Then we have people who right off the bat tried to kill the messenger. Some just sank down to personal attacks as it appears the latest reply has offered.

I appreciate all those who have swung and missed (in my opinion) because I really want to think that Obama is NOT hiding something this serious. Those who sat in the stands and dropped their pants and jeered - not so much. You offered us your shortcomings and there was a request at the outset for you not to share that with us.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 11:51 AM
 
Wait... Michelle is Obama's sister?!?!? Damn.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 11:51 AM
 
I never specifically called you crazy, but the people who keep pushing for this nonsense most certainly are. You've taken a more inquisitive stance rather than going on the attack, but I still consider the whole issue to be the epitome of ridiculous.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 11:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Wait... Michelle is Obama's sister?!?!? Damn.
And Dick Cheney is Obama's real father? I think we've seen this movie before.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 11:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
A. Both of McCain's parents where citizens. Obama's where not. I believe that you only get automatic citizenship if both parents are citizens or you where born in the US.

B. I believe that there are exemptions for military stationed overseas.
Both of your statements are false. Title 8, Section 1401(e) states: "a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person" (1401(g) may also apply, or may apply better.) Is there any credible evidence that Obama's mother was not a US citizen? She was born in Kansas, after all...

McCain's parents were both US citizens, and 1401(c) applies to him.

While the gist of your point "B" is true, it's a lot more complex than simply saying "there are exemptions for military stationed overseas." In fact, the only part of 1401 that mentions military service is specifically about citizenship for children of military service members with foreign nationals as the other parent.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 12:08 PM
 
Passport requires via the state department website
First Time Applicants
Primary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship (One of the following):

Previously issued, undamaged U.S. Passport
Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state*
check box Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth
Naturalization Certificate
Certificate of Citizenship

*A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar's signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.

Before my fishing trip to Canada, I went to get a copy of my birth certificate, I went to a Vital Records branch office. There is a sign there that says this (version below, $5 in Az) is NOT acceptable for obtaining a drivers license or passport, or for uses crossing the Mexican or Canadian borders. a Certified Copy (photocopy of the original, $20 in Az) is required. My certified copy has a signature on it, not a stamp. I was going to get the COLB because it was cheaper, until I saw the sign. I had to go downtown to the main records office to apply for it.
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 12:48 PM
 
What about the various videos of Ms. Obama claiming he's from Africa? I think they are still on Youtube.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 01:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Both of your statements are false. Title 8, Section 1401(e) states: "a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of ...
My first statement had nothing to do with being born in an "outlying possesion." It was pertaining to different laws which in essence do not entitle you to automatic citizenship just because one of your parents are a citizen (more below).

No one is suggesting that if Obama was not born in Hawaii, that he was born on a U.S. Military base, diplomatic facility, or any other "outlying possesion." It was about being born in another country where there are no additional qualifiers, as there was with McCain. I believe that military bases are considered "outlying possesions" of the United States

.... Is there any credible evidence that Obama's mother was not a US citizen? She was born in Kansas, after all...
Just being a US citizen wasn't enough according to federal law. For Obama to be legally considered a US citizen at the time, if he were born outside the US (and not part of an "outlying possesion"), and he only had one parent who was a citizen, that parent would have to have resided in the United States for at least 5 years after their 16th Birthday. Obama's mother misses that criteria by about 3 years.

If Obama was not born in the US, then he would not legally be a natural born citizen under federal law given the circumstances. That's the case regardless of whether or not he took advantage of loopholes in the vetting process to procure a COLB even though he was not actually eligible.

So, we get back to whether or not he has a "long form" birth certificate on file. If he does, it will list the hospital he was born, the birth doctor and an address. This should clear up a lot of confusion if he was indeed born in the US and is actuallly a legally natural born citizen.

However, if there was never a "long form" birth certificate submitted by the hospital, and instead there is a manually entered record of birth given at the health department then Obama was most likely not born in the State of Hawaii.

This all can be cleared up in a matter of minutes. Obama chooses to keep this from being transparent. This speaks volumes.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
What exactly is it that I've written that is "crazy"?
Most things. If you haven't noticed, few people here take you seriously. You're barely a notch above BadK00000sh.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 01:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Since Obama refuses to just authorize the release of his "long form", even though it would clear most of the controversy up, all we can do is speculate. He's fueling the fire here due to his lack of transparency. Logic would seem to dictate that if you could do something that would take a minute or two, and be able to claim that you've done everything in your power to clear up the controversy (if you want to make it go away), that you would do it. That is unless it would cause you some kind of additional trouble.

Of course, I think that's what I would do if I had nothing to hide.
Let's delve into why your argument falls down ...

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey
A black guy with a funny name shouldn't be president--I wonder if he is even American?
This is the prevailing sentiment that fuels all this foolishness. The denial runs deep of course. But it's readily apparent. There was no "controversy" over President Obama's citizenship when he became a State Senator in Illinois. There was no "controversy" over President Obama's citizenship when he became a US Senator from Illinois. Now hold up .. wait a minute! What does the US Constitution say about that?

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 3]
Now at the time here was a black guy with an African father ... an African/Arabic name ... running to be a US Senator. His background was by no means a secret. Yet there was no "controversy" about his citizenship then. After he was elected a US Senator there was no "controversy" about his citizenship. This only became a "controversy" in certain circles when he dared to run for the Presidency of the United States ... and when it became apparent that he had a serious shot at winning the Democratic nomination. So to address the "controversy" the Obama campaign released a copy of his birth certificate and kept it moving. But in certain circles that wasn't good enough. First the story was that the COLB was forged. And when that BS was debunked then the story changed to become the COLB was legitimate but obtained fraudulently. So even if the Obama campaign released the long-form birth certificate what's to stop the goalposts from being moved again? If the COLB was obtained fraudulently then the long-form could have been obtained fraudulently as well. And then it would be some other hurdle to overcome to "prove" his legitimacy. 20-25% of Americans still believe that President Obama is a "secret Muslim" despite 20+ years of membership in a Christian church. The bottom line is that there are those in the US who simply will not accept the legitimacy of Obama as President under any circumstances. Period. And there is nothing he could do to satisfy these people. So why bother? In the meantime he's living in the White House and flying in Air Force One. And the haters are just beside themselves about it.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
So, based on all that, I'd say it's probable that there is likely NO Certificate of Live birth on record. Occam's razor would seem to point to some important reason Obama won't ask for it's release. The only rational explanation I've seen is because one doesn't exist. Others have gone on record as saying that one does not exist based on the knowledge they have.
Again ... I'm going to have to ask you to cogitate on the difference between possibility and probability. As you stated there are two possibilities here with regard to the long-form birth certificate ...

1. It differs from the COLB - if this were the case, you can best believe that at this stage in the game some Hawaiian government official would have leaked it to the press and made his or herself a nice chunk of change by now despite the illegality of such an action. That would be the scandal of the century ... and someone would have succumbed to the financial temptation. At a minimum it would have showed up on WikiLeaks by an anonymous GOP leaker who wished to undermine Obama. But that hasn't happened. Imagine that.

2. It doesn't exist - if this were the case, it's irrelevant. In the state of Hawaii a COLB is prima facie evidence of the fact of Hawaiian birth for all legal purposes. The lack of a long-form birth certificate does not in any way invalidate or disqualify the legitimacy of the COLB. Therefore, Obama's constitutional eligibility to hold the office of the President of the United States would not be impacted in the slightest.

So given all that even if ... and that's a big if .... the COLB was obtained by so-called "dishonest manipulation" then that is water under the freaking bridge at this point. My sincere suggestion would be to cross that bridge and get over it.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jan 20, 2011 at 01:22 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 01:15 PM
 
The bottom line is as follows. If anyone would like to refute any of these points, feel free.

1. Based on the laws and policies of the State of Hawaii at the time, it was not difficult for people who did not qualify for "natural born citizen" status to get a COLB from the State of Hawaii.

2. Obama's citizenship has been challenged. Lots of circumstantial, though potentially bogus evidence suggests he may have been born outside the United States.

3. Obama can answer the challenge by authorizing the release of his "long form" birth certificate - the same document that the state and other agencies require for various vetting processes.

4. Obama refuses to do so.

In my opinion, the "married siblings" argument doesn't overcome the fact that the ball is in Obama's court. He could authorize complete transparency in this matter. He chooses to continue to hide his birth certificate. The only crazies I see are people so pathologically up his butt that they try to make excuses for his lack of honesty and openness when it comes to this matter. You don't bunker down and refuse to give out information that would help you unless it actually WOULD HURT you. That's simple common sense.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Most things. If you haven't noticed, few people here take you seriously. You're barely a notch above BadK00000sh.
Your mother dresses you funny.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2011, 01:22 PM
 
Occam's razor is a flawed concept. *Your* explanation is *always* the simplest explanation, since "simple" is a subjective term.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:17 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2