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? (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2011, 08:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
But, if Obama already has the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, the Registrar of Vital Statistics, and Governor of Hawaii in his pocket, what makes you think they couldn't just fabricate a "long form" birth certificate with the official raised seal?
I don't think he has any of them "in his pocket" necessarily. None have given any information that would verify that Obama was actually born in Hawaii, other than maybe the Director of the Department of Health, but it's possible that the director wasn't being specific and was using "birth certificate" interchangeably with "COLB" with isn't unusual. They can all be telling the truth and Obama still never have been born in the U.S.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2011, 08:34 PM
 
I still don't follow how someone who was not born in Hawaii could have a COLB produced for them. That certificate requires that the birth be registered with the state as having taken place within the state-and that registration must be attested to by appropriate individuals (i.e. the physician who delivered the baby, the hospital medical records manager, etc.). A medical records manager is appropriate because when a child is born in a US hospital, that child has a new medical record generated for him/her, thus the records manager has definitive proof that such birth did occur in that hospital.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2011, 08:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I don't think he has any of them "in his pocket" necessarily. None have given any information that would verify that Obama was actually born in Hawaii, other than maybe the Director of the Department of Health, but it's possible that the director wasn't being specific and was using "birth certificate" interchangeably with "COLB" with isn't unusual. They can all be telling the truth and Obama still never have been born in the U.S.
Oh, so they're just mistaken, and not actually lying to cover up for Obama? It's a good thing, then, that you and WND understand how their state records work better than they do.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 04:05 AM
 
There is NO record of Obama being born in any hospital in Hawaii, or that his parents were ever in a hospital in Hawaii at any time.

His parents contacted his Grandparents and asked them to apply for a birth certificate. They wanted to qualify for Anchor baby. (the anchor baby part is an exaggeration).
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 04:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
There is NO record of Obama being born in any hospital in Hawaii, or that his parents were ever in a hospital in Hawaii at any time.

His parents contacted his Grandparents and asked them to apply for a birth certificate. They wanted to qualify for Anchor baby. (the anchor baby part is an exaggeration).

That's because Obama wasn't born on a hospital, he was born in a test tube by some Muslims wanting to plant intelligent anchor babies that would blend in and eventually become president. Unfortunately, these babies also have microchips in them that were programmed to go off when activated and bring America to pending doom.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 06:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I still don't follow how someone who was not born in Hawaii could have a COLB produced for them. That certificate requires that the birth be registered with the state as having taken place within the state-and that registration must be attested to by appropriate individuals (i.e. the physician who delivered the baby, the hospital medical records manager, etc.).
You didn't even need to be born in a hospital to get a COLB in the sixties according to the law. All the evidence that I can find shows that all that was required was for applicants to attest to the birth, and show proof "that the legal parents of such individual while living without Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child."

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscur...-0017_0008.HTM

A medical records manager is appropriate because when a child is born in a US hospital, that child has a new medical record generated for him/her, thus the records manager has definitive proof that such birth did occur in that hospital.
The problem with that assumption is that a lot of children aren't even born in hospitals, and no medical doctor performs the delivery, and no "medical records manager" had ever taken part in record keeping in regards to the birth. It would make little sense to set up live birth reporting at the health department for people not born in a hospital and require any of that, and according to the law there was no specific requirement for any of that at the time.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 06:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Oh, so they're just mistaken, and not actually lying to cover up for Obama?
Not necessarily either. The director could just be imprecise. If you request your "birth certificate" without specifying that you want a copy of the original, hospital generated form, the Health Department will give you exactly what has been produced on Obama's behalf. The "COLB" could be on record with the State of Hawaii and the Director of the Health Department still technically telling the truth even if there was no hospital generated birth certificate on file.

It's a good thing, then, that you and WND understand how their state records work better than they do.
What about how their state records work, that I have claimed, have they disputed?

You're really going to have to do better if this is all you've got.
( Last edited by stupendousman; Jan 27, 2011 at 08:09 AM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 08:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Not necessarily either. The director could just be imprecise.
Ah, true. But, why wold the director be imprecise?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 08:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Ah, true. But, why wold the director be imprecise?
Because no one asked the director precisely if the hospital generated "Long Form" birth certificate was on file. He could have had only the "short form" certificate of live birth on file and still technically be right since the "short form" is also referred to as a "birth certificate" by the State of Hawaii.

When you go to their website and follow the directions as to how to get your "birth certificate," you will actually only be sent the "short form" by default unless you request otherwise. So, it appears that the Health Department for the State of Hawaii often times uses the term "birth certificate" interchangeably regardless if you are talking about the long form original or short form computer generated document.

Given that fact, I think it's a mistake to assume that Obama having a "birth certificate" on file, according to the health department, means that it's an original hospital generated "long form." There should be no reason why an official with the State of Hawaii shouldn't be able to confirm or deny that they have a "long form" on file though, since that's a major point of contention in this debate.

The fact that they've done nothing to clarify this, and in fact the Governor himself has been non-specific about the type of record(s) they have simply continues the trend of not being precise and getting the fact out in a transparent way. This is what happens when people are trying to hide something - not when they have nothing to hide.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 08:57 AM
 
Yes, but why would they be imprecise?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 09:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
You didn't even need to be born in a hospital to get a COLB in the sixties according to the law. All the evidence that I can find shows that all that was required was for applicants to attest to the birth, and show proof "that the legal parents of such individual while living without Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child."
Ah, now I understand. I didn't realize that in order to qualify for natural born status one must have been born in a hospital.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Ah, now I understand. I didn't realize that in order to qualify for natural born status one must have been born in a hospital.
No, in order to qualify for an actual hospital generated "long form" birth certificate, you must be born in a hospital.

If you just wanted the birth on the record in the State of Hawaii, you didn't even have to be born in Hawaii according to the law. Just attest to the fact that you claimed residence there for the past year, and can show proof (probably old utility bills or the like) that you did.

So the question is if you were born outside the US, and according to the federal laws at the time you did not actually qualify to be a "natural born citizen" (which would be the case for Obama if he were not born in the US), but still managed to get a Hawaiian "COLB" due to their lax vetting of information, can you still claim to be a "natural born citizen" if challenged? This is the "married siblings" challenge I mentioned before. We know that despite being able to game the system and receive documentation that you aren't truly legally entitled to, that doesn't automatically protect you from later having your status legally changed if it is later found out that you did not actually meet the qualifications required by the overiding laws.

The facts seem to be that Obama could have been born in Kenya, gotten the documentation he has, and despite having a Hawaiian COLB still not be legally eligible to be President. That's why the existence or non-existence of a "long form" is important in this instance. There are many unanswered questions here, and Obama doesn't seem to be willing to help get them answered.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 01:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
There is NO record of Obama being born in any hospital in Hawaii, or that his parents were ever in a hospital in Hawaii at any time.
Except for the records showing he was born at Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital.
"…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: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 02:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Except for the records showing he was born at Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital.
What records? Could you show them to me?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
What records? Could you show them to me?
If he did how would you know that they weren't Photoshopped?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 04:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
What records? Could you show them to me?
Are you an employee of the hospital?
"…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: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 05:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Are you an employee of the hospital?
No. Did an employee at the hospital confirm the existence of the records you mention? If so, could you point me in the direction of where that was reported?

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
If he did how would you know that they weren't Photoshopped?
I guess I wouldn't, however there's no reason for me to suspect that the hospital fabricated them if they are willing to vouch for them.

I guess if they used Verdana or some modern font, you might have something that's suspect, but absent that I don't know how you can question it.

What we do know is that there is no clear claim (that I know of) of any official stating for the record that any documents other than the less than evidentiary COLB exists. It shouldn't be all that tough if these documents exists for the appropriate people to confirm them, or deny that they exist if they don't. The silence speaks volumes.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 05:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I guess I wouldn't, however there's no reason for me to suspect that the hospital fabricated them if they are willing to vouch for them.
Yet you won't take the word of all the following ....

- The Director of the Hawaii Department of Health
- The Registrar of Vital Statistics
- The GOP Governor of Hawaii at the time

... who have all vouched for President Obama's citizenship. IOW ... they've all stated on the record that he was born in Hawaii. Imagine that.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 05:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No.
Are you a family member of the Obamas?
"…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: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 07:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Yet you won't take the word of all the following ....

- The Director of the Hawaii Department of Health
- The Registrar of Vital Statistics
- The GOP Governor of Hawaii at the time

... who have all vouched for President Obama's citizenship. IOW ... they've all stated on the record that he was born in Hawaii. Imagine that.

OAW
They all vouched that he had a certificate of live birth. I'm not sure how they can vouch for anything else, unless they've seen local hospital records or his "Long Form" birth certificate - and them making such a claim would probably be big news since no one has really claimed that that I'm aware of. The document they've "vouched" for could have been gotten by someone who was not eligible for citizenship at the time Obama was born, and as such stating "on the record" anything other than what they can prove doesn't have much credibility.

Get back to me when any of those people mentioned can go "on the record" as stating that Obama has either hospital records from a local hospital or an actual hospital generated "long form" on file with the state of Hawaii. Absent that, given the laws regarding who could get COLB's at the time. there is really no verifiable evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. Not that anyone has posted in this thread anyways.

NONE.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 07:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Are you a family member of the Obamas?
No. Do you know of one who claims to have seen his records on file at the hospital? Though, I'm not sure that a family member could really be seen a an impartial third party, as far as verification of claims are concerned.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 08:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
So the question is if you were born outside the US, and according to the federal laws at the time you did not actually qualify to be a "natural born citizen" (which would be the case for Obama if he were not born in the US), but still managed to get a Hawaiian "COLB" due to their lax vetting of information, can you still claim to be a "natural born citizen" if challenged?
Apparently, yes, since the courts continue to dismiss any attempt to treat the Hawaiian "COLB" as different from the "long form" birth certificate.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
They all vouched that he had a certificate of live birth. I'm not sure how they can vouch for anything else, unless they've seen local hospital records or his "Long Form" birth certificate - and them making such a claim would probably be big news since no one has really claimed that that I'm aware of. The document they've "vouched" for could have been gotten by someone who was not eligible for citizenship at the time Obama was born, and as such stating "on the record" anything other than what they can prove doesn't have much credibility.

Get back to me when any of those people mentioned can go "on the record" as stating that Obama has either hospital records from a local hospital or an actual hospital generated "long form" on file with the state of Hawaii. Absent that, given the laws regarding who could get COLB's at the time. there is really no verifiable evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. Not that anyone has posted in this thread anyways.

NONE.
I'll mention the statement from the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health again …

Therefore I, as director of health for the state of Hawaii, along with the registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
Now isn't it you birthers who say that the COLB isn't the "ORIGINAL birth certificate"? Well according to this statement the Director has seen a birth certificate other than the version you have been objecting to for the last 4 years.

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 08:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I guess I wouldn't, however there's no reason for me to suspect that the hospital fabricated them if they are willing to vouch for them.
Except you question the validity of a document which *they* consider to be perfectly valid as proof of natural born citizenship. Even Fox News says that "COLB" carries "the same legal weight as the more detailed original certificate of live birth".
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 08:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Apparently, yes, since the courts continue to dismiss any attempt to treat the Hawaiian "COLB" as different from the "long form" birth certificate.
And this is why this entire "birther" thing is beyond retarded.

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 08:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I'll mention the statement from the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health again …

Now isn't it you birthers who say that the COLB isn't the "ORIGINAL birth certificate"? Well according to this statement the Director has seen a birth certificate other than the version you have been objecting to for the last 4 years.

OAW
It's entirely possible that he isn't capable of processing that statement.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 08:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Originally Posted by olePigeon
Are you an employee of the hospital?
No.
Originally Posted by olePigeon
Are you a family member of the Obamas?
No.
Then like the rest of us poor schmucks in this country, you'll have to take the word of the Registrar of Vital Statistics. It's illegal for that information to be given out unless it's Obama himself. You're not going to get his dental records, his school records, or anything else.

Fortunately for you, you also got the word from the Governor and their Director of Health.

So you're two up on most people in this country. Stop complaining.
"…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
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 08:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
It's entirely possible that he isn't capable of processing that statement.
Indeed. There's and old saying in the African-American community …

Some folks just don't believe that fat meat is greasy.

Apparently he's a prime example of the wisdom in those words.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 08:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Then like the rest of us poor schmucks in this country, you'll have to take the word of the Registrar of Vital Statistics. It's illegal for that information to be given out unless it's Obama himself. You're not going to get his dental records, his school records, or anything else.

Fortunately for you, you also got the word from the Governor and their Director of Health.

So you're two up on most people in this country. Stop complaining.

HOw do we know that their governor and director of health haven't been Photoshopped?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 08:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
HOw do we know that their governor and director of health haven't been Photoshopped?
Sounds like a theory. Better let wnd.com know so they can put up a billboard.

"…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: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 08:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Apparently, yes, since the courts continue to dismiss any attempt to treat the Hawaiian "COLB" as different from the "long form" birth certificate.
The "married siblings" argument. Already refuted.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 08:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I'll mention the statement from the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health again …



Now isn't it you birthers who say that the COLB isn't the "ORIGINAL birth certificate"? Well according to this statement the Director has seen a birth certificate other than the version you have been objecting to for the last 4 years.

OAW
You can mention it as many times as you like, and it won't change the fact that the Hawaiian Health Department often times uses the term "birth certificate" to mean both the "Long form" hospital generated document, and the COLB, as I've already demonstrated. Pointing out the same argument that's already been proven a moot point doesn't really make it any relevant.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 09:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Except you question the validity of a document which *they* consider to be perfectly valid as proof of natural born citizenship.
...based on the knowledge that even people not entitled to citzenship could have gotten them. I can question something that is proven to be suspect. It's the rational thing to do.

Even Fox News says that "COLB" carries "the same legal weight as the more detailed original certificate of live birth".
The same as a marriage certificate given to a brother and sister with different last names. We've already been over all this already, and you're recycling refuted arguments.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 09:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Then like the rest of us poor schmucks in this country, you'll have to take the word of the Registrar of Vital Statistics.
I take his word that there is a certificate of live birth on record with the state of Hawaii, a document that even people not entitled to US citizenship could have gotten. That however is not evidence in and of itself that Obama was entitled to citizenship at the time of his birth.

Fortunately for you, you also got the word from the Governor and their Director of Health.
...that Obama has a document on file that someone born in Tasmania could also have. Gotcha.

Not sure how that proves he meets the criteria the Constitution sets out to be President. If he wasn't born in the US, and there so far has been no verifiable proof that he has, he is engaging in fraud by being in office.

But of course, this has already been explained to you and you too keep on trotting out the same, intellectually lightweight arguments.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 09:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
...based on the knowledge that even people not entitled to citzenship could have gotten them. I can question something that is proven to be suspect. It's the rational thing to do.
Do you have any evidence of someone not entitled to citizenship receiving one, *actually* proving it to be suspect? Or, is it merely suspect because you want it to be?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 10:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Do you have any evidence of someone not entitled to citizenship receiving one, *actually* proving it to be suspect? Or, is it merely suspect because you want it to be?
I've already quoted the law regarding what needed to be done to get one, and there was no actual requirement to meet all the criteria of a "natural born citizen" as is was defined at the time. Do you dispute that the only stipulations in the law are what I have given?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2011, 11:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I've already quoted the law regarding what needed to be done to get one, and there was no actual requirement to meet all the criteria of a "natural born citizen" as is was defined at the time. Do you dispute that the only stipulations in the law are what I have given?
You mean this? For children born out of State?

     [§338-17.8]  Certificates for children born out of State.  (a)  Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
     (b)  Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate.  The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
Seems to me that proof of legal residency is determined at the discresion of the director health. Are you questioning the ability of the director of health to be able to validate proof of legal residency?

Is essence, though, you don't have any examples of someone being granted citizenship in Hawaii when they didn't qualify for it, do you? All you have is speculation based on amateur legal understanding and a bias to find something, anything, that could be used to ge Obama out of office.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 01:01 AM
 
Have you guys ever come across a birther that wasn't also pretty adamantly against the Obama administration?
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 04:06 AM
 
It keeps on getting stupendously retarded... .. .
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 06:39 AM
 
In a new bill offered in the Hawaii House, the state privacy law would be changed to allow release of birth records to individuals without a tangible interest in the subject individual's records. For $100 per release.

First, it looks like Hawaii's privacy laws have been behind the "release" issue. Gee, not letting anyone just curious have access to any random birth records sounds like it's a good thing, doesn't it? Anyway, I think that this is a good indication that the State of Hawaii is fairly confident that their records are above reproach...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 06:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Seems to me that proof of legal residency is determined at the discresion of the director health. Are you questioning the ability of the director of health to be able to validate proof of legal residency?
Obama's mother was a legal resident of Hawaii at the time. No one disputes that.

Is essence, though, you don't have any examples of someone being granted citizenship in Hawaii when they didn't qualify for it, do you? All you have is speculation based on amateur legal understanding and a bias to find something, anything, that could be used to ge Obama out of office.
How exactly do you get that evidence when Hawaii refuses to allow an examination of their records when challenged? If you are suspected of shoplifting, and retail stores have no ability to ask to check to see if items are hidden on someone, they aren't ever going to find evidence of people stealing either.

The fact remains that only limitations given by law allowed for people who were not eligible to receive Hawaiian COLB. Does that mean that happened with Obama? No. Does that mean that it's reasonable to request additional information? I really don't see an argument otherwise. We are talking about an effort that would take minimal effort and expense, but an effort Obama seems bent on not taking for undisclosed reasons.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 06:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
It keeps on getting stupendously retarded... .. .


You've got the power to add some intelligence into the conversation. You've failed miserably.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 06:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
In a new bill offered in the Hawaii House, the state privacy law would be changed to allow release of birth records to individuals without a tangible interest in the subject individual's records. For $100 per release.

First, it looks like Hawaii's privacy laws have been behind the "release" issue. Gee, not letting anyone just curious have access to any random birth records sounds like it's a good thing, doesn't it? Anyway, I think that this is a good indication that the State of Hawaii is fairly confident that their records are above reproach...
..or they are tired of the issue and want it put to rest one way or another. I'm also willing to wager a large sum that this will likely NEVER happen.

I don't think that there's anything in Hawaii's privacy laws however, to stop the government to publicly confirm or deny what types of documents they have on record. Is Obama really going to sue if they release that sort of information?
( Last edited by stupendousman; Jan 28, 2011 at 07:09 AM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 07:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Have you guys ever come across a birther that wasn't also pretty adamantly against the Obama administration?
While you seek to dishonestly label everyone who wishes for Obama to stop hiding things and be more transparent as a "birther" in order to try and use name calling to "attack the messenger," the fact is that there are plenty of people who support Obama who have called for him to release the documentation in question due to lingering questions:

"Chris Matthews, the anchor of MSNBC's "Hardball" program, is calling for Barack Obama to release his original, long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate to put to rest any doubts about the president's constitutional eligibility to hold office.

"I am not a birther. I am an enemy of the birthers," he said.

But he wondered, "Why doesn't the president just say, 'Send me a copy right now?' Why doesn't Gibbs and Axelrod say, 'Let's just get this crappy story dead?' Why not do it? ... If it exists, why not put it out?"

Matthews was joined by Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune and David Corn of Mother Jones, who both agreed with the call for Obama to publicly release the document, which to this point has remained under wraps.

Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, has suggested that legislation could be adopted to release Obama's birth records and satisfy critics.

While Espero said he believes Obama was born in Hawaii, he explained, "My decision to file the legislation was primarily a result of the fuss over President Obama's birth records and the lingering questions."

Even feminist icon Camille Paglia, a Salon.com columnist who earlier wrote about the ambiguities of President Barack Obama's birth certificate, told a National Public Radio audience that those who have questions about his eligibility actually have a point. "Yes, there were ambiguities about Obama's birth certificate that have never been satisfactorily resolved. And the embargo on Obama's educational records remains troubling," she wrote.
THE BIG LIST of eligibility 'proofers'
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 08:41 AM
 
Seems to me that Obama would be a natural born citizen even if he were born outside the US.

Originally Posted by US Constitution
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

* Anyone born inside the United States *
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 09:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Seems to me that Obama would be a natural born citizen even if he were born outside the US.
We've already went over this. The law at the time of his birth was that they had to reside in the US for 5 years after their 16th Birthday. Obama's mother missed this by 3 years and therefore he would not be eligible for automatic citizenship.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...e/#post4044798

If you want to get technical, I believe that a strict reading of the Constitution states that the rules regarding citizenship should actually be the ones in place at the time of the signing of the Constitution which were more strict.
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post


You've got the power to add some intelligence into the conversation. You've failed miserably.
This horse is dead, no one cares except you and a hand full of Obama haters.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 01:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
This horse is dead, no one cares except you and a hand full of Obama haters.
You are free to ignore it, unless your lack of self discipline compels you otherwise.
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 01:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
You are free to ignore it, unless your lack of self discipline compels you otherwise.
I could, but you're a hoot.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
If you want to get technical, I believe that a strict reading of the Constitution states that the rules regarding citizenship should actually be the ones in place at the time of the signing of the Constitution which were more strict.
No. The language you are referring to ("No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President," emphasis mine) served as a loophole to make eligible those persons who were U.S. citizens (by the standard convention of the time) at the time of the Constitution's signing, because obviously no adults were "natural born citizens" at that point.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
 
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 01:32 PM.
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