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 5)
Thread Tools
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 06:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman
Originally Posted by OAW
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.
Ok. Either you weren't paying attention or you are just being willfully blind to what I said. Allow me to break out the stick figures for you ....

I wasn't making the same argument. See how I highlighted the word "ORIGINAL" in my statement above? Made it all caps and stuff so you'd be sure to see it? Well that is what you call ....

emphasis - n. stress laid on a word or words to indicate special meaning or particular importance.

So my point was NOT that the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health has said that she's seen the "birth certificate" ... because you are correct, they do use that term generically to refer to either version. The point I was making was that she explicitly said that she had seen the ... hold on, wait for it ....

"ORIGINAL birth certificate."

Now I made that argument because it's you "birthers" who seem to be hung up on that distinction n'est-ce pas? Case in point ....

Originally Posted by stupendousman
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."
Now would really be a good time for you to stop the madness. Like .. seriously. Unless you actually enjoy embarrassing yourself like this.

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 07:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The "married siblings" argument. Already refuted.
Refuted, in your mind, but apparently the courts disagree.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 07:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
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.
You mean, like this?
Originally Posted by The Hawaii Director of Health and the Registrar of Vital Statistics
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.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 10:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Refuted, in your mind, but apparently the courts disagree.
I don't remember the courts ruling on whether or not getting a COLB via lax vetting, despite not otherwise being eligible for citizenship, would still entitle you to to "natural born citizen" status.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 10:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
You mean, like this?
How many times does it have to be explained? Do I need to use another language?

I believe that there is a document on file with the State of Hawaii. Otherwise, they would not be able to print a current "COLB."

I believe that it's likely that this document was created near the time of his birth.

This document could either be a "long form" hospital generated certificate, or a "short form" certificate that was created via a report made by an adult representatives of the newborn at the department of health post birth. Remember - you did not even have to be born in a hospital or even in the State of Hawaii to get one of these types of "birth certificates".

Given the fact that the Department of Health uses the term "birth certificate" interchangeably regardless of which document you will end up receiving (and that can be seen first hand on their website), you can not reasonably rely on the term "birth certificate" - even if it refers to the original document on file, as being the "long form" hospital generated document.

The director could well have seen the original document created at the time Obama was born. It does not however have to be a hospital generated "long form" and be considered a "birth certificate" by the state health department, as shown by their website.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 10:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I don't remember the courts ruling on whether or not getting a COLB via lax vetting, despite not otherwise being eligible for citizenship, would still entitle you to to "natural born citizen" status.
Given that the courts continually dismiss cases that try to force Obama to disclose a birth certificate other than what he's already presented, it would seem to suggest that the courts feel that Obama has presented is good enough.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 10:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I believe that there is a document on file with the State of Hawaii.
You mean the original birth certificate?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 11:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Given the fact that the Department of Health uses the term "birth certificate" interchangeably ...
Have you considered that this might be because they consider the documents to be equivalent?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2011, 12:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Given that the courts continually dismiss cases that try to force Obama to disclose a birth certificate other than what he's already presented, it would seem to suggest that the courts feel that Obama has presented is good enough.
Based on what grounds?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2011, 01:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
You mean the original birth certificate?
Yes, whether that entails a hospital generated "long form" or a health department generated "short form" that even people who were not eligible for citizenship could get.

I believe we've went over this. I'm not sure why you keep regurgitating unless you've run out of arguments.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Have you considered that this might be because they consider the documents to be equivalent?
The same as a marriage certificate given to first cousins with different last names? Sure.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2011, 01:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Based on what grounds?
How many lawsuits have been attempted to get Obama to disclose a birth certificate other than the one he's already presented? How many of those have been successful?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2011, 01:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Yes, whether that entails a hospital generated "long form" or a health department generated "short form" that even people who were not eligible for citizenship could get.
So, if the Hawaii Director of Health were to state that they have Obama's original birth certificate on file, would that make you happy?
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2011, 05:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
would that make you happy?
You really think?
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2011, 10:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Based on what grounds?
How many lawsuits have been attempted to get Obama to disclose a birth certificate other than the one he's already presented? How many of those have been successful?
It would appear that Hawaii's privacy laws have been the biggest reason those suits have failed.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2011, 04:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
So, if the Hawaii Director of Health were to state that they have Obama's original birth certificate on file, would that make you happy?
Original, hospital generated "long form" birth certificate, it would satisfy me that Obama was born in the United States. If Hawaiian officials would choose to be precise, it would lessen the confusion revolving around the matter.

It would not satisfy me however that Obama isn't trying to hide something in regards to his birth, which would be damaging. He could have cleared this all up years ago, and for some irrational reason he has chosen not to. Even some of his supporters wonder if there's something he's hiding.

If he'd request the release of the documents, THAT would satisfy me totally in regards to Obama engaging in transparency.

See...it would be pretty easy.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2011, 04:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
It would appear that Hawaii's privacy laws have been the biggest reason those suits have failed.
..and courts have argued about whether or not those filing suit had status to do so. Courts really haven't passed judgement on the underlying arguments
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2011, 05:02 PM
 
Apparently, most of the cases have been dismissed due to lack of standing. Judge R. Barclay Surrick explains that the doctrine of standing exists to prevent courts from deciding questions "where the harm is too vague", stating that, in the case of a presidential election where a disgruntled voter who suffered no individual harm "would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory."
Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After reviewing the dismissals, it seems that the courts decided not to violate Hawaii's privacy laws because they're concluding that the individuals bringing the lawsuits have not been harmed in any way by Obama's election. This explicitly implies that the courts consider Obama to have met the requirements necessary to hold the office of President.

Berg v. Obama
- complaint alleging that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and was therefore a citizen of Kenya or possibly Indonesia, where he lived as a child.
- U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed the complaint in October 2008, finding that Berg lacked standing to bring the case and that his attempts to gain standing to pursue his claim were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion."

Martin v. Lingle
- lawsuit claimed that because Martin "strives for factual accuracy and attempts to conduct thorough research", he should have a copy of Obama's birth certificate from the state and not a certificate "posted on a Web site".
- The court denied Martin's petition, saying that Martin lacked "a direct and tangible interest in the record."

Donofrio v. Wells
- Wrotnowski filed a suit in the Connecticut Supreme Court challenging the authenticity of presidential candidate Obama's Hawaii birth certificate.
- suit was dismissed after initial hearings.
- Wrotnowski appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on November 25, contending that the British citizenship of Obama's father made the president-elect ineligible to assume office.
- The request for stay or injunction was denied without comment

Keyes v. Bowen
- filed a lawsuit on November 14, 2008, requesting that Obama provide documentation that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.
- California Superior Court Judge Michael P. Kenny sustained, without leave to amend, Secretary Bowen's and Obama's demurrers on Keyes' petition for writ of mandate and granted Obama's motion to quash the subpoena.

Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana
- a "Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Prohibition" against the Governor of Indiana to block "any popular votes for Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the appointment as Chief Electors [sic].
- the Governor's motion to dismiss was granted.
- The appellate decision addressed the question of whether Obama's eligibility was affected by his father's lack of U.S. citizenship, saying that "[b]ased upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

Kerchner v. Obama
- Attorney Mario Apuzzo, on behalf of Charles Kerchner and other plaintiffs, sued Obama, the U.S. Congress, Dick Cheney, and Nancy Pelosi in January 2009 alleging Obama was ineligible to be president, and that Congress failed to verify Obama's ineligibility.
- A federal district court in New Jersey dismissed the suit, ruling the plaintiffs lacked standing. On July 3, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, citing Berg v. Obama, affirmed the dismissal, and ordered Apuzzo to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for initiating a frivolous lawsuit.

Barnett v. Obama
- sought a declaratory judgment that Obama is ineligible for office and an injunction to void his actions and appointments as President.
- dismissed the case. The case is currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Hollister v. Soetoro
- lawsuit filed by Philip Berg on behalf of Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force colonel, against Barack Obama (referenced as "Barry Soetoro", the name given at the time of his enrollment in an Indonesian elementary school).
- suit was dismissed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The presiding judge, James Robertson, said the case was a waste of the court's time, calling Berg and another lawyer "agents provocateurs" and their local counsel, John Hemenway, "a foot soldier in their crusade."
- on January 18, 2011 the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.

Cook v. Good
- On May 8, Cook volunteered to serve for one year in Afghanistan beginning on July 15, 2009.[188] The Army accepted his offer and ordered him to report on that date.[188] On July 8, however, he filed suit, with Taitz as his lawyer, seeking a temporary restraining order and status as a conscientious objector, arguing that his deployment orders were invalid because Obama was not a natural-born U.S. citizen, and therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
- His orders were thereupon revoked; an Army spokesperson stated, "A reserve soldier who volunteers for an active duty tour may ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty." Accordingly, Cook's case was dismissed as moot on July 16.

Rhodes v. Macdonald
- sought a restraining order to stop Rhodes' forthcoming deployment to Iraq.
- federal judge Clay D. Land (the same judge who heard Cook v. Good) rejected the motion and denounced it as frivolous.
- ordered her to show cause why she should not be fined $10,000 for abuse of judicial process
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2011, 11:59 PM
 
Standing, in the case of a legal action, refers to whether or not the person bringing suit actually has any real, legal connection to the action. In case after case-as Wiskedjack posted above-those bringing suit have been found lacking standing, and/or their actions have been held without merit because legitimate legal authorities have attested to the content of the subject documents.

Berg: "frivolous"
Martin: lacked "a direct and tangible interest in the record."
Kerchner: lacked standing, the court "ordered Apuzzo to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for initiating a frivolous lawsuit."
Hollister: "a waste of the court's time, calling Berg and another lawyer "agents provocateurs""
Rhodes: frivolous, "ordered her to show cause why she should not be fined $10,000 for abuse of judicial process"

Time after time those bringing suit have been unable to show courts that they have been in any way harmed by not personally seeing the birth certificate they seek. The process of vetting a candidate requires specific individuals to review citizenship, not for potential candidates to show each and every person within the United States an actual, physical birth certificate.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2011, 12:01 AM
 
Correction: I had posted earlier that Mr. McCain was born "on a Navy base" in Panama. I think I had stated it was "Rodman Naval Station," which was located on the Pacific side of the Canal. That's incorrect-it was Coco Solo Naval Air Station, at the Atlantic end of the Canal.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2011, 07:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Time after time those bringing suit have been unable to show courts that they have been in any way harmed by not personally seeing the birth certificate they seek. The process of vetting a candidate requires specific individuals to review citizenship, not for potential candidates to show each and every person within the United States an actual, physical birth certificate.
The process might changes in 2012, given that states are putting into play regulations which state exactly what kind of citizenship evidence is required to garner a state's electors. Sooner or later Obama is probably going to either let the cat of the bag, or dig in his heels (if he indeed was not born in the USA) and hope for the best and maybe avoid prison.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2011, 07:43 AM
 
You may be correct. But I can also see the federal government stopping anything that goes beyond State Department requirements for passport qualification. It should be interesting to see how this plays out. More and more, national politics is becoming "good entertainment," as it has been with Texas politics for years.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2011, 08:25 AM
 
At this point it's a fool's errand either way IMO.

Even if it could be established that Obama does not meet the citizenship criteria for holding the office of the Presidency (which it can't), no one is going to remove this President from office. It's not going to happen.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2011, 09:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
At this point it's a fool's errand either way IMO.

Even if it could be established that Obama does not meet the citizenship criteria for holding the office of the Presidency (which it can't), no one is going to remove this President from office. It's not going to happen.
Yup. I suspect it's equally possible that discovering Obama isn't actually natural born could result in elimination of the natural born requirement.

Be careful what you wish for, stupendousman, you might not get it exactly as you imagine.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2011, 09:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Yup. I suspect it's equally possible that discovering Obama isn't actually natural born could result in elimination of the natural born requirement.

Be careful what you wish for, stupendousman, you might not get it exactly as you imagine.
I agree about the first part. I don't think he would be removed. However, if it could be established that he was not eligible, and that he knew he was not eligible and had been engaging in fraud, then I don't think it's all that far fetched to imagine that he'd be barred from running in 2012.

I'm really doubting that anyone is going to get in a big hurry to pass a Constitutional amendment so Obama could run, or some other non-citizen could be President. Do you really think it would get the votes needed? I'm pretty sure the votes wouldn't be there.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2011, 10:08 AM
 
Oh, short-term, sure it's not likely to happen before 2012. But, the long-term question could become what do you want less: Obama as President or a future of non-natural-born Presidents?

Also, even if it were revealed that the American electoral system failed when it concluded that Obama was eligible for the office of President, it could be difficult to prove that Obama knew he wasn't natural born; all he'd have to do is say his mother always told him he was and that officials all told him that the "short form" was sufficient.

(ignoring the far fetched scenario that would have to have happened for Obama to *not* have been born on US soil)
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2011, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Also, even if it were revealed that the American electoral system failed when it concluded that Obama was eligible for the office of President, it could be difficult to prove that Obama knew he wasn't natural born; all he'd have to do is say his mother always told him he was and that officials all told him that the "short form" was sufficient.
I'd buy the "mother told him" line. However, when it became apparent prior to the 2008 election that his citizenship status was being doubted, I would not buy that he or his team made no efforts to accurately determine the facts, if for no reason than to beat prospective opponents as part of the "opposition research" major candidates spend LOTS of money on. When the "short form" controversy came up, I would not buy the idea that he or his people did not look into whether or not there was a "long form" on record and the fact that he refuses to allow it's release would seem to indicate that he knows something could be amiss in the situation.

So, he may have at one time thought he was born in the US, but at least sometime around 2008 he should have known, or he and his people are so incompetent that they have no business running the country in the first place.

(ignoring the far fetched scenario that would have to have happened for Obama to *not* have been born on US soil)
The problem is that given the facts, it's not "far fetched." Every day he holds information back it appears even more and more likely to me.
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2011, 05:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Every day he holds information back it appears even more and more likely to me.
Apparently you are one of those nutty ones.
Your opening post,
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.
You talked yourself into it, didn't you.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2011, 09:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
Apparently you are one of those nutty ones.
Your opening post,

You talked yourself into it, didn't you.
I suspect the intent was to *appear* as someone unconvinced and unconcerned about the issue who became convinced through a "thorough" and "unbiased" review of recent evidence, in an attempt to show other, legitimate, unconvinced and unconcerned people that other rational people can see the "truth". Basically, an attempt to create a bandwagon that people will jump on prior to the 2012 election campaign getting started.
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2011, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I suspect the intent was to *appear* as someone unconvinced and unconcerned
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2011, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
Apparently you are one of those nutty ones.
Your opening post,

You talked yourself into it, didn't you.
I stated that I can be convinced either way, and still can. At this point, I'm leaning towards him not being born in the US, due to his refusal at all odds to release the info.

I posted here wanting some kind of refutation that would put me back squarely in the "he's hiding something, but probably not that he wasn't born in the US camp," but I haven't seen anything solid yet. No actual proof he was born here. No actual proof that he had to have been born here to get the documentation he has, given that the law did not require it.

So, if you would like to drop this down to the level of name calling, then I guess you've got to go with what you've got. I've certainly not seen the evidence I asked for.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2011, 05:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I suspect the intent was to *appear* as someone unconvinced and unconcerned about the issue who became convinced through a "thorough" and "unbiased" review of recent evidence, in an attempt to show other, legitimate, unconvinced and unconcerned people that other rational people can see the "truth". Basically, an attempt to create a bandwagon that people will jump on prior to the 2012 election campaign getting started.
Nice conspiracy theory based on just about nothing. Like I already said, I guess you've got to go with all you've got.

If you want, you can probably do a search and find where in the past where I consistently said I didn't think that there was an issue with where he was born, but there was probably something else that the "long form" would have that he's hiding. It's not been until the recent investigation into the law that it became clear that they did not require the same criteria for getting a birth certificate that the government mandated for citizenship, and therefore a "short form" really didn't prove that a live birth happened in the state of Hawaii.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2011, 05:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I stated that I can be convinced either way, and still can. At this point, I'm leaning towards him not being born in the US, due to his refusal at all odds to release the info.

I posted here wanting some kind of refutation that would put me back squarely in the "he's hiding something, but probably not that he wasn't born in the US camp," but I haven't seen anything solid yet. No actual proof he was born here. No actual proof that he had to have been born here to get the documentation he has, given that the law did not require it.

So, if you would like to drop this down to the level of name calling, then I guess you've got to go with what you've got. I've certainly not seen the evidence I asked for.

Just wondering, did you demand that W. Bush release whatever documents you want from Obama?
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2011, 05:34 PM
 
It's because he's black, .
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 07:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Just wondering, did you demand that W. Bush release whatever documents you want from Obama?
No. W. Bush was born to two American citizen's. There isn't any scenario that I can think of that the documents I think Obama should release would possibly show that Bush was not eligible for office.

I did however at the time say that Bush should be transparent and order the release of any of the documents involving his service during the Vietnam war since there were questions revolving around whether or not he served as required. He did finally do that after months of prodding by the media and a set of forged, fake documents that CBS news used to try and prove that Bush was a bad guy.

If a President can provide transparency where there are valid questions regarding his fitness to serve, then he should do so. It's not all that much considering the power and responsibility he is being given.

Originally Posted by screener View Post
It's because he's black, .
I'm pretty sure that regardless of color, if a guy is born with a non-citizen parent, and the other parent is known to travel extensively and the guy's grandmother at one point tells of his birth in a foreign country, and that guy refuses to release his original hospital generated birth certificate - he's going to get extra scrutiny. Of course, not from the media or the left, BECAUSE he is black and a democrat. If the latter wasn't the case, we'd probably already have a fake birth certificate making the rounds on the news shows with a demand that he resign.

I can't get anyone to provide any verifiable proof that this guy was born in the United States, and the best you can do is "because he's black?"

Is that REALLY the best you can do?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 09:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I can't get anyone to provide any verifiable proof that this guy was born in the United States, and the best you can do is "because he's black?"
Yes, you have, it's just that you insist on clinging to several nested *possibilities* (each possibility relying on the previous possibility in order to be possible ... increasing the chances of unlikelihood) that would invalidate the document presented:

1. That Obama's mother left the United States just in time to have her baby in another country, returning to the US shortly after the birth, clearly not concerned about having access to the superior health facilities of the US or about her child's citizenship status.
2. That Obama's mother was so concerned about her child's natural born citizenship that she sought natural born citizenship status for him despite his having been born outside of the US.
3. That the Hawaii Health Department was either corrupt or inept in their duties and failed to verify that Obama's mother was in the US at the time of Obama's birth (despite no evidence of the Hawaii Health Department having done something like this before).
4. That the US electoral system is either so corrupt or so inept as to not identify the corruption or ineptitude of the Hawaiian Health Department.
5. That the US judicial system is either so corrupt or so inept as to not identify the corruption or ineptitude of the US electoral system.
6. That the current Republican House majority leader is either so corrupt or so inept as to not recognize the possibilities above.

Only under the above set of circumstances could Obama not be a natural born citizen.
( Last edited by Wiskedjak; Feb 3, 2011 at 10:19 AM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 11:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Yes, you have, it's just that you insist on clinging to several nested *possibilities* (each possibility relying on the previous possibility in order to be possible ... increasing the chances of unlikelihood) that would invalidate the document presented:
My arguments aren't exactly what you list below, and for the most part only require 1 thing - for Obama to have not been born in the U.S.- for them to be possible. I've pointed out where the laws at the time allow it, there's circumstantial evidence he was not born in the U.S., and the "evidence" that has been given on his behalf isn't really certifiable or clear.

1. That Obama's mother left the United States just in time to have her baby in another country, returning to the US shortly after the birth, clearly not concerned about having access to the superior health facilities of the US or about her child's citizenship status.
What evidence is that there that she was in the US shortly before the birth, and that she was in the U.S. shortly after her birth? The best I can find is that a babysitter says that she was told that she came to Washington state from Hawaii, which being her state of residence, would really still be the case even if she's spent several weeks in Africa prior to going to mainland U.S.

THIS is the best I've seen as far as "evidence" goes, but there's still a very valid possibility that what Mrs. Obama told her was based on her being from Hawaii, not that she flew out of Hawaii straight to Washington. We know that his grandmother (despite a translator changing her answer after the fact on his own) says he was born in Africa. This doesn't really present a clear timeline of Mrs. Obama's whereabout at the time of the birth.

2. That Obama's mother was so concerned about her child's natural born citizenship that she sought natural born citizenship status for him despite his having been born outside of the US.
It's very possible that she wasn't aware of the laws and regulations until after the child was born and sought citizenship. Of course, we can clear this up by simply getting some clear evidence that there is a hospital generated "long form." If there is, then absent forgery (unlikely) then the case should be closed. We've established using documents vouched for by the government that Obama was born in a hospital in Hawaii. The COLB does not provide that evidence and the evidence that would clear this matter up should be easy to obtain if it exists. It's my guess that like a lot of Hawaiian government workers have suggested, there is no such evidence on record.

3. That the Hawaii Health Department was either corrupt or inept in their duties and failed to verify that Obama's mother was in the US at the time of Obama's birth (despite no evidence of the Hawaii Health Department having done something like this before).
The law is the law. I've quoted the only legal requirement to get the health department to issue a COLB in the state of Hawaii for someone who was not born there, and it does not require the person in question to meet the stricter criteria of that the federal government requires to be considered a natural born citizen. The Hawaii Health Department could very well be acting in good faith in ensuring that what was required by it's state laws had been followed, and Obama STILL being born outside the United States and not being eligible to be a "natural born citizen." There's no reason to believe that they acted corruptly or where inept because they would have just been doing what the laws provided by Hawaii allowed.

Legislators aren't perfect. They make mistakes and create unintentional loopholes all the time. I just don't think it's rational to suggest that with such a huge glaring loophole in the law which would allow foreign born children to get a COLB, that such a document is certifiable proof that a child was born in Hawaii.

4. That the US electoral system is either so corrupt or so inept as to not identify the corruption or ineptitude of the Hawaiian Health Department.
Had you heard about what exactly the laws in Hawaii were, in regards to what was required to get a COLB prior to Obama being elected? If not, why not? Given the facts, and the controversy prior to the election, don't you think at the very least the US electoral system should have had all it's ducks in a row and determined what was required to get the "evidence" Obama presented prior to getting elected?

Did you know that based on Hawaiian law, Obama's mother could have gotten the document he presented just by having someone prove that she was a resident of Hawaii for the past year? That's exactly what the law says. What evidence do we have that the Health Department required more strenuous documentation and evidence then was required to by law? Does it seem to you reasonable that government agencies would make it a policy to heap more work on themselves that is not required?

Let's face it - there was little to no vetting on him in this regard by the Government of the media. Basically, they took the word of the Hawaiian Health Department that he had a COLB and did no further investigation. They took the easy route, despite the fact that the document in question does not prove that Obama was eligible for "natural born citizen" status at the time of his birth.

5. That the US judicial system is either so corrupt or so inept as to not identify the corruption or ineptitude of the US electoral system.
Mistakes happen. It requires neither corruption or ineptitude, however the fact that you, me and most Americans did not know at the time that Hawaiian law would let foreign born children to get the same documentation Obama had, does seem to point to someone dropping the ball. Even if Obama was born in the US, this seems to be a pretty glaring error on the part of everyone who should be responsible for ensuring eligibility of the President.

6. That the current Republican House majority leader is either so corrupt or so inept as to not recognize the possibilities above.

Only under the above set of circumstances could Obama not be a natural born citizen.
The circumstances you lay out aren't valid and are artificially limited, as I've shown. You can have a reasonable error and possibly lax vetting and still have Obama not be a natural born citizen and getting a Hawaiian COLB. It doesn't require any conspiracy on anyone's part other than Obama covering it up after the fact.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 11:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
It's because he's black, .
Barry Goldwater's eligibility (McCain's as well) was challenged by the Dem's because he was born in Az when it was a territory.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Barry Goldwater's eligibility (McCain's as well) was challenged by the Dem's because he was born in Az when it was a territory.
Did it rise to the lunacy level?
I was being sarcastic but I do believe there is racism involved in some of the birthers.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
Did it rise to the lunacy level?
Was Barry Goldwater refusing to give info which would help figure out if he was eligible or not?

I was being sarcastic but I do believe there is racism involved in some of the birthers.
I don't doubt that there are people who are racist, who do not like Obama, who would like to use whatever means necessary to get him out of office.

I assure you that I don't harbor those hang-ups, so if we could just stick to the subject we won't get diverted by the race card.

I'm still looking for certifiable evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. Even someone who'll go on record who isn't related, who can claim that they saw his mother in Hawaii within a few days one way or another, of his birth.

There doesn't seem to ANY of that sort of certifiable evidence, (and in fact there's some shaky circumstantial evidence that he was born in Africa) unless he's got a hospital generated "long form" on record. If he does, and there's someone who'll go on record as saying it does, then I'll be convinced that he was born here, even though I think that maybe there's something on that record he's trying to hide if he still refuses to release it.

This has nothing to do with his race.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I'm really doubting that anyone is going to get in a big hurry to pass a Constitutional amendment so Obama could run, or some other non-citizen could be President. Do you really think it would get the votes needed? I'm pretty sure the votes wouldn't be there.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you President Schwarzenager!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 05:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No. W. Bush was born to two American citizen's. There isn't any scenario that I can think of that the documents I think Obama should release would possibly show that Bush was not eligible for office.
How about proof that Barbara and George H. Bush were born in this country? How do you know that anybody is born in this country? You have that same lack of information with everybody. In fact, it would seem to me that Obama has released more than virtually any public political figure.

I can't get anyone to provide any verifiable proof that this guy was born in the United States, and the best you can do is "because he's black?"

Is that REALLY the best you can do?

You must have me mistaken for somebody else.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 08:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How about proof that Barbara and George H. Bush were born in this country?
Here you perfectly illustrate the difference between absurd, and reasonable.

Does anyone have any reason to believe that either Barbara or George were not born in the U.S.? Has any such concern been credibly forwarded by anyone? No? Asking for evidence that Bush's parent's were born here is absurd.

On the other hand, no one disputes that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen. Obama's grandmother has stated he was born in Africa. Given those two facts, there is a reason to wonder about Obama's status.

How do you know that anybody is born in this country? You have that same lack of information with everybody. In fact, it would seem to me that Obama has released more than virtually any public political figure.
Obama's been the only President that I know of who had at least one parent who was not a citizen, therefore making his eligibility a reasonable question. That's not the case with Bush. You can try to twist and find some kind of irrational comparison all you want, but we both know you're really stretching here.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 09:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Has any such concern been credibly forwarded by anyone?
This is key. So far, nobody's been able to convince a judge, the Republican House Leader or even Fox News that there is credible evidence suggesting Obama might not be natural born. All you have is politically fueled speculation and conjecture.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 10:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Here you perfectly illustrate the difference between absurd, and reasonable.

Does anyone have any reason to believe that either Barbara or George were not born in the U.S.? Has any such concern been credibly forwarded by anyone? No? Asking for evidence that Bush's parent's were born here is absurd.

On the other hand, no one disputes that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen. Obama's grandmother has stated he was born in Africa. Given those two facts, there is a reason to wonder about Obama's status.
Does anybody have reason to believe that the documents certified by Hawaii are fraudulent, or at least, does anybody have a good reason to believe this?

To me it is pretty much just as reasonable to demand any other leader show their birth certificate than it is Obama.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 10:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you President Schwarzenager!
Who exactly would want that bonehead as president?
He was an absolute DISASTER in California. Just the worst. A total RHINO. Trying to 'get along' he simply went along with the overspending gravy train, and ended up (predictably) being despised by just about everyone, even if for different reasons. If there's some big call to have the same crap repeated on a national level, I haven't seen it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 11:14 PM
 
RHINO? What would that be? Republican Heterosexual in Name Only?
     
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 11:38 PM
 
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2011, 12:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
All you have is politically fueled speculation and conjecture.
...and his grandmother claiming he was born in Monbassa, and the fact that he is refusing to allow it to be known if he even has a "long form" birth certificate on record (which he'd have on file if he was born at any hospital in Hawaii), and the fact that the only evidence he's provided is something that the law allowed non-citizens to get as well, etc., ect.



Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Does anybody have reason to believe that the documents certified by Hawaii are fraudulent, or at least, does anybody have a good reason to believe this?
Please read the entire thread. The documents certified by Hawaii do not have to be "fraudulent" for Obama to not be eligible for citizenship, and therefore the Presidency. Hawaii, by law, only required proof that someone was a resident of the state for one year to get a "COLB". There was no requirement that they be born in Hawaii or show that the parents where citizens.

To me it is pretty much just as reasonable to demand any other leader show their birth certificate than it is Obama.
Based on what? Whether or not Obama was born in the U.S. is relevant, due to the fact that he wouldn't be eligible for the office any other way. On the other hand, kids of 2 American citizens wouldn't have that same burden normally. We really are dealing with apples to oranges here.

Originally Posted by kido331 View Post
NO WAY!!! Someone who was in a situation where there was a reasonable question to their citizenship status, provided their birth certificate and didn't try to hide it??!??! Unbelieveable!
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2011, 01:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
...and his grandmother claiming he was born in Monbassa, and the fact that he is refusing to allow it to be known if he even has a "long form" birth certificate on record (which he'd have on file if he was born at any hospital in Hawaii), and the fact that the only evidence he's provided is something that the law allowed non-citizens to get as well, etc., ect.
yes, which only appears to mean anything to people who desperately want to see Obama removed from office. Even the Republican House Majority Leader doesn't find those "facts" convincing.
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2011, 06:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I assure you that I don't harbor those hang-ups, so if we could just stick to the subject we won't get diverted by the race card.
I don't believe you do, but it's still there along with the Hussein bit brought up continuously by some birthers.
Google,
Barack Hussein Obama - Google Search
I can't or hope you don't think you're in good company.
     
 
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 07:01 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2