THE Obama lawsuit to follow
- Thread starter MonsterMark
- Start date
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Even the Onion back in November had the right idea...
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/international_con_man_barack_obama
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/international_con_man_barack_obama
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
I'm just follwoing your lead on "organizations", na, not really.
Even though the COLB they certified has been shown to be a inauthentic... They have more credibility simply because you view the other side as "conspiracy seeking" kooks?!
Also, what does the fact of being an "organization" have to do with anything? That doesn't in any way make them more or less credible.
Once again you show that for you, if you don't like someone's opinion you can simply baselessly marginalize them and disregard...
The typical irrational reasoning we expect from you; Ad hominem smear ("conspiracy seekers") to arrive at an conclusion based on style over substance illogical reasoning.
You'll have to excuse me if I have no faith in your judgement because it has been proven to be self-serving, dishonest, and lacking in integrity. You are incapable of reasonably arriving at the truth. The only hope you have is that the truth already lines up with your beliefs and assumptions, because you refuse to see past those.
As I have pointed out, this is a red herring designed to obfusacte here. The who is logically irrelevant to the why. Any answer to the question of "who he should turn his COLB over to" says absolutetly nothing about the issue of why he should turn it over.
It is simply another dishonest attempt by you to change the focus of the subject.
Besides, I already answered this question in post #315, and others have also answered it in this thread.
Stop being an @$$ and continue asking the same question while intentionally ignoring what other people have written that already answers that question.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Where is the concrete proof that it has shown to be a fake? It's all speculation from conspiracy seekers, claiming it's a fake.
No less credible than the conspiracy seekers, I guess. Though they do have a reputation and a background of being reliable in the past. What about politicheck, are they in the fraud too? What about Hillary and McCain? As they could/should have used this to sink the Obama boat long ago, God knows Hillary wanted the nomination and McCain wanted the presidency.
More blowhard rantings from you; let me guess, I just insulted you and you didn't insult me?
It's not a red herring you clown-shoe, you've repeatedly said "if Obama would just show us his birth certificate, this would all be over", so I am asking you, who should he turn it in to/who is asking for it, as no one except conspiracy seekers are asking for it; he has no reason to do their bidding.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
A news agency is reporting on the Obama birth issue. Only a matter a time before the fraud is exposed now.
So guys - since you finally got press coverage - should he release his birth certificate to the Globe? No doubt they can do a creditable job in validating it 
Don't forget to pick up your copy when you pick up milk this afternoon... I would love to see the quotes that Bryan can find in it...
Don't forget to pick up your copy when you pick up milk this afternoon... I would love to see the quotes that Bryan can find in it...
How about you only draw conclusions that can be logically ment by the quotes in question, ok?
The Jay quote only mentioned the term "natural born citizen" as a qualifier for the office. It never explained what the term ment.
Hamilton's quote never said a damn thing about being a natural born citizen. It didn't even mention the term! If the standard you use is that, then I can take from the quote you made, "I spent a lot of money on booze, boys and fast cars. The rest I just squandered.", that you want to overthrow the U.S. government.
To continue making huge logical leaps like you are making only shows you to be exceedingly dishonest.
And the law in effect was not "British Law" that being born on U.S. soil qualifies you as being a "Natural Born Citizen". Simply being born on U.S. soil didn't make you a citizen either, as the debate over the 14th amendment by the guy who wrote the citizenship clause pointed out. There had to be citizenship by the parents involved.
The article Marcus linked to points out, "the extent to which the colonies adopted British nationality law varied widely." Here is the reason why, according to the author:
The doctrinal confusion was due in part to variations of citizenship drawn from both jus solis and jus sanguinis principles. There was also a good deal of uncertainty over whether and/or when the colonists ceased to be British subjects
So to say that the applicable law at the time was British law is...innacurate at best.There is also the fact that, as Marcus' article points out, "the colonies passed their own naturalization laws prior to the Declaration of Independence":
After independence, no uniform rules of naturalization existed prior to the first exercise by Congress of its naturalization powers, the Naturalization Act of 1790.
You can find that act here.The understanding by the Framers according to this article was that you must be a resident for two years and be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. The jurisdiction of the U.S. as a requirement for citizenship was explained very throughly in debate over the naturalization clause of the 14th amendment.
Again, as this link points out:
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
And another quote from that debate by the author of the clause, Sen. Howard:
I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now
So, to be a "natural born citizen" you must be born in the U.S. to parents who are under the full jurisdiction of the U.S. That would mean U.S. citizens. Foreigners are not under the full jurisdiction of the U.S.
From the article Marcus linked to:
Congress has the power to define which classes of people will be citizens upon birth, but it may not declare any person a "citizen at birth" retroactively
In fact, it is well understood that Congress cannot pass any retroactive law (ex post facto law) because it is forbidden by Article 1, section 9, clause 3 which states: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed"There is no proof that Obama did provide proof to all 50 SOS's. They could have very simply assumed that he was a citizen because state "X" said he was, and what not. That kind of stuff happens all the time. They could also have been very sloppy in this due to whatever reasons (ideology on the part of the SOS, viewing it as simply a formality and not taking it seriously). It is also very possible (and likely) that some SOS's brushed it under the table because they supported Obama.
That is hardly unheard of in politics. Look at how the Florida Supreme Court handled the election in 2000; blatant judicial activism and disregard for both the Florida state and Federal constitution. In regards to Obama, look at how the Ohio government handled the "Joe the Plumber" thing. They were using their power to attack a private citizen and support Obama. There many other examples I could list as well.
Just because there is a constitutional (or otherwise legal) requirement on some public official to take a certian action before doesn't mean that they have taken that action. There are plenty of reasons and ways that constitutional and legal responsibilities can be ignored and circumvented (intentionally or not). To view the fact that there is a requirement for something to happen as prove that it did happen is naieve and circular reasoning.
That was the crux of the Donofrino's lawsuit - that he wasn't satisfied with New Jersey's secretary of state's acceptance of the proof that they were presented regarding 'natural born'.
Again this proves nothing and is simply grasping at straws on your part. It is exceedingly naive, as well. I get the impression that is a pretty consistent trait of yours...
And this proves what? Nothing but that polifact is trying to marginalize anyone who doesn't agree with their findings and probably trying to cover their own butt.
The fact that they are attacking those who disagree with them instead of defending their findings should send up a red flag.
There are plenty of sources and they are throughly linked to by Bryan throughout this forum. It is not simply speculation but looking at the document and basing their conclusions based on what they find.
Go back and search. Or email Bryan if you like. I am sure he can provide you with all the info you need. But I am not going to keep rehashing this stuff because I have no doubt that you will not see reason on this. I am not going to waste my time.
More obfuscation, not suprising.
There doesn't need to be concrete proof, there only logically needs to be a preponderance of evidence. To demand concrete proof of the side questioning Obama's natural born status is either ignorant or dishonest, and I know you are not ignorant.
It is a constitutional requirement for a president to be a natural born citizen. If there is any reasonable question as to that status, then the necessity for "concrete proof" logically falls on the person wanting to be president.
There are plenty of fact that support the arguments being made and you know it.
And it is not all simply "speculation from conspiracy seekers". I am really tired of you simply smearing and marginalizing people like that. That is why I have stopped showing any form of respect or decency to you here because you don't do that to anyone who disagrees with you. You start out with the assumption that they are either "kooks", stupid, evil, etc and base your argument from their. That action is despicable, rude, petty and childish. Since you treat those who disagree with you like that, you deserve no respectful treatment.
Stop being a rude and disrespectful @$$hole in this forum (specifically this thread) and I might actually be decent to you as well.
That doesn't mean that they are right in this instance. There is enough evidence to show that they were wrong, and that has been pointed out ad nauseum in this forum. Unless you can make specific refutations of the specific points made about the COLB, then you are just throwing out generalizations. Talk specifics, or STFU!
I have already shown how it is a red herring in this discussion and you are ignoring my reasons and simply restating your own justification. Actually respond to the specific reasons I gave or stop wasting the time of everyone reading this thread.
And justify your assumptions that anyone asking for the birth cirtificate or questioning Obama's natural born status is a "kook" and/or a "conspiracy seeker" with more then just speculation. All your arguments function under that false assumption and are not agreed uppon by everyone arguing in this thread. To continue arguing under a false assumption is dishonest because it makes any argument you make a loaded one, and fallacious. Also any claim you make about those questioning Obama's natural born status being "kooks" or "conspiracy seekers" is inherently based on circular reasoning due to your baseless and unproven assumption.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
WTF? What in the hell do you mean those saying it is a fake, don't need proof that it's a fake? It's been verified to be authentic, so it is up to those that claim it's a fake, to prove it's a fake, as wild claims can be made by anyone and at any time. Should Bush have to prove he wasn't in on 9/11 every time some seeker claims he was? Now, if it hadn't been verified in the first place, then you might have a point. Look who's trying to confuse things, we're discussing the authentic nature of the COLB in regards to factcheck and politifact, not the "is he a dual citizen/meet the requirement" at the moment.
Do you think Clinton's and McCain's people were just lazy and let a killing-stroke like this slip by? Are the Dem and Rep parties in the fraud too, as it's extrememly illogical that something like this slipped by for so long(with the exception of gumshoes like Berg, as nothing gets past those types), considering the dirt that gets dug-up during elections?
Stop your crying over me saying "conspiracy seekers", you sound like a whiny little b!tch, seriously, grow a pair.
Once again, it is not a red herring, you said on more than one occasion, "if Obama would only show us his birth certificate, this matter would be put to rest", YOU SAID THIS. So I ask again, who specifically should he show it to, as no one is asking for it? Mind you, he has no reason to show it to Berg and the like. You keep dancing around this question; it's funny and very telling.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Ah, the old Mary Mapes defense, right? Fake but accurate? :bowrofl:
Sorry, but it's up to Obama to prove his COLB is legit, and neither factcheck.org nor liberalpussyfacts.com are qualified to certify it.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
It's been verified, you just don't approve of those doing to verification.
Fine, considering those two don't count, who should he turn in into, as no one is asking?
Why - you are right - overthrowing the government sounds like a great idea. I'll fit it in between oodles of Boodles, 22-year-old guys (sorry shag - too old) and Lambos...
I shall endeavor to do this in my dishonest, yet, however, at the same time somehow naive, way that I do everything.Shag, I thought that to be an 'originalist' you were really were only allowed to take into account the 'atmosphere' that was prevalent during the framing.
Since the 14th amendment never defines natural born citizen - any discussion regarding it's authors or their viewpoints really has no relevance. You can use the actual law that was passed, but not some asides they had while writing the text of the amendment. The 14th does not address Natural Born Citizen point, nor redefines it - so it reverts back to the definitions of the founding fathers. The authors of the 14th had their opportunity to define it, they didn't. We need to remember this. They do not, by mere inference, overrule what the founding fathers have written. Once again this point is moot, if you are going to keep claiming 'originalist' Shag. What these men thought doesn't come into argument here, their mere thoughts are considered 2nd place to the thoughts and ideals of the framers.
"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
Jay's quote - he didn't elaborate on the statement. Usually when this happens in constitution discussion it is taken to mean that the term was in usage already, and defined in current American or British Law.
Once again Shag, British law at this time was only concerned with where the child was born - there is absolutely nothing in the law that discuss parents. I am going by Blackstone when I am referring to British law - usually everyone defers to his opinion - but, go ahead, if you need to find someone else - please do... Blackstone will almost always trump.
Hamilton's statement does go to the discussion of natural born citizen. His draft included the statement 'unless he be now a citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.' Probably because he had McCain's problem - he was worried that by going with 'natural born citizen' it would disqualify men like him. He wasn born in the Caribbean. Note - there isn't anything that mentions that it would be OK if his parents were American. Hamilton was concerned that the statement 'natural born citizen' would disqualify future candidates on the 'born on US soil' definition at the time, and only about that, not about parentage.
And since Obama was born on US soil - the whole thing about any law about parentage is not applicable.
There isn't any proof that Obama didn't provide proof, there is actually proof that he did - his name on the ballot. So, if the Kansas Secretary of State hasn't done their job - sue them. That is your next logical step.
I asked for a source that has had Obama's birth certificate in their hand and declared it a forgery, invalid, wrong, whatever. I have looked and that hasn't ever appeared on this site, in link form or any other form. All of the speculation (and it is speculation if you don't actually have the document to review) is based on pictures on the internet. Not one of Bryan's sources has held the document.
Heck - did you know that one of your favorite sites - World Net Daily authenticated the birth certificate?
A separate WND investigation into Obama's birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.
Wow - would bloggers do that - phony evidence - I am soooooo surprised.
That is why I liked the Polifact statement - it is true - no matter what 'expert' looks at this issue, conspiracy theorists will always find another worm in the apple.
So, shag, foss, Bryan - what is wrong with World Net Daily?
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
World Net Daily! "They" got to them too, they're part of it now.
Because of your inability to have any decent, respectful, logical and honest conversation with anyone you disagree with on this forum, I have decided to make this what I now see when you post anything...
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
So says the guy who constantly accuses others of some deceitfulness.
Must have been a difficult question to answer, I guess. In all honesty, you shouldn't make a claim if you're not able back it up/answer a question about it.
Must have been a difficult question to answer, I guess. In all honesty, you shouldn't make a claim if you're not able back it up/answer a question about it.
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
Perhaps everyone should just put anyone they've ever disagreed with on their ignore list and then you can all pretend everyone agrees.
ford nut
Local nut case
Perhaps everyone should just put anyone they've ever disagreed with on their ignore list and then you can all pretend everyone agrees.
Wouldn't life be grand !
I did try that with my wife.....now shes my ex wife
That ignore list was expensive !!
Perhaps everyone should just put anyone they've ever disagreed with on their ignore list and then you can all pretend everyone agrees.
Hope you are not trying to say that I put "theDude" on my ignore list simply because he and I disagreed.
I spelled out my reasons why I put him on my ignore list. It had nothing to do with the fact that he disagreed with me and everything to do with how he has consistently disagreed and argued with myself and others in a dishonest, decietful, illogical, intolerant and disrespectful manner. That has been a consistent trait of his throughout most any topic in the politics section of this forum when he disagrees with people.
Inherent in any disagreement with him is his assumption that anything you say is wrong and foolish. It is obvious in his blatant dishonest condesention (demonstrated by his attempts to smear and marginalize) toward anyone he disagrees with.
When there is no chance of having a decent and honest debate with someone, then it is foolish to argue with them. You don't accomplish anything, but wasting your time and energy in responding and debating. At best, you look like a fool, at worst you tend to burn bridges.
Frankly, I was foolish in trying to debate him for as long as I have. The best thing I can do is ignore him, and the ignore list it the easiest way to do so. That is what it is designed for.
Originalizm has absolutely nothing to do with the"'atmosphere' that was prevalent during the framing".
It has everything to do with the original text of the law, and the text of the reasoning and justification for the law at the time of it's passing and/or how the law was generally understood at the time of it's passing (depending on type of originalism you are looking at).
Now you want to only look at laws that actually say anything about the idea of natural born citizen?! That is rather selective and inconsistent of you.
The whole point of looking at what the qualifications for citizenship at birth(which the Congress did effectively define in the 14th amendment, and in the quotes I cited showed that they viewed as clarifying and codifying what had historically already been understood in America). Keep in mind that the 14th amendment was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868, so the people writing, proposing and voting on it were only 3 to 4 generations removed from the Framers, at best. They likely had a view closer to what the Framers intended then we do today.
The standards for citizenship at birth are clear, and they are as spelled out in the 14th amendment. The big qualifing factor is not weather you are born on U.S. soil or not, as you can be born on non-U.S. soil and be a citizen from birth. The big factor is being under the jurisdiction of the U.S., and that had a specific understanding at the time of the Amendment's creation. That is why the Amendment as viewed at the time of it's creation and ratification excluded not only Native Americans but, “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
Clearly, as set out in the 14th Amendment, simply being born on U.S. soil does not make you a U.S. citizen.
The whole question here is weather the qualification for being a "natural born citizen" is the same as being a "native born citizen" (or citizen at birth") or if it is greater. Now you are trying to argue that the qualification for being a "natural born citizen" is less then that of being a native born citizen?! That is not even an option!
Here is an interesting quote from this link:
Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth?
Unlikely because we know one can be native born and yet not a native born citizen of this country prior to the year 1866. There were even disputes whether anyone born within the District of Columbia or in the territories were born citizens of the United States (they were referred to as “inhabitants” instead.) National Government could make no “territorial allegiance” demands within the several States because as Madison explained it, the “powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
Jurisdiction over citizenship via birth within the several States was part of the “ordinary course of affairs” of the States that only local laws could affect. Early acts of Naturalization recognized the individual State Legislatures as the only authority who could make anyone a citizen of a State. Framer James Wilson said, “a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union.” These citizens of each State were united together through Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, and thus, no act of Congress was required to make citizens of the individual States citizens of the United States.
Unlikely because we know one can be native born and yet not a native born citizen of this country prior to the year 1866. There were even disputes whether anyone born within the District of Columbia or in the territories were born citizens of the United States (they were referred to as “inhabitants” instead.) National Government could make no “territorial allegiance” demands within the several States because as Madison explained it, the “powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
Jurisdiction over citizenship via birth within the several States was part of the “ordinary course of affairs” of the States that only local laws could affect. Early acts of Naturalization recognized the individual State Legislatures as the only authority who could make anyone a citizen of a State. Framer James Wilson said, “a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union.” These citizens of each State were united together through Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, and thus, no act of Congress was required to make citizens of the individual States citizens of the United States.
And another quote from the article:
Additionally, if the framers merely intended for birth alone on U.S. soil then all would had been necessary was to say the President shall be “native born.”
Clearly, the qualification as understood by the Framers for being a natural born citizen was greater then being a native born citizen. Now you are trying to argue that it is less...
Again, that is questionable at best. Just because there was a british law doesn't mean that it applied in American at al. and even if it did apply here, it is unclear weather it applied in the same manner or to the same degree.
The only use of British common law is when it comes to terminology and concepts. British law never had the idea of "natural born citizen" in any law. They had the idea of "natural born subject". The are different things.
another quote from that link:
It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of “natural-born subject.” The British doctrine allowed for double allegiances, something the founders considered improper.
Framer Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the consent of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.”
The powers of the general government were limited and defined, preventing Congress from exercising the same kind of sovereignty that Britain had over its claimed dominions within established States of the Union.
Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demanded allegiance to the nation in advance. Furthermore, birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.
Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of the crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming naturalized citizens of the United States, led to British vessels blockading American ports. Under the British blockade, every American ship entering or leaving was boarded by soldiers in search of British born subjects. At least 6,000 American citizens who were found to be British natural-born subjects were impressed into military service on behalf of the British Empire, and thus, the reason we went to war.
Framer Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the consent of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.”
The powers of the general government were limited and defined, preventing Congress from exercising the same kind of sovereignty that Britain had over its claimed dominions within established States of the Union.
Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demanded allegiance to the nation in advance. Furthermore, birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.
Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of the crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming naturalized citizens of the United States, led to British vessels blockading American ports. Under the British blockade, every American ship entering or leaving was boarded by soldiers in search of British born subjects. At least 6,000 American citizens who were found to be British natural-born subjects were impressed into military service on behalf of the British Empire, and thus, the reason we went to war.
Now you are countering yourself from earlier in the same post when you said that the 14th amendment should be disregarded because it doesn't define what a "natural born citizen" is!
You can't have it both ways.
Even if you allow both, it is clear by the Framers actions that they had a different idea of why type of citizenship should be required for the president., because they changed it.
you are once again speculating based on false assumptions. As I have pointed out countless times in this thread, the basis for citizenship was never simply being born on U.S. soil! The Framers in fact rejected that idea (jus soli) in favor of a combination of jus soli and jus sanguinis leaning more heavily to jus sanguinis.
not really, especially considering the the circumstances and the fact that he needs to be a "natural born citizen" and not just a "native born citizen".
What?
so now you are requiring someone to prove a negative in this debate?
This sounds like fallacious negative proof argument.
At best it is indirect proof; and as such, for it to be considered proof, the other reasonable possibilities need to be logically excluded. Unless you can do that, you are making an assumption and a huge logical leap.
They don't need to "physically hold the document" to prove it is a fake. You are dishonestly moving the goalposts here.
If that is the standard, then all team Obama has to do is only release it so sources that are friendly to it.
They didn't authenticate it by your standard that you just gave. There is no indication that they ever "held the document in their hands", or physically "had the document to review". So, by the standard you gave in the same post, WND is basing their authentication on nothing more then speculation.
Another double standard, it seems. Care to try to justify it?
The whole "fake COLB" is really Bryan's area, but I will make a couple points.
The COLB on Daily Kos and FactCheck cannot be considered in any way legally authentic because they are altered (they have portions blacked out). For any COLB to be considered authentic, they cannot be altered in any way (it says so right on the COLB). Anyone who says that those COLB's are authentic is talking out their @$$.
Also, the "verification" does not mean that Obama was is an American citizen, let alone a natural born citizen. Here is what the Department of Health director actually said:
I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, 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.
It is well known that Hawaii issues birth certificates to babies not born in Hawaii: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
All the announcement ever stated was the the Birth Certificate was on file. It never said what was on it. So to claim that because they certified it means that Obama is an American Citizen is an absurd leap in logic.Also from this link:
1. Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.
A. From Hawaii's official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country" (applies to adopted children).
B. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.
C. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.
D. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error. See, for example, HRS 338-17.
E. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.
F. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From 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."
2. Contrary to what you may have read, no document made available to the public, nor any statement by Hawaiian officials, evidences conclusively that Obama was born in Hawaii.B. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.
C. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.
D. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error. See, for example, HRS 338-17.
E. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.
F. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From 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."
A. Associated Press reported about a statement of Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Fukino, "State declares Obama birth certificate genuine."
B. That October 31, 2008 statement says that Dr. Fukino "ha personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." That statement does not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained above, under Hawaiian policies and procedures it is quite possible that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii. Unlikely, but possible.
C. The document that the Obama campaign released to the public is a certified copy of Obama's birth record, which is not the best evidence since, even under Hawaiian law, the original vault copy is the better evidence. Presumably, the vault record would show whether his birth was registered by a hospital in Hawaii.
D. Without accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, we nevertheless know that some people have gone to great lengths, even in violation of laws, rules and procedures, to confer the many benefits of United States citizenship on themselves and their children. Given the structure of the Hawaiian law, the fact that a parent may register a birth, and the limited but inherent potential for human error within the system, it is possible that a parent of a child born out-of-state could have registered that birth to confer the benefits of U.S. citizenship, or simply to avoid bureaucratic hassles at that time or later in the child's life.
B. That October 31, 2008 statement says that Dr. Fukino "ha
C. The document that the Obama campaign released to the public is a certified copy of Obama's birth record, which is not the best evidence since, even under Hawaiian law, the original vault copy is the better evidence. Presumably, the vault record would show whether his birth was registered by a hospital in Hawaii.
D. Without accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, we nevertheless know that some people have gone to great lengths, even in violation of laws, rules and procedures, to confer the many benefits of United States citizenship on themselves and their children. Given the structure of the Hawaiian law, the fact that a parent may register a birth, and the limited but inherent potential for human error within the system, it is possible that a parent of a child born out-of-state could have registered that birth to confer the benefits of U.S. citizenship, or simply to avoid bureaucratic hassles at that time or later in the child's life.
1. We don't know whether the standards of registration by the Department of Health were more or less stringent in 1961 (the year of Obama's birth) than they are today. However, especially with post-9/11 scrutiny, we do know that there have been instances of fraudulent registrations of foreign births as American births.
2. From a 2004 Department of Justice news release about multiple New Jersey vital statistics employees engaged in schemes to issue birth certificates to foreign-born individuals: "An individual who paid Anderson and her co-conspirators for the service of creating the false birth records could then go to Office of Vital Statistics to receive a birth certificate . . . As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally . . . Bhutta purchased from Goswamy false birth certificates for himself and his three foreign-born children."
3. Even before 9/11, government officials acknowledged the "ease" of obtaining birth certificates fraudulently. From 1999 testimony by one Social Security Administration official: "Furthermore, the identity data contained in Social Security records are only as reliable as the evidence on which the data are based. The documents that a card applicant must present to establish age, identity, and citizenship, usually a birth certificate and immigration documents-are relatively easy to alter, counterfeit, or obtain fraudulently."
2. From a 2004 Department of Justice news release about multiple New Jersey vital statistics employees engaged in schemes to issue birth certificates to foreign-born individuals: "An individual who paid Anderson and her co-conspirators for the service of creating the false birth records could then go to Office of Vital Statistics to receive a birth certificate . . . As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally . . . Bhutta purchased from Goswamy false birth certificates for himself and his three foreign-born children."
3. Even before 9/11, government officials acknowledged the "ease" of obtaining birth certificates fraudulently. From 1999 testimony by one Social Security Administration official: "Furthermore, the identity data contained in Social Security records are only as reliable as the evidence on which the data are based. The documents that a card applicant must present to establish age, identity, and citizenship, usually a birth certificate and immigration documents-are relatively easy to alter, counterfeit, or obtain fraudulently."
Shag, before I get drunk - and try to read all that circular logic (always best done when one is a bit tipsy - then it can almost make sense), You didn't answer my question about WND - they said the birth certificate is authentic...
I see you go on and on and on and on, well, and on about something about the child not having to be born in Hawaii to get a birth certificate - how easy they are to phony, how many fraudulant ones there are, and so forth. I am sure that these are the newest strands of spaghetti. If the birth certificate is proven to be authentic, then there must be something else we can find to make sure that this man doesn't become president - right? How long does this go on? That is what I would like to know. He will be sworn in - does this discussion continue long after that? Is this the Republican version of 'Florida'?
I see you go on and on and on and on, well, and on about something about the child not having to be born in Hawaii to get a birth certificate - how easy they are to phony, how many fraudulant ones there are, and so forth. I am sure that these are the newest strands of spaghetti. If the birth certificate is proven to be authentic, then there must be something else we can find to make sure that this man doesn't become president - right? How long does this go on? That is what I would like to know. He will be sworn in - does this discussion continue long after that? Is this the Republican version of 'Florida'?
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Hahahahahahahahaaaaaa, good one, again. Especially love the "smear" bit, considering your numerous negative claims about me, classic.
Do have the decency to not talk about me, if you're going to put me on ignore. Otherwise you just continue to show others what a little:
That is what I would like to know. He will be sworn in - does this discussion continue long after that? Is this the Republican version of 'Florida'?
No, it won't be.
Well, two drinks later and now my head just hurts after reading all that Shag - I'll divide and conquer... tomorrow...
And Cal...
I have no idea of what you mean -
a. No he won't be sworn in?
b. No the discussion won't continue long after he is sworn in?
c. No this isn't the Republican version of 'Florida'.
wow - double negatives - more drinks!!!!
Ah, Florida - I bet it is warmer there than here - -5 right now... maybe an umbrella drink should be next
And Cal...
I have no idea of what you mean -
a. No he won't be sworn in?
b. No the discussion won't continue long after he is sworn in?
c. No this isn't the Republican version of 'Florida'.
wow - double negatives - more drinks!!!!
Ah, Florida - I bet it is warmer there than here - -5 right now... maybe an umbrella drink should be next
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
Exactly why I've become a spectator here instead of a participant. And I suspect that as soon as Fox and Dude succumb to exhaustion as I have, you'll have this place all to yourselves.