Obama's Birth Certificate

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Who would have thunk it in these days of political correctness. More and more people are willing to sacrifice the choir to settle a constitutional issue very easily settled by Obama releasing the required documents.

We established some time ago that the Birth Certificate is actually tangential to Berg's vase. Yet now you present us with another law suit that is focused on the BC!

If it continues to grow it should make for an interesting protest at the inaugeration and a potential horror for the country if it is released after..

Obama Birth Certificate Rears Its Head - Again - Political Machine

I think your predictions probably have about as much merit as your legal views.

Regarding the We The People Foundation law suit, I suppose we should be impressed to see legal grandstanding on the part of an outfit that was fined $2000 a day for contempt of court earlier this year. I, for one, am not.
We the People Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[kiwimac]

SO, let me be clear here, you are, in fact, accusing the Hawaii State Registrar of fraud?

[kiwimac]

Perhaps, Nick, you'd like to further comment on the following?

Officials verify birth certificate of Obama

Hawaii's health director steps in after numerous requests for the document
By Star-Bulletin Staff and News Services

POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Nov 01, 2008

The state health director said yesterday she has personally seen and verified Sen. Barack Obama's original birth certificate in an effort to address numerous requests for the document.

Obama, who is running against Sen. John McCain for president, posted on his Web site the birth certificate showing Honolulu as his birthplace.

State law prohibits the release of a birth certificate except to a person seeking his or her own certificate and the person's spouse, parent and legal guardian.

But health officials have been receiving numerous e-mail and phone requests for the document, according to Janice Okubo, Heath Department spokeswoman.

Health Director Chiyome Fukino said she and the vital statistics registrar viewed and verified Obama's birth certificate.

"No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii," Fukino said.

Critics have questioned whether Obama is a U.S. citizen and have filed lawsuits around the country challenging it. Those suits have been dismissed, including one in Ohio yesterday.

In Hawaii, Andy Martin, an Obama opponent, filed a lawsuit earlier this month seeking a copy of the birth certificate. The Hawaii Supreme Court on Oct. 22 denied his request to see the document.

Source

To reiterate my question.

Are you saying that "…Health Director Chiyome Fukino said she and the vital statistics registrar viewed and verified Obama's birth certificate...." are both lying about President-Elect Obama's BC?

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Suppose Obama is inellegible to be president. One of four things happen. Joseph Biden becomes president, or there is a run off election, or John McCain becomes president by default, or George Bush remains president until this is all sorted out...

Namaste Q,

it would depend on how the electors are required by their state statues to cast their vote. most states require by law that the electors cast their ballots for the person listed on the ballot, even if that person cannot take office. there have been a few cases where the candidate died after the general election but prior to the electors vote.

i'd have to check again but the last i recall reading on this matter a few states did not mandate through legislation how the electors cast their votes and thus they could, in theory, vote for whomever they chose.

as i understand it now, if Obama were disqualifed from assuming the post VP elect Biden would become POTUS and be able to appoint a new VP.

as an aside.. i'm curious as to when "African" became a race.

metta,

~v

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

There is enough circumstantial evidence of fraud to warrant forcing Obama and Hawaii to produce the BC.

No. There have been a lot of ASSERTIONS that there is fraud, but no particular evidence. The original claim, for example, was that the image on the website was a Photoshop, not even from a physical document. Yet after investigators were allowed to look at the document itself (Berg's spokesman, the FactCheck people, Fox News, etc.), this STILL kept circulating on the wingnut sites.
If, however, you have any case to make that the document was a fraud, then you need to sue the officials in the Hawaii Department of Health whom you are accusing of perjury.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

If Alan Keyes was denied votes because of deception he has standing. He has been harmed.

But he's not suing in Hawaii. He is asking the California Secretary of State to disbelieve a certified record from Hawaii. There is a specific constitutional provision about THAT, too: states are absolutely required (see Article IV) to give "full faith and credit" to officially certified records from other states.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

The only people opposing this are those that feel Obama is more important than the constitution.

You don't give a damn about the constitution either.

[Netti-Netti]

If Alan Keyes was denied votes because of deception he has standing. He has been harmed.

Deception has not been established.

[Nick_A]

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org...r-Nov-2008.pdf

An open letter to Obama

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

Temporarily closing thread until further notice.

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

[Vajradhara]

*** MOD Hat On ***

this thread has been reopened.

a reminder to all participants herein: you are encouraged to express you views yet you are constrained to do so in a manner which does not violate the CoC. if anyone has forgotten what the CoC states, please go here: Code of Conduct

with topics that become heated it is quite easy to succumb to the anonymity of the internet and lose the decorum that we would normally have when discussing such issues with someone face to face.

*** MOD Hat Off ***

[Nick_A]

This should be a revealing day. If nothing else it introduces more people not in the choir to wonder why anyone would spend a million dollars to avoid showing the long form of their birth certificate.

Mr. Obama's Eligibility to be Aired Monday at the National Press Club - MarketWatch

QUEENSBURY, N.Y., Dec 04, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- On Monday, December 8, 2008, at 1:30 pm, the We The People Foundation will conduct a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C.
The licensed attorneys who initiated lawsuits in PA (Philip Berg), NJ (Leo Donofrio) and CA (Orly Taitz), challenging Mr. Obama's legal eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States, will briefly summarize the facts, legal arguments and status of their cases. They will answer questions from the press.
Prior to the start of the conference, at 10 am, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to announce whether it will consider applications from these attorneys who have asked the Court to delay the proceedings of the Electoral College pending a determination of the underlying constitutional question - the meaning of the "natural born citizen" clause of Article II of the Constitution and its application to Mr. Obama.

[earl]

OK, I'll keep playing. It's kinda fun.
What's Your Evidence?: Was Obama's COLB Forged? Did Obama Post a Forged COLB on his Campaign's Website? - Polarik's Claims
have fun, earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

OK, I'll keep playing. It's kinda fun.
What's Your Evidence?: Was Obama's COLB Forged? Did Obama Post a Forged COLB on his Campaign's Website? - Polarik's Claims
have fun, earl

The smoke clears and what is left? We have a disagreements between experts in a field I know nothing about. Maybe the question comes up Monday. But this we do know. Obama and the DNC is spending over a million dollars not to show the long form of the BC.

Anyone not in the choir asks the simple question of why. People in the choir prefer blind faith. I am not in the choir so ask why. You are in the choir so defend blind faith. A basic difference between us.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/82814

The author gives seven reasons for Obama to reveal the long form BC:

1. Because he can. With a simple request to the Hawaii Bureau of Vital Statistics he can quash all doubt and get on with his administration.

2. He will remove the suspicions of millions of Americans, republicans, democrats and independents alike.

3. If ignored it could cause a constitutional crises unlike anything ever seen in this country. It would make questions of chads and incomplete voting cards look like a kindergarten problem by contrast.

4. It will indicate that Obama means business when he takes the oath of office and declares that he will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

5. It will give confidence to many of his opponents who may not agree with all his policies, but want to know that he is a completely honest man with the country´s best interest in mind.

6. It would put to rest the assertion that he is an elitist. All Americans must submit proper documentation of birth to get Social Security cards, driver´s license, security clearance and passports. He should be willing to carry out the first and the least of all his campaign promises contained in the slogan ´Yes, we can.´ In America we can and according to law ´we must.´

7. We will all sleep better at night!

It is a surprisingly simple matter to make it all go away but it is presently entrenched in court battles and suspicion. In a full page ad in The Washington Times Nov. 17, 2008 three questions are asked. Was Barack Obama born in Kenya? Is he really a citizen of Indonesia? Does the constitution still matter?

Simple enough accept for the blind faith of the choir people. This is the same fundamentalist faith that furthers religious cults. People need blind faith in a messiah and Obama is the one for his choir. Fortunately some people are not afraid of the obvious questions.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

The smoke clears and what is left? We have a disagreements between experts in a field I know nothing about.

This is why I suggested you defer to legal authorities about three months ago.

But this we do know. Obama and the DNC is spending over a million dollars not to show the long form of the BC.

Actually we don't know that. You read that somewhere on the internets. You don't have an author to whom you can attribute this alleged factoid and you have no independent confirmation of this alleged dollar amount. Do you believe everything you read on the internets?

Anyone not in the choir asks the simple question of why. People in the choir prefer blind faith. I am not in the choir so ask why. You are in the choir so defend blind faith. A basic difference between us.

But you do belong to a choir, Nick, and you're singing in tune. You're prepared to accept anything you find on RW websites that fits in with your biases and stand by their claims even after I confront you on your inability to vouch for their veracity. You really look very foolish telling people about their blind faith.

As for me, I believe in lawful legal process. A basic difference between us.

American Chronicle | Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama Should make the Birth Certificate Controversy go Away

The author gives seven reasons for Obama to reveal the long form BC:

With a little bit of imagination, you could think of many more reasons why Obama should not.

Fortunately some people are not afraid of the obvious questions.

Your questions are conclusory statements stated in a question form. If you had any real interest here beyond promoting your political agenda, you would be able to come up with a clear explanation as to the origins and intended purpose of the Constitutional clause you feel is at issue. After three months of this little smear campaign you have going here, you have yet to take any significant steps in that regard.

In the absence of a rational argument, you come off as a rabid RW propagandist who quickly resorts to character assassination by insinuating an ethical problem once the legal aspect turns out to be flimsy. Your intentions are so obvious.

[Nick_A]

Netti

This is why I suggested you defer to legal authorities about three months ago.

We referred to the legal authorities in the OJ trial. I'm glad to see that you agree with the verdict. I prefer to be logical and not swallow corruption whole.

Actually we don't know that. You read that somewhere on the internets. You don't have an author to whom you can attribute this alleged factoid and you have no independent confirmation of this alleged dollar amount. Do you believe everything you read on the internets?

You remember reading the lawyers Obama and the DNC have hired. These are very expensive lawyers. Add it up yourself, say only 800,000, and you will estimate a huge amount being spent to avoid releasing what anyone should be proud of.

But you do belong to a choir, Nick, and you're singing in tune. You're prepared to accept anything you find on RW websites that fits in with your biases and stand by their claims even after I confront you on your inability to vouch for their veracity. You really look very foolish telling people about their blind faith.

I am not accepting anything but rather having normal logical doubts. I am simply demanding proof because of all these inconsistencies. Anyone respecting the constitution will demand resolution to all these doubts. No doctor signature and no hospital admitting Obama was born there. Yet you swallow it whole. Talk about blind faith!

With a little bit of imagination, you could think of many more reasons why Obama should not.

Please provide the seven primary reasons Obama shouldn't release the long form of his BC. Is the first reason to spite Sarah Palin?

Your questions are conclusory statements stated in a question form. If you had any real interest here beyond promoting your political agenda, you would be able to come up with a clear explanation as to the origins and intended purpose of the Constitutional clause you feel is at issue. After three months of this little smear campaign you have going here, you have yet to take any significant steps in that regard.

The reason of course is to avoid the presidency from becoming a tool for another country. But what does it matter. The provision is there and we either respect it or we don't. You don't and I do. clear enough.

In the absence of a rational argument, you come off as a rabid RW propagandist who quickly resorts to character assassination by insinuating an ethical problem once the legal aspect turns out to be flimsy. Your intentions are so obvious.

Defending the provisions of the constitution to determine presidential eligibility is now a rabid RW interest. How low we have sunk

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

The reason of course is to avoid the presidency from becoming a tool for another country. But what does it matter. The provision is there and we either respect it or we don't. You dk

Do you have reason to believe that President Elect Obama can be expected to act in the interests of a country other than the USA?