DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Kramer on February 20, 2010, 11:50:57 PM
-
March on Washington to tell president to quit
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125612 (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125612)
-
(http://images2.cafepress.com/product/399220032v3_480x480_Front_Color-White.jpg)
-
(http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/birthcertificateshirt.jpg)
-
http://www.audiomicro.com/car-horn-honking-sound-effects-26719 (http://www.audiomicro.com/car-horn-honking-sound-effects-26719)
-
morons
-
morons
who
-
These people:
Organizers of a new march on Washington are offering Americans the opportunity to show President Obama their birth certificates and declare that unless he produces documentation of his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, he should quit.
The event is headed by Philip Berg, the first to bring court challenges to Obama's eligibility under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that presidents be a "natural born citizen."
-
These people:
Organizers of a new march on Washington are offering Americans the opportunity to show President Obama their birth certificates and declare that unless he produces documentation of his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, he should quit.
The event is headed by Philip Berg, the first to bring court challenges to Obama's eligibility under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that presidents be a "natural born citizen."
Why have a rule is it isn't going to be followed? Has Obama showed his proof of "natural born citizen."
-
Has Obama showed his proof of "natural born citizen."
Yes. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html)
-
I heard a roumor that the origional Birther was Hillary Clinton.
Seems like her....
...to me.
-
Has Obama showed his proof of "natural born citizen."
Yes. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html)
I missed the unveiling, when was it?
-
What is the goal of the march?
Who wins if it is successful?
Who loses?
What are the possible endgames of the march?
-
I missed the unveiling, when was it?
Check the link.
-
What is the goal of the march?
Who wins if it is successful?
Who loses?
What are the possible endgames of the march?
Phillp Berg: "Birth Certificate March On Washington" - Interviewd by Steve Malzberg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6idQxZZs6bc#)
-
Still doesn't answer my question.
Do you want Biden as President?
That would be one logical end result.
-
Still doesn't answer my question.
Do you want Biden as President?
That would be one logical end result.
why not have a new election?
-
Not the way the Constitution works.
So if Obama is disqualified and therefore unable to serve, it's Biden until 2012.
-
Not the way the Constitution works.
So if Obama is disqualified and therefore unable to serve, it's Biden until 2012.
is it possible Biden could be worse than Obama? what if he picked a decent VP then miraculously croaked? Stranger things have happened.
-
Win the WH and Congress on the issues. The Birth Certificate isn't one of them.
-
Win the WH and Congress on the issues. The Birth Certificate isn't one of them.
the BC is a longshot but if there is merit to it then he should address it by coming clean. you mentioned the constitution isn't that reason enough for Obama to answer these concerns?
-
There isn't, that's the problem. I realize how bad this president is, and how he's dragging it down the economic abyss, that makes Carter look Reagan-like, but as Bt has referenced, focus on the issues that are dragging the country down. He's not going to "quit", he's not going to be impeached, this whole Birth Certificate issue has been vetted. You're trying to find some loophole, some technicality.....no Judge, including SCOTUS is going to remove a sitting POTUS on symbolic innuendo, framed as a technicality
It's just not going to happen
But if we can continue to focus on those areas he has been piss poor in, ....well...he's all but assured himself a 1 term tenure, where modern historians can start the process of who was worse for this Country, Carter or Obama
-
the BC is a longshot but if there is merit to it then he should address it by coming clean.
He has. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html)
And that's a link since you obviously ignored the last one.
-
He has. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html)
And that's a link since you obviously ignored the last one.
Kramer there are valid reasons to come to the conclusion that nothing will ever be done about Obama not being born in the United States....which I 100% believe he was not born in the United States...but of those valid reasons I would never trust FactCheck.org! Factcheck is part of the Annenberg Center. Ya know the Annenberg Center that also supports the Brady Campaign which OPPOSES guns.
FactCheck.org/ Annenberg Foundation whose claims of non-partisanship are questionable as Barack Obama was a founding member. "FactCheck".org is an affiliate of the Annenberg, Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers and Obama were on their board. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Ph.D. is the Director of the ANNENBERG Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania which is the organization BEHIND the FactCheck.org "truthfulness" website. Dr. Jamieson's newest book entitled "Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment" is a MAJOR HIT PIECE against the Conservative voices in the media on television, radio, and in print. FactCheck is run by fomer CNN guy Brooks Jackson. Below is more about FactCheck and Obama's birth certificate.
Factcheck.org, the "unbiased" truth seeker that has published Obama's Certification of Live Birth that they say proves Obama was born in America, in "truth" is operated by the totally biased Annenberg Foundation that gave Obama and Bill Ayres $110 million to spend on improving education. But Obama and Ayres actually spent the $110 million teaching Chicago kids to vote for his sponsor Mayor Daley. The Annenberg Foundation did a follow up study that proved Obama and Ayres did not improve educational test scores by any amount.
Want proof of Annenberg's bias and dishonesty? Annenberg's factcheck.org says that Ayres and Obama did not do know each other then!! Even though the Annenberg Foundation knows that Bill Ayres founded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (or "CAC") and hired Obama to be its President for five years, all documented by the Corporate Minutes of the CAC that U. of Illinios Prof. William Ayres donated to the archives section of the University of Illinois Library at its Chicago campus. Ie., this is not web chatter, it is documented in the University of Illinois Library Archives!! Commenters are calling me a liar. Go to Chicago and read it yourself! Annenberg certainly knows the name of the President of a group to which it gave $110 million, and that name is Barack Obama! So Annenberg has proved, with its own contradictory published statements, that Annenberg and its website factcheck.org tell lies to benefit Obama, and that its own website factcheck.org publishes lies.
Back to the Obama/Factcheck.org "Certificate of Live Birth."
Hawaii?s official birth certificate is the "Certificate of Live Birth" which is different from the "Certification of Live Birth". Changing the "e" to "ion" is all the difference in the world. Obama and factcheck.org only publish the "ion" version, which is merely a computer printout, and not a birth certificate. How else are they different? Read and weep.
Annenberg's factcheck.org continues to publish, even today, Obama "Certification of Live Birth," and Annenberg claims falsely that this proves Obama was born in the USA.
Annenberg's corrupt factcheck,org published thousands of words about this but never once says that their document id the "ion" version, not the genuine "e" version. The most tragically comic statements on the corrupt factcheck.org is they quote people who "have seen" the "e" version.
Golly, Molly, if people "have seen" it, why won't Obama produce it?
Only one answer: it doesn't exist.
You would think by now, after he has been President so long, the FBI could have cooked up a good forgery for him? Don?t worry, eventually some liberal progressive totalitarian creep will forge one, but the fact that they went so long without producing it proves that no valid birth certificatE ever existed or they would have produced it.
Here is what the State of Hawaii's official government websites publish about the matter:
QUOTE: "The Certification of Live Birth" is a legal document, but it is TOTALLY INADEQUATE when it comes to proving an individual was born in Hawaii.
The State of Hawaii DOES NOT EVEN ACCEPT the Certification of Live Birth as valid proof that an individual was born in Hawaii.
The Hawaii Department of Homelands, which administers programs to encourage property ownership for native Hawaiians states the following on its website.
"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." [Emphasis Mine].
The bottom line is that the Certification of Live Birth can be erroneous. It has been reported that it was not uncommon for foreigners residing in Hawaii to bring their infant children to the Clerk of the Court, swear they were born in Hawaii and have actual Certificates of Live Birth issued to their children.
It has even been reported that foreigners residing in Hawaii, in some cases, produced birth certificates from foreign countries and the State of Hawaii still issued Hawaiian Certificates of Live Birth to the infants in question
-
Source link for the State of Hawaii website page that quote is taken from, please.
-
and before someone runs to say the Annenberg Foundation is conservative because Walter Anneberg started it...... ::)
Using Walter Annenberg as a reason that something is republican is a red herring. He died in 2002, and is the foundation is run by his wife and children. Remember when Arianna Huffington was considered a right wing nut because she was married to a republican? So the Huffington Post should be considered a republican entity?
In 1916 Heny Ford was suggested to be the Republican nominee for president, but today the Ford Foundation is one of the countrys largest source of funding for left wing organizations.
"When Henry Ford II eventually resigned from the Foundation's Board of Trustees in 1977, he expressed his profound disgust with how the institution and most of its trustees had drifted so radically to the political left over time. Lamenting the Foundation's rejection of the economic system that had made its very existence possible, Mr. Ford wrote in his resignation letter: "In effect, the Foundation is a creature of capitalism, a statement that, I'm sure, would be shocking to many professional staff people in the field of philanthropy. It is hard to discern recognition of this fact in anything the Foundation does. It is even more difficult to find an understanding of this in many of the institutions, particularly the universities, that are the beneficiaries of the Foundation's grant programs."
-
Because this is what it says:
"Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.
"The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual?s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person?s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth."
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl (http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl)
And we don't need to follow the rules for proving that Obama is descended from a native Hawaiian - that was never his claim.
-
Win the WH and Congress on the issues. The Birth Certificate isn't one of them.
Well said!
Anything elese will draw more resentment than results.
-
Well summized !
-
Source link for the State of Hawaii website page that quote is taken from, please.
AMI I'm not sure if the author will respond with her source, but
for the time being I at least found this one source verifying the quote
being from the State of Hawaii.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_a_certification_of_live_birth_require_more_validation_than_a_normal_birth_certificate (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_a_certification_of_live_birth_require_more_validation_than_a_normal_birth_certificate)
-
AMI I'm not sure if the author will respond with her source, but
for the time being I at least found this one source verifying the quote
being from the State of Hawaii.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_a_certification_of_live_birth_require_more_validation_than_a_normal_birth_certificate (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_a_certification_of_live_birth_require_more_validation_than_a_normal_birth_certificate)
That link says that more verification is needed to prove that you are of native Hawaiian descent. As I said, Obama does not claim to be an aboriginal Hawaiian. I think you can look at him and tell he ain't of Polynesian descent, and therefore does not qualify as a member of a native Hawaiian tribe. You don't have to be a member of a native American tribe to become President.
-
I hope this latest posting of Ami's can finally put this issue to rest
-
That link says that more verification is needed to prove that you are of native Hawaiian descent. As I said, Obama does not claim to be an aboriginal Hawaiian. I think you can look at him and tell he ain't of Polynesian descent, and therefore does not qualify as a member of a native Hawaiian tribe. You don't have to be a member of a native American tribe to become President.
The link is an example of how the State of Hawaii obviously thinks one has more
value than the other and only raises more suspicion as to why Obama has allowed
millions of dollars to be spent in his behalf to prevent him from making his public.
Can you answer that question Ami? Why won't this supposed transparent President
release his school records or real birth certificate?
The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate"
does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is
easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate which
includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician is the
only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted
its release for public or press scrutiny. Why Ami? Why allow millions to be spent if it is so easy
for Obama to prove it?
-
I hope this latest posting of Ami's can finally put this issue to rest
SIRS...I wouldn't hold your breath! (see discussion below...my side in bold print)
Facts are stubborn things: Obama is a natural-born citizen (and the rebuttals in bold)
By Jamie Freeze
I never will forget meeting former North Carolina State Senator Hugh Webster my senior year of high school. He came to my school and had lunch with the seniors. As he sat down beside me, I asked him to tell me what he most loved and hated about being in Raleigh. I don't remember what he most loved, but I'll never forget what he most hated. In the words of Mr. Webster, "I don't deal well with incompetent people."
Ms. Freeze, unfortunately, is showing her "INCOMPETENCE," as Ms. Freeze would call it, but I feel "IGNORANCE" is the more appropriate word, as outlined below.
At that point, I knew Mr. Webster and I were kindred spirits. I too don't deal well with incompetent people. As a matter of fact, I go out of my way to avoid them, but when dealing with them is inevitable, I can't help but point out their incompetencies. As a law student, I am being trained to be meticulous, well-reasoned, and intelligent. After my final exam grades come back, we'll see how well I'm doing. But that aside, I feel that I have been too longsuffering in letting the Birther Movement receive simply a few caustic remarks and jabs from me. It's time for me to call a spade a spade. Here goes: If you believe that President Obama is NOT a natural-born citizen, then you are an incompetent idiot who is probably watching Glenn Beck while wearing a tin-foil hat. You probably think Obama's a Muslim too.
Our lawsuits have nothing to do with Soetoro/Obama's religion, they never have. Ms. Freeze seems to have lost a very important part of her education. We as people are entitled to redress, and we as people are entitled to ask questions, especially of our elected officials. Incompetent idiot? It appears that Ms. Freeze's law school has taught her that when you cannot counter something, call the opposing party names. That is not what I was taught in school. I do not see one shred of evidence that supports Ms. Freeze's position. Ms. Freeze obviously forgot about Barry Soetoro's name: Did she locate where he legally changed his name to Barack H. Obama? It is fraud to run for and serve as President under an "alias" name. What about Soetoro/Obama's Indonesian citizenship? We have the school record, which Soetoro/Obama has admitted too.
If you are still reading (and not firing off angry emails), then allow me to offer you factual proof that Obama is a natural-born citizen who satisfies the constitutional requirements for Commander-in-Chief. My argument is two-fold: 1. Obama was born in Hawaii (a U.S. state for my incompetent readers). 2. Obama satisfies the requirements found in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which defines natural-born citizens.
Where is the factual proof? Ms. Freeze apparently forgot to attach it. What does Ms. Freeze have to back up the assertion that Soetoro/Obama was born in Hawaii? We have been unable to obtain verification of that ? no long form birth certificate, only an image that has been deemed a forgery. Despite this, what about his Indonesian citizenship? Had Ms. Freeze read our briefs, and retained the information, she would have seen that all we do is talk about the Nationality Act of 1940, revised in 1952.
1. Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii joined the Union in 1959. Barack Obama was born in 1961. Do the math. It works. Ok, so perhaps that argument is a bit over-simplified, but that is because I find the birth certificate question so ridiculous. The President released his birth certificate (which was verified by the Hawaii Health Department) yet conspiracy theorists refuse to see logic. "Big bad Obama must be hiding something. That certificate isn't the long form. What's he hiding?" What the naysayers fail to realize is that in 1961 the standard Hawaiian birth certificate was...wait for it...exactly the same length as Obama's! The Hawaiian Health Department has said this, but as conspiracy theorists point out, they must be covering for Obama. Despite the facts, folks say that even if he was born in Hawaii, he is not a natural born citizen because his father was Kenyan. However, even if Obama was born on the moon, he would still be a natural born citizen under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
First, the "long version" birth certificate we are asking for has nothing do to with the size of the document itself, instead it has to do with the information on the document. We have never claimed Hawaii was not a state of the Union, so this has nothing to do with the questions we are seeking answers too. Soetoro/Obama released two (2) forged images of a Certification of Live Birth, claiming it to be his birth certificate. The Hawaii Health Department has NEVER verified the images placed on the internet. Law 101: No agency or person can look at an online image and state the document came from their agency or location, unless the person making such statement was the one who personally printed the document in question (Soetoro/Obama's Certification of Live Birth in this case) and handed it to Soetoro/Obama and can prove it is in fact the same document. In Soetoro/Obama's case, his campaign office stated they mailed the application for his Certification of Live Birth to Hawaii and received this supposed document back from Hawaii. However, on the date that Soetoro/Obama would have signed it, Soetoro/Obama was traveling campaigning.
We are not disputing the length of Soetoro/Obama's Certification of Live Birth. We have copies of others' actual Certificate of Live births from the same time period. These are two (2) completely different documents. Soetoro/Obama has never released a hard copy of any type of Certification of Live Birth or Certificate of Live Birth to anyone other than Factcheck.org, which is part of Annenberg and, yes, who Soetoro/Obama has close ties with. I am wondering what Ms. Freeze is basing her unsubstantiated statements on. Maybe she will enlighten us.
We are not questioning the British father, as we are well aware of the fact that if Soetoro/Obama was born on U.S. soil, which we do not believe, he would in fact be a U.S. "natural born" citizen. However, in fairness to Ms. Freeze, others have questioned the British citizenship of the father and claimed that even if Soetoro/Obama was born on U.S. soil, he would not be a "natural born" U.S. citizen due to his father's foreign citizenship status. I'm going to ask again, what about Soetoro/Obama's legal name and his Indonesian citizenship status? Ms. Freeze fails to address these very important issues. We have been unable to locate any legal documentation legally changing Soetoro's name back to Barack H. Obama; where Soetoro/Obama relinquished his Indonesian citizenship; and/or where Soetoro/Obama reclaimed any U.S. citizenship status he may have once held. Again, hopefully Ms. Freeze will enlighten us.
2. Obama is a natural born citizen. In Scales v. INS, 232 F.3d 1159 (2000), we have a clear definition of what natural born citizenship is. Scales' father was an American serviceman stationed in the Philippines where he met Scales' mother. They married despite the fact that Scales' mother was pregnant with him at the time. In all probability, the court said, Scales was a product of his mother's previous relationship. However, he was born after Mr. Scales married his mother, and he was treated as Scales' son. Later, Scales was facing deportation because of an aggravated felony involving drugs. He challenged his deportation saying he was a natural born citizen. The court determined that natural born citizenship depends on the statute in effect at the time of the child's birth. Since Scales was born in 1977, he was a natural born citizen because a "person shall be a national and citizen of the United States at birth who is born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years." Id. at 1169; see 8 U.S.C. ?1401(a)(7) (1976). Therefore, Scales was a natural born citizen despite the following: having been born in a foreign country, having been born to a non-citizen, having his American father later deny paternity (and prove non-paternity), and having claimed to be a citizen of the Philippines. Sounds like it is difficult to get rid of natural born citizenship. Let's examine Barack Obama's citizenship.
I would first like to note that Scales v. INS, 232 F.3d 1159 (2000) is not exactly on point, as neither of Soetoro/Obama's parents were in the U.S. military; however, it does outline some of the issues we present. Some more appropriate cases are United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998), Solis-Espinoza v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2005). And, if Ms. Freeze would have read and retained what is in our briefs, she would have seen the laws we used.
We believe Soetoro/Obama was born in Kenya, contrary to Ms. Freeze's beliefs, and that Soetoro/Obama's mother was not old enough to confer U.S. "natural born" citizenship status to Soetoro/Obama. Moreover, neither of Soetoro/Obama's parents were in the U.S. military at the time of Soetoro/Obama's birth, therefore her whole argument above, which was meant to mislead people and which is very ignorant for a law student, does not pertain. Ms. Freeze also forgets to mention that the Nationality Act was revised in 1986 with a proviso regarding active military. The only part of the code that was retroactive was the proviso regarding military status, nothing else. But again, neither of Seotoro/Obama's parents were in the U.S. military. Moreover, contrary to Scales, Soetoro/Obama's father admitted paternity, and the parents were married in Hawaii prior to Soetoro/Obama's birth. Ms. Freeze has done nothing more than attempt to misapply the laws. And once again, Ms. Freeze also fails to address the legal name of Soetoro/Obama or Soetoro/Obama's Indonesian citizenship.
Obama's citizenship will be determined under the 1952 version of the Immigration and Nationality Act since he was born in 1961 and the Act wasn't updated again until 1966. According to ? 301(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (66 Stat. 235), "a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person [is a natural born citizen]." According to ? 305 of the same statute, any person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900 was to be considered a natural born citizen. Obama's mother was a citizen of the United States, and his father was a citizen of Kenya. They were married six months before Obama was born. There is no doubt that Obama's mother resided in the United States or its possessions for at least one year prior to Obama's birth. Therefore, Obama can't be anything other than a natural born citizen. Combine this detail with his birth in an American State, you have a certified natural born citizen.
Ms. Freeze's 1966 law fails and she completely contradicts herself. The law that is applied is the law in effect at the time of the birth ? in Soetoro/Obama's case, the Nationality Act of 1940, revised 1952. See Marquez-Marquez a/k/a Moreno v. Gonzales, 455 F. 3d 548 (5th Cir. 2006), Runnett v. Shultz, 901 F.2d 782, 783 (9th Cir.1990). Law in 1966 does not apply, unless Ms. Freeze can show me where it states it is retroactive, which she CANNOT. We are not disputing that Hawaii was a state, and we are not disputing that if in fact Soetoro/Obama was born in Hawaii, he would be a U.S. "natural born" citizen.
Further, Kenya is not an outlying possession of the U.S. The law used by Ms. Freeze once again does not pertain to the issues outlined in our cases; does not apply to Soetoro/Obama's birth in Kenya; fails to address Soetoro/Obama's legal name; and fails to address Soetoro/Obama's Indonesian citizenship. Moreover, even if the 1966 version applied, which is does NOT, Soetoro/Obama's mother was not present residing in the U.S. for a continuous year prior to Soetoro/Obama's birth. We believe Soetoro/Obama's mother was residing in Kenya and in fact gave birth to Soetoro/Obama in Kenya.
Important issues left out by Ms. Freeze in attempt to confuse the reader is the fact Soetoro/Obama became Barry Soetoro an Indonesian Citizenship. No records have been located legally changing Barry Soetoro's name back to Barack H. Obama. No records have been located showing Soetoro/Obama relinquished his Indonesain citizenship, which was a requirement of Indonesia and outlined in their laws (Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship status) and reclaiming any U.S. citizenship status he may have once held. Thus, Soetoro/Obama is still Barry Soetoro an Indonesian Citizen.
One last question I have for Ms. Freeze: If in fact Soetoro/Obama was a U.S. "natural born" citizen and eligible to serve as our United States President, why in the world would he spend in excess of a million dollars litigating these cases instead of just proving his citizenship status? I'm curious to see how Ms. Freeze would respond. We know the answer, because Soetoro/Obama can't.
-
The problem Cu4, is from a legal standpoint, Obama has provided that which he was required. The references you keep relying on, as Ami has already pointed out, are more specific to determing if a person is a native Hawaiin or not. THAT's the paperwork you and others keep looking for, demanding even. But from a legal/constitutional standpoint of merely demonstrating one was born a U.S. citizen, that has already been fulfilled, with what has been produced
sorry :-\
-
The link is an example of how the State of Hawaii obviously thinks one has more
value than the other and only raises more suspicion as to why Obama has allowed
millions of dollars to be spent in his behalf to prevent him from making his public.
No, one has more genetic information than the other. I have a certification of live birth from New Jersey, very similar to what was photographed for Obama on the earlier link. This is enough to prove to the US Department of State that I was born in the United States and they have issued a passport that claims the same.
However, it is not enough to prove that I am a member of the Unami Nation, within whose borders I was born. If I wanted to prove I was an Unami Indian, I would require more documentation, including a certificate that listed my genetic forebears.
The link you are posting is for people who want to prove that they are of native Hawaiian descent. Obama has never claimed that he is a native Hawaiian, only that he was born in Hawaii. The documentation that has been proffered is sufficient for the US Department of State to issue a passport claiming that he was born in the US, so it's good enough for me.
-
"The references you keep relying on, as Ami has already pointed out,
are more specific to determing if a person is a native Hawaiin or not"
Yeah like that really makes any sense?
There is a higher burden of proof to get some land or proof
of tribeship in Hawaii that to become President of the United States!
"But from a legal/constitutional standpoint of merely demonstrating
one was born a U.S. citizen, that has already been fulfilled, with what
has been produced"
Well maybe in your opinion, but obviously not others that continue to address
that very issue in the courts. For many years the courts refused to address
issues involving slavery and/or civil rights. I am sure you would have been
the one on the court steps hollering "from a constitutional standpoint this
issue should once and for all be put to rest".
Look I didn't start this thread and I rarely bring this issue up....in fact I find it
amusing that others start threads like this and then seem to run away & refuse
to defend the info they obviously think important....and leave me to defend it.
I'm no lawyer and am not an expert in these matters....this quote or that
quote....this statute or that statute.....but bottom line I don't think Obama
was born in the United States.....and it seems unquestionably odd that he
refuses to release the one document that could settle the issue, but prefers
that millions be spent on litigation preventing people from seeing the sealed
document.
Believing Obama was not born in the United States...I think this President
is a part of one of the biggest frauds in US history...However I also believe
it is an issue the courts don't want to take on & those in places of power/authority
don't want to take on because they think it would set back the all-important
"race relations" for decades...so I don't really see it as the most important
issue of the day...so far they've won...I think they have pulled off the fraud
and will get away with it until someday the truth emerges..but it's not one of my top issues....
-
There is a higher burden of proof to get some land or proof
of tribeship in Hawaii that to become President of the United States!
So, which Native American tribe was George W. Bush a member of?
Obviously you think that only Native Americans can become President, so he must be one? Or why else would you be asking Obama to prove that he is a Native Hawaiian?
-
"The references you keep relying on, as Ami has already pointed out,
are more specific to determing if a person is a native Hawaiin or not"
Yeah like that really makes any sense? There is a higher burden of proof to get some land or proof
of tribeship in Hawaii that to become President of the United States!
Your issue is then with the laws of this country. Constitutionally though, this issue has been put to rest
"But from a legal/constitutional standpoint of merely demonstrating
one was born a U.S. citizen, that has already been fulfilled, with what
has been produced"
Well maybe in your opinion,....
No, not in my opinion.....in FACT. Again, this has been vetted, adnauseum. What you are trying to require is not proof of U.S. citizenship but proof of Hawaiin ancestry. The proof of U.S. citizenry has been legally met. I'm sorry if you don't agree with that fact, but constitutionally, the issue is over. Why now, to spend all this time argueing a point of is Obama a true Hawaiian, when that's never been an issue or claim, is your energy to burn.
And you'll note I'm, not coming from the land of Obama Cool-aide drinkers, so its safe to say I have some assemblence of objectivity, on this issue
-
So, which Native American tribe was George W. Bush a member of?
Obviously you think that only Native Americans can become President,
so he must be one? Or why else would you be asking Obama to prove
that he is a Native Hawaiian?
You're missing this point.
The point isn't about the Native Americans,
the point is that even Hawaii sees the difference
in the two types of certificates.
One proves without a shadow of doubt.
The one Obama is presenting does not
prove he was born there.
Again...are you ever going to answer?
Why if it is no big deal instead of allowing
this to drag on and cost millions of dollars
doesn't Obama show the original instead
of some reproduced document from electronic format?
-
You're missing this point.
The point isn't about the Native Americans,
the point is that even Hawaii sees the difference
in the two types of certificates.
No, you are missing the point. The difference in the two certificates ONLY APPLIES IF YOU'RE TRYING TO PROVE NATIVE HAWAIIAN ANCESTRY. Obama is not doing so - he makes no claim that he is descended from native Hawaiians, so IT DOES NOT MATTER IN THIS CASE.
You're trying to get him follow the rules for PROVING NATIVE HAWAIIAN ANCESTRY which is NOT REQUIRED TO BE THE PRESIDENT.
-
Your issue is then with the laws of this country.
Constitutionally though, this issue has been put to rest.
Not any more than the slave issue was.
No, not in my opinion.....in FACT.
Again, not any more than the slave issue was a fact, until decided otherwise.
Again, this has been vetted, adnauseum.
And so had slavery and so has abortion.
What SIRS....be a wuss and just "give up"?
Yeah I am glad the slaves didn't.
And I am glad people continue to fight for the unborn babies
But you'd rather give up because "it's law" or been "debated adnauseum"?
LOL....hardly.
What you are trying to require is not proof of U.S. citizenship but proof
of Hawaiin ancestry.
Not at all....I am using the example to show that the two documents are not the same.
The proof of U.S. citizenry has been legally met.
I'm sorry if you don't agree with that fact, but constitutionally, the issue is over.
Again....I am sure there were those that thought the "issue was over" with
Separate but Equal which was a legal doctrine in United States Constitutional law
that justified systems of segregation.
-
Again...are you ever going to answer?
Why if it is no big deal instead of allowing
this to drag on and cost millions of dollars
doesn't Obama show the original instead
of some reproduced document from electronic format?
The certified document has been produced; high quality photographs were at the link I provided.
-
Not at all....I am using the example to show that the two documents are not the same.
They're not the same BECAUSE ONE SHOWS GENETIC ANCESTRY. There is no "genetic ancestry" test for Presidency, so the point is moot - outside of genetic ancestry, they're both valid proof of birth place and parentage.
-
Your issue is then with the laws of this country. Constitutionally though, this issue has been put to rest.
Not any more than the slave issue was...Again, not any more than the slave issue was a fact, until decided otherwise...Yeah I am glad the slaves didn't...Again...I am sure there were those that thought the "issue was over" with Separate but Equal which was a legal doctrine in United States Constitutional law that justified systems of segregation.
*snicker*......trying to equate a vetted process of determining a U.S. Citizenship status vs Hawaiian Ancestry status, with that of fighting Slavery is a bit.........well, I'll just leave it at that ;)
-
No, you are missing the point.
Oh we can go back and forth all day.
You're missing the point.
No you're missing the point.
No you're missing the point,
No you're missing the point.
LOL
The difference in the two certificates ONLY APPLIES IF YOU'RE TRYING TO
PROVE NATIVE HAWAIIAN ANCESTRY. Obama is not doing so - he makes
no claim that he is descended from native Hawaiians, so IT DOES NOT MATTER
IN THIS CASE.
Again you are missing the point.
It does matter in this case, if you are using it to make a larger point.
On the Hawaii website it clearly states it is for ancestor determination.
I am not arguing Obama or nor is anybody debating Hawaiin Ancestory.
The debate is on where he was born and absolute researchable proof of such.
The quote is to show that the documents are not the same.
There are...to say the least....many questions about Obama's birth place.
And Obama never has released his actual birth certificate.
He has released another document, which state authorities
often provide in lieu of a birth certificate, called a certification of live birth.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Sen. John McCain quickly
released his birth certificate when liberal bloggers raised questions about his
eligibility to be president. McCain was born at a military hospital in Panama.
We know the exact hospital, we know the doctors name. It can be researched
and the "T's" crossed and the "i's" dotted.
Obama likewise could put the matter to rest by releasing his actual birth certificate,
which would show, among other things, the place of his birth and the doctor
who performed the birth procedure. This information is not provided on the certification
of live birth.
As it stands, Obama may be the only president in history whose birthplace is
unknown to the public ? a fact that would be stated on the actual birth certificate.
Interestingly, his family has mentioned two different hospitals in Hawaii as the place of birth.
-
Look, CU4. According to the US Department of State, the following is required to prove birth in the US for purposes of obtaining a passport:
"PROOF OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP
"a. APPLICANTS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES: Submit a previous U.S. passport or certified birth certificate. A birth certificate must include your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records."
Now here is the link to the high quality photo of the certified birth certificate: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg (http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg)
Here is the high quality photo of the notary certification: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_9.jpg (http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_9.jpg) and the embossed seal of the notary: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_1.jpg (http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_1.jpg)
Compare the requirements for proof of birth in the United States as defined by the Department of State with the elements visible in the photos, and tell us which is missing. I'll be happy to point it out to you, because they're all in there. According to Federal Regulations, Obama meets the test of having been born in the United States.
-
[*snicker*......trying to equate a vetted process of determining a U.S. Citizenship status vs Hawaiian Ancestry status, with that of fighting Slavery is a bit.........well, I'll just leave it at that ;)
You claim because something "now stands", has been discussed, and is currently legal it must be.
I say WRONG!
-
Would a person born on a US Indian Reservation be eligible for the Presidency?
-
[*snicker*......trying to equate a vetted process of determining a U.S. Citizenship status vs Hawaiian Ancestry status, with that of fighting Slavery is a bit.........well, I'll just leave it at that ;)
You claim because something "now stands", has been discussed, and is currently legal it must be.
I say WRONG!
Again, your issue is apparently with the laws as they now stand. Fine, lobby your congress critters to change them. Currently, Obama has met the legal & CONSTITUTIONAL requirements to be POTUS. It is however a bit....overt....in your effort to compare this with the fight against slavery. Yes, at one time that was legal, but are you seriously trying to equate the 2??
-
"Now here is the link to the high quality photo of the certified birth certificate"
AMI.....this is not the "birth certificate" as you claim.
These are all legal terms..you claim it is the "birth certificate",
but it's not..... it is the "Certification of Live Birth".
The "Certification of Live Birth" (known in the trade as a "COLB"),
is not the original birth certificate or a "long form" certificate
that contain more information.
-
Again, your issue is apparently with the laws as they now stand.
Yes SIRS thats how the courts work, they listen to the facts and decide
whether laws are being enforced and decide is something currently legal
should be illegal.
Fine, lobby your congress critters to change them.
HELLO?...Thats exactly what we are doing....except we seek remedy in the courts.
We are using our constitutional rights to change an injustice...
Just like Americans have done for centuries.
History shows.....sometimes you must try try again until the courts remedy an injustice.
But for some reason people like you and AMI dont seem to like that.
You demand ...we "get to the back of the bus and shut up"
Ask me if I care!....LOL
Currently, Obama has met the legal & CONSTITUTIONAL requirements to be POTUS.
Well SIRS obviously the man is President....lol...and for the time being sits in the Oval Office.
Like I previously stated.....hell yeah he's winning now.....I am not denying reality.
What I am denying is whether he qualifies to be President according to the US Constitution if the
real facts become known......
It is however a bit....overt....in your effort to compare this with the fight against slavery.
Yes, at one time that was legal, but are you seriously trying to equate the 2??
Oh quit being stupid.
I am using analogy.
You say "it's legal now...so well that settles it".
I say "no"...thats doesnt settle it as history clearly shows.
SIRS....I guess "we'll see".
;)
-
Would a person born on a US Indian Reservation be eligible for the Presidency?
Since Indian reservations are soveriegn nations, seperate from the U.S., I don't know.
Good question....
I think they are US Citzens.....but legally do they hold dual citizenships?
-
Again, your issue is apparently with the laws as they now stand.
Yes SIRS thats how the courts work, they listen to the facts and decide whether laws are being enforced and decide is something currently legal should be illegal.
[/quote]
Wrong branch. You need to lobby your legislators, since currently Obama's paperwork adheres to the current legal reequirements to be POTUS. Good luck. And yes, your overt "analogy" was a bit, shall I say, hyberbolic, IMHO
-
Hera ya go BT
(thats why i love this place...learn something every day!)
Do American Indians and Alaska Natives Have the Right to Hold Federal, State, and Local Government Offices?
American Indians and Alaska Natives have the same rights as all citizens to hold public office. In this century, American Indian and Alaska Native men and women have held elected and appointed offices at all levels of state, local, and federal government.
http://www.justice.gov/otj/nafaqs.htm#otj22 (http://www.justice.gov/otj/nafaqs.htm#otj22)
-
Wrong branch.
Not really....in fact SIRS we are doing both!
There have been actions in both the judicial and legislative branches on this subject.
-
AMI.....this is not the "birth certificate" as you claim.
Yes, it is. It meets the legal requirements of the Department of State. Please indicate which items required by the Department of State for proof of birth in the US are missing if you feel it is missing something.
These are all legal terms..you claim it is the "birth certificate",
but it's not..... it is the "Certification of Live Birth".
The "Certification of Live Birth" (known in the trade as a "COLB"),
is not the original birth certificate or a "long form" certificate
that contain more information.
The additional information would only be required to prove that he's a native Hawaiian, which is not a requirement by the US Constitution for the President.
-
I think they are US Citzens.....but legally do they hold dual citizenships?
Yes, they do. As do I. And I meet the requirements to become President.
-
Wrong branch.
Not really....in fact SIRS we are doing both! There have been actions in both the judicial and legislative branches on this subject.
The problem again is the Judicial system is designed to deal with a conflict in the law, not to write new legislation. Again, your issue is with current law as it stands. Currently you merely need to prove U.S. Citizenship to be POTUS, not a specific ancestry. And that is the domain of the Legislative branch. At least for the Conservative minded folks
-
The problem again is the Judicial system is designed to deal with
a conflict in the law, not to write new legislation.
And I think BOTH are present in this case and obviously you don't.
I think Obama was not born in the US.
I think that issue could be resolved in a court.
But I also think we could clarify exact procedures in the legislative branch
to make sure another non-US born President is ever elected again.
-
Yes, it is.
No it is not.
It clearly states at the top of the document what it is.
The additional information would only be required to prove that he's a native Hawaiian,
which is not a requirement by the US Constitution for the President.
Wrong.....about "only be required"....it could easily "be required" by a court of law
if that court decided there was just reason to question whether Obama was indeed
born in the United States.
Now whether that happens or not I have already stated....I am doubtful it will
anytime soon......so yeah Obama is the "legal" President just like the Slave Owner
was legal too.
-
The problem again is the Judicial system is designed to deal with
a conflict in the law, not to write new legislation.
And I think BOTH are present in this case and obviously you don't.
*snicker* Obviously. To me, the law has been made very clear. You merely have to be a U.S. citizen. The paperwork currently on file, which Ami has been demonstrating over and over again, makes that point moot.
I think Obama was not born in the US.
Wishful thinking perhaps, but the certified copy of his Birth certificate says otherwise. That's why you're going to have to have legislators change the existing law, perhaps in order to require that a POTUS also demonstrate proof of their ancestry to the U.S.
-
It clearly states at the top of the document what it is.
I've asked this now three or four times: What part of the requirements published by the Department of State for proof of birth in the United States is missing from that document?
Don't bother to answer with anything (more diversions) that does not directly answer that question.
(And I know that a "Certification of Live Birth" is acceptable as a "birth certificate" for a passport - I've used three of them, myself, my wife, and my daughter, to get passports and none have been questioned by the Department of State.)
-
I've asked this now three or four times:
Well I've asked you 3 or 4 times why Obama will not call for the complete
release of his 1961 long form birth certificate......
But ok smartass....taking a line from you:
Don't bother to answer with anything (more diversions) that does not directly answer that question.
What part of the requirements published by the Department of State for proof of birth in the United States is missing from that document?
It's a moot point, that's why I never bothered to answer.
It's a moot point.....satisfied?
No you wont be satisfied because you don't like the answer.
It's a moot point as to what the State Dept accepts from Joe Blow citizen
getting a passport to travel to Cancun. In fact if the State Department
was made aware of some possible questionable circumstances involving
a passport request they could very well ask for more documents.
And I know that a "Certification of Live Birth" is acceptable as
a "birth certificate" for a passport
I never said it wasn't.
I said you were wrong when you stated it was a "Birth Certificate" and you are wrong.
Look at your own statement..."it is acceptable as a birth certificate for a passsport.
But it is not a birth certificate.
-
It's a moot point as to what the State Dept accepts from Joe Blow citizen
getting a passport to travel to Cancun.
The State Department determines the regulations for proof of birth in the US. Those regulations are posted above. It is NOT a moot point.
The document provided by Obama meets all requirements for proof of birth in the United States. Therefore, ACCORDING TO US LAW, he was born in the United States.
-
I said you were wrong when you stated it was a "Birth Certificate" and you are wrong.
Look at your own statement..."it is acceptable as a birth certificate for a passsport.
But it is not a birth certificate.
Some states use ONLY a certification of live birth.
So, I guess there is no such thing as a "birth certificate" in those states?
Guess I can't prove I was born in the United States - oops, New Jersey ONLY issues "Certification of Live Birth" and they're not "Birth Certificates".
God, you're an idiot. It's two different phrases for the same thing. Like "State Department" or "Department of State". Are you now going to argue that there are two different cabinet level departments, one called the "State Department" and the other called the "Department of State"?
-
To me, the law has been made very clear.
Well of course you think it is clear....but to others they think the
current President is in violation of the US Constitution.
That's what this is all about.
And those others have tried to find remedy to this violation
of the Constitution in the courts.
They have not been successful.
History is littered with failures to remedy an injustice.
As stated I think they probably wont be successful for the time being.
I don't lose any sleep over it.....I didn't bring this subject up.
You merely have to be a U.S. citizen. The paperwork currently on file,
which Ami has been demonstrating over and over again, makes that point moot.
And the paperwork said a slave was a slave.....courts now say a fetus can be aborted
Courts can change that.
Again....that's the point.....that's what this is all about.
So far Obama is winning.
Wishful thinking perhaps
Like I said "we'll see"
but the certified copy of his Birth certificate says otherwise
We don't know that.
What Ami is showing is not a birth certificate.
It is a "Certification of Live Birth".
That's why you're going to have to have legislators change the existing law,
perhaps in order to require that a POTUS also demonstrate proof of their
ancestry to the U.S.
Not really....I think a court needs to simply enforce the Constitution.
There is nothing wrong with the Constitution as stated.
It just in my opinion has been circumvented by political correctness.
But I would not oppose a proper legislative procedure that ensures
another non-US born President is elected again in the future.
-
God, you're an idiot.
No you're the idiot because Obama has BOTH.
In 1961 it was called a Birth Certificate.
That document exists.
And he refuses to release it?
Why?
-
The State Department determines the regulations for proof of birth in the US.
Those regulations are posted above. It is NOT a moot point.
Whether it's a moot point is for Courts to decide....
until now they usually don't decide anything in
this case except to say "weDontWannaTouchThis"
Fine....we'll see.
The document provided by Obama meets all requirements for proof of
birth in the United States. Therefore, ACCORDING TO US LAW, he was born
in the United States.
Well obviously he sits in the Oval Office in Feb 2010.
ACCORDING TO US LAW an African American was a slave.
Until others decided an African American was not a slave.
If the State Department is given a document that contains
falsehoods, but those falsehoods are not investigated,
then sure anyone can be shown as being born in the
United States.
-
No you're the idiot because Obama has BOTH.
In 1961 it was called a Birth Certificate.
That document exists.
And he refuses to release it?
Why?
Because the Hawaii Code forbids release of those documents other than as a notarized "Certification of Live Birth" - the originals are, by law, mandated to remain in the records room. Same as most other states.
-
If the State Department is given a document that contains
falsehoods, but those falsehoods are not investigated,
then sure anyone can be shown as being born in the
United States.
So, now you're saying the Registrar in Hawaii committed fraud by notarizing a document he knew is false?
You might need to adjust your tin foil hat there...
-
Registrar also being quite psychic in knowing this newborn was destined to be the "illegitimate" President of the United States, thus facilitating their fraud
-
I mean, it's pretty simple.
The US Constitution mandates that only a "natural born citizen" can be President; and this has been held to mean someone born in the US or one of it's territories. However, the Constitution does not provide a means of proving this.
So, we go down to the next level, which would be the US Code. In the US Code, the authority to determine US Citizenship is delegated to the Department of State. The Department of State has published, within the Code of Federal Regulations, a list of what pieces of information need to be on a document from a state registrar to prove birth within that state.
The document supplied by Obama meets all of these requirements. Therefore, according to current US law, Obama has met the requirement for proving he is a "natural born citizen." The document can have any title in the world on it - it could be titled "Ibitty Bibity Boo" instead of "Birth Certificate" and would be sufficient to prove his birth in Hawaii, since it has all the correct information and is notarized.
The only step at this point would be to somehow show that the notary committed fraud - which would be a long shot, and pretty hard to prove. Especially since there at least *three* notarized statements from different people to the effect that the first document is accurate. So, now you have to prove collusion between all four notaries.
-
To me, the law has been made very clear.
Well of course you think it is clear....but to others they think the current President is in violation of the US Constitution.
Well, it wouldn't be bcause the law is ambiguous. It'd be based on "other things". He has provided a certified copy of his Birth Certificate. The law has been adhered to. He is a Citizen of the U.S. Those are the FACTS.
You want the law changed, by all means, lobby your congress critters. and please, you can dispense with the slavery analogy. Obama isn't a slave, nor is he trying to impose anything that remotely comes close. It was bad law then, and had been properly dealt with. I'm still wating for this demonstration of how current law that one be a citizen of the U.S. is as bad as slavery.
but the certified copy of his Birth certificate says otherwise
We don't know that. What Ami is showing is not a birth certificate. It is a "Certification of Live Birth".
We do, actually. I say potato, you say potaato. They're interchangable, as far as the State Dept is concerned. And it's the State Dept that recognizes citizenship
That's why you're going to have to have legislators change the existing law,
perhaps in order to require that a POTUS also demonstrate proof of their
ancestry to the U.S.
Not really....I think a court needs to simply enforce the Constitution.
There's no need to "enforce" anything that's already being adhered to. So yea, you're going to have to go to your legislators.
There is nothing wrong with the Constitution as stated.
You're right....hoooraaaaa
It just in my opinion has been circumvented by political correctness.
Your opinion is duely noted
-
The US Constitution mandates that only a "natural born citizen" can be President; and this has been held to mean someone born in the US or one of it's territories. However, the Constitution does not provide a means of proving this.
So, we go down to the next level, which would be the US Code.
- In the US Code, the authority to determine US Citizenship is delegated to the Department of State.
- The Department of State has published, within the Code of Federal Regulations, a list of what pieces of information need to be on a document from a state registrar to prove birth within that state.
The document supplied by Obama meets all of these requirements. Therefore, according to current US law, Obama has met the requirement for proving he is a "natural born citizen." The document can have any title in the world on it - it could be titled "Ibitty Bibity Boo" instead of "Birth Certificate" and would be sufficient to prove his birth in Hawaii, since it has all the correct information and is notarized.
Apparently, Cu4 has a problem with this set of laws governing who can or can't be the POTUS, that its akin to slavery
So, what would Cu4 like congress to change in the above set of mandated legal requirements, to be eligible for President of the United States??
-
"Because the Hawaii Code forbids release of those documents other than as a notarized
"Certification of Live Birth" - the originals are, by law, mandated to remain in the records
room. Same as most other states"
It forbids release to the public.
They wont release it to you, me, or Katie Couric.
But the Obama could get a certified copy of his own birth certificate.
-
But the Obama could get a certified copy of his own birth certificate.
For God's sake, he did!
When it's released to the person, it's put on a document titled "Certification of Live Birth" and notarized by the registrar.
You've seen the pictures.
-
So, now you're saying the Registrar in Hawaii committed
fraud by notarizing a document he knew is false?
No I am saying Obama was not born in the United States
and he will not show his original long form birth certificate
or a certified copy of the long form birth certificate that
displays hospital, doctor info, ect.
-
For God's sake, he did!
Ami the original 1961 long form birth certificate and/or
a certified copy of the original long form birth certificate
has not been released. You are confusing the original
long form birth certificate with what he has released.
-
No I am saying Obama was not born in the United States and he will not show his original long form birth certificate or a certified copy of the long form birth certificate that displays hospital, doctor info, ect.
First off, hospital, doctor info, etc are not required to prove birth in the US.
Secondly, prove to me that Hawaii will release the document you describe - I require high quality photographs of that type of document, including the notary stamp, released since 2007. (You'll know the release date, it will be on the notarization.)
I'll wait. I'll read this document over here about Hawaii changed their laws years ago and no longer release that info, and now only release the "Certification of Live Birth". But I'll wait for you to prove me wrong.
*whistles*
-
So, now you're saying the Registrar in Hawaii committed fraud by notarizing a document he knew is false?
No I am saying Obama was not born in the United States and he will not show his original long form birth certificate or a certified copy of the long form birth certificate that displays hospital, doctor info, ect.
He doesn't have to, in order to be declared a Citizen of the U.S., per U.S. Law & the State Dept
Is THAT the law you want to have changed? That certified copies of birth certificates are no longer acceptable? it HAS to be the original long form, no if's and's or but's??
There goes my chance to be President. Bummers
-
Ami the original 1961 long form birth certificate and/or a certified copy of the original long form birth certificate has not been released. You are confusing the original long form birth certificate with what he has released.
Because it's now illegal to do so. Privacy laws have changed a bit in this country over the years. I can't get the document with the attending physician's name at my birth from New Jersey anymore. I still have an old copy, but any new copies I request from New Jersey will NOT include that information.
Besides that, it's pointless. That information is NOT REQUIRED to prove birth in the United States.
-
Because it's now illegal to do so. Privacy laws have changed a bit in this country over the years. I can't get the document with the attending physician's name at my birth from New Jersey anymore. I still have an old copy, but any new copies I request from New Jersey will NOT include that information.
Yeah sure AMI the President Of The United States could not in any way shape or form request and get a copy of his own original long form birth certificate. Gosh I am sure if there was a constitutiona crisis they couldn't get it! LOL
-
Not the point now is it
-
He doesn't have to, in order to be declared a Citizen of the U.S., per U.S. Law & the State Dept
Do you guys think I am denying Obama is the President of the United States?
LOL.....I mean this is quite funny,
Of course he has not had to show his original long form birth certificate....yet.
Of course the State Department shows him to be a citizen.
If it were that easy....would we even be talking about someone that would be living in ILL instead of DC.
HELLO? Thats what this is all about.
-
HELLO? Thats what this is all about.
So, what would you like the requirement CHANGED to, since the current one - which Obama meets - is not sufficient?
-
My question, as well
-
Yeah sure AMI the President Of The United States could not in any way shape or form request and get a copy of his own original long form birth certificate. Gosh I am sure if there was a constitutiona crisis they couldn't get it! LOL
So, now you're advocating that the President violate federal and state privacy laws just for you?
-
"So, now you're advocating that the President violate federal and state privacy laws just for you?"
Yeah sure AMI....have Obama call up up and bitch them out!
Obama would scream "I WANT IT NOW"
demonize me....oh baby demonize me!
LOL
No AMI....I think the President of The United States (if it is even needed...and I am not sure it is)
could ask a court to release a certified copy of his original long form birth certificate and they
would not think this was the "end of the world" to release a certified copy of someone's own
long form birth certificate.
-
What do you want CHANGED, Cu4?? That's where we're at now. "What would you like the requirement CHANGED to, since the current one - which Obama meets - is not sufficient?"
-
What do you want CHANGED, Cu4?? That's where we're at now. "What would you like the requirement CHANGED to, since the current one - which Obama meets - is not sufficient?"
SIRS....I am at work dude.
You try to argue with two people at once on precise details for hours.
I will respond....I think you know me enough...to know that.
But it takes time....because you think or want to move on to a related issue
does not mean I want to yet or have the time to yet
-
My apologies Cu4. I frequently work as well, and don't have time to address specific questions, but do have time to add an occasional comment, so I completely understand where you're coming from, so don't take it personally when the question is posed for the 4th or 5th time. Just consider it a reminder that we've gotten thru all the hyperbolic slavery analogies, all the legal jargon, and have finally gotten to the core issue. When you have the time, simply address the above question, since that's where were at now
-
"My apologies Cu4"
No need...actually I have really enjoyed today....
I also asked questions that went unanswered for awhile....so I understand.
Although my business affairs suffered.....lol.....it was fun.
Gosh you guys have made me so much better informed about this topic.
Thats one of the reasons I am here...to learn....and today I did.
I had forgotten how much info is availabe about this subject.
Take a look at this guy I found today:
Really click on the topics & see the detail. Amazing!
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/ (http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/)
As to your question....I will leave it up to the experts and
then decide what I like and dislike. To be honest right now
there are multiple states considering legislation to solve this issue.
And I am not even sure it can be solved at the State level,
some seem to think so. But even if it cant i'd still like to
study the ideas in the potential bills. I am no lawyer so
I dont really have the exact protocol that would help ensure
a non-US born person could not be elected President of the United States.
I will say no matter how you come down on the Obama origin of birth issue,
I really think more scrutiny will be needed in the future on this subject because
of the huge invasion of illegals we have experienced. BTW different subject but
I dont agree that babies should be automatically US citizens if their parents
basically "run across the border to have their kids" on my dime just so the kid
will be an American citizen. Already some western countries have addressed this
issue and stopped this insanity.
I am just thinking out loud, but I would like to see possibly more scrutiny on the
birth records of people running for President that one parent is not a US citizen
and candidates that spent part of their life overseas. NOTE: I am not saying
they should be disqualified but just looked at closer to really make sure they
were born in the United States and preserve US Constitutional intent. If I have
time I will try and look at some of the bills being discussed in different states
that address this issue. I have heard about them, but not examnined them
or investigated ideas being discussed to solve this issue.
-
Why would the President fail to provide proof beyond any shadow of doubt?
Who could provide a document that could not be doubted?
I don't see President Obama or his supporters being worried on this issue , it is defeated already and all the energy spent on it by his enemys is wasted instead of anything they might be doing that has a real potential of impedeing the President.
Think abut it , if the President had an even better document , why wouldn't he hold this trump card in reserve while much effort was wasted by his critics .
The "Birther " question has absolutely no potential for working to President Obama's impeachment , there is just nothing in it .
-
The "Birther " question has absolutely no potential for working to President Obama's impeachment , there is just nothing in it .
I agree somewhat, but for someone like me and many, many others that 100% honestly believe Obama
was not born in the United States then we are not going to just go to the back of the bus & not comment
when the issue arises. I honestly believe the guy sits in office in violation of the US Constitution, but like
I said earlier in this thread I don't lose any sleep over it, did not start this thread, and it is not really on my
everyday political agenda or discussions I have with people. I did enjoy discussing and learning more about it
today, but I can't allow myself to do that everyday or I will be like the insolvent US Government....bankrupt! :D
-
Why state level legislation when there is already a provision at the Federal level, which is consistent across all states?
-
Why state level legislation when there is already a provision at the Federal level,
which is consistent across all states?
Like I say I am not sure if it works at the State level, except obviously people in my camp
think the system failed this time. So I see where some states are looking at legislation
to prevent non-US born candidates from running in their states. Exactly how they will do
that I have not examined any of the prospective bills. The state legislation would probably
face litigation too....of course basically everything these days faces litigation.
-
I have to admit Cu4, I'm a little disappointed in your non-answer. You speak with such passion about this issue, likening the travesty of current law to that of slavery, but when asked what exactly you would change with the current "slavery-like legislation", you're going to punt it to "the experts"??
I hesitate to ask, who might they be?? ???
-
The "Birther " question has absolutely no potential for working to President Obama's impeachment , there is just nothing in it .
I agree somewhat, but for someone like me and many, many others that 100% honestly believe Obama
was not born in the United States then we are not going to just go to the back of the bus & not comment
when the issue arises. I honestly believe the guy sits in office in violation of the US Constitution, but like
I said earlier in this thread I don't lose any sleep over it, did not start this thread, and it is not really on my
everyday political agenda or discussions I have with people. I did enjoy discussing and learning more about it
today, but I can't allow myself to do that everyday or I will be like the insolvent US Government....bankrupt! :D
I don't think it is really all that interesting.
What would make me care about the precice location of his birth?
I don't care if he is a Leo or a Tarus;
I don't care if he was vaginally or cecerian delivered either , I don't care if he was headfirst or breech , born in a caul or free , it matters so little I don't care if I never find out.
I have some objections to President Obama but none of them date from his birth day .
Well no ,I am wrong, I just did think of one that does make a diffrence to me and that does date to his birth, President Obama is the first president that is younger than I am .
-
Plane....it doesn't matter if you dont care where he was born....the constitution does
-
Plane....it doesn't matter if you dont care where he was born....the constitution does
Does it really?
And in the Constitution itself , what proof of birth is required?
Do you suppose that Washington , Jefferson and Lincon all had unquestionable proofs of their origins?
-
I have to admit Cu4, I'm a little disappointed in your non-answer. You speak with such passion about this issue, likening the travesty of current law to that of slavery, but when asked what exactly you would change with the current "slavery-like legislation", you're going to punt it to "the experts"?? I hesitate to ask, who might they be??
SIRS...you can be disappointed all you want
I've spent more time on here today than I have in months
I would think I posted on here more than any single member...
but it's not enough for you....
I freaking basically wasted a whole day at work
I am not going to spend hours tonight researching what can be done to prevent this from happening
You can characterize it as a non-answer if thats what pleases you
I provided a couple of areas of concern
As far as writing the legislation tonight.....well thats not gonna happen
and to tell the truth if that "disappoints" you
sorry...I dont give a rats ass! ;)
-
Does it really?
Yes it says they must be born in the United States.
And in the Constitution itself , what proof of birth is required?
It only requires they be born in the United States.
Do you suppose that Washington ,
Jefferson and Lincon all had unquestionable proofs of their origins?
No I suppose they were all from Kenya!
-
Cu4.....if its one thing I'm a huge advocate of is QUALITY. The quality of one's answer is far superior than the quantity. and that surely applies to me, as I can get rather verbose. You could have saved yourself so much time and energy had you addressed the specific core problem and subsequent question at the base of that problem, that Ami clearly provided. Instead, you spent all this time, speaking very passionately about this subject, yet never addressing the issue, as you layed it out...that of how much of a travesty our current law is.....akin to slavery even, according to you.
And again, I'm not the one with the problem with current law, so it's not going to cause me grief if you don't write your congress critters. But please, bear in mind, this is a debate forum. So, not only is it a great vehicle for venting and just beng very verbose in issues important to you, expect to be challenged, and expect to have to support your positions. You provided a position how terribly bothered you are with the current law that allows Obama to sit in the WH. He's provided every aspect required BY LAW, to fulfil the mandates to be elegible for President. If you don't have anything specific that you'd like to highlight and change, why all this apparent wasted energy then??
-
And in the Constitution itself , what proof of birth is required?
It only requires they be born in the United States.
But it is not requireing any particular sort of proof?
Is the burden of proof even supposed to be upon the canadate?
Why is the burden of proof not placed upon the accuser as it usually is?
Does the procicution have documents or other evidence that can prove that the President was born in a particular place that is other than the US? Or to persons who were less than full citizens?
-
Cu4.....if its one thing I'm a huge advocate of is QUALITY.
The quality of one's answer is far superior than the quantity
Well SIRS I dont really care if you dont think my answers were of quality
I dont think some of your answers were very high quality.
But AMI fought your war for you anyway....you came in the game on the kicking team
but thats cool...i learn more sparring with him anyway
You could have saved yourself so much time and energy had you addressed
the specific core problem and subsequent question at the base of that problem,
that Ami clearly provided.
I think I did address the core problem.
Instead, you spent all this time, speaking very passionately about this subject,
yet never addressing the issue,
No I think I addressed the issue dead-on.
as you layed it out...that of how much of a travesty our current law is.....
akin to slavery even, according to you.
I see you still miss the point completely.
You were the one pushing legislative remedy not me.
And again, I'm not the one with the problem with current law,
so it's not going to cause me grief if you don't write your congress critters.
See....you even prove my point.
You are one saying "wrong branch"....not me.
I think this should be handled primarily in the courts.
But please, bear in mind, this is a debate forum.
So, not only is it a great vehicle for venting and just beng very verbose
in issues important to you, expect to be challenged, and expect to have
to support your positions.
Really? Why I never would have expected!....LOL... ::)
You provided a position how terribly bothered you are with
the current law that allows Obama to sit in the WH.
SIRS....no I did not do that.
Again I stated I am fine with the Constitution on the issue.
It just needs to be enforced.
Actually no new laws must be enacted.
It could possibly be a small piece of a puzzle, but is not a must.
He's provided every aspect required BY LAW
to fulfil the mandates to be elegible for President.
Until a court finds otherwise....that is true.
OJ was within the law...until another court found otherwise
If you don't have anything specific that you'd like to
highlight and change, why all this apparent wasted energy then??
Again you miss the point.
It's not wasted energy just because I dont agree with you.
I want the US Constitution enforced via the courts.
No new laws have to be enacted to do that.
For the last time today as I am going to bed.....
We'll see what happens...I predict one day the fraud will be exposed.
-
Why is the burden of proof not placed upon the accuser as it usually is?
It is....but almost all the cases are thrown out before any evidence can be shown.
-
Cu4.....if its one thing I'm a huge advocate of is QUALITY. The quality of one's answer is far superior than the quantity
Well SIRS I dont really care if you dont think my answers were of quality I dont think some of your answers were very high quality. But AMI fought your war for you anyway....you came in the game on the kicking team but thats cool...i learn more sparring with him anyway
Strange, how I neither complained your comments were without quality, or that I was trying to compete with Ami. I learn far more from Ami than myself, so not sure where you were going with that. A mild backhanded dig, perhaps? Don't know. I too was at work, and only had those few occasions to add comments.
You could have saved yourself so much time and energy had you addressed the specific core problem and subsequent question at the base of that problem, that Ami clearly provided.
I think I did address the core problem.
See?? NO, YOU DIDN'T. The core problem was perfectly articulated in the question Ami posed. A core question to this whole debate, that you conveniently punted to some nebulous "experts". You opined, on and on about slavery and the injustice of it all. Never once addressing what exactly needs to change in current law to right such an injustice that Obama is now President. Again, why spend all this time on the fringe, and not once, dealing with the main issue at hand??
as you layed it out...that of how much of a travesty our current law is.....akin to slavery even, according to you.
I see you still miss the point completely. You were the one pushing legislative remedy not me.
That's because this isn't a court problem. The law is clear, and Obama & company have provided the necessary legal, and subsequent constitutional requirements to be POTUS. YOU're the one trying to make a judicial mountain out of legislative molehill. Just because others have the same "problem" with this, doesn't equate to it being a valid problem, or one that the courts need to handle. There's NOTHING to handle.
Since you won't answer, I'm gonna make a guess....... that you hate this President so much, that you'll use anything, even a wishful technicality, that could get him tossed out of the WH. That you really don't have an issue with the law, only that you're mad as hell that this President was legally elected, that you have to then convince yourself he was illegally elected. You know what we referred to those on the left, when they had that mentality aimed at Bush?......BDS
You provided a position how terribly bothered you are with the current law that allows Obama to sit in the WH.
SIRS....no I did not do that. Again I stated I am fine with the Constitution on the issue.
LOL....THEN WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?? Why all the rhetoric about slavery?? This travesty of justice, if there's no problem with current law??
It just needs to be enforced.
IT HAS BEEN ::)
Actually no new laws must be enacted.
Then I have no idea why all this time and energy has been spent. Laws, that YOU have likened to slavery. Laws that YOU have said need fighting for. Now........."Actually no new laws must be enacted." ???
Whatever
He's provided every aspect required BY LAW to fulfil the mandates to be elegible for President.
Until a court finds otherwise....that is true.
So, you ARE hoping for some legislating from the bench. How so very....liberal of you
OJ was within the law...until another court found otherwise
I'm afraid to ask, what law would that be? Obama is now OJ?
-
The Constitution does NOT say that the president must be born in the US. Washington was born in a British colony, as were nearly all of the first presidents. It says that the president must be a "natural born" citizen. This term has not been defined. It seems that Chester Arthur might have been born in Ireland, for example.
Obama was elected by 53% of the voters. His mother was a citizen. This crap about Hawaiian birth certificates is just that: crap. Every Democrat elected since Johnson has been attacked by Republicans for silly crap. It is what they do. It is nonsense and should be ignored.
-
It seems that Chester Arthur might have been born in Ireland, for example.
Not even close.
Arthur was born in Vermont.
-
The Constitution does NOT say that the president must be born in the US. Washington was born in a British colony, as were nearly all of the first presidents. It says that the president must be a "natural born" citizen. This term has not been defined. It seems that Chester Arthur might have been born in Ireland, for example.
The early Presidents slid by on the second part of the qualifications: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President".
The term is defined in British Common Law from which our current law derives, so absent a conflicting definition introduced later, that definition stands.
Oh yeah, some had claimed that Arthur was born in Canada, not Ireland. His father was Irish, however.
-
Strange, how I neither complained your comments were without quality
Yeah sure SIRS...you just brought up quantity over quality completely out of the blue.
As you said "whatever"......lol
A mild backhanded dig, perhaps?
No it was a straight forward dig....I don't hide "between the lines" like you did.
See?? NO, YOU DIDN'T.
Yes I did.
The core problem was perfectly articulated in the question Ami posed.
Maybe the core problem for you, you dont define what I see as the core problem.
A core question to this whole debate, that you conveniently punted to some nebulous "experts".
I don't really see it as a legislative problem, so I am not concerned with any new laws....
if they want to write new laws....fine...I'll look at them...
and approve or disapprove....thats pretty much how reality works.
You opined, on and on about slavery and the injustice of it all.
Never once addressing what exactly needs to change in current .
law to right such an injustice that Obama is now President.
Again, why spend all this time on the fringe, and not once,
dealing with the main issue at hand??
Again....you dont get it....I guess.
Not sure if you are playing games and pretending to not get it
or you really dont get it.
In debate SIRS analogy can be an important tool.
You are fixated on the slavery analogy
My references to slavery have really nothing to do with slavery per se
The analogy is used to expose your false/weak logic.
Basically you say "well he's legal"..."he's following the law"....so nothing can be done.
And I say "wait a minute" there is something that can be done....
just like in our country's history....something once legal/unjust was reversed.
The analogy shows that in our past history that injustices can be
approved by courts or be "legal", but that does not mean the injustices are "ok".
That's because this isn't a court problem.
That's your opinion.
Since you won't answer, I'm gonna make a guess.....that you hate this President so much,
I did answer....you just dont approve of my answer.
I dont hate our President....but I do hate socialism or the march towards socialism.
I like Mitt Romney but if questions arose about him not being born in the US and
he refused to show his full long form birth certificate and Mitt allowed millions and
millions to be spent keeping the courts from investigating this....then I would say
I would not want him serving as President....change the names to Palin, Reagan
Jindal, Bush, Brown, Rubio, who-ever...no matter what Party...I do not want
a non-US born person serving as our President. PERIOD!
"Technicality" my ass!
that you'll use anything, even a wishful technicality, that could get him tossed out of the WH.
See there is the truth...FINALLY.
Finally, finally, finally!
You and others actually see the US Constitution as a "technicality".
Do you really think that?
Do you really think if I am correct that it is a "technicality"?
Honestly SIRS that is "WOW" to me.
SIRS what else do you see as a "technicality"?...our right to own guns?...free speech?
Amazing people see a very clear sentence in the US Constitution, put there not by accident
Put there for a reason, and then try to demean and imply others are haters for simply
trying to follow that Constitution.....AMAZING.
That you really don't have an issue with the law, only that you're mad as hell that this President
was elected, that you have to then convince yourself he was illegally elected.
You know what we referred to those on the left, when they had that mentality aimed at Bush?...BDS
Mostly ALL Wrong once again.
Yes I am not happy a super super Liberal was elected President.....are you?
But actually it is working out pretty well.....what's he done?....whats he got passed?
Cap & Trade? FAIL!---> Healthcare? FAIL!---Close Gitmo? FAIL!----Ban Earmarks?---->FAIL!
He's getting his ass kicked up one side and down the other and he controls BOTH Houses!
(one thing he's done I like is fire many more Predator missiles to kill IslamoNazis)
But getting back to your wrong "guess"....I have stated repeatedly this is not a big issue for me.
I think we've been held up, robbed, whatever....but most likely the crime will go unpunished.
Fine.....I didn't start the thread....I very, very, rarely bring the topic up here or anywhere else.
I didn't obsess with OJ when he sailed thru....yeah I thought is sucked....but I moved on
unless someone brought it up.
THEN WHAT'S THE PROBLEM??
There is no problem that I really worry about unless it's brought up by someone,
that is unless one of these court cases is fully accepted and discovery of evidence is executed.
Then I think we'll see a VERY BIG PROBLEM!
Why all the rhetoric about slavery??
To use analogy to expose the fallacy of your argument.....nothing more.
This travesty of justice, if there's no problem with current law??
Yeah....there are "travesty of justice" whenever someone guilty gets off.
But that does not mean we must always write new laws everytime someone gets off that
we are pretty sure is guilty. I think OJ was guilty....but because he got off I dont really
see that we need to write a bunch of new laws concerning murder.
Then I have no idea why all this time and energy has been spent.
Laws, that YOU have likened to slavery. Laws that YOU have
said need fighting for. Now........."Actually no new laws must
be enacted." ??? Whatever
This is just further evidence ...you dont get it.
No....no new laws need to be enacted.
The Constitution is fine, it just needs to be enforced.
Why would any new laws be needed?
It's simple really....but so far....it has not been successful
there needs to be a lawsuit filed and accepted to be heard
that allows for discovery....in the discovery process documents like
Obama's original long form 1961 birth certificate will be under
subpoena...and then examined by the courts and both sides of case.
So, you ARE hoping for some legislating from the bench.
How so very....liberal of you
One man's "legislating" is another man's "interpreting the constitution".
You pretend you are different, but I am sure you applaud when a court sides with you on issues.
You just call it "following the constitution" then when the court sides against you
claim "legislating from the bench"
You're just too blind to see it.
I'm afraid to ask, what law would that be? Obama is now OJ?
SIRS....you dont do well with analogy do you?....do you even know what analogy is?
ps: I am done with this thread....you can have the last word....it's become boring
because it's not about non-US born Obama anymore and is more about sematics
and language.......I'm done....but I hope the courts aren't done!
WE'LL SEE!
-
See?? NO, YOU DIDN'T.
Yes I did.
No, since this question "what would you like the requirement CHANGED to, since the current one - which Obama meets - is not sufficient?" went completely unanswered
The core problem was perfectly articulated in the question Ami posed.
Maybe the core problem for you, you dont define what I see as the core problem.
Your "core problem" was completely defined around the above, since YOU are the one that kept going on and on and on about how current law is analogous to slavery, that it requires changing, that its so egregious, it needs to be fought, like they did in changing the slavery laws.
And no, this is NOT a problem with the Constitution failing to be enforced. If one is providing everything the law requires, there is no further "enforcement" mechanisms necessary. And if you now start going into the slavery analogy once again, we're right back at the square 1 question, that you have yet to answer.
Can we expect one, anytime soon? Or are you still hoping for a liberal-like legislating from the bench tactic?
-
Since Cu4 has apparently decided not to answer the core issue to this discussion, let me add a response to his 1 area of my confirmed guessing:
that you'll use anything, even a wishful technicality, that could get him tossed out of the WH.
See there is the truth...FINALLY.
Finally, finally, finally!
You and others actually see the US Constitution as a "technicality".
Do you really think that?
Do you really think if I am correct that it is a "technicality"?
The Constitution is the greatest piece of parchment ever produced, IMHO. Followed closely the Harry Potter Series, though I digress. ;) Hardly a "technicality".
The technicality I'm referring to is, dare I say, analogus to...let's say a home invasion robber from being convicted, because the officer didn't read him his miranda rights. Or let's say a murderer released because the only hard evidence, the gun, was found by an illegal search. THAT's the technicality Cu4 is looking for, since, one last time, legally Obama has provided everything required by law, and by extension, the Constitution. Cu4, and others, since they apparently have no desire to have legislators change existing law, want some form of "get out of jail free card" technicality, provided for, by the courts, though one that mandates a "get out of the White House, now" card
The Constitution is clear. It has been enforced. The law has been adhered to, by all parties. For those that say it hasn't, I have yet to see what the basis for their denial is. If there's apparently no need to change anything, one would wonder why all the energy has been applied to this issue.
Then again, I think I addressed that in my conjecture of a possible Conservative version of BDS, one that maybe we need to refer to as ODS
-
Good thought Sirs,
One thing that the " Bush Lied" diatribe lacked was any member of the same tribe who would call BS on their own side, they were putting forward rediculous theroys of lies about just about everything.
I remember when Preaident Bush caught a fish and in dubble translation his statement was called a lie because the fish would have been a record for the species, only before the translation the species was diffrent. Leaping onto something finally that could be proven a lie in fact rather than opinion the "liers" fell flat on their dwindleing credability, again.
Once it bacame clear that these guys would contradict Bush when he might say "The Sky is blue" or "Water is wet" there wasn't enough credability in the whole side to maintain any statement they might make beleiveably.
If we have a side and our side has some credability , it is worth something to us.
I would like to be credable when something of substance comes along with real evidence , not seem like another baying dog of the pack that bays at all shadows all night long.
-
Thanks Plane. I do try