Author Topic: March on Washington to tell president to quit  (Read 15149 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: March on Washington to tell president to quit
« Reply #30 on: February 22, 2010, 11:28:37 PM »
I hope this latest posting of Ami's can finally put this issue to rest
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: March on Washington to tell president to quit
« Reply #31 on: February 23, 2010, 09:28:50 AM »
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?
« Last Edit: February 23, 2010, 10:33:39 AM by ChristiansUnited4LessGvt »
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: March on Washington to tell president to quit
« Reply #32 on: February 23, 2010, 10:48:55 AM »
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.




"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: March on Washington to tell president to quit
« Reply #33 on: February 23, 2010, 11:31:54 AM »
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 worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: March on Washington to tell president to quit
« Reply #34 on: February 23, 2010, 12:02:11 PM »
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.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: March on Washington to tell president to quit
« Reply #35 on: February 23, 2010, 12:06:25 PM »
"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....




"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: March on Washington to tell president to quit
« Reply #36 on: February 23, 2010, 12:29:01 PM »
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?
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: March on Washington to tell president to quit
« Reply #37 on: February 23, 2010, 01:29:29 PM »
"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

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: March on Washington to tell president to quit
« Reply #38 on: February 23, 2010, 01:33:27 PM »
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?
« Last Edit: February 23, 2010, 01:43:30 PM by ChristiansUnited4LessGvt »
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: March on Washington to tell president to quit
« Reply #39 on: February 23, 2010, 01:42:47 PM »
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.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: March on Washington to tell president to quit
« Reply #40 on: February 23, 2010, 01:43:01 PM »
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.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: March on Washington to tell president to quit
« Reply #41 on: February 23, 2010, 01:43:54 PM »
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.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: March on Washington to tell president to quit
« Reply #42 on: February 23, 2010, 01:45:35 PM »
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.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: March on Washington to tell president to quit
« Reply #43 on: February 23, 2010, 01:50:17 PM »
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        ;)
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: March on Washington to tell president to quit
« Reply #44 on: February 23, 2010, 01:58:57 PM »
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.






"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987