I helped Obama campaign staffer Divorah Adler create a fake birth certificate [HOAX]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Learn to read.

The long form is the form that is certified. The short form is not.

I do apologize about the caps lock. I do not use them in anger, but in my line of work all my documents have to be done in caps lock. It is just habit.

However, I must say that your lack of evidence is as weak. You telling me that you can no longer get the long form. Prove that!

As for the link I posted, you really need to read it more carefully.

By public knowledge I mean it is easy to find. I should not have to put something in your face that takes you 2 minutes to find. If you are so lazy that you want someone else to do your research for you, don't bother responding to my post again.

If I had said something crazy like the president was killed today (when we know he was not) I should provide a source. But when something is available to anyone who has a brain, It is not my responsibility. I mad no outrageous statement. Just the facts.

BTW I really wish I could say what I think of you, your beliefs about our country, on here.

People like you are destroying this country from the inside out.

Prove that you can not get a long form birth certificate.

Here is my proof you can

nocompromisemedia.com...

Originally posted by russ212
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Learn to read.

The long form is the form that is certified. The short form is not.

Learn to read. You can no longer get a long form from Hawaii. You just cannot get one. They did away with them. It can NOT happen. You have repeated this lie 3 times now.

Time to back it up.

Originally posted by russ212
However, I must say that your lack of evidence is as weak. You telling me that you can no longer get the long form. Prove that!

The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.

The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.

And, it’s only available in electronic form.

Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.

“At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.

Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.

Feel free to call the Hawaii Department of Health and prove otherwise. I will be waiting for your polite retraction.

Kinau Hale 1250 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
(808) 586-4400

[edit on 13-4-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by russ212
Learn to read.

You've got some brass, I'll give you that...

The long form is the form that is certified. The short form is not.

You're making this stuff up! And it's wrong.

A certified copy of a birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of the person’s date of birth.

Source

Like this

However, I must say that your lack of evidence is as weak. You telling me that you can no longer get the long form. Prove that!

I did not tell you that. But I'll prove it anyway. Here

The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.
...
The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.
...
Asked about that document, Okubo said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.”

Prove that you can not get a long form birth certificate.

Here is my proof you can

nocompromisemedia.com...

Those were issued in 1966. Look at it. The date on it is 5-5-1966. That's over 40 years before Obama got his. Obama's was issued in 2007.

[edit on 4/13/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by PhyberDragon

Originally posted by russ212
reply to post by RuneSpider

 

DID THEY IN THE 60'S WHEN HE WAS BORN?

And what about the Hawaii law that allows you to claim citizenship for a child born in another country as long as the parents Claim residency in Hawaii within the past year.

Where is this law, please?

Hawaii Statute allowing for Certificate of Live Birth for a foreigner:

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]



[edit on 13-4-2010 by PhyberDragon]

reply to post by PhyberDragon


Uh huh and...?

Not seeing the problem yet?

Apply this law to Obama and the story you have been trying to promote and see if you find the problem. Let me know if you get stumped.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while LIVING WITHOUT the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.


Is it possible his parents, specifically his mother, provided proof to the director of health that she was LIVING WITHOUT the Territory or State of Hawaii and that she had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as her LEGAL RESIDENCE. If so he's not natural born and the Birth Certificate is misleading. That's it. That's all I'm curious about.

And the only way to know is to see the PROOF submitted to the director of health regarding LEGAL RESIDENCE of the then- birthing mother. I'll assume he had that sealed.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by PhyberDragon]

Originally posted by PhyberDragon

Is it possible his parents, specifically his mother, provided proof to the director of health that she was LIVING WITHOUT the Territory or State of Hawaii and that she had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as her LEGAL RESIDENCE. If so he's not natural born and the Birth Certificate is misleading. That's it. That's all I'm curious about.

OK, this might take some time for you to understand but you need to read all of section 338, not just one sub-paragraph. You are also misreading the part you have quoted. Both parents need to PROVE they were legal residents of Hawaii for one year immediately prior to the birth of the child. According to the entire section, not just this one clause, both parents need to be legal U.S. citizens as well as PROVE they were legal residents of Hawaii for at least one year. Get back to me when you read the whole thing and understand how that may or may not apply here.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


OK, so Is it possible his parents, (both of them), provided proof to the director of health that she was LIVING WITHOUT the Territory or State of Hawaii and that she had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as her LEGAL RESIDENCE. If so he's not natural born and the Birth Certificate is misleading. That's it. That's all I'm curious about.

And the only way to know is to see the PROOF submitted to the director of health regarding LEGAL RESIDENCE of the then- birthing mother. I'll assume he had that sealed.

I'm not concerned with the citizenship of the parents, I am asking about PROOF of their legal residence at the time of his birth and whether they were LIVING WITHOUT Hawaii at such time. Anything else is irrelevant. Location, location, location.

Originally posted by PhyberDragon
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

OK, so Is it possible his parents, (both of them), provided proof to the director of health that she was LIVING WITHOUT the Territory or State of Hawaii and that she had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as her LEGAL RESIDENCE. If so he's not natural born and the Birth Certificate is misleading. That's it. That's all I'm curious about.

You are reading it wrong. Aside from the fact that you are still taking it out of context because section 338 is quite extensive - you are reading it wrong.

It is not about proving she was living without the territory but proving THEY were legal US citizens before going abroad. Read it again, then go read the entire section, THEN go and look at changes that have gone into effect since Obama was born.

And the only way to know is to see the PROOF submitted to the director of health regarding LEGAL RESIDENCE of the then- birthing mother. I'll assume he had that sealed.

You have seen that proof. It is in the birth certificate that states he was born in Hawaii. It would not say that had there not been proof she was both living in HI before and when he was born. That is how that works. Please read the entire section.

I'm not concerned with the citizenship of the parents, I am asking about PROOF of their legal residence at the time of his birth and whether they were LIVING WITHOUT Hawaii at such time. Anything else is irrelevant. Location, location, location.

No, not really. That is why you need to read the entire section. Your understanding of it is so terribly poor that I do not really know what to tell you until you read the entire section.

The citizenship of the parents actually matters a great deal just in this one clause because in order for it to apply, they have to be US citizens. If they are not, then this does not apply and therefor your question regarding this clause is moot. Get it?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Whether or not one's parents are US citizen's is as irrelevant as the citizenship of the Mexican woman in the back of the INS van on US soil, she'll be returned to Mexico- the baby is a US citizen. Assuming both his parents ARE US citizens, and they lived in the US before he was born, matters not if the are out of the country at the time of his birth. He will be a citizen of that country by way of birth. The law requires Hawaii to be their legal residence at the time of birth, however, it DOES NOT require them to be IN the US at the time. So, I am not misreading anything. There is much more to the law, but only thjis part pertains to the issue of being possible to be a resident but not be present in your country of residence. It's a backdoor into the US for people whose parents are abroad. I'm not twisting anything. I can read legalese and English.

Without: Outside; beyond; in excess of. -- Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1603.
Within: Into. In inner or interior part of, or not longer in time than. Through. Inside the limits of; during the time of. -- Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1602.

At the time He came out of Her womb, whose soil was She on?
That determines whether he was natural born or not and ends the debate one way or the other. Hawaii allows Her to be a citizen but give birth ELSEWHERE on the globe.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by PhyberDragon]

Originally posted by PhyberDragon
Without: Outside; beyond; in excess of. -- Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1603.
Within: Into. In inner or interior part of, or not longer in time than. Through. Inside the limits of; during the time of. -- Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1602.

Are you a brick wall? That is not the part I said you were reading wrong. You are claiming she needs to prove she was living without when all she needs to prove is that she was a US RESIDENT.

At the time He came out of Her womb, whose soil was She on?

She was on US soil in Honolulu Hawaii.

Originally posted by PhyberDragon
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Whether or not one's parents are US citizen's is as irrelevant as the citizenship of the Mexican woman in the back of the INS van on US soil, she'll be returned to Mexico- the baby is a US citizen.

I can not even believe this is happening.

THIS CLAUSE WOULD NOT APPLY TO THAT WOMAN!!!!!!!!!!

That is why citizenship matters because it decides whether or not this clause applies. READ THE ENTIRE FREAKING SECTION ALREADY!!!! IT IS HUGE!

Assuming both his parents ARE US citizens, and they lived in the US before he was born, matters not if the are out of the country at the time of his birth. He will be a citizen of that country by way of birth.

What is that based on? Show me what says that? You have proven with the clause you keep providing that this is not true so you are going to have to show something that proves otherwise and not just claim it.

The law requires Hawaii to be their legal residence at the time of birth, however, it DOES NOT require them to be IN the US at the time. So, I am not misreading anything. There is much more to the law, but only thjis part pertains to the issue of being possible to be a resident but not be present in your country of residence.

That is your problem. This part cannot be applied in and of itself. That is why it is part of a larger clause. You cannot look at it alone because it cannot be applied on its own.

It's a backdoor into the US for people whose parents are abroad. I'm not twisting anything. I can read legalese and English.

It is not a backdoor. It is a clause providing that US citizens who give birth abroad will still be giving birth to US citizen children and none of this applies to Obama.

If you are not going to read the entire thing and you are going to keep quoting nonsense about having to prove she was living WITHOUT then I am about done going round in circles with you about Obama's citizenship in a thread that has already been tossed in the HOAX bin.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by PhyberDragon
Without: Outside; beyond; in excess of. -- Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1603.
Within: Into. In inner or interior part of, or not longer in time than. Through. Inside the limits of; during the time of. -- Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1602.

Are you a brick wall? That is not the part I said you were reading wrong. You are claiming she needs to prove she was living without when all she needs to prove is that she was a US RESIDENT.

At the time He came out of Her womb, whose soil was She on?

She was on US soil in Honolulu Hawaii.

I can be a brick wall. I must admit I enjoy debating with you. Yes, I understand that for the Certificate she must prove she is a citizen. So, she was a LEGAL RESIDENT, no debate, or the Certificate would not have been issued. It says that it is OK if she was LIVING WITHOUT the US (Hawaiii) as long as her LEGAL RESIDENCE was the US (HAWAII) in order to qualify for that LEGAL RESIDENCE, yes, she had to be there one year prior. There is absolutely nothing stopping her from TEMPORARILY RESIDING outside the US. So, she gives birth in say, Kenya, comes back to the US, proves she lived in the US (Hawaii) during that same year. Bam! He's a citizen. You follow me yet? Since it is possible-all she would have to do is Prove to the director of health she RESIDED in the US during the year and the forms would be silent as to whether she stayed elsewhere during the time of birth. So, I suppose that would mean that the information to the director of health would read as though she were in the US the entire time. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to see her PASSPORT since noone has alleged she was out of the country ILLEGALLY, if she were out of the country at all. From this point of view his father is a sperm donor, what's important is actual physical geographical location of the mother. When I went to court over my daughter some 10 years ago, I did not reside with her mother. I did stay there for two weeks prior to the removal of her from her mother. As far as the court was concwerned, BECAUSE I had stayed there those two weeks, during the time of her actual physical removal from the home of her mother, I was a LEGAL RESIDENT of her address for purposes of the hearing. So location is everything. Prove her location was Honolulu, Hawaii and not Kenya or elsewhere. Just because the documents say she was a LEGAL RESIDENT does not mean she had not temporarily abated that premises for another ELSEWHERE on the glope, because as a LEGAL RESIDENT she could be LIVING WITHOUT Hawaii at the TIME of birth, which does not by definition, natural born make.

reply to post by PhyberDragon


First of all, if she gave birth outside the country but was a legal US resident, what is the issue? If my parents had me abroad, I would expect that I would still be a US citizen.

Secondly, the birth certificate clearly states the PLACE OF BIRTH as Honolulu Hawaii.

The clause you are trying to cling to would not produce a birth certificate that claims the place of birth as being anywhere but where it was. That is why a Hawaiian birth certificate actually contains place of birth information.

You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

The system wasn't designed with Obama in mind, it was created because Hawai had people living there having children who were not citizens and were a drain on the economy. By claiming the children Hawaii could then recieve federal funds for them and their children. It's not that the parents were natural citizens or citizens at all, it was simply that they lived and breeded on Hawaiin soil. So they designed the system to incorporate them as citizens- now see how His father as a non citizen could be a citizen just by living there in the prior year. Ok, now, not all of these people stayed put many would return home to their country of origin and give birth, the system made that just fine as long as they were in the US within the year prior to that. That way they could claim the foreign born children as US citizens. And that is how a foreign born citizen can be a citizen but NOT a natural citizen.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


To be PRESIDENT of the US the US CONSTITUTION requires you be a natural citizen (born in the US) and not a foreign born citizen which is the opposite of a natural born citizen in that they are not born within the US. See the difference it makes. It would usurp the Constitution and I believe would make it Treason.

Originally posted by PhyberDragon
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

To be PRESIDENT of the US the US CONSTITUTION requires you be a natural citizen (born in the US) and not a foreign born citizen which is the opposite of a natural born citizen in that they are not born within the US. See the difference it makes. It would usurp the Constitution and I believe would make it Treason.

I know and the current president, Obama, was born in Hawaii so it is all good. You want this clause to apply but it does not. If it did, then you feel you could make a case that he was not "natural" but without a birth certificate to match this clause, you have no way of applying it. You want to apply it to the one that we do have but that one clearly states he was born in Hawaii and that is why it has nothing to do with this. This is circular logic at its best and I refuse to go in any more circles with you over it.

Obama was born in Hawaii as shown by his birth certificate.

reply to post by PhyberDragon


What does this have to do with the self confessed hoax? Are you paying attention? Never mind,