Obama Birth Certificate; 'Document allegedly obtained in Kenya sent to every member of Congress'

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Anthony1138
you dont need to be an american born citizen to be a president, you just need to serve the people *let me repeat that* SERVE THE PEOPLE.

You are VERY mistaken! Our Constitution says that the president MUST be a Natural-born Citizen of the US.

LOL! Lets switch sides for a minute. You are now arguing that one must be a "natural-born" citizen. I agree.

However, in these days of legalese and spin-doctoring, does this rule-out C-sections or in-vitro babies?

Do we really want the courts deciding who is eligible based on the ever-changing definitions of 7 letters formed into a word? Is "natural" the same thing today that it was in the 1780's?

I know, you are an Obamanite and I am a truther, and we are not supposed to look any deeper than that, but since you stood up and pointed out that the issue is a significant one according to our Constitution, I felt it was only fair to put in a jab for your side and point out that the only thing the whole truther argument hinges on is a 7-letter word that has certainly changed in meaning over the last 200 years or so.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by getreadyalready]

Originally posted by getreadyalready
The original post wasn't mine, I just thought it was the most informative one on the "truther" side. Here, since I can't link to it correctly I am quoting it instead.

Yeah sorry but I really do think you are just trying to toss people off the trail here. I do not see anything addressing any of the things I asked about or you claimed in that entire post.

Here is a statute from HI that states the difference between a certificate and a certification.

Can you please underline where you think it says that? This is what, 4 posts in a row that do not say what you claim they say? I do not understand this tactic???????

And here is how the supposedly defunct link from the state's own website used to read!!

No it is not, what it is is an article someone wrote saying some stuff. Is that really the level of proof we get? Sorry, I do realize that this reads as angry but this is frustration. Asking simple questions over and over again just be deflected with confusion, lies, rumors, and blogs is very very very very very very frustrating.

I am not on either side of this. I am all for the facts. So far they seem to strongly lean one way. I am asking questions because I am still open. Please do not play with me because that will only help to stop me from lending me ear to any claims from any "birthers."

[edit on 7-9-2010 by RightyRight]

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Here is a statute from HI that states the difference between a certificate and a certification.

“[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.

That says that if a child is born out of state the parents can get a birth certificate for the child, as long as they can prove they lived in Hawaii for the previous year. It doesn't address babies born in another COUNTRY, but "Out of State".

And here is how the supposedly defunct link from the state's own website used to read!!

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.

The above is commentary, NOT from the State of Hawaii. Look at the language. The rest of it is from the old Dept of health website. I remember reading it when it still said that. There are some threads that discuss it here as well.

However, it is not about being BORN in Hawaii. It's about proving your ethnic heritage as Hawaiian to determine property rights for natives.

To prove you are a native Hawaiian, you needed the long form. This has to do with being ethnically Hawaiian. Obama is NOT Hawaiian and doesn't claim to be.

[edit on 9/7/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by getreadyalready
How about this post on the last page? From the State of HI stating that the shortform is not acceptable. It has only recently been changed following all the chaos from Obama.

Yeah because before that they were just printing out invalid and useless short-forms just to earn a few bucks from the citizens of Hawaii.

Seriously, I've never even SEEN my long-form and have a passport, drivers license, and no one has ever asked me for it.

I doubt the people demanding to see Obamas' even have theirs.

The short-form is valid as proof of birth in the United States.
Hawaii is included therein.

I can't take the word of a biased anti-Obama website that the rules were just suddenly changed without actual proof.

- Lee

His only “proof” of birth available for viewing is online, and is a “Certification of Live Birth” (as opposed to a “Birth Certificate”). His COLB shows neither the name of the hospital, nor the name or signature of the delivering physician, nor name of any witness.

A State of Hawaii COLB can be issued on any newborn whether they were actually born in Hawaii or not.

Local newspapers accept birth announcements for the vital statistics section from sources other than the local hospitals, and regardless of where the birth took place.

The director of the state Health Department has “certified” that Obama’s birth certificate is on record in their files but can only be released with “family approval.” Assuming this is true, why would-n’t Obama simply authorize its release for forensic authentication, thereby proving his constitutional eligibility to be president of the United States?

Just asking ...

When queried, Kapiolani Hospital refuses to produce any record of Obama’s birth or even the attending physician’s name, citing the need for - you guessed it - family approval. Strange: wouldn’t you think a medical institution would be proud to be the birthplace of a president of the United States and seek authorization from the family to capitalize on that distinction?

Just asking…

In 1967, when Barack Obama Sr. took little Barry from Hawaii to Indonesia, he enrolled him in a Muslim Madras there. But in order to do so, Barry had to become a citizen of Indonesia, which he did. When he returned in 1971 to attend Punahou, was he ever officially reregistered to again become an American citizen?

Just asking…

All of Obama’s education records remain sealed from public inspection: Punahou, Occidental College in Los Angeles, Columbia University in New York, Harvard Law School. Grades are of only secondary interest. Might Obama have registered in some school as a foreign exchange student or might some application form show a place of birth other than Hawaii? Or might some record show that he benefited from affirmative action, or scholarships reserved for foreign students, or reveal a tuition funding benefactor whom if known publicly could be a source of embarrassment?

Just asking…

It is commonly estimated that Obama has spent $1.4 million on lawyers just to fend off more than a dozen lawsuits to gain access to his sealed records. Why would he spend that much money if he has nothing to hide?

Just asking…

When Obama traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s, conditions there, as well as American/Pakistani relations, were such that American citizens were prohibited from traveling to Pakistan. Under what citizenship did he travel? Indonesian? Kenyan?

reply to post by RightyRight


The statute clearly states that anyone can obtain a birth Hawaiian Birth Certificate, even if the child was born outside the state, as long as the parent's listed their residency as Hawaii for a year before the birth. In other words, the birth certificate is worthless.

The other one was quoted from the original page up on the state's web page, and it is quoted all over the internet. It isn't a case of just one source. It clearly states that the "certification" is not sufficient by itself and requires further investigation to verify. Obama provided the "certification" so where is the "further investigation?"

I don't have a stake in this either way, I voted for Obama, it was a mistake, I will not vote for him again, I don't want to see him impeached, because it would take the next two years to pull it off anyway and it would be a huge distraction away from the business of running the country.

My only stake in this thing is that people demand more proof and a higher standard of accountability from their leaders and stop crucifying the ones that would question everything. We need them questioning everything and not accepting glossed over versions of inadequate proof. We need the ones that demand hard evidence backed up by verifiable research. It isn't the responsibility of the "truthers" to prove anything. It is the responsiblity of the officials to proved the proof. Like I said before, when I applied for my job, it wasn't acceptable for me to answer their question with "prove otherwise" and it wasn't acceptable for me to provide a printout of a certification and a letter from someone saying it was legit. I had to actually order the real thing and present it, and I had to wait 6 weeks for the background check and fingerprint card to come back clean. Then I was allowed to take my menial government job! You think we can expect the president to face at least that much scrutiny?

All you have to do is get Obama's foot print and that will put a end to all of this.
Mr. Obama's should come clean and submit a foot print, simple as that.

reply to post by RightyRight


OK. I'll step back and let them answer. I think he means that the short form in not a complete BC and the long form is. But I could be mistaken. Just tryin' to help.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
LOL! Lets switch sides for a minute. You are now arguing that one must be a "natural-born" citizen.

I have never, never, ever, not once said anything to the contrary.

As far as what a natural born citizen is, I believe it is a person born in the US. Or someone born to US citizen and resident parents who are traveling outside the US when the child is born. I could be wrong, but no one has shown me anything that compels me to believe otherwise.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by wcitizen
What bothers me more about the information in this article is the list of files relating to Obama's background which have been 'closed', and that this fact is known to the public.

Yeah, doesn't that pesky Fourth Amendment just piss you off!?! Grrrr!

How dare a US citizen keep his private papers private! Makes me SO mad!

Don’t make me laugh! Do you really think that, for one min. that if the feds thought you committed a crime, that your 4th amendment rights would keep them from getting your personal records? lol They would know when your next dentist appointment was.

Don’t tell me ANYONE! has any privacy when they want to know something. They can tap your phone, check you mail, go threw your garbage, they do what ever they want. It is a one way street with them.

[edit on 9/7/10 by xyankee]

double

[edit on 7-9-2010 by getreadyalready]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

To prove you are a native Hawaiian, you needed the long form. This has to do with being ethnically Hawaiian. Obama is NOT Hawaiian and doesn't claim to be.

If he is not Hawaiian, then he is not American?

He is only a "natural-born citizen" if he was born in Hawaii. If he can't even prove to be a Hawaiian, then how can he prove to be an American?

Are you saying that the proof he provided is enough to make him president, but not enough to buy land in Hawaii as a citizen of that state?

[edit on 7-9-2010 by getreadyalready]

Originally posted by Mythkiller
When Obama traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s, conditions there, as well as American/Pakistani relations, were such that American citizens were prohibited from traveling to Pakistan. Under what citizenship did he travel? Indonesian? Kenyan?

Now I know for a fact that is just not true and yes I can prove it. I did not make the claim though, you did. Can you prove it? See, I know it is wrong but it is stated so matter of factly that what choice do I have but to question any other claim you make?

So far when I have asked for proof of something I have gotten two distinct types of responses.
1)The people claiming he was born in Hawaii have offered up relevant links to what they considered valid proof of something.
2)The people claiming he was not born in Hawaii have "accidentally" linked to the "wrong" thing 6 times.

This really makes this entire issue look like a made up farce used to confuse and distract. If that is so, how sad it would be to fall for it. If not, why is getting a link to some honest facts so hard?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I have never, never, ever, not once said anything to the contrary.

As far as what a natural born citizen is, I believe it is a person born in the US. Or someone born to US citizen and resident parents who are traveling outside the US when the child is born. I could be wrong, but no one has shown me anything that compels me to believe otherwise.

I know that you haven't said otherwise, and I know that you are a patriot.

I also agree with your definition of "natural-born" and I think that was the intent of the language, but in this day and age, if it came out that he was born in Kenya, don't you think it would be a very effective and messy argument that multi-million dollar lawyers and the nations highest court would be embattled in for ages?

Does "natural-born" still mean what it meant in 1787? I think not.

If it can be argued that the restrictive language is outdated because of modern advancements in medicine, and Supreme Court justices have already called the Constitution a "living document" meaning that it is up for modern interpretation and not to be taken at literally. If that can be argued, then it can be argued that he is indeed as natural of a citizen as any other child born unnaturally. It may not win, but it can be argued pretty effectively. They could argue that military bases are not proper places for birth of a president. Or that a number of our past presidents were not born in areas that had received statehood at the time of their birth.

I am all for the truth. I could care less which side wins, I just hate seeing some people argue so passionately for Obama without questioning a story with obvious holes? Maybe they can all be explained away. Great. Lets see the State Department or the Administration give a full-disclosure type statement that satisfies everyone.

reply to post by getreadyalready


although she may have been curtailed by higher forces.

Also, these people know when theres a line to cross. They usually dont out of mutual respect for not having each candidates dirtiest secrets aired out.

Im sure theres many things hillary wants private as well!

Originally posted by getreadyalready
If he is not Hawaiian, then he is not American?

Hawaiian, the ethnicity. NATIVE Hawaiian. For Homesteading purposes.

Welcome to the Hawaiian Home Lands program. The program has its roots in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, as amended. It provides native Hawaiians with several benefits that we hope will assist you and your 'ohana for generations to come. Entry into the program, however, depends largely upon you. In the course of applying for a homestead, you may find yourself embarking on a journey of discovery into your family's history. While it often takes time, for most people it is a process well worth the effort.

Source

[edit on 9/7/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

$25,000,000 if Obama will produce his "real" long-form birth certificate.



See Here - ______beforeitsnews/story/86/488/25,000,000_if_Obama_will_produce_his_real_long-form_birth_certificate..html


www.scribd.com...

Questions are like humans - None are irrelevent.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by RightyRight

 

OK. I'll step back and let them answer.

I think he means that the short form in not a complete BC and the long form is. But I could be mistaken.

Just tryin' to help.

I know and I really appreciate it. I really honestly do. It is just that if people are going to disagree with you then I would like them to show me what they want to see then. I am trying to reach a consenus on what one should look like. You think he was born in Hawaii and you showed what you would expect to see. Other people are saying that is wrong but are refusing to show what they would expect to see. I do not understand why they would argue without presenting an opposing argument but that is all I am asking now. What do the people that do not agree with you expect one to look like. I really hope you understand what I am asking now and that I did appreciate all your effort.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I am really sorry but I do not see any proof of any of the claims you made. What I see is you pretending to not know how to link to things and posting huge quotes of ramblings out of context that do not claim what you claim they claim.

Please do not bother responding to me anymore as I do not really have any use for that type of tactic.

If you ever get to the point where you understand how to link to things and you come up with real proof of the things you are saying, we may have an interesting conversation. Until then, you just keep saying things and then posting non-proof of those claims. That has gotten old fast.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Are you saying that the proof he provided is enough to make him president, but not enough to buy land in Hawaii as a citizen of that state?

That doesn't even make any sense.

Its like Native Americans -- you have to prove your Ethnic Hawaiian heritage.

Originally posted by RightyRight

Originally posted by Mythkiller
When Obama traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s, conditions there, as well as American/Pakistani relations, were such that American citizens were prohibited from traveling to Pakistan. Under what citizenship did he travel? Indonesian? Kenyan?

Now I know for a fact that is just not true and yes I can prove it. I did not make the claim though, you did. Can you prove it? See, I know it is wrong but it is stated so matter of factly that what choice do I have but to question any other claim you make?

So far when I have asked for proof of something I have gotten two distinct types of responses.
1)The people claiming he was born in Hawaii have offered up relevant links to what they considered valid proof of something.
2)The people claiming he was not born in Hawaii have "accidentally" linked to the "wrong" thing 6 times.

This really makes this entire issue look like a made up farce used to confuse and distract. If that is so, how sad it would be to fall for it. If not, why is getting a link to some honest facts so hard?

I'm sorry, but what part is not true?

You certainly do seem "confused and distracted"...do some research for yourself.