Obama's Birth certificate: Hawaii Governor Abercrombie's Birther mission

Originally posted by LazerTron
So, when 99% of the public thought that the earth was flat...maybe we should have gone along with their opinion that had absolutely no evidence to back it up???

what a narrow-minded statement ... 99% of Europe, maybe. why do ppl tend to forget, they are/were not the Only occupants of this world at any time?

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Know what is funny about Panama and Hawaii? Only one is a US state.

you know what's funny about your posts?? that you might actually believe it !!!
Panama and every other US military installation is universally considered US territory ... nice try though ... and btw, the Panama territory existed long before Hawai'i joined the US as a state. Which was, coincidentally, less than 18 months before the 'birth' in question. (1959)

I find it rather disheartening that many of you younger folk frequently forget or ignore the simple fact that many of us 'questioning' Obamas eligibility have been citizens of this country longer than Hawaii has been a state, many have fought in 2 or more wars, countless conflicts and sacrificed their lives / body parts to defend their right to demand and receive such information. The least Obama could do is honor them. Especially while commanding 2 conflicts. imho, this Obama person is a disgrace to the office of POTUS and is in dereliction of his duty to the citizens of this country.

Originally posted by Honor93
but the Real ID program which is a Congressional action does. If i have to present it upon request, so does Obama.

No it does not, another truther lie!

true, at least Not proven it to this voting American

But as Obama is black, nothing he does will prove it to you!

but the 'natural born' stipulation still stands and with Real ID in effect, there is no better or other method employed or currently being applied in any US territory.

And by showing his birth certificate Obama has shown he was naturally born in the USA.... why ignore that?

we are requesting Proof of an outstanding claim ... that Obama is a natural born citizen of America with loyalties to No other country, government, establishment or entity. As the Constitution requires.

Which Obama HAS done, but again you ignore it!

it proves nothing more than a birth was Registered in Hawai'i, and that's only if the presented document is authentic

another birther lie, it shows he was born in Hawaii, but again you ignore that.

NO ONE has confirmed or proven or even hinted that Obama was born on any Hawaiian island or any American territory

yet more birther lies, his Hawaiin birth certificate show he was born in Hawaii.... but you ignore that fact as it totally destroys your silly conspiracy theory!

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Know what is funny about Panama and Hawaii? Only one is a US state.

you know what's funny about your posts?? that you might actually believe it !!!

Panama and every other US military installation is universally considered US territory ... nice try though ...

Yawn. Panama is NOT universally considered US territory. The US property in Panama is. How many hospitals are on that property and which one was McCain born in? Oh, right. Congress declared him eligible so we would not have to worry about it.

That is funny.

reply to post by dereks

No it does not, another truther lie!

childish, nonsensical rant ... -0- substance

But as Obama is black, nothing he does will prove it to you!

but Obama is also white, so prove it, just prove it ... don't be a stooge, just prove it ... one piece of paper, that's all we ask ... come on Obama, ... just prove it already ... enough of this baloney.

And by showing his birth certificate Obama has shown he was naturally born in the USA

source please, i've seen no such thing. Proof of birth registry is just that, nothing more.

another birther lie, it shows he was born in Hawaii, but again you ignore that.

if you are harping about the form made public, it is proof of no such thing. It shows his birth was Registered in HI ... that is ALL it proves, IF it's legit.

his Hawaiin birth certificate

-- source please. i have examined the offering provided to the public then, and, i am curiously researching the Second one that has made an appearance of late. Why two? which one have you seen? they have different borders, different dates and other anomalies which seem to lead to more questions. tis a shame that you wear your blinders so tightly.

Originally posted by Honor93
looked for any such link and didn't see one ... please post it again.

The link is there. No straightforward guideline is mentioned in the constitution, only congress has the power to remove or deal with the president if eligibility is the issue. The president or any candidate running for president is not obligated to release a long form birth certificate as evidence. Congress deals with eligibility how it sees fit and has done so for years, this is why the vast majority of presidents have not bothered to released their birth certificates in public.

true, but the Real ID program which is a Congressional action does.

The real ID act of 2005 focuses mostly on foreigners or immigrants coming into this country, and it makes no mention of "long form birth certificates". It has absolutely no relevance to presidential eligibility.

this occurs AFTER the election

If you were at all fimiliar with the constitution you would understand that the general elections of November is in no way the final decider for the presidency. The electoral college and congress is left to confirm a president in place, this is why we have a Republic, not a Direct Democracy. Once again the constitution does not leave matters of eligibility to any specific group, is does however leave the power of that requirement and impeachment to congress. December 15th of every election year is the next step to the election process.

and they also have the power to question his claim, even after the election, as they are now.

I'm glad you got my point, they do have the power to question, infact they have the power to require the president of his long form birth certificate (if one exists at all). They have that chance on December 15th, the Democrats had that chance, the Republicans had that chance, the electors had that chance, and what happened?

We have known Barack Obama will become the nation's 44th president since Election Night, but now it's official. The Electoral College voters cast their ballots in state capitals today, fulfilling their ceremonial but very important role as laid out by the Constitution.

But this is actually not the last step in the process. Congress will still have to confirm the results at a joint session scheduled for Jan. 6. Mr. Obama will then be sworn in as the country's first black president on Jan. 20 at noon.

www.cbsnews.com...

He was confirmed president on December 15th, 2008, by the electoral college and congress. Nobody of relevance objected during that process when they actually had a chance. This link you referenced be is dated April 2009. First of all it was more than four months later for the December 15th confirmation of the president, second of all the guy who wrote it was a lawyer. He was not anybody of relevance to DC. He was not a senator nor an elector. Just another person going on about a lawsuit, and boy what a waste of space and words.

Why on earth did you reference me this letter of a lawyer to make a point about electors or senators objecting on december 15? It has no relation to that day. If I wanted to hear somebody write a long whiny letter about the president and his eligibility, I would have asked for it.

i may have one, i may have none. i may have several, what Does it matter?

It does matter. If you are arguing about the presidents eligibility in relation to the constitution, you'd be spending your time actually referencing where in the constitution or in previous court cases, yet you've done none of the such.

again, wrong step in the process ... confirmation occurs after the election.

And again the general elections are not the final step the president being elected. If we were a direct democracy, not a Republic, you'd have a point, but you don't. You are clearly confused as to the difference between the two.

wrong by assumption ... the Speaker of the House of Representatives (Pelosi/Boehner elect) is the ONLY Congressperson who can initiate Articles of Impeachment, no other Congressional person and no member of the Senate. (hence, Congress)
Isn't it amazing that the most likely person (Pelosi) responsible for the 'altering' of the document in question,

Altering the document? And yes congress itself can still remove pelosi and they can still object to the president, none of which has been done. Now as you stated, Pelosi holds authority over the matter, to which she is a member of congress. She did not object to it, so this solves that issue for you, regardless of what political issues you may hold for her.

where was her respect for our military?

Supporting wars of lies is being disrespectful to the military huh? Yes I know her attempts to block funding to the Iraq war and so forth has been borthersom to people like you. That and allowing american citizens to serve their country regardless of their sexuality. I dare you to go run that tone in a seperate thread and see the kind of support you'll get on this forum.

Certainly not in the best interests of Americans or American soldiers.

And what is the best interest of american soldiers? Fighting for corporations in foreign lands? Really? Explain to us further this point of yours, please.

yea, how nice it was to do business on a hand shake ... once upon a time, honesty and integrity

How can a person be honest to somebody like you if you continiously refuse to believe them let alone the documents they present? You demand Obama release more documents to you including his long form birth certificate (most of which other presidents had not) and while you're at it, you insist you merely seek "honesty". Right.

It'd be great to get alittle more honesty from birthers once in a while. They consist of mostly a bunch of hiding racists and partisans who cannot man or woman up to what their true feelings are. This is why they cannot seem to gather anything further than speculation and questions.

Actually, the Founding documents (the Federalist papers) clarify the concept quite clearly.

Where? Please reference them for us here.

He, Obama, presented nothing ...

President Obama, (yes he is the president now and has been for 2 years), was not obligated to present anything to the public itself. His eligibility, as with the previous 43 presidents, was dealt with by congress and her members. Obama did present his short form birth certificate and Hawaiian officials did verify his birth there along with two announcements in the newspaper. The president has done more so than most other presidents.

If you are to insist that this president has not proven his eligibility, I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and actually come up with all 43 birth certificates and state verifications of the previous 43 presidents, k?

An 'official of the State of Hawai'i' verified the birth record is valid (birth was registered) ... NO ONE has confirmed or proven or even hinted that Obama was born on any Hawaiian island or any American territory.

For the record:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital
records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama
was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement
or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

hawaii.gov...

Now if you are demanding that somebody personally show you proof of Obama's birth, you'd need a time machine, or somebody who actually took a picture of Obama being born. But on a serious note, if that is really what you demand, then you are really being full of it and I'd suggest you fess up and tell us your real issue with the man in the whitehouse.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Know what is funny about Panama and Hawaii? Only one is a US state.

you know what's funny about your posts?? that you might actually believe it !!!

Panama and every other US military installation is universally considered US territory ... nice try though ...

Yawn. Panama is NOT universally considered US territory. The US property in Panama is. How many hospitals are on that property and which one was McCain born in? Oh, right. Congress declared him eligible so we would not have to worry about it.

That is funny.

don't play word games with me, i said Panama and 'every other military installation' ... which is where McCain was born. Not in Panama necessarily, but on US Territory in Panama.
McCain isn't the POTUS so no ... it is not a concern ... quit trying to make it one ... lame is an under-statement.
And yes, after Congressional hearings, he passed ... where were those hearings for Obama??? why none for him?? is he special or something? or right, he's black and white ... must be an AA thing. (for the youngins out there, that's Affirmative Action ... google it)

Originally posted by Honor93
don't play word games with me, i said Panama and 'every other military installation' ... which is where McCain was born. Not in Panama necessarily, but on US Territory in Panama.

No word games. You seem to think Panama is a military installation. It is not. There is one there.

McCain isn't the POTUS so no ... it is not a concern ... quit trying to make it one ... lame is an under-statement.

I was not the one that brought him up here.

And yes, after Congressional hearings, he passed ... where were those hearings for Obama??? why none for him?? is he special or something? or right, he's black and white ... must be an AA thing. (for the youngins out there, that's Affirmative Action ... google it)

This is easy. Obama was born in the USA, McCain was not. We just went over this. I forgot, these arguments are nothing but "we just went over this."

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Honor93
looked for any such link and didn't see one ... please post it again.

The link is there. No straightforward guideline is mentioned in the constitution, only congress has the power to remove or deal with the president if eligibility is the issue. The president or any candidate running for president is not obligated to release a long form birth certificate as evidence. Congress deals with eligibility how it sees fit and has done so for years, this is why the vast majority of presidents have not bothered to released their birth certificates in public.

true, but the Real ID program which is a Congressional action does.

The real ID act of 2005 focuses mostly on foreigners or immigrants coming into this country, and it makes no mention of "long form birth certificates". It has absolutely no relevance to presidential eligibility.

this occurs AFTER the election

If you were at all fimiliar with the constitution you would understand that the general elections of November is in no way the final decider for the presidency. The electoral college and congress is left to confirm a president in place, this is why we have a Republic, not a Direct Democracy. Once again the constitution does not leave matters of eligibility to any specific group, is does however leave the power of that requirement and impeachment to congress. December 15th of every election year is the next step to the election process.

and they also have the power to question his claim, even after the election, as they are now.

I'm glad you got my point, they do have the power to question, infact they have the power to require the president of his long form birth certificate (if one exists at all). They have that chance on December 15th, the Democrats had that chance, the Republicans had that chance, the electors had that chance, and what happened?

We have known Barack Obama will become the nation's 44th president since Election Night, but now it's official. The Electoral College voters cast their ballots in state capitals today, fulfilling their ceremonial but very important role as laid out by the Constitution.

But this is actually not the last step in the process. Congress will still have to confirm the results at a joint session scheduled for Jan. 6. Mr. Obama will then be sworn in as the country's first black president on Jan. 20 at noon.

www.cbsnews.com...

He was confirmed president on December 15th, 2008, by the electoral college and congress. Nobody of relevance objected during that process when they actually had a chance. This link you referenced be is dated April 2009. First of all it was more than four months later for the December 15th confirmation of the president, second of all the guy who wrote it was a lawyer. He was not anybody of relevance to DC. He was not a senator nor an elector. Just another person going on about a lawsuit, and boy what a waste of space and words.

Why on earth did you reference me this letter of a lawyer to make a point about electors or senators objecting on december 15? It has no relation to that day. If I wanted to hear somebody write a long whiny letter about the president and his eligibility, I would have asked for it.

i may have one, i may have none. i may have several, what Does it matter?

It does matter. If you are arguing about the presidents eligibility in relation to the constitution, you'd be spending your time actually referencing where in the constitution or in previous court cases, yet you've done none of the such.

again, wrong step in the process ... confirmation occurs after the election.

And again the general elections are not the final step the president being elected. If we were a direct democracy, not a Republic, you'd have a point, but you don't. You are clearly confused as to the difference between the two.

wrong by assumption ... the Speaker of the House of Representatives (Pelosi/Boehner elect) is the ONLY Congressperson who can initiate Articles of Impeachment, no other Congressional person and no member of the Senate. (hence, Congress)
Isn't it amazing that the most likely person (Pelosi) responsible for the 'altering' of the document in question,

Altering the document? And yes congress itself can still remove pelosi and they can still object to the president, none of which has been done. Now as you stated, Pelosi holds authority over the matter, to which she is a member of congress. She did not object to it, so this solves that issue for you, regardless of what political issues you may hold for her.

where was her respect for our military?

Supporting wars of lies is being disrespectful to the military huh? Yes I know her attempts to block funding to the Iraq war and so forth has been borthersom to people like you. That and allowing american citizens to serve their country regardless of their sexuality. I dare you to go run that tone in a seperate thread and see the kind of support you'll get on this forum.

Certainly not in the best interests of Americans or American soldiers.

And what is the best interest of american soldiers? Fighting for corporations in foreign lands? Really? Explain to us further this point of yours, please.

yea, how nice it was to do business on a hand shake ... once upon a time, honesty and integrity

How can a person be honest to somebody like you if you continiously refuse to believe them let alone the documents they present? You demand Obama release more documents to you including his long form birth certificate (most of which other presidents had not) and while you're at it, you insist you merely seek "honesty". Right.

It'd be great to get alittle more honesty from birthers once in a while. They consist of mostly a bunch of hiding racists and partisans who cannot man or woman up to what their true feelings are. This is why they cannot seem to gather anything further than speculation and questions.

Actually, the Founding documents (the Federalist papers) clarify the concept quite clearly.

Where? Please reference them for us here.

He, Obama, presented nothing ...

President Obama, (yes he is the president now and has been for 2 years), was not obligated to present anything to the public itself. His eligibility, as with the previous 43 presidents, was dealt with by congress and her members. Obama did present his short form birth certificate and Hawaiian officials did verify his birth there along with two announcements in the newspaper. The president has done more so than most other presidents.

If you are to insist that this president has not proven his eligibility, I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and actually come up with all 43 birth certificates and state verifications of the previous 43 presidents, k?

An 'official of the State of Hawai'i' verified the birth record is valid (birth was registered) ... NO ONE has confirmed or proven or even hinted that Obama was born on any Hawaiian island or any American territory.

For the record:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital
records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama
was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement
or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

hawaii.gov...

Now if you are demanding that somebody personally show you proof of Obama's birth, you'd need a time machine, or somebody who actually took a picture of Obama being born. But on a serious note, if that is really what you demand, then you are really being full of it and I'd suggest you fess up and tell us your real issue with the man in the whitehouse.

No straightforward guideline is mentioned in the constitution

try the preamble and every Article thereafter, yes, it is. No, it's isn't spelled out for the lame observers but if you read and comprehend it, it is clear.
The rest of the comment doesn't deserve a response ... you are imagining history that did not occur.

Actually, i'm not surfing for your non-existent prvs link, you won't share, don't reference it.
I am not arguing Real ID with you, the parameters of the program are quite specific and i was personally subjected to the 'requirements' in 2008 ... you? It applies to every citizen or person traversing our soil.

you speak as though a missed opportunity is lost forever ... i disagree.
look i've been voting for probably more years than you are old, please save your lessons for someone less educated, because you are confused.

the electoral college has never 'questioned' any elected POTUS that late in the game, it is unprecedented. The time to inquire was during nomination, not election. Mistakes were made, this has been nationally accepted, why are you making it seem impossible to correct them? which, isn't impossible if the country unites in their demand for disclosure.

i am not sure which link you refer (lawyer letter) ... i am involved in more than one conversation and regarding the electoral college, "fulfilling their ceremonial" duty ... is hardly any opportunity to object. I believe the link was in regard to 'no one' questioned him or something like that. (need more detail)

i am not a lawyer, why would i argue court cases? i am a citizen who rightfully demands sufficient confirmation of a mere 'claim'. besides, my motive(s) are really none of your concern. no point trying to make it so.

none of which has been done

are u nuts?? Pelosi is OUT and Boehner is in ... times are a changing. and just which do you reside in? Democracy, Republic or Democratic Republic???

not following your attack regarding Pelosi ... what does DADT have to do with this conversation?
i think you've taken a rather big detour there and a pointless one a that.

And what is the best interest of american soldiers? Fighting for corporations in foreign lands? Really? Explain to us further this point of yours, please.

too many assumptions in this to comment ... best interest? defending America and Americans, period.

How can a person be honest to somebody like you if you continiously refuse to believe them let alone the documents they present? You demand Obama release more documents to you including his long form birth certificate (most of which other presidents had not) and while you're at it, you insist you merely seek "honesty". Right

the same way a minor buys tobacco and alcohol at a haji/convenience store. fake IDs work well when presented properly. just because something says so, am i supposed to believe it?? or trust my instincts? don't know about you, but i was taught to trust my instincts, always ... hence, the unanswered questions.

This is why many 'birthers' refuse to engage opposing opinions, no matter how many ways the circumstances of the issue are relayed, you refuse to doubt your messiah or the participants who assisted with his placement.

Federalist papers can be found at this source (and many others) however, no, i'm not copy/pasting them for you ... do your own homework ... www.constitution.org

Don't go claiming he is my President, you are mistaken. I did not vote for him and i am not a citizen of DC, i am a sovereign citizen of America.

The only form presented publicly was a short form verifying the birth registry of Barack Obama ... that is not an acceptable form of verification. Not for any American, anywhere, anymore.
Newspaper announcements prove Nothing ... a child was born, nothing more, big deal. I can announce any childs birth in any newspaper in any place in the world ... could then too. it is an announcement, that's all.

I can also announce the Korean Peninsula is at war, in any paper, any where ... does it make it so?

Fukino ??? the removed mouth-piece, yep that's a good source. payment must have been good.
but since you quoted her ... this says all ... "have seen the original vital records maintained on file". She should have been more careful with her noun(s). One long-form is a vital record. Multiple documents supporting the birth claim=vital records ... which were required for all foreign born registered births in HI, 1961.
hey, she said it, not me. and that's not the only problem with her actions as has been documented prvsly in this thread.

why would i fess up to anything? what do you think i'm hiding? what do you think is my Motive? you are sooooo full of useless facts, please share some more.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Honor93
don't play word games with me, i said Panama and 'every other military installation' ... which is where McCain was born. Not in Panama necessarily, but on US Territory in Panama.

No word games. You seem to think Panama is a military installation. It is not. There is one there.

McCain isn't the POTUS so no ... it is not a concern ... quit trying to make it one ... lame is an under-statement.

I was not the one that brought him up here.

And yes, after Congressional hearings, he passed ... where were those hearings for Obama??? why none for him?? is he special or something? or right, he's black and white ... must be an AA thing. (for the youngins out there, that's Affirmative Action ... google it)

This is easy. Obama was born in the USA, McCain was not. We just went over this. I forgot, these arguments are nothing but "we just went over this."

your inability to comprehend basic English is not my problem.
I would be happy to clarify what you do not understand as my English may be less than formal.
However, do not make the mistake of interpreting for me, i did not even imply that Panama was a military installation ... you did. you asked where McCain was born ... and, Panama is the correct answer whether you agree or not.

I was not the one that brought him up here.

while this may be true, neither did i, however, i was answering Your question about his birthplace. So, who brought him up in Our conversation?

Ocama claims to be born in the USA, no proof provided (for 2+ yrs) ... still bucking requests.
McCain admits Panama birth (on US territory) and proved it with quite a Congressional fuss, official birth record (in its entirety) and full Congressional approval. Obama, not so much.
geeeeesh, i thought we just went over this.

Originally posted by Honor93
your inability to comprehend basic English is not my problem.

This should be stunning.

I would be happy to clarify what you do not understand as my English may be less than formal.

By formal do you mean "correct?"

However, do not make the mistake of interpreting for me, i did not even imply that Panama was a military installation ... you did.

No, you did.

Originally posted by Honor93
Panama and every other US military installation is universally considered US territory

Twice no less.

you asked where McCain was born ...

Which hospital did you say he was born in? I must have missed that answer.

and, Panama is the correct answer whether you agree or not.

I did in fact state he was born in Panama. Are you really trying to say I cannot read?

I was not the one that brought him up here.

while this may be true, neither did i, however, i was answering Your question about his birthplace. So, who brought him up in Our conversation?

Really? Make some sense.

Ocama claims to be born in the USA, no proof provided (for 2+ yrs) ... still bucking requests.

He has provided proof, you just refuse to accept it. Nothing is going to help you with that but time.

McCain admits Panama birth (on US territory) and proved it with quite a Congressional fuss, official birth record (in its entirety) and full Congressional approval.

So which hospital was he born in again?

Obama, not so much.

Being born in the US will do that.

geeeeesh, i thought we just went over this.

I guess you needed a review.

This whole thread is a review. There is not one new argument here for the birther movement and not one valid argument. You are all just repeating the same old debunked lies to each other. That is fine by me. The only ones believing it are you guys and you already believe it so...no loss, no gain here.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Honor93
your inability to comprehend basic English is not my problem.

This should be stunning.

I would be happy to clarify what you do not understand as my English may be less than formal.

By formal do you mean "correct?"

However, do not make the mistake of interpreting for me, i did not even imply that Panama was a military installation ... you did.

No, you did.

Originally posted by Honor93
Panama and every other US military installation is universally considered US territory

Twice no less.

you asked where McCain was born ...

Which hospital did you say he was born in? I must have missed that answer.

and, Panama is the correct answer whether you agree or not.

I did in fact state he was born in Panama. Are you really trying to say I cannot read?

I was not the one that brought him up here.

while this may be true, neither did i, however, i was answering Your question about his birthplace. So, who brought him up in Our conversation?

Really? Make some sense.

Ocama claims to be born in the USA, no proof provided (for 2+ yrs) ... still bucking requests.

He has provided proof, you just refuse to accept it. Nothing is going to help you with that but time.

McCain admits Panama birth (on US territory) and proved it with quite a Congressional fuss, official birth record (in its entirety) and full Congressional approval.

So which hospital was he born in again?

Obama, not so much.

Being born in the US will do that.

geeeeesh, i thought we just went over this.

I guess you needed a review.

This whole thread is a review. There is not one new argument here for the birther movement and not one valid argument. You are all just repeating the same old debunked lies to each other. That is fine by me. The only ones believing it are you guys and you already believe it so...no loss, no gain here.

ok, clearly English is not your strong suit, so allow me to clarify for you.
"Panama and every other military installation" ... now, which part of the military installation in Panama encompasses the whole country or has you confused?
formal = correct ?? not in any dictionary ever printed.
i didn't mentioned any hospitals ... not regarding McCain or Obama ... you asked that question without any prompting from me.
never mentioned your ability to read, just noted you poor comprehension.

So, who brought him up in Our conversation?

typical, avoid answering a direct question because it may incriminate You ... classic Obama training.

So which hospital was he born in again?

mega fail ... irrelevant ... you just won't let it go, will you? either way, you'll get no answer from me, i don't care to know, i don't care to remember and i don't care because McCain is Not POTUS.

No adequate proof of any kind has been provided. That you accept the fake ID at face value is repulsive.
who are you to fail any thread? seem like just an instigator to me ... you provide no dialogue, no substance, no fresh outlook in your commentary, is that why you deem it a fail? just curious.

There is not one standing, valuable, acceptable shred of evidence that Obama is anything he claims to be. The puppet needs to cut his strings and bow out.

Originally posted by Honor93
ok, clearly English is not your strong suit, so allow me to clarify for you.
"Panama and every other military installation" ... now, which part of the military installation in Panama encompasses the whole country or has you confused?

You are amazing. Do you understand the phrase/conjunction relationship in that sentence? It clearly states Panama + OTHER installations. Your sentence says Panama is a millitary installation. I am sorry that is such a petty thing but hey, you want to drive it into the ground, go for it.

formal = correct ?? not in any dictionary ever printed.

None of mine either so I guess you used it incorrectly.

i didn't mentioned any hospitals ... not regarding McCain or Obama ... you asked that question without any prompting from me.

I asked what hospital McCain was born in. You said I asked where he was born and that you answered Panama. I never asked where he was born. I knew he was born in Panama. I only asked what hospital. What are you reading?

never mentioned your ability to read, just noted you poor comprehension.

Yes, my reading comprehension. Wow.

typical, avoid answering a direct question because it may incriminate You ... classic Obama training.

I was not avoiding anything. Of course I brought him up in OUR conversation because you started yapping at me after I responded to someone else about McCain. I thought that was pretty obvious.

mega fail ... irrelevant ... you just won't let it go, will you? either way, you'll get no answer from me, i don't care to know, i don't care to remember and i don't care because McCain is Not POTUS.

If you are going to try and tell me that McCain did indeed do all the things he needed to do in order to qualify as president then he did everything you expect Obama to do. It is really simple. So, what hospital was he born in? Maybe you do not know because McCain in fact did not do everything you expect Obama to do as has been claimed here.

No adequate proof of any kind has been provided.

Nothing ever will be to you and you know it.

That you accept the fake ID at face value is repulsive.

Fake ID? When did anyone ever expose any fake ID? Seems like you just made that up.

who are you to fail any thread?

When did I ever "fail a thread?" I do not even know what that means.

seem like just an instigator to me ...

Ditto.

you provide no dialogue, no substance, no fresh outlook in your commentary, is that why you deem it a fail? just curious.

Who are you talking to? What "fail?"
As far as offering up something new? How about the birthers come up with something new? 2 years on the same debunked crap and you want me to come up with something new? The proof is all there. It will not get "more proofy."

There is not one standing, valuable, acceptable shred of evidence that Obama is anything he claims to be. The puppet needs to cut his strings and bow out.

You know what they say about opinions.

Originally posted by Honor93
try the preamble and every Article thereafter, yes, it is.

What about the preamble? Reference a link as to where it mentions anything about natural born citizenship and the eligibility of the president. I am not interested in your nationalistic nonsense, just facts.

Actually, i'm not surfing for your non-existent prvs link,

So in otherwords, you insist this president is not a natural born citizen, has not sufficiently proven eligibility, and you have nothing to show for it?

I am not arguing Real ID with you,

So you brought the Real ID act up, but you refuse to reference anything of relevance from it?

you speak as though a missed opportunity is lost forever

Oh no, I never said the opportunity was lost forever. I said his requirement for meeting eligibility for the president has come and went. If somebody such as yourself was to prove that he was infact born off US soil then undoubtedly you'd have a case on your hands.

look i've been voting for probably more years than you are old

I'm not concerned about how old you are, this is not what this thread is about. If you were well and truly concerned about the constitution and this president respecting it, you'd be spending more of your time actually debating facts.

the electoral college has never 'questioned' any elected POTUS that late in the game,

And? That still does not change the traditional constitutional process wherein the electors have that opportunity. December 15th of 2008 came, they did not object, Obama was elected president, that was more then two years ago. I know it's hard for you.

Mistakes were made,

What mistakes?

i am not sure which link you refer (lawyer letter) ... i am involved in more than one conversation and regarding the electoral college, "fulfilling their ceremonial" duty ... is hardly any opportunity to object. I believe the link was in regard to 'no one' questioned him or something like that.

If thats the case that letter shows how far adrift the birther movement has become. It is 2011 now, that letter was written in 2009, we've had 71 birther lawsuits since then that were dropped. If people like you intend to continue whining on this forum about speculation and questions you gathered up out of thin air, be my guest, but it is evidently getting you no where.

If you well and truly believe this president is not constitutionally eligible, you'd be gathering actual evidence.

i am a citizen who rightfully demands sufficient confirmation of a mere 'claim'.

I'm a citizen as well, and I don't see any reason to go further into this issue. I see this president having presented his birth certificate, further verified by state authorities. I've seen this man go further in proving his eligibility to the public then any other president before him, and I tell ya, aside from Reagan and Obama, I had not seen another presidents birth certificate.

Now imagine that the president had to stop his work and go out of his way to prove to every disgruntled citizen in this country that he was born here. How does tha work? Or do you draw the line on how many citizens can gain that privilage? It doesnt work that way.

are u nuts?? Pelosi is OUT and Boehner is in ... times are a changing.

With Boehner? The man who supported the Iraq war, pushed for the patriot act, and insisting on carrying on the Bush tax cuts? What's changing? Boehner confirmed his continued support for medicare aswell, socialized healthcare. What is changing again? Go figure, you must have been sleep the whole time Boehner and his buddies have served in congress of the years. Either asleep, or accepting.

and just which do you reside in? Democracy, Republic or Democratic Republic???

I do not believe in mob rule, something you clearly advocate.

defending America and Americans, period.

Over what? Be specific please? What did Mrs Pelosi do to endanger or strip the military? Because from reading the history, she's gone no further that halting further billions from going into unnecessary wars or military growth.

Please, exolain further.

the same way a minor buys tobacco and alcohol at a haji/convenience store. fake IDs work well when presented properly.

Thats true, unless that person took the fake ID toward getting a passport and did a backround check of him as well along with ID experts. I doubt even a good fake would solve that issue.

You make as if the eligibility process is that straightforward. What do you take this government for? Really?

just because something says so, am i supposed to believe it?? or trust my instincts?

You had no problem using it time and time before. And you know what? The truth is neither you nor I will know outright about the process of government. It is something we have lived with and will live with for some time to comee. You cannot just get up and make it an issue when it suits your personal agenda.

This is why many 'birthers' refuse to engage opposing opinions,

I have no problem with your personal opinions, I just have a problem when you use your opinions as evidence to discredit somebody. That is dishonesty.

Don't go claiming he is my President, you are mistaken.

No I am not mistaken. So long as you live in this country, he will be your president regardless. It's not good to live in denial, it pushes you further away from reality. Bush was my president for 8years, I didn't like him at all, didn't support him, but he was the president of my country.

i am a sovereign citizen of America.

Ah yes that sovereign citizen hogwash. Lovely.

The only form presented publicly was a short form verifying the birth registry of Barack Obama ... that is not an acceptable form of verification.

Who? By your standards? Ok. Lets imagine, for a second, that in order to become president you had to have your original long form birthcertificate. Now, how many Americans would be eligible for the presidency? Out of all the 44 presidents, I saw birth certificates from Obama and Reagan. Reagans birth certificate was registered in 1942, Reagan was born in 1911. Other presidents? Have not seen their original long forms. Let's take a real life example, I still supposedly have my old birth certificate, I have never for the life of me used it as evidence for anything. My friends? I asked two of my friends one day about it, none of them have theirs. My family? none of my relatives have their long form birth certificate. My cousin enthusiastically raised her hand to me and told me she had her original long form birth certificate. I had a look at it, it was registered 12 years after her birth. It was not her long form birth certificate.

Remeber Lakin? That military man in one of those eligibility lawsuits? Yes, I'm am sure you are are well aware of the man. He demanded (like you) for Barack Obama to show his birth certificate and as evidence of his point he decided to present his long form birth certificate. His was registered and created in 1992. Was Lakin 17 years old at the time?

This is in part why there are no straightforward requirements for presidential candidates to show their long form birth certificate. It makes no sense to put that as a requirement, neither does it make sense in some of these arguments that you need one to go to the DMV. That is simply a lie from personal experience.

Newspaper announcements prove Nothing ... a child was born, nothing more, big deal.

Typically its not a big deal. But we can assume that the pregnant 18year old Mrs Dunham rushed to Kenya to see how fast she could fly back and list her babys birth. Gotcha.

Fukino ??? the removed mouth-piece, yep that's a good source. payment must have been good.

Ah yes, so you have the centerpoint authority on Hawaian birth certificates and births, and you go ahead an assume she's been paid out. Yep, nobody will change your mind.

Please go on, I'm loving this.

Originally posted by dragonseeker
reply to post by wcitizen

 

HE DID. Is the whole world crazy????????? HE DID. His identity was verified before he ever took office as president, or do you think the illinois state senate just hires people off the street?? GAH!!!!

edit on 3-1-2011 by dragonseeker because: (no reason given)

Who verified his birth status?

Originally posted by wcitizen
Who verified his birth status?

Anybody who looked at his birth certificate that is posted online - even YOU can do it!! But that would destroy the conspiracy....

Originally posted by wcitizen

Who verified his birth status?

I think lots of people but for the sake of this thread I will go on record as saying that I have in fact confirmed that Obama was born.

All challenges to that claim welcome.

Honor ... Don't you have a clan rally to attend?

You brought up affirmative action... What was your connection? I would make an assumption, but your entire reply would center on my assumption...

Then you refer to a store owner as a "haji"... What exactly is your definition of haji?

You motives are evident, your arguments are absurd and irresponsible, and frankly your a racist.

It's obvious Obama is concealing the truth of his place of birth. The racist Marxists want everyone to shut up and just believe their Messiah without question. His skin is dark so he isn't applicable to laws that others are bound by. He never released his Birth Certificate. We only know his faither was a Kenyan Muslim, and he grew up in Muslim Indonesia. I don't know if he was born in Hawaii or not, but the question is why does he not release his birth certificate if he is not hiding something?

Originally posted by tom502
but the question is why does he not release his birth certificate if he is not hiding something?

Another silly birther who has not realised that in fact Obama HAS released hisd birth certificate....