Here is proof that Obama has not released his long form birth certificate yet

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

For full citizenship one must be born in the US fully and cannot be born on foreign soil. Military and Diplomat families is the only exception.

Not according to this immigration law website...

What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?

Again, children born abroad to two US citizen parents were US citizens at birth, as long as one of the parents resided in the US at some point before the birth of the child.

When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14. An exception for people serving in the military was created by considering time spent outside the US on military duty as time spent in the US.

While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship, amendments since 1952 have eliminated these requirements.

Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother were US citizens if the mother was resident in the US for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child. Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen father acquired US citizenship only if legitimated before turning 21.

The ABC’s of Immigration: Citizenship Rules for People Born Outside the United States



So according to that, even if Obama were born in Kenya he would be eligible for President since as far as I've heard his mother never left the US before he was born, she would have fulfilled the 10 year requirement.

So, if this is the case, and even if he were born in Kenya he would be eligible, does it still matter?

And...it also doesn't imply the years have to be consecutive, so in any event I think the birther argument is moot. And a tool to divide the country.

It seems to have worked quite well.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

I disagree. The neoconservatives didn't start this lie because he's a black man. They did it because they know that race is a wedge issue they could use to win over people with a racial bias.

This is primarily an issue of race because if it was not this would've been concluded by now but only a select few white people are keeping this going so don't try and tell me that race has nothing to do with it.

The GOPConserviBaggerNazi's are showing their true colours.

If not about his race then what is it then? His middle name which the entire Righties love to emphasize on?

Re-read my post. I'm talking about why the lie was started, not why it persists.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

I disagree. The neoconservatives didn't start this lie because he's a black man. They did it because they know that race is a wedge issue they could use to win over people with a racial bias.

Explain something to me. If Obama was a white man, how would they have used this with their knowledge that race is a wedge issue? Isn't their ability to utilze the wedge issue of race rather dependant on Obama not being white?

Um... Why would they make it an issue with race if he was white? If Obama had been white they would have made different lies up or tried to make him look like a white racist somehow so blacks wouldn't vote for him. Look what they did to Kerry.. And any other white democrat. It's not only republicans that do this either. We are suckers if we believe the propaganda.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by OldCorp
Expecting Barry's apologists to read the OP article is too much to ask apparently, because it says why the lawsuit was dismissed in the very first paragraph

This is what I wrote, and you quoted:

Originally posted by aptness
Moreover, this lawsuit wasn’t dismissed by lack of standing. Expecting birthers to read the actual decisions of the Courts they are criticizing is asking too much.

And this what you quoted from the article:

HONOLULU – A Hawaii appeals court has rejected a man's request to "inspect and copy" President Barack Obama's birth certificate, saying the plaintiff failed to state a valid claim to having access to the document.

In other words, the lawsuit was dismissed based on the merits, not standing, exactly like I stated.

I know you birthers have a propensity for emotional and knee-jerk reactions, but try and comprehend what people are saying before you respond. It’s helpful in a discussion.

It’s understandable that you prefer to think that anyone that doesn’t buy your brand of conspiracy theories is an “Obama apologist” or ‘lemming,’ but among non-Fox News viewers and non-WND readers, we’re known as rational people.

What do you think "lack of standing" means?

I swear, liberal education in this country is producing a bunch of morons who get hung up on semantics rather than use common sense. Of course since there is no proper defense for Obama's refusal to show his BC, the lack of argument for his apologists must be quite frustrating, so they cling to whatever shred they can.

No wonder our country is going down the toilet. People don't approach issues with an open mind. If I had voted for Obama, I'd be pretty upset too. He hasn't done a single thing he promised to do has he? How's that "change" working for you?

Lemme guess. It's Bush's fault - still.

Originally posted by OldCorp

I swear, liberal education in this country is producing a bunch of morons who get hung up on semantics rather than use common sense.

The irony of this statement is astounding.

He also hasn't shown his penis, I'm not sure that he is really a man.

I might also need a dna test to prove he is actually human.

His refusal to do those things shows that he obviously has something to hide.

You know why our country is going down the toilet? Because the people of the country are too worried about birth certificates and other bull# to rise up against the issues that are actually tearing our country apart.

We are too busy hating one another because they are a fag, or a liberal, or a [insert #ed up statement here] to care that we ALL are losing this "game".

So keep applying your labels to people, so that way you don't see them as actual people. And when they destroy those people's lives and rights it won't be a big deal, cause it's only liberals, or fags, or Americans.

Originally posted by OldCorp
What do you think "lack of standing" means?

I’m sure, sir, you are knowledgeable in other areas but concerning legal matters you are obviously lacking the necessary information to reasonably opine on the question at hand, let alone debate it.

In Warth v. Seldin, the Supreme Court, through Justice Powell, explicitly and plainly described the concept of standing as follows—

In essence, the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.

Standing and merit are separate matters altogether. Merit refers to a claim which has a valid basis upon the applicable law in light of the facts of a case. Standing, on the other hand, is a technical requirement necessary for a claim to even be made.

Judging from the rest of your post I am probably wasting my time since you think this crucial difference is a matter of ‘semantics,’ and the fact that you are using a Sarah Palin catch phrase helps reinforce my suspicion.

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
So according to that, even if Obama were born in Kenya he would be eligible for President since as far as I've heard his mother never left the US before he was born, she would have fulfilled the 10 year requirement.

Just a minor note on this point.

You are correct about the 10 year requirement, but not on the second condition of that provision, namely that “at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.” Obama’s mother was still 18 when Obama was born. If my calculations are correct, Obama’s mother was short by 3 months of fulfilling that condition.

That provision today, codified at 8 USC 1401(g), has been amended from five years after attaining 14 years of age, to two. So by today’s standards there would be no question as to Obama’s citizenship at birth regardless of were he was born.

That question, however, is irrelevant since the birthers have yet to present credible evidence to prove Obama wasn’t born in the United States.

When the 2012 election comes I had better see each and every candidates long form birth certificate.

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard
Um... Why would they make it an issue with race if he was white?

They wouldn't that would make no sense.

If Obama had been white they would have made different lies up or tried to make him look like a white racist somehow so blacks wouldn't vote for him.

Right, but instead they went with race, why again?

Look what they did to Kerry.. And any other white democrat. It's not only republicans that do this either. We are suckers if we believe the propaganda.

Which of your points are you really going with because you just contradicted the very argument I also contradicted.

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

I disagree. The neoconservatives didn't start this lie because he's a black man.

Try that again. Please explain to me how and why they would use his race as a wedge issue all while it having nothing to do with his race. Please please please explain it all to me.

Originally posted by OldCorp
He hasn't done a single thing he promised to do has he? How's that "change" working for you?

Lemme guess. It's Bush's fault - still.

Here are a hundred or so of those campaign promises fullfilled. He just didnt do everything he promiesed unlike all presidents before him that saved the planet like they said they would. So with your empty talking points, useless catchphrases, and concern over an already settled issue, I have to ask how the birther thing is working out for you? 1 month after Obama leaves office we better not hear one complaint about what he did while in office so long as we are never allowed to remind you people that Bush was actually in there.

You keep repeating twit tweets and looking for birth certificates that have been posted online but do it over there because at the moment you are just kind of in the way of people trying to move forward.

Originally posted by wcitizen
Has there at least been an official statement to fully address this isue? Have you heard anyone put their career and reputation on the line by stating officially that they have seen and verified the long birth certificate and have ascertained without any doubt that he is eligible?

I’m sorry for the delay, I’ve only now noticed your questions.

The answer to your questions is ‘yes’ (source)—

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.

The public have a right to have it verified, formally and officially, that he is indeed eligible to be president.

Who do you suggest do that “formal and official” verification?

Don't you think the public, who pay his wages, are entitled to have their genuine questions answered?

What does ‘genuine’ mean? That some people really believe Obama wasn’t born in the United States? That, in itself, doesn’t mean that belief has any foundation in reality.

I would be more inclined to sympathize with your argument if you had presented credible evidence to support the claim that Obama wasn’t born in the United States, contradicting the “formal and official” statements of the competent authorities who have said the original records show that he was.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by OldCorp
What do you think "lack of standing" means?

I’m sure, sir, you are knowledgeable in other areas but concerning legal matters you are obviously lacking the necessary information to reasonably opine on the question at hand, let alone debate it.

In Warth v. Seldin, the Supreme Court, through Justice Powell, explicitly and plainly described the concept of standing as follows—

In essence, the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.

Standing and merit are separate matters altogether. Merit refers to a claim which has a valid basis upon the applicable law in light of the facts of a case. Standing, on the other hand, is a technical requirement necessary for a claim to even be made.

Judging from the rest of your post I am probably wasting my time since you think this crucial difference is a matter of ‘semantics,’ and the fact that you are using a Sarah Palin catch phrase helps reinforce my suspicion.

I accept your definitions of "merit" and "standing." I also stand by what I said; because the area of MY expertise is the use of the English language. I haven't read the actual decision, but the account written by the reporter is QUITE clear. The fact that the plaintiff - in MY, unambiguous wording - "Had no reason to file suit because he was not personally affected," is stated by the writer not once, but TWICE in the very short article. I've already posted the first paragraph, so let's take a quick look at the second reference:

Hawaii's privacy laws bar the release of birth records unless the requester is someone with a tangible interest, such as a close family member.

So again, the writer gives the "gist" of the story in this one sentence: the plaintiff had no right to the information because it did not relate to, or affect, him personally - he had no "tangible interest."

But we are getting dangerously close to derailing the thread, so I'll get back on topic. So far, this has been the story with every "Birther" case I can think of. According to the courts thus far, nobody has any standing; not the People who the President is supposed to represent; not the servicemen and women who are obliged to fight and, if necessary die, on BHO's whim; and not even those who ran against him for President. It's a cover-up from top to bottom; but the winds of change are threatening to grab that covering of lies and blow it away like a pool cover in a hail storm (something with which I have personal experience )

Finally, I suppose I really should make that introduction thread, because I'm a different type of person. I'm not a left or right-winger. I believe in common sense, defending those who can not defend themselves, and not spending more than you make among other things. The only President worse than BHO was his predecessor - a "useful idiot" if ever there was one - and I would put Sarah Palin in the same category. If I used a "Palinism," then it is only because she had been reading me. So in reality, she is using an "OCism."

If you're at all interested, you can check out what I had to say about Bush Jr. HERE. Maybe next time you won't lump me in with ANYONE, especially when what I have to say usually angers EVERYONE.

This is a non-issue for simple-minded partisans to latch onto because they haven't the ability or knowledge to do any real research and come up with reasonable criticisms of the current potus.

It's likely perpetuated by those who know that any REAL criticism of Obama (gitmo, Libya, Patriot Acts, etc) will implicate too many other people and most members of the GOP who hope to run for Pres in 2012 or 16. So they keep this meme out there to entertain and occupy the more simple-minded o their constituency in the same fashion a fisherman uses shiny objects to attract big game; keep 'em on the line, biting the bait.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by wcitizen


Obama's eligibility hasn't been verified. Sarcasm won't get around that fact.

It hasn't? You mean he fooled EVERY security institution in the US, from the secret service to the cia and fbi, all with a simple forgery? WOW.

edit on 9-4-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)

No, I mean they didn't check it when it should have been checked - when he became a presidential candidate.

Oh, and by the way, in case you hadn't noticed - the government and the security institutions are corrupt.. They lie and cover up.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by wcitizen
Has there at least been an official statement to fully address this isue? Have you heard anyone put their career and reputation on the line by stating officially that they have seen and verified the long birth certificate and have ascertained without any doubt that he is eligible?

I’m sorry for the delay, I’ve only now noticed your questions.

The answer to your questions is ‘yes’ (source)—

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.

The public have a right to have it verified, formally and officially, that he is indeed eligible to be president.

Who do you suggest do that “formal and official” verification?

Don't you think the public, who pay his wages, are entitled to have their genuine questions answered?

What does ‘genuine’ mean? That some people really believe Obama wasn’t born in the United States? That, in itself, doesn’t mean that belief has any foundation in reality.

I would be more inclined to sympathize with your argument if you had presented credible evidence to support the claim that Obama wasn’t born in the United States, contradicting the “formal and official” statements of the competent authorities who have said the original records show that he was.

edit on 10-4-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)

I mean that many Americans have questions about his eligibility, and in a democracy the government is supposed to serve the people. It's a reasonable question, and IF US was a democracy, the government would be accountable and need to answer the question.

Originally posted by aptness
[

Don't you think the public, who pay his wages, are entitled to have their genuine questions answered?

What does ‘genuine’ mean? That some people really believe Obama wasn’t born in the United States? That, in itself, doesn’t mean that belief has any foundation in reality.

I would be more inclined to sympathize with your argument if you had presented credible evidence to support the claim that Obama wasn’t born in the United States, contradicting the “formal and official” statements of the competent authorities who have said the original records show that he was.

edit on 10-4-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)

I would be more inclined to take you seriously if you had read my posts properly. I never said he wasn't born in the US, I said that the government should answer the questions raised by the people it is there to serve.

Originally posted by OldCorp
I haven't read the actual decision, but the account written by the reporter is QUITE clear.

Then I submit to you, sir, that perhaps it would be wise to read the “actual decision,” rather than to rely on language of a news article in order to discern what the court ruled.

Not that I dispute the accuracy of what is being reported, but — and you surely agree as well — the opinion of the court is the primary source and contains the reasoning and explanation of the court’s decision, therefore being clearly preferable than trying to infer what was decided based on third party reporting.

Here is the court’s opinion.

So again, the writer gives the "gist" of the story in this one sentence: the plaintiff had no right to the information because it did not relate to, or affect, him personally - he had no "tangible interest."

The plaintiff, Robert Justice, was claiming, based on state law, he should be allowed to inspect Obama’s “original birth certificate.” From the opinion (pp. 1-2)—

This appeal involves a request for disclosure of President Barack Obama's birth certificate under the Hawaii Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified) (UIPA), Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 92F. Plaintiff-Appellant Dr. Robert V. Justice (Plaintiff), appearing pro se, filed a complaint, pursuant to the UIPA, seeking an order directing the Department of Health (DOH) of the State of Hawaii to permit him "to inspect and copy" President Obama's original birth certificate.

The language you emphasized from the news article — presumably in support of your theory that the suit was dismissed on lack of standing — “tangible interest,” comes directly from Hawaii’s Revised Statutes (HRS), more concretely HRS 338-18(b), the disclosure of records provision—

The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record.

The court ruled that he didn’t have a “tangible interest” to Obama’s vital records because he isn’t in one of the thirteen categories of persons considered, by law, to have a “direct and tangible interest.” In fact, the plaintiff himself acknowledged he didn’t qualify as a person with “tangible interest” in Obama’s records under that provision of disclosure of records (p. 10)—

Plaintiff does not dispute Defendants' assertion (and the Circuit Court's finding) that he does not qualify as a person with a "direct and tangible interest" in President Obama's birth records within the meaning of HRS § 338-18(b).

Plaintiff claimed, nevertheless, that he was entitled to the records under HRS 92F-12(b)(3) (p. 2)—

Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to such disclosure based on a provision of the UIPA which requires the disclosure of "[g]overnment records pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of any individual"

The court disagreed, by interpreting that circumstances contemplated by that provision didn’t apply to the circumstance plaintiff was claiming (p. 15)—

... [T]he court concluded that the legislative history ... indicates that it was intended to apply only to "life and death situations" where instant action was required.

Concluding (p. 16)—

While Plaintiff may have a strong desire to personally verify President Obama's eligibility, we conclude that such desire does not constitute "compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of any individual" within the meaning of HRS § 92F-12(b)(3). Plaintiff's reason for seeking disclosure of President Obama's birth records does not state an "overpowering" or urgent need for the records to save the life or protect the safety of an individual in a medical or safety emergency.

The court dismissed the suit, as I previously asserted, based on the (lack of) merits of the claim, ruling that plaintiff’s claim was unsupported by the state law he was invoking to have a right to inspect Obama’s records.

Another indication the suit, contrary to what you claim, wasn’t dismissed on lack of standing is the fact that not once was standing even mentioned in the opinion.

Comparing with other birther lawsuits, you can see the courts decisions based on lack of standing were explicit. From Berg v. Obama—

In sum, we agree with the District Court that Berg lacks standing to bring this suit because he has suffered no injury particularized to him.

From Hollander v. McCain—

For the foregoing reasons, the defendants' motion to dismiss is granted on the ground that Hollander lacks standing.

It's a cover-up

If what you claim is true then both Democrats and Republicans, in the state of Hawaii and in Congress are complicit, and not only the executive agencies charged with doing background checks, such as the FBI and the CIA, and the judiciary.

You speak of common sense but, as many other members have asked, what is the interest of all these people, from different political parties, from different agencies, from different branches of government, to put in office or allow an allegedly non-natural born citizen President?

Maybe next time you won't lump me in with ANYONE, especially when what I have to say usually angers EVERYONE.

I didn’t lump you with anyone. If I have it was with the birthers, but from what you are arguing, this labeling on my part doesn’t seem inappropriate seeing as you’re arguing for the release or the right to inspect Obama’s vital records.

You, on the other hand, made this political and labeled me an Obama voter and supporter, an “Obama apologist” and ‘lemming,’ apparently, because I have been claiming I remain unpersuaded by the birthers’ claims and lack of credible evidence presented, and that they are not entitled to see Obama’s “long form” birth certificate under any existing law.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
This is a non-issue for simple-minded partisans to latch onto because they haven't the ability or knowledge to do any real research and come up with reasonable criticisms of the current potus.

This is my biggest problem with this entire thing. It so occupies these simple minds that it is going to be their very downfall. I have these conversations with people I know and they go a little something like this.

How do you feel about Obama's economic policies?

He is driving this country so deep into debt and killing it for our children.

So when you talk to people about voting in 2012, what is your argument?

Well first of all, he was born in Kenya and he spent 2 million hiding his birth certificate and he was raised in Indonesia in a Madrassa and....

So about those econimic polices? You will find a better candidate because you are really thinking about that stuff, right?

I don't have to! He is a foreign born, Marxist usurper, wake up man!!!!!

Well good luck with all that. You and the other 23% of the entire country that think that keep preaching to yourselves about that. Let me know how it goes. I thought there were serious problems with what he was doing to this country but I don't have all day to wait for you to get to them to covince me and since it is this hard already, I want to vote for him now just because your only argument against him is a set of old internet lies.

Originally posted by wcitizen
I mean that many Americans have questions about his eligibility, and in a democracy the government is supposed to serve the people. It's a reasonable question, and IF US was a democracy, the government would be accountable and need to answer the question.

You might need to take a poly-sci class and learn what a democracy is. The government does not bend to the will of what some people want or what a bunch of people want. A democracy is all about what MOST people want. That would be more than half, a majority, a larger group than "many." This is also not a democracy so I am not sure why it matters.