Hawaiian Senator said Obama not releasing long-form BC to hide identity or citizenship of his father

Originally posted by derst1988

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by derst1988
What was released was a Certificate of Live Birth. Not the real Birth Certificate

Not that birther lie again, Obama showed the only birth certificate Hawaii currently issues. It IS a birth certificate

Alright fine, like i said im not really a birther , more of a bystander. Attached is a picture of a 1961 (same year as obama) hawaii BC. The person was born a day after obama.

this link is corrupted in some way.

here is a link to an actual 1961 birth certificate

www.wnd.com...

Here is the general lay out of how anti-birthers try and debate the issue:

1. Say that Obama released his birth certificate
When this fails, go to the next step.

2. Obama didn't release his long form, but he doesn't need to.
When it is suggested that Obama should release the long form in order to squash suspicion, go to the next step.

3. Suggest that even if he did release the long form, birthers won't accept it.
When this fails,

4. Call the birther a racist person
When this is exposed as a fraud,

5. Call the birther crazy
When facts are presented to disprove this

6. Criticize the general appearance of Orly Taitz.
When this fails, go to the fail-safe

7. Say it doesn't matter, Obama is still president (make sure to continue feigning the moral high ground)

Originally posted by filosophia
What about when he was born?

What about it? Are you assuming he still has the original copy of his birth certificate? Not everyone does you know...

Originally posted by filosophia
this link is corrupted in some way.

here is a link to an actual 1961 birth certificate

You forgot the link. But here's another one, from a 1930 birth.



.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I'm afraid you forgot the link as well, unless it's yours and you're 81 years old.

reply to post by filosophia


Excuse me? I didn't forget the link.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
OMG......are you kidding me? You're gonna claim that this is a real birth certificate from 1930? Let's point out the obvious first 1)Hawaii wasn't even a state til 1959, which is in the insignia at the top of your fake cerficate. 2) the technology used to make your "supposed 1930" certificate wasn't available then. I'd go on, but your picture of this is so obviously fake, why even bother??

Originally posted by freedom12

Sinn- I'm not referring to polls of Republicans, though that number is growing. The poll I saw was on CNN and dealt with Democratic voters not believing Obama was born here or not sure.
Can you offer up a link to said poll, please? Frankly, I do not believe you but I am willing to admit I am wrong.

I would have love to seen what independants think. Should Obama address these "crazy birthers"? Well , if he has time to focus on miniscule issues such as his "beer summit" and many other examples of him focusiing on minor "pop culture" issues, why not this issue?

I am fairly confident that the majority of independants are not buying this BS. The only group I have seen any poll showing a growing number of birthers with is the Republican party. I am interested in what you have seen.

Originally posted by filosophia
Not true, the lie is found within your own statement: "Obama showed the only birth certificate Hawaii currently issues." Currently, what does currently have to do with anything? What about when he was born?

I've made a note of this at least twice, so who is repeating the lies?

What makes you think he has the one that was issued to his parents all those years ago? There is a reason he had to get a current copy and I can only assume it was the same as mine. Mom did not hold onto stuff like she should have. So unless you can prove he still has posession of the original one he was issued, you are just speculating on your own beliefs.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by filosophia

 

Excuse me? I didn't forget the link.

Sure you didn't, we all believe you, but can you post it again?

reply to post by Sinnthia


Oh, I see the tactics have changed, now it's "how do you know he doesn't have the original?"

Wow, you guys are really reaching here aren't you. First you denied it existed, then you said he doesn't need to show it, now he 'doesn't have it.' The state department also doesn't have it I guess?

Originally posted by freedom12
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

OMG......are you kidding me? You're gonna claim that this is a real birth certificate from 1930? Let's point out the obvious first 1)Hawaii wasn't even a state til 1959, which is in the insignia at the top of your fake cerficate. 2) the technology used to make your "supposed 1930" certificate wasn't available then. I'd go on, but your picture of this is so obviously fake, why even bother??

Thanks for the laugh. You really have to wonder why someone would make a date of birth older than the state seal. Maybe this can be classified as a prophetic birth certificate. Or maybe a birther made this as a hoax so the anti-birthers will cling to it.

Originally posted by filosophia
Here is the general lay out of how anti-birthers try and debate the issue:

let me show you what I see the birthers doing.

1. Claim he never showed a birth certificate.
When that fails move on.
2. Claim they meant the original long form his mom was given.
When that fails
3. Claim he paid millions to seal his college records.
When that fails
4. Claim no one knew him at Columbia.
When that fails
5. Claim his father was a Kenyan National anyway so it doesn't matter.

reply to post by filosophia

Filo-Sorry I had too! Some folks on here don't even look at what pictures they post I guess. It's not even enjoyable to bust this guys chops.

barry has an interesting past...drug mule for his Pakistani male lover,user of 42 SS numbers,an even dozen false names....he was born in hawaii no doubt...but his name on that BC isnt the one he was elected using....he never worked at any sort of real law firm since they require a background check that surpasses the one for US Prez...he nevr was allowed to sign off on any law firm reports,only do research,for the same reasons....and he and wife both have now lost their lciense to practice law for shady dealings.....

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by filosophia
Here is the general lay out of how anti-birthers try and debate the issue:

let me show you what I see the birthers doing.

1. Claim he never showed a birth certificate.
When that fails move on.
2. Claim they meant the original long form his mom was given.
When that fails
3. Claim he paid millions to seal his college records.
When that fails
4. Claim no one knew him at Columbia.
When that fails
5. Claim his father was a Kenyan National anyway so it doesn't matter.

well at least we don't descend into race baiting and ad hominem attacks



Also, since this is the TRUTH and not a LIE, you can employ all these things at once:

He spent millions sealing his records because he didn't release his long form in order to hide his father's background.

Try combining anti-birther tactics at once, it's impossible: He showed his BC even though he didn't but he doesn't need to he doesn't have it why are you so racist you're crazy I hate Orly Taitz.

reply to post by Sinnthia



The whole purpose of the natual born clause was to prevent anyone with divided loyalties becoming president - this is clearly the case with Obama who regards himself as an anti-american, multicultural, third world socialist Muslim ,as is plainly evident in all his policy choices. If his father was indeed a Kenyan - he is disqualified!

Natural-Born Citizen Defined

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.

Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.”

The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are not claimed, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))


federalistblog.us...

Originally posted by filosophia
Oh, I see the tactics have changed, now it's "how do you know he doesn't have the original?

Well, how do you know?

Originally posted by freedom12
OMG......are you kidding me?

Yes, I am. But I didn't think it would matter to you guys.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by filosophia
Oh, I see the tactics have changed, now it's "how do you know he doesn't have the original?

Well, how do you know?

Originally posted by freedom12
OMG......are you kidding me?

Yes, I am.

But I didn't think it would matter to you guys.

No, you were not "kidding" you denied you had forgotten the link, indicating you thought it was real, then when it was exposed as an absolute fraud you say "but I didn't think it would matter to you" Wrong, the truth doesn't matter to YOU

And yes, how do you know he has an original birth certificate, which is the very point in question. If he doesn't have one, he shouldn't be president! And if he doesn't have one he could get one from the state, duh. This is basically you admitting he doesn't have a birth certificate. Saying his mommy lost it won't do.

Originally posted by filosophia
No, you were not "kidding"

The reason I posted that BC is because it's one of the ones Tech Dude used to COMPARE to Obama's to prove Obama's was a fake. Think whatever you like.

you denied you had forgotten the link

Because I didn't.

And yes, how do you know he has an original birth certificate, which is the very point in question

I don't know. I haven't made the claim that he does.

. If he doesn't have one, he shouldn't be president! And if he doesn't have one he could get one from the state, duh. This is basically you admitting he doesn't have a birth certificate. Saying his mommy lost it won't do

Oh, I see now. You don't know the difference between the long form (kept in the records in a state Health Dept) and the short form (issued to those who need a copy for whatever reason.

He clearly has the short form that he posted online. Whether or not he has a copy of the long form none of us knows.

I have been heavily involved in this debate since before he was president, so I just assume the birthers know which form they're talking about. But it's clear I was mistaken.