Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
ANTPogo said:
And the regulations aren't established and changed on a whim, either.
Click to expand...

Sure they are. All the time. Just ask the Obama Administration and the way they've treated regulations. And surely the President of the US could get a waiver for the good of the country in this matter from the Hawaiian DoH? Surely. You act like the President is powerless. LOL! Obama's refusal to even ask for such a waiver has already cost him millions of dollars, ruined a fine military soldier's career (actually several if truth be told) and has upwards of 40 percent of the American public seriously doubting whether he's even a US citizen. Such a situation can't be good for the country and yet it would seem so simple to resolve. But Obama won't do it. And you don't seem to want him to do it either. Why is that? Because you think the divisiveness will help promote your agenda in the long run? :(
 
BeAChooser said:
Sure they are. All the time.
Click to expand...

No, they're not.

And surely the President of the US could get a waiver for the good of the country in this matter from the Hawaiian DoH? Surely. You act like the President is powerless. LOL!
Click to expand...

Even if Obama could override a state statute by Presidential executive fiat, you'd be first to scream bloody murder about Obama's horrendous and corrupt abuses of his office the instant he did anything like that.

Obama's refusal to even ask for such a waiver has already cost him millions of dollars,
Click to expand...

No, it didn't. And the fact that you're here repeating that idiotic canard is evidence of how little you're really interested in the truth here.

ruined a fine military soldier's career
Click to expand...

Lakin's problems were entirely of his own making, as a court martial proved.

and has upwards of 40 percent of the American public seriously doubting whether he's even a US citizen.
Click to expand...

And 60% of Americans doubt evolution. And they're just as dead wrong and ignorant as the birthers.

Such a situation can't be good for the country and yet it would seem so simple to resolve. But Obama won't do it. And you don't seem to want him to do it either. Why is that? Because you think the divisiveness will help promote your agenda in the long run? :(
Click to expand...

No, because no other president has ever had to do it, and none of them sparked off this budding crisis that you see brewing.

Why is that, BAC? Why didn't Bush show his long form to the nation? Why didn't military officers refuse to deploy because Reagan didn't release his long form? Why didn't 40% of Americans doubt that Nixon was an American citizen?

What's so unique about Obama, hmmm?
 
Last edited:
Wow... Still running BaC? Can't even post what you THINK is evidence? Just one thing. Can you do that?
 
BaC, one simple straight forward question.

If the document that has been put forward by Obama has been certified by the state of Hawaii as 100% accurate and truthful is not believed to be true, why would any other document from the same agency regardless of its content be believed?

This is a pointless endeavor.
 
BenBurch said:
Long ago, before photocopies, when you wanted a certified copy of a birth record, the clerk would take down a blank birth record, stamp "COPY" on it, and write out all the information longhand. Then the copy would be notarized to make it a certified copy.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And sometimes even after photocopying. I have such a copy of my birth certificate, issued more than thirty years ago; handwritten and bearing three signatures and two seals.
 
Incidently

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939): The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship.
Click to expand...

and..

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964): The Court voided a statute that provided that a naturalized citizen should lose his United States citizenship if, following naturalization, he resided continuously for three years in his former homeland.
Click to expand...

and ...

Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y. Leg. Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844):[11] This opinion from a New York court extensively reviewed the issue of natural born citizenship, and was later cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark.
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," &c . The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

​
Click to expand...

Bolding mine.

Also, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v.
Trustees of Sailors‟ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), that “Nothing is better
settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a
country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461 (quoting Inglis, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) at 164 (Story, J., concurring)).
Click to expand...
 
catsmate1 said:
Exactly. And sometimes even after photocopying. I have such a copy of my birth certificate, issued more than thirty years ago; handwritten and bearing three signatures and two seals.
Click to expand...

In the UK that's still what you get, you only get the signature of the Clarke that fills it out and stamps it though. A Birth Certificate can't be taken as proof of identity without supporting documentation in the UK though.
 
Last edited:
Arus808 said:
Not seven years. Try 22 years

1989 is when Hawaii started only offering abstract forms.
Click to expand...

I was going by the anonymous 1995 "long form" that has appeared a couple of times in a couple of forms on the Post and Email. I don't for a second believe that a fresh certified copy of that was issued last month, but it otherwise appeared to be a legit original 1995 copy.

But considering where it appeared and who claimed to provide it, I guess we can't really trust anything about it unless confirmed by some other, more trustworthy info.
 
Hawaii senator questions Obama's true birth father.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=291041

Asked what that could be, Slom said, "It could have to do with what his name is on the birth certificate, who is actually listed as his father, the citizenship of the father."

He continued, "My belief is that there is a birth certificate, he was born here, but that there is information that for reasons known only to him he doesn't want released. If it were just the birth certificate, that would be one thing, but it's his school records, it's employment records. … Why would anybody, let alone the president of the United States, spend millions of dollars in legal fees to keep that hidden?"

Why indeed?
 
boyntonstu said:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=291041
Click to expand...

Oh, boy. World Net Daily again.

Asked what that could be, Slom said, "It could have to do with what his name is on the birth certificate, who is actually listed as his father,
Click to expand...

The birth index and the certified copy both list the same information that would appear in those fields on the original, so we know what the original says regarding both those things.

the citizenship of the father."
Click to expand...

The original form at the time didn't list "citizenship", just race and birthplace. The race of the father already appears on the form Obama released.

In any case, the citizenship of the father is irrelevant, since Obama himself has openly said that his father was a Kenyan national (who probably had British citizenship), and it doesn't matter one bit.

What possible revelation about his father's citizenship could be on the certificate that's worth concealing? "Citizenship: Reptilian Confederation of Zeta Reticuli"?

He continued, "My belief is that there is a birth certificate, he was born here, but that there is information that for reasons known only to him he doesn't want released.
Click to expand...

Too bad we already know that Obama has no say in whether it gets released or not.

Why would anybody, let alone the president of the United States, spend millions of dollars in legal fees to keep that hidden?"
Click to expand...

He hasn't. Is there any falsehood that WND will stop clinging to?

Why indeed?
Click to expand...

Me, I'm wondering why, two and a half years after you personally made the post that kicked off this thread, you're still here repeating the same discredited birther canards...and from WND, no less.
 
boyntonstu said:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=291041

Asked what that could be, Slom said, "It could have to do with what his name is on the birth certificate, who is actually listed as his father, the citizenship of the father."

He continued, "My belief is that there is a birth certificate, he was born here, but that there is information that for reasons known only to him he doesn't want released. If it were just the birth certificate, that would be one thing, but it's his school records, it's employment records. … Why would anybody, let alone the president of the United States, spend millions of dollars in legal fees to keep that hidden?"

Why indeed?
Click to expand...
This post defintely gets the laughing dogs laughing, for at least 3 reasons: (1) Citing WND. I mean, really, it's only the most fact-challenged web site on the internet, to the point of being an abject joke. It's an insult to your readers to cite a source where nothing can be accepted at face value. (2) Citing a low-level partisan hack as if what this stooge has to say should be considered weighty evidence. (3) "Why indeed?" ... this gem stands on its own.
 
Alareth said:
...If the document that has been put forward by Obama has been certified by the state of Hawaii as 100% accurate and truthful is not believed to be true, why would any other document from the same agency regardless of its content be believed?
Click to expand...
This is the fundamental conundrum at the heart of the "birther" claims. They talk about vast conspiracies to suppress the real truth; conspiracies which planted newspaper advertisements in 1961 in anticipation of a Presidential bid decades later, and which variously involve the State of Hawaii, the Democrats, the Republicans, various law-enforcement agencies, and probably NASA at some point. They keep saying that a couple of million dollars have been spent fighting the release of some piece of paper which must have a few words on it which disprove the words already released, and certified as official and accurate, by the State of Hawaii.

What they can't explain is why this vast, airtight conspiracy can't spend a fraction of that "two million dollars" on a piece of paper that says exactly what the conspirators want it to say.

Or why they would believe anything this vast conspiracy would provide as "proof" anyway, since they have already rejected an official, certified birth record.

Or why they actually expect anyone to believe them when they say they would accept a so-called "long form", even if it confirmed what was already known.
Alareth said:
This is a pointless endeavor.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And Mr. Obama will finish out this term, and his second term if reelected in 2012, and there will never be the resolution that the "birthers" seek, and the whole silly issue will gather dust forever in the museum of minor cultural curiousities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom