Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
randman said:
And you are just flat out wrong about the law in 1961. A resident could bring a baby in, say he was born there, and register the birth.
Click to expand...

That's right. ANTPogo is just plain wrong again (or lying AGAIN), as I proved in post #2999 by citing the law that was in effect at that time.
 
Newtons Bit said:
You're only posting that because they didn't say a single bad thing about you!

"CPT <redacted> is a consummate professional and excellent officer. Promote ahead of peers and place in positions of greater authority and responsibility".

My quest to find dirt on you just took another dive. Dangit :mad:
Click to expand...

Admit it; You just want a date.

;)
 
Newtons Bit said:
You can see the old rules here. In this case, it required an affadavit by the father and at least one other person present at the birth (I think, it's under the "repealed" stamp and it's hard to read).
Click to expand...

False. What I cited a few posts previous to this is the law that was in effect at the time (1961). Here was my source for what I quoted:

http://www.loandesk.com/compulsoryregistrationofbirths.html

The law in effect was Hawaii Revised Law §57-8, Hawaii Revised Law §57-9, and Hawaii Revised Law §57-18, enacted in 1955. It's the second citation in the left column of that link identified as "RL 1955, §57-8". And what I quoted shows you are completely wrong. The rules did not require an affadavit by the father and at least one other person present at the birth.

By the way, didn't you notice at the very bottom of what you linked that it was dated 1962, after Obama's supposed birth? In fact it is signed "I, Leo Bernstein, M.D., Director of Health, hereby certify that the foregoing regulations were adopted by the Department of Health on the 5th day of November 1962"? :rolleyes:

It's amazing the lengths to which you ObamaTruthers are now going to hide from the obvious. To hide Obama's past. Lies, lies and more lies.

But no matter how many times you regurgitate or massage those lies, they will still be lies. :D
 
Last edited:
ANTPogo said:
The law in effect at time of Obama's birth, the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii, had no provision for registering out-of-Hawaii births in Hawaii.
Click to expand...

The 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii procedurally made it possible to register an out-of-Hawaii birth as I explained above. Which is perhaps why Obama can't show us a long form birth certificate ... because perhaps Trump is right ... it doesn't exist.

ANTPogo said:
And if the only evidence that a birth took place in Hawaii was the word of the parents, then the certificate that was issued was not a prima facie certificate, but that "the probative value of the Delayed Certificate must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence."
Click to expand...

I'd like to see your source for this claim. :p
 
BeAChooser said:
False. What I cited a few posts previous to this is the law that was in effect at the time (1961). Here was my source for what I quoted:

http://www.loandesk.com/compulsoryregistrationofbirths.html

The law in effect was Hawaii Revised Law §57-8, Hawaii Revised Law §57-9, and Hawaii Revised Law §57-18, enacted in 1955. It's the second citation in the left column of that link identified as "RL 1955, §57-8". And what I quoted shows you are completely wrong. The rules did not require an affadavit by the father and at least one other person present at the birth.

By the way, didn't you notice at the very bottom of what you linked that it was dated 1962, after Obama's supposed birth? In fact it is signed "I, Leo Bernstein, M.D., Director of Health, hereby certify that the foregoing regulations were adopted by the Department of Health on the 5th day of November 1962"? :rolleyes:

It's amazing the lengths to which you ObamaTruthers are now going to hide from the obvious. To hide Obama's past. Lies, lies and more lies.

But no many times you regurgitate or massage those lies, they will still be lies. :D
Click to expand...

Rules are separate than laws. The rules I posted (the oldest I can find) reference the 1955 law. And considering that you didn't quote the entire 1955 law, there's no way of knowing if it set out further requirements for birth registration. Please show your evidence that the rules were different in 1961 than the rules in 1962.
 
Last edited:
ANTPogo said:
Hawaii has thought so for about two decades now (and has used it as the only certified copy they'll issue for the last ten years).
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for you or Sabrina to prove you know the definition of "certified copy". I've offered source after source after source, and as I noted could have offered MANY more, all saying the same thing. You and Sabrina have yet to offer even one source that defines "certified copy" in the manner you claim.

Having problems finding one, guys and gals? :p
 
Newtons Bit said:
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Your side of this debate offered no sources to challenge those definitions other than your own made up one. Yes, by all means prove to me that the COLB actually meets the definition of "certified copy".

Asked and answered, BaC.
Click to expand...

You are a LIAR, NB, and everyone reading this thread can now see it.

Newtons Bit said:
The director chose to use computer printout. As the law allows. Why can't you understand this?
Click to expand...

And the director could have chose to provide a photocopy of the long form. As the law allows. Why can't you understand THAT? :D
 
Last edited:
Sabrina said:
HE HAS A CERTIFIED COPY ALREADY.
Click to expand...

What's the problem, Sabrina? Having as much trouble finding even ONE source that defines "certified copy" in way you claim, as you apparently had in finding a source to support your claim about the Supreme Court "certifying" that Obama "met all Constitutional requirements to be the president"? You can repeat your lies as much as you want but they'll still be lies. And it looks like in this case the leftist mainstream media isn't going to be sufficiently cooperative to keep those lies from being exposed. :D
 
BeAChooser said:
You are LIAR, NB, and everyone reading this thread can now see it.
Click to expand...

Wait, I'm a liar because I said you hadn't responded, but then you do respond now and my previous statement becomes a lie? Do you have a problem understanding time?

By the way, the webpage you just quoted shows Sec. 3100.21 which states that delayed birth certificates need an administrative review to determine if the certificate qualifies as evidence of birth. And the administrative rules I posted states how to do that. Amazing.

And the director could have chose to provide a photocopy of the long form. As the law allows. Why can't you understand THAT? :D
Click to expand...

Yes, the director CAN choose to do photocopies, but they would have to offer that for ALL records. They chose not to do that for anyone. I don't know why they chose to that, but I can imagine that part of it was due to the cost of using searching for a record, taking a picture, printing it vs. printing immediately from a computer database. The law allows the director to make the choice. The director made her choice. What more do you want?
 
Last edited:
ANTPogo said:
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Fukino admits the long form is a "vital record" and tacitly admits it should not be handled any different than any other "vital record".

No, she's officially denying that Governor Lingle ordered Obama's records (and only Obama's records) to be sealed
Click to expand...

Wrong. You think people can't read? Fukino said "No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i." She did exactly what I stated she did. She admitted that the long form is a "vital record". It's there in black and white. And she tacitly admitted that it should not be handled any different than "any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i". It's there in black and white. Are you democrats so enured to telling lies that you can't even read plain English any more?

ANTPogo said:
No, he doesn't have the right to get a "certified copy" of "any" "vital record"
Click to expand...

LIAR. It states that right in the Hawaiian law that was posted on this thread several times already. Let me post it again:

§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate
Click to expand...

HRS 338-11 states

The forms of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, subject to approval of and modification by the department of health.
Click to expand...

And here's what the US Public Health Service, National Office of Vital Statistics (which is now the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) requires for standard certificates: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vital_certificate_revisions.htm . The 2003 Standard Birth Certificate includes these items (found at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/FinalBirthSpecs3-24-2005.pdf )[/quote] The items in that link are ONLY found on the long form and clearly the long form is a "certificate". So according to the law, as written, the State MUST supply the registrant with at "certified copy" of that form if requested.

ANTPogo said:
Call me liar all you want, it still won't change the reality and truth of what I say.
Click to expand...

I've called you a liar because I've caught you lying repeatedly now. And your repeating the lies won't change that.
 
ANTPogo said:
What say you, BAC?
Click to expand...

LOL! Are you telling us that Fukino and Tuchman lied when they said one could still get an original birth certificate? Or perhaps the reason Lakin wasn't able to get the long form for his daughter is that he is not the registrant and thus has no direct and tangible interest in the document (unlike Obama). Now when his daughter is of age maybe she will ask to get it and will receive it? Afterall, that is what Fukino and Tuchman just said was still possible. :D
 
ANTPogo said:
That's pretty funny coming from a guy who keeps repeating the falsehood that Hawaii issues certified "long form" certificates
Click to expand...

LIAR. I've not said that. I've only said the law clearly requires that, and Hawaii is now openly violating it's own law.

ANTPogo said:
No matter how hard you and randman wish it were true, Obama has obtained and released the one and only certified documentation of his birth that Hawaii state law permits him to obtain and release.
Click to expand...

LIAR. I've proven that the long form is a "vital certificate" according to Hawaiian law. I've proven that the law requires the state to provide a "certified copy" of "ANY certificate" in it's possession to ANY one who requests one, provided he/she has a "direct and tangible interest". And I've proven that the registrant (i.e., Obama in this case) has a "direct and tangible interest" according to the law.

ANTPogo said:
Everything else is simply the two of you trying desperately to find some way to dodge around that simple fact.
Click to expand...

LOL! I'm not the one :boxedin: here, ANTPogo. And you folks thought this thread was all wrapped up nice and neat. :D
 
Titanic Explorer said:
Birthers are just another type of 9/11 Truther
Click to expand...

No, I think you folks are just another type of 9/11 Truther. You display all their characteristics. You lie and continue to regurgitate lies even when presented with demonstrable and veriable facts that prove you are wrong.

Titanic Explorer said:
They have an insane theory with zero proof
Click to expand...

Go ahead, TE, provide us with a credible source that defines "certified copy" the way you ObamaTruthers claim it's defined.
 
Sabrina said:
Here's my DD-214
Click to expand...

LOL! Now maybe you can provide ONE source that defines "certified copy" the way you folks claim it's defined. :D

And provide proof for your claim that the Supreme Court certified that Obama met all Constitutional requirements to be president. ;)
 
Newtons Bit said:
The rules I posted (the oldest I can find) reference the 1955 law.
Click to expand...

LOL! I expect you could find "rules" written in 2010 that still reference 1955 law. The uncomfortable fact (for you) is that your source was dated AFTER Obama's birth and stated quite clearly that "the foregoing regulations were adopted by the Department of Health on the 5th day of November 1962", AFTER Obama's birth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom