bho's birth certificate revisited

Damocles said:
They believe that mocking you is countering what you have posted. They wouldn't accept it as a counter argument in any other type of thread, but that is what they believe in these threads.

It's fascinating how both sides act to me.

The President is required only to prove his citizenship to the Electoral College before they vote, and before the Senate as the votes are taken. I wonder what kind of evidence he brought to that show...

I'm interested to see where it goes. There is another court case making its way through the system, probably more than one. Soldiers are refusing orders until evidence is shown, and instead of fighting it the orders were canceled before they came into effect.

It's just weird.

Long ago, I would have just gone to Hawaii, got out the document, had about a billion pressies around and had pictures taken with me and the Hawaiian dude that is responsible for the documents.

This whole thing would have been over. Instead we have some people arguing that he never regained citizenship after he returned from Indonesia and since there was no way to hold dual citizenship at that time he is no longer a "natural born" citizen.

Had he quashed this at its inception it would be over, instead it grows.
Click to expand...

i wonder if even that would settle the question

some people have a LOT INVESTED in believing that no such document exists
 
DonQuixote said:
i wonder if even that would settle the question

some people have a LOT INVESTED in believing that no such document exists
Click to expand...

Don, all anyone has ever asked to see, is the official certificate of live birth. This is the 'long form' document issued by every hospital in the US when someone is born. It shows the name and signature of the attending physician who performed the delivery. If this were produced, it would confirm the birth was performed in Hawaii and it could be verified by the doctor himself. To date, no such birth certificate has been produced. There is no valid reason for why this document can't be produced, other than the very likely possibility that it doesn't exist because Obama wasn't actually born in Hawaii.

It's not even like Obama has offered an explanation for why a certificate of live birth can't be provided! They just threw out this phony-baloney "certification" of live birth, which anyone can obtain for a small fee, and that's been it! Any questions about it, and they insist the "birth certificate" has been provided, and it simply hasn't. You are an Obama sycophant, so you obviously aren't concerned with whether or not the man was actually born in the US, but this is a matter of law and the Constitution. People should care about the rule of law and the Constitution, you certainly did when it came to Bush, but for some reason, when it's about the Great Messiah, you want to defend his usurping of the Constitution and rule of law. I guess, after Clinton, it shouldn't surprise anyone.
 
Last edited:
DonQuixote said:
i wonder if even that would settle the question

some people have a LOT INVESTED in believing that no such document exists
Click to expand...
I think it would have at the beginning, but I don't know if it would now, in fact I don't think it would. He's had plenty of time to get somebody to create a nice "fake" and the True Birthers probably wouldn't stop.

One thing is for certain, had it happened early on, the Democratic Lawyer that started it all would have stopped, he wouldn't be going on about how he could not be a natural born citizen because he lost citizenship when he became an Indonesian citizen and when you regain it you don't magically get back your natural born status...

Seriously, that is where the dude is at right now.
 
Dixie said:
Don, all anyone has ever asked to see, is the official certificate of live birth. This is the 'long form' document issued by every hospital in the US when someone is born. It shows the name and signature of the attending physician who performed the delivery. If this were produced, it would confirm the birth was performed in Hawaii and it could be verified by the doctor himself. To date, no such birth certificate has been produced. There is no valid reason for why this document can't be produced, other than the very likely possibility that it doesn't exist because Obama wasn't actually born in Hawaii.

It's not even like Obama has offered an explanation for why a certificate of live birth can't be provided! They just threw out this phony-baloney "certification" of live birth, which anyone can obtain for a small fee, and that's been it! Any questions about it, and they insist the "birth certificate" has been provided, and it simply hasn't. You are an Obama sycophant, so you obviously aren't concerned with whether or not the man was actually born in the US, but this is a matter of law and the Constitution. People should care about the rule of law and the Constitution, you certainly did when it came to Bush, but for some reason, when it's about the Great Messiah, you want to defend his usurping of the Constitution and rule of law. I guess, after Clinton, it shouldn't surprise anyone.
Click to expand...

First, there are detailed timelines of Ann Dunham's life all over the internet and nowhere is it shown that she ever traveled to Kenya, let alone gave birth there.

Next, Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, has the legal plus newspaper documentation to prove it, and nobody has ever found a single piece of evidence to refute this. "All persons born in Hawaii on or after April 30,1900, are native-born citizens of the United States. Hawaii was declared a U.S. State on August 21, 1959."

Finally, no matter where Obama's birth certificate lists as his place of birth, he's an AMERICAN CITIZEN by virtue of being born to one American parent.

"Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child."

Bottom line: he was born in the U.S. of a mother who was a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen and all the conspiracy theories in the universe aren't going to change that. Read the State Department regulations on citizenship: http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html

Now, what part of the above FACTS do you dispute?

It looks like conservative chuckleheads will cling to their CT in the same way they still hold that Iraq is hiding WMD's, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
 
Damocles said:
I'd like to see those records, but it doesn't really move me. I just get stunned when people who wanted a minute by minute record of Bush's time in the Guard, spoke volumes about Bush's grades, compared them unfavorably to past Presidents (and incorrectly to Kerry who we later found sucked even worse), constantly wanted more "transparency" when it came to the life and times of Bush now ignore any request for even the simplest of documents from "The One".

There were actual Congressional hearings for McCain to see if he was eligible because of where he was born, this guy... well, you get the picture.

Congratulations, you are willing to drink the left over kool aid.

I will note specifically that I said that I think the birthers will be disappointed, but I do believe that at some point in time we will see these documents.
Click to expand...


For the record, we were looking for something to substantiate the claim that we know less about Obama than any president in modern history. The above doesn't quite cut it.

And no, there were no congressional hearings for McCain. The Senate passed a resolution saying he was a natural born citizen. That's it. (Is there anything that you do not lie about?)

I think it quite ballsy that you accuse me of "drinking the Kool Aid' while arguing in favor of the birthers. Seriously. People like you make me wonder . . .
 
Dungheap said:
For the record, we were looking for something to substantiate the claim that we know less about Obama than any president in modern history. The above doesn't quite cut it.

And no, there were no congressional hearings for McCain. The Senate passed a resolution saying he was a natural born citizen. That's it. (Is there anything that you do not lie about?)

I think it quite ballsy that you accuse me of "drinking the Kool Aid' while arguing in favor of the birthers. Seriously. People like you make me wonder . . .
Click to expand...
Yes there were Judiciary hearings set on 10:00 AM, April 24, 2008 on SR 511.

Jeez dude. It's in the schedule.

http://www.netrootsmass.net/Congressional_Hearings/files/20-april-2008.html

They "just voted", that's BS.

I don't "argue in favor" I note the reality of the people who wanted more "transparency" are perfectly happy with secrecy so long as it pertains to this guy. It's just direct, unadulterated, hypocrisy. I find it quite "ballsy" that while you attempt to deflect from questions and sup the kool aid you pretend to see support in wonder.
 
Damocles said:
Yes there were Judiciary hearings set on 10:00 AM, April 24, 2008 on SR 511.

Jeez dude. It's in the schedule.

http://www.netrootsmass.net/Congressional_Hearings/files/20-april-2008.html

They "just voted", that's BS.

I don't "argue in favor" I note the reality of the people who wanted more "transparency" are perfectly happy with secrecy so long as it pertains to this guy. It's just direct, unadulterated, hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


A business meeting is not a hearing. A hearing is a hearing.

And before I respond to any more of your horseshit I'll wait for you to substantiate the horseshit you've spread pretty thick already in this thread.
 
Dungheap said:
A business meeting is not a hearing. A hearing is a hearing.

And before I respond to any more of your horseshit I'll wait for you to substantiate the horseshit you've spread pretty thick already in this thread.
Click to expand...
A hearing is the business of the Judiciary Committee. And before you respond to other stuff that is pretty clearly substantiated, you may want to pretend more that such resolutions are passed constantly with no hearings in committees, and that the business of such committees is not to hold those hearings before they reach the floor for a vote... Then come back to reality and we can begin to hold a conversation.

You are clearly deflecting again.

Don't look here is your answer to everything when it pertains to this.
 
Damocles said:
They believe that mocking you is countering what you have posted. They wouldn't accept it as a counter argument in any other type of thread, but that is what they believe in these threads.

It's fascinating how both sides act to me.

The President is required only to prove his citizenship to the Electoral College before they vote, and before the Senate as the votes are taken. I wonder what kind of evidence he brought to that show...

I'm interested to see where it goes. There is another court case making its way through the system, probably more than one. Soldiers are refusing orders until evidence is shown, and instead of fighting it the orders were canceled before they came into effect.

It's just weird.

Long ago, I would have just gone to Hawaii, got out the document, had about a billion pressies around and had pictures taken with me and the Hawaiian dude that is responsible for the documents.

This whole thing would have been over. Instead we have some people arguing that he never regained citizenship after he returned from Indonesia and since there was no way to hold dual citizenship at that time he is no longer a "natural born" citizen.

Had he quashed this at its inception it would be over, instead it grows.
Click to expand...

it is unfortunate that they feel mocking me makes their point. tbo, i see it more and more in other threads. when i present facts, i'm told i'm retarded or whatnot or the "nitpicky" stance....how dare i find something in someone's source that says they're wrong as i'm just being nitpicky.

in this instance, their mockery is exactly what i was talking about when i say the fault lies all around. i believe obama is a citizen and qualified, however, the left repeatedly makes false claims regarding what obama has shown...and then they mock those who don't believe obama eligible for they're lack of the truth or facts. that only fuels the conspiracy....why is the left producing lies they wonder....a lefty in this very thread after being shown that certification is not the certificate used the "nitpicky" defense and the retard claim....and they wonder why people believe obama and the left is hiding somethign

you get the picture
 
Dungheap said:
A business meeting is not a hearing. A hearing is a hearing.

And before I respond to any more of your horseshit I'll wait for you to substantiate the horseshit you've spread pretty thick already in this thread.
Click to expand...

so you're saying they just passed the resolution without looking into the matter....you know, hearings etc....they just hey, let's pass it without looking at any evidence
 
Damocles said:
A hearing is the business of the Judiciary Committee. And before you respond to other stuff that is pretty clearly substantiated, you may want to pretend more that such resolutions are passed constantly with no hearings in committees, and that the business of such committees is not to hold those hearings before they reach the floor for a vote... Then come back to reality and we can begin to hold a conversation.

You are clearly deflecting again.

Don't look here is your answer to everything when it pertains to this.
Click to expand...


You're a total jackass.

Scroll the list you provided. You will see that there are many things denoted as "hearings," many of which provide witness lists and such. This item that you point to is described as a business meeting because no hearing was held. No testimony was taken.

Quite often things are introduced in the Senate (more often in the House) that the Senate does not waste time holding hearings on, like non-binding resolutions. Nevertheless, these items are required to pass through whichever committee they are assigned to. Rather than hold hearings, the committee meets and gives the greenlight for legislation to pass through without hearing, instead the legislation is just plain reported favorably out of the committee at these business meetings.

That's what happened with this resolution. A business meeting (not a hearing) was held. It was reported favorably out of the committee and then it passed the Senate by unanimous consent.
 
Yurt said:
so you're saying they just passed the resolution without looking into the matter....you know, hearings etc....they just hey, let's pass it without looking at any evidence
Click to expand...


Actually, yes. The committee let it go to the floor sans hearings. Just like it did with the resolution "Honoring Margaret Truman Daniel and Her Lifetime Of Accomplishments" that was dealt with the same day in the same business meeting.
 
Dungheap said:
Actually, yes. The committee let it go to the floor sans hearings. Just like it did with the resolution "Honoring Margaret Truman Daniel and Her Lifetime Of Accomplishments" that was dealt with the same day in the same business meeting.
Click to expand...

so you know for a fact that no one looked at any evidence before it was sent to the floor?

i followed the link and it did not appear that for that day there was any hearing on it....
 
Dungheap said:
You're a total jackass.

Scroll the list you provided. You will see that there are many things denoted as "hearings," many of which provide witness lists and such. This item that you point to is described as a business meeting because no hearing was held. No testimony was taken.

Quite often things are introduced in the Senate (more often in the House) that the Senate does not waste time holding hearings on, like non-binding resolutions. Nevertheless, these items are required to pass through whichever committee they are assigned to. Rather than hold hearings, the committee meets and gives the greenlight for legislation to pass through without hearing, instead the legislation is just plain reported favorably out of the committee at these business meetings.

That's what happened with this resolution. A business meeting (not a hearing) was held. It was reported favorably out of the committee and then it passed the Senate by unanimous consent.
Click to expand...
The list I provided is the list of hearings for that week. And now you are nitpicking. It is their business to recommend, they did.

There was Congressional oversight into whether or not the man was a natural born citizen, there is a clear delineation from how people act toward "The One."
 
maineman said:
when insulting someone, it makes no sense to refer to them with some moniker that they, themselves, do not find insulting.

guess they don't teach you that in internet stalker's class, eh creep?
Click to expand...
It must have been a class that you took since I have not heard of it before.

But with regards to you, a liberal, using "fag" as an insult, first of all isn't that considered a derogatory term among your homosexual friends in the Democrat Party? Secondly, since your party claims that homosexuality is normal, moral, natural and healthy, isn't calling someone a "fag" like calling them normal, moral, natural and healthy?
 
Damocles said:
The list I provided is the list of hearings for that week. And now you are nitpicking. It is their business to recommend, they did.

There was Congressional oversight into whether or not the man was a natural born citizen, there is a clear delineation from how people act toward "The One."
Click to expand...


I'm simply being accurate. No hearing was held as you contend. You're simply trying to twist a stupid non-binding resolution that passed by unanimous consent as "Congressional oversight" over an issue that has nothing to do with anything.

Congress had less "oversight" over this than Margaret Truman Daniel and Her Lifetime Of Accomplishments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top