Republican birther hokey pokey

[top gun]

Sorry, but you will be denied security clearance if you have been convicted of a crime whether you disclose it or not unless, of course, you are a governemnt official.

pale, pale, pale

The fact is that whether you can get the clearance or not the information is obtained and it would have been disclosed long long long ago if President Obama was not even an American citizen born in America.

The issue is not whether he is an American citizen or not. The issue is whether he was born here, and until an actual birth certificate shows up that states which hospital he was born in and the attending physican, I am afraid that remains unknown.

Well stay stuck on stupid if ya like but a birth certificate has been produced and excepted not only by Democrats and our National Security Services but even the Republicans. But hey... stay adrift on that boat to nowhere... you're good at that.


An End To The Birther Establishment? Republicans Vote "Yes" On Obama's Hawaiian Heritage
Jul 28 2009
by Chris Good

The birther movement--the class of right-wingers who suspect President Obama was born abroad and is thus ineligible to be president--has drawn lots of attention in political media in the past few weeks, and a prime reason for this is the notion that establishment Republicans might actually heed the conspiracy cries. Rush Limbaugh fashioned himself as a birther, as Marc pointed out; Rep. Michael Castle (R-DE), of moderate policies and mild-mannered demeanor, was hectored by birthers at a town-hall meeting. The Castle video makes birthers look like a vocal, terrifying segment of the GOP base, able to shout down an elected moderate and potentially to rile other conservatives and turn out votes on election day.

Should the GOP take the birthers seriously? Do they already? It's the source from which the birther movement draws its import.

Well, last night most House Republicans voted "yea" to a resolution honoring the 50th anniversary of Hawaiian statehood, which included language recognizing Hawaii as Obama's place of birth.


As Greg Sargent noted, Rep. Neil Abbercrombie's (D-HI) office seemed to take impish glee in the potential jam this created for birther-fearing Republicans; Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) objected to the measure on procedural grounds, requesting a quorum, which spawned many suspicions of her birther inclinations on ThinkProgress's comment board.

The resolution passed 378-0, with 55 members not voting. Prime suspects of birtherism voted in favor of it.

 

[palerider]

Well stay stuck on stupid if ya like but a birth certificate has been produced and excepted not only by Democrats and our National Security Services but even the Republicans. But hey... stay adrift on that boat to nowhere... you're good at that. [/COLOR]

If a birth certificate has been produced, lets see it. Tell me which hospital he was born in and the name of the attending physican.

As to the republican vote, don't make me laugh. As if a vote "proves" anything.

 

[Richard Savage]

Case dismissed.
Certiorari denied.
The End

 

[palerider]

Case dismissed.
Certiorari denied.
The End

And that is "proof" of what?

 

[top gun]

If a birth certificate has been produced, lets see it. Tell me which hospital he was born in and the name of the attending physican.

As to the republican vote, don't make me laugh. As if a vote "proves" anything.

I've seen an official Hawaiian Birth Certificate that the state of Hawaii acknowledges as true... and I don't have to know every other single detail. This countries Intelligence Services know all of that and much more than most people can even imagine... so that's plenty good enough for me.

You do realize that they would HAVE TO COME FORWARD with any background check information that showed the current breaking of the law... like the President of the United States must be born in America and wasn't?

Hey I know you're just playing the "hate the President game" along with all the other wack jobs so that's fine. I know you know better.

It's seriously the simplest thing anyone will ever have to figure out.

Either...

A) You think that the FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS and a host of government agencies just can't do a simple background check including place of birth.

or...

B) When ya lose big and ya got nothing you just throw sh1t on the wall and pray something, anything makes a few dummies doubt The President of the United States of America.

STILL THE PRESIDENT

 

[Pandora]

I've seen an official Hawaiian Birth Certificate

Where did you see it? Can you direct me to where I can find it?

 

[Richard Savage]

There will be no proof. As I explained before:

The so-called legal controversy over President Elect Obama's eligibility is a nonstarter and a no-brainer. President Elect Obama’s birth certificate has been authenticated by the State of Hawaii; which would be admissible as records of vital statistics under Rule 803(9) of the Federal Rules of Evidence in any action in which such issue was relevant. However, you don’t even get there because the federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction for lack of standing of the plaintiffs (appellants) in the case. The lawyers that filed these frivolous lawsuits (and appeals) well knew that they lacked standing to sue, and that such actions would be dismissed; and only did so to generate publicity for themselves. What is interesting is the number of gullible people that have been taken in by this champerty. Indeed, one would think that P.T. Barnum’s estimate on the birthrate of suckers will have to be adjusted for inflation.

 

[Pandora]

There will be no proof. As I explained before:

Dont be silly, Top Gun saw it. He will let me know where to look and I will see it too

 

[Richard Savage]

No. There will be no "proof" because the courts lack subject matter jurisdiction.

 

[Pandora]

No. There will be no "proof" because the courts lack subject matter jurisdiction.

Did you read Top Gun's post?

he said he has seen it, so he will explain where and how and then I will go look at it too.

 

[Richard Savage]

Under Hawaii law, vital statistics records are subject to privacy restrictions.

Section 338-18 of Hawaii Revised Statutes provides:

§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

(b) 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 following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:

(1) The registrant;

(2) The spouse of the registrant;

(3) A parent of the registrant;

(4) A descendant of the registrant;

(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;

(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;

(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;

(8 ) A personal representative of the registrant’s estate;

(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;

(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;

(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;

(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and

(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.

(c) The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made.

(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.

(e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.

(f) Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies. Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct.

(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:

(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;

(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities;

(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’’s or organization’’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;

(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or

(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes.

[L 1949, c 327, §§22; RL 1955, §§57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §§2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]

 

[palerider]

I've seen an official Hawaiian Birth Certificate that the state of Hawaii acknowledges as true... and I don't have to know every other single detail. This countries Intelligence Services know all of that and much more than most people can even imagine... so that's plenty good enough for me.

No you haven't so don't lie. What you have seen is a certification of live birth which is not an official birth certificate or certificate of live birth as it is called in Hawaii. The fact is that a foriegn born child can get a certification of live birth and it says so right on Hawaii's on government pages.

Had you seen a birth certificate, you could tell me which hospitial he was born in and the attending physician's name.

You do realize that they would HAVE TO COME FORWARD with any background check information that showed the current breaking of the law... like the President of the United States must be born in America and wasn't?

Who are "they". Show me the law that mandates that. Exactly who is the controlling authority, and lets see the law that "they" would be following if your claim is true.

Hey I know you're just playing the "hate the President game" along with all the other wack jobs so that's fine. I know you know better.

I see you still have no answer for the very basic questions I have asked. Which hospital was he born in and who was the attending physician. If you had seen a birth certificate, you could answer those questions and then you would be able to make your "hate the president" argument. Till you have answers to those questions, hate is not an issue. Till you can answer those questions, where is the actual birth certificate and why has it not been made public is the issue.

 

[Richard Savage]

One more time: there will be no "proof" - it is an academic issue. These spurious lawsuits and appeals will not be heard for reason that there is no person that would have standing to challenge President Obama’s eligibility; and that these actions only beg the question that standing exists independent of prudential rules that bar one from asserting the constitutional rights of others not before the court. Under the Constitution, the federal courts are prohibited from giving advisory opinions; there has to be an actual case or controversy involving a real party in interest with a justiciable claim ripe for adjudication, and not just some speculative, generalized interest of all citizens, even though the matter may touch on federal question or diversity jurisdiction. In this, standing is to be determined by the courts as an issue pertinent to subject matter jurisdiction. Congress has the authority to enact law conferring standing directly, subject to separation-of-powers limitations. See FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998). However, such is not the case in the current actions disputing President Obama’s citizenship status and eligibility under the Constitution. To put it simply: without a party with standing to sue, there is no case; and, consequently, the actions must be dismissed and the appeals denied.

In the final analysis, only Congress has the authority to challenge Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President of the United States under the Constitution; and on January 8, 2009, the Congress, in joint session, certified his election by the Electoral College without objection. There is the end of the matter.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

One more time: there will be no "proof" - it is an academic issue. These spurious lawsuits and appeals will not be heard for reason that there is no person that would have standing to challenge President Obama’s eligibility; and that these actions only beg the question that standing exists independent of prudential rules that bar one from asserting the constitutional rights of others not before the court. Under the Constitution, the federal courts are prohibited from giving advisory opinions; there has to be an actual case or controversy involving a real party in interest with a justiciable claim ripe for adjudication, and not just some speculative, generalized interest of all citizens, even though the matter may touch on federal question or diversity jurisdiction. In this, standing is to be determined by the courts as an issue pertinent to subject matter jurisdiction. Congress has the authority to enact law conferring standing directly, subject to separation-of-powers limitations. See FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998). However, such is not the case in the current actions disputing President Obama’s citizenship status and eligibility under the Constitution. To put it simply: without a party with standing to sue, there is no case; and, consequently, the actions must be dismissed and the appeals denied.

In the final analysis, only Congress has the authority to challenge Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President of the United States under the Constitution; and on January 8, 2009, the Congress, in joint session, certified his election by the Electoral College without objection. There is the end of the matter.

Excellent Point...yet it will fall upon the 'SELECTIVE HEARING' of the persona known as 'PALE' and be completely ignored! His issue {non factual issue} with our ELECTED PRESIDENTS birth certificate provides him with a 'BONE' of contention to hold onto due to the lack of anything of substance to while away his frustration {totally understandable given the heinous disaster that G.W.B. & company left after 8 years of total Republican base going belly up and not putting any STOPS to that 8 year debacle}....

Simply stated: Pale can't vent his anguish/spleen over that era so he's locked his teeth onto this 'non-issue' and won't let it go! LOL

 

[palerider]

Excellent Point...yet it will fall upon the 'SELECTIVE HEARING' of the persona known as 'PALE' and be completely ignored! His issue {non factual issue} with our ELECTED PRESIDENTS birth certificate provides him with a 'BONE' of contention to hold onto due to the lack of anything of substance to while away his frustration {totally understandable given the heinous disaster that G.W.B. & company left after 8 years of total Republican base going belly up and not putting any STOPS to that 8 year debacle}....

Simply stated: Pale can't vent his anguish/spleen over that era so he's locked his teeth onto this 'non-issue' and won't let it go! LOL

I understand the issue perfectly and savage is correct. My point all along was that obama never proved that he was born in this country and contrary to top gun who seems to be so enamored of obama that the question of his status could never cross his mind, no proof has been offered. The infamous "they" he refers to never saw a birth certificate, nor will they. He accepted the bogus proof as an article of faith and is intellectually unable to question it.

My bet is that should the dems lose the houses of congress in the mid term as it appears they will, law will be passed that addresses this issue and obama will not run for a second term. Feel free to bookmark this prediction for future reference.