CNN: Hawaii Gov. tries to end birther debate once and for all

[Bruno]

He says if he legally can, he will release the long form birth certificate. He addressed the fact that he knows there are some states that are trying to keep Obama off of ballots unless he produces the birth certificate, and doesn't want that to happen even if the White House doesn't want him to release it.

Video interview with the Gov.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/12/27/ps.obama.birther.governor.cnn?hpt=T2


CNN Senior White House Correspondent Ed Henry
HONOLULU, Hawaii (CNN) – Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie vowed to end the "birther" controversy surrounding President Obama's nationality once and for all.

Abercrombie, a newly-elected Democrat, told CNN that he will do whatever it takes to prove once and for all that Obama was born in Hawaii.

"We'll do what we can as quickly as we can to make it inevitable that only those who wish the president ill, only the ones with a political agenda, will be the ones doing this kind of thing," Abercrombie said. "The president is entitled to the respect of his office and he's entitled to have his mother and father respected."

Abercrombie, in his first on-camera comments on the matter, said that he has his attorney general and the state's Health Department director looking at what legal avenues can they follow to release more documentation of Obama's birth in 1961.

"As quick as we can we will," Abercrombie said. "This is a transparent state in terms of our communication with one another. This is the Aloha State. We care for each other, we look out for each other, we're family."

In a sign of how politically radioactive the issue is, White House officials would not comment on the remarks by Abercrombie, a former congressman who was sworn in as governor this month.

But the governor made clear in the CNN interview that he will push forward on this matter regardless of whether the White House is privately worried that it may bring more attention to the so-called "birthers" who continue to deny that Obama was born in America - despite evidence showing that he was.

"We haven't had any of those discussions," Abercrombie said of the White House. "It's a matter of principle with me. I knew his mom and dad. I was here when he was born. Anybody who wants to ask a question honestly could have had their answer already."

Asked if one option is to ask Obama to waive his privacy rights so that a copy of his actual birth certificate can be released publicly, Abercrombie cut off a reporter's question.

"No, no, no - it's not up to the president," he said. "It has nothing to do with the president. It has to do with the people of Hawaii who love him, people who love his mom and dad. It has to do with respect the office of the president is entitled to. And it has to do with respect that every single person's mother and father are entitled to."

Pressed on whether he might unilaterally release a copy of Obama's actual birth certificate, Abercrombie made clear that he is waiting for his cabinet officials to give him a report on what he can legally do before proceeding.

"Obviously, I'm going to do what is legally possible," the governor said.

Throughout the interview, Abercrombie was dripping with disgust for the birthers, saying his goal is to have an open process so that he can "put those who want to disrespect the president and his parents in the proper light, which is to say they have a political agenda not worthy of any good American."

Abercrombie repeatedly mentioned Obama's deceased parents, Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham, because he knew both of them personally here in Hawaii and he is clearly motivated in large part by the notion of letting the President's parents rest in peace.

"It's an insult to his mother and father," he said. "How would anybody like to have their mother and father in that kind of situation?"

The governor said that he was friends with both parents, after Obama's father arrived from Africa.

"His father was one of the first scholarship students coming to the United States and he came to the University of Hawaii, which we were very proud (of)," said Abercrombie. "We became good friends."

The senior Obama was "a brilliant man," he said. "His mom was wonderful. We were happy to have them here with us as long as we did."

Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital. Two separate birth announcements appeared in the local newspapers, The Honolulu Advertiser and The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, in 1961.

But starting in the 2008 campaign, critics of Obama tried to delegitimize his candidacy by claiming he was born in Kenya or some other country, which would make him ineligible to serve as president.

The Obama campaign released a "certification of live birth," which is an official document in Hawaii.

But that has not been enough for birthers, who have demanded to see a copy of Obama's actual birth certificate, saying the certificate of live birth does not prove that he was born here. The cause has continued beyond the campaign through the first two years of Obama's presidency.

Lawmakers in some states, including Texas, are trying to keep Obama off the ballot in 2012 by seeking to pass legislation demanding that presidential candidates show their actual birth certificate.

Abercrombie seemed resigned to the possibility that offering more evidence still might not satisfy some critics.

"You're not going to convince those people because they have a political agenda or they have minds that go in that kind of direction," he said. "Conspiratorial theorists are never going to be satisfied. This has gone into another area of political attack."

But the governor still seemed determined to try and end the controversy once and for all.

"Anybody in this country who has a mom and dad and wants to have that mom and dad respected understands exactly what I'm doing," said Abercrombie. "This has nothing to do with a political agenda of mine or anybody else's. What it has to do with is the Aloha spirit and it has to do with the sense of family that we have for one another here in Hawaii. That's why the president comes here to Hawaii. He's home with family."

http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/27/governor-vows-to-end-birther-controversy/

[Chester Copperpot]

Well thats a very noble cause for Mr. Abercrombie I suppose.. But Im sure there will be people whos issue is the father's citizenship.

[emazur]

"As quick as we can we will," Abercrombie said. "This is a transparent state in terms of our communication with one another. This is the Aloha State. We care for each other, we look out for each other, we're family."

If I was a birther that's what I'd be worried about. This guy is clearly pro-Obama and wouldn't want to do anything to compromise his presidency

[qh4dotcom]

If I see an actual 1961 original birth certificate (not a forgery) I am willing to acknowledge Obama is an eligible legitimate president.

However I am sure other birthers won't forget about the issue...they will keep on insisting he's ineligible because his father was a British citizen....and releasing the birth certificate won't answer the other questions they have raised (like if he applied for foreign aid as a student).

[Bruno]

One thing is for sure - after three years as an issue, it isn't just "going away".

[crazyfacedjenkins]

What fucking difference does it make? I could care less if a foreign born citizen became president, amend the damn constitution already. What matters is if they are pro liberty.

[Bruno]

What fucking difference does it make? I could care less if a foreign born citizen became president, amend the damn constitution already. What matters is if they are pro liberty.

If the constitution were to be ammended, so be it. Until then, the eligibility requirement stands. That's what the fuck difference it makes.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

If the constitution were to be ammended, so be it. Until then, the eligibility requirement stands. That's what the fuck difference it makes.

One of the many flaws in the constitution, should be nullified by flat out ignoring that stupid ass provision.

[fisharmor]

What fucking difference does it make? I could care less if a foreign born citizen became president, amend the damn constitution already. What matters is if they are pro liberty.

You can't carry a gun in most major cities,
you get "scoped or groped" whenever you fly,
you get beaten and murdered by cops and they get to take a vacation,
your savings are going to be gone in two years,
countless brown people are getting murdered in your name,
soon it's going to be illegal to own a garden,
your job is getting shipped overseas,

But
DAMMIT, WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

'Cause we Americans are concerned about what the constitution says.

[akforme]

"We'll do what we can as quickly as we can to make it inevitable that only those who wish the president ill, only the ones with a political agenda, will be the ones doing this kind of thing," Abercrombie said. "The president is entitled to the respect of his office and he's entitled to have his mother and father respected."

Doesn't the rule of law deserve some respect. And doesn't this prove he never has shown his BC? I'd like to think that our government respects the laws and makes sure it's following them.

[emazur]

Chris Matthews Wants To See Obama’s Full Birth Certificate
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/74181.html

[Bruno]

One of the many flaws in the constitution, should be nullified by flat out ignoring that stupid ass provision.

So, logically, they could/should just ignore any other part of the constitution as well, right? We've already had enough problems with that.

[TNforPaul45]

One of the many flaws in the constitution, should be nullified by flat out ignoring that stupid ass provision.

NO!

[jmhudak17]

Birthers are a joke. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

[coastie]

Birthers are a joke. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

Maybe so...but don't look quite as stupid as you just made yourself look by posting a link to snopes...might as well have provided a link to yahoo answers.:rolleyes:

[AxisMundi]

Ladies and gentlemen, this entire Birther nonsense is a mere distraction generated by folks who hate the democratic process when it puts someone NOT of their party in the Oval Office.

They tried to remove Slick Willie that way, and now Bamers is their target.

Sorry folks, you'll just have to wait for the next election to try and remove the sitting POTUS, just like Americans have for over two centuries.

[Ninja Homer]

They want the birther issue to keep going... it divides and distracts people so they don't see what's really going on.

We'll find out the truth about Obama's birth soon enough... right after we find out who really shot JFK and who was really behind 9/11. Is it important? Yes, but in the mean time, there's all kinds of unconstitutional stuff going on where we flat-out know that it's wrong and against the law of the land, so that's a much more solid target to attack. Attack policies, not personalities.

[Romulus]

Maybe so...but don't look quite as stupid as you just made yourself look by posting a link to snopes...might as well have provided a link to yahoo answers.:rolleyes:

Lmao! + rep.

[jmhudak17]

Maybe so...but don't look quite as stupid as you just made yourself look by posting a link to snopes...might as well have provided a link to yahoo answers.:rolleyes:

I did it for the information, not the source.

[Dr.3D]

I did it for the information, not the source.
As if the source doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the information.

[Bruno]

They want the birther issue to keep going... it divides and distracts people so they don't see what's really going on.

We'll find out the truth about Obama's birth soon enough... right after we find out who really shot JFK and who was really behind 9/11. Is it important? Yes, but in the mean time, there's all kinds of unconstitutional stuff going on where we flat-out know that it's wrong and against the law of the land, so that's a much more solid target to attack. Attack policies, not personalities.

This isn't a personality attack, it is a constitutional eligibility attack.

[jmhudak17]

As if the source doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the information.
I mean that I think this would sum up a good argument against "birthers". It was a convenient link to post because it had a lot of information that I wanted to be shown in one place.

[dannno]

I did it for the information, not the source.

There is no information there. No doctor, no hospital name, it's an electronically generated piece of shit that doesn't mean anything.

What we need to see is the original long-form BC with signatures.

Why?

Because if it doesn't exist, and certain people know about that and want something out of Obama, then they can use it to blackmail him. That is why politicians and Presidents are vetted, so we can find out the things that they can be blackmailed on. Once the public finds out, then they can't be blackmailed, whether the public thinks it is an important issue or not is up the public.

[LukeP]

I'm sure it's already been asked but if Obama was born in a hospital why is no one able to attest to being present/witnessing his birth?

[AxisMundi]

As if the source doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the information.

Source or not, the info in the link is accurate.

[klamath]

Obama is just making this harder on himself. I have never been a birther but damn couldn't he just walk into the hospital and get a copy and slam it up to a camera at his next press conference? Sure some would never believe it no matter what but it would cut off places like Texas from excluding him from the ballot if he did.

[AxisMundi]

There is no information there. No doctor, no hospital name, it's an electronically generated piece of shit that doesn't mean anything.

What we need to see is the original long-form BC with signatures.

Why?

Because if it doesn't exist, and certain people know about that and want something out of Obama, then they can use it to blackmail him. That is why politicians and Presidents are vetted, so we can find out the things that they can be blackmailed on. Once the public finds out, then they can't be blackmailed, whether the public thinks it is an important issue or not is up the public.

You have got to be kidding.

Some Muslim plot started in 1961, when they not only phoned two Hawaiian newspapers but destroyed any and all documentation in Kenya and/or Indonesia.

BTW, you already dismantled your own argument above, unless yu are going to claim that BHO has never been vetted, even though he is a past senator and sitting president.

[AxisMundi]

Obama is just making this harder on himself. I have never been a birther but damn couldn't he just walk into the hospital and get a copy and slam it up to a camera at his next press conference? Sure some would never believe it no matter what but it would cut off places like Texas from excluding him from the ballot if he did.

Why should he enable these Birthers in the first place?

He has already tried to placate them and show a legal US document proving his citizenship. Birthers didn't believe it.

Birthers are a tiny majority in this Nation. Loud, obnoxious, gullible certainly, but hardly politically threatening.

[Bruno]

You have got to be kidding.

Some Muslim plot started in 1961, when they not only phoned two Hawaiian newspapers but destroyed any and all documentation in Kenya and/or Indonesia.

BTW, you already dismantled your own argument above, unless yu are going to claim that BHO has never been vetted, even though he is a past senator and sitting president.

Who said it was a Muslim plot?

And you are assuming that he was vetted. We all know how great of a job his administration did of vetting their own appointments. I haven't heard of any state saying they vetting him through seeing his long form birth certificate. Have you?

[klamath]

Why should he enable these Birthers in the first place?

He has already tried to placate them and show a legal US document proving his citizenship. Birthers didn't believe it.

Birthers are a tiny majority in this Nation. Loud, obnoxious, gullible certainly, but hardly politically threatening.

I didn't bring this subject up, the Obama friendly governor of Hawaii did but I am sure you are some higher official than a state governor:rolleyes:

[dannno]

You have got to be kidding.

Some Muslim plot started in 1961, when they not only phoned two Hawaiian newspapers but destroyed any and all documentation in Kenya and/or Indonesia.


What plot? Another poster said that perhaps they put it in the paper so they could ensure welfare in case it was needed. At the time he was born, anybody could get a short form Hawaiin BC without evidence of being born there, the newspaper ads could have been their 'proof' in case the law was changed or something.




BTW, you already dismantled your own argument above, unless yu are going to claim that BHO has never been vetted, even though he is a past senator and sitting president.

No politician has been completely vetted, I was simply stating the purpose for which vetting takes place.

[american.swan]

Ok, supposed Texas passes their law. Then what? Nothing. Some back room private meeting will have the state attorney come out in a press conference saying Obama qualifies because he told me so.

[libertarian4321]

Birthers are a joke. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

I think the problem with the birthers is that they are so blinded by their hatred for Obama that they can't even think straight anymore. They have deluded themselves into believing a conspiracy theory that MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE.

The birther issue is an idiotic side show. We should be working to get a good candidate elected in 2012 rather than wasting time on this "birther" nonsense.

If you don't like Obama, HAMMER HIM ON THE ISSUES and work to get a good candidate like Ron Paul elected.

Stop with the "birther" bull shit that makes all of us look stupid.

[libertarian4321]

Why should he enable these Birthers in the first place?

He has already tried to placate them and show a legal US document proving his citizenship. Birthers didn't believe it.

Birthers are a tiny majority in this Nation. Loud, obnoxious, gullible certainly, but hardly politically threatening.

Pretty good description of the birthers.

I've told the birther nuts on a number of occasions that the reason Obama leaves this idiotic issue out there is that it HELPS HIM.

The birthers have no traction. Other than a tiny minority right wing conspiracy theorists, no one believes the birther crazies. However, the birthers are a perfect foil for Obama- whenever he is criticized, he can point to crazies like the birthers to show how unreasonable his opponents are. It gins up sympathy for Obama (he's being persecuted by crazy right wing extremists) and deflects from the real issues facing the nation (you know, IMPORTANT SHIT, like bail outs, stimulus spending, the wars, and other massive government spending programs).

The birther CTs that infest these forums make all of us look crazy, and make Dr. Paul look crazy as well. I wish the birther CTs would take their "support" to Romney or Palin or anyone other than Ron Paul.

[libertarian4321]

Obama is just making this harder on himself. I have never been a birther but damn couldn't he just walk into the hospital and get a copy and slam it up to a camera at his next press conference? Sure some would never believe it no matter what but it would cut off places like Texas from excluding him from the ballot if he did.

Obama, like all Dems, doesn't give a shit about Texas.

He ain't going to win Texas EVER, so whether he's on the ballot and gets 5 million votes, or isn't on the ballot and gets 0 votes, is irrelevant. Texas' electoral votes will go to the Republican either way.

[libertarian4321]

I'm sure it's already been asked but if Obama was born in a hospital why is no one able to attest to being present/witnessing his birth?

It was almost 50 years ago.

Do you really think that some nurse or doctor (assuming any of them are still alive), having seen thousands of births, is going to remember the birth of some random black kid 5 decades ago?

Like some 85 year old nurse is going to come forward and say "Oh sure, I clearly recall this one black kid born to a single mother ~50 years ago"- as if the kid stood out somehow.

[Vessol]

I think the problem with the birthers is that they are so blinded by their hatred for Obama that they can't even think straight anymore. They have deluded themselves into believing a conspiracy theory that MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE.

The birther issue is an idiotic side show. We should be working to get a good candidate elected in 2012 rather than wasting time on this "birther" nonsense.

If you don't like Obama, HAMMER HIM ON THE ISSUES and work to get a good candidate like Ron Paul elected.

Stop with the "birther" bull shit that makes all of us look stupid.

http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/1138740448_JyzWi-L.jpg

[Maestro232]

I think the problem with the birthers is that they are so blinded by their hatred for Obama that they can't even think straight anymore. They have deluded themselves into believing a conspiracy theory that MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE.

Honestly guys, use your head...you're on liberty forums. You're supposed to be smarter than the average sheeple! Nobody spends millions keeping their records closed unless they have something to hide. Even Chris Matthews is starting to wonder for goodness sake!

[fisharmor]

Obama is just making this harder on himself. I have never been a birther but damn couldn't he just walk into the hospital and get a copy and slam it up to a camera at his next press conference?

Sure, he could do that.
Unless he can't.


The birthers have no traction. Other than a tiny minority right wing conspiracy theorists, no one believes the birther crazies.

Not true, I am neither right wing nor a conspiracy theorist, and I believe them, because the man is older than me and my birth certificate was not created using a laser printer, because the technology didn't exist when I was born, so logically I can not accept that his was.

The difference is that I simply don't give a shit, for all the reasons I already listed.

[jmdrake]

One of the many flaws in the constitution, should be nullified by flat out ignoring that stupid ass provision.

In case you didn't know, this is a constitutional movement. If we're going to start "nullifying" parts that YOU think are stupid, then there is no point to this movement at all.

[jmdrake]

You can't carry a gun in most major cities,
you get "scoped or groped" whenever you fly,
you get beaten and murdered by cops and they get to take a vacation,
your savings are going to be gone in two years,
countless brown people are getting murdered in your name,
soon it's going to be illegal to own a garden,
your job is getting shipped overseas,

But
DAMMIT, WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

'Cause we Americans are concerned about what the constitution says.

So let's fix attacks on the constitution by ignoring it? :rolleyes: Yes some birthers are hypocrites and don't care about the constitution. Harry Reid is being a hypocrite for adopting Ron Paul's position on earmarks being constitutional but ignoring the fact that the constitution doesn't allow the federal government to mandate people buy insurance. But we shouldn't throw out the constitutional baby just because hypocrites dirty up the bathwater. That said, I'm not a birther. While there's some smoke I don't think there is any fire. But Obama should just release the stinking long form and be done with it. Would that satisfy all birthers? Nope. But it would satisfy most.

[jmdrake]

Pretty good description of the birthers.

I've told the birther nuts on a number of occasions that the reason Obama leaves this idiotic issue out there is that it HELPS HIM.

The birthers have no traction. Other than a tiny minority right wing conspiracy theorists, no one believes the birther crazies. However, the birthers are a perfect foil for Obama- whenever he is criticized, he can point to crazies like the birthers to show how unreasonable his opponents are. It gins up sympathy for Obama (he's being persecuted by crazy right wing extremists) and deflects from the real issues facing the nation (you know, IMPORTANT SHIT, like bail outs, stimulus spending, the wars, and other massive government spending programs).

The birther CTs that infest these forums make all of us look crazy, and make Dr. Paul look crazy as well. I wish the birther CTs would take their "support" to Romney or Palin or anyone other than Ron Paul.

For the record 58% of Republicans have doubts about whether Obama was born in the U.S.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/58_of_GOP_not_suredont_beleive_Obama_born_in_US.ht ml

So if Ron Paul were to win every birther vote he would be assured the GOP nomination. Unfortunately most birthers already do what you wish they would do and support other candidates like Palin and Romney. Paul shouldn't embrace the birther movement because that will hurt him in the general election. But those who wish to expel birthers from our ranks are only assuring that Paul won't get past the primaries.

[jmdrake]

What plot? Another poster said that perhaps they put it in the paper so they could ensure welfare in case it was needed. At the time he was born, anybody could get a short form Hawaiin BC without evidence of being born there, the newspaper ads could have been their 'proof' in case the law was changed or something.




No politician has been completely vetted, I was simply stating the purpose for which vetting takes place.

You don't understand Dannno. The ONLY reason illegal aliens routinely fake birth certificates is because they want their kids to grow up to be president. ;) That said I think this is a non issue. Obama can be beaten on the merits. And if we don't win the primaries it really won't matter anyway because Romney/Palin/Huckabee are all as bad as Obama in some way or another.

[Ninja Homer]

This isn't a personality attack, it is a constitutional eligibility attack.

I understand that, and I think everybody here understands that, but the left sees it as a personal attack born out of hatred. This is why Obama hasn't released a birth certificate... it keeps people divided and distracted. "Pay no attention to those paultards and teabaggers... they're just a bunch of hating birthers."

[RonPaulFanInGA]

One thing is for sure - after three years as an issue, it isn't just "going away".

More like the opposite until this fool gave more fodder to the WorldNetDaily crowd.


First, and apropos of nothing, my mind is blown by the fact that the governor of Hawaii remembers the president of the United States as an infant. But never mind that. Why is this tool dredging up an issue that, mercifully, had begun to go away? Hawaii’s records department received only 16 requests for Obama’s birth certificate in November, down from 50 or so a month last year. Higher courts have waved away multiple Birther petitions, and the court-martial of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin ended with him pleading guilty to failing to report for duty. This subject has no traction, in other words, either legally or in mainstream media, and thus had probably never been fringier when Abercrombie spoke up and decided to treat it as a problem that needs solving. Even his personal testimony about having seen Obama as a baby in Hawaii won’t count for anything among true believers, since he admits that he wasn’t at the hospital for the delivery — which is too bad, since it would have been fun to watch them come up with theories to explain even that inconvenient fact away. (It was a changeling!)

This guy’s now placed himself in the following position. Either he inadvertently revives the Birther movement by crusading for a new law to make long-form birth certificates public without the approval of the individuals to whom they belong or he decides nothing can be done legally and backs off, which will itself inflame Birthers by inspiring dark theories about pressure on him from the White House to quiet down. And of course, since Abercrombie’s a liberal Democrat, if he does somehow manage to produce the long-form certificate and it confirms that Obama’s birth happened as alleged, skeptics will dismiss it as a forgery planted by an ideological ally to throw Birthers off the scent of the “real” birth certificate. He can’t win here. Why would he even try?

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/27/new-hawaii-governor-were-going-to-put-a-stop-to-this-birther-crap-once-and-for-all/


For the record 58% of Republicans have doubts about whether Obama was born in the U.S.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/58_of_GOP_not_suredont_beleive_Obama_born_in_US.ht ml

So if Ron Paul were to win every birther vote he would be assured the GOP nomination. Unfortunately most birthers already do what you wish they would do and support other candidates like Palin and Romney. Paul shouldn't embrace the birther movement because that will hurt him in the general election. But those who wish to expel birthers from our ranks are only assuring that Paul won't get past the primaries.

Must be why McCain successfully chose to make a big issue of J.D. Hayworth being a birther in the 2010 Republican Senate primary in a state (Arizona) whose legislature passed a "birther bill" to get on the ballot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xULUb98TNwk

[jmdrake]

I understand that, and I think everybody here understands that, but the left sees it as a personal attack born out of hatred. This is why Obama hasn't released a birth certificate... it keeps people divided and distracted. "Pay no attention to those paultards and teabaggers... they're just a bunch of hating birthers."

For the last time the majority of republicans doubt whether Obama was born in Hawaii. Nobody thinks it's the "paultards" except for gatekeepers inside the Ron Paul movement itself. If we succeed in winning over enough republicans to win the nomination many of them will be birthers. That's just a fact of life that we might as well get use to and quit fretting over.

[Bruno]

More like the opposite until this fool gave more fodder to the WorldNetDaily crowd.





Did you miss this from the article? The HI governor's statements are a result of this type of legislation, not vice versa.

Lawmakers in some states, including Texas, are trying to keep Obama off the ballot in 2012 by seeking to pass legislation demanding that presidential candidates show their actual birth certificate.

[AxisMundi]

Honestly guys, use your head...you're on liberty forums. You're supposed to be smarter than the average sheeple! Nobody spends millions keeping their records closed unless they have something to hide. Even Chris Matthews is starting to wonder for goodness sake!

There is no law, Constitutional Code, or otherwise, stating that any public servant is required to show any private citizen any private information whatsoever.

Proof of citizenship is shown to the applicable authorities when one takes office as a Senator and a President.

Let's say your neighbor's cousin claimed you were born in England, and therefor you are not a natural born citizen. Does your neighbor have any right to sue you to force you to show him your birth certificate? No, no private citizen has any authority to demand your birth certificate.

The g'ment does, and does so for security clearance purposes, and has done so and given BHO a clean bill of health as far as being a natural born citizen of this country.

[AxisMundi]

Sure, he could do that.
Unless he can't.



Not true, I am neither right wing nor a conspiracy theorist, and I believe them, because the man is older than me and my birth certificate was not created using a laser printer, because the technology didn't exist when I was born, so logically I can not accept that his was.

The difference is that I simply don't give a shit, for all the reasons I already listed.

Go to your local county clerk and ask for a copy of your BC.

I'll even send you the cost.

Guess what, you will get a short form, not the long, printed out on the spot.

[S.Shorland]

Find some tall black lads from Washington.Get them dressed up in Masai tribal garb and shouting 'Barry,our brother!' slogans on the steps of Congress.They'd get on TV and maybe smoke out a response.

[AxisMundi]

Did you miss this from the article? The HI governor's statements are a result of this type of legislation, not vice versa.

Lawmakers in some states, including Texas, are trying to keep Obama off the ballot in 2012 by seeking to pass legislation demanding that presidential candidates show their actual birth certificate.

Republican held states, go figure.

[jmdrake]

More like the opposite until this fool gave more fodder to the WorldNetDaily crowd.



http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/27/new-hawaii-governor-were-going-to-put-a-stop-to-this-birther-crap-once-and-for-all/



Must be why McCain successfully chose to make a big issue of J.D. Hayworth being a birther in the 2010 Republican Senate primary in a state (Arizona) whose legislature passed a "birther bill" to get on the ballot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xULUb98TNwk

And your point? John McCain, an incumbent senator and former GOP nominee, barely won his primary bid! And the main reason he won was off the endorsement of his VP pick that he doesn't like. Oh yeah, and Palin is a birther.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/palin-goes-birther-obama_n_379634.html

[jmdrake]

Republican held states that Ron Paul needs to clinch the nomination, go figure.

Fixed it for ya. ;)

[RonPaulFanInGA]

And your point? John McCain, an incumbent senator and former GOP nominee, barely won his primary bid!

I thought my point was rather clear. McCain used Hayworth's birtherism against him effectively in a closed Republican primary and successfully painted him as a kook. And you're here basically stating that one needs be a birther to win a GOP primary; and yet I doubt you could name any true open, outspoken birthers that won statewide election in 2010 as non-incumbents.

Secondly, McCain won by a 56% and 32% margin over Hayworth. A real squeaker! And in a strong anti-incumbent year in which incumbent Republican Senators like Bob Bennett and Lisa Murkowski were losing their primaries.

[jmdrake]

I thought my point was rather clear. McCain used Hayworth's birtherism against him effectively in a closed Republican primary and successfully painted him as a kook. And you're here basically stating that one needs be a birther to win a GOP primary; and yet I doubt you could name any true open, outspoken non-incumbent birthers that won a statewide election in 2010.

Secondly, McCain won by a 56% and 32% margin over Hayworth. A real squeaker! And in a strong anti-incumbent year in which incumbent Republican Senators like Bob Bennett and Lisa Murkowski were losing their primaries.

I see you continue to totally ignore Sarah birther Palin's endorsement of McCain. Do you have any exit polling data to suggest to you how many of Palin's birther supporters went ahead and voted for McCain anyway? You play the hand that you're dealt. If you can keep certain voters on board with a wink and a nod of an endorsement, and then go after your opponent on his weak spot, than do it. Ans as for it being an "anti incumbent" year, most republican incumbents still won their primaries.

Now as to your question about non incumbent birthers winning in 2010...it depends on the definition of "birther". If by "birther" you mean someone who has openly doubted whether Obama was born in Hawaii, then that includes Rand Paul. Some folks here thought he'd be hurt by saying that. Clearly he wasn't. If on the other hand you mean "someone who is 100% sure that Obama isn't a citizen and will stick to that belief even if Obama releases the long form birth certificate" than sure you're right. But that just means radical extremists have a hard time winning anything. But most folks at RPF who question Obama's birth don't fall into the "even if he releases the long form I still think he's ineligible" category.

[klamath]

Fixed it for ya. ;)
The trouble is JM I don't believe Axis is a RP supporter so that arguement won't sway him.

[AxisMundi]

Fixed it for ya. ;)

Indeed, then maybe this Birther nonsense will stop.

[AxisMundi]

The trouble is JM I don't believe Axis is a RP supporter so that arguement won't sway him.

No, your trouble is picking key words out of my argument to fit your idea of The Enemy, so you can ignore my arguments without any thought.

[Matt Collins]

My guess?

There is something on the long form that is embarrassing.


I think the long form might say that he is "negro" or "mulatto" or even "Caucasian". The term "negro" is obviously archaic to today's society so I could see why they wouldn't want it being tossed around. But if it says that he is "mulatto" or "mixed" or "Caucasian" that would mean that he is "not black" which has the potential of affecting him politically.

AND

There is maybe the possibility that the long form says that his parents were unmarried at the time of his birth, which would then make him a "bastard". Everyone calls him that anyway, so now it would just be a legal fact :p

[klamath]

No, your trouble is picking key words out of my argument to fit your idea of The Enemy, so you can ignore my arguments without any thought.
Are you a RP supporter? I don't consider you an enemy even if you were a Obama supporter. You have your own belief like everyone else around here.

[jmdrake]

My guess?

There is something on the long form that is embarrassing.


I think the long form might say that he is "negro" or "mulatto" or even "Caucasian". The term "negro" is obviously archaic to today's society so I could see why they wouldn't want it being tossed around. But if it says that he is "mulatto" or "mixed" or "Caucasian" that would mean that he is "not black" which has the potential of affecting him politically.

AND

There is maybe the possibility that the long form says that his parents were unmarried at the time of his birth, which would then make him a "bastard". Everyone calls him that anyway, so now it would just be a legal fact :p

LOL. Matt, you've met my kids and my wife right? Did you know that the hospital had initially put Caucasian on their birth certificates? :eek: Anyway that's easily fixable by the parents before leaving the hospital. In other words, it would only say Caucasian or "mulatto" if that's what the mother wanted the BC to say. And I doubt "negro" being on the BC would make that much of a splash. It would certainly be less newsworthy than the whole "He's not really a citizen" whisper campaign.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I see you continue to totally ignore Sarah birther Palin's endorsement of McCain.

I see you're pretty generous in labeling one a birther. Palin says it's a fair question and later that same day calls it a "stupid conspiracy" and yet you'll desperately insist she's a birther.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=188707498434


Ans as for it being an "anti incumbent" year, most republican incumbents still won their primaries.

Sheesh. By that standard: it's never an anti-incumbent year. The vast majority of Congressmen and Senators running for reelection are always going to win their party primaries.

[lester1/2jr]

I couldn't care less if he was born in kenya. It's a dumb rule that should be ignored or amended.

[jmdrake]

I see you're pretty generous in labeling one a birther. Palin says it's a fair question and later that same day calls it a "stupid conspiracy" and yet you'll desperately insist she's a birther.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=188707498434


So Palin's a flip flopper. And? One day she supports bailouts and the next she's agin em. And I'm not "desperate" to prove anything. You are the one fighting against the numbers. The stats are that most in the GOP have doubts about Obama's birth. Deal with it.



Sheesh. By that standard: it's never an anti-incumbent year. The vast majority of Congressmen and Senators running for reelection are always going to win their party primaries.

Are you trying to help me prove my point? Yes, the vast majority of congressmen and senators running for reelection win their primaries. That's why it's no surprise that McCain won his! Especially in a year that favored REPUBLICANS! The surprise is that it was even competitive.

Really, you have failed to prove your point that the birther issue was the reason or even a reason McCain won. McCain had incumbent advantage even in an "anti incumbent" year, and McCain had the endorsement of someone that most birthers look up to even if she plays both sides of the fence. Also there's no evidence that birthers are "single issue" voters. All we know for sure is that there are more of them than not in the GOP.

[Matt Collins]

LOL. Matt, you've met my kids and my wife right? Did you know that the hospital had initially put Caucasian on their birth certificates? :eek: Anyway that's easily fixable by the parents before leaving the hospital. In other words, it would only say Caucasian or "mulatto" if that's what the mother wanted the BC to say. And I doubt "negro" being on the BC would make that much of a splash. It would certainly be less newsworthy than the whole "He's not really a citizen" whisper campaign.Well I think it would make sense at the time for his mom to want his BC to say "Caucasian"... Unfortunately equality was not commonplace back then for people who were non-white. In other words his mom might have been trying to give him a better lot in life by labeling him "white".

Do you think that if his BC indeed said "white" on it that it would've hurt him politically among his base? :confused:

[jmdrake]

Well I think it would make sense at the time for his mom to want his BC to say "Caucasian"... Unfortunately equality was not commonplace back then for people who were non-white. In other words his mom might have been trying to give him a better lot in life by labeling him "white".


Ummmm...how would that work exactly? When young Barak tried to join an all white country club the owners would ignore the fact that he didn't look white and just go by his BC that he wouldn't be required to show anyway when applying for membership? :confused:



Do you think that if his BC indeed said "white" on it that it would've hurt him politically among his base? :confused:

Tiger Woods called himself "cablasian". Lots of blacks still looked up to him as the first really successful black golfer. It really wouldn't matter at all. (Yeah I know Phil Valentine promotes this theory, but Phil's wrong about a lot of stuff). Just look at how many black people accepted the idea of Bill Clinton being the "first black president" even though Bill has both the BC and the look of a white person. Of course this helps me understand why republican politicians do so poorly in general among black voters. It's a general misunderstanding about what makes that voter base tick. I wonder if somebody really thought "Alan Keyes can beat Barack Obama for the Illinois senate seat because Keyes is darker".

[Matt Collins]

Ummmm...how would that work exactly? When young Barak tried to join an all white country club the owners would ignore the fact that he didn't look white and just go by his BC that he wouldn't be required to show anyway when applying for membership? :confused:Yeah, but what about applying for college, loans, school, etc where one doesn't always do a face-to-face interview/application?

[jmdrake]

Yeah, but what about applying for college, loans, school, etc where one doesn't always do a face-to-face interview/application?

I've never been asked to provide a birth certificate when applying for college, loans, schools etc. And most of the time loans require you to meet a loan officer.

I mean really Matt. Phil Valentine's "This white mother put white on Obama's BC because she thought it would help him pass for white later even though he doesn't look white and most of the time nobody's going to ask him for his birth certificate" conspiracy theory is far more whacker than the "His American mother realized he didn't meet citizenship requirements and wanted him to be an American citizen without having to jump through extra hoops because of all of the government benefits that come with being an American citizen" conspiracy theory. Really, illegal aliens fake U.S. birth certificates all of the time. But I don't know of a single case of a parent of a child that does not look white attempting to put white on the BC. Applying Occam's razor, the "birther" conspiracy theory makes more sense.

[Aratus]

ms. sarah palin shoots a caribou by bringing it down with only one shot
and the current governor of hawaii feels impelled to clear up a confusion!

[Matt Collins]

I've never been asked to provide a birth certificate when applying for college, loans, schools etc. And most of the time loans require you to meet a loan officer. I agree. But if one's BC says one is "white" or whatever color, one then has legal cover to label oneself that.

I could call myself Hispanic, but I have no justification for doing so. However if my BC said that I was Hispanic, then regardless of my skin color, I would feel justified in using that label if I felt like it.





I mean really Matt. Phil Valentine's "This white mother put white on Obama's BC because she thought it would help him pass for white later even though he doesn't look white and most of the time nobody's going to ask him for his birth certificate" conspiracy theory is far more whacker than the "His American mother realized he didn't meet citizenship requirements and wanted him to be an American citizen without having to jump through extra hoops because of all of the government benefits that come with being an American citizen" conspiracy theory. Really, illegal aliens fake U.S. birth certificates all of the time. But I don't know of a single case of a parent of a child that does not look white attempting to put white on the BC. Applying Occam's razor, the "birther" conspiracy theory makes more sense.I dunno. I don't know the truth, I'm just taking guesses that make logical sense and seem to fit the facts.

[torchbearer]

Didn't a couple of states pass legislation requiring proof of qualification for an elected office?
If so, lil' barry will have to produce those documents to get on the ballot.
If I was a SOS, i wouldn't put him on the ballot until he proved his credentials, along with everyone else.

[Bruno]

Didn't a couple of states pass legislation requiring proof of qualification for an elected office?
If so, lil' barry will have to produce those documents to get on the ballot.
If I was a SOS, i wouldn't put him on the ballot until he proved his credentials, along with everyone else.

Yes, and some are considering it. That is what this attempt by the HI Governor is trying to offset.

My guess is he won't be able to legally release it, Obama won't let him, and it will be another case of "Hey, trust me, I've seen it. Let's all move on based upon my word."

[specsaregood]

Didn't a couple of states pass legislation requiring proof of qualification for an elected office?
If so, lil' barry will have to produce those documents to get on the ballot.
If I was a SOS, i wouldn't put him on the ballot until he proved his credentials, along with everyone else.

But he still wouldn't have to release it to the public. So we would still have to take the word of the SOS that he is legit. Just saying...

[Krugerrand]

But he still wouldn't have to release it to the public. So we would still have to take the word of the SOS that he is legit. Just saying...

I'm not up on all of the Freedom of Information Act details. But, I would not be surprised if such a process could end up with the document being made available once it is produced to the states.

[jmdrake]

I agree. But if one's BC says one is "white" or whatever color, one then has legal cover to label oneself that.

Obama was born in 1961. Brown v. Board of education outlawed government segregation in 1956. So there was no reason for any "legal cover". And if your going with the "This was to avoid discrimination by private entities" argument (since the 1964 civil rights act hadn't passed yet), then you're also overlooking the fact that at the time most states were "employment at will" states, meaning an employer could fire someone at any time for any reason. So if an employer was "fooled" by a lie on an application and a dishonest birth certificate, he would still be able to say "I don't care who says you're white. You look black. You're fired." What good would "legal cover" be in that case?



I could call myself Hispanic, but I have no justification for doing so. However if my BC said that I was Hispanic, then regardless of my skin color, I would feel justified in using that label if I felt like it.


Sure. But there are Hispanics that look like you. I don't know any white people who look like Barack Obama. There are black people who can pass for white. Obama isn't one of them. Again, most people look at Tiger Woods and see a black man, despite the fact that he calls himself "cablasian". And Tiger looks less black than Barack.



I dunno. I don't know the truth, I'm just taking guesses that make logical sense and seem to fit the facts.

So what do you think of the possibility that a mother of an illegal immigrant might fake a birth certificate in order for her child to reap the benefits of being an American citizen? Is that really that far fetched? I'm not saying that's what happened. Just saying that's a better fit to the facts (to me anyway) than the "He's covering up that he BC says he's white" argument.

[jmdrake]

But he still wouldn't have to release it to the public. So we would still have to take the word of the SOS that he is legit. Just saying...

I'm assuming that in any state that went that far the SOS wouldn't put his political neck on the line to put Obama on the ballot without proof. If he did, he wouldn't be SOS after the next election.

[Matt Collins]

Obama was born in 1961. Brown v. Board of education outlawed government segregation in 1956. So there was no reason for any "legal cover". And if your going with the "This was to avoid discrimination by private entities" argument (since the 1964 civil rights act hadn't passed yet), then you're also overlooking the fact that at the time most states were "employment at will" states, meaning an employer could fire someone at any time for any reason. So if an employer was "fooled" by a lie on an application and a dishonest birth certificate, he would still be able to say "I don't care who says you're white. You look black. You're fired." What good would "legal cover" be in that case?Good point, but discrimination was sadly still rampant (legal or otherwise).



So what do you think of the possibility that a mother of an illegal immigrant might fake a birth certificate in order for her child to reap the benefits of being an American citizen? Is that really that far fetched? I'm not saying that's what happened. Just saying that's a better fit to the facts (to me anyway) than the "He's covering up that he BC says he's white" argument.Very possible. We may never know though.

[devil21]

Abercrombie repeatedly mentioned Obama's deceased parents, Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham, because he knew both of them personally here in Hawaii and he is clearly motivated in large part by the notion of letting the President's parents rest in peace.

"It's an insult to his mother and father," he said. "How would anybody like to have their mother and father in that kind of situation?"

The governor said that he was friends with both parents, after Obama's father arrived from Africa.

"His father was one of the first scholarship students coming to the United States and he came to the University of Hawaii, which we were very proud (of)," said Abercrombie. "We became good friends."

The senior Obama was "a brilliant man," he said. "His mom was wonderful. We were happy to have them here with us as long as we did."


Well that sure is convenient. But I thought Obama's backstory was that his parents were humble people that raised a son who happened to become President, proving that anything can happen in the US? There's a long write-up regarding Obama's parent's CIA connections, etc.
http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-barack-obama-conclusively-outed-as-cia-creation/

And now suddenly and randomly the same man elevated to power in the state of Hawaii is the same man who apparently knew Obama's parents and can "vouch" for his backstory? Sorry but that's a little too convenient and I don't believe in "coincidence theories".

[Bruno]

Well that sure is convenient. But I thought Obama's backstory was that his parents were humble people that raised a son who happened to become President, proving that anything can happen in the US? There's a long write-up regarding Obama's parent's CIA connections, etc.
http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-barack-obama-conclusively-outed-as-cia-creation/

And now suddenly and randomly the same man elevated to power in the state of Hawaii is the same man who apparently knew Obama's parents and can "vouch" for his backstory? Sorry but that's a little too convenient and I don't believe in "coincidence theories".

+ rep

[jmhudak17]

Well that sure is convenient. But I thought Obama's backstory was that his parents were humble people that raised a son who happened to become President, proving that anything can happen in the US? There's a long write-up regarding Obama's parent's CIA connections, etc.
http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-barack-obama-conclusively-outed-as-cia-creation/

And now suddenly and randomly the same man elevated to power in the state of Hawaii is the same man who apparently knew Obama's parents and can "vouch" for his backstory? Sorry but that's a little too convenient and I don't believe in "coincidence theories".

I take everything Alex Jones says with a huge grain of salt. This guy thinks everything is a conspiracy.

[Valli6]

I still think the birth certificate is a distraction from the real issue - whether or not someone born with dual citizenship (as admitted on Obama's own website) qualifies as a "natural born citizen".


"… candidate Obama is not eligible to the Presidency as he would not be a "natural born citizen" of the United States even if it were proved he was born in Hawaii , since, … Senator Obama's father was born in Kenya and therefore, having been born with split and competing loyalties, candidate Obama is not a "natural born citizen" as is required by Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution." (from Donofrio's Application for Emergency Stay - 11/3/08)

Remember that it was Phiip J. Berg, a democrat, who (I believe) first popularized the claim that Obama was was born in Kenya. The eligibility question raged across the internet for months before anyone in the mainstream media breathed a single word about it! (Including Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh). Eventually they created the obligatory derogatory label ("birther"), and then battered the curious with insults;
wing-nut, conspiracy theorist, paranoid, whack-job, fringe, tinfoil hat, extremist, crackpots, forgot-your-meds, knuckle dragger, mouth breather and many, many more*… (and they wonder why we don't watch?)

Obama's own supporters keep this particular issue alive. They're still pretending the dual-citizen VS. natural-born-citizen issue has never existed.

It would probably help Obama to produce the full birth certificate now. Should the issue of whether a dual-citizen can be considered a "natural born citizen" - become unavoidable (2012 election, for instance), it would be easier to discredit it as a desperate, suddenly-devised ploy from the "wing-nuts, conspiracy theorists, paranoid, whack-jobs, fringe, tinfoil hat, extremists, crackpots, forgot-your-meds, knuckle draggers, mouth breathers..."

*all these terms from Mathews' and Maddow's shows

[Bruno]

I take everything Alex Jones says with a huge grain of salt. This guy thinks everything is a conspiracy.

So, did you click on the link, or dismiss it due to the source? It was an interview with someone who was on his show and did extensive research for a book he wrote. Ron Paul has been on his show many times, as I'm sure you know.

Here's some excerpts in case you don't want to click :

PART 2: Special Report. The Story of Obama: All in The Company - Part II

In Part I of this WMR special report, we revealed the connections between Barack Obama, Sr. and the CIA-affiliated Airlift Africa project to provide college degrees to and gain influence over a group of 280 eastern and southern African students from soon-to-be independent African nations to counter similar programs established by the Soviet Union and China. Barack Obama Sr. was the first African student to attend the University of Hawaii. Obama Sr. and Obama’s mother Stanley Ann Dunham met in a Russian language class in 1959 and they married in 1961.

The African airlift program was administered by Kenyan nationalist leader Tom Mboya, a fellow Luo tribe mentor and friend of the senior Obama. According to CIA documents described in Part I, Mboya also served the CIA in ensuring that pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese African nationalists were stymied in their attempt to dominate pan-African nationalist political, student, and labor movements.

One of Mboya’s chief opponents was Ghana’s first president, Kwame Nkrumah, who was ousted in a CIA-inspired coup in 1966, one year before to Obama Sr’s son, Barack Obama, Jr. and his mother joined Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian who Obama’s mother met at the University of Hawaii in 1965, when President Obama was four years old.

In 1967, Obama and his mother joined her husband in Jakarta. In 1965, Lolo Soetoro had been called back from Hawaii by General Suharto to serve as an officer in the Indonesian military to help launch a bloody CIA-backed genocide of Indonesian Communists and Indonesian Chinese throughout the expansive country. Suharto consolidated his power in 1966, the same year that Barack Obama, Sr.’s friend, Mboya, had helped to rally pro-U.S. pan-African support for the CIA’s overthrow of Nkrumah in Ghana in 1966.

East-West Center, University of Hawaii, and CIA coup against Sukarno

Ann Dunham met Soetoro at the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii. The center had long been affiliated with CIA activities in the Asia-Pacific region. In 1965, the year that Dunham met and married Soetoro, the center saw a new chancellor take over. He was Howard P. Jones who served a record seven years, from 1958 to 1965, as U.S. ambassador to Indonesia. Jones was present in Jakarta as Suharto and his CIA-backed military officers planned the 1965 overthrow of Sukarno, who was seen, along with the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), as allies of China.

When Jones was chancellor of the East-West Center, he wrote an article for the Washington Post, dated October 10, 1965, in which he defended Suharto’s overthrow of Sukarno. Jones was “invited” by the Post to comment on the Suharto coup, described as a “counter-coup” against the Communists. Jones charged that Suharto was merely responding to an earlier attempted Communist-led coup against Sukarno launched by Lt. Col. Untung, “a relatively unknown battalion commander in the palace guard.”

Jones’s article, which mirrored CIA situation reports from the U.S. embassy in Jakarta, continued by stating that the alleged leftist coup on September 30 ”came within an inch of succeeding through the assassination of six of the top military command. It might well have succeeded had not Defense Minister Nasution and a number of other senior generals also maked for assassination acted fast in a dramatic counter-coup.” Of course, what Jones did not inform the Post’s readers was that the Suharto “counter-coup” had been assisted with the strong help of the CIA.

....

CIA banking and Hawaii

Meanwhile, Dunham Soetoro’s mother, Madelyn Dunham, who raised young Obama when he returned to Hawaii in 1971 while his mother stayed in Indonesia, was the first female vice president at the Bank of Hawaii in Honolulu. Various CIA front entities used the bank. Madelyn Dunham handled escrow accounts used to make CIA payments to U.S.-supported Asian dictators like Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos, South Vietnamese President Nguyen van Thieu, and President Suharto in Indonesia. In effect, the bank was engaged in money laundering for the CIA to covertly prop up its favored leaders in the Asia-Pacific region.

One of the CIA’s major money laundering fronts in Honolulu was the firm of Bishop, Baldwin, Rewald, Dillingham & Wong (BBRDW). After the CIA allowed the firm to collapse in 1983 amid charges that BBRDW was merely a Ponzi scheme, Senator Daniel Inouye of the US Senate Intelligence Committee said the CIA’s role in the firm “wasn’t significant.” It would later be revealed that Inouye, who was one of the late Alaska Senator Ted Stevens’s best friends in the Senate, was lying. In fact, BBRDW was involved heavily in funding covert CIA programs throughout Asia, including economic espionage against Japan, providing arms for Afghan mujaheddin guerrillas in their war against the Soviets and covertly supplying weapons to Taiwan. One of BBRDW’s principals was John C. “Jack” Kindschi, who, before he retired in 1981, was the CIA station chief in Honolulu. BBRDW’s chairman Ron Rewald had a counterfeit college degree certificate provided for the wall of his office by the CIA’s forgery experts and his name was inserted in university records as an alumnus.

A false history for BBRDW was concocted by the CIA claiming the firm had operated in Hawaii since it was a territory. President Obama is currently plagued by allegations that he has fake college and university transcripts, a phony social security number issued in Connecticut, and other padded resume items. Did Hawaii’s fake BBRDW documents portend today’s questions about Obama’s past?

BBRDW conducted its business in the heart of Honolulu’s business district, where the Bank of Hawaii was located and where Obama grandmother Madelyn Dunham ran the escrow accounts. The bank would handle much of BBRDW’s covert financial transactions.

Obama/Soetoro and the “years of living dangerously” in Jakarta

It is clear that Dunham Soetoro and her Indonesian husband, President Obama’s step-father, were closely involved in the CIA’s operations to steer Indonesia away from the Sino-Soviet orbit during the “years of living dangerously” after the overthrow of Sukarno. WMR has discovered that some of the CIA’s top case officers were assigned to various official and non-official cover assignments in Indonesia during this time frame, including under the cover of USAID, the Peace Corps, and the U.S. Information Agency (USIA).

[jmhudak17]

I did click on the link and skimmed through it. However, Wayne Madsen is not someone I view as very credible. From what I've read about him he's pretty much just a common conspiracy theorist.

[Bruno]

I did click on the link and skimmed through it. However, Wayne Madsen is not someone I view as very credible. From what I've read about him he's pretty much just a common conspiracy theorist.

So...none of what he said is true because you believe he thinks people conspire and you think people don't conspire?

What percent of the CIA ties to the Obama family would you believe are true?

[jmhudak17]

I'm saying he cannot be trusted fully. Even though I doubt it, some of what he's saying may be true. However, he has little to no credibility, and credibility matters when readers are deciding whether or not they believe a story.

[HOLLYWOOD]

One of the CIA’s major money laundering fronts in Honolulu was the firm of Bishop, Baldwin, Rewald, Dillingham & Wong (BBRDW). After the CIA allowed the firm to collapse in 1983 amid charges that BBRDW was merely a Ponzi scheme, Senator Daniel Inouye of the US Senate Intelligence Committee said the CIA’s role in the firm “wasn’t significant.” It would later be revealed that Inouye, who was one of the late Alaska Senator Ted Stevens’s best friends in the Senate, was lying. In fact, BBRDW was involved heavily in funding covert CIA programs throughout Asia, including economic espionage against Japan, providing arms for Afghan mujaheddin guerrillas in their war against the Soviets and covertly supplying weapons to Taiwan. One of BBRDW’s principals was John C. “Jack” Kindschi, who, before he retired in 1981, was the CIA station chief in Honolulu. BBRDW’s chairman Ron Rewald had a counterfeit college degree certificate provided for the wall of his office by the CIA’s forgery experts and his name was inserted in university records as an alumnus. .

lol the USUAL SUSPECTS

Those who stay consistent to the Fascist Totalitarian establishment, no matter how illegal, are rewarded. Sentor Daniel INOUYE received $135 Million bailout for his bank, that he founded, where as substantial amount of assets are located($750K) after a few calls to US Treasury/FDIC, during the banking crisis. Market Cap today is $40 million.

Love the "Valeri Plame" CIA fronts, entertaining and very predictable.

[dannno]

I'm saying he cannot be trusted fully. Even though I doubt it, some of what he's saying may be true. However, he has little to no credibility, and credibility matters when readers are deciding whether or not they believe a story.

The only source in the US to talk about Georgia invading South Ossetia before Russia invaded Georgia, the only one calling out CNN for posting pictures of the attack on civilian apartment buildings in South Ossetia and claiming they were civilian apartments in Georgia.. and he has no credibility??

Forget about whether you think Russia had the right to attack Georgia to protect South Ossetia which had disassociated itself from Georgia and associated itself with Russia, don't you think that is a pretty major detail to leave out?? Don't you think there has to be a motive behind that??

[dannno]

I'm saying he cannot be trusted fully. Even though I doubt it, some of what he's saying may be true. However, he has little to no credibility, and credibility matters when readers are deciding whether or not they believe a story.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf1c0k7S7MM

[libertybrewcity]

i would like to see the birth certificate. It is a little odd that he would spend so much money keeping it hidden. I am hoping that at least one state legislature passes a law that requires the certificate be shown. Then we can get this issue out of the way! I am sure by now Obama has a certificate, real or not, that would pass.

[AxisMundi]

So Palin's a flip flopper. And? One day she supports bailouts and the next she's agin em. And I'm not "desperate" to prove anything. You are the one fighting against the numbers. The stats are that most in the GOP have doubts about Obama's birth. Deal with it......

And the facts show that much of the GOP detests the democratic process when it puts a Dem in power, and look for ways to circumvent it. Reference the Clinton impeachment.

And another fact is much of the GOP only keep their jobs through smearing others, in this case Democrats, with whatever they can get a hold of, be it death panels or Birther nonsense.

[Bergie Bergeron]

Hot Topics?

[AxisMundi]

So...none of what he said is true because you believe he thinks people conspire and you think people don't conspire?

What percent of the CIA ties to the Obama family would you believe are true?

No, SOME of what he said is true, mixed in with out right lies to appear credible.

Mixing in a little truth is a common tactic of serial liars.

[Bruno]

Hot Topics?

It's in the Politics section of Cnn.com and FoxNews.com, but if the mods want to move it, I'd understand.


No, SOME of what he said is true, mixed in with out right lies to appear credible.

Mixing in a little truth is a common tactic of serial liars.

If only 10% of it were true, I'd still be concerned.

Which ones were the outright lies? Please point them out.

[jmdrake]

And the facts show that much of the GOP detests the democratic process when it puts a Dem in power, and look for ways to circumvent it. Reference the Clinton impeachment.


Clinton should have been impeached but on more serious charges.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZtPzOukjZA

That said, when the question was put to a constitutional law class I was in, even many of the most die hard liberals admitted that Clinton met the standard for impeachment, which is admittedly quite vague. (High crimes and misdemeanors? Perjury isn't really a "high crime", but it's more than a misdemeanor.)



And another fact is much of the GOP only keep their jobs through smearing others, in this case Democrats, with whatever they can get a hold of, be it death panels or Birther nonsense.

Actually death panels are a real possibility.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrJBY2l1MQQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7Y0TOBuG4

[AxisMundi]

Clinton should have been impeached but on more serious charges.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZtPzOukjZA

That said, when the question was put to a constitutional law class I was in, even many of the most die hard liberals admitted that Clinton met the standard for impeachment, which is admittedly quite vague. (High crimes and misdemeanors? Perjury isn't really a "high crime", but it's more than a misdemeanor.)



Actually death panels are a real possibility.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrJBY2l1MQQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7Y0TOBuG4

1. Thanks for illustrating your distaste for the democratic principle.

2. NO, they are not. End of Life counseling is not a death panel.

[dannno]

//

[jmdrake]

1. Thanks for illustrating your distaste for the democratic principle.

Well the founding fathers had distaste for democracy so I guess I'm in good company. :rolleyes: There is a reason that impeachment is a political, and not a purely legal, process. It's a final check on a runaway presidency.



2. NO, they are not. End of Life counseling is not a death panel.

Bill Gates called them "death panels". Nice try though. Also Robert Reich did not say "We're going to try to talk people into dying early". He said We aren't going to give all of this treatment in the last few months of life. You must be Egyptian because you are living in DeNile.

[AxisMundi]

It's in the Politics section of Cnn.com and FoxNews.com, but if the mods want to move it, I'd understand.

If only 10% of it were true, I'd still be concerned.

Which ones were the outright lies? Please point them out.

Any connection between any g'ment program and Obama Sr was NOT established. Failed right from the start.

[dannno]

1. Thanks for illustrating your distaste for the democratic principle.

That was Ron Paul talking about Clinton murdering thousands of innocent people and being impeached for murder, how is that not "democratic" or Constitutional??




2. NO, they are not. End of Life counseling is not a death panel.

So the government is just going to keep everybody alive for as long as they can, no matter how expensive it is?? Really?? If not, then there's going to be a "death panel". Guess what? They aren't going to call it a fucking death panel, but that's what it is going to be. Any logical person knows there is going to have to be something equal to a death panel if government is going to take over health care.

[jmdrake]

That was Ron Paul talking about Clinton murdering thousands of innocent people and being impeached for murder, how is that not "democratic" or Constitutional??

So the government is just going to keep everybody alive for as long as they can, no matter how expensive it is?? Really?? If not, then there's going to be a "death panel". Guess what? They aren't going to call it a fucking death panel, but that's what it is going to be. Any logical person knows there is going to have to be something equal to a death panel if government is going to take over health care.

I was in a tax law class where the professor gave his take on health care. His view? Grandma needs to die. It was not because of the cost of healthcare, but because of the cost of the unfunded social security mandate. Now maybe he was just joking. Then again.....

[Bruno]

Any connection between any g'ment program and Obama Sr was NOT established. Failed right from the start.

That would be an omission, NOT a lie worthy of calling someone a serial liar without proof of a lie.

But I don't care to bother to convince you. There are a lot of compelling facts in that article, that certainly are not fabricated. You can choose to live in a coincidental world, if you wish.

[amy31416]

Actually death panels are a real possibility.



Sooooo....you're okay with the "slippery slope" argument for death panels, but not with the slippery slope argument for having the gov't police pregnancies?

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2010/02/25/utah_abortion_bill

[dannno]

//

[jmdrake]

Sooooo....you're okay with the "slippery slope" argument for death panels, but not with the slippery slope argument for having the gov't police pregnancies?

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2010/02/25/utah_abortion_bill

:rolleyes: It's ain't a "slippery slope". The death panels were part of the initial bill. Anyway, if you want to go back to the abortion debate, you are ignoring states rights again (no surprise here). If a state like Massachusetts wanted to have "death panels" in their own healthcare bill, that wouldn't be as bad because Mass isn't big enough by itself to run all of the other health insurance companies out of business.

Also note that I posted videos of two people who both support universal healthcare advocating for death panels. You posted an article written by abortion opponents suggesting that a "miscarriage could be a crime scene". And even that article didn't support your statement in the other thread. You had the case of one woman paying $150 to be "beaten into an abortion" and other case (which apparently has been retracted by the newspaper because of a dead link) of a woman who fell down a flight of steps and a nurse mistakenly thought she said she didn't want her baby. In the end she wasn't prosecuted.

Now, let's take these two cases out of abortion and recast them as child abuse being investigated by the "evil CPS". If the CPS found credible evidence that a parent paid someone $150 to beat a child to death, would you think that would be an abusive investigation, why or why not? If a parent brought a child in that he said "fell down a flight of steps", but was overheard saying "I never wanted that rug rat anyway" would that be worthy of an investigation? Why or why not? In both of the cases cited by Salon, you have evidence besides the fact of a miscarriage to suggest it might have been on purpose. So no. That's not "every miscarriage is now a crime scene".

But I'll note that once again your more concerned about what will happen to the mother that kills her child (excuse me "fetus") than what happens to the child fetus himself.

[amy31416]

But I'll note that once again your more concerned about what will happen to the mother that kills her child (excuse me "fetus") than what happens to the child fetus himself.

:rolleyes:

Who the hell killed their fetus/baby/life-form residing in their body? Nobody in the case of the woman who was jailed for falling down the stairs--she was imprisoned for a thought crime. And that's a big part of the point, that you will never, ever see because you're so invested in the pro-life status quo that you argue ridiculous points, while dodging the main ones by inferring things like "you're pro-baby killing!" I used to respect your debate style, but it's obvious from several threads that you simply won't see the other side, and it harms your ability to be consistent.

DEATH PANELS COULD BE REAL! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EVIL GOV'T COULD DO WITH THEM!!

vs.

No WAY the gov't (state or federal, your choice) would ever abuse or victimize innocent women if abortion were made illegal in this admitted police state.

Why wouldn't the state abuse innocent women? Because you want abortion to be illegal...and you must believe that the state wouldn't abuse it in order to argue for it, when all evidence points to that not being very damned likely.

Thankfully, you guys will never get your way on that issue, so it's a moot point--I can just point out your blatant hypocrisy and be on my way.

Enjoy!

**end of hijack**

[AxisMundi]

That was Ron Paul talking about Clinton murdering thousands of innocent people and being impeached for murder, how is that not "democratic" or Constitutional??

Firstly, I do not associate Ron Paul with the GOP.
Secondly, Bush43 has killed how many MILLIONS?
And what, pray tell, was Slick Willie actually charged with for the impeachment proceedings to begin?


So the government is just going to keep everybody alive for as long as they can, no matter how expensive it is?? Really?? If not, then there's going to be a "death panel". Guess what? They aren't going to call it a fucking death panel, but that's what it is going to be. Any logical person knows there is going to have to be something equal to a death panel if government is going to take over health care.

Any logical person immediately recognizes the term "death panel" for what it is. More neocon mischief.

An elderly veteran lies dieing in the VA hospital. Who, ultimately, has the authority to pull the plug?

The g'ment, or the veteran's family?

[jmdrake]

:rolleyes:

Who the hell killed their fetus/baby/life-form residing in their body? Nobody in the case of the woman who was jailed for falling down the stairs--she was imprisoned for a thought crime. And that's a big part of the point, that you will never, ever see because you're so invested in the pro-life status quo that you argue ridiculous points, while dodging the main ones by inferring things like "you're pro-baby killing!" I used to respect your debate style, but it's obvious from several threads that you simply won't see the other side, and it harms your ability to be consistent.


1) I never said that you were "pro-baby killing" and you know that. I said you seem more concerned with what might happen to the accused mother in this case than what could happen to the fetus. I stand by that statement. Do you honestly dispute that? And do you honestly not see the difference between that and being "pro-baby killing"? Bringing this back to the thread I'm not "pro cock fighting", but I just don't think it should be illegal.

2) Not seeing the other side? Hell I used to BE the other side! You mistake my lack of agreement with your conclusions with my "not seeing the other side". I see your side. Truly I do. I just happen to disagree.

3) You seem to not understand the difference between a thought crime and an attempted crime. Again let's look at the CPS example that you were either unable or unwilling to address. If a kid came into the emergency room for "falling down the steps" and the parents were overheard saying that they wished their kid was dead, would it be wrong to investigate those parents for attempted murder? Now if the kid was perfectly fine and the only evidence was what the parents said THAT would be a thought crime. Most crimes require both a guilty mind and a guilty act. In the case of attempts the act has to be sufficient that it's possible the crime could have been carried out.



DEATH PANELS COULD BE REAL! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EVIL GOV'T COULD DO WITH THEM!!


You are misstating my position. I'm not saying death panels could be real because the government is evil. I gave you quotes from two different advocates of government healthcare (three if you include my tax professor) that support death panels. Now if YOU[b] want to be "consistent", find me a quote from [b]anybody on the pro life side advocating that every miscarriage should be treated as a crime scene even if there is no probable cause that the miscarriage was done on purpose.



vs.

No WAY the gov't (state or federal, your choice) would ever abuse or victimize innocent women if abortion were made illegal in this admitted police state.


I never said it wasn't possible. Just that it hasn't happened in the past and there's no evidence of that happening going forward. Even your Salon.com article doesn't support your "all miscarriages would be crime scenes" assertion.




Why wouldn't the state abuse innocent women? Because you want abortion to be illegal...and you must believe that the state wouldn't abuse it in order to argue for it, when all evidence points to that not being very damned likely.


Usually the state does things out of some motivation. Right now the powers that be are motivated to try to reduce world population. Why would these same people work against their own interests in the way you suggest?



Thankfully, you guys will never get your way on that issue, so it's a moot point--I can just point out your blatant hypocrisy my blatant dishonesty and be on my way.


Fixed it for ya.

[AxisMundi]

That would be an omission, NOT a lie worthy of calling someone a serial liar without proof of a lie.

But I don't care to bother to convince you. There are a lot of compelling facts in that article, that certainly are not fabricated. You can choose to live in a coincidental world, if you wish.

One thing you should have noticed right away is that the author does not give any sources.
He merely states "this happened" and "this has been proven".
The guy is either a Birther looking for proof and not finding any invents it, and/or someone cashing in the controversy.

Read through the gobbledygook, and you will see the author simple does not establish anything close to approaching proof that BHO was not born a US citizen. All he does is pile on CIA conspiracies and weak links between his father, step-father, and people of questionable morals.

Even the question of if BHO WAS born in Hawaii is completely and utterly moot anyways. Read the Law Codes regarding the subject. BHO's mother was a US citizen at time of his birth, making him a natural born US citizen. At best, IF he was born outside our borders, that would give him dual citizenship, and there is nothing in the Constitution banning such people from holding office.

[jmdrake]

Firstly, I do not associate Ron Paul with the GOP.

I don't associate myself with the GOP either. Also Ron Paul is as much against "democracy" as the founding fathers.



Secondly, Bush43 has killed how many MILLIONS?


He should have been impeached too.



And what, pray tell, was Slick Willie actually charged with for the impeachment proceedings to begin?

Perjury. And that's a felony. A felony is > misdemeanor. The constitution allows for impeachment for "High crimes and misdemeanors". And the supreme court has repeatedly said impeachment is ultimately a political decision.




Any logical person immediately recognizes the term "death panel" for what it is. More neocon mischief.

An elderly veteran lies dieing in the VA hospital. Who, ultimately, has the authority to pull the plug?

The g'ment, or the veteran's family?

According to Robert Reich, Bill Gates and other supporters of universal healthcare it should be the government. After all if you don't pull the plug then we can't afford more teachers.

[Churchill2004]

Obama could have been born on Mars and he'd still be a natural-born citizen by virtue of his American mother. Birthers are a couple of rungs below even troofers.

[amy31416]

1) I never said that you were "pro-baby killing" and you know that. I said you seem more concerned with what might happen to the accused mother in this case than what could happen to the fetus. I stand by that statement. Do you honestly dispute that? And do you honestly not see the difference between that and being "pro-baby killing"? Bringing this back to the thread I'm not "pro cock fighting", but I just don't think it should be illegal.

You imply it by saying that I'm more concerned with the mother's life over the babies. You seem more concerned with pushing a police state on women--see how that works? Do you honestly not see that there's no difference between you being paranoid about death panels, and me being paranoid about people like yourself pushing for pregnant women to be regulated by the government? As I said in another thread--what if it's a progressive who knocks on your door and wants to monitor and regulate what your pregnant wife must do? Aren't they part of the "reduce the human population" crowd? Do you think they'd have her and the fetus' best interest at heart?



2) Not seeing the other side? Hell I used to BE the other side! You mistake my lack of agreement with your conclusions with my "not seeing the other side". I see your side. Truly I do. I just happen to disagree.


I was on the "other side" as well, but I'll be damned if the pro-life sector is going to provoke more openings for the government to meddle in my personal life. You see--you think I'm on the other side, still--because you must in order to maintain the pro-life status quo.



3) You seem to not understand the difference between a thought crime and an attempted crime. Again let's look at the CPS example that you were either unable or unwilling to address. If a kid came into the emergency room for "falling down the steps" and the parents were overheard saying that they wished their kid was dead, would it be wrong to investigate those parents for attempted murder? Now if the kid was perfectly fine and the only evidence was what the parents said THAT would be a thought crime. Most crimes require both a guilty mind and a guilty act. In the case of attempts the act has to be sufficient that it's possible the crime could have been carried out.

I don't misunderstand the difference between the two...but you can't put EITHER group of people for what they said--only what they did. My brother and I have identical scars on our chins from where he fell off his bike, and I fell off the couch on to a hardwood floor--we both got stitches within a month of each other. My dad had made many jokes about trading us in for a Porsche, and "bringing us into this world, so he can take us out."

Guess we shoulda been sent to foster care, eh? The evidence was there, the "thought" was there. And I was only hit once as a kid, and I really freaking deserved it--so I guess that is extra evidence that my brother and I should have been taken by the state.




You are misstating my position. I'm not saying death panels could be real because the government is evil. I gave you quotes from two different advocates of government healthcare (three if you include my tax professor) that support death panels. Now if YOU[b] want to be "consistent", find me a quote from [b]anybody on the pro life side advocating that every miscarriage should be treated as a crime scene even if there is no probable cause that the miscarriage was done on purpose.


The Utah law and that woman's case is evidence that people on the pro-life side would selectively prosecute miscarriages.



I never said it wasn't possible. Just that it hasn't happened in the past and there's no evidence of that happening going forward. Even your Salon.com article doesn't support your "all miscarriages would be crime scenes" assertion.


That's why I called it a slippery slope argument. Ya dig? Your videos don't support the "all end-of-life counselling" would be a way to get grandma to off herself either, yet you think that's a legit slippery slope argument.




Usually the state does things out of some motivation. Right now the powers that be are motivated to try to reduce world population. Why would these same people work against their own interests in the way you suggest?


I agree--which is why I am vehemently against any more government involvement in end-of-life or beginning-of-life decisions--they are not on our side.



Fixed it for ya.

Childish.

[BlackTerrel]

Won't make a difference.

The 10-20% who believe (or more likely SAY they believe) he wasn't born in the US won't change their views. They'll just say it's a forgery or whatever.

Would pictures of Obama in Church change the views of the "Obama is a Muslim" contingent?

[Bruno]

Won't make a difference.

The 10-20% who believe (or more likely SAY they believe) he wasn't born in the US won't change their views. They'll just say it's a forgery or whatever.

Would pictures of Obama in Church change the views of the "Obama is a Muslim" contingent?

Post 112? Where ya been, man?

Anyway, it will make a difference if states pass legislation requiring a long form birth certificate.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Won't make a difference.

The 10-20% who believe (or more likely SAY they believe) he wasn't born in the US won't change their views. They'll just say it's a forgery or whatever.

Would pictures of Obama in Church change the views of the "Obama is a Muslim" contingent?

Ding, ding, ding. Conspiracy types always make excuses in the face of evidence. They never just drop it. That's why they're conspiracy types.

If the original long-form birth certificate, which is the current birther demand, was released; they'd either claim it was a forgery or move the goal post on what it is they claim to want.

The issue is too politically convenient for Obama. Why would he ever want to let that damn thing out when he can continue to use it to paint the right as a bunch of cranks?

[dannno]

Post 112? What ya been, man?



Hanukkah :confused:

[Bruno]

Ding, ding, ding. Conspiracy types always make excuses in the face of evidence. They never just drop it. That's why they're conspiracy types.

If the original long-form birth certificate, which is the current birther demand, was released; they'd either claim it was a forgery or move the goalpost on what it is they claim to want.

The issue is too politically convenient for Obama. Why would he ever want to let that damn thing out when he can continue to use it to paint the right as a bunch of cranks?

SHOW THE DAMN THING and then we can see how many people still don't believe. Until then, your argument is pointless. I could say, "Those that believe Obama was born in America would still believe he was born in America if all his living relatives testified that he was born in Africa, they would still say they are lying." It doesn't mean a thing.

[dannno]

Why would he ever want to let that damn thing out when he can continue to use it to paint the right as a bunch of cranks?

How has that worked out for him? Democrats keep the Senate and House? Tea Party failure last election? Obama's approval ratings on the up and up?

[klamath]

You imply it by saying that I'm more concerned with the mother's life over the babies. You seem more concerned with pushing a police state on women--see how that works? Do you honestly not see that there's no difference between you being paranoid about death panels, and me being paranoid about people like yourself pushing for pregnant women to be regulated by the government? As I said in another thread--what if it's a progressive who knocks on your door and wants to monitor and regulate what your pregnant wife must do? Aren't they part of the "reduce the human population" crowd? Do you think they'd have her and the fetus' best interest at heart?



I was on the "other side" as well, but I'll be damned if the pro-life sector is going to provoke more openings for the government to meddle in my personal life. You see--you think I'm on the other side, still--because you must in order to maintain the pro-life status quo.



I don't misunderstand the difference between the two...but you can't put EITHER group of people for what they said--only what they did. My brother and I have identical scars on our chins from where he fell off his bike, and I fell off the couch on to a hardwood floor--we both got stitches within a month of each other. My dad had made many jokes about trading us in for a Porsche, and "bringing us into this world, so he can take us out."

Guess we shoulda been sent to foster care, eh? The evidence was there, the "thought" was there. And I was only hit once as a kid, and I really freaking deserved it--so I guess that is extra evidence that my brother and I should have been taken by the state.




The Utah law and that woman's case is evidence that people on the pro-life side would selectively prosecute miscarriages.



That's why I called it a slippery slope argument. Ya dig? Your videos don't support the "all end-of-life counselling" would be a way to get grandma to off herself either, yet you think that's a legit slippery slope argument.




I agree--which is why I am vehemently against any more government involvement in end-of-life or beginning-of-life decisions--they are not on our side.



Childish.

You took my remarks in the abortion thread about you crossing over to an anarchist as a insult when it really wasn't because I can respect a true anarchists position on abortion and life. If you do not believe the government can be trusted with anything without corrupting it then you really should be and anarchist because it would be the only moral thing to do. Since I still have a small amount of hope in a contitutional governement I believe the most important job it has is to protect life because without life you have nothing else.

[amy31416]

I believe the most important job it has is to protect life because without life you have nothing else.

We don't disagree on that, we just disagree on who is most qualified to protect it. And with cops shooting people over marijuana, the gov't taking and abusing children, sending them off to die for bullshit--the government (state, fed and sometimes local), have not earned nor deserve that trust.

And empowering them with more trust, when they've been so irresponsible with it, just doesn't sit well with me. Especially when, the higher up the gov't ladder you go, the less recourse a person has against them.

If a solitary woman does do the wrong thing and kills, she can easily be prosecuted. The government can not easily be prosecuted.

[jmdrake]

You imply it by saying that I'm more concerned with the mother's life over the babies.

That doesn't make you a baby killer.



You seem more concerned with pushing a police state on women--see how that works?


I'm concerned with the government doing one of the few things it's actually supposed to do. But let's cut through the emotional crap. Do you think child abuse laws should be repealed? We both agree that CPS is at times abusive right? Do you think that CPS is so abusive that child abuse and even child murder should be "decriminalized"? I'm not talking about abortion now. I'm talking about daddy coming home and putting a 22 round through 5 year old juniors skull. I would rather deal with reining in the evils of CPS and making sure daddy gets due process than to live in a world where there was no legal recourse for such things. What's your position? I'm not asking this to be judgmental, I'm asking it out of curiosity. I have met ancaps who truly believe that having law is the worst evil there is and would rather allow murder than to give the state the power to punish murder. That doesn't mean they condone murder. But it does mean that they are more worried about what will happen as a result of the state having the power to punish murder than the murder itself. While I disagree with their position, I appreciate their honesty. You on the other hand seem to want to have it both ways. You fret over what will happen to a mother if abortion becomes illegal to the point that you want to make sure it stays legal, and then when I (honestly in my opinion) state your position you get offended. Seriously I don't get you.



Do you honestly not see that there's no difference between you being paranoid about death panels, and me being paranoid about people like yourself pushing for pregnant women to be regulated by the government?


1) The state has no legitimate interest in being in healthcare period. It does in my opinion have a legitimate in protecting those who cannot protect themselves whether we are talking about children who's lives are in danger or fetuses.

2) So far you have yet to give me the evidence I asked for. (Someone who is pro life proposing that every miscarriage be treated as a crime scene). By contrast I have provided direct evidence of people who are pro universal healthcare advocating for death penalties. So how long are you going to ignore my evidence and at the same time not provide the evidence I asked for?



As I said in another thread--what if it's a progressive who knocks on your door and wants to monitor and regulate what your pregnant wife must do? Aren't they part of the "reduce the human population" crowd? Do you think they'd have her and the fetus' best interest at heart?


And as I said in this thread where is your probable cause? Again jump out of the abortion debate for a second since we seem unable to communicate on that front. If the state had probable cause to believe I might rape my child (such as my confession to having raped a previous child) then requiring something like supervised visitation would make sense right? Do we get rid of all legal protections for children or the elderly or infirmed just because some "progressive" might seek to abuse the system for some nefarious purpose? If that's how you feel, I simply disagree. I don't see how my disagreement makes me a "hypocrite" or somehow a bad person.



I was on the "other side" as well, but I'll be damned if the pro-life sector is going to provoke more openings for the government to meddle in my personal life. You see--you think I'm on the other side, still--because you must in order to maintain the pro-life status quo.


The above sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Maintain the "pro-life status quo"? What is that supposed to mean? The status quo is Roe-v-Wade. Pro lifers are trying to overturn the status quo. I do prefer the CPS status quo, as bad as it is, to a world where child abuse and murder is legal. If you want to hate on me for that then fine.



I don't misunderstand the difference between the two...but you can't put EITHER group of people for what they said--only what they did. My brother and I have identical scars on our chins from where he fell off his bike, and I fell off the couch on to a hardwood floor--we both got stitches within a month of each other. My dad had made many jokes about trading us in for a Porsche, and "bringing us into this world, so he can take us out."


Your sentence construction is a little hard to follow. Still you're missing the point. To convict someone of a crime you have to both prove what they did and what they thought. Thought is a component of a crime. But that doesn't make it a "thought crime". Going from your example, offhand jokes about "trading you in for a Porsche" or "bringing you in the world and taking you out" is generally not enough to rise to meeting the mental element for child abuse. After all, you dad didn't get arrested right? And in the case you mentioned the woman was never prosecuted.



Guess we shoulda been sent to foster care, eh? The evidence was there, the "thought" was there. And I was only hit once as a kid, and I really freaking deserved it--so I guess that is extra evidence that my brother and I should have been taken by the state.


Well I guess that didn't happen. So for all your fear mongering about CPS, I guess they weren't that abusive to you after all.




The Utah law and that woman's case is evidence that people on the pro-life side would selectively prosecute miscarriages.


In the Utah case there was evidence that the woman paid money to get beat up to induce a miscarriage! That's not a natural miscarriage by any stretch of the imagination. And in the other case the woman wasn't prosecuted. How you've jumped from no prosecution to selective prosecution is beyond me.



That's why I called it a slippery slope argument. Ya dig?


No. I don't "dig". You think that if there is a law against abortion and a woman pays someone $150 to beat her up to induce an abortion that prosecuting that is abuse of the system? How exactly?



Your videos don't support the "all end-of-life counselling" would be a way to get grandma to off herself either, yet you think that's a legit slippery slope argument.


You must not have watched the videos. They said nothing about "end of life counseling". Instead both Robert Reich and Bill Gates said that people should be denied expensive end of life TREATMENT. Don't conflate what was squeaked into the bill with what Reich and Gates actually said that they wanted. Again provide some evidence of ANY pro lifer saying that he wanted all miscarriages treated as homicides or admit you were wrong.



I agree--which is why I am vehemently against any more government involvement in end-of-life or beginning-of-life decisions--they are not on our side.


And so you side with the eugenicists who want to keep abortion "safe and legal" because you're afraid they'll somehow kill people by making abortion illegal?



Childish.

Your falsely calling me a hypocrite was childish.

[devil21]

I take everything Alex Jones says with a huge grain of salt. This guy thinks everything is a conspiracy.

That's way too long of a write-up, complete with source links, to be fabricated. Did you even read it? I'm guessing no. (eta: Ah you "skimmed" which doesn't mean shit). Read it, while checking source links and *gasp* doing a little research of your own to verify, then see if you're still feeling the same way. I pity anyone who dismisses links to infowars out of hand. You miss out on a lot of great info.

eta: I see other posters set you straight in later posts.

[amy31416]

jmdrake--you can't seem to realize that there were two cases in that article--one where a stupid girl paid to get beat up to induce abortion, and one where a woman fell down the stairs accidentally and was jailed.

And just because the CPS didn't come for my brother and I and my parents, back in the day before they were out of control, doesn't mean they won't now--especially if you were to get your way and INCREASE their powers, which they already can't handle responsibly. Why do you refuse to recognize that things have changed drastically in the last 20-30+ years?

It is hypocritical to argue a slippery slope argument in the death panels case, which there is NO precedent for, and to dismiss a slippery slope argument in policing pregnant women--which there is at least ONE case for that is documented. My mother died within the last year and was using Medicare--and not a single doctor advised me to pull the plug, nor did a single one suggest that she should make any other type of "death preparation."

So, by that logic, it will NEVER happen, and I shouldn't be concerned in the slightest about it--especially if my ulterior agenda is to make you and your family submit to it, by implying that you're crazy to not trust the government (federal or state.) In one case, the gov't is a bunch of do-gooders because they're intervening in a way that you believe will reduce abortions, and hell, maybe it will--but at what cost? And how many innocent families could be targeted for it? You don't seem to care about them. In the other case, the gov't is intervening and telling you that grandma's too expensive to keep alive, and the plug must be pulled--and that's an outrageous use of gov't power. In both cases, the gov't has more power to intervene in your family's life.

And you still pull for gov't intervention in pregnancies, miscarriages and possibly abortion...you're okay with taking more of my tax money and giving them more power to interfere in other people's lives and refuse to give the potential abuses any weight--because of your pro-life status quo vision. But that's okay, because it'll just mostly target single, poor women, I suppose. I mean, you don't really think that Buffy won't be able to find an abortionist if it's illegal, do you? You don't think that she'll get in any sort of trouble, do you?

That ain't the way it works, and you know it.

[bunklocoempire]

Article:
"It's an insult to his mother and father," he said. "How would anybody like to have their mother and father in that kind of situation?"


Dead? Oh yeah, death, the ultimate insult... Lol!

:rolleyes:

Abercrombie the Hut is an amazing creature. He's got a lot of stealing to do, look for more stunts like this from the sack of crap.


Bunkloco

[jmdrake]

Amy, you obviously took offense at something I wrote and it's making rational debate difficult. So for the sake of moving forward I apologize for offending you.

Now here's the difference as I see it between my position and yours. You seem to be taking the ancap "no government is good government" position. I've taken the minarchist "the government should be restricted to it's legitimate roles" position. And I believe one of those legitimate roles is protecting innocent humans. I'm willing to accept the risk of government abusing it's power for the sake of allowing it to fulfill its legitimate roles. Since there is no legitimate role for the federal government in healthcare beyond protecting innocent humans from murder, fraud or abuse, any risk in universal healthcare is unjustifiable. So no, I'm not being hypocritical. I'm being consistent.

Now I see that you want to ask me questions that I've already answered, ignore answers I've already given, and you refuse to answer my direct questions to you. So I just have one question.

Do you think murder of children should be decriminalized to avoid the "slippery slope" of abuse by CPS? It's a simple yes or no question. My answer to that question is no. The risk to innocent human life is too great. That doesn't mean I support CPS in its current form. I believe the same functions could be handles through normal law enforcement. And if CPS is the best way to deal with this there should be strenuous oversight to assure that the due process rights of parents are protected. Tying this back to abortion, if we both agree that the rights of the fetus are as important as the rights of the mother (and apparently you agree since you take offense whenever I suggest otherwise) and if you agree that the risk of child murder is to great for that to be legal, then you should be able to either agree with my position on abortion or in the very least see why it's not hypocritical.

Further, I do realize there were two cases in the article and I have repeatedly addressed BOTH cases. I said that the woman who fell down the steps was not prosecuted. In contrast, the woman who paid $150 to be beaten fit the definition of attempt for that crime. (Note that in that case there was no prosecution because the law barring that conduct didn't exist yet). Is it unfortunate that the woman who fell down the steps and made comments that were mistaken as intent to commit abortion was arrested? Sure. But at the end of the day she was NOT prosecuted. So how you jump from no prosecution to selective prosecution is beyond my ability to comprehend. Did the circumstances fail to reach the probable cause level required for an arrest? Maybe. From the facts its hard to tell especially since the original story has been removed from the newspaper website (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100210/NEWS/2100367/-I-never-said-I-didn-t-want-my-baby--Mom-won-t-be-prosecuted). But just because there are mistakes or even abuses of certain laws don't mean such laws should never exist. There are cases where men have been released in prison after DNA proved 20 years later that they didn't commit the rape and/or murder they were accused of committing. That sucks. I hate it for those guys. I think they should be compensated somehow. But that doesn't mean I'm ready to decriminalize rape and murder.

Last point. I think the best way to deal with abortion is through state level medical regulation. A state medical board would be justified in pulling the license of a doctor that routinely killed his patients. If a doctor was by default declared to be the patient of the fetus of any mother who was his patient then abortion could be dealt with without prosecuting anybody. And as for "Buffy the fetus slayer" still being able to find an abortionist? Well OJ Simpson and Robert Blake were successfully able to get away with murder, and Jimmy Hoffa's body was never found. Just because some people are always going to find a way to beat the system doesn't mean that the state has no interest in protecting innocent human life. Further if Roe v. Wade is overturned abortion will still be legal in some states just like it was legal in some states before R v W went into effect. So the Betty Sues and Bessie Maes will still be able to get abortions if they really want them. And before you say "They can't afford it", realize that there are ready and willing donors.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UHeCOeoC_s

[libertarian4321]

Ding, ding, ding. Conspiracy types always make excuses in the face of evidence. They never just drop it. That's why they're conspiracy types.



Yup, and anyone who disagrees with them is part of the shadowy cabal of evil doers who are behind the conspiracy!


If the original long-form birth certificate, which is the current birther demand, was released; they'd either claim it was a forgery or move the goal post on what it is they claim to want.

Oh I'd love to see Obama give permission to release the "long form." Watching the birthers twist themselves into knots to continue the conspiracy would be better than dinner and a movie for entertainment purposes. They'd claim it was a fake forged by the CIA (or Bilderbergers or Jewish Bankers or CFR or the guys in the black helicopters or "TPTB" or the Mossad or the Hamburgler or whatever).

Or they'd move onto one of their alternative theories of why Obama isn't a citizen. Something like he gave up his citizenship when he went to Indonesia or Pakistan. Or he lost his citizenship because he applied for college loans as a foreign student. Or he isn't a citizen because his father had British citizenship (even though he didn't). Or they'd say "but what about WTC building 7?!!!!" It would be a "moron-a-thon" to be remembered!


The issue is too politically convenient for Obama. Why would he ever want to let that damn thing out when he can continue to use it to paint the right as a bunch of cranks?

Exactly. I wish they'd take this kind of crazy to the "Palin for President" forums...or even better, the "Obama for President" forums.

[jmdrake]

Exactly. I wish they'd take this kind of crazy to the "Palin for President" forums...or even better, the "Obama for President" forums.

As long as a significant percentage of the 58% of Republicans who who question whether Obama was born in Hawaii vote for Ron Paul in 2012 of sufficiently split their vote among other candidates I don't care what forum they're on. But if that 58% line up solidly behind Palin or Huckabee we're sunk before we get started. The only hope would be independents and dems voting for is in droves. But a lot of them are lining up behind Romney. (Yeech!) At the end of the day it's all about the numbers.

As for the "conspiracy itself", considering the fact that untold numbers of illegal aliens fake birth certificates every day to get benefits, I don't see it as such a stretch that Obama's mother would do that for her son if the loophole in Hawaii law that some bring up actually exists. Fake it so that her son could be president? No. Fake it to get food stamps (or whatever form of welfare was available in 1961)? Why not? Did that happen? I have no idea. What would I do if Obama released the long and put this whole mess behind the country? Breath a sigh of relief. What about the birthers who have alternative theories that don't involve a fake birth certificate? I could care less.

[Bruno]

Yup, and anyone who disagrees with them is part of the shadowy cabal of evil doers who are behind the conspiracy!



Oh I'd love to see Obama give permission to release the "long form." Watching the birthers twist themselves into knots to continue the conspiracy would be better than dinner and a movie for entertainment purposes. They'd claim it was a fake forged by the CIA (or Bilderbergers or Jewish Bankers or CFR or the guys in the black helicopters or "TPTB" or the Mossad or the Hamburgler or whatever).

Or they'd move onto one of their alternative theories of why Obama isn't a citizen. Something like he gave up his citizenship when he went to Indonesia or Pakistan. Or he lost his citizenship because he applied for college loans as a foreign student. Or he isn't a citizen because his father had British citizenship (even though he didn't). Or they'd say "but what about WTC building 7?!!!!" It would be a "moron-a-thon" to be remembered!



Exactly. I wish they'd take this kind of crazy to the "Palin for President" forums...or even better, the "Obama for President" forums.

All speculations. It sounds like you are the one twisting yourself in a knot. Just show the damn birth certificate.

[amy31416]

Amy, you obviously took offense at something I wrote and it's making rational debate difficult. So for the sake of moving forward I apologize for offending you.

Now here's the difference as I see it between my position and yours. You seem to be taking the ancap "no government is good government" position. I've taken the minarchist "the government should be restricted to it's legitimate roles" position. And I believe one of those legitimate roles is protecting innocent humans. I'm willing to accept the risk of government abusing it's power for the sake of allowing it to fulfill its legitimate roles. Since there is no legitimate role for the federal government in healthcare beyond protecting innocent humans from murder, fraud or abuse, any risk in universal healthcare is unjustifiable. So no, I'm not being hypocritical. I'm being consistent.

Now I see that you want to ask me questions that I've already answered, ignore answers I've already given, and you refuse to answer my direct questions to you. So I just have one question.

Do you think murder of children should be decriminalized to avoid the "slippery slope" of abuse by CPS? It's a simple yes or no question. My answer to that question is no. The risk to innocent human life is too great. That doesn't mean I support CPS in its current form. I believe the same functions could be handles through normal law enforcement. And if CPS is the best way to deal with this there should be strenuous oversight to assure that the due process rights of parents are protected. Tying this back to abortion, if we both agree that the rights of the fetus are as important as the rights of the mother (and apparently you agree since you take offense whenever I suggest otherwise) and if you agree that the risk of child murder is to great for that to be legal, then you should be able to either agree with my position on abortion or in the very least see why it's not hypocritical.

Further, I do realize there were two cases in the article and I have repeatedly addressed BOTH cases. I said that the woman who fell down the steps was not prosecuted. In contrast, the woman who paid $150 to be beaten fit the definition of attempt for that crime. (Note that in that case there was no prosecution because the law barring that conduct didn't exist yet). Is it unfortunate that the woman who fell down the steps and made comments that were mistaken as intent to commit abortion was arrested? Sure. But at the end of the day she was NOT prosecuted. So how you jump from no prosecution to selective prosecution is beyond my ability to comprehend. Did the circumstances fail to reach the probable cause level required for an arrest? Maybe. From the facts its hard to tell especially since the original story has been removed from the newspaper website (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100210/NEWS/2100367/-I-never-said-I-didn-t-want-my-baby--Mom-won-t-be-prosecuted). But just because there are mistakes or even abuses of certain laws don't mean such laws should never exist. There are cases where men have been released in prison after DNA proved 20 years later that they didn't commit the rape and/or murder they were accused of committing. That sucks. I hate it for those guys. I think they should be compensated somehow. But that doesn't mean I'm ready to decriminalize rape and murder.

Last point. I think the best way to deal with abortion is through state level medical regulation. A state medical board would be justified in pulling the license of a doctor that routinely killed his patients. If a doctor was by default declared to be the patient of the fetus of any mother who was his patient then abortion could be dealt with without prosecuting anybody. And as for "Buffy the fetus slayer" still being able to find an abortionist? Well OJ Simpson and Robert Blake were successfully able to get away with murder, and Jimmy Hoffa's body was never found. Just because some people are always going to find a way to beat the system doesn't mean that the state has no interest in protecting innocent human life. Further if Roe v. Wade is overturned abortion will still be legal in some states just like it was legal in some states before R v W went into effect. So the Betty Sues and Bessie Maes will still be able to get abortions if they really want them. And before you say "They can't afford it", realize that there are ready and willing donors.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UHeCOeoC_s

Murder is already criminal.

They put the woman who fell down the stairs in jail, and subsequently released her.

You'd like to give the gov't more power, only in cases where it's your pet project of abortion, while refusing to recognize that that will NOT stop abortion, it'll just be a band-aid that makes it more difficult to see, more difficult to help women, make people more desperate--and you want to compound it further by giving police and gov't more powers to selectively prosecute, as they always do. THAT is why I'm offended--because you want to use the force of law to further your pet agenda, when that is not going to do much of anything at all--we did have quite a long period of time where abortion was illegal and there were ENORMOUS problems with it--you'd like to go back to that AND ramp up the policing/gov't intervention--when we have an extremely abusive gov't and police problem.

I'm against the gov't being involved with end-of-life decisions in any way also, keeping with my alleged anarchist positions....I don't trust the gov't to make decisions for my family, whether you find it agreeable or not. What I want is to put the brakes on, halt gov't growth and powers, and scale them back--sometimes drastically, sometimes not.

I keep calling your POV "status quo" because it is. You have an agenda and you want the gov't and police to enforce it. No different than environmentalists who want Cap & Trade--that's a moral crusade for them too. They also ignore alternative solutions in favor of more gov't intervention/policing. You rail against more gov't intervention in health care (unless it's abortion/pregnancy) That is hypocritical of you.

Just as the environmentalists are taking the lazy, big gov't/police way out (which won't change anything and will often make things worse), you want to take the lazy, big gov't/police way out for an issue that has afflicted humanity for thousands of years. Just as the environmentalists could change the direction of things with their own initiative and education programs, pro-lifers can (and have) changed the direction of things with their own initiative and education programs.

Instead, you want to rely on big-daddy gov't. It never has worked in the past, and it ain't gonna work now--especially given the nature of the gov't.

And if you really think I'm pro-child killing, just stop it (I don't think you do, you're just trying to get reactionary responses). I won't even answer such an asinine question.

Even using your own "paranoia" that the progressive/neocon gov't wants to reduce the population--why in the hell would you entrust them with the powers to police reproduction? You think there won't be some initiatives that come out of that power that will force you to give 12 year-old girls gardasil, birth control, etc? No bill will pass in this country unless there's some big payoff for a corporation, and big pharma is especially powerful these days--but you seem to think that a bill that'd repeal RvW would consist of happy double rainbows--you are blind on this issue. And quite hostile to anyone who suggests that it's a bad idea.

But it seems you'd rather ask me questions as to whether or not I support killing children with no penalty because you want to put your head in the sand. **shrugs** I can't convince you that there's a huge downside to a law that'd criminalize abortion, and you sure as hell can't convince me that it's in my, or anyone else's best interest to give the gov't more policing power.

What more is there to debate? Nothing.

[Noob]

Yup, and anyone who disagrees with them is part of the shadowy cabal of evil doers who are behind the conspiracy!



Oh I'd love to see Obama give permission to release the "long form." Watching the birthers twist themselves into knots to continue the conspiracy would be better than dinner and a movie for entertainment purposes. They'd claim it was a fake forged by the CIA (or Bilderbergers or Jewish Bankers or CFR or the guys in the black helicopters or "TPTB" or the Mossad or the Hamburgler or whatever).

Or they'd move onto one of their alternative theories of why Obama isn't a citizen. Something like he gave up his citizenship when he went to Indonesia or Pakistan. Or he lost his citizenship because he applied for college loans as a foreign student. Or he isn't a citizen because his father had British citizenship (even though he didn't). Or they'd say "but what about WTC building 7?!!!!" It would be a "moron-a-thon" to be remembered!



Exactly. I wish they'd take this kind of crazy to the "Palin for President" forums...or even better, the "Obama for President" forums.


than there are the Kenyan lawmakers saying Obama was born in Kenya

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/04/member-of-kenyan-assembly-on-march-25th.html

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/04/another-kenyan-minister-states-on-14.html

And cant forget

http://www.infowars.com/michelle-obama-barack-obama-is-kenyan/


Michele "Obama" Says Kenya is Obama's Home country

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht1qeK3roU0

[jmdrake]

Amy, I see that you insist on dishonesty. Fine, have it your way. Lie all you want about my agenda.

But answer this one question if you are not afraid to do so! Would you decriminalize child murder yes or no?

My position is simple, logical and consistent. I want to restrict the government to doing that which the government has a legitimate interest in doing. I see protecting innocent life as part of that. You are being a inconsistent because you (apparently) see the fetus as an innocent human life equal to that of the mother, and yet you aren't willing to extend it the same protection that you (apparently) think should be granted to children even while you rail against the "evils" of the CPS. Well if the CPS is sooooo bad, and if criminalizing child murder is what empowers the CPS, then you should support the logical step of decriminalizing child murder. Just because murder is already criminal doesn't mean it has to be. Smoking dope is illegal too, but it doesn't have to be. And I'm not "sticking my head in the sand" by pointing out your inconsistency on this issue. Further I've never said anything about "happy rainbows" or whatever crap it is you want to say. I'm asking you to put forward a consistent argument. So far you've refused to do so and you get angry at me when I try to pin down whatever the hell it is you believe.

Abortion is my "agenda"? Sorry but you know nothing about me. I wasn't even pro life before meeting Ron Paul. I adopted that as part of HIS agenda after seeing the logic of his argument. You want to hate me? Well hate him as well.

So yes, there is nothing left to debate. Add me to your ignore list if you want.

[klamath]

Murder is already criminal.

They put the woman who fell down the stairs in jail, and subsequently released her.

You'd like to give the gov't more power, only in cases where it's your pet project of abortion, while refusing to recognize that that will NOT stop abortion, it'll just be a band-aid that makes it more difficult to see, more difficult to help women, make people more desperate--and you want to compound it further by giving police and gov't more powers to selectively prosecute, as they always do. THAT is why I'm offended--because you want to use the force of law to further your pet agenda, when that is not going to do much of anything at all--we did have quite a long period of time where abortion was illegal and there were ENORMOUS problems with it--you'd like to go back to that AND ramp up the policing/gov't intervention--when we have an extremely abusive gov't and police problem.

I'm against the gov't being involved with end-of-life decisions in any way also, keeping with my alleged anarchist positions....I don't trust the gov't to make decisions for my family, whether you find it agreeable or not. What I want is to put the brakes on, halt gov't growth and powers, and scale them back--sometimes drastically, sometimes not.

I keep calling your POV "status quo" because it is. You have an agenda and you want the gov't and police to enforce it. No different than environmentalists who want Cap & Trade--that's a moral crusade for them too. They also ignore alternative solutions in favor of more gov't intervention/policing. You rail against more gov't intervention in health care (unless it's abortion/pregnancy) That is hypocritical of you.

Just as the environmentalists are taking the lazy, big gov't/police way out (which won't change anything and will often make things worse), you want to take the lazy, big gov't/police way out for an issue that has afflicted humanity for thousands of years. Just as the environmentalists could change the direction of things with their own initiative and education programs, pro-lifers can (and have) changed the direction of things with their own initiative and education programs.

Instead, you want to rely on big-daddy gov't. It never has worked in the past, and it ain't gonna work now--especially given the nature of the gov't.

And if you really think I'm pro-child killing, just stop it (I don't think you do, you're just trying to get reactionary responses). I won't even answer such an asinine question.Even using your own "paranoia" that the progressive/neocon gov't wants to reduce the population--why in the hell would you entrust them with the powers to police reproduction? You think there won't be some initiatives that come out of that power that will force you to give 12 year-old girls gardasil, birth control, etc? No bill will pass in this country unless there's some big payoff for a corporation, and big pharma is especially powerful these days--but you seem to think that a bill that'd repeal RvW would consist of happy double rainbows--you are blind on this issue. And quite hostile to anyone who suggests that it's a bad idea.

But it seems you'd rather ask me questions as to whether or not I support killing children with no penalty because you want to put your head in the sand. **shrugs** I can't convince you that there's a huge downside to a law that'd criminalize abortion, and you sure as hell can't convince me that it's in my, or anyone else's best interest to give the gov't more policing power.

What more is there to debate? Nothing.
JM did not ask you if you were for killing children but whether you thought the laws outlawing it were causing more harm than good and a police state?
Neither JM or I are saying you are personally for abortion or killing. It is about laws, their effectiveness and their side effects. Do you think the laws against murder cause more harm than good and a corrupt brutal police force?

[jmdrake]

JM did not ask you if you were for killing children but whether you thought the laws outlawing it were causing more harm than good and a police state?
Neither JM or I are saying you are personally for abortion or killing. It is about laws, their effectiveness and their side effects. Do you think the laws against murder cause more harm than good and a corrupt brutal police force?

Thank you for saying this more clearly and concisely than I am able to.

[dannno]

Do you think the laws against murder cause more harm than good and a corrupt brutal police force?

No, but that is because a living member of society has at minimum a birth certificate, and often a social security number, enrollment in school, a job, a social circle, monetary obligations, etc..

It is easy to make the connection between the paperwork and whether the individual still exists, where they might exist and if a body is found identify them and connect them to said paperwork. This can be done without invading the individual's privacy as these documents are public record, and it is supposed to be for the benefit of the public for instances just as these.

The question is how does the state know a fetus exists in a mother during the early stages of pregnancy without highly intrusive behavior either toward the mother or toward doctors? The answer is they shouldn't know that the fetus is there in the early stages, they shouldn't know why the mother is going to see Doctor X and they shouldn't know what procedures Doctor X is performing. Knowing any of these things goes against the Dr./patient privacy relationship, and the biggest problem I think with making early term abortions illegal is the privacy aspect.

I actually argued in an earlier thread that once a woman becomes obviously visibly pregnant could potentially be the point where society decides that a fetus becomes a human, a member of society. I don't know if it's the optimal choice, but it makes some sense. The woman walks around, everybody knows there is another member of society walking along with her. If she walks into a doctor's office pregnant, and walks out non-pregnant with no baby, and nobody comes to pick up a baby, then that might be probably cause to believe an abortion has occurred without invading anyone's privacy (even though the baby could have had complications and maybe there was a late term miscarriage, is that the business of the state?). I don't see how that could be done at all in the early stages before the woman is obviously pregnant, unless somebody tells on her, but it could be an angry boyfriend making things up, I don't know if that is probable cause as there's still no real proof. What, did the boyfriend see a pregnancy test? What if it was wrong? How does he know she was REALLY pregnant? What if she had a miscarriage? Those are all valid reasons why "telling on somebody" isn't the best proof that someone had an abortion.

[Bruno]

...on the other hand, it keeps the thread bumped. :)

[jmdrake]

No, but that is because a living member of society has at minimum a birth certificate, and often a social security number, enrollment in school, a job, a social circle, monetary obligations, etc..

Murder was illegal long before there were birth certificates, social security numbers, most people attending schools that kept good records, most people working in jobs instead of on family farms etc. But I see your bigger point is that you have a proof problem on whether or not their was even a pregnancy early on. I agree.



It is easy to make the connection between the paperwork and whether the individual still exists, where they might exist and if a body is found identify them and connect them to said paperwork. This can be done without invading the individual's privacy as these documents are public record, and it is supposed to be for the benefit of the public for instances just as these.

The question is how does the state know a fetus exists in a mother during the early stages of pregnancy without highly intrusive behavior either toward the mother or toward doctors? The answer is they shouldn't know that the fetus is there in the early stages, they shouldn't know why the mother is going to see Doctor X and they shouldn't know what procedures Doctor X is performing. Knowing any of these things goes against the Dr./patient privacy relationship, and the biggest problem I think with making early term abortions illegal is the privacy aspect.


The answer is that you wouldn't be able to catch every abortion just like you wouldn't be able to capture all crimes. But if we're talking about taking away a doctor's medical license, all you need is one of his patients to have a change of heart and turn him in. Why would a patient do that? Well maybe there was a complication or a death (now you have the patients family). The doctor patient relationship does not protect him from the patient filing a malpractice suit, so it wouldn't protect the doctor in this case either.



I actually argued in an earlier thread that once a woman becomes obviously visibly pregnant could potentially be the point where society decides that a fetus becomes a human, a member of society. I don't know if it's the optimal choice, but it makes some sense. The woman walks around, everybody knows there is another member of society walking along with her. If she walks into a doctor's office pregnant, and walks out non-pregnant with no baby, and nobody comes to pick up a baby, then that might be probably cause to believe an abortion has occurred without invading anyone's privacy (even though the baby could have had complications and maybe there was a late term miscarriage, is that the business of the state?). I don't see how that could be done at all in the early stages before the woman is obviously pregnant, unless somebody tells on her, but it could be an angry boyfriend making things up, I don't know if that is probable cause as there's still no real proof. What, did the boyfriend see a pregnancy test? What if it was wrong? How does he know she was REALLY pregnant? What if she had a miscarriage? Those are all valid reasons why "telling on somebody" isn't the best proof that someone had an abortion.

Good point about the "visibly pregnant" part. And I agree that "telling" that someone used to be pregnant shouldn't count as probable cause. But for any crime there are proof problems and a lot of people who are going to get away with it.

[klamath]

No, but that is because a living member of society has at minimum a birth certificate, and often a social security number, enrollment in school, a job, a social circle, monetary obligations, etc..

It is easy to make the connection between the paperwork and whether the individual still exists, where they might exist and if a body is found identify them and connect them to said paperwork. This can be done without invading the individual's privacy as these documents are public record, and it is supposed to be for the benefit of the public for instances just as these.

The question is how does the state know a fetus exists in a mother during the early stages of pregnancy without highly intrusive behavior either toward the mother or toward doctors? The answer is they shouldn't know that the fetus is there in the early stages, they shouldn't know why the mother is going to see Doctor X and they shouldn't know what procedures Doctor X is performing. Knowing any of these things goes against the Dr./patient privacy relationship, and the biggest problem I think with making early term abortions illegal is the privacy aspect.

I actually argued in an earlier thread that once a woman becomes obviously visibly pregnant could potentially be the point where society decides that a fetus becomes a human, a member of society. I don't know if it's the optimal choice, but it makes some sense. The woman walks around, everybody knows there is another member of society walking along with her. If she walks into a doctor's office pregnant, and walks out non-pregnant with no baby, and nobody comes to pick up a baby, then that might be probably cause to believe an abortion has occurred without invading anyone's privacy (even though the baby could have had complications and maybe there was a late term miscarriage, is that the business of the state?). I don't see how that could be done at all in the early stages before the woman is obviously pregnant, unless somebody tells on her, but it could be an angry boyfriend making things up, I don't know if that is probable cause as there's still no real proof. What, did the boyfriend see a pregnancy test? What if it was wrong? How does he know she was REALLY pregnant? What if she had a miscarriage? Those are all valid reasons why "telling on somebody" isn't the best proof that someone had an abortion.
Ah so a government piece of paper makes a person human. Then why is someone charged with a double homicide if the woman he kills is Pregnant? Why throughout human history is there a higher wrong or greater loss when a pregnant women is killed or dies?

[AxisMundi]

SHOW THE DAMN THING and then we can see how many people still don't believe. Until then, your argument is pointless. I could say, "Those that believe Obama was born in America would still believe he was born in America if all his living relatives testified that he was born in Africa, they would still say they are lying." It doesn't mean a thing.

Again, there is no right for private citizens to see the private, personal documents of anyone else, be they average citizens or people in office.

Proof has been shown to the proper authorities, or BHO would not have first been a senator, and now POTUS.

[Bruno]

Again, there is no right for private citizens to see the private, personal documents of anyone else, be they average citizens or people in office.

Proof has been shown to the proper authorities, or BHO would not have first been a senator, and now POTUS.

That is quite the assumption. Do you have sources of the vetting process, or just a blind faith in your incompetent and corruption-ridden government?

[dannno]

But if we're talking about taking away a doctor's medical license, all you need is one of his patients to have a change of heart and turn him in.

Not a fan of state medical licensing...



Ah so a government piece of paper makes a person human. Then why is someone charged with a double homicide if the woman he kills is Pregnant? Why throughout human history is there a higher wrong or greater loss when a pregnant women is killed or dies?

No, it's not a specific piece of paper that makes somebody human, I'm thinking more generally, even back in the day there were records of people being born.. Maybe a journal someone kept or religious records, etc.. The point is that there is some record of 99.9% of people who exist, so it is more difficult to make up someone being murdered or disappear and pin it on someone else. It seems like it would be really easy to conjur up some evidence that a doctor was performing abortions, you could get a women who are ardently pro-life to lie and say that they all received abortions from that doctor, if you got them all to believe he was giving abortions even if he wasn't.. now you could say "well, they would need physical proof", but who are you? This is the whole point I think Amy is taking up, is that once you make it illegal it becomes a monster project of the state and can be twisted and pulled in every which direction to benefit whoever is in power.

As far as the double homicide, people who are pro-choice believe that if a woman gets pregnant and intends on having the child, she should have that right. They want to give women the choice, the women who are carrying the potential child.

[AxisMundi]

Ah so a government piece of paper makes a person human. Then why is someone charged with a double homicide if the woman he kills is Pregnant? Why throughout human history is there a higher wrong or greater loss when a pregnant women is killed or dies?

People have indeed been charged with double homicide.

I think the fact your missing is the fact no one has ever been CONVICTED of double homicide in such an instance.

[AxisMundi]

That is quite the assumption. Do you have sources of the vetting process, or just a blind faith in your incompetent and corruption-ridden government?

Do you have a source stating otherwise?

[AxisMundi]

BTW ladies and gentlemen, something the Birthers refuse to recognize, or even debate most times.

Obama's mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth.

This makes Obama a US citizen.

End of debate.

[agitator]

BTW ladies and gentlemen, something the Birthers refuse to recognize, or even debate most times.

Obama's mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth.

This makes Obama a US citizen.

End of debate.

Governor Schwarzenegger is a US citizen.

[dannno]

BTW ladies and gentlemen, something the Birthers refuse to recognize, or even debate most times.

Obama's mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth.

This makes Obama a US citizen.

End of debate.

No, to acquire natural born citizenship through that method both parents must be citizens.

[AxisMundi]

Governor Schwarzenegger is a US citizen.

And illegible as a POTUS as he is a naturalized citizen, yes.

[AxisMundi]

No, to acquire natural born citizenship through that method both parents must be citizens.

Incorrect.

See Jus sanguinis.

[Bruno]

It is your assertion that he was vetted, not mine, so, you either made an assumption that it happened, or you should have proof that it did. I assume it didn't happen, but you don't have to take my word for it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/CRS-Congressional-Internal-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-Regarding-Obama-Eligibility-Questions

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1248701/pg1


A congressional document that has been posted on the Internet confirms no one – not Congress, not the states and not election officials – bothered to check Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and in fact, that status remains undocumented to this day.
It's because state and federal law did not require anyone in Congress or elsewhere to check to see if Obama was a "natural born Citizen" under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, according the document.

The analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a research arm of the U.S. Congress, openly admits no one in the federal government, including Congress, ever asked to see Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. In fact, it explains no one was required to do so.


The CRS memorandum, published and distributed to congressional offices on April 3, 2009, was written to explain to senators and member of the House how they could answer constituents who were demanding to see Obama's birth certificate.

Authored by Jack Maskell, the legislative attorney in the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service, the document was a memorandum written for the subject: "Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate"

It can be viewed and downloaded on Scribd.com.

Maskell himself confirmed to WND that the document is authentic.

He explained he wrote it only for distribution to congressional offices, not for public distribution, and it was not posted on any of the CRS report sites where the public might have been able to find it.

He suggested one of the congressional offices that got the report facilitated its release and it ended up posted on the Internet.

Maskell told WND he wrote it because so many members of Congress were getting questions from constituents about the issue, and they wanted to know how to respond, a circumstance that would explain why so many mailed and e-mailed responses to constituents on the issue of eligibility sound just alike.

The CRS begins the memo by stating the problem:


"Many of the inquiries have questioned why then-Senator, and now President, Obama has not had to produce an original, so-called 'long' version of a 'birth certificate' from the State of Hawaii, how federal candidates are 'vetted' for qualifications generally, and have asked for an assessment of the various allegations and claims of non-eligibility status."
In other words, senators and members of the House could not explain why nobody ever saw Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate and they needed a ready answer to give angry constituents who were writing, faxing and telephoning their offices for an answer.

The second full paragraph of the CRS memo must be read in its entirety in order to understand fully the circumstance that allowed a candidate for whom documentation was simply concealed from the public to be elected and sworn in as president.

It states:


"Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation. Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that 'vets' candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to return."
What the CRS admits is that Obama got a pass from Congress and the federal government as a whole on his birth qualifications under Article 2, Section 1. Nobody in Congress or the federal government sought to look for Obama's certified long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate because no law or regulation required them to look.

[dannno]

Does anybody remember the episode of Weeds where Esteban (the father) wouldn't sign the birth certificate because he was a politician and it couldn't go on record that he had a son?

[crazyfacedjenkins]

No, to acquire natural born citizenship through that method both parents must be citizens.

Dual citizenship. Using your logic, the person would have no citizenship in any country. hahahahhaa!!!

[klamath]

People have indeed been charged with double homicide.

I think the fact your missing is the fact no one has ever been CONVICTED of double homicide in such an instance.

Boy you just pull your facts out of your behind don't you.


On November 12 the reconstituted jury convicted Peterson of first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing the unborn baby she carried. The penalty phase of the trial began on November 30 and concluded December 13, when at 1:50 P.M. PST, the twelve-person jury recommended a death sentence for Peterson.



In a similar case in New York, which has no fetal homicide law, a police
officer named Joseph Gray ran over a pregnant woman and two relatives. All three
were killed. Doctors delivered the baby, but it died after 12 hours on life support....

Queens prosecutors originally charged three counts of manslaughter, saying that
because the coroner listed the baby as stillborn, he had not been "born alive" and
could not be a manslaughter victim. The baby's father protested that the baby's
heart beat independently for close to an hour after life support was removed.
Prosecutors relented, and Gray was convicted of four counts of manslaughter.

[devil21]

BTW ladies and gentlemen, something the Birthers refuse to recognize, or even debate most times.

Obama's mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth.

This makes Obama a US citizen.

End of debate.

Not that simple. There are specific residency time requirements and other nuances to that.

See: http://www.greencardlawyers.net/citizenship/FAQchildbornabroad.html

Besides, the issue isn't whether Obama is a US Citizen, it is whether he is a natural-born citizen as required by the Constitution. He could have been born in Kenya to a US Citizen mother but that doesn't make him a natural born citizen. You're simplifying the issue way too much.

[AxisMundi]

It is your assertion that he was vetted, not mine, so, you either made an assumption that it happened, or you should have proof that it did. I assume it didn't happen, but you don't have to take my word for it. ....

WND.

'Nough said.

[AxisMundi]

Not that simple. There are specific residency time requirements and other nuances to that.

See: http://www.greencardlawyers.net/citizenship/FAQchildbornabroad.html

Besides, the issue isn't whether Obama is a US Citizen, it is whether he is a natural-born citizen as required by the Constitution. He could have been born in Kenya to a US Citizen mother but that doesn't make him a natural born citizen. You're simplifying the issue way too much.

1. Yes, it does make him a natural born US citizen if he was born in Kenya.

2. Obama's mother meets the residency requirements.

[Peace&Freedom]

1. Yes, it does make him a natural born US citizen if he was born in Kenya.

2. Obama's mother meets the residency requirements.

"Natural born US citizen" conflates or mixes two different terms up. US citizen is a statutory term, while natural born citizen is a constitutional term. Obama is not qualified to be President under the constitutional understanding, which is the context under which the qualification for office is defined. One can be born in Kenya or Indonesia but still be a statutory US citizen, but one cannot be born outside the states and be a natural born citizen.

[dannno]

Dual citizenship. Using your logic, the person would have no citizenship in any country. hahahahhaa!!!

No, it would depend on where they're born.

[jmdrake]

Not a fan of state medical licensing...

Maybe you aren't. But that's one way around the problem of not having abortion legal while not having it be criminally prosecuted. Or you can just prosecute the person who does the abortion. Or you can just deal with the proof problems as they come up instead going with analysis / paralysis. If you accept that there will be abortions that won't be caught (just like there are all sorts of crimes that are never reported or solved) you can deal with the legality issue without dismantling probable cause.



No, it's not a specific piece of paper that makes somebody human, I'm thinking more generally, even back in the day there were records of people being born.. Maybe a journal someone kept or religious records, etc.. The point is that there is some record of 99.9% of people who exist, so it is more difficult to make up someone being murdered or disappear and pin it on someone else. It seems like it would be really easy to conjur up some evidence that a doctor was performing abortions, you could get a women who are ardently pro-life to lie and say that they all received abortions from that doctor, if you got them all to believe he was giving abortions even if he wasn't.


Why would a woman who was ardently pro life lie about a doctor who was not performing abortions? What could possibly motivate that? Anyway, there are proof problems for all sorts of laws. Women lie about being raped. People disappear and sometimes an acquaintance is convicted even though no body is ever found. For example, Perry March was convicted for murdering his wife. If this woman that you are talking about wanted to make up an abortion lie she would have to provide some physical evidence of the abortion procedure. If a medical examination can show that a woman has been raped, it can show that a woman has had an abortion. So a pro life woman would have an abortion from one doctor just so she could lie and say that she had an abortion from another doctor?

As far as records go, if an indigenous person from Guatemala with no records of any kind sneaks into the U.S. and is murdered, his murderer can still be prosecuted. People are routinely prosecuted for cruelty to animals (Michael Vick for instance) and the animals do not always have paper records.



. now you could say "well, they would need physical proof", but who are you? This is the whole point I think Amy is taking up, is that once you make it illegal it becomes a monster project of the state and can be twisted and pulled in every which direction to benefit whoever is in power.


Except when abortion was illegal before none of those nightmare scenarios came about. Further the two example from the Salon article she quoted were from of women where there was no question that they were pregnant. In the first case there wasn't even any question that the woman paid someone to beat her to try to induce a miscarriage. In the second case the only questions was whether or not the woman fell down the steps on purpose based on some offhand comment. It's hard to tell what happened because Amy didn't have the original article, only a synopsis of it from an obviously biased commentator. (It's kind of like the story Michael Malkin published recently that grossly misrepresented facts about an abortion case from the opposite point of view). Anyway, that pregnant woman was arrested but not prosecuted. So Amy has no evidence of wrongful prosecution in such cases. And of course there are all sorts of wrongful arrests, prosecutions and convictions in many areas of the law. If we aren't going to have laws whenever there is a risk of a mistake then we shouldn't have any laws at all. Rape, rob, murder, whatever. We won't do anything about it because someone might wrongly spend a couple of nights in jail.



As far as the double homicide, people who are pro-choice believe that if a woman gets pregnant and intends on having the child, she should have that right. They want to give women the choice, the women who are carrying the potential child.

The woman shouldn't be given the choice of whether or not the death is a homicide. Either it is or it isn't murder. If abortion isn't murder then killing a pregnant woman isn't a double homicide, and kicking her in the stomach and causing her to lose her baby isn't a single homicide. The state could come up with some lesser crime to charge for the death of the fetus.

[dannno]

Maybe you aren't. But that's one way around the problem of not having abortion legal while not having it be criminally prosecuted. Or you can just prosecute the person who does the abortion. Or you can just deal with the proof problems as they come up instead going with analysis / paralysis. If you accept that there will be abortions that won't be caught (just like there are all sorts of crimes that are never reported or solved) you can deal with the legality issue without dismantling probable cause.

Ya but so often things like this turn into witch hunts.. It's one thing when the victim is visible, but these victims are practically invisible and the only person who knows about them could be the mother and the doctor.. that's what makes it witch hunting material.

[jmdrake]

Even using your own "paranoia" that the progressive/neocon gov't wants to reduce the population--why in the hell would you entrust them with the powers to police reproduction?

One more thing Amy. I was going to ignore this, but then I thought about it. It really shows what the reason for the confusion. To understand the legal implications of overturning Roe you first have to understand the legal framework behind Roe. If Roe were overturned that would not give the government full powers to police reproduction. Here is a the legal historical background to Roe v. Wade.

1925 - Pierce v. Society of Sisters (http://www.ecasebriefs.com/blog/law/family-law/family-law-keyed-to-weisberg/private-family-choices-constitutional-protection-for-the-family-and-its-members/meyer-v-nebraska/]1923 - Meyer v. Nebraska[/url] Supreme court rules that private family choices (in this case teaching your child German) are held to strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny means that the government law abridging that right must be based on a compelling government interest and it law must be narrowly tailored to that interest. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny)


[url="http://www.ecasebriefs.com/blog/law/family-law/family-law-keyed-to-weisberg/private-family-choices-constitutional-protection-for-the-family-and-its-members/pierce-v-society-of-sisters/) The Supreme Court affirms strict scrutiny for private family choices, in this case choosing parochial schools over public schools.

1965 - Grisswald v. Conneticut (http://www.ecasebriefs.com/blog/law/family-law/family-law-keyed-to-weisberg/private-family-choices-constitutional-protection-for-the-family-and-its-members/griswold-v-connecticut-2/) Supreme court rules that married couples have a fundamental right to contraception.

1972 - Eisenstadt v. Baird (http://www.ecasebriefs.com/blog/law/family-law/family-law-keyed-to-weisberg/private-family-choices-constitutional-protection-for-the-family-and-its-members/eisenstadt-v-baird/) Supreme court rules that right to contraception extends to single people.

Roe v. Wade you are familiar with.

Here is a post Roe v. Wade case you might not know about.

1990 - Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (http://www.ecasebriefs.com/blog/law/family-law/family-law-keyed-to-weisberg/private-family-choices-constitutional-protection-for-the-family-and-its-members/cruzan-v-director-missouri-department-of-health/) In this case a state law requiring clear and convincing evidence of a patients wishes with before life support can be withdrawn. Important to the discussion because the Supreme Court declared the states interest in life (at least the life of person outside the womb in a persistent vegetative state) to be compelling.

So what does this have to do with Roe v. Wade? Well Roe v. Wade declared abortion to be a fundamental right. To get past fundamental rights you need a compelling state interest. If you truly believe, as you say, that the life of an unborn child is as important as the rights of the mother, then the state has at least as a compelling of an interest to protect that life as it does the life of an adult in a persistent vegetative state. Overturning Roe v. Wade on those grounds would not overturn even Griswald or Eisenstadt, let along Meyer and Pierce. All four of those cases would have to be overturned to legally institute the dystopian nightmare you've conjured up. Could the government overturn all of those precedents? Maybe. But overturning Roe on the grounds I'm talking about doesn't move you in that direction. In fact it arguably moves you in the opposite direction since it would declare life, as opposed to death, to be a compelling state interest.

[dannno]

WND.

'Nough said.

The article stated:




A congressional document that has been posted on the Internet confirms no one – not Congress, not the states and not election officials – bothered to check Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and in fact, that status remains undocumented to this day.

You're saying that is untrue? I have yet to see this debunked, and I've seen a lot of people put a lot of effort into trying to debunk all this stuff.

[jmdrake]

Ya but so often things like this turn into witch hunts.. It's one thing when the victim is visible, but these victims are practically invisible and the only person who knows about them could be the mother and the doctor.. that's what makes it witch hunting material.

The physical evidence of an abortion is not invisible just like the physical evidence of a rape is not invisible. A woman who has not recently had sex cannot today get away with claiming rape because the first thing the defense attorney is going to as for is the post rape medical examination. Same thing here. And again, there are proof problems with other laws. There's more of a proof problem for rape because the sex may be consensual. Or with child molestation there may not be any physical evidence at all. That's were good cross examination and circumstantial evidence comes into play. Is this mythical pro life ready to accuse a doctor that she doesn't actually know committed an abortion victim know the layout of the office? The examination room? Are there any records of her ever visiting this doctor? Are there any other independent witnesses that can verify she went to the office on the day of the alleged abortion? And remember there is a legal risk to this woman for making up the charges, as well as for the prosecutor. Remember Mike Knifong?

[qh4dotcom]

I remember that not too long ago birther threads didn't last very long in the general politics section of this forum...they quickly got moved to "hot topics"...any reason why this thread has survived the general politics section?

[Bruno]

WND.

'Nough said.

lame and baseless.


The article stated:



You're saying that is untrue? I have yet to see this debunked, and I've seen a lot of people put a lot of effort into trying to debunk all this stuff.

It's much easier to dismiss a source without given a reason why, then to actually discuss something.

[Bruno]

I remember that not too long ago birther threads didn't last very long in the general politics section of this forum...they quickly got moved to "hot topics"...any reason why this thread has survived the general politics section?

I dunno, maybe because CNN and Fox are both reporting on it?

[qh4dotcom]

I dunno, maybe because CNN and Fox are both reporting on it?

CNN and Fox maybe reporting it but to be fair to the older birther threads this one should be moved to Hot Topics too...or the older birther threads should be brought back to General politics.

[Bruno]

CNN and Fox maybe reporting it but to be fair to the older birther threads this one should be moved to Hot Topics too...or the older birther threads should be brought back to General politics.

Times have changed. It was more of a hot topic then than now. But that's fine, if they mods want to move it, they can.

[dannno]

CNN and Fox maybe reporting it but to be fair to the older birther threads this one should be moved to Hot Topics too...or the older birther threads should be brought back to General politics.

Topics have climates, climates change, this topic is no longer as "hot"

9/11 truth is heading that way as well.

[Bruno]

Topics have climates, climates change, this topic is no longer as "hot"

9/11 truth is heading that way as well.

jinx!

[dannno]

jinx!

FUCK! :eek:

[Bruno]

FUCK! :eek:

It's ok. Owe me a bud that we can enjoy together, not a Coke. :)

[steve005]

so what happened with this anyway?

[AxisMundi]

"Natural born US citizen" conflates or mixes two different terms up. US citizen is a statutory term, while natural born citizen is a constitutional term. Obama is not qualified to be President under the constitutional understanding, which is the context under which the qualification for office is defined. One can be born in Kenya or Indonesia but still be a statutory US citizen, but one cannot be born outside the states and be a natural born citizen.

See...

Title 8 Chapter 12 Subchapter 3 Part 1 §1401

[AxisMundi]

The article stated:

You're saying that is untrue? I have yet to see this debunked, and I've seen a lot of people put a lot of effort into trying to debunk all this stuff.

Posted by whom might I ask?

A source with zero credibility quoting an anonymous document with no link to that supposed document and no verified source of said mystery document.

You can believe WND if you wish.

Considering their track record, I will not.

[AxisMundi]

lame and baseless.
It's much easier to dismiss a source without given a reason why, then to actually discuss something.

WND is hardly a credible source at all.

They regularly manufacture their "evidence", and lie outright more times than not.

And they cannot even do either well.

[silverhandorder]

They have nothing better to do? Seriously? They are walking all over constitution and they want to see birth certificates?

For all it's worth I believe he is a citizen and I could give a shit if he went to a Muslim school or that his dad is not a citizen.

[torchbearer]

I predict that barry may skip qualifying in certains states claiming, "they were red states, he won't waste his time" meaning, i'd have to release my documents to qualify and the SOS isn't someone i can pay off.

[Bruno]

I predict that barry may skip qualifying in certains states claiming, "they were red states, he won't waste his time" meaning, i'd have to release my documents to qualify and the SOS isn't someone i can pay off.

The most likely scenario, I agree. Which will result in more people believing he has something to hide.


so what happened with this anyway?

Nothing yet, just talk on the Governor's part.

[Bruno]

WND is hardly a credible source at all.

They regularly manufacture their "evidence", and lie outright more times than not.

And they cannot even do either well.

Then it should be really easy for you to begin refuting the dozens of specific items mentioned in the article. Otherwise, you're just pinning your entire argument on "they are not credible".

You're worse than the "birthers" you condemn, saying that they will never believe anything shown as evidence, refuting the source while not disproving the allegations, and then doing the same yourself.

CNN, Fox, Msnbc, ABC, CBS, NBC, have all LIED over the years to the American public. It doesn't mean that none of what they ever say is the truth.

[libertarian4321]

than there are the Kenyan lawmakers saying Obama was born in Kenya

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/04/member-of-kenyan-assembly-on-march-25th.html

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/04/another-kenyan-minister-states-on-14.html

And cant forget

http://www.infowars.com/michelle-obama-barack-obama-is-kenyan/


Michele "Obama" Says Kenya is Obama's Home country

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht1qeK3roU0

I was serious.

Take that kind of crazy to the "Palin for President" forum if you really want to help Ron Paul.

[libertarian4321]

"Natural born US citizen" conflates or mixes two different terms up. US citizen is a statutory term, while natural born citizen is a constitutional term. Obama is not qualified to be President under the constitutional understanding, which is the context under which the qualification for office is defined. One can be born in Kenya or Indonesia but still be a statutory US citizen, but one cannot be born outside the states and be a natural born citizen.

Perhaps you are unaware that Hawaii is NOT "outside the states."

Seriously, I don't mean to lecture you birther geniuses, but Hawaii is a state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii

Crazy doesn't win elections, folks.

When you claim to be a Ron Paul supporter, then start ranting about "9-11 Truther" or birtherism, YOU AREN'T HELPING!

You just make it easy for those that want to label us "Paultards" or "tin-foil hatters."

I appeal to birthers, truthers, and other CT's who support Ron Paul- when you feel the need to rant about this nonsense, please tag your post with "Palin* for President!"

* or Romney/Gingrich/Kucinich/Giuliani/Obama/Clinton/- anyone other than Ron Paul.

[AxisMundi]

Then it should be really easy for you to begin refuting the dozens of specific items mentioned in the article. Otherwise, you're just pinning your entire argument on "they are not credible".

You're worse than the "birthers" you condemn, saying that they will never believe anything shown as evidence, refuting the source while not disproving the allegations, and then doing the same yourself.

CNN, Fox, Msnbc, ABC, CBS, NBC, have all LIED over the years to the American public. It doesn't mean that none of what they ever say is the truth.

1. Offer a credible source. The only difference between The Onion and WND is that WND pretends to be a legitimate source and some people take it as a serious, credible source. I'm simply not going to take the time and effort to discredit bull-poo from a source known to shovel it out by the truck load.

2. Except for Fox News, the other sources you mentioned are not the habitual liars WND is.

[osan]

I see this Abercrombie fellow appears to be as full of shit as any other political rodent.

Note that he said he was going to do anything he could to prove Obammy is natural born - he did NOT say he was going to get down to truth.

The two are quite different.

[Bruno]

1. Offer a credible source. The only difference between The Onion and WND is that WND pretends to be a legitimate source and some people take it as a serious, credible source. I'm simply not going to take the time and effort to discredit bull-poo from a source known to shovel it out by the truck load.

2. Except for Fox News, the other sources you mentioned are not the habitual liars WND is.

It wouldn't matter to you, you are as blinded by your belief as the birthers you condemn.

[AxisMundi]

It wouldn't matter to you, you are as blinded by your belief as the birthers you condemn.

So you admit the Birthers are full of it?

Thank you.

[torchbearer]

So you admit the Birthers are full of it?

Thank you.

When I got a shit server job at applebees during college, i had to produce evidence that i was a citizen, and I was only tasked with taking orders and filling drinks. You'd think the person who is over our entire military would have to do the same.
I find it odd when people would rather just take it on faith, especailly when their is reasonable doubt he isn't natural born.
I'd put you in the category with people who talk to invisible people in the sky because someone told them they were really there. Blind belief in authority is the retards athem.
Sing it brother!

[Bruno]

So you admit the Birthers are full of it?

Thank you.

Not at all. There are a small minority that are adament he was born in Kenya or elsewhere and for whom no amount of evidence would disprove that to them. But by and large, the majority of people who question his birthplace are rational people looking at a large amount of inconsistencies which warrant further discussion.

You fall at the opposite end, calling people names, blindly believing that he was vetted or claiming it doesn't matter, ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

[AxisMundi]

When I got a shit server job at applebees during college, i had to produce evidence that i was a citizen, and I was only tasked with taking orders and filling drinks. You'd think the person who is over our entire military would have to do the same.
I find it odd when people would rather just take it on faith, especailly when their is reasonable doubt he isn't natural born.
I'd put you in the category with people who talk to invisible people in the sky because someone told them they were really there. Blind belief in authority is the retards athem.
Sing it brother!

And what was the document(s) of proof?

[silverhandorder]

When I got a shit server job at applebees during college, i had to produce evidence that i was a citizen, and I was only tasked with taking orders and filling drinks. You'd think the person who is over our entire military would have to do the same.
I find it odd when people would rather just take it on faith, especailly when their is reasonable doubt he isn't natural born.
I'd put you in the category with people who talk to invisible people in the sky because someone told them they were really there. Blind belief in authority is the retards athem.
Sing it brother!
To be honest they produced a document that officially shows that he is a citizen(short form birth certificate). Judges also weighed in and said that is all that he needs in order to prove it in government's eyes. We also know that his mother is a citizen. I mean it is really being childish at this point to demand for long form birth certificate.

[Bruno]

To be honest they produced a document that officially shows that he is a citizen(short form birth certificate). Judges also weighed in and said that is all that he needs in order to prove it in government's eyes. We also know that his mother is a citizen. I mean it is really being childish at this point to demand for long form birth certificate.

Or you could argue it is childish (and highly suspect) for him to spend more than a million dollars in order to not show the long form certificate that exists.

[dannno]

And what was the document(s) of proof?

The checks for millions of dollars that went to lawyers to avoid showing said birth certificate :confused:

[Dr.3D]

You're worse than the "birthers" you condemn,
So you admit the Birthers are full of it?

Thank you.

So you admit what Bruno said is true?

[agitator]

The checks for millions of dollars that went to lawyers to avoid showing said birth certificate :confused:

Interesting indeed.

[AxisMundi]

So you admit what Bruno said is true?

No.

Bruno made an accusation concerning me, and an apparent admittance that Birthers are full of it.

[AxisMundi]

The checks for millions of dollars that went to lawyers to avoid showing said birth certificate :confused:

That is not any evidence showing anything other than a complete and utter lack of any substantial claim made by any Birther.

I do not blame Obama spending whatever he has to to defend his private personal papers. He has already provided proof where he did not have to, and no one has a right to see anyone's birth certificate.

[Bruno]

No.

Bruno made an accusation concerning me, and an apparent admittance that Birthers are full of it.

That's ridiculous, and you know that's not what I meant. I never said anyone was full of it, just that there are many on both sides that are adamantly blind to any reason and completely closed minded on the subject, and that you fall into that category.

Included in that category are those who call people names like kooks, conspiracy nuts, racists, and lumping them in with those that don't believe we landed on the moon or who deny the Holocaust. It is a tactic used to disparage and ignore open debate.

I am most of the rest of the doubters believe there is reasonable suspicion to question his birthplace.


That is not any evidence showing anything other than a complete and utter lack of any substantial claim made by any Birther.

I do not blame Obama spending whatever he has to to defend his private personal papers. He has already provided proof where he did not have to, and no one has a right to see anyone's birth certificate.

He has sealed most all of his records. Strange for a man who boasts how open and transparent he is, and yet we know so little about his past because it was barely discussed in the campaign and then brushed aside with the techniques described about.

Cause for more concern and suspicion for the reasoned individual.

[AxisMundi]

That's ridiculous, and you know that's not what I meant. I never said anyone was full of it, just that there are many on both sides that are adamantly blind to any reason and completely closed minded on the subject, and that you fall into that category.

Included in that category are those who call people names like kooks, conspiracy nuts, racists, and lumping them in with those that don't believe we landed on the moon or who deny the Holocaust. It is a tactic used to disparage and ignore open debate.

I am most of the rest of the doubters believe there is reasonable suspicion to question his birthplace.



He has sealed most all of his records. Strange for a man who boasts how open and transparent he is, and yet we know so little about his past because it was barely discussed in the campaign and then brushed aside with the techniques described about.

Cause for more concern and suspicion for the reasoned individual.

1. Consider the evidence offered, a short form BC which is indeed proof of citizenship, something BHO was not required by law to release to the masses. Also consider the source of this nonsense, media whores and political opposition. It is quite safe to state there is no doubt as to BHO's eligibility to hold office.

2. EO 13489 is indeed disappointing, but seals presidential records, not personal records.

[Bruno]

1. Consider the evidence offered, a short form BC which is indeed proof of citizenship, something BHO was not required by law to release to the masses. Also consider the source of this nonsense, media whores and political opposition. It is quite safe to state there is no doubt as to BHO's eligibility to hold office.

2. EO 13489 is indeed disappointing, but seals presidential records, not personal records.


1. Show Obama's short form, and I'll show you the inconsistencies. Post it here. You show me what you find so convincing. His own supporter, the Governor of Hawaii who has supposedly known him since he was born, doesn't even believe it is convincing enough.
2. I never cited EO 13489.
3. Nice job of ignoring the rest of my post.

[AxisMundi]

1. Show Obama's short form, and I'll show you the inconsistencies. Post it here. You show me what you find so convincing. His own supporter, the Governor of Hawaii who has supposedly known him since he was born, doesn't even believe it is convincing enough.
2. I never cited EO 13489.
3. Nice job of ignoring the rest of my post.

1. Feel free to list these inconsistencies. Considering that they've already been addressed...

2. EO 13489 is the executive order in question. If you are referencing another EO of BHO's that "seals his records", please provide it.

3. And what would you like me to address that I felt it unnecessary to?

[Bruno]

1. Feel free to list these inconsistencies. Considering that they've already been addressed...

2. EO 13489 is the executive order in question. If you are referencing another EO of BHO's that "seals his records", please provide it.

3. And what would you like me to address that I felt it unnecessary to?

1. You post what you believe is the best evidence of Obama's eligibility and why you feel so certain it is not only legitimate, but definitive proof.

2. Whatever sources I cited, you would deem them unworthy of reading and unreliable. I never mentioned executive orders at all, you did. Essentially his long form is not being release as well, without executive order affecting it, waiting on his simple phone call or letter to release it. In an era of accountability, transparency and openness, why not start with a silly birth certificate? Is "because he doesn't have to, it's private" your best excuse? That's laughable. Almost as laughable as spending millions to avoid showing it when there is nothing to hide.

3. Specifically, at the least, that the majority of rational people who question where he was born are rational people that are doing so not due to hate, racism, or any other vengeful reason, but because there is amble reason to doubt his place of birth due to many factors, including his spending millions to avoid showing a single document.

Inquiring, rational minds want to know. As well as why he has a Connecticut SSN.

[qh4dotcom]

3. Specifically, at the least, that the majority of rational people who question where he was born are rational people that are doing so not due to hate, racism, or any other vengeful reason, but because there is amble reason to doubt his place of birth due to many factors, including his spending millions to avoid showing a single document.

Inquiring, rational minds want to know. As well as why he has a Connecticut SSN.

I'm sure that if AxisMundi was sued by 100+ people and they all wanted to see his birth certificate, the last thing he would do it spend all his life savings in legal fees instead of just showing the damned thing.

[AxisMundi]

1. You post what you believe is the best evidence of Obama's eligibility and why you feel so certain it is not only legitimate, but definitive proof.

2. Whatever sources I cited, you would deem them unworthy of reading and unreliable. I never mentioned executive orders at all, you did. Essentially his long form is not being release as well, without executive order affecting it, waiting on his simple phone call or letter to release it. In an era of accountability, transparency and openness, why not start with a silly birth certificate? Is "because he doesn't have to, it's private" your best excuse? That's laughable. Almost as laughable as spending millions to avoid showing it when there is nothing to hide.

3. Specifically, at the least, that the majority of rational people who question where he was born are rational people that are doing so not due to hate, racism, or any other vengeful reason, but because there is amble reason to doubt his place of birth due to many factors, including his spending millions to avoid showing a single document.

Inquiring, rational minds want to know. As well as why he has a Connecticut SSN.

1. Short form is proof enough.

2. It's quite simple Bruno, cite a source that are not know habitual liars.

3. I'm sure there are people easily swayed by conspiracy theories. There are also plenty of Birthers who ARE racists, haters, and indulge in political hackery.

More WND bullshit.

[dannno]

1. Short form is proof enough.


No it isn't, it's only proof that he applied for citizenship, it isn't proof of where he was born.

The newspaper articles only proves that somebody applied for a cert. of live birth, the short form is only proof that somebody applied for it, it is not proof of where anybody was born.

[qh4dotcom]

1. Short form is proof enough.


Sorry man, a piece of paper laser printed in 2007 does not prove anything about an event that happened in 1961...a piece of paper typewritten in 1961 does.

[AxisMundi]

I'm sure that if AxisMundi was sued by 100+ people and they all wanted to see his birth certificate, the last thing he would do it spend all his life savings in legal fees instead of just showing the damned thing.

If I had the millions?

You better bet your last dime I would spend millions.

There is no inherent right to look at other people's personal information.

[AxisMundi]

No it isn't, it's only proof that he applied for citizenship, it isn't proof of where he was born.

The newspaper articles only proves that somebody applied for a cert. of live birth, the short form is only proof that somebody applied for it, it is not proof of where anybody was born.

Even Wiki knows how daft that idea is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_certificate

A short form is a certificate of birth, not an "application for citizenship", and a legal document whose information is generated by the long form. This system has been put in place by many States in an attempt to cut costs.

[AxisMundi]

Sorry man, a piece of paper laser printed in 2007 does not prove anything about an event that happened in 1961...a piece of paper typewritten in 1961 does.

See above link.

[qh4dotcom]

If I had the millions?

You better bet your last dime I would spend millions.

There is no inherent right to look at other people's personal information.

But you don't have the millions...so you're willing to spend your life savings in legal fees and become poor instead of showing your birth certificate?

By the way, the more money Obama spends hiding his birth certificate, the guiltier he looks.

[AxisMundi]

But you don't have the millions...so you're willing to spend your life savings in legal fees and become poor instead of showing your birth certificate?

By the way, the more money Obama spends hiding his birth certificate, the guiltier he looks.

As I said, there is no right to look at other people's private documents.

If you don't have a damn good reason and you sue me, I would counter sue and it might end up costing YOU.

And as far as I'm concerned, the more Birthers writhe and whine, the sillier they look.

[qh4dotcom]

As I said, there is no right to look at other people's private documents.

If you don't have a damn good reason and you sue me, I would counter sue and it might end up costing YOU.

And as far as I'm concerned, the more Birthers writhe and whine, the sillier they look.

You didn't answer the question

But you don't have the millions...so you're willing to spend your life savings in legal fees and become poor instead of showing your birth certificate?

Countersuing 100+ folks is not cheap....and lawyers want to be paid upfront.

[dannno]

As I said, there is no right to look at other people's private documents.



Look, buddy, I have a right not to show my birth certificate to my employer and they have a right not to give me the job.. WE are his employer, WE are asking for his birth certificate for legal reasons under the constitution.

[qh4dotcom]

Look, buddy, I have a right not to show my birth certificate to my employer and they have a right not to give me the job.. WE are his employer, WE are asking for his birth certificate for legal reasons under the constitution.

Couldn't have said it better myself

[BlackTyrone]

If I had the millions?

You better bet your last dime I would spend millions.

There is no inherent right to look at other people's personal information.

As president, and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he does not get the same level of privacy as a private citizen.

[Bruno]

1. Short form is proof enough.

2. It's quite simple Bruno, cite a source that are not know habitual liars.

3. I'm sure there are people easily swayed by conspiracy theories. There are also plenty of Birthers who ARE racists, haters, and indulge in political hackery.

More WND bullshit.

1. So you're not going to post that laughable short form? C'mon, post what has you so 100% convinced.

2. Obama is a habitual liar. I don't believe him, just as you don't believe WND. You continue to dismiss anything outright due to the source, without discussing the actual allegations. That is where you fail.

Btw - the same tactic is used by those to disparage Ron Paul, calling him a kook and a nut, and then the rebuttal to anything he says is, "Who said, that? Ron Paul, the one who blames American for 9/11 and wants us to be on the gold standard? Give me a break!", without ever addressing the topic or refuting the actual statements or positions he believes in .

3. No one can explain where that pesky CT SSN came from. Gibbs about fell all over himself when asked about it, trying to weasel out of the questions. Still no answers.


If I had the millions?

You better bet your last dime I would spend millions.

There is no inherent right to look at other people's personal information.

Bwahahahaaa!!! Yeah, right!! lmao. Thanks for starting my 2011 off with a great laugh!

[qh4dotcom]

3. No one can explain where that pesky CT SSN came from. Gibbs about fell all over himself when asked about it, trying to weasel out of the questions. Still no answers.


Didn't see that...do you have a video link?

[Bruno]

Didn't see that...do you have a video link?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Aahw3NT6E&feature=player_embedded

[crazyfacedjenkins]

http://www.lunacanus.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/BirtherNutcase.jpg

[Bruno]

http://www.lunacanus.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/BirtherNutcase.jpg

You should get your eyes fixed.

[AxisMundi]

Look, buddy, I have a right not to show my birth certificate to my employer and they have a right not to give me the job.. WE are his employer, WE are asking for his birth certificate for legal reasons under the constitution.

Look "buddy", you show your BC to the HR gal, not the owner.

Not only has Barry shown you his BC, the "HR" department of the g'ment has all they need.

[AxisMundi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Aahw3NT6E&feature=player_embedded

EVERYONE in the room knows what WND stands for.

Wacky Nuts Daily.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u3Ax8UQ9ac

[AxisMundi]

1. So you're not going to post that laughable short form? C'mon, post what has you so 100% convinced.

2. Obama is a habitual liar. I don't believe him, just as you don't believe WND. You continue to dismiss anything outright due to the source, without discussing the actual allegations. That is where you fail.

Btw - the same tactic is used by those to disparage Ron Paul, calling him a kook and a nut, and then the rebuttal to anything he says is, "Who said, that? Ron Paul, the one who blames American for 9/11 and wants us to be on the gold standard? Give me a break!", without ever addressing the topic or refuting the actual statements or positions he believes in .

3. No one can explain where that pesky CT SSN came from. Gibbs about fell all over himself when asked about it, trying to weasel out of the questions. Still no answers.



Bwahahahaaa!!! Yeah, right!! lmao. Thanks for starting my 2011 off with a great laugh!

1. Proof has been supplied. It is up to you to dismantle that proof. "Nuh-uh" isn't working.
2. BHO is a politician, they all lie to some extent. However, as noted several times, proof has been supplied as to his US citizenship.
3. Proof of a CT SSi number has yet to be supplied. Sorry, but WND merely claiming it exists is hardly evidence. They have simply been caught fabricating too often.

Finally, I am an American of Irish decent. I am very stubborn, in case you haven't noticed. If you have no right, or even valid reason, to see my personal papers, you are not going to see them and I will do whatever is necessary to keep you from seeing them.

In addition...

Judges agree too, as each and every Birther case brought to court to force the issue (ie to see BHO's BC)has been thrown out of court.

[Bruno]

1. Proof has been supplied. It is up to you to dismantle that proof. "Nuh-uh" isn't working.
2. BHO is a politician, they all lie to some extent. However, as noted several times, proof has been supplied as to his US citizenship.
3. Proof of a CT SSi number has yet to be supplied. Sorry, but WND merely claiming it exists is hardly evidence. They have simply been caught fabricating too often.

Finally, I am an American of Irish decent. I am very stubborn, in case you haven't noticed. If you have no right, or even valid reason, to see my personal papers, you are not going to see them and I will do whatever is necessary to keep you from seeing them.

1. Post the birth certificate that you believe so strongly in. The short form is a joke.

2. Obama has lied, therefore I don't believe him, just like you don't believe WND. The cited "proof" is a 2007 reproduction of a short form that is laughable, at best, and far from proof, far enough that even Obama supporters such as the Governor of Hawaii think more proof is needed. Why don't you call him and tell him you're convinced, so he should back off?

3. Calling WND Wacky Nuts Daily is the same as calling Ron Paul a kook and then discrediting anything he says. Fail on your part.

Finally, I'm am American who was adopted, so I have no idea what my heritage is. I am very stubborn, in case you didn't notice. If you have no right, nor valid reason to see my personal papers, you will not. However, who the hell cares, because I'm neither the president nor running for president, so why the hell are we talking about your or my birth certificates, again, anyway?

There are plenty of reasons to question his birthplace, and only those who are completely closed-minded cannot see that others have a rational reason for doing so.

[dannno]

Look "buddy", you show your BC to the HR gal, not the owner.

Not only has Barry shown you his BC, the "HR" department of the g'ment has all they need.

As the owner I have the right to fire the HR gal and get a new one who will actually do their job.

[Bruno]

I wish the Hawaii Governor would hurry up and end this debate "once and for all", because it is far from over! lol

[AxisMundi]

1. Post the birth certificate that you believe so strongly in. The short form is a joke.

2. Obama has lied, therefore I don't believe him, just like you don't believe WND. The cited "proof" is a 2007 reproduction of a short form that is laughable, at best, and far from proof, far enough that even Obama supporters such as the Governor of Hawaii think more proof is needed. Why don't you call him and tell him you're convinced, so he should back off?

3. Calling WND Wacky Nuts Daily is the same as calling Ron Paul a kook and then discrediting anything he says. Fail on your part.

Finally, I'm am American who was adopted, so I have no idea what my heritage is. I am very stubborn, in case you didn't notice. If you have no right, nor valid reason to see my personal papers, you will not. However, who the hell cares, because I'm neither the president nor running for president, so why the hell are we talking about your or my birth certificates, again, anyway?

There are plenty of reasons to question his birthplace, and only those who are completely closed-minded cannot see that others have a rational reason for doing so.

1. A short form is a legal United States Document and proof od birth. Sorry if you refuse to understand that, but the burden of proof is still on you.

2. BHO has supplied a legal US document as proof. WND has offered nothing.

3. Your non sequitur fallacy still isn't working. Try another one. No one with any shred of integrity or intellectual honesty takes WND as anything other than what it is, a sensationalist internet "rag" looking for a following.

4. There WERE indeed plenty of reasons to question his birth place. The questions have been satisfied for the rational people.

[Bruno]

1. A short form is a legal United States Document and proof od birth. Sorry if you refuse to understand that, but the burden of proof is still on you.

2. BHO has supplied a legal US document as proof. WND has offered nothing.

3. Your non sequitur fallacy still isn't working. Try another one. No one with any shred of integrity or intellectual honesty takes WND as anything other than what it is, a sensationalist internet "rag" looking for a following.

4. There WERE indeed plenty of reasons to question his birth place. The questions have been satisfied for the rational people.

Still don't want to post that ridiculous birth certificate, huh? Oh well, I don't blame you. It is pretty pathetic as "proof".

The short form is such a joke that hardly anyone actually believes it, except for the fringe you are on. Most other rational people still have questions why there is actually a long form out there, people claim to have seen it, and he hasn't released it. It's his own fault there is so much controversy, but perhaps he has other motives to spend millions to refuse to share it.

There still ARE many reasons to question his birthplace, enough so that the Governor of Hawaii made his statements and we are discussing it on this thread. If it were only a tiny percent of Americans that didn't believe he was born here, would we still be talking about it so much?

Additionally, how can other sources be cited when other sources refuse to investigate? Do you not believe our media is capable of bias, or were you not paying attention in the past few years? How some candidates such as Barack Obama and John McCain were thrust to the front, and on the opposite end like how Ron Paul was treated? That's similiar to how they treat "Birthers", as people like Anderson Cooper bring guests on and then attack them and try to make them look like fools instead of actually doing any investigative reporting?

And lastly, it amazes me when people blindly believe that what is presented to them is true, regardless of that fact that politicians have lied about a lot less, to gain much less. That though they have proven through not only this Obama adminstration but every one in recent memory that they are capable of a magnitude of corruption, bribery, kickbacks, deals for buddies, fixing court outcomes, shady appointments, ethics violations, quid pro quo, junkets, etc.. And yet people would believe that a 2007 birth certificate with hardly any information, excluding the doctor or the hospital of birth would be sufficient for a person whose birthplace is justly questioned.

But hey, I don't believe in AGW, either. I'm kooky like that.

[AxisMundi]

Still don't want to post that ridiculous birth certificate, huh? Oh well, I don't blame you. It is pretty pathetic as "proof".

The short form is such a joke that hardly anyone actually believes it, except for the fringe you are on. Most other rational people still have questions why there is actually a long form out there, people claim to have seen it, and he hasn't released it. It's his own fault there is so much controversy, but perhaps he has other motives to spend millions to refuse to share it.

There still ARE many reasons to question his birthplace, enough so that the Governor of Hawaii made his statements and we are discussing it on this thread. If it were only a tiny percent of Americans that didn't believe he was born here, would we still be talking about it so much?

And lastly, it amazes me when people blindly believe that what is presented to them is true, regardless of that fact that politicians have lied about a lot less, to gain much less. That though they have proven through not only this Obama adminstration but every one in recent memory that they are capable of a magnitude of corruption, bribery, kickbacks, deals for buddies, fixing court outcomes, shady appointments, ethics violations, quid pro quo, junkets, etc.. And yet people would believe that a 2007 birth certificate with hardly any information, excluding the doctor or the hospital of birth would be sufficient for a person whose birthplace is justly questioned.

But hey, I don't believe in AGW, either. I'm kooky like that.

You have a problem with the short form, you post it since this entire fiasco is a mere distraction on your part.

And there are no valid reasons to question his birthplace, only empty rhetoric and clear fabrications which the Gov is trying to lay to rest.

[Bruno]

You have a problem with the short form, you post it since this entire fiasco is a mere distraction on your part.

And there are no valid reasons to question his birthplace, only empty rhetoric and clear fabrications which the Gov is trying to lay to rest.

Have you even seen the short form you so strongly believe in? It really is a joke, you know.

You cite your sources. Show how convincing these documents are. Who produced the short form, when it was requested? Show me what has you so convinced. I'm really curious.

Additionally, how can other sources besides WND be cited when other sources refuse to investigate? Do you not believe our media is capable of bias, or were you not paying attention in the past few years? How some candidates such as Barack Obama and John McCain were thrust to the front, and on the opposite end like how Ron Paul was treated? How he was made out to be kooky then ignored like the nutty uncle? That's similiar to how they treat "Birthers", as people like Anderson Cooper bring guests on and then attack them and try to make them look like fools instead of actually doing any investigative reporting?

Well, tens of millions of rational Americans aren't convinced. Believe what you want. I'm certainly not convinced, and won't be until we find out more what he is spending millions to hide.

I remain as amazed by people like you as you may be amazed by people like me.

[AxisMundi]

Have you even seen the short form you so strongly believe in? It really is a joke, you know.

Well, tens of millions of rational Americans aren't convinced. Believe what you want. I'm certainly not convinced, and won't be until we find out more what he is spending millions to hide.

I remain as amazed by people like you as you may be amazed by people like me.

Firstly, I seriously doubt your "tens of millions" estimate.

Secondly, I have seen the same images everyone else has, images confirmed by the Hawaiian State G'ment.

You have claimed several times that it "is a joke", yet you have ignored several requests to substantiate and list your concerns.

Shall I bother waiting for your list?

[Bruno]

Firstly, I seriously doubt your "tens of millions" estimate.

Secondly, I have seen the same images everyone else has, images confirmed by the Hawaiian State G'ment.

You have claimed several times that it "is a joke", yet you have ignored several requests to substantiate and list your concerns.

Shall I bother waiting for your list?

So, so far you refuse to show this supposedly credible birth certificate, and claim "government has checked it out, it's ok, so I'm convinced."

Is this the same Hawaiin State G'ment (wow, first of all you trust government? lmao) where the Governor claims he knew Obama since he was a baby, was close friends with the family, and now wants to "end this debate once and for all"? No conflict of interest bells going off for you?


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/obama-and-the-birthers-in-the-latest-poll/

Despite all that, a substantial number of Americans are not convinced. In a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 58 percent said Mr. Obama was born in the United States. That leaves a significant minority who said they thought he was born in another country (20 percent) or said they did not know (23 percent). (Question No. 50 in the poll.)

What's 20% of 300 million? 40 million. Tens of millions. And in the don't knows, and you are over 120 million.

[Zippyjuan]

So prove he was born in another country. Nobody has been able to do that. "No- he has to prove he wasn't!". Burden of proof is on the accuser in this country. At least people are agreeing that he was "born". Some think he is an alien. From another planet.

[Bruno]

So prove he was born in another country. Nobody has been able to do that. "No- he has to prove he wasn't!". Burden of proof is on the accuser in this country. At least people are agreeing that he was "born". Some think he is an alien. From another planet.

The burdon of proof is on him that he was born here, not for others to prove that he wasn't. I and tens of millions of others remain unconvinced. Show me what is so convincing? What has you convinced? Why does he spend millions to not show a piece of paper and to only cause more uncertainty?

Additionally, the Governor of Hawaii obviously agrees that this issue isn't settled and the "proof" is unconvincing, that is why he wants to try to end the debate once and for all. That doesn't mean he will necessarily seek the truth, but just try to end the debate, as another poster mentioned. A debate that they attempted to end with the release of the short form, which only remained more unconvincing.

[AxisMundi]

The burdon of proof is on him that he was born here, not for others to prove that he wasn't. I and tens of millions of others remain unconvinced. Show me what is so convincing? What has you convinced? Why does he spend millions to not show a piece of paper and to only cause more uncertainty?

Additionally, the Governor of Hawaii obviously agrees that this issue isn't settled and the "proof" is unconvincing, that is why he wants to try to end the debate once and for all. That doesn't mean he will necessarily seek the truth, but just try to end the debate, as another poster mentioned. A debate that they attempted to end with the release of the short form, which only remained more unconvincing.

Proof supplied in a legal US document that YOU refuse to address.

No, the burden of proof is on you.

[Bruno]

Proof supplied in a legal US document that YOU refuse to address.

No, the burden of proof is on you.


I've adressed that the "legal US document" is highly questionable to tens of millions and why, and even the HI Governor friend of the family agrees. Feel free to post the legal document you are talking about as your source.

You have refused to cite why you believe what you believe, the documents that prove it enough for you, and your sources. You haven't cited one single source that shows Obama was born in the U.S. I'm open-minded. What proof is there that he was born in America? I really don't know where he was born, that's why I am skeptical. Maybe you can convince me.

And for the record, I really don't care where you, the courts, the law, or anyone else believes the burdon of proof is. I believe it is on him. So that argument has no weight at all with me.

[Bruno]

It is interesting that the AP omits that President Obama could release the long form that the Governor is discussing if he simply chose to do so, sparing all this hassle, that Obama has not explained why he will not, and why he has spent more than a million dollars to avoid doing so.

That, and the Democratic Governor's complete contractions which are underlined.

ht tp://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11002/1114784-84.stm


Hawaii governor seeks way to disclose Obama birth info
Sunday, January 02, 2011

By Mark Niesse, The Associated Press
HONOLULU -- Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie wants to find a way to release more information about President Barack Obama's birth and dispel conspiracy theories that he was born elsewhere.

Mr. Abercrombie was a friend of Mr. Obama's parents and knew him as a child, and is deeply troubled by the effort to cast doubt on the president's citizenship.

The newly elected Democrat will ask the state attorney general's office and health officials about how he can make public more of Obama's birth documentation from Aug. 4, 1961, spokeswoman Donalyn Dela Cruz said last week. "He had a friendship with Mr. Obama's parents, and so there is a personal issue at hand," she said. "Is it going to be done immediately? No, the first thing on our list is the economy."

It's unclear what Mr. Abercrombie could do because Hawaii's privacy laws have long barred the release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who doesn't have a tangible interest.

Hawaii's health director said last year and in 2008 that she had seen and verified Mr. Obama's original vital records, and birth notices in two Honolulu newspapers were published within (Bruno's note: NINE) days of Mr. Obama's birth at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu (Bruno's note: The name of the hospitial is not listed on either of the birth announcements, though that is implied by this statement).

So-called "birthers" claim Mr. Obama is ineligible to be president because they say there's no proof he was born in the United States, with many of the skeptics questioning whether he was actually born in Kenya, his father's home country.

"What bothers me is that some people who should know better are trying to use this for political reasons," Mr. Abercrombie told the Los Angeles Times last week. "Maybe I'm the only one in the country [who] could look you right in the eye right now and tell you, 'I was here when that baby was born.' "
Mr. Abercrombie was unavailable for additional comment because he was vacationing on Maui, Ms. Dela Cruz said.

The Obama campaign issued a certificate of live birth in 2008, an official document from the state showing the president's birth date, city and name, along with his parents' names and races. The certificate doesn't list the name of the hospital where he was born or the physician who delivered him, information collected by the state as part of its vital records.

Mr. Abercrombie, originally from New York, befriended Mr. Obama's parents at the University of Hawaii after he moved here in 1959, the same year the islands became a state.

Mr. Abercrombie, 72, has said he remembers seeing Mr. Obama as a child with his parents at social events, although he acknowledged that he didn't see his parents with their newborn son at the hospital.

The number of requests for Mr. Obama's birth information increased this month as the Obama family prepared to vacation in Hawaii.

The Department of Health had received 27 requests for the president's birth information this month as of last Thursday, up from 16 in November, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.

Information requests rose despite a new state law allowing officials to ignore persistent and repetitive inquiries, a law that has been used about six times by the department, Ms. Okubo said.

"It's just a few people, and some of their requests are the same," she said. "The requests fluctuate from month to month."

Nearly all birth certificate information seekers are from the mainland United States, with requests rarely coming from Hawaii residents, said Cathy Takase, acting director for the state Office of Information Practices.

Ms. Takase usually responds to appeals for Mr. Obama's birth records by telling requesters that the information they're seeking is contained in records protected by statute (Bruno's note: ,and we're unsure why Obama won't just release the long form when he already released the short form. It really doesn't make any sense and just leads to more doubt).

[Zippyjuan]

For me, we have a legal document (the birth certificate already offered) verified by the issuers (Hawaiian Departent of Health official who is in charge of birth certificate records) and the birth announcements in BOTH local papers (I know you have previously seen these documents so I won't bother with any links to them). If he was born in another country (say Kenya), why would an 18 year old girl from Iowa be so concerned as to fake a birth certificate in Hawaii as well as post the birth announcements So he could become president in 48 years? So instead, this pregnant woman flew half the way around the world to give birth in Kenya and sought to cover that up. Why? No reason for her to do so.

Now if you would like to try to claim that the official was just supporting the Democratic party and was biased, it perhaps should be pointed out that Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the Director of the State of Hawaii Department of Health who did verify it, has been a contributor to the REPUBLICAN party, not to the Democrats (tidbit I recently found). http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?26920034136

Nobody can make you believe anything you don't want to believe- no matter how many facts are presented. People still believe that Elvis is alive too. In a Fox poll on the 25th anniversary (2002) of his death, 81% said they were sure he was dead, which would leave about the same percent as you cite as not convinced that Elvis is dead- millions of people. Is this proof that he is still alive? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60353,00.html

"While more people believe in visitors from outer space, and the absolute percentage is small," comments Opinion Dynamics President John Gorman, "these results show that nearly 16 million American adults still believe Elvis is alive � that should keep the lines at Graceland long for many years to come."



http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."



Evidence presented and verified. Now provide yours. Or prove this evidence wrong. "I don't believe" is not proof.

Out of curiosity, if you do indeed have "an open mind" on the subject, what sort of proof would convince you that he was born in Hawaii? The long form would have the exact same information as the short form except for in more details. Have you seen your own long form? Have you seen Ron Paul's?

[Bruno]

For me, we have a legal document (the birth certificate already offered) verified by the issuers (Hawaiian Departent of Health official who is in charge of birth certificate records) and the birth announcements in BOTH local papers (I know you have previously seen these documents so I won't bother with any links to them). If he was born in another country (say Kenya), why would an 18 year old girl from Iowa be so concerned as to fake a birth certificate in Hawaii as well as post the birth announcements So he could become president in 48 years? So instead, this pregnant woman flew half the way around the world to give birth in Kenya and sought to cover that up. Why? No reason for her to do so.

Now if you would like to try to claim that the official was just supporting the Democratic party and was biased, it perhaps should be pointed out that Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the Director of the State of Hawaii Department of Health who did verify it, has been a contributor to the REPUBLICAN party, not to the Democrats (tidbit I recently found). http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?26920034136

Nobody can make you believe anything you don't want to believe- no matter how many facts are presented. People still believe that Elvis is alive too. In a Fox poll on the 25th anniversary (2002) of his death, 81% said they were sure he was dead, which would leave about the same percent as you cite as not convinced that Elvis is dead- millions of people. Is this proof that he is still alive? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60353,00.html


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm


Evidence presented and verified. Now provide yours. Or prove this evidence wrong. "I don't believe" is not proof.

Out of curiosity, if you do indeed have "an open mind" on the subject, what sort of proof would convince you that he was born in Hawaii? The long form would have the exact same information as the short form except for in more details. Have you seen your own long form? Have you seen Ron Paul's?

I would love to see my own original long form. Unfortunately, I am adopted, and my records are sealed, including who my birth parents are. I've tried to have them opened, but unlike Obama, I don't have the luxury to make a phone call to open them. And I certainly wouldn't spend millions to keep them sealed.

I haven't seen Ron Paul's, but if there were any reason at all to suspect he was not born in the United States, I'm sure he would provide it if requested.

So literally ONE person has said they have seen it, and we should just take their word? Call me a skeptic, but that certainly isn't good enough for me. I guess my government has lied to me with far less on the line for me to not believe someone would lie over something like this. I don't believe he was even under oath.

Obama's mother didn't need to do so in order that he could become president, but perhaps for other reasons of her own. It wouldn't be the first time someone has done so in this country. The fact that the announcement was nine days later, and the newspapers received their info from requests for birth certificates, not from hospitals, is cause for more suspicion.

"I don't believe" may not be proof, but I have never said I have proof. I have only said there is sufficient reason to question it for me, and for millions of others, and the "proof" provided by Obama thus far is lacking, questionable, and suspect. The fact that he spends so much in court to not release the document, is further cause for suspicion.

I'd like to see the original long form. If it can be verified as authentic, that'd pretty much seal it for me. Since he won't release it, well....still doubt for me! :)

I'll ask you this. What logical reason can you think of that the long form supposedly exists, and yet Obama spends millions to not reveal two additional pieces of information not in the short form - the doctor who delivered him and the hospitcal in which he was born?

[dannno]

If I had the millions?

You better bet your last dime I would spend millions.


What a greedy bastard, you could have fed thousands of impoverished people for a year with all that money.

[Zippyjuan]

I can definately understand your desire to see your own certificate- if that raised any issues for you, I would like to appoligize. Such was certainly not my intent for asking the question.

The fact that the announcement was nine days later, and the newspapers received their info from requests for birth certificates, not from hospitals, is cause for more suspicion.



I don't have a link right now, but did read a report that said that the newspapers got their birth announcements from the hospitals- an examination of the list of names in both papers showed the same names in the same order- this certainly would not make it likely that they were "phoned in". The other births posted were also in the nine days later range (some were eight, some ten- found a link to the announcements so you can see this for yourself- it looks like they might have posted all the announcements for the whole week at once). One link to the announcements: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php The link is not for what the rest of the page says but only for the newspaper page reprints.

As for why he would fight releasing more documents after the original one was posted, releasing more documents would not make the issue go away. Releasing the first birth certificate didn't. Posting another birth certificate (the long form) would have merely been followed by more cries that it was a forgery so it would not have made the questions go away but instead given them a longer life. Who would you like to see verify it? The head of the department which is responsible for birth certificates (we already have that)? Who would you rather see verify? I don't think we can change your "open mind" on the issue. But that is fine. The world won't end over it.

[Bruno]

I can definately understand your desire to see your own certificate- if that raised any issues for you, I would like to appoligize. Such was certainly not my intent for asking the question.


I don't have a link right now, but did read a report that said that the newspapers got their birth announcements from the hospitals- an examination of the list of names in both papers showed the same names in the same order- this certainly would not make it likely that they were "phoned in". The other births posted were also in the nine days later range (some were eight, some ten- found a link to the announcements so you can see this for yourself- it looks like they might have posted all the announcements for the whole week at once). One link to the announcements: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php The link is not for what the rest of the page says but only for the newspaper page reprints.

As for why he would fight releasing more documents after the original one was posted, releasing more documents would not make the issue go away. Releasing the first birth certificate didn't. Posting another birth certificate (the long form) would have merely been followed by more cries that it was a forgery so it would not have made the questions go away but instead given them a longer life. Who would you like to see verify it? The head of the department which is responsible for birth certificates (we already have that)? Who would you rather see verify? I don't think we can change your "open mind" on the issue. But that is fine. The world won't end over it.

First, thank you for the apology, though none is needed. I am completely comfortable with it. I wish I knew who they are/were, but that didn't bring up any issues for me and I didn't intend for you to feel like it it.

Thanks for sharing the link to the birth certificates. I've seen that source, and I believe the newspaper examples are totally legit. The issues surrounding the date of the newspapers of Aug. 13th, when Obama was supposedly born on Aug. 4th is not that the newspapers didn't follow that normal practice. It is that it doesn't prove he was born on the 4th, since the newspapers wasn't printed on the 4th. At best, it shows that someone submitted paperwork from a period of the 4th-10th or so through the state which notified the newspapers to print the annoucement, which resulted in the printing on the 13th.

Additionally, a detective that interviewed the neighbor at the time to the house listed on the annoucement, said they never lived next door and they would have remembered a young African man who was unwed to a caucasian woman and came home with a newborn child. No one else interviewed that lived on the block that year could remember them ever living there, either. Strange when he was an outgoing foreign exchange student.

And regarding your reasoning that releasing it would do no good. How has not releasing it worked out so far for him? Not too well, it seems. Release it, show it to all in this new Obama age of transparancy and openness, and free yourself of spending millions more, President Obama, to avoid doing so. C'mon, there's nothing to hide, then we can all move on.

See, I'm looking at it from an exact opposite view. I am waiting to be convinced that he was born here on Aug. 4th. That hasn't been proven to me yet. Everyone wants me and others to prove he wasn't born here. That's like asking me to prove Santa Claus doesn't exist after being shown and "offical document" that he does. I want to have definitively proven to me that he does exist, before I am to believe it.

Who would verify it? I'm sure the free market could come up with a cross-section of impartial professionals we would all be comfortable with.

President Obama, prove to me and the world that you were born in this country. Release your long form birth certificate.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

I would love to see my own original long form. Unfortunately, I am adopted, and my records are sealed, including who my birth parents are. I've tried to have them opened, but unlike Obama, I don't have the luxury to make a phone call to open them. And I certainly wouldn't spend millions to keep them sealed.

I haven't seen Ron Paul's, but if there were any reason at all to suspect he was not born in the United States, I'm sure he would provide it if requested.

So literally ONE person has said they have seen it, and we should just take their word? Call me a skeptic, but that certainly isn't good enough for me. I guess my government has lied to me with far less on the line for me to not believe someone would lie over something like this. I don't believe he was even under oath.

Obama's mother didn't need to do so in order that he could become president, but perhaps for other reasons of her own. It wouldn't be the first time someone has done so in this country. The fact that the announcement was nine days later, and the newspapers received their info from requests for birth certificates, not from hospitals, is cause for more suspicion.

"I don't believe" may not be proof, but I have never said I have proof. I have only said there is sufficient reason to question it for me, and for millions of others, and the "proof" provided by Obama thus far is lacking, questionable, and suspect. The fact that he spends so much in court to not release the document, is further cause for suspicion.

I'd like to see the original long form. If it can be verified as authentic, that'd pretty much seal it for me. Since he won't release it, well....still doubt for me! :)

I'll ask you this. What logical reason can you think of that the long form supposedly exists, and yet Obama spends millions to not reveal two additional pieces of information not in the short form - the doctor who delivered him and the hospitcal in which he was born?

What is your definition of a naturally born US citizen?

[Bruno]

What is your definition of a naturally born US citizen?

What the courts decide that definition is doesn't concern me. I want to know where he was born.

[Pericles]

Here is why it is still an issue that could be resolved by the long form-

From: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.HTM

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child. (b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

[Bruno]

Thanks for sharing that, Pericles. I clicked on the next page, and found this.

§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]



Cross References



Rulemaking, see chapter 91.





Previous Vol06_Ch0321-0344 Next

[crazyfacedjenkins]

What the courts decide that definition is doesn't concern me. I want to know where he was born.

This explains it all. The last desperate punches from a someone who knows they've lost the fight. It's clear from the election of George Washington, who's parents were British subjects and Thomas Jefferson, a French citizen, how the founding fathers felt about that requirement.

[Bruno]

This explains it all. The last desperate punches from a someone who knows they've lost the fight. It's clear from the election of George Washington, who's parents were British subjects and Thomas Jefferson, a French citizen, how the founding fathers felt about that requirement.

I've lost nothing.

That's not a fight I'm fighting, nor something I'm arguing at all. You are. That seems to be your battle, not mine.

Your last desperate attempts are "well, it wouldn't matter anyway where he was born, because...". Maybe you should contact the Hawaii Governor and try to convince him of that so he'll drop his attempts to release "end the discussion once and for all"?

I want to see the long form birth certificate. I want to be convinced he was born in this country. No one has done that sufficiently. Those that have tried have succeeded only in creating more questions and uncertainty.

[Bruno]

Obama: "I am Santa Claus."

Me: "Prove it."

Obama: "I give presents to people. Reindeer follow me. Trust me."

Me: "Um, I'm still not convinced you are Santa Claus."

Obama: "Then I'll spend millions to avoid proving to you that I am."

Me: "Well, in that case, I'm unlikely to become more convinced then that you are Santa."

AxisMundi: "Prove there's no Santa Claus, I bet ya can't!"

Mainstream media: "Obama says he is Santa Claus. Stop it, kooky racists, it's good enough for us. Now look at the shiny trinkets he brought!"

Crazyfacedjenkins: "It really doesn't matter if he really is Santa Claus or not, because Santa lives in all of our hearts..."

Hawaii Governor: "I knew Obama when he was just a little elf. I'm going to do my best to end this Santa debate once and for all."

[AxisMundi]

I've adressed that the "legal US document" is highly questionable to tens of millions and why, and even the HI Governor friend of the family agrees. Feel free to post the legal document you are talking about as your source.

You have refused to cite why you believe what you believe, the documents that prove it enough for you, and your sources. You haven't cited one single source that shows Obama was born in the U.S. I'm open-minded. What proof is there that he was born in America? I really don't know where he was born, that's why I am skeptical. Maybe you can convince me.

And for the record, I really don't care where you, the courts, the law, or anyone else believes the burdon of proof is. I believe it is on him. So that argument has no weight at all with me.

I give up. You refuse to attempt to address the proof of BHO's citizenship, ie the short form, and merely sit there with your fingers in your ears going "nah nah nah" very loudly and demand I provide proof easily available online.

Either attempt to dismantle this proof or our conversation is done.

[AxisMundi]

What a greedy bastard, you could have fed thousands of impoverished people for a year with all that money.

Blame the guys trying to force me to show them something they have no right to see.

[Bruno]

I give up. You refuse to attempt to address the proof of BHO's citizenship, ie the short form, and merely sit there with your fingers in your ears going "nah nah nah" very loudly and demand I provide proof easily available online.

Either attempt to dismantle this proof or our conversation is done.

I have told you the short form and the newspaper articles are unconvincing and why. The Hawaii Governor agrees with millions of Americans that they are convincing.

You have failed to prove what is so convincing, and have refused to even cite a single source, saying "It's all out there, easy to find." Post some links you find "reputable" and we can discuss them.

Your "our conversation is done" is why millions of Americans are yet uncertain where Obama was born.

[AxisMundi]

I have told you the short form and the newspaper articles are unconvincing and why. The Hawaii Governor agrees with millions of Americans that they are convincing.

You have failed to prove what is so convincing, and have refused to even cite a single source, saying "It's all out there, easy to find." Post some links you find "reputable" and we can discuss them.

Your "our conversation is done" is why millions of Americans are yet uncertain where Obama was born.

A majority of Americans believe we are a species created by God too. What's your point?

A vast majority of human beings also once thought the world was flat. Again, what's your point?

Your argumentum ad populum is not proof in the least.