DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Some of the governments best forgers have been working on it for months...
WND: Apparently the Governor Can't Find the Birth Certificate
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
over requiring a Presidential candidate to show a birth certificate?
I think most of the nation is tired of the nonsense of the birthers and wishes that Obama would just show the damn certificate and put an end to it.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I think most of the nation is tired of the nonsense of The Obama and wishes that he would just show the damn certificate and put an end to it.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Excuse me, but how do you figure it's "nonsense" if no birth certificate has been produced? It seems to confirm their complaint, which means it's not nonsense. Now, if Hawaii or Obama comes up with a legitimate birth certificate... THEN it would be nonsense, but that hasn't happened yet.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
I agree with the laws requiring one to present a birth certificate in order to qualify for the ballot. I don't see why anyone would object to that.
Good Luck
New member
Absolutely. If there is a mandated qualification for any elected office, it is not at all unreasonable that there be a system in place (laws) to assure those mandated qualifications are met.
In this case, one of the qualifications for President of the United States is that the person be "a natural born Citizen". Therefore, it is not unreasonable that any candidate for the office (yes, even incumbents) provide proof that they meet the qualification. Since the election of the President is controlled by the states via the electoral college, then said proof should be according to the laws of the states. If the laws of a state mandate that adequate proof of identity can only be satisfied by an official copy of an original birth certificate (which is true in the state of Montana and other states) then that same requirement imposed on the people should be the same as that imposed on candidates for public office.
In the end, there is no doubt at all in my mind that Obama CAN produce verification that he is, indeed, a natural born citizen, and therefore fully qualified for the office he holds. That he has not done so marks him as just one more politically maneuvering bullshitting asshole. (As if we don;t have enough of them already - where's the change we were promised?) The theory that holding out makes his opponents look bad is wishful thinking at best. People want this issue to end, and Obama is playing footsie with it. Any conspiracy theories about forgeries, etc. that result from his constant delay in resolving this issue, will be as much the fault of Obama for not releasing his records as the TFHA members who harp on it.
Hawaii governor claims record of Obama's birth 'exists in archives' but can't produce the vital document
Abercrombie said on Tuesday that an investigation had unearthed papers proving Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.
He told Honolulu's Star-Advertiser: 'It actually exists in the archives, written down,' he said.
But it became apparent that what had been discovered was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate.
And in the same interview Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.
He said efforts were still being made to track down definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...h-record-exists-produce-it.html#ixzz1BdjUrDYh
Abercrombie said on Tuesday that an investigation had unearthed papers proving Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.
He told Honolulu's Star-Advertiser: 'It actually exists in the archives, written down,' he said.
But it became apparent that what had been discovered was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate.
And in the same interview Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.
He said efforts were still being made to track down definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...h-record-exists-produce-it.html#ixzz1BdjUrDYh
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
What in heaven's name make you so absolutely certain of this? Faith in The Obama? Or is it the abject FEAR of being labeled a "BIRTHER?" Because, you see, I really don't give a fuck what label they want to stick on me, I can't say that I am absolutely certain he was born in America until I see the long form birth certificate, signed and dated by the delivering physician. I certainly can't accept the Liberal Left's word for it, or assume a newspaper clipping proves it. I have always said that I am "undecided" on this, as in, not taking either position... but the longer this goes on, the more inclined I am to believe, something is up... there has to be some reason Obama still hasn't produced the birth certificate, and if he wasn't actually born in Hawaii, that would be the most reasonable explanation in my opinion.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
my theory is he believes if people are wondering where he came from they will have less time to wonder where he's going......
States don't get to decide what the Constitution means (i.e. what is a "natural born citizen") and I doubt very seriously that the states get to decide what evidence is required to prove natural born citizenship.
But he has produced verification that he was born in Hawaii. You just don't like the type of evidence he used to verify that fact. Those are two different issues. The issue is over. It has ended. The only people playign footsie with it are birther nitwits, the Hawaii officials that have to deal with their incessant dumbassery and the right-wing blogs and media that generate page views by firing up the birther morons.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Nobody's above the law but I wonder why Obama is being held to a different standard than previous presidents. Did anyone ask for BC verification for Nixon, Ford, Carter, GHWB, Clinton or GWB?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Actually, the document that The Obama gave does not prove Hawaiian birth. And States do have the authority to insist that candidates provide proof of qualification, or they can withhold electoral votes.
Actually, the document that Obama gave does prove he was born in Hawaii.
Do you have any support for your argument that states can do what you claim?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
We've been through this before. Hawaiian law provides for non- US citizens to obtain a COLB, therefore it provides nothing regarding that actual place of birth. Do you doubt me on this? If so issue a direct challenge so I can rub your nose in it later.
With regards to the electoral process, I point to the election of 1796 as an example of votes being withheld:
Read more: Domestic Affairs - The Federalist Republic - Adams, Hamilton, Washington, French, France, President, Cabinet, and American http://www.libraryindex.com/history...ffairs-federalist-republic.html#ixzz1BgJ7H5rN
We've been through this before. Hawaiian law provides for non- US citizens to obtain a COLB, therefore it provides nothing regarding that actual place of birth. Do you doubt me on this? If so issue a direct challenge so I can rub your nose in it later.
Non-citizens may be able to obtain a COLB, but Obama's says right on it that he was born in Honolulu so it does indeed prove he was born in Hawaii.
And I didn't ask for an example of electors not voting for a particular candidate, I asked for a citation for your assertion that states can withhold electoral votes unless the candidates provide proof of qualification.
Good Luck
New member
This is not a matter of the states deciding what the Constitution means. The Constitution gives the states the power to select the delegates to the electoral college, which in turn elects the president. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it define How the states select their electoral delegates, nor does the Constitution define how the electors are to determine whom they can consider a presidential candidate. In fact, the language of the Constitution SPECIFICALLY puts those decisions in the hands of the state legislatures. By giving the states that power, IT IS UP TO THE STATES how they choose to exercise that power. Period. If a state decides that they need an official copy of an original birth certificate for proof of qualification, that is within the rights of the state. If you don't like it, too fucking bad.
It's not a matter of what I like or dislike. It IS a matter of LAW. What he has presented is adequate proof of identity in SOME states. However, in other states what he has presented is NOT considered adequate proof of identity. By what authority are you claiming ANY president is above the laws of any state?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
why was mccain held to a different standard than any other candidate? why do you libs never ask that question.....because.....it must be due to obama's skin color
race card fail
There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the states the power to determine eligibility for office.
Proof of identity is different from proof of natural born citizenship.
Good Luck
New member
IMO, they should have been required to prove they met the mandated qualifications. Why SHOULDN'T a candidate be required to prove they are qualified for the office? If nothing else, this controversy has had the positive effect of disclosing a hole in the process we use to select our president.
Does anyone have a valid reason ANY political candidate should NOT follow the laws of the states in proving their eligibility for elected office?