OMG - Sheriff Joe makes stunning discovery re forgerygate

[Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year]

http://members.beforeitsnews.com/story/2402/446/Stunning_Obama_News:_Arpaio_Confirms_Records_Fraud_In_Hawaii_Video.html

Sheriff Joe Arpaio and His Cold Case Posse Held a 2nd press conference
today to discuss their findings on President Obama's Birth
certificate. The findings are nothing less than startling. It seems
Hawaii has or had on the books a law that would allow anyone, living
in the state of Hawaii for more than 12 months, the right to declare
birth in the state.


__________________

Reckless drivers are a bigger threat to you than all other criminals
put together!

NAACP = Negro Affirmative Action, Caucasian Persecution

[Ramon F. Herrera]

Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
mentioned makes him a citizen.

Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was a US
citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless of place
of birth.

-Ramon

[deadrat]

On 7/18/12 12:42 AM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>
> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
> mentioned makes him a citizen.

Is this the fact that Hawaii has a procedure for Hawaiian parents to get
a birth certificate for their children born abroad? Because they can,
but the birth certificate wouldn't give the place of birth as Hawaii.

> Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was a US
> citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless of place
> of birth.

This is incorrect. If Barack Obama had been born abroad, he wouldn't be
a citizen at all. At the time of his birth, a child born abroad to a US
citizen didn't become a citizen at birth unless the citizen-parent had
been a resident of the US for a certain length of time after the
parent's 14th birthday. (I think the time period was seven years.)
Obama's mother was 18 when he was born, so she didn't have the residency
time.

Even if she did and her son became a citizen at birth, he would have
been a naturalized citizen at birth, i.e., a citizen through an act of
Congress. It's not clear that naturalized citizens are natural born
citizens, since the latter term is not defined in the Constitution.
>
> -Ramon
>

[K Wills]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:42:33 -0700 (PDT), "Ramon F. Herrera"
<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:

>
>Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>mentioned makes him a citizen.
>

I must have missed something. What loophole?

>Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was a US
>citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless of place
>of birth.
>

No. If she was living in another country, not just visiting,
then President Obama would be a citizen of that country.
I'm not fan of Obama's but I am able to acc pet that he was born
in Hawaii after it had become a state. This makes him a natural born
citizen of the United States.

--
"I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all
you need to know, gov!"
- Shouting George

[deadrat]

On 7/18/12 3:25 AM, K Wills wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:42:33 -0700 (PDT), "Ramon F. Herrera"
> <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>> mentioned makes him a citizen.
>>
>
> I must have missed something. What loophole?
>
>> Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was a US
>> citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless of place
>> of birth.
>>
>
> No. If she was living in another country, not just visiting,
> then President Obama would be a citizen of that country.

Depends on the laws of the country. A child born in the US is a citizen
of the US, regardless of whether the mother was living in the US or just
visiting. Other countries have different laws.

US citizenship of children born outside US sovereign territory is a
function of the place of birth, the date of birth, and the citizenship,
residency, military service, and nationality of the parents.

[David Hartung]

On 07/17/2012 11:36 PM, Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year
wrote:

>
>
> http://members.beforeitsnews.com/story/2402/446/Stunning_Obama_News:_Arpaio_Confirms_Records_Fraud_In_Hawaii_Video.html
>
> Sheriff Joe Arpaio and His Cold Case Posse Held a 2nd press conference
> today to discuss their findings on President Obama's Birth
> certificate. The findings are nothing less than startling. It seems
> Hawaii has or had on the books a law that would allow anyone, living
> in the state of Hawaii for more than 12 months, the right to declare
> birth in the state.

As the offspring of an American citizen, Obama is a natural born citizen
no matter where he might have been born. If Arpaio's investigators are
correct and the birth certificate released by the White House is a
forgery, the question becomes why?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>"Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>
>
>http://members.beforeitsnews.com/story/2402/446/Stunning_Obama_News:_Arpaio_Confirms_Records_Fraud_In_Hawaii_Video.html
>
>Sheriff Joe Arpaio and His Cold Case Posse Held a 2nd press conference
>today to discuss their findings on President Obama's Birth
>certificate. The findings are nothing less than startling. It seems
>Hawaii has or had on the books a law that would allow anyone, living
>in the state of Hawaii for more than 12 months, the right to declare
>birth in the state.

You and the Sheriff are both illiterate buffoons. The law does NOT
give "anyone, living in the state of Hawaii for more than 12 months,

the right to declare birth in the state."

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]

Have someone read the law to you.

[Kickin&amp;#39; Ass and Takin&amp;#39; Names]

On Jul 18, 12:36 am, "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year"
<xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://members.beforeitsnews.com/story/2402/446/Stunning_Obama_News:_...

>
> Sheriff Joe Arpaio and His Cold Case Posse Held a 2nd press conference
> today to discuss their findings on President Obama's Birth
> certificate.  The findings are nothing less than startling.  It seems
> Hawaii has or had on the books a law that would allow anyone, living
> in the state of Hawaii for more than 12 months, the right to declare
> birth in the state.
>
> __________________
>
> Reckless drivers are a bigger threat to you than all other criminals
> put together!
>
> NAACP = Negro Affirmative Action, Caucasian Persecution

Listen, dumbass -- the Hawaii law will grant to a non-citizen a Hawaii
birth certificate -- HOWEVER -- the Hawaii birth cert will state on
the face of the certificate that the person was NOT born in Hawaii.

In other words, what this law does is grant a birth certificate THAT
INDICATES WHERE THE PERSON WAS BORN. It does nothing to grant
citizenship, which is a federal matter.

Goddam but you rightwingers are a stupid lot.

[Wayne]

"Ramon F. Herrera" wrote in message
news:07e4034e-7aa5-4897...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

However, the circumstances of his birth provide a preponderance of evidence
that Obama should have been vetted BEFORE nomination. That never happened,
and all these uncertainties have not disappeared.

[deadrat]

On 7/18/12 11:07 AM, Wayne wrote:
>
>
> "Ramon F. Herrera" wrote in message
> news:07e4034e-7aa5-4897...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>> mentioned makes him a citizen.
>>
>> Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was a US
>> citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless of place
>> of birth.
>>
>> -Ramon
>
> However, the circumstances of his birth

Yeah, in Hawaii.

> provide a preponderance of evidence that Obama

was born in Hawaii.

> should have been vetted BEFORE nomination.

Please cite the Constitutional provision for "vetting" candidates for
federal office.

:> That

> never happened, and all these uncertainties have not disappeared.

It's not possible to use facts and logic to move an ignoramus from a
position he didn't reach by facts and logic.

Sucks to be you, eh?

[Wayne]

"Dennis M" wrote in message
news:dennism3-8F6893...@bonxibon.datemas.de...

In article <ju6mve$hmm$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:

> However, the circumstances of his birth provide a preponderance of
> evidence
> that Obama should have been vetted BEFORE nomination. That never
> happened,
> and all these uncertainties have not disappeared.

# Your side is running a presidential candidate as financially mysterious
# as Bernie Madoff before he was arrested and you're lecturing us about
# vetting.

So....vet him.

[Wayne]

"deadrat" wrote in message
news:kbednVujobksdZvN...@giganews.com...

On 7/18/12 11:07 AM, Wayne wrote:
>
>
> "Ramon F. Herrera" wrote in message
> news:07e4034e-7aa5-4897...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>> mentioned makes him a citizen.
>>
>> Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was a US
>> citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless of place
>> of birth.
>>
>> -Ramon
>
> However, the circumstances of his birth

# Yeah, in Hawaii.

Yet TBD

> provide a preponderance of evidence that Obama

# was born in Hawaii.

Yet TBD.
A layered document is very easy to alter.

> should have been vetted BEFORE nomination.

# Please cite the Constitutional provision for "vetting" candidates for
# federal office.

There is a requirement for holding office. Everybody else has gotten
scrutiny before the fact...but not Obama.

:> That
> never happened, and all these uncertainties have not disappeared.

# It's not possible to use facts and logic to move an ignoramus from a
# position he didn't reach by facts and logic.

# Sucks to be you, eh?

Interesting statement from one whose head is in the sand.

[David Hartung]

On 07/18/2012 12:16 PM, Dennis M wrote:
> In article <ju6mve$hmm$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>

>> However, the circumstances of his birth provide a preponderance of evidence
>> that Obama should have been vetted BEFORE nomination. That never happened,
>> and all these uncertainties have not disappeared.
>

> Your side is running a presidential candidate as financially mysterious

> as Bernie Madoff before he was arrested.

Actually, they aren't, you simply refuse to accept the facts.

[azjohn]

On 7/17/2012 10:42 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>
> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
> mentioned makes him a citizen.

Nope.

>
> Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was a US
> citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless of place
> of birth.
>

Nope.

[azjohn]

On 7/18/2012 1:25 AM, K Wills wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:42:33 -0700 (PDT), "Ramon F. Herrera"
> <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>> mentioned makes him a citizen.
>>
>
> I must have missed something. What loophole?
>
>> Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was a US
>> citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless of place
>> of birth.
>>
>
> No. If she was living in another country, not just visiting,
> then President Obama would be a citizen of that country.
> I'm not fan of Obama's but I am able to acc pet that he was born
> in Hawaii after it had become a state. This makes him a natural born
> citizen of the United States.
>

Nope. A child of a Kenyan village idiot, and traveling as an adult on an
Indonesian passport and registering in the US as a foreign born foreign
student was his choice for citizenship. He's always been an asshole.

[JohnJohnsn]

On Jul 18, 6:59 am, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>
> "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year" <xeton2...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>> http://members.beforeitsnews.com/story/2402/446/Stunning_Obama_News:_...

>
>> Sheriff Joe Arpaio and His Cold Case Posse Held a 2nd press conference
>> today to discuss their findings on President Obama's Birth
>> certificate. The findings are nothing less than startling. It seems
>> Hawaii has or had on the books a law that would allow anyone, living
>> in the state of Hawaii for more than 12 months, the right to declare
>> birth in the state.
>
> You and the Sheriff are both illiterate buffoons. The law does NOT
> give "anyone, living in the state of Hawaii for more than 12 months,
> the right to declare birth in the state."
>

> http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HR...

> [§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]
>
> Have someone read the law to you.
>

CAVEAT! While I do not care about this issue one way or another
(except the nagging question: "WHY did Obama's entourage create at
least TWO forged certificates in the FIRST place???"), you should note
that the law you referenced is from 1982 (and is still in effect).

What did the law say between 1961 (Obama's reputed date of birth) and
1982?

"Inquiring minds want to know."

[David Hartung]

Your evidence?

[JohnJohnsn]

On Jul 18, 10:26 am, "Kickin Ass and Takin Names"

<old_r...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 18, 12:36 am, "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year"
> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>http://members.beforeitsnews.com/story/2402/446/Stunning_Obama_News:_...
>

>> Sheriff Joe Arpaio and His Cold Case Posse held a 2nd press conference

>> today to discuss their findings on President Obama's Birth certificate.
>> The findings are nothing less than startling. It seems Hawaii has or had
>> on the books a law that would allow anyone, living in the state of Hawaii
>> for more than 12 months, the right to declare birth in the state.
>

Why is it that _everyone_ [but me, obviously ;) ] has ignored the past
tense word "HAD" in this story?

IOW: what was the law in 1961; Obama's reputed date of birth?

>
>> __________________
>
>> Reckless drivers are a bigger threat to you than all other criminals
>> put together!
>
>> NAACP = Negro Affirmative Action, Caucasian Persecution
>
> Listen, dumbass -- the Hawaii law will grant to a non-citizen a Hawaii
> birth certificate -- HOWEVER -- the Hawaii birth cert will state on
> the face of the certificate that the person was NOT born in Hawaii.
>

Is that the reason Obama failed to obtain and release a TRUE and
CORRECT copy of his Certificate Of Live Birth from the Hawai'i State
Department of Health and instead created no less than TWO forged ones
(as admitted by his lawyer, Alexandra Hill, in a New Jersey court of
law)?

>
> In other words, what this law does is grant a birth certificate THAT
> INDICATES WHERE THE PERSON WAS BORN. It does nothing to
> grant citizenship, which is a federal matter.
>
> Goddam but you rightwingers are a stupid lot.
>

Actually, you Left-wing idiot; who is it here that is intentionally
ignoring the established fact that Obama's two "birth certificates"
are FORGERIES???

"Can you say "KA&TN'? I knew you could."

[deadrat]

On 7/18/12 12:22 PM, Wayne wrote:
>
>
> "deadrat" wrote in message
> news:kbednVujobksdZvN...@giganews.com...
>
> On 7/18/12 11:07 AM, Wayne wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Ramon F. Herrera" wrote in message
>> news:07e4034e-7aa5-4897...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>>> mentioned makes him a citizen.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was a US
>>> citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless of place
>>> of birth.
>>>
>>> -Ramon
>>
>> However, the circumstances of his birth
>
> # Yeah, in Hawaii.
>
> Yet TBD

A certified birth certificate is presumed under law to be
self-authenticating. This is a rebuttable presumption, i.e. it may be
overcome with evidence. Got any?

I didn't think so.

Please tell us who you think does the D in TBD.

>
>> provide a preponderance of evidence that Obama
>
> # was born in Hawaii.
>
> Yet TBD.
> A layered document is very easy to alter.

The opinion of an ignoramus like you doesn't count for anything, and
hypotheticals don't count for much. It doesn't matter if a layered
document is easy to alter or not, a claim I suspect you either made up
or was presented to you without evidence. What matters is whether you
have evidence that Obama's birth certificate was actually altered. Got any?

I didn't think so.

>> should have been vetted BEFORE nomination.
>
> # Please cite the Constitutional provision for "vetting" candidates for
> # federal office.
>
> There is a requirement for holding office.

The requirements are clear. Please provide the definition of "vetting"
and the Constitutional basis for "vetting" candidates.

> Everybody else has gotten
> scrutiny before the fact...but not Obama.

If you don't think the journalists did enough investigating of Obama
before he was nominated, find these journalists and take it up with
them. Better yet do your own investigation.

We have Obama's own writings, including his autobiography. We know his
family, where he went to college, where he went to law school. We have
the recollections of people who worked on the law review with him. We
know where he taught Constitutional law. We know the education reform
commission he served on. We know what church he attended. We have
copies of his tax returns. We have his record as a state senator and as
a US senator.

What do you think is missing?

> :> That
>> never happened, and all these uncertainties have not disappeared.
>
> # It's not possible to use facts and logic to move an ignoramus from a
> # position he didn't reach by facts and logic.
>
> # Sucks to be you, eh?
>
> Interesting statement from one whose head is in the sand.

Oh, look! An ignoramus thinks my head is in the sand.

[deadrat]

On 7/18/12 12:45 PM, azjohn wrote:
> On 7/18/2012 1:25 AM, K Wills wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:42:33 -0700 (PDT), "Ramon F. Herrera"
>> <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>>> mentioned makes him a citizen.
>>>
>>
>> I must have missed something. What loophole?
>>
>>> Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was a US
>>> citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless of place
>>> of birth.
>>>
>>
>> No. If she was living in another country, not just visiting,
>> then President Obama would be a citizen of that country.
>> I'm not fan of Obama's but I am able to acc pet that he was born
>> in Hawaii after it had become a state. This makes him a natural born
>> citizen of the United States.
>>
> Nope. A child of a Kenyan village idiot, and traveling as an adult on an
> Indonesian passport

This particular piece of horseshit is based on a trip Obama made to
Pakistan in 1981, when supposedly the State Department banned travel to
that country. Thus leading birthers to conclude that Obama could not
have used a US passport. But the State Department never banned travel
to Pakistan, and US citizens traveled there routinely on US passports in
the 1980s

> and registering in the US as a foreign born foreign student

This nonsense arises from an April Fool's joke email, quoting a story
supposedly from the AP that Obama attended Occidental College on a
scholarship for foreign students. The AP denies the story is theirs.
Birthers will believe anything.

> was his choice for citizenship.

Under US law, nobody "chooses" US citizenship. You're either born a
citizen or you become a naturalized citizen by following the rules laid
out in the law. Once you're a citizen, it's extremely difficult to
revoke one's citizenship, particularly difficult outside the US, and
impossible for a minor. Revocation always requires clear intent, so
traveling on a foreign passport wouldn't count, especially an imaginary one.

> He's always been an asshole.

I suppose you think this tells us something about Obama. But it only
tells us about you.

[deadrat]

What are you talking about? Birthers don't need evidence.

[David Hartung]

Which is a part of the problem.

This is, of course, just like those who are insinuating that Romney has
committed some sort of crime because he will not release his tax returns.

[RD Sandman]

David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote in
news:UqydnRBW3Z5HjZrN...@giganews.com:

Amazing phenomenon that they exist on both sides of the aisle, isn't it.
;)

--

If you hear me yell, "Eject! Eject! Eject!"
The last two will be echoes......

If you stop to ask "Why?" You will be talking to
yourself because you just became the pilot.


Sleep well, tonight.....

[David Hartung]

Absolutely. What is even more amazing is that all seem to see the fault
in the other side, while denying fault on their own side.

[K Wills]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:45:04 -0700, azjohn <hab...@nothere.com> wrote:

>On 7/18/2012 1:25 AM, K Wills wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:42:33 -0700 (PDT), "Ramon F. Herrera"
>> <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>>> mentioned makes him a citizen.
>>>
>>
>> I must have missed something. What loophole?
>>
>>> Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was a US
>>> citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless of place
>>> of birth.
>>>
>>
>> No. If she was living in another country, not just visiting,
>> then President Obama would be a citizen of that country.
>> I'm not fan of Obama's but I am able to acc pet that he was born
>> in Hawaii after it had become a state. This makes him a natural born
>> citizen of the United States.
>>
>Nope. A child of a Kenyan village idiot,

His biological dad was from Kenya. This doesn't mean President
Obama is from Kenya any more than my being from Poland means my
children are from Poland.

>and traveling as an adult on an
>Indonesian passport

Really? Cite, please.

>and registering in the US as a foreign born foreign
>student

Small problem. He didn't do that.

>was his choice for citizenship.

Whereas he was born in Hawaii, he didn't choose to be a citizen
of the United States.

>He's always been an asshole.

That is a matter of opinion and has no bearing on his being a
U.S. citizen.


--
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.

[K Wills]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:52:07 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
wrote:

I have crickets on stand-by, if you'd like.

--
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

[RD Sandman]

David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote in

news:PIOdnfo5e4ufhZrN...@giganews.com:

You noticed that also. ;)

[deadrat]

Who's doing this speculating? It's clear that Romney can and has bought
the best legal and tax advice available, and I doubt many of his
opponents think he's done anything criminal. Rmoney's defense and
defensive posture has been that no, he's not committed any crime and
it's unfair and just plain not nice to accuse him of criminality. Which
leads me to believe him. What Rmoney's opponents suspect is that his
tax returns will reveal the extent to which he's worked the tax code to
his advantage in ways ordinary people couldn't dream of doing. They
think that would be damaging politically. I tend to believe them about
the contents of the returns, because otherwise Rmoney would simply have
released his tax returns since he was governor of Massachusetts,
following his father's example. I'm not sure I believe any revelations
would necessarily be damaging though.

[deadrat]

No, why is it amazing? Isn't this kind of tribalism to be expected?
For a critique of the left from the left, go here:

http://www.dailyhowler.blogspot.com

I don't think there's anything like it on the right.

Also, try finding an Orly Taitz on the left.

[deadrat]

Again, why is this the slightest bit amazing?

[Scout]

"Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in message
news:07e4034e-7aa5-4897...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

>
> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
> mentioned makes him a citizen.

Yes, that is true....but not a NATIVE BORN CITIZEN. Which I believe is a
Constitutional requirement to hold the office of President.

> Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was a US
> citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless of place
> of birth.

Yep, but again there is that whole native born thing which you seem to wish
to ignore.

[Scout]

"K Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aosc08h4fnt6cq62m...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:42:33 -0700 (PDT), "Ramon F. Herrera"
> <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>>mentioned makes him a citizen.
>>
>

> I must have missed something. What loophole?
>

>>Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was a US
>>citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless of place
>>of birth.
>>
>

> No. If she was living in another country, not just visiting,
> then President Obama would be a citizen of that country.
> I'm not fan of Obama's but I am able to acc pet that he was born
> in Hawaii after it had become a state. This makes him a natural born
> citizen of the United States.

If he was born there.....but that's the issue. There seems to be some
disagreement about the actual location of his birth and as such whether he
meets the Constitutional requirements for the office.

[Too_Many_Tools]

> committed some sort of crime because he will not release his tax returns.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Romney HAS commited a crime with the SEC signature filings.

Release the tax returns and we will see what will surface.

WHAT IS MITT HIDING?

TMT

[Wayne]

"deadrat" wrote in message
news:G_Sdnc2jmPHznZrN...@giganews.com...

On 7/18/12 12:22 PM, Wayne wrote:
>
>
> "deadrat" wrote in message
> news:kbednVujobksdZvN...@giganews.com...
>
> On 7/18/12 11:07 AM, Wayne wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Ramon F. Herrera" wrote in message
>> news:07e4034e-7aa5-4897...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>>> mentioned makes him a citizen.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was a US
>>> citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless of place
>>> of birth.
>>>
>>> -Ramon
>>
>> However, the circumstances of his birth
>
> # Yeah, in Hawaii.
>
> Yet TBD

#A certified birth certificate is presumed under law to be
#self-authenticating. This is a rebuttable presumption, i.e. it may be
#overcome with evidence. Got any?

#I didn't think so.

#Please tell us who you think does the D in TBD.

>
>> provide a preponderance of evidence that Obama
>
> # was born in Hawaii.
>
> Yet TBD.
> A layered document is very easy to alter.

#The opinion of an ignoramus like you doesn't count for anything, and
#hypotheticals don't count for much. It doesn't matter if a layered
#document is easy to alter or not, a claim I suspect you either made up
#or was presented to you without evidence. What matters is whether you
#have evidence that Obama's birth certificate was actually altered. Got
any?

#I didn't think so.

>> should have been vetted BEFORE nomination.
>
> # Please cite the Constitutional provision for "vetting" candidates for
> # federal office.
>
> There is a requirement for holding office.

#The requirements are clear. Please provide the definition of "vetting"
#and the Constitutional basis for "vetting" candidates.

> Everybody else has gotten
> scrutiny before the fact...but not Obama.

#If you don't think the journalists did enough investigating of Obama
#before he was nominated, find these journalists and take it up with
#them. Better yet do your own investigation.

#We have Obama's own writings, including his autobiography. We know his
#family, where he went to college, where he went to law school. We have
#the recollections of people who worked on the law review with him. We
#know where he taught Constitutional law. We know the education reform
#commission he served on. We know what church he attended. We have
#copies of his tax returns. We have his record as a state senator and as
#a US senator.

#What do you think is missing?

And you believe all that crap? You are spinning like a top.

The fact is that Obama's eligibility is far from certain.

And a birth certificate that is, without a doubt, NOT a copy is insufficient
proof.

[Wayne]

"deadrat" wrote in message
news:G_Sdnc2jmPHznZrN...@giganews.com...

[Scout]

"Dennis M" <denn...@dennism3.invalid> wrote in message
news:dennism3-8F6893...@bonxibon.datemas.de...

> In article <ju6mve$hmm$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>

>> However, the circumstances of his birth provide a preponderance of
>> evidence
>> that Obama should have been vetted BEFORE nomination. That never

>> happened,
>> and all these uncertainties have not disappeared.
>

> Your side is running a presidential candidate as financially mysterious

> as Bernie Madoff before he was arrested and you're lecturing us about

> vetting.

Hmmm... I'm unaware that a candidate's financial condition is in anyway a
Constitutional condition to hold the office of President.

Can you quote the section of the Constitution that sets forth the financial
requirements for someone to be President?


On the Obama side of the coin, I can offer:

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States,
at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the
office of President; ......"

Art II, Section 1


Maybe you have a clue now of the difference involved?

[Scout]

"azjohn" <hab...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:ju6sj9$igj$4...@wieslauf.sub.de...

> On 7/17/2012 10:42 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>>
>> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>> mentioned makes him a citizen.
>
> Nope.

Actually, he is right, Obama would be a citizen....however, simply being a
citizen isn't enough to legitimately hold the office of President.

>> Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was a US
>> citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless of place
>> of birth.
>>
> Nope.

See Above.

[Kicking Ass and Takin' Names]

On Jul 18, 7:35 pm, "Scout"
<me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in messagenews:07e4034e-7aa5-4897...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>
> > Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
> > mentioned makes him a citizen.
>
> Yes, that is true....but not a NATIVE BORN CITIZEN.

No, you brainless twit. The Constitution does NOT require a "NATIVE
BORN CITIZEN."

The Constitution requires a "NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN." Which means no
one born by C-section is eligible to be President.

Damn but you people are ignoramusses.

[JohnJohnsn]

On Jul 18, 7:26 pm, "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>"deadrat" wrote in message
> news:G_Sdnc2jmPHznZrN...@giganews.com...
>
> On 7/18/12 12:22 PM, Wayne wrote:
>
>>"deadrat" wrote in message
>>news:kbednVujobksdZvN...@giganews.com...
>
>> On 7/18/12 11:07 AM, Wayne wrote:
>
>>> "Ramon F. Herrera" wrote in message
>>>news:07e4034e-7aa5-4897...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>>>> mentioned makes him a citizen.
>
>>>> Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was
>>>> a US citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless
>>>> of place of birth.
>
>>>> -Ramon
>
>>> However, the circumstances of his birth
>
>> # Yeah, in Hawaii.
>
>> Yet TBD
>
> A certified birth certificate is presumed under law to be
> self-authenticating. This is a rebuttable presumption, i.e.
> it may be overcome with evidence. Got any?
>

Does Obama's lawyer, Alexandra Hill (of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi
Attorneys in Newark NJ) admitting, under oath in a New Jersey court,
that the ones released thusfar by the White House are all forgeries
count?

>
> I didn't think so.
>
> Please tell us who you think does the D in TBD.
>

ITIC, Alexandra Hill.

[deadrat]

I've given you what I've declared to be facts. Can you refute them?
(Hint: You can't; they are facts.) Do you deny that Obama has written
an autobiography? Wouldn't that be a good place to check the story of
his life? Has anyone found inconsistencies?

Do you deny that Obama attended Harvard Law School and was president of
the Law Review? Newspapers have printed interviews with the staff who
served with him.

Do you deny that Obama has a legislative record in the Illinois state
senate and the US Senate? Do you suppose people haven't looked at his
record in these bodies?

Do you deny that Obama taught Constitutional law at the University of
Chicago? Reporters have interviewed his students and his dean.

I've asked what you think is missing in the record of Obama's life that
makes you think he's a mystery. You haven't answered that simple question.

>
> The fact is that Obama's eligibility is far from certain.

This is not a fact in any sense of the word. You don't even have any
viable evidence that he might be ineligible.

> And a birth certificate that is, without a doubt, NOT a copy is
> insufficient proof.

Without a doubt? I've explained to you how certified public records
work in a court of law. That not good enough for you?

[deadrat]

On 7/18/12 8:16 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Dennis M" <denn...@dennism3.invalid> wrote in message
> news:dennism3-8F6893...@bonxibon.datemas.de...
>> In article <ju6mve$hmm$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> However, the circumstances of his birth provide a preponderance of
>>> evidence
>>> that Obama should have been vetted BEFORE nomination. That never
>>> happened,
>>> and all these uncertainties have not disappeared.
>>
>> Your side is running a presidential candidate as financially mysterious
>> as Bernie Madoff before he was arrested and you're lecturing us about
>> vetting.
>
> Hmmm... I'm unaware that a candidate's financial condition is in anyway
> a Constitutional condition to hold the office of President.
>
> Can you quote the section of the Constitution that sets forth the
> financial requirements for someone to be President?

It's not a Constitutional issue; it's a campaign issue. Just like the
supposed lack of "vetting" for Obama.
<snip/>

[deadrat]

On 7/18/12 8:17 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "azjohn" <hab...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:ju6sj9$igj$4...@wieslauf.sub.de...
>> On 7/17/2012 10:42 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>>>
>>> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>>> mentioned makes him a citizen.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Actually, he is right, Obama would be a citizen....

Actually, he's wrong. Had Obama been born abroad, the law in place at
the time of his birth would not have granted him citizenship at birth.
I think the so-called "loophole" is that Hawaii issues birth
certificates to children born abroad to Hawaiian parents. Of course,
these birth certificates don't list the place of birth as Hawaii.

<snip/>

[deadrat]

It would. If it ever happened. A quick trip to snopes.com dashes your
hopes. No one on the Obama legal team has ever said that Obama's birth
certificates were forgeries. This story is a complete fabrication.

In April 2012, a suit was brought in New Jersey to compel Obama to prove
his eligibility for President. During the proceedings, Hill stated that
she had no intention of submitting a birth certificate to the court
since New Jersey law had no such requirement. The judge agreed with her
and the suit was dismissed.

>>
>> I didn't think so.
>>
>> Please tell us who you think does the D in TBD.
>>
> ITIC, Alexandra Hill.

You birther losers will believe anything, won't you?

[David Hartung]

On 07/18/2012 11:26 PM, deadrat wrote:

> I've given you what I've declared to be facts. Can you refute them?
> (Hint: You can't; they are facts.) Do you deny that Obama has written
> an autobiography? Wouldn't that be a good place to check the story of
> his life? Has anyone found inconsistencies?
>
> Do you deny that Obama attended Harvard Law School and was president of
> the Law Review? Newspapers have printed interviews with the staff who
> served with him.
>
> Do you deny that Obama has a legislative record in the Illinois state
> senate and the US Senate? Do you suppose people haven't looked at his
> record in these bodies?
>
> Do you deny that Obama taught Constitutional law at the University of
> Chicago? Reporters have interviewed his students and his dean.
>
> I've asked what you think is missing in the record of Obama's life that
> makes you think he's a mystery. You haven't answered that simple question.
>>
>> The fact is that Obama's eligibility is far from certain.
>
> This is not a fact in any sense of the word. You don't even have any
> viable evidence that he might be ineligible.
>
>> And a birth certificate that is, without a doubt, NOT a copy is
>> insufficient proof.
>
> Without a doubt? I've explained to you how certified public records
> work in a court of law. That not good enough for you?

The problem with the "birther" movement is that there seem to be no
facts which support any of their beliefs. The entire "birther argument
revolves around two things. First they try to claim that because both of
Obama's parents were not USA citizens, Obama is not "natural born", even
if he did recieve his citizenship from his mother who was a USA citizen.
The "birthers" second argument is that Obama was born in Kenya, not in
Hawaii, and for that reason is not a US citizen.

Obama is a US citizen from birth because his mother was a US citizen at
the time of his birth. By any rational definition, this meets the
Constitutional definition of US citizen.

This far, after three years of trying, these people have yet to be able
to convince a single judge that these arguments have any merit.

What does concern me is that there does seem to be a credible claim that
the birth certificate produced by Obama is a forgery. What possible
reason would Obama have to forge his birth records?

[K Wills]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:17:27 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>"azjohn" <hab...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>news:ju6sj9$igj$4...@wieslauf.sub.de...
>> On 7/17/2012 10:42 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>>>
>>> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>>> mentioned makes him a citizen.
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Actually, he is right, Obama would be a citizen....however, simply being a
>citizen isn't enough to legitimately hold the office of President.
>

I'm a citizen, but since I was born in Poland, I can't hold the
office of President. I'm excluded from Vice President as well since
only someone who can hold the office of President may hold the office
of Vice President.

--
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

[K Wills]

Please offer a cite to his sworn admission.

[K Wills]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 19:36:44 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>"K Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:aosc08h4fnt6cq62m...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:42:33 -0700 (PDT), "Ramon F. Herrera"
>> <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>>>mentioned makes him a citizen.
>>>
>>
>> I must have missed something. What loophole?
>>
>>>Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was a US
>>>citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless of place
>>>of birth.
>>>
>>
>> No. If she was living in another country, not just visiting,
>> then President Obama would be a citizen of that country.
>> I'm not fan of Obama's but I am able to acc pet that he was born
>> in Hawaii after it had become a state. This makes him a natural born
>> citizen of the United States.
>
>If he was born there

100% of the evidence shows he was born in Hawaii, and after
Hawaii had become a state.

>.....but that's the issue. There seems to be some
>disagreement about the actual location of his birth and as such whether he
>meets the Constitutional requirements for the office.
>

Except that the disagreement is based on a lie regarding where he
was born.

--
I could write about nobel gasses, but there would be no reaction.

[K Wills]

Yet no one is seeking his arrest and prosecution. How odd.

>Release the tax returns and we will see what will surface.
>

Probably nothing.
As Deadrat pointed out, Mit had the money to hire lawyers and tax
experts to ensure his returns were legal, and he most probably did.

>WHAT IS MITT HIDING?
>

Nothing illegal, I expect.
IMO, he should release them so that Democrats can waste a lot of
time and money finding out that everything he did was 100% legal. He
can then use the waste of time and money on the part of Democrats to
his benefit while campaigning.

[deadrat]

Stop saying this. It's not true. Obama was born in Hawaii, making him
a natural born citizen. Had he been born in Kenya, his mother's
citizenship wouldn't have made him a US citizen at birth. The law at
the time Obama was born required that his mother have seven years of
residency in the US after the age of 14. Obama's mother was only 18
when he was born, so she didn't have the required residency. Even were
he naturalized at birth, it's not at all clear that that would suffice
to make him natural born.

> This far, after three years of trying, these people have yet to be able
> to convince a single judge that these arguments have any merit.

They're stalled for many reasons. Beside the fact that they have no
evidence to rebut the presumption of validity of a state-certified
public document. One is that the issue isn't ripe. Obama isn't
officially a candidate for office. Another is that they have no standing.

> What does concern me is that there does seem to be a credible claim that
> the birth certificate produced by Obama is a forgery.

There isn't the slightest credibility to the claim that the certificate
is a forgery. The governor of Hawaii (a Republican, by the way) checked
the records for herself and pronounced the evidence sound.

> What possible reason would Obama have to forge his birth records?

The reason is obvious. The question is what possibility could there be
that he could get away with it?

[deadrat]

Willard told the truth to the SEC about Bain. He simply lied about it
during his campaign. The SEC doesn't care about that.

>> Release the tax returns and we will see what will surface.

> Probably nothing.
> As Deadrat pointed out, Mit had the money to hire lawyers and tax
> experts to ensure his returns were legal, and he most probably did.

Willard is a smart guy, and although sometimes smart people do dumb
things, there are lots of reasons for him to keep things strictly legal,
and there really wasn't any need for him to do anything dumb in the
first place -- the tax laws are written for people like him. In any
case, I doubt Rmoney sat down one weekend with Turbotax and prepared his
own returns. If there are any mistakes, he relied on his preparers, and
all he'll have to do is pay up.

>> WHAT IS MITT HIDING?
>>
>
> Nothing illegal, I expect.
> IMO, he should release them so that Democrats can waste a lot of
> time and money finding out that everything he did was 100% legal. He
> can then use the waste of time and money on the part of Democrats to
> his benefit while campaigning.

What do you think will take a lot of time and money? I'm sure the
Democratic party has enough lawyers and accountants on retainer to do
the investigation. Also, reporters don't charge political parties for
their work. In fact, sometimes they can get the Republican party to pay
them.

If there's anything illegal in the returns, that would be icing on the
cake as far as Willard's detractors are concerned. I think they suspect
that the missing returns will let them paint Willard as an out-of-touch
rich guy gaming the system. More of such a guy, I should say.

[RD Sandman]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
news:l7KdnX443NLXo5rN...@giganews.com:

One thing that bothers me is a pair of the loudest voices squeaking out
about Romney not releasing his tax returns are Pelosi and Reid. Pelosi
said that Romney's refusal to release more than two years of his personal
tax returns makes him unfit to win confirmation as a member of the
president's cabinet, let alone to hold the high office himself. Reid
went further. He said that Romney's refusal to make public more of his
records made him unfit to be a dogcatcher. Interestingly, both of those
two have refused to release their tax returns despite repeated requests.

Only 17 out of 535 members of Congress released their most recent tax
forms or provided some similar documentation of their tax liabilities in
response to a request from McClatchy Newspapers over the last three
months. Another 19 said that they would not release the information and
the remainder never responded.

Additionally, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, DNC Chairwoman
has also harangued Romney for not releasing more tax returns, calling it
a "penchant for secrecy". However, Ms. Wasserman Schultz has also
refused repeated requests for her returns. Those requests started before
the flap over Romney's records.

[RD Sandman]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
news:gMudnZGuUf23oprN...@giganews.com:

He didn't have his sarcasm latch turned on and you thought that smileys
were only for the humor impaired. ;)

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:ju7h9h$q5g$2...@dont-email.me:

If he was born in Hawaii why would he not be a natural born citizen of
the US?

[RD Sandman]

K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:dl7g08l9i9j9s3kr0...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 19:36:44 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>"K Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:aosc08h4fnt6cq62m...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:42:33 -0700 (PDT), "Ramon F. Herrera"
>>> <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>>>>mentioned makes him a citizen.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I must have missed something. What loophole?
>>>
>>>>Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was a
>>>>US citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless of
>>>>place of birth.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. If she was living in another country, not just visiting,
>>> then President Obama would be a citizen of that country.
>>> I'm not fan of Obama's but I am able to acc pet that he was born
>>> in Hawaii after it had become a state. This makes him a natural
>>> born citizen of the United States.
>>
>>If he was born there
>
> 100% of the evidence shows he was born in Hawaii, and after
> Hawaii had become a state.

Yep. Obama was born August 4, 1961 and Hawaii became a state almost two
years earlier on August 21, 1959.

[RD Sandman]

"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:ju7k7a$88r$1...@dont-email.me:

Hmmmmm, a copy of my birth certificate has been accepted whenever asked
for for over 70 years. It is not the original (which was destroyed in a
fire) it is a copy of which I have more than one.

[JohnJohnsn]

On Jul 19, 9:50 am, K Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:09:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn
> <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 18, 7:26 pm, "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>>"deadrat" wrote in message
>>>news:G_Sdnc2jmPHznZrN...@giganews.com...
>
>>> On 7/18/12 12:22 PM, Wayne wrote:
>
>>>>"deadrat" wrote in message
>>>>news:kbednVujobksdZvN...@giganews.com...
>
>>>> On 7/18/12 11:07 AM, Wayne wrote:
>
>>>>>"Ramon F. Herrera" wrote in message
>>>>>news:07e4034e-7aa5-4897...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>>>> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>>>>>> mentioned makes him a citizen.
>
>>>>>> Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was
>>>>>> a US citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless
>>>>>> of place of birth.
>
>>>>>> -Ramon
>

>>>>> However, the circumstances of his birth...

>
>>>> # Yeah, in Hawaii.
>
>>>> Yet TBD
>
>>> A certified birth certificate is presumed under law to be
>>> self-authenticating. This is a rebuttable presumption,
>>> i.e. it may be overcome with evidence. Got any?
>
>> Does Obama's lawyer, Alexandra Hill (of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi
>> Attorneys in Newark NJ) admitting, under oath in a New Jersey court,
>> that the ones released thusfar by the White House are all forgeries
>> count?
>
> Please offer a cite to his sworn admission.
>

"His"???

Obama attorney Alexandra Hill is a female, Wills. <chuckle> ;)

Nevertheless: any admission to a court by a lawyer is under the oath
they take when admitted to the bar: that's the reason they are not
required by the court to swear to anything _they_ state (except when
called to give _direct_ testimony subject to cross-examination);
unlike when they submit documents for a client, wherein the _client's_
statements and/or evidence _must_ be sworn to before an official
authorized to administer oaths (like a Notary Public).

And as to Snopes; their "objectivity" and veracity has come under
question, as they are a left-leaning organization.

Snopes even "hedges its bets" by stating that Hill did not "admit that
the long-form birth certificate presented by the White House is a
TOTAL forgery." [EMPHASIS added]

So; just how much of the document _is_ a "forgery"???

This brings up the nagging question: did she refuse to admit the
document because she _KNOWS_ it's a forgery?

If it is _real_, that would (should?) have brought the whole
controversy to a screetching halt.

Presenting a forged document to a court of law as being genuine is a
felony; something she was unwilling to risk perhaps?

I have always believed; and _still_ believe; that Obama's strategy
here is a simple "sleight of hand" move (like a magician) keep the
focus on what you _want_ people to see (the COLB controversy) and away
from the _real_ issues: Obama's overall incompetence at doing his job.

Let's hear it from an avowed Liberal:

"The Republicans are running against each other to see who's
going to run against Obama in November, while Obama is still
running against [George W] Bush."
--Whoppi Goldberg; `The View' [ABCtv], 30 Jan 2012

Obama's response to the whole jobs and economy history of his
administration: "It's Bush's fault!"

As we have seen that in LiberalLand:

Republican Congress + Republican President = Republicans' Fault;

Republican Congress + Democrat President = Republicans' Fault;

Democrat Congress + Republican President = Republicans' Fault;

and,

Democrat Congress + Democrat President = <Tada.wav> BUSH's Fault!

From January 20th, 2009 thru January 3rd 2011 (the 111th United States
Congress), the last was completely true, as the Democrats held _both_
houses of Congress:

Senate Majority: Democrat Party
House Majority: Democrat Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

Related:

Obama’s Lawyers Move to Censor Videos of New Jersey Ballot Challenge
Hearing, Rewrite History
By Alex Thomas
theintelhub.com
April 20, 2012
...
http://theintelhub.com/2012/04/20/obamas-lawyers-move-to-censor-videos-of-new-jersey-ballot-challenge-hearing-rewrite-history/

Links to the video of the _entire_ hearing (not just the _one_ seqment
Snopes wanted you to see) are included in the above story.

Oh, and BTW: do not call me a "birther" (a term which can actually
work both ways: "Obama was _not_ born in Hawai'i!" / "Obama _was_ born
in Hawai'i!"): I am a "Truther;" regardless of which way the truth may
fall.

I believe that Obama is rightfully the POTUS: I just want to know the
answers to the same questions asked by the ones who do not believe:

1) Why has Obama gone to the extreme efforts to hide the documentation
to his past (school and college transcripts, as just one such
example)?;

2) Since, as the person about whom the Hawai'i birth records concern,
he is legally authorized to request a certified photostatic or Xerox
PHOTOCOPY (not merely a computerized abstract) of his original
Certificate Of Live Birth, _why_ all the deception of creating
_proven_ fradulent versions?; and,

3) Why do you accept proven fraudulent documents with "no questions
asked?"

"Inquiring minds want to know."

[JohnJohnsn]

On Jul 18, 11:26 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/18/12 7:26 PM, Wayne wrote:
>
>>"deadrat" wrote in message
>> news:G_Sdnc2jmPHznZrN...@giganews.com...
>
>> On 7/18/12 12:22 PM, Wayne wrote:
>
>>>"deadrat" wrote in message
>>> news:kbednVujobksdZvN...@giganews.com...
>
>>> On 7/18/12 11:07 AM, Wayne wrote:
>
>>>>"Ramon F. Herrera" wrote in message
>>>> news:07e4034e-7aa5-4897...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>>> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>>>>> mentioned makes him a citizen.
>
>>>>> Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was a US
>>>>> citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless of place
>>>>> of birth.
>
>>>>> -Ramon
>
>>>> However, the circumstances of his birth
>
>>> # Yeah, in Hawaii.
>
>>> Yet TBD
>

>># A certified birth certificate is presumed under law to be
>># self-authenticating. This is a rebuttable presumption, i.e.
>># it may be overcome with evidence. Got any?
>
>># I didn't think so.
>
>># Please tell us who you think does the D in TBD.

>
>>>> provide a preponderance of evidence that Obama
>
>>># was born in Hawaii.
>
>>> Yet TBD.
>>> A layered document is very easy to alter.
>

>># The opinion of an ignoramus like you doesn't count for anything, and
>># hypotheticals don't count for much. It doesn't matter if a layered
>># document is easy to alter or not, a claim I suspect you either made up
>># or was presented to you without evidence. What matters is whether you
>># have evidence that Obama's birth certificate was actually altered. Got
>># any?
>
>># I didn't think so.

>
>>>> should have been vetted BEFORE nomination.
>
>>># Please cite the Constitutional provision for "vetting" candidates for
>>># federal office.
>
>>> There is a requirement for holding office.
>

>># The requirements are clear. Please provide the definition of "vetting"
>># and the Constitutional basis for "vetting" candidates.

>
>>> Everybody else has gotten
>>> scrutiny before the fact...but not Obama.
>

>># If you don't think the journalists did enough investigating of Obama
>># before he was nominated, find these journalists and take it up with
>># them. Better yet do your own investigation.
>
>># We have Obama's own writings, including his autobiography. We know his
>># family, where he went to college, where he went to law school. We have
>># the recollections of people who worked on the law review with him. We
>># know where he taught Constitutional law. We know the education reform
>># commission he served on. We know what church he attended. We have
>># copies of his tax returns. We have his record as a state senator and as
>># a US senator.
>
>># What do you think is missing?

>
>> And you believe all that crap? You are spinning like a top.
>
> I've given you what I've declared to be facts. Can you refute them?
> (Hint: You can't; they are facts.) Do you deny that Obama has written
> an autobiography? Wouldn't that be a good place to check the story of
> his life? Has anyone found inconsistencies?
>
> Do you deny that Obama attended Harvard Law School and was president
> of the Law Review? Newspapers have printed interviews with the staff who
> served with him.
>
> Do you deny that Obama has a legislative record in the Illinois state
> senate and the US Senate? Do you suppose people haven't looked at his
> record in these bodies?
>
> Do you deny that Obama taught Constitutional law at the University of
> Chicago? Reporters have interviewed his students and his dean.
>
> I've asked what you think is missing in the record of Obama's life that
> makes you think he's a mystery. You haven't answered that simple
> question.
>
>> The fact is that Obama's eligibility is far from certain.
>
> This is not a fact in any sense of the word. You don't even have any
> viable evidence that he might be ineligible.
>
>> And a birth certificate that is, without a doubt, NOT a copy is
>> insufficient proof.
>
> Without a doubt? I've explained to you how certified public records
> work in a court of law. That not good enough for you?
>

Gee; I must have missed that: into _which_ "court of law" were the
images of Obama's `Certification Of Live Birth' (the abstract) and/or
`Certificate Of Live Birth' (the "long-form") admitted and when were
they admitted?

[K Wills]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:10:56 -0500, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

[...]

>>> Romney HAS commited a crime with the SEC signature filings.
>>>
>> Yet no one is seeking his arrest and prosecution. How odd.
>
>Willard told the truth to the SEC about Bain. He simply lied about it
>during his campaign. The SEC doesn't care about that.
>

Lying while campaigning is almost expected.

>>> Release the tax returns and we will see what will surface.
>
>> Probably nothing.
>> As Deadrat pointed out, Mit had the money to hire lawyers and tax
>> experts to ensure his returns were legal, and he most probably did.
>
>Willard is a smart guy, and although sometimes smart people do dumb
>things, there are lots of reasons for him to keep things strictly legal,
>and there really wasn't any need for him to do anything dumb in the
>first place -- the tax laws are written for people like him. In any
>case, I doubt Rmoney sat down one weekend with Turbotax and prepared his
>own returns. If there are any mistakes, he relied on his preparers, and
>all he'll have to do is pay up.
>

Kind of like the Clintons and Whitewater. It was found that they
actually owed money. While the SoL had expired, they still paid up.

>>> WHAT IS MITT HIDING?
>>>
>>
>> Nothing illegal, I expect.
>> IMO, he should release them so that Democrats can waste a lot of
>> time and money finding out that everything he did was 100% legal. He
>> can then use the waste of time and money on the part of Democrats to
>> his benefit while campaigning.
>
>What do you think will take a lot of time and money? I'm sure the
>Democratic party has enough lawyers and accountants on retainer to do
>the investigation.

It will still cost money and time. I'm not talking just payroll.
Presuming that everything is legal, Romney will have an attack ad
available, if he would chose to use it.

>Also, reporters don't charge political parties for
>their work. In fact, sometimes they can get the Republican party to pay
>them.
>
>If there's anything illegal in the returns, that would be icing on the
>cake as far as Willard's detractors are concerned. I think they suspect
>that the missing returns will let them paint Willard as an out-of-touch
>rich guy gaming the system. More of such a guy, I should say.

He could spin it to his advantage by pointing out how he is a man
who follows the law. That he hired accountant, lawyers and tax experts
to ensure his returns complied with the law.
The only problem I see with it is that such a statement could be
seen as an accusation that Obama follow the law.

[K Wills]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:35:02 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

[...]

A certified copy, which is probably the best anyone can hope to
actually get, is considered as equal in validity as the original under
the law.
I suppose it's possible to get the original with a court order
thought I can't think of a reason for it. But then, I'm not a lawyer.

[K Wills]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:30:51 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>news:ju7h9h$q5g$2...@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>> "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in message
>> news:07e4034e-7aa5-4897...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com.
>> ..
>>>
>>> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>>> mentioned makes him a citizen.
>>
>> Yes, that is true....but not a NATIVE BORN CITIZEN. Which I believe is
>> a Constitutional requirement to hold the office of President.
>>
>>> Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was a
>>> US citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless of
>>> place of birth.
>>
>> Yep, but again there is that whole native born thing which you seem to
>> wish to ignore.
>
>
>If he was born in Hawaii why would he not be a natural born citizen of
>the US?

He is.

[K Wills]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:52:22 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn
<TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

>>
>>> Does Obama's lawyer, Alexandra Hill (of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi
>>> Attorneys in Newark NJ) admitting, under oath in a New Jersey court,
>>> that the ones released thusfar by the White House are all forgeries
>>> count?
>>
>> Please offer a cite to his sworn admission.
>>
>"His"???
>
>Obama attorney Alexandra Hill is a female, Wills. <chuckle> ;)
>

My bad.

>Nevertheless: any admission to a court by a lawyer is under the oath
>they take when admitted to the bar: that's the reason they are not
>required by the court to swear to anything _they_ state (except when
>called to give _direct_ testimony subject to cross-examination);
>unlike when they submit documents for a client, wherein the _client's_
>statements and/or evidence _must_ be sworn to before an official
>authorized to administer oaths (like a Notary Public).
>

You claimed she made the admission under oath. Now you're playing
word games.
That aside, you haven't offered a cite.

>And as to Snopes; their "objectivity" and veracity has come under
>question, as they are a left-leaning organization.
>

I didn't comment about Snopes. I requested a cite to her sworn
as mission. You've yet to offer it.

>Snopes even "hedges its bets" by stating that Hill did not "admit that
>the long-form birth certificate presented by the White House is a
>TOTAL forgery." [EMPHASIS added]
>
>So; just how much of the document _is_ a "forgery"???
>
>This brings up the nagging question: did she refuse to admit the
>document because she _KNOWS_ it's a forgery?
>

Questions are not facts, and you've yet to offer a cite for your
claim.

[Snip additional avoidance]

Now that you've played, and lost, the avoidance game, please
offer a cite for this admission under oath you claim she made.

--
'Life is pain. Anybody that says different is selling something.'
-- Fezzik's mother

[JohnJohnsn]

On Jul 18, 11:31 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/18/12 8:17 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>>"azjohn" <hab...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:ju6sj9$igj$4...@wieslauf.sub.de...
>
>>> On 7/17/2012 10:42 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>
>>>> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>>>> mentioned makes him a citizen.
>
>>> Nope.
>
>> Actually, he is right, Obama would be a citizen....
>
> Actually, he's wrong. Had Obama been born abroad, the law in place
> at the time of his birth would not have granted him citizenship at birth.
>

The law referenced previously was a 1982 law: please quote "the law in
place at the time of his [Obama's] birth..."; which was 1961:

[Quote]


[/Quote]

▲There is▲the place for your "quote" of the 1961-era law.

[JohnJohnsn]

On Jul 19, 5:47 am, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 07/18/2012 11:26 PM, deadrat wrote:
>
>> I've given you what I've declared to be facts. Can you refute them?
>> (Hint: You can't; they are facts.) Do you deny that Obama has written
>> an autobiography? Wouldn't that be a good place to check the story of
>> his life? Has anyone found inconsistencies?
>
>> Do you deny that Obama attended Harvard Law School and was president
>> of the Law Review? Newspapers have printed interviews with the staff who
>> served with him.
>
>> Do you deny that Obama has a legislative record in the Illinois state
>> senate and the US Senate? Do you suppose people haven't looked at his
>> record in these bodies?
>
>> Do you deny that Obama taught Constitutional law at the University of
>> Chicago? Reporters have interviewed his students and his dean.
>
>> I've asked what you think is missing in the record of Obama's life that
>> makes you think he's a mystery. You haven't answered that simple question.
>
>>> The fact is that Obama's eligibility is far from certain.
>
>> This is not a fact in any sense of the word. You don't even have any
>> viable evidence that he might be ineligible.
>
>>> And a birth certificate that is, without a doubt, NOT a copy is
>>> insufficient proof.
>
>> Without a doubt? I've explained to you how certified public records
>> work in a court of law. That not good enough for you?
>

> The problem with the "birther" movement...
>
Would that be the "birther moivement" which claims Obama is _not_ a
"natural born citizen"; or the "birther movement" which stands fast
and shouts "Obama _IS_ a `natural born citizen'!"; as _both_ fit the
generic term.
>
> ...is that there seem to be no facts which support any of their beliefs.

> The entire "birther argument revolves around two things.
> First they try to claim that because both of Obama's parents were not
> USA citizens, Obama is not "natural born", even if he did recieve his
> citizenship from his mother who was a USA citizen.
> The "birthers" second argument is that Obama was born in Kenya, not
> in Hawaii, and for that reason is not a US citizen.
>
> Obama is a US citizen from birth because his mother was a US citizen
> at the time of his birth. By any rational definition, this meets the
> Constitutional definition of US citizen.
>
> This far, after three years of trying, these people have yet to be able
> to convince a single judge that these arguments have any merit.
>
> What does concern me is that there does seem to be a credible claim
> that the birth certificate produced by Obama is a forgery. What possible
> reason would Obama have to forge his birth records?
>

BINGO!!!

That is the "fifteen point nine trillion dollar question!"
http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"
--Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

[JohnJohnsn]

On Jul 19, 12:32 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcastnet> wrote:
>
>
> K Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in

> news:dl7g08l9i9j9s3kr0...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 19:36:44 -0400, "Scout"

>> <me4g...@verizonnet> wrote:
>
>>>"K Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:aosc08h4fnt6cq62m...@4ax.com...
>
>>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:42:33 -0700 (PDT), "Ramon F. Herrera"
>>>> <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>>>>>mentioned makes him a citizen.
>
>>>> I must have missed something. What loophole?
>
>>>>> Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was
>>>>> a US citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless of
>>>>> place of birth.
>
>>>> No. If she was living in another country, not just visiting,
>>>> then President Obama would be a citizen of that country.
>>>> I'm not fan of Obama's but I am able to acc pet that he was born
>>>> in Hawaii after it had become a state. This makes him a natural
>>>> born citizen of the United States.
>
>>> If he was born there
>
>> 100% of the evidence shows he was born in Hawaii, and after
>> Hawaii had become a state.
>
> Yep. Obama was born August 4, 1961 and Hawaii became a state almost two
> years earlier on August 21, 1959.
>

Yup!

I remember the changeover from the second 49-star version (Alaska
admitted July 7, 1958) of the national colors to the current 50-star
version a mere 410 days later.

[JohnJohnsn]

On Jul 19, 12:35 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcastnet> wrote:
>
>
> "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote in

> news:ju7k7a$88r$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>"deadrat" wrote in message
>>news:G_Sdnc2jmPHznZrN...@giganews.com...
>
>> On 7/18/12 12:22 PM, Wayne wrote:
>
>>>"deadrat" wrote in message
>>>news:kbednVujobksdZvN...@giganews.com...
>
>>> On 7/18/12 11:07 AM, Wayne wrote:
>
>>>>"Ramon F. Herrera" wrote in message
>>>>news:07e4034e-7aa5-4897...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>>> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>>>>> mentioned makes him a citizen.
>
>>>>> Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother
>>>>> was a US citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen
>>>>> regardless of place of birth.
>
>>>>> -Ramon
>

>>>> However, the circumstances of his birth...

>
>>># Yeah, in Hawaii.
>
>>> Yet TBD
>

>># A certified birth certificate is presumed under law to be
>># self-authenticating. This is a rebuttable presumption,
>># i.e. it may be overcome with evidence. Got any?

>
>># I didn't think so.
>

>># Please tell us who you think does the D in TBD.
>
>>>> ...provide a preponderance of evidence that Obama

>>>> was born in Hawaii.
>
>>> Yet TBD.
>>> A layered document is very easy to alter.
>

>># The opinion of an ignoramus like you doesn't count for anything,
>># and hypotheticals don't count for much. It doesn't matter if a layered
>># document is easy to alter or not, a claim I suspect you either made
>># up or was presented to you without evidence. What matters is whether
>># you have evidence that Obama's birth certificate was actually
>># altered. Got any?
>
>># I didn't think so.

>
>>>> should have been vetted BEFORE nomination.
>
>>># Please cite the Constitutional provision for "vetting" candidates

>>># for federal office.

>
>>> There is a requirement for holding office.
>

>># The requirements are clear. Please provide the definition of
>># "vetting" and the Constitutional basis for "vetting" candidates.

>
>>> Everybody else has gotten
>>> scrutiny before the fact...but not Obama.
>

>># If you don't think the journalists did enough investigating of Obama
>># before he was nominated, find these journalists and take it up with
>># them. Better yet do your own investigation.
>
>># We have Obama's own writings, including his autobiography. We know
>># his family, where he went to college, where he went to law school.
>># We have the recollections of people who worked on the law review with
>># him. We know where he taught Constitutional law. We know the
>># education reform commission he served on. We know what church he
>># attended. We have copies of his tax returns. We have his record as
>># a state senator and as a US senator.
>
>># What do you think is missing?

>
>> And you believe all that crap? You are spinning like a top.
>
>> The fact is that Obama's eligibility is far from certain.
>
>> And a birth certificate that is, without a doubt, NOT a copy is
>> insufficient proof.
>
> Hmmmmm, a copy of my birth certificate has been accepted whenever
> asked for for over 70 years. It is not the original (which was destroyed
> in a fire) it is a copy of which I have more than one.
>

A correction is needed here: what you lost in the fire was a cetified
copy of the original; which never leaves the custody of the custodian
of the records.

If yours was like mine, it was a white-on-black photostatic copy of
the original and was certified by the custodian as being a true and
correct copy of the _original_ black-on-white document filed with the
custodian by the doctor, nurse, hospital staff: whoever was tasked
with the filing of the Certificate Of Live Birth (by whatever name
known: a "birth certificate") for record.

In the case of Obama's (and most other modern issue/reissue), the
custodian has taken "the easy way out" and has included all the hand-
or type-written information from the original into an electronic
database; which is accessed by computer and entered into the specific
locations on the computer-generated abstract of that data.

NEVERTHESS: if a person demands an actual certified PHOTOCOPY of the
original, and is willing to pay the retrieval, reproduction,
certification and forwarding costs, the custodians are duty-bound to
produce the document in the form of the one(s) we had _originally_.

Which begs the questions:

a) "WHY didn't Obama do just that in the first place???"; and,

b) "WHY hasn't he done that yet???"

"Inquiring minds want to know."

Of course, the "Lib-birthers" will shout out: "He doesn't HAVE to!!!
Just look at the ones he's _already_ released!!!"

[Bill Graham]

My father, born in Bristol, Tennessee in June of 1888, had his birth records
lost when the courthouse in Bristol burned down around the turn of the
century. But he was able to get some sort of paper from the government that
affirmed his birth records, so it is possible to recover from such a
disaster without spending one's life as a, "man without a country".

[Bill Graham]

K Wills wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:10:56 -0500, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> Romney HAS commited a crime with the SEC signature filings.
>>>>
>>> Yet no one is seeking his arrest and prosecution. How odd.

But the democrats will harp on it until the election to get people's minds
off the fact that the economy is in such bad shape.... That's politics in
the good ol' USA folks......

[deadrat]

Reid isn't up for reelection. Pelosi's and Wasserman-Schultz' returns
aren't of interest to anybody in the other districts. None of these
will occupy positions of much authority should they serve in the next
Congress, at least compared to whomever is elected President. In
addition to being elected officials, all three of these people are
Democratic Party functionaries. I take their evaluations of Rmoney as
seriously as I take the opinions about Obama held by their counterparts
in the Republican party.

[deadrat]

You are a very confused person. Lawyers don't make "admissions," and
anything they say, except from the stand in the unlikely event they
become witnesses, is not evidence. Lawyers may make stipulations on
behalf of their clients, but Hill made no such stipulation.

>
> And as to Snopes; their "objectivity" and veracity has come under
> question, as they are a left-leaning organization.

Sure. Under the your definition of "left-leaning" as "an organization
that presents facts that I don't like."

>
> Snopes even "hedges its bets" by stating that Hill did not "admit that
> the long-form birth certificate presented by the White House is a
> TOTAL forgery." [EMPHASIS added]

And why? Because Hill maintained that the entire subject of the birth
certificate was an improper subject for the court to even consider. And
the judge agreed.

> So; just how much of the document _is_ a "forgery"???

None of it. And the question was never raised in the hearing.

> This brings up the nagging question: did she refuse to admit the
> document because she _KNOWS_ it's a forgery?

Hill doesn't admit or exclude documents. That's up to the judge. Hill
maintained that the certificate was not a proper concern for the
hearing, the judge agreed, and the document was excluded. It wasn't
evidence, so its authenticity never came up.

> If it is _real_, that would (should?) have brought the whole
> controversy to a screetching halt.

You're kidding, right? Birthers have never been halted by evidence
before. Why would they now?

>
> Presenting a forged document to a court of law as being genuine is a
> felony; something she was unwilling to risk perhaps?

She wanted to win in the quickest, strongest way. And that was to cut
the legs out from under the petitioners. Which she did.

> I have always believed; and _still_ believe; that Obama's strategy
> here is a simple "sleight of hand" move (like a magician) keep the
> focus on what you _want_ people to see (the COLB controversy) and away
> from the _real_ issues: Obama's overall incompetence at doing his job.

Well, of course that's what you believe. But you're a birther ignoramus
(he said redundantly). Willard doesn't care about birth certificates,
and he'll hammer away just fine about Obama's supposed incompetence.

>
> Let's hear it from an avowed Liberal:
>

<snipped: irrelevant material/>

> http://theintelhub.com/2012/04/20/obamas-lawyers-move-to-censor-videos-of-new-jersey-ballot-challenge-hearing-rewrite-history/
>
> Links to the video of the _entire_ hearing (not just the _one_ seqment
> Snopes wanted you to see) are included in the above story.

Look, there are almost three hours of video. It's not that I don't
appreciate the information; I just don't have the time to waste on
birthers. I'll tell you what: *you* watch the videos, find the point
wehre Hill admits to the forgeries, and tell me where that occurs. OK?

>
> Oh, and BTW: do not call me a "birther" (a term which can actually
> work both ways: "Obama was _not_ born in Hawai'i!" / "Obama _was_ born
> in Hawai'i!"): I am a "Truther;" regardless of which way the truth may
> fall.

No, a "birther" is the contemptuous term for the ignoramuses who simply
won't accept the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. If you don't want
to be called a birther, don't act like one.

>
> I believe that Obama is rightfully the POTUS: I just want to know the
> answers to the same questions asked by the ones who do not believe:

The answer is always the same: "You're doing it wrong."

> 1) Why has Obama gone to the extreme efforts to hide the documentation
> to his past (school and college transcripts, as just one such
> example)?;

Obama hasn't gone to any extremes. He's done nothing, literally, on
this topic. Because no one with any sense cares what happened when
Obama was 18 to 22 years old.

> 2) Since, as the person about whom the Hawai'i birth records concern,
> he is legally authorized to request a certified photostatic or Xerox
> PHOTOCOPY (not merely a computerized abstract) of his original
> Certificate Of Live Birth, _why_ all the deception of creating
> _proven_ fradulent versions?; and,

There are no fraudulent versions. Generally speaking, all you get these
days from state Bureaus of Vital Statistics is a COLB. Good in any
court in the land. Obama finally asked Hawaii to release his so-called
"long form" data. Which they did. Didn't stop the birthers, though,
did it?

>
> 3) Why do you accept proven fraudulent documents with "no questions
> asked?"

Why do you accept charges of forgery with no evidence?

>
> "Inquiring minds want to know."

And you know whose motto that is.

[K Wills]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:19:33 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn
<TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

>In the case of Obama's (and most other modern issue/reissue), the
>custodian has taken "the easy way out" and has included all the hand-
>or type-written information from the original into an electronic
>database; which is accessed by computer and entered into the specific
>locations on the computer-generated abstract of that data.
>
>NEVERTHESS: if a person demands an actual certified PHOTOCOPY of the
>original, and is willing to pay the retrieval, reproduction,
>certification and forwarding costs, the custodians are duty-bound to
>produce the document in the form of the one(s) we had _originally_.
>
>Which begs the questions:
>
>a) "WHY didn't Obama do just that in the first place???"; and,
>
>b) "WHY hasn't he done that yet???"
>
>"Inquiring minds want to know."
>
>Of course, the "Lib-birthers" will shout out: "He doesn't HAVE to!!!

And they would be right. I, a registered Republican, agree with
them.

>Just look at the ones he's _already_ released!!!"

Exactly. It is acceptable as valid in any court of law, so there
is no need for the President to do more.

--
"I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all
you need to know, gov!"
- Shouting George

[K Wills]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:31:45 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
wrote:

They used it too early then. Since he committed no crime, the
matter will blow over before November.

[RD Sandman]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
news:BbednZ593qu8-5XN...@giganews.com:

Point is that they are some of the loudest mouths about Romney's tax
returns. They should put their returns where their mouth is....period.

After all, there is no requirement that ANY tax return be made public and
even McCain only showed two years. And no one complained.

[RD Sandman]

RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in
news:XnsA0956BABD...@216.196.121.131:

> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:ju7k7a$88r$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>>
>> "deadrat" wrote in message
>> news:G_Sdnc2jmPHznZrN...@giganews.com...
>>
>> On 7/18/12 12:22 PM, Wayne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "deadrat" wrote in message
>>> news:kbednVujobksdZvN...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> On 7/18/12 11:07 AM, Wayne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Ramon F. Herrera" wrote in message

>>>> news:07e4034e-7aa5-4897-aa3d-
fed3bd...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.co

Actually, it was my military records that were destroyed in a fire. My
birth certificate is simply among the missing due to some natural
occurrance in the area where I was born. I was too young to remember
exactly what it was. ;)

[RD Sandman]

JohnJohnsn <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2d6a4a5d-28c1-4eb1...@b20g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

Yep. Even with sepia tones. ;) The copy I have is a raggedy old thing
due to age but it is still legible and has my footprint on it.

> In the case of Obama's (and most other modern issue/reissue), the
> custodian has taken "the easy way out" and has included all the hand-
> or type-written information from the original into an electronic
> database; which is accessed by computer and entered into the specific
> locations on the computer-generated abstract of that data.
>
> NEVERTHESS: if a person demands an actual certified PHOTOCOPY of the
> original, and is willing to pay the retrieval, reproduction,
> certification and forwarding costs, the custodians are duty-bound to
> produce the document in the form of the one(s) we had _originally_.
>
> Which begs the questions:
>
> a) "WHY didn't Obama do just that in the first place???"; and,
>
> b) "WHY hasn't he done that yet???"
>
> "Inquiring minds want to know."
>
> Of course, the "Lib-birthers" will shout out: "He doesn't HAVE to!!!
> Just look at the ones he's _already_ released!!!"

I hope you aren't hanging too much on what ol' Arpiao claims.

[RD Sandman]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:iOydnTjWwqhrw5XN...@giganews.com:

Yes, and I have a copy that my folks got me over 70 years ago. It is
faded and tattered but it is mine. I have better copies that I made over
the years.

[Wayne]

"K Wills" wrote in message
news:bbsg08hg8j3rav5fu...@4ax.com...

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:19:33 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn
<TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

>In the case of Obama's (and most other modern issue/reissue), the
>custodian has taken "the easy way out" and has included all the hand-
>or type-written information from the original into an electronic
>database; which is accessed by computer and entered into the specific
>locations on the computer-generated abstract of that data.
>
>NEVERTHESS: if a person demands an actual certified PHOTOCOPY of the
>original, and is willing to pay the retrieval, reproduction,
>certification and forwarding costs, the custodians are duty-bound to
>produce the document in the form of the one(s) we had _originally_.
>
>Which begs the questions:
>
>a) "WHY didn't Obama do just that in the first place???"; and,
>
>b) "WHY hasn't he done that yet???"
>
>"Inquiring minds want to know."
>
>Of course, the "Lib-birthers" will shout out: "He doesn't HAVE to!!!

# And they would be right. I, a registered Republican, agree with
# them.

>Just look at the ones he's _already_ released!!!"

# Exactly. It is acceptable as valid in any court of law, so there
# is no need for the President to do more.

Yes, but if challenged in a court of law, the particular PDF format released
is questionable.

[David Hartung]

Over the years Joe Arpaio has set the example of how things should be
done. It is for that reason I give his investigation credibility. If he
says there is criminal conduct on the part of Obama and his minions, I
tend to think that there is probably criminal conduct.

[Wayne]

"David Hartung" wrote in message
news:vc2dnRyI8f4keJrN...@giganews.com...

On 07/18/2012 11:26 PM, deadrat wrote:

> I've given you what I've declared to be facts. Can you refute them?
> (Hint: You can't; they are facts.) Do you deny that Obama has written
> an autobiography? Wouldn't that be a good place to check the story of
> his life? Has anyone found inconsistencies?
>
> Do you deny that Obama attended Harvard Law School and was president of
> the Law Review? Newspapers have printed interviews with the staff who
> served with him.
>
> Do you deny that Obama has a legislative record in the Illinois state
> senate and the US Senate? Do you suppose people haven't looked at his
> record in these bodies?
>
> Do you deny that Obama taught Constitutional law at the University of
> Chicago? Reporters have interviewed his students and his dean.
>
> I've asked what you think is missing in the record of Obama's life that
> makes you think he's a mystery. You haven't answered that simple
> question.
>>

>> The fact is that Obama's eligibility is far from certain.
>

> This is not a fact in any sense of the word. You don't even have any
> viable evidence that he might be ineligible.
>

>> And a birth certificate that is, without a doubt, NOT a copy is
>> insufficient proof.
>

> Without a doubt? I've explained to you how certified public records
> work in a court of law. That not good enough for you?

# The problem with the "birther" movement is that there seem to be no
# facts which support any of their beliefs. <snip>

I took Obama at his word as being born in Hawaii, until he released a "birth
certificate" copy that would have had to have had some manipulation to
produce.

A simple scanned copy of the original would have been sufficient, but a
layered PDF copy was provided. That opens the door for a lot of skepticism.

[ColdWarDinosaur]

Arpaio is getting ever more desperate as the DoJ closes in on his
activities and/or lack thereof...

--
~~
HW
__________________
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://www.commoncause.org/
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/
http:///www.blackboxvoting.org
http://www.freepress.net/
http://www.prwatch.org/
http://www.alternet.org/
http://mediamatters.org/

[Wayne]

"ColdWarDinosaur" wrote in message news:ju9j4v$e4e$2...@dont-email.me...

# Arpaio is getting ever more desperate as the DoJ closes in on his
# activities and/or lack thereof...

A chicken and egg situation. The more Arpaio crosses swords with the feds,
the more crap they give him.

[RD Sandman]

David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote in
news:auidnZ1Whtly4pXN...@giganews.com:

Ol' Arpaio is as big a self promoter as PT Barnum. You, however, are
perfectly free to believe what you want about him or what he finds.

[deadrat]

Pay attention: they haven't, and probably won't be. I've told you what
will happen if that ever came to pass. It would require solid evidence
to overcome their presumption of validity. Do you and your pals have any?

>
> "Inquiring minds want to know."

An apt and fitting motto for you to adopt.

[deadrat]

On 7/19/12 1:12 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
> On Jul 18, 11:31 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/18/12 8:17 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>> "azjohn" <hab...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ju6sj9$igj$4...@wieslauf.sub.de...
>>
>>>> On 7/17/2012 10:42 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>>
>>>>> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>>>>> mentioned makes him a citizen.
>>
>>>> Nope.
>>
>>> Actually, he is right, Obama would be a citizen....
>>
>> Actually, he's wrong. Had Obama been born abroad, the law in place
>> at the time of his birth would not have granted him citizenship at birth.
>>
> The law referenced previously was a 1982 law: please quote "the law in
> place at the time of his [Obama's] birth..."; which was 1961:
>
> [Quote]

Let's let this be a little exercise. Check my assertion. I know this
is a first for you, so you might need a little help, but why don't you
start out doing a little digging on your own? It will be hard at first,
but I promise it will be rewarding in the end.

> [/Quote]
>
> ▲There is▲the place for your "quote" of the 1961-era law.

<snip/>

[deadrat]

There is only one birther movement. The one that claims all sorts of
absurd things about Obama not being a natural born citizen.
<snip/>

[Bill Graham]

K Wills wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:31:45 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> K Wills wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:10:56 -0500, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>> Romney HAS commited a crime with the SEC signature filings.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yet no one is seeking his arrest and prosecution. How odd.
>>
>> But the democrats will harp on it until the election to get people's
>> minds off the fact that the economy is in such bad shape.... That's
>> politics in the good ol' USA folks......
>
> They used it too early then. Since he committed no crime, the
> matter will blow over before November.

Perhaps, but the Democrats have no other choice... Dirt on Romney is hard to
find, and their Madison Avenue guys are yelling for material...

[Oglethorpe]

"deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:gMudnZauUf1io5rN...@giganews.com...

> On 7/18/12 2:44 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote in

>> news:UqydnRBW3Z5HjZrN...@giganews.com:

>>
>>> On 07/18/2012 01:43 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>> On 7/18/12 12:52 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 07/18/2012 12:45 PM, azjohn wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/18/2012 1:25 AM, K Wills wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:42:33 -0700 (PDT), "Ramon F. Herrera"

>>>>>>> <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if Obama had not been born in the US, the Hawaii "loophole"
>>>>>>>> mentioned makes him a citizen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I must have missed something. What loophole?
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Furthermore, even if that "loophole" was not used, his mother was
>>>>>>>> a US citizen, making Barack a Natural Born US citizen regardless
>>>>>>>> of place of birth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> No. If she was living in another country, not just
>>>>>>> visiting,
>>>>>>> then President Obama would be a citizen of that country.
>>>>>>> I'm not fan of Obama's but I am able to acc pet that he was
>>>>>>> born
>>>>>>> in Hawaii after it had become a state. This makes him a natural
>>>>>>> born citizen of the United States.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. A child of a Kenyan village idiot, and traveling as an adult
>>>>>> on an Indonesian passport and registering in the US as a foreign
>>>>>> born foreign student was his choice for citizenship. He's always
>>>>>> been an asshole.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your evidence?
>>>>
>>>> What are you talking about? Birthers don't need evidence.
>>>
>>> Which is a part of the problem.
>>>
>>> This is, of course, just like those who are insinuating that Romney
>>> has committed some sort of crime because he will not release his tax
>>> returns.
>>

>> Amazing phenomenon that they exist on both sides of the aisle, isn't it.
>> ;)
>
> No, why is it amazing? Isn't this kind of tribalism to be expected? For a
> critique of the left from the left, go here:
>
> http://www.dailyhowler.blogspot.com
>
> I don't think

OBVIOUS.

[Scout]

"David Hartung" <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote in message
news:vc2dnRyI8f4keJrN...@giganews.com...

> On 07/18/2012 11:26 PM, deadrat wrote:
>
>> I've given you what I've declared to be facts. Can you refute them?
>> (Hint: You can't; they are facts.) Do you deny that Obama has written
>> an autobiography? Wouldn't that be a good place to check the story of
>> his life? Has anyone found inconsistencies?
>>
>> Do you deny that Obama attended Harvard Law School and was president of
>> the Law Review? Newspapers have printed interviews with the staff who
>> served with him.
>>
>> Do you deny that Obama has a legislative record in the Illinois state
>> senate and the US Senate? Do you suppose people haven't looked at his
>> record in these bodies?
>>
>> Do you deny that Obama taught Constitutional law at the University of
>> Chicago? Reporters have interviewed his students and his dean.
>>
>> I've asked what you think is missing in the record of Obama's life that
>> makes you think he's a mystery. You haven't answered that simple
>> question.
>>>
>>> The fact is that Obama's eligibility is far from certain.
>>
>> This is not a fact in any sense of the word. You don't even have any
>> viable evidence that he might be ineligible.
>>
>>> And a birth certificate that is, without a doubt, NOT a copy is
>>> insufficient proof.
>>
>> Without a doubt? I've explained to you how certified public records
>> work in a court of law. That not good enough for you?
>

> The problem with the "birther" movement is that there seem to be no facts

> which support any of their beliefs. The entire "birther argument revolves
> around two things. First they try to claim that because both of Obama's
> parents were not USA citizens,

Bzzzzzzzzttttttttttttttttt..............

Please cite where "birthers" claim Obama's mother wasn't a US citizen.

If you can't do so, then your analysis failed before it really got started.

[Scout]

"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ju9dku$c7e$1...@dont-email.me...

Particularly when names, places, etc use the current modern references
rather than those in use when he was actually born.

It doesn't cause on to question the validity of the evidence produced, and
wonders why he would need to present what seems to be a falsified document.

[deadrat]

Please provide a cite to the law that requires this. The last time I
checked the, the regulations of the Hawaii Department of Health (which
administers the Hawaii Bureau of Vital Statistics) state that a COLB is
all that will be issued. (These regulations have the force of law.) I
think that was in response to fears of identity theft after 9/11. Obama
did manage to get the "long form" released, so there must be some way to
do it, but I'm skeptical that any law requires it.

> Which begs the questions:

Which doesn't mean what you think it does.

> a) "WHY didn't Obama do just that in the first place???"; and,

This is just a guess on my part, but I think the answer is two-fold.
Ignoring birthers let him stay above "teh stupid." He can say, "I've
got real problems to deal with, and I'm doing the nation's work in
solving them." But it also kept teh stupid in the limelight. You
absolutely cannot buy opponents like Orly Taitz and Donald Trump. They
are loud, ignorant, and gullible, a potent combination that made Obama's
opposition look like fools.

> b) "WHY hasn't he done that yet???"

Where ya been, Sparky, with you're oh-so-inquiring mind?

Go here:
www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/us/politics/28obama.html

>
> "Inquiring minds want to know."
>
> Of course, the "Lib-birthers" will shout out: "He doesn't HAVE to!!!
> Just look at the ones he's _already_ released!!!"

"Lib-birthers" are just figments of your imagination. There are no
"Lib-birthers" with sites dedicated to birth certificate theories, no
"Lib-birtheres" filing law suits and holding press conferences. There
are people who respond to the various birther lies, but it's all response.

[Bill Graham]

Well, at that age, you could have eaten it......

[JohnJohnsn]

We noticed you ignored your faux pax here, DR. <chuckle> ;)

>
>> Nevertheless: any admission to a court by a lawyer is under the oath
>> they take when admitted to the bar: that's the reason they are not
>> required by the court to swear to anything _they_ state (except when
>> called to give _direct_ testimony subject to cross-examination);
>> unlike when they submit documents for a client, wherein the _client's_
>> statements and/or evidence _must_ be sworn to before an official
>> authorized to administer oaths (like a Notary Public).
>

> You are a very confused person. Lawyers don't make "admissions,"...

PoTAYto / poTATo: same function.
>
> ...and anything they say, except from the stand in the unlikely event they

> become witnesses, is not evidence. Lawyers may make stipulations on
> behalf of their clients, but Hill made no such stipulation.
>

She held out that the documents had never been introduced by Obama or
his representatives into a court of law.

>
>> And as to Snopes; their "objectivity" and veracity has come under
>> question, as they are a left-leaning organization.
>
> Sure. Under the your definition of "left-leaning" as "an organization
> that presents facts that I don't like."
>

Snopes.com Is A Tool Of Deception
...
http://theradconservative.com/rush.html

>
>> Snopes even "hedges its bets" by stating that Hill did not "admit that
>> the long-form birth certificate presented by the White House is a
>> TOTAL forgery." [EMPHASIS added]
>
> And why? Because Hill maintained that the entire subject of the birth
> certificate was an improper subject for the court to even consider.
> And the judge agreed.
>
>> So; just how much of the document _is_ a "forgery"???
>
> None of it. And the question was never raised in the hearing.
>

My question was not limited to the hearing, DR.

Care to explain why we should accept documents that have been proven,
by Adobe Portable Documents _experts_, to have been created from whole
cloth?

A _real_ .PDF scan of a document will not have all the "layers" of the
Obama documents.

>
>> This brings up the nagging question: did she refuse to admit the
>> document because she _KNOWS_ it's a forgery?
>
> Hill doesn't admit or exclude documents. That's up to the judge.
> Hill maintained that the certificate was not a proper concern for the
> hearing, the judge agreed, and the document was excluded. It wasn't
> evidence, so its authenticity never came up.
>
>> If it is _real_, that would (should?) have brought the whole
>> controversy to a screetching halt.
>
> You're kidding, right? Birthers have never been halted by evidence
> before. Why would they now?
>

Obfuscation, DR: that is an assertion from an Obama-birther and your
obvious pro-Obama bias.

"Obama can do no wrong."
--Dead Rat (in principle; if not in statements).

>
>> Presenting a forged document to a court of law as being genuine is a
>> felony; something she was unwilling to risk perhaps?
>
> She wanted to win in the quickest, strongest way. And that was to cut
> the legs out from under the petitioners. Which she did.
>
>> I have always believed; and _still_ believe; that Obama's strategy
>> here is a simple "sleight of hand" move (like a magician) keep the
>> focus on what you _want_ people to see (the COLB controversy) and away
>> from the _real_ issues: Obama's overall incompetence at doing his job.
>
> Well, of course that's what you believe. But you're a birther ignoramus
> (he said redundantly).
>

I'm _still_ not a "birther," you ignoramus.

Unlike you "Obama-bithers," I seek the _whole_ truth: something you
and Obama run away from.

>
> Willard doesn't care about birth certificates, and he'll hammer away
> just fine about Obama's supposed incompetence.
>
>> Let's hear it from an avowed Liberal:
>
> <snipped: irrelevant material/>
>

Whassamatta, DR: can't stand it when one of your own speaks the truth?

Restored:

"The Republicans are running against each other to see who's
going to run against Obama in November, while Obama is still
running against [George W] Bush."
--Whoppi Goldberg; `The View' [ABCtv], 30 Jan 2012
>
>>http://theintelhub.com/2012/04/20/obamas-lawyers-move-to-censor-video...

>
>> Links to the video of the _entire_ hearing (not just the _one_ seqment
>> Snopes wanted you to see) are included in the above story.
>
> Look, there are almost three hours of video. It's not that I don't
> appreciate the information; I just don't have the time to waste on
> birthers. I'll tell you what: *you* watch the videos, find the point

> wehre {SIC} Hill admits to the forgeries, and tell me where that occurs. OK?
>
That's for you to glean, DR: I just provided the links for your
"evidence."

>
>> Oh, and BTW: do not call me a "birther" (a term which can actually
>> work both ways: "Obama was _not_ born in Hawai'i!" / "Obama _was_
>> born in Hawai'i!"): I am a "Truther;" regardless of which way the truth
>> may fall.
>
> No, a "birther" is the contemptuous term for the ignoramuses who simply
> won't accept the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii.
>

Show us where I _ever_ claimed Obama wasn't born in Hawai'i, DR: you
will _not_ find such; no matter how hard you search.

That was just a back-handed ad hominen against me on your part.

>
> If you don't want to be called a birther, don't act like one.
>

Same back to ya; "Obama-birther!"

>
>> I believe that Obama is rightfully the POTUS: I just want to know the
>> answers to the same questions asked by the ones who do not believe:
>
> The answer is always the same: "You're doing it wrong."
>

No: the answer is always the same: you do NOT want to know and will go
to extremes to run away from the answers or obfuscate with your
responses (or sometimes just flat out LIE!).

>
>> 1) Why has Obama gone to the extreme efforts to hide the documentation
>> to his past (school and college transcripts, as just one such
>> example)?;
>
> Obama hasn't gone to any extremes. He's done nothing, literally, on
> this topic. Because no one with any sense cares what happened when
> Obama was 18 to 22 years old.
>

If "Obama hasn't gone to any extremes" as you claim, just _who_ had
all the records sealed, DR: the Easter Rat?

>
>> 2) Since, as the person about whom the Hawai'i birth records concern,
>> he is legally authorized to request a certified photostatic or Xerox
>> PHOTOCOPY (not merely a computerized abstract) of his original
>> Certificate Of Live Birth, _why_ all the deception of creating
>> _proven_ fradulent versions?; and,
>
> There are no fraudulent versions. Generally speaking, all you get these
> days from state Bureaus of Vital Statistics is a COLB. Good in any
> court in the land.
>

But Obama is doing all he can to keep _his_ COLB out an "any court in
the land;" now isn't he, DR?

But we noticed you ran away from the fact and the question about that
fact.

>
> Obama finally asked Hawaii to release his so-called "long form" data.
>

Obfuscation, DR: a computer-generated "long-form" from the database is
_NOT_ a certified photocopy of the original document squirreled away
_somewhere_ within the archives of the Hawai'i Department of Health.

Without retention of the _original_ form, there is no way to _prove_
that the data contained within the electronic database has not been
altered by someone for whatever reason(s).

And the former Hawai'i governor's statement was based _solely_ upon
the database information: not from personal inspection of the
_original_ document.

Moreover, the released "long-form" has also been proven to be an Adobe
Photoshop-created Portable Document and not a simple Adobe scan:

Critics: Obama’s Latest Long-Form Birth Certificate Is a Fake …Update:
More Expert Opinion
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/04/critics-obamas-latest-long-form-birth-certificate-is-a-fake/

PDF Layers in Obama’s Birth Certificate
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding

Proof the Obama Birth Certificate is a fake
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2L5a_KS6iw&feature=related

Barack Obama's Birth Certificate Is A Digitally Layered Photoshop
Fake
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj8wNnB_gew

>
> Which they did. Didn't stop the birthers, though, did it?
>
>> 3) Why do you accept proven fraudulent documents with "no questions
>> asked?"
>
> Why do you accept charges of forgery with no evidence?
>

See above, DR.

>
>> "Inquiring minds want to know."
>
> And you know whose motto that is.
>

Yup! Guess you're going to claim The Enquirer is "right-wing;" eh, DR?

[deadrat]

I'd agree, if they're asses were where Romney sits, in a Presidential race.

>
> After all, there is no requirement that ANY tax return be made public and
> even McCain only showed two years. And no one complained.

McCain spent his entire life at the public trough. To be fair,
including some pretty lean years abroad. I think there was little
question that McCain was up to any financial sleight-of-hand. And
nobody trying to make mileage out of Rmoney's refusal to release tax
returns suggests that the release is required. Ironically, his father
was a pioneer in the custom of full disclosure.

[deadrat]

Of course not. The copy has to have the seal.

[deadrat]

Yeah. If you can't do anything else, you can always serve as a bad example.

> It is for that reason I give his investigation credibility. If he
> says there is criminal conduct on the part of Obama and his minions, I
> tend to think that there is probably criminal conduct.

What would unconvince you? If Arpaio get's his ass kicked in court? It
would have to do with ol' Sheriff Joe, 'cause actual evidence doesn't
seem to interest you.

[deadrat]

Oh, well played! At least when I pull that old trick I have the
intellectual integrity to leave the rest of the post as context.

[JohnJohnsn]

>>>>>> ...should have been vetted BEFORE nomination.

>
>>>>># Please cite the Constitutional provision for "vetting" candidates
>>>>># for federal office.
>
>>>>> There is a requirement for holding office.
>
>>>># The requirements are clear. Please provide the definition of
>>>># "vetting" and the Constitutional basis for "vetting" candidates.
>
>>>>> Everybody else has gotten scrutiny before the fact...but not Obama.
>
>>>># If you don't think the journalists did enough investigating of Obama
>>>># before he was nominated, find these journalists and take it up with
>>>># them. Better yet do your own investigation.
>
>>>># We have Obama's own writings, including his autobiography. We know
>>>># his family, where he went to college, where he went to law school.
>>>># We have the recollections of people who worked on the law review with
>>>># him. We know where he taught Constitutional law. We know the
>>>># education reform commission he served on. We know what church he
>>>># attended. We have copies of his tax returns. We have his record as
>>>># a state senator and as a US senator.
>
>>>># What do you think is missing?
>
>>>> And you believe all that crap? You are spinning like a top.
>
>>>> The fact is that Obama's eligibility is far from certain.
>

I do not believe that: despite all the Photoshop-created "birth
certificates" the White House released.

>
>>>> And a birth certificate that is, without a doubt, NOT a copy is
>>>> insufficient proof.
>
>>> Hmmmmm, a copy of my birth certificate has been accepted whenever
>>> asked for for over 70 years. It is not the original (which was destroyed
>>> in a fire) it is a copy of which I have more than one.
>

>> A correction is needed here: what you lost in the fire was a certified

>> copy of the original; which never leaves the custody of the custodian
>> of the records.
>
>> If yours was like mine, it was a white-on-black photostatic copy of
>> the original and was certified by the custodian as being a true and
>> correct copy of the _original_ black-on-white document filed with the
>> custodian by the doctor, nurse, hospital staff: whoever was tasked
>> with the filing of the Certificate Of Live Birth (by whatever name
>> known: a "birth certificate") for record.
>
>> In the case of Obama's (and most other modern issue/reissue), the
>> custodian has taken "the easy way out" and has included all the hand-
>> or type-written information from the original into an electronic
>> database; which is accessed by computer and entered into the specific
>> locations on the computer-generated abstract of that data.
>
>> NEVERTHESS: if a person demands an actual certified PHOTOCOPY
>> of the original, and is willing to pay the retrieval, reproduction,
>> certification and forwarding costs, the custodians are duty-bound to
>> produce the document in the form of the one(s) we had _originally_.
>
> Please provide a cite to the law that requires this.
>

See below, DR.

> The last time I checked the, the regulations of the Hawaii Department of Health
> (which administers the Hawaii Bureau of Vital Statistics) state that a COLB is
> all that will be issued.
>

"Your reading compression sucks."
--Andy "mrLookout" Hull, Tue, March 22, 2011

Quote the HSDoH/BVS regulation which states that the computer-geneated
COLB is the "ONLY" way they will provide the person whose name is on
the document a certified photocopy of the original record.

Hint: it doesn't say that:

§338-19 Photostatic or typewritten copies of records. The department
of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or
microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which
by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they
can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of
serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the
correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or
microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of
the State with like force and effect as the original. [L 1949, c 327,
§23; RL 1955, §57-22; am L 1957, c 8, §1; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19;
HRS §338-19]
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0019.htm

>
> (These regulations have the force of law.)
>

Yup! See above, DR.

>
> I think that was in response to fears of identity theft after 9/11.
>

You will note that the LAW was created in 1959, DR: just a _few_ years
prior to 09/11/2001.

Also: there was no "identity theft" involved aith the al-Qaeda
hijackers; so that is just another red herring being thrown out on
your part, DR.
>
> Obama did manage to get the "long form" released...
>
No, DR: he released a Photoshopped "copy" and not a photcopy copy

BIG difference (except to you "Obama-birthers").
>
> ...so there must be some way to do it, but I'm skeptical that any law requires it.
>
See above, oh "skeptical" one.

>
>> Which begs the questions:
>
> Which doesn't mean what you think it does.
>

It means what it says, DR.

>
>> a) "WHY didn't Obama do just that in the first place???"; and,
>
> This is just a guess on my part, but I think the answer is two-fold.
> Ignoring birthers let him stay above "teh stupid." He can say, "I've
> got real problems to deal with, and I'm doing the nation's work in
> solving them." But it also kept teh stupid in the limelight. You
> absolutely cannot buy opponents like Orly Taitz and Donald Trump.
> They are loud, ignorant, and gullible, a potent combination that made
> Obama's opposition look like fools.
>

And like I wrote: keeps focus _off_ Obama's overall incompetence as
POTUS.

I give him credit here: that's a smart tactic.

>
>> b) "WHY hasn't he done that yet???"
>
> Where ya been, Sparky, with you're oh-so-inquiring mind?
>
> Go here:
> www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/us/politics/28obama.html
>

"With Document, Obama Seeks to End ‘Birther’ Issue"

It _should_ have been titled: "With PHOTOSHOP-created Document, Obama
Seeks to End ‘Birther’ Issue"

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/87117/pages/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate-p1-normal.gif

Not really "long;" now is it, DR? <chuckle> ;)

Mine is "legal-size" (8½ inches by 14 inches) and is white typing and
signature on a black background (the old "photostatic copy" form of
document reproduction).

Of course, mine is _considerably_ older than one from Obama's birth
era (1961); so "HMMV."

>
>> "Inquiring minds want to know."
>
>> Of course, the "Lib-birthers" will shout out: "He doesn't HAVE to!!!
>> Just look at the ones he's _already_ released!!!"
>
> "Lib-birthers" are just figments of your imagination.
>

No, DR: it's a "term of art" I created to describe Obama Cool-Aide
drinking Obamanauts like yourself.

What's _your_ favorite flavor, DR? <chuckle> ;)

>
> There are no "Lib-birthers" with sites dedicated to birth certificate theories,
> no "Lib-birtheres" filing law suits and holding press conferences.
> There are people who respond to the various birther lies, but it's all response.
>

Funny, DR: you seem to be "dedicated" to posting your own falsehoods
and theories here -- and this is a "web site" (Google Groups); isn't
it?

[deadrat]

It's what everybody gets these days when they ask for a certified copy
of their birth certificate. There's no mystery about this.

And it only "seems ... falsified" if you're a birther.

[Wayne]

"deadrat" wrote in message
news:MPGdnY6MB6imApXN...@giganews.com...

# Of course not. The copy has to have the seal.

So we are waiting for you to explain how a document originated on a single
sheet of paper can be copied and end up with several layers...for
example:one for the form, one for the data, one for signatures, etc.
That technology did not exist when the document was recorded.

[deadrat]

OK, I'll type slower so you can follow. This is a good legal strategy,
the quickest course to victory. If you exclude the other side's claimed
evidence, you tend to win immediately.

Clear now?

>>
>> Obama finally asked Hawaii to release his so-called "long form" data.
>>
> Obfuscation, DR: a computer-generated "long-form" from the database is
> _NOT_ a certified photocopy of the original document squirreled away
> _somewhere_ within the archives of the Hawai'i Department of Health.

Go here:

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2011/04/politics/interactive.obama.birth.certificate/index.html

It's not computer-generated. It's a scanned copy of the certified ocpy
of the original, with signatures and hand-written dates.

Conspiracy to forge in 3, 2, 1, ....

>
> Without retention of the _original_ form, there is no way to _prove_
> that the data contained within the electronic database has not been
> altered by someone for whatever reason(s).

It's a certified copy of a signed document. Hawaii retains the original.

Conspiracy to forge in 3, 2, 1, ....

>
> And the former Hawai'i governor's statement was based _solely_ upon
> the database information: not from personal inspection of the
> _original_ document.

Not what Lingle says.

> Moreover, the released "long-form" has also been proven to be an Adobe
> Photoshop-created Portable Document and not a simple Adobe scan:

Conspiracy to forge, .... now! Provide evidence that the document was
photoshopped. The document shows that it was created by a scanner and
its related scanning software.

> Critics: Obama�s Latest Long-Form Birth Certificate Is a Fake �Update:

> More Expert Opinion
> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/04/critics-obamas-latest-long-form-birth-certificate-is-a-fake/
>

> PDF Layers in Obama�s Birth Certificate
> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding

Do you even read the sources you post? This one says about the
artifacts that are claimed forgeries: "Quite simply, they look like
they were created programmatically, not by a human."

>
> Proof the Obama Birth Certificate is a fake
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2L5a_KS6iw&feature=related
>
> Barack Obama's Birth Certificate Is A Digitally Layered Photoshop
> Fake
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj8wNnB_gew

The layers theory of forgery is easily refuted. Look online just the
way I did.

The real problem isn't your bogus experts "analysis," but the fact that
everybody in the Hawaii Bureau of Vital Statistics would have to be in
on a conspiracy to remain silent in the fact of the White House
presenting a birth certificate that they didn't get from the HBVS.

>> Which they did. Didn't stop the birthers, though, did it?
>>
>>> 3) Why do you accept proven fraudulent documents with "no questions
>>> asked?"
>>
>> Why do you accept charges of forgery with no evidence?
>>
> See above, DR.

None of that is credible evidence.

>>> "Inquiring minds want to know."
>>
>> And you know whose motto that is.
>>
> Yup! Guess you're going to claim The Enquirer is "right-wing;" eh, DR?

Does _The Enquirer_ even have a political bias? I thought it was just
tabloid trash. What's political about reporting about women having
space alien babies?