Re: OMG - Sheriff Joe makes stunning discovery re forgerygate

[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
>

[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.

> 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.
>

[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.

[David Hartung]

Your evidence?

[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.

[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?

[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]

On 7/19/12 9:51 AM, K Wills wrote:

> 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.

>> 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?

[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.

[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:

> 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?

[deadrat]

Easy, it wasn't copied; it was scanned. That's exactly the way a
scanner works.

> for
> example:one for the form, one for the data, one for signatures, etc.
> That technology did not exist when the document was recorded.

Do you really not understand that what the White House has is a piece of
paper and what was released was a scanned image of that piece of paper?

Do you really not understand that scanner software will make layers on
its way to constructing a pdf?

Do you really not understand that the layers do not correspond the way
you claim?

[deadrat]

> �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.

Yup! The department says what it's authorized to give out. And that's
what you get. Please cite the law that says you can force them to give
you something else.

>> 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.

All you get these days is the COLB. That's newer. Unless you're the
President and Hawaii decides to accede to your wishes.

>
> 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.

Can you really be this ignorant? Even I'm having trouble believing it.

>>
>> Obama did manage to get the "long form" released...
>>
> No, DR: he released a Photoshopped "copy" and not a photcopy copy

He got a certified photocopy; he released a scan. Only birther
ignoramuses thing it was "photoshopped." Ignoramuses like you.

> 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.

You've provided no law that says you can demand and get a different
document from the one that the HBVS authorizes. Go ahead and find one.

I'll wait.

>>
>>> Which begs the questions:
>>
>> Which doesn't mean what you think it does.
>>
> It means what it says, DR.

Of course. You just don't understand what it says. Hint: "begs" here
doesn't mean "begs to be asked."

>>> 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.

Your opinion is noted. Also the fact that you're a diamantine ignoramus.

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

Let's tell him. I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear it.

>>> 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

It was scanned, not photoshopped, birther.

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

Oh, sorry. It wasn't "long" enough for you? Take it up with the Hawaii
BVS.
>
> Mine is "legal-size" (8� inches by 14 inches) and is white typing and

> signature on a black background (the old "photostatic copy" form of
> document reproduction).

Oh, well, then, you should be President.

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

And evidently does.

>>> "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.

Well la-ti-da! It's a "term of art" is it? One you made up. Well,
aren't you just the legend in your own mind. You'll have to get
everyone else to adopt that "term of art" immediately.

Good luck with that.

But I like "Cool-Aide." Inadvertent humor?

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

I like evidence. I recommend it to you. In your case, it will take
some getting used to.

>> 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 --

Translation from birther: stuff I don't like

> and this is a "web site" (Google Groups); isn't it?

Er, no, it isn't. And even if it were, it wouldn't be dedicated to me.

[JohnJohnsn]

And still are.

Still no answer, DR?

>
>>>> 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.
>
> 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?
>

What's abunduntly "clear" is that "Your reading compression sucks." [--
Andy "mrLookout" Hull, Tue, March 22, 2011]

Let me "copy-&-paste" the question S_L_O_W_L_Y_ here, DR:

"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?"

Ya wanna try that again DR?

I'll make it even easier for you:

"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..."

The source law was previously supplied to you.

>
>>> 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.
>

The "safety paper" wasn't available in 1961, DR.

Moreover; the signatures and date-stamping issue is explained below.

>
> 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.
>

Non sequitur, DR.

>
> 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.
>

Lingle said "her administration had `seen' the document: not that
_she_ had seen it.

Moreover; she "sealed" the "original" from _anyone_ getting to it.

Yet, Obama _conveniently_ got a so-called copy of it _after_ Libgle's
successor, Neil Abercrombie said he was going to look into it for his
butt-buddy Obama; but then "crawfished" and said the original couldn't
be found.

YET, Obama comes up with a "copy" of the "original" after it couldn't
be found!?!

It gets "curiouser and curiouser." (`Obama in Wonderland')

>
>> 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.
>

Asked; answered, and _ignored_ by Obama-birthers like you, DR.

>
> 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-fo...

>
>> PDF Layers in Obama’s Birth Certificate

>>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-c...

>
> 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."
>

Because they were?

>
>> 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.
>

Your source didn't prove anything, DR:

President Obama's birth certificate

The White House released copies of President Barack Obama's original
long-form birth certificate Wednesday, seeking to put an end to
persistent rumors that he was not born in the United States. Below is
a digital copy of the original birth certificate released by the White
House on Wednesday. Click through to see the previously released
legally binding "certification of live birth," and the correpondence
between the White House and the Hawaii Department of Health in order
to obtain the copy of the original.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/interactive/2011/04/politics/interactive.obama.birth.certificate/birth_certificate_whitehouse.jpg
Source: State of Hawaii via the White House

-Ibid.

But, But, But, But...the Governor said it couldn't be found!?!?!

Hawaii governor can't find Obama birth certificate
...
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today
that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack
Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii
Department of Health.

Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star Advertiser he was searching within
the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that
would prove Obama was born in Hawaii, because the continuing
eligibility controversy could hurt the president’s chances of re-
election in 2012.

Donalyn Dela Cruz, Abercrombie’s spokeswoman in Honolulu, ignored
again today another in a series of repeated requests made by WND for
an interview with the governor.

Toward the end of the interview, the newspaper asked Abercrombie: “You
stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers
and your plan to release more information regarding President Barack
Obama’s birth certificate. How is that coming?”

In his response, Abercrombie acknowledged the birth certificate issue
will have “political implications” for the next presidential election
“that we simply cannot have.”

Suggesting he was still intent on producing more birth records on
Obama from the Hawaii Department of Health vital records vault,
Abercrombie told the newspaper there was a recording of the Obama
birth in the state archives that he wants to make public.

Abercrombie did not report to the newspaper that he or the Hawaii
Department of Health had found Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated
birth certificate. The governor only suggested his investigations to
date had identified an unspecified listing or notation of Obama’s
birth that someone had made in the state archives.

“It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is
showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down,”
Abercrombie said.

For seemingly the first time, Abercrombie frankly acknowledged that
presidential politics motivated his search for Obama birth records,
implying that failure to resolve the questions that remain unanswered
about the president’s birth and early life may damage his chance for
re-election.
...
http://www.wnd.com/2011/01/252833/

>
> 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.
>

Two words here, DR: "Manhatten Project."

>
>>> 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.
>

Not to OBama-birthers like you.

>
>>>> "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.
>

Then what was your purpose of bringing it up then?

>
> What's political about reporting about women having
> space alien babies?
>

Was she your Mamma, DR?

[JohnJohnsn]

You didn't quote the "law" wherein you claimed that the computer-
generated document was the _ONLY_ one you can get, DR.

>
>> 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/HR...

>
>>> (These regulations have the force of law.)
>
>> Yup! See above, DR.
>
> Yup! The department says what it's authorized to give out. And that's
> what you get.
>

What part of "The department of health is authorized to prepare
typewritten, photostatic, or
microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office..."
did you NOT understnad, DR.

I'll type it _S_L_O_W_L_Y_:

P_H_O_T_O_S_T_A_T_I_C__C_O_P_I_E_S_.

Did you get it _this_ time???

[Rhetorical question]

>
> Please cite the law that says you can force them to give
> you something else.
>

ROTFL!

Read the law above for "compression," 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.
>
> All you get these days is the COLB. That's newer.
>

But that's _not_ what the Hawai'ian LAW says, DR.

>
> Unless you're the President and Hawaii decides to accede to your wishes.
>

So; you believe that Obama should get "special treatment" WRT
obtaining a certified PHOTOSTATIC copy of _his_ birth record; are we
reading this correctly, DR?

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
--George Orwell, `Animal Farm,' 17 August 1945

>
>> 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.
>
> Can you really be this ignorant? Even I'm having trouble believing it.
>

Show us where there was _any_ evidence that _any_ of the 9/11
hijackers were identity thieves, DR.

>
>>> Obama did manage to get the "long form" released...
>
>> No, DR: he released a Photoshopped "copy" and not a photcopy copy
>
> He got a certified photocopy; he released a scan. Only birther
> ignoramuses thing it was "photoshopped." Ignoramuses like you.
>

Ad hominem noted, Dead Rat.

>
>> 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.
>
> You've provided no law that says you can demand and get a different
> document from the one that the HBVS authorizes. Go ahead and find one.
>
> I'll wait.
>

Are you _really_ this obtuse, DR?

The LAW cited above states that a photostatic copy is one of the
methods of complying with an authorized requesters birth record
request.

Thing of it is, WRT the COLB released; probably 99+% of the people
making such requests use the state-provided downloadable "Fill-in-the-
blank" request form and the HSDoH/BVS takes the "easy way out" by
printing out the database-connected abstract.

A person who wants more would have to SPELL IT OUT in a letter request
and pay any/all "extra fees" (if they are even legally authorized to
demand such fees over and above those established statute).

>
>>>> Which begs the questions:
>
>>> Which doesn't mean what you think it does.
>
>> It means what it says, DR.
>
> Of course. You just don't understand what it says.
> Hint: "begs" here doesn't mean "begs to be asked."
>

Non sequitur.

>
>>>> 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.
>
> Your opinion is noted. Also the fact that you're a diamantine ignoramus.
>

Hey, lurkers: what's the record for Liberal ad hominem attacks within
a single response?

Is the Dear Rat Democrat nearing the record here?

Fact is, the birth certificate fiasco had pretty much died out (with
specific exceptions, of course) and the general public's focus had
shifted back to Obama's abysmal record as POTUS; hence the "long-form
COLB" release to "quiet the controversy;" which regenerated the
interest back away from his abysmal record.

>
>> I give him credit here: that's a smart tactic.
>
> Let's tell him. I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear it.
>

Go ahead, Dead Rat: you seem to have his "ear" here (or at least his
"Book of Democrat Talking Points").

>
>>>> 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-lo...

>
> It was scanned, not photoshopped, birther.
>

Care to explain why the left edge of the "original, non-Photoshopped"
document is curled up and has that obvious gap, DR?

Oh, and how can it be a "scan" of a document Hawai'i Governor Neil
Abercrombie is on record as being "unable to be found"?

Hawaii governor can't find Obama birth certificate

http://www.wnd.com/2011/01/252833/

>
>> Not really "long;" now is it, DR? <chuckle> ;)
>
> Oh, sorry. It wasn't "long" enough for you? Take it up with the Hawaii
> BVS.
>

You are truly "humor-impared;" aren't you, DR?
>
>> 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).
>
> Oh, well, then, you should be President.
>

Couldn't afford the paycut for all the headaches that go with it, DR.

>
>> Of course, mine is _considerably_ older than one from Obama's birth
>> era (1961); so "HMMV."
>
> And evidently does.
>
>>>> "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.
>
> Well la-ti-da! It's a "term of art" is it? One you made up. Well,
> aren't you just the legend in your own mind. You'll have to get
> everyone else to adopt that "term of art" immediately.
>
> Good luck with that.
>

Watch its use pick up here, DR.

>
> But I like "Cool-Aide." Inadvertent humor?
>

Freudian slip there, DR?

The General Foods drink is spelled with a "K" and no "e"

The above spelling was directed to those of you who "slurp" at Obama's
table (like those at Jonestown):

"[Jim] Jones cast himself as a politically progressive and was
embraced by liberal politicians such as U.S. Representatives Phillip
and John Burton, Assemblyman Willie Brown and Mayor George Moscone."
...
http://www.rickross.com/reference/jonestown/jonestown4.html

Here in 2012, Liberals like you gravitite to the "new Jim Jones:"
Barack Hussein Obama II.

>
>> What's _your_ favorite flavor, DR? <chuckle> ;)
>
> I like evidence. I recommend it to you. In your case, it will take
> some getting used to.
>
>>> 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 --
>
> Translation from birther: stuff I don't like
>

Repeating the ad hominem doesn't make it true, Dead Rat; no matter how
many times you repeat it:

"Insanity [is] doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results."
--Albert Einstein
>
>> ...and this is a "web site" (Google Groups); isn't it?

>
> Er, no, it isn't.
>

Google Groups "isn't" a "web site," DR?!?

Better tell Google, `cause _they_ sure believe it is!

http://groups.google.com/

>
> And even if it were, it wouldn't be dedicated to me.
>

"Your reading compression [STILL] sucks."

It's _you_ who are a dedicated Obama-birhter Obamanaut who has
_dedicated_ yourself to this Thread.

But, I'm through with your stupidity, lying, ad hominem attacks and
obfuscation, DR; so Q.E.D.

[deadrat]

You can't even spell faux pas. Which one? Using a masculine pronoun to
refer to Hill? Check your attributions.

>>>>> 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.

You are a very confused person. At least about the law and legal procedure.

>>>> ...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.

No, what she said was that even if the petitioners had a certified copy
of Obama's birth certificate, it's presentation would not be allowed
under New Jersey law.

But suppose she had said that the documents had never been introduced in
any court. So what? It's true.

>>>>> 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

Great. A site defending Rush Limbaugh. Did you even read what it said?
A claim that snopes is leftist, and some whining about how snopes
worded one of their findings. If snopes.com is a bad source, you can't
establish that by a conservative site's opinions of snopes.com. You'll
have to document that they're wrong in what they publish.

Sorry, that's how it works.

>>>>> 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.

That's what we're discussing here: Hill's statements during the hearing
in New Jersey.

>>> 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).

It's in quotes, but I never posted it. I disagree with Obama on many
issues, but don't post about them because really, who cares what my
opinion is?

>>>>> 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.

You're waddling and quacking, but you tell me you're not a duck.

>>> 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:

<snipped again as irrelevant to this birther discussion/>

>>>>> 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."

So you haven't watched it either. It's your claim, and if you can't be
bothered to view the supposed evidence, don't expect me to do your homework.

>>>>> 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.

Still waddling and quacking, I see.

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

Ad hominem. And no, I'm not attacking your argument by attacking you
personally. I'm saying you've got no solid evidence but believe the
claims anyway.

>>>> If you don't want to be called a birther, don't act like one.
>>
>>> Same back to ya; "Obama-birther!"

Translation from birther: Don't confuse me with evidence and logic. I
hate that.

>>>>> 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!).

You can check any claim I make, just the way I check yours. You'll get
the opposite results, of course.

>>>>> 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?

What records do you claim are "sealed," his college records? That's
crazy birther talk, my anatine friend.

> Still no answer, DR?

What records are you talking about?

Sure, first tell me why I'm paying attention of mrLookout. Then tell me
what "proof" you have. "Proven" is a pretty strong word, and it doesn't
apply to what you've got.

>
> I'll make it even easier for you:
>
> "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..."
>
> The source law was previously supplied to you.

Sorry, but I missed it. My bad. What was the title number in the
Hawaii Revised Statutes again?

>>>> 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.
>>
> The "safety paper" wasn't available in 1961, DR.

That's the type of paper they use nowadays to copy the original onto.
What's so hard about this?

> Moreover; the signatures and date-stamping issue is explained below.
>>
>> 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.
>>
> Non sequitur, DR.

Oh, Sparky, just because you can't follow it, doesn't make it a non
sequitur.

>> 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.
>>
> Lingle said "her administration had `seen' the document: not that
> _she_ had seen it.

OK, I stand corrected. Lingle said that the head of the Department of
Health has seen it. But really, whom would you believe?

> Moreover; she "sealed" the "original" from _anyone_ getting to it.

Cite, please.

> Yet, Obama _conveniently_ got a so-called copy of it _after_ Libgle's
> successor, Neil Abercrombie said he was going to look into it for his
> butt-buddy Obama; but then "crawfished" and said the original couldn't
> be found.

Not what he told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser in 2011. This rumor
started because a reporter claiming to be a friend of Abercrombie said
that Abercrombie had told him that the original couldn't be found.

Look up "hearsay."

>
> YET, Obama comes up with a "copy" of the "original" after it couldn't
> be found!?!

So you've swallowed some reporter's story and now believe like a good
birther that the records can't be found. Admit it, there's no evidence
that could possibly convince you.

> It gets "curiouser and curiouser." (`Obama in Wonderland')

Only if you're a gullible ignoramus.

>>> 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.
>>
> Asked; answered, and _ignored_ by Obama-birthers like you, DR.
>>
>> 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-fo...
>>

>>> PDF Layers in Obama�s Birth Certificate

>>> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-c...
>>
>> 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."
>>
> Because they were?

Yes, they were. Created by scanner software.

>>> 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.
>>
> Your source didn't prove anything, DR:

It's from a Fox News report. Not good enough for you?

>
> President Obama's birth certificate
>
> The White House released copies of President Barack Obama's original
> long-form birth certificate Wednesday, seeking to put an end to
> persistent rumors that he was not born in the United States. Below is
> a digital copy of the original birth certificate released by the White
> House on Wednesday. Click through to see the previously released
> legally binding "certification of live birth," and the correpondence
> between the White House and the Hawaii Department of Health in order
> to obtain the copy of the original.
>
> http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/interactive/2011/04/politics/interactive.obama.birth.certificate/birth_certificate_whitehouse.jpg
> Source: State of Hawaii via the White House
>
> -Ibid.
>
> But, But, But, But...the Governor said it couldn't be found!?!?!

No, he didn't. A reporter claims he did. The governor says otherwise.

> Hawaii governor can't find Obama birth certificate
> ...
> Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today
> that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack
> Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii
> Department of Health.

No, he didn't. Here's what he said in the interview
<quote>
It was actually written, I am told. This is what our investigation is
showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down.
</quote>

The World Nut Daily reported instead that the governor had said that the
records didn't exist. And you bought it without checking.

> Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star Advertiser he was searching within
> the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that
> would prove Obama was born in Hawaii, because the continuing

> eligibility controversy could hurt the president�s chances of re-
> election in 2012.
>
> Donalyn Dela Cruz, Abercrombie�s spokeswoman in Honolulu, ignored

> again today another in a series of repeated requests made by WND for
> an interview with the governor.
>

> Toward the end of the interview, the newspaper asked Abercrombie: �You

> stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers
> and your plan to release more information regarding President Barack

> Obama�s birth certificate. How is that coming?�

>
> In his response, Abercrombie acknowledged the birth certificate issue

> will have �political implications� for the next presidential election
> �that we simply cannot have.�

None of the above four paragraphs have Abercrombie saying that the
records couldn't be found. In the interview, he says the opposite.

> Suggesting he was still intent on producing more birth records on
> Obama from the Hawaii Department of Health vital records vault,
> Abercrombie told the newspaper there was a recording of the Obama
> birth in the state archives that he wants to make public.
>
> Abercrombie did not report to the newspaper that he or the Hawaii

> Department of Health had found Obama�s long-form, hospital-generated

> birth certificate. The governor only suggested his investigations to

> date had identified an unspecified listing or notation of Obama�s

> birth that someone had made in the state archives.
>

> �It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is
> showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down,�
> Abercrombie said.

So really the governor said that he was told that the records actually
exist, but yet you believe he said the opposite. Why?

>
> For seemingly the first time, Abercrombie frankly acknowledged that
> presidential politics motivated his search for Obama birth records,
> implying that failure to resolve the questions that remain unanswered

> about the president�s birth and early life may damage his chance for

> re-election.
> ...
> http://www.wnd.com/2011/01/252833/
>>
>> 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.
>>
> Two words here, DR: "Manhatten Project."

You can't even spell "Manhattan Project," which enforced draconian rules
of secrecy and compartmentalization under military administration and in
an era long preceding the communications networks we have now. And the
Russians ended up with the information anyway.

Try again. Perhaps with the moon landing "hoax"?

>>>> 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.
>>
> Not to OBama-birthers like you.

Not to anybody who actually checks his sources.

>>>>> "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.
>>
> Then what was your purpose of bringing it up then?

Whoosh!

<snip/>

[deadrat]

>>> �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/HR...
>>
>>>> (These regulations have the force of law.)
>>
>>> Yup! See above, DR.
>>
>> Yup! The department says what it's authorized to give out. And that's
>> what you get.
>>
> What part of "The department of health is authorized to prepare
> typewritten, photostatic, or
> microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office..."
> did you NOT understnad, DR.
>
> I'll type it _S_L_O_W_L_Y_:
>
> P_H_O_T_O_S_T_A_T_I_C__C_O_P_I_E_S_.
>
> Did you get it _this_ time???

Sure, they're authorized to prepare photostatic copies. I should have
said, "You get what they decide to give you." If you don't like what
you get, you can't force them to produce something you'd prefer.

> [Rhetorical question]
>>
>> Please cite the law that says you can force them to give
>> you something else.
>>
> ROTFL!
>
> Read the law above for "compression," 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.
>>
>> All you get these days is the COLB. That's newer.
>>
> But that's _not_ what the Hawai'ian LAW says, DR.

The law says they're authorized to provide photostatic copies, which
they did for Obama. That's not what you get when you ask for your
Hawaiian birth certificate, and the law doesn't give you the power to
force them to give you what you want.

>> Unless you're the President and Hawaii decides to accede to your wishes.
>>
> So; you believe that Obama should get "special treatment" WRT
> obtaining a certified PHOTOSTATIC copy of _his_ birth record; are we
> reading this correctly, DR?

Nope. I think he should get what everybody gets.

> "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
> --George Orwell, `Animal Farm,' 17 August 1945

Try reading for comprehension. He got special treatment. I didn't say
that's what I think should have happened.

>>> 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.
>>
>> Can you really be this ignorant? Even I'm having trouble believing it.
>>
> Show us where there was _any_ evidence that _any_ of the 9/11
> hijackers were identity thieves, DR.

Wow! You really are ignorant, aren't you? Try thinking a little harder
about why new rules went into place even though they wouldn't have
applied to the hijackers. Don't hurt yourself.

>>>> Obama did manage to get the "long form" released...
>>
>>> No, DR: he released a Photoshopped "copy" and not a photcopy copy
>>
>> He got a certified photocopy; he released a scan. Only birther
>> ignoramuses thing it was "photoshopped." Ignoramuses like you.
>>
> Ad hominem noted, Dead Rat.

You are an ignoramus. That just means you're ignorant. Everyone is
about some things at some times. This topic is just your special area
of ignorance. I'm not saying you're stupid. *That* would be an ad hominem.

>>> 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.
>>
>> You've provided no law that says you can demand and get a different
>> document from the one that the HBVS authorizes. Go ahead and find one.
>>
>> I'll wait.
>>
> Are you _really_ this obtuse, DR?
>
> The LAW cited above states that a photostatic copy is one of the
> methods of complying with an authorized requesters birth record
> request.

It is, but if you don't like what they actually give you, what law says
you can force them to give you something else? It might exist. I
haven't checked the HBVS lately. Maybe they have an appeals process?

Do they?

>
> Thing of it is, WRT the COLB released; probably 99+% of the people
> making such requests use the state-provided downloadable "Fill-in-the-
> blank" request form and the HSDoH/BVS takes the "easy way out" by
> printing out the database-connected abstract.
>
> A person who wants more would have to SPELL IT OUT in a letter request
> and pay any/all "extra fees" (if they are even legally authorized to
> demand such fees over and above those established statute).

Please document that it's possible for you to do that.

>>>>> Which begs the questions:
>>
>>>> Which doesn't mean what you think it does.
>>
>>> It means what it says, DR.
>>
>> Of course. You just don't understand what it says.
>> Hint: "begs" here doesn't mean "begs to be asked."
>>
> Non sequitur.

Oh, Sparky, just because you can't follow it doesn't make it a non sequitur.

>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Your opinion is noted. Also the fact that you're a diamantine ignoramus.
>>
> Hey, lurkers: what's the record for Liberal ad hominem attacks within
> a single response?

Look up "ad hominem."

> Is the Dear Rat Democrat nearing the record here?
>
> Fact is, the birth certificate fiasco had pretty much died out (with
> specific exceptions, of course) and the general public's focus had
> shifted back to Obama's abysmal record as POTUS; hence the "long-form
> COLB" release to "quiet the controversy;" which regenerated the
> interest back away from his abysmal record.

Er, thanks for sharing?

>>> I give him credit here: that's a smart tactic.
>>
>> Let's tell him. I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear it.
>>
> Go ahead, Dead Rat: you seem to have his "ear" here (or at least his
> "Book of Democrat Talking Points").

Yeah, facts and logic. I'll stick with those. You can sit with Orly
Taitz and Donald Trump.s

>>>>> 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-lo...
>>
>> It was scanned, not photoshopped, birther.
>>
> Care to explain why the left edge of the "original, non-Photoshopped"
> document is curled up and has that obvious gap, DR?

The "orginal" here is the piece of paper received from the HBVS. Even
assuming the scanned document is "curled up," so what?

> Oh, and how can it be a "scan" of a document Hawai'i Governor Neil
> Abercrombie is on record as being "unable to be found"?

This isn't true. Abercrombie is actually on the record as saying the
opposite, which you'd know if you checked.

> Hawaii governor can't find Obama birth certificate
> http://www.wnd.com/2011/01/252833/

There's no such quotes from the governor in this article.

>>> Not really "long;" now is it, DR? <chuckle> ;)
>>
>> Oh, sorry. It wasn't "long" enough for you? Take it up with the Hawaii
>> BVS.
>>
> You are truly "humor-impared;" aren't you, DR?

Sorry. My bad. I can't tell your attempts at factual reporting from
your "humor." It would help if you somehow marked the stuff that you
don't want me to take seriously.

>>> Mine is "legal-size" (8� inches by 14 inches) and is white typing and

>>> signature on a black background (the old "photostatic copy" form of
>>> document reproduction).
>>
>> Oh, well, then, you should be President.
>>
> Couldn't afford the paycut for all the headaches that go with it, DR.

A loss for all of us, I guess.

>>> Of course, mine is _considerably_ older than one from Obama's birth
>>> era (1961); so "HMMV."
>>
>> And evidently does.
>>
>>>>> "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.
>>
>> Well la-ti-da! It's a "term of art" is it? One you made up. Well,
>> aren't you just the legend in your own mind. You'll have to get
>> everyone else to adopt that "term of art" immediately.
>>
>> Good luck with that.
>>
> Watch its use pick up here, DR.

Shall I hold my breath?

>> But I like "Cool-Aide." Inadvertent humor?
>>
> Freudian slip there, DR?

If you say so.

> The General Foods drink is spelled with a "K" and no "e"

The "e" on the end was what I thought was amusing.

<snipped: labored and unintendedly ironic explanation about how Obama
is a cult leader/>

>>> What's _your_ favorite flavor, DR? <chuckle> ;)
>>
>> I like evidence. I recommend it to you. In your case, it will take
>> some getting used to.
>>
>>>> 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 --
>>
>> Translation from birther: stuff I don't like
>>
> Repeating the ad hominem doesn't make it true, Dead Rat; no matter how
> many times you repeat it:

Just a public service for people who aren't fluent in birther blather.

>
> "Insanity [is] doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
> different results."
> --Albert Einstein

Guess what, birther? There's no more evidence that Einstein said this
than there is that Obama's birth certificate is forged.

Would you like to cite from Einstein's work for this quote?

I didn't think so.

>>> ...and this is a "web site" (Google Groups); isn't it?
>>
>> Er, no, it isn't.
>>
> Google Groups "isn't" a "web site," DR?!?
>
> Better tell Google, `cause _they_ sure believe it is!
>
> http://groups.google.com/

Well, OK, you've got a point. Google dumps the newsgroup contents into
a web site. The groups themselves aren't web sites.

>> And even if it were, it wouldn't be dedicated to me.
>>
> "Your reading compression [STILL] sucks."
>
> It's _you_ who are a dedicated Obama-birhter Obamanaut who has
> _dedicated_ yourself to this Thread.

It's a public service I perform to show birthers as the ignoramuses they
are. The newsgroup still isn't dedicated to my efforts in this.

> But, I'm through with your stupidity, lying, ad hominem attacks and
> obfuscation, DR; so Q.E.D.

Translation from birther blather: Don't confuse me with facts and logic
or I'll leave.

As always, it's up to you. Farewell, Brave Sir Robin.