Prediction: Obama will not run in Arizona over birth certificate

[Flagwavrusa]

Can one imagine the loonies on the right when Hillary wins in 2016? I wonder if they will claim she is a robot. Gosh, that's my predication, the loonies on the right will go even crazier. All we need after that is a Black democratic woman president, and we will have to reopen all those insane asylums so the right has a place to live and be among their peers. FactCheck.org: Has Obama's birth certificate been disclosed?

You might have more credibility of your links worked. The fact is, Obama has never produced a bc for anyone. He released a Certificate Of Live Birth which does not prove that he was born in Hawaii. Nice try though.

 

[kwc57]

From the Honolulu Star Advertiser:
Abercrombie drops effort to disclose more information on Obama birth certificate - Hawaii News - Staradvertiser.com
AP/Yahoo!
Hawaii law bars release of Obama birth info - Yahoo! News
Hawaii Reporter;
Gov. Neil Abercrombie Has Utterly Failed To Prove Obama Was Born In Hawaii | Hawaii Reporter
UPI:
Hawaii gov says state has Obama birth form - UPI.com
ABC News:
Obama Birth: Hawaii Gov. Says Proof of President's Birth Certificate Exists But Hasn't Produced the Document - ABC News
The Daily Mail:
Hawaii governor says Obama's birth record 'exists' but can't produce it | Mail Online

I fail to see how this quote from your fist link.......

Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie will end his quest to prove President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii because it's against state law to release private documents, his office said today.

State Attorney General David Louie told the governor he can't disclose an individual's birth documentation without a person's consent, Abercrombie spokeswoman Donalyn Dela Cruz said.

"There is nothing more that Gov. Abercrombie can do within the law to produce a document," said Dela Cruz. "Unfortunately, there are conspirators who will continue to question the citizenship of our president."

......in any way supports the OP's opinion of.......

The sitting Governor of Hawaii is publicly stating, today in the mainstream media, that there is no Obama birth certificate.

Once again:

Sorry, the firewall at work doesn't allow streaming media. All I see is a big white square.

 

[martybegan]

Can one imagine the loonies on the right when Hillary wins in 2016? I wonder if they will claim she is a robot. Gosh, that's my predication, the loonies on the right will go even crazier. All we need after that is a Black democratic woman president, and we will have to reopen all those insane asylums so the right has a place to live and be among their peers. FactCheck.org: Has Obama's birth certificate been disclosed?

You might have more credibility of your links worked. The fact is, Obama has never produced a bc for anyone. He released a Certificate Of Live Birth which does not prove that he was born in Hawaii. Nice try though.

The document specifically states that the location was Oahu Hawaii. How is that not prove he was born there? it gives a time. It is an offical state document stating he was born there.

But of course that isnt enough, because to people who beleive he isnt a citizen it will never be enough. Even if they produce the hand written original birthers will then state that somehow its a forgery.

 

[BlindBoo]

Try to keep up with the latest information. Abercrombie is now admitting to friends and colleagues that he looked for the bc in government records, and in the only two Hawaian hospitals where Obama could have been born. Its not there!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvrb7YqdvxE

If anti-birthers are so right, why do they always have to misstate the facts.

Funny thing, I didn't hear Gov. Ambercrombie speak on that recording. All that recording proves is someone is claiming that the Gov. said that. He said, she said bullshit.

Not quite. Mike Evans, the reporter in the video, is a former New York Post reporter and currently hosts the syndicated "On The Road With Mike Evans" Hollywood report. He is also a personal friend of Niel Abercrombie. Each time this reporter makes a statement on air his professional credentials and his public and private reputation are on the line. Is he going to manufacture a story like this and risk ending his career? I don't think so. He would not be saying this unless he had the go ahead from the governor.

Moreover, do you think that Governor Abercrombie would stand idly by and let someone take advantage of his friendship by attributing a statement to him about a front page controversial issue concerning the President that was not true? I think he would immediately issue a statement disavowing what the reporter was saying so as to correct the record. In this case, I think Governor Abercrombie's silence leaves little doubt that we can trust what the reporter is saying.

Frankly I don't care what you think. Gov. Abercrombie is not on that tape. I'll wait and see what the Gov. has to says if anything about this allegation.

We know for a fact that Hawaian law prevents him for disclosing the record.

Isn't Michelle Malkin on with the NY Post? But I imagine you find her a bastion of truth, right?

 

[FA_Q2]

1. Personally I have no problem with any state having a law that says that any candidate for any elected position must submit documented evidence they meet all requirements for the position for which they are seeking election.

2. I also think that passing a law specifically targeting one individual position is suspect in terms of partisan hackery.

3. Even if Obama were to submit a birth certificate to each state showing birth in Hawaii, it wouldn't quite some because the issue for them is Obama's father not being a United States Citizen.

4. There has never been a Supreme Court case which directly concerned Presidential eligibility in terms of NBC status.



Politically speaking, if Arizona does pass the law and Obama bypasses Arizona in a bid for reelection - he's toast.


>>>>

1. Agree
2. This can be said to address the FIRST time that a situation has occurred rather than the person himself. I believe that the laws are coming because of the controversy though it is unlikely that the same would occur in these particular states if there was a republican in the seat. I would bet that there would be the same measures in other states though. IMHO, I am strongly for a law like this not because of this president but because I am tired of this controversy and do not want to see this shameful crap happening again.
3. That's the problem with the blithers. Had it been possible to shut them up they would have accepted the proof already and given up the crusade.
4. To add, the earlier poster that said all the cases that have brought this up have been lost is a misstatement. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think ay cases have been heard at all because there is no jurisdiction for them to hear the cases. It is FAR too late to address this problem. If he were ineligible it would be meaningless. You can't make 2 years just go away and you can't undo what has already been done with a single magic court ruling.

The state of Arizona will soon pass a law requiring proof of citizenship before being allowed on the Presidential ballot.

Game-changer! Arizona to pass 2012 eligibility law

I predict, that after futiley spending millions to try to defeat the law, Obama will abandon Arizona in his re-election bid rather than come clean with the American people about his birth origins. While the 10 electoral votes at stake are not pivotal, Texas has 34 and it is going to pass a similar law. Other states may follow suit. The question is, will Obama surrender a second term rather than show us what he's hiding?

Your prediction is bunk. The evidence will be supplied and Obama will be on the ballot. there is no way that will slide or that Obama is going to allow his name to be left out of the ballot. Of course, that does not mean that the supplied documents will be released to the public so I think there will be just as much outrage and finger pointing as there was before.

To all the left wing nut jobs that are screaming about how crazy the right is and using the blithers as an example, you have an equally insane if not worse 9/11 truther movement on the left. All the sides have extremely loud nuts and they always come out of the woodwork when the other side is in the office. I write these kooks off as readily as I write the ones on the left out and to not do this is partisan hackery.

 

[Flagwavrusa]

Can one imagine the loonies on the right when Hillary wins in 2016? I wonder if they will claim she is a robot. Gosh, that's my predication, the loonies on the right will go even crazier. All we need after that is a Black democratic woman president, and we will have to reopen all those insane asylums so the right has a place to live and be among their peers. FactCheck.org: Has Obama's birth certificate been disclosed?

You might have more credibility of your links worked. The fact is, Obama has never produced a bc for anyone. He released a Certificate Of Live Birth which does not prove that he was born in Hawaii. Nice try though.

The document specifically states that the location was Oahu Hawaii. How is that not prove he was born there? it gives a time. It is an offical state document stating he was born there.

But of course that isnt enough, because to people who beleive he isnt a citizen it will never be enough. Even if they produce the hand written original birthers will then state that somehow its a forgery.

I see. So you've seen the mythical Obama bc. Have you seen Bigfoot too? Have you recently sighted Elvis?

I know you didnt see the bc on factcheck.org because here is their link to the supposed purported copy and, what a surprise, its nowhere to be found.

http://factcheck.org/imagefiles/Ask...ma Birth Certificate/BO Birth Certificate.jpg

Perhaps it was there and somebody stole it. As part of a plan to bring down the President. Maybe the birthers?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I know you didnt see the bc on factcheck.org because here is their link to the supposed purported copy and, what a surprise, its nowhere to be found.

http://factcheck.org/imagefiles/Ask...ma Birth Certificate/BO Birth Certificate.jpg

Actually here is the link -->> http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg


To this image...

>>>>

 

[martybegan]

You might have more credibility of your links worked. The fact is, Obama has never produced a bc for anyone. He released a Certificate Of Live Birth which does not prove that he was born in Hawaii. Nice try though.

The document specifically states that the location was Oahu Hawaii. How is that not prove he was born there? it gives a time. It is an offical state document stating he was born there.

But of course that isnt enough, because to people who beleive he isnt a citizen it will never be enough. Even if they produce the hand written original birthers will then state that somehow its a forgery.

I see. So you've seen the mythical Obama bc. Have you seen Bigfoot too? Have you recently sighted Elvis?

I know you didnt see the bc on factcheck.org because here is their link to the supposed purported copy and, what a surprise, its nowhere to be found.

http://factcheck.org/imagefiles/Ask...ma Birth Certificate/BO Birth Certificate.jpg

Perhaps it was there and somebody stole it. As part of a plan to bring down the President. Maybe the birthers?

so you are using a 404 page as proof something not actually existing?

What about this?

Oh, i forget, people of your ilk keep saying this isnt proof, although its a state issued document, and actually states WHERE AND WHEN the person was born.

 

[Flagwavrusa]

I know you didnt see the bc on factcheck.org because here is their link to the supposed purported copy and, what a surprise, its nowhere to be found.

http://factcheck.org/imagefiles/Ask...ma Birth Certificate/BO Birth Certificate.jpg

Actually here is the link -->> http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg


To this image...

>>>>

This is not a birth certificate sir, it is a certificate of live birth. Please see previous posts describing the difference and why it does not serve as proof of citizenship.

 

[martybegan]

I know you didnt see the bc on factcheck.org because here is their link to the supposed purported copy and, what a surprise, its nowhere to be found.

http://factcheck.org/imagefiles/Ask...ma Birth Certificate/BO Birth Certificate.jpg

Actually here is the link -->> http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg


To this image...

>>>>

This is not a birth certificate sir, it is a certificate of live birth. Please see previous posts describing the difference and why it does not serve as proof of citizenship.

And here is where the bullshit comes full circle. A play on words, because in the end that is all people of your thought process have. Note the document states WHERE he was born, not that the state recognizes THAT he was born. The document is certified by the state, and is recognized by any authority as proof of location of birth.

What exactly are you looking for? Do you even know? My original birth certificate is in tatters, and it is only from 1975. The state has certified he was born there. That is the end of the argument. the document gives a location and a date of the BIRTH, not a location of where the registration happened.

Just admit you have already come to a conclusion, and no form of evidence will change your mind. If they find the hand written one and release it, I'm sure you will find some way to fault it, because you have the answer you want, even if its the wrong one.

Are you honestly saying the document has to say "Birth Certificate" Verbaitm to be valid? Just because they added the word "live" and switched the words around all of a sudden it doesnt count?

 

[USArmyRetired]

Actually here is the link -->> http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg


To this image...

>>>>

This is not a birth certificate sir, it is a certificate of live birth. Please see previous posts describing the difference and why it does not serve as proof of citizenship.

And here is where the bullshit comes full circle. A play on words, because in the end that is all people of your thought process have. Note the document states WHERE he was born, not that the state recognizes THAT he was born. The document is certified by the state, and is recognized by any authority as proof of location of birth.

What exactly are you looking for? Do you even know? My original birth certificate is in tatters, and it is only from 1975. The state has certified he was born there. That is the end of the argument. the document gives a location and a date of the BIRTH, not a location of where the registration happened.

Just admit you have already come to a conclusion, and no form of evidence will change your mind. If they find the hand written one and release it, I'm sure you will find some way to fault it, because you have the answer you want, even if its the wrong one.

Are you honestly saying the document has to say "Birth Certificate" Verbaitm to be valid? Just because they added the word "live" and switched the words around all of a sudden it doesnt count?

Where is the raised seal?

 

[WorldWatcher]

This is not a birth certificate sir, it is a certificate of live birth. Please see previous posts describing the difference and why it does not serve as proof of citizenship.

Actually COLB's are commonly issued, and it's becoming more common with computerized records and yes they do in fact provide proof of citizenship and as such are recognized by the Federal government as proof of citizenship. Such as the Social Security Administration for issuing SSN#'s and the State Department issuing passports to citizens.

So ya, COLB's are birth certificates in that they prove Date, Time, Location, and Parents for a birth.


>>>>

 

[USArmyRetired]

The document specifically states that the location was Oahu Hawaii. How is that not prove he was born there? it gives a time. It is an offical state document stating he was born there.

But of course that isnt enough, because to people who beleive he isnt a citizen it will never be enough. Even if they produce the hand written original birthers will then state that somehow its a forgery.

I see. So you've seen the mythical Obama bc. Have you seen Bigfoot too? Have you recently sighted Elvis?

I know you didnt see the bc on factcheck.org because here is their link to the supposed purported copy and, what a surprise, its nowhere to be found.

http://factcheck.org/imagefiles/Ask...ma Birth Certificate/BO Birth Certificate.jpg

Perhaps it was there and somebody stole it. As part of a plan to bring down the President. Maybe the birthers?

so you are using a 404 page as proof something not actually existing?

What about this?

Oh, i forget, people of your ilk keep saying this isnt proof, although its a state issued document, and actually states WHERE AND WHEN the person was born.

Where is the raised seal? Also at the bottom it says any alterations makes it invalid. Well there is a alreration of a black mark where the certificate number goes. Therefore it's not valid.

 

[martybegan]

This is not a birth certificate sir, it is a certificate of live birth. Please see previous posts describing the difference and why it does not serve as proof of citizenship.

And here is where the bullshit comes full circle. A play on words, because in the end that is all people of your thought process have. Note the document states WHERE he was born, not that the state recognizes THAT he was born. The document is certified by the state, and is recognized by any authority as proof of location of birth.

What exactly are you looking for? Do you even know? My original birth certificate is in tatters, and it is only from 1975. The state has certified he was born there. That is the end of the argument. the document gives a location and a date of the BIRTH, not a location of where the registration happened.

Just admit you have already come to a conclusion, and no form of evidence will change your mind. If they find the hand written one and release it, I'm sure you will find some way to fault it, because you have the answer you want, even if its the wrong one.

Are you honestly saying the document has to say "Birth Certificate" Verbaitm to be valid? Just because they added the word "live" and switched the words around all of a sudden it doesnt count?

Where is the raised seal?

FactCheck.org: Born in the U.S.A.

This article shows the seal.

The one thing conspiracy people keep forgetting is that showing inconsistencies that appear when viewing something in a micro scale does not offer proof that whatever you are looking at is false or invalid. The burden you must meet is to PROVE that your version is not only possible, but the offical version is IMPOSSIBLE.

Burden of proof on YOU, not the other way around.

 

[Flagwavrusa]

Actually here is the link -->> http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg


To this image...

>>>>

This is not a birth certificate sir, it is a certificate of live birth. Please see previous posts describing the difference and why it does not serve as proof of citizenship.

And here is where the bullshit comes full circle. A play on words, because in the end that is all people of your thought process have. Note the document states WHERE he was born, not that the state recognizes THAT he was born. The document is certified by the state, and is recognized by any authority as proof of location of birth.

What exactly are you looking for? Do you even know? My original birth certificate is in tatters, and it is only from 1975. The state has certified he was born there. That is the end of the argument. the document gives a location and a date of the BIRTH, not a location of where the registration happened.

Just admit you have already come to a conclusion, and no form of evidence will change your mind. If they find the hand written one and release it, I'm sure you will find some way to fault it, because you have the answer you want, even if its the wrong one.

Are you honestly saying the document has to say "Birth Certificate" Verbaitm to be valid? Just because they added the word "live" and switched the words around all of a sudden it doesnt count?

Sorry, no, a COLB is not proof he was born in Hawaii. Look at the bottom of the certificate, its says "This document serves as PRIMA FACIA evidence ". In a court of law, this means that the document is rebuttable, ergo, it is not proof. A colb is more like hearsay evidence and is only allowed in court because statutory law permits it, but would otherwise not be permissable in court under common procedural law.

As far as Hawaii's procedure, anyone can call up the state and report a live birth and a colb will be issue. The speculation is that Obama's maternal grandparents called in the birth. Then the state would have processed the information, simply relying upon their word, and issued the document. This does not mean that Obama was actuallly born in Hawaii, all it means is that Obama was born which is a fact not in dispute.

A true full form birth certificate is needed because it would show the doctor who made the delivery, those in attendance, and would be certified by the hospital administration. In other words, it would provide facts that could be proven or disproven to verify the authenticity of the document.

Offering a colb to prove one is qualified to be President is a little like showing someone a report card to prove you graduated from college. Why would you try to do that if you had a real diploma?

 

[martybegan]

This is not a birth certificate sir, it is a certificate of live birth. Please see previous posts describing the difference and why it does not serve as proof of citizenship.

And here is where the bullshit comes full circle. A play on words, because in the end that is all people of your thought process have. Note the document states WHERE he was born, not that the state recognizes THAT he was born. The document is certified by the state, and is recognized by any authority as proof of location of birth.

What exactly are you looking for? Do you even know? My original birth certificate is in tatters, and it is only from 1975. The state has certified he was born there. That is the end of the argument. the document gives a location and a date of the BIRTH, not a location of where the registration happened.

Just admit you have already come to a conclusion, and no form of evidence will change your mind. If they find the hand written one and release it, I'm sure you will find some way to fault it, because you have the answer you want, even if its the wrong one.

Are you honestly saying the document has to say "Birth Certificate" Verbaitm to be valid? Just because they added the word "live" and switched the words around all of a sudden it doesnt count?

Sorry, no, a COLB is not proof he was born in Hawaii. Look at the bottom of the certificate, its says "This document serves as PRIMA FACIA evidence ". In a court of law, this means that the document is rebuttable, ergo, it is not proof. A colb is more like hearsay evidence and is only allowed in court because statutory law permits it, but would otherwise not be permissable in court under common procedural law.

As far as Hawaii's procedure, anyone can call up the state and report a live birth and a colb will be issue. The speculation is that Obama's maternal grandparents called in the birth. Then the state would have processed the information, simply relying upon their word, and issued the document. This does not mean that Obama was actuallly born in Hawaii, all it means is that Obama was born which is a fact not in dispute.

A true full form birth certificate is needed because it would show the doctor who made the delivery, those in attendance, and would be certified by the hospital administration. In other words, it would provide facts that could be proven or disproven to verify the authenticity of the document.

Offering a colb to prove one is qualified to be President is a little like showing someone a report card to prove you graduated from college. Why would you try to do that if you had a real diploma?

You misunderstand prima facia, and of course to your benefit. It can only be rubutted by evidence to the contrary. Until that happens it is accepted as fact. Therefore to rebutt you have to PROVE in a court of law, that the facts presented are in fact, false.

Also, the document is accepted by all forms of our goverment as proof, no matter how much you want it not to be so. The document actually lists a location of birth, not just the fact someone called it in.

Again, I guarantee that if someone presents the original document (which at this point is probably unreadable) some other excuse will be found.

I dont agree with most of Obama's policies, but the whole birther stuff is some of the stupidest shit I have ever seen, only eclipsed by the 9/11 truth excrement.

 

[rightwinger]

How does the State of Arizona overrule the State Of Hawaii on the legitimacy of Obama's birth in that state?

 

[WorldWatcher]

How does the State of Arizona overrule the State Of Hawaii on the legitimacy of Obama's birth in that state?

It can't. What would happen is a lawsuit involving one state (Arizona) against another (Hawaii) which would then give original jurisdiction of the suit to the SCOTUS under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution.

It would be resolved in federal court. Which might not be a bad thing as it would force the SCOTUS to define NBC in a case directly applicable to Presidential eligibility.

>>>>

 

[Flagwavrusa]

And here is where the bullshit comes full circle. A play on words, because in the end that is all people of your thought process have. Note the document states WHERE he was born, not that the state recognizes THAT he was born. The document is certified by the state, and is recognized by any authority as proof of location of birth.

What exactly are you looking for? Do you even know? My original birth certificate is in tatters, and it is only from 1975. The state has certified he was born there. That is the end of the argument. the document gives a location and a date of the BIRTH, not a location of where the registration happened.

Just admit you have already come to a conclusion, and no form of evidence will change your mind. If they find the hand written one and release it, I'm sure you will find some way to fault it, because you have the answer you want, even if its the wrong one.

Are you honestly saying the document has to say "Birth Certificate" Verbaitm to be valid? Just because they added the word "live" and switched the words around all of a sudden it doesnt count?

Sorry, no, a COLB is not proof he was born in Hawaii. Look at the bottom of the certificate, its says "This document serves as PRIMA FACIA evidence ". In a court of law, this means that the document is rebuttable, ergo, it is not proof. A colb is more like hearsay evidence and is only allowed in court because statutory law permits it, but would otherwise not be permissable in court under common procedural law.

As far as Hawaii's procedure, anyone can call up the state and report a live birth and a colb will be issue. The speculation is that Obama's maternal grandparents called in the birth. Then the state would have processed the information, simply relying upon their word, and issued the document. This does not mean that Obama was actuallly born in Hawaii, all it means is that Obama was born which is a fact not in dispute.

A true full form birth certificate is needed because it would show the doctor who made the delivery, those in attendance, and would be certified by the hospital administration. In other words, it would provide facts that could be proven or disproven to verify the authenticity of the document.

Offering a colb to prove one is qualified to be President is a little like showing someone a report card to prove you graduated from college. Why would you try to do that if you had a real diploma?

You misunderstand prima facia, and of course to your benefit. It can only be rubutted by evidence to the contrary. Until that happens it is accepted as fact. Therefore to rebutt you have to PROVE in a court of law, that the facts presented are in fact, false.

Also, the document is accepted by all forms of our goverment as proof, no matter how much you want it not to be so. The document actually lists a location of birth, not just the fact someone called it in.

Again, I guarantee that if someone presents the original document (which at this point is probably unreadable) some other excuse will be found.

I dont agree with most of Obama's policies, but the whole birther stuff is some of the stupidest shit I have ever seen, only eclipsed by the 9/11 truth excrement.

Hey Skippy, a colb is not proof Obama was born in Hawaii. Right now the the only testimony from real living human beings on where Obama was born all say he was born in Kenya. To wit, his grandmother and two half siblings. His mother, father, and maternal grandparents are all deceased and so cannot bear witness. Obama himself cannot testify on where he was born because he was obviously too young to remember. If he was indeed born in a hospital in Hawaii no living person has yet appeared to say they were there when it happened. If a birth certificate were available the names on it could be contacted to verify the event, but so far one hasn't materialized. But a colb cannot clear this up because it is hearsay evidence that cannot authenticate itself due to the inherently weak manner in which it is created as far as serving as evidence.

Anti-birthers need to just accept the fact that nothing short of an actual birth certificate is going to make this issue go away. You can advertise the colb on billboards, fly a colb up a flag pole, send a copy to every email in the country, make it into a stamp if you want. The only thing that will silence this issue is the real mccoy.

 

[Sheldon]

Anti-birthers need to just accept the fact that nothing short of an actual birth certificate is going to make this issue go away. You can advertise the colb on billboards, fly a colb up a flag pole, send a copy to every email in the country, make it into a stamp if you want. The only thing that will silence this issue is the real mccoy.

Bullshit. You clowns would cry "fake" at first sighting. Own it: you birfers have put too much time and energy into your conspiracy to admit to being wrong, regardless of the legally-accepted evidence or the way things work in the real world.

Nothing will be good enough for you clowns. You take the unsubstantiated words of some people from a third world country who WANT Obama to be their Kenyan son (he's even got a beer named after him), over legit documentation recognized by state and Federal officials. It's confirmation bias 101--and you monkeys have got it bad.