Hawaii again declares Obama birth certificate real

[PubliusInfinitum]

He spoke about this idiotic subject and I liked this part best

Attempting to put the issue to rest, once more, Gibbs assured reporters: "The president was born in Honolulu, in the 50th state of the greatest country on the face of the earth...There are 10,000 more important issues for people in this country to discuss, than whether or not the president is a citizen when it's been proven ad nauseam."

Asked to speculate on why conspiracy theorists continue to fixate on the issue, Gibbs joked: "Because for $15 you can get an Internet address and say whatever you want."

ROFLMNAO... It's hilarious how you sourced "Robert Gibbs" speaking out on this 'NONSENSE'... I just adore sweet irony...

Essentially, Gibbs offers empty assurances which are intrinsic to MORE DISSEMBLENCE... which establishes what?

NONSENSE!

LOL...

Leftists...

That there are 10,000 other things to deal with, in NO WAY establishes that the BOY King is a natural born US citizen; and the assurances from an idiot, particularly Robert Gibbs: Idiot Extordinaire... are wholly irrelevant.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.


Applying for Hawaiian Home Lands — Department of Hawaiian Home Lands

You people are never going to see the original.

Hey that's fine with me... If that is Hawaii's law, I don't have a problem with it.

What I have a problem with is that Hawaii's law provides the means by which a person NOT born in Hawaii; a person who is NOT a natural born US citizen, could use Hawaii's law to undermine the US Constitutional necessity that ONLY a PERSON who is a natural born citizen of the US, can sit in the US Executive...

And THAT undermines ALL OF THE SUBSTANTIVE REASONING UPON WHICH THAT REQUIREMENT RESTS.

As a result, Hawaii's law would simply prohibit anyone said to be born in Hawaii from ever becoming President of the US...

What you want to do is to simply open the US Government and US governance to FOREIGN THINKING... wherein the alien reasoning of governance replaces that common to the US.

Which, in and of itself represents that YOU are either an imbecile; incapable of recognizing the inherent fatal flaw in such reasoning; or you're a fucking subversive... OKA: A Leftists... and as such have no business voicing a political opinion in public and you sure as HELL have no buisness voting.

Again friends... what we're seeing in the election of this alien, blue-lipped FUCK is SUBVERSION OF THE US CONSTUTION AND THE CULTURE WHICH IT SUSTAINS.

And it's just no more complex than that...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.


Applying for Hawaiian Home Lands — Department of Hawaiian Home Lands

You people are never going to see the original.

Obama had one. Obama could still get it or at least a verified photocopy of the original.

His mother had a copy. That doesn't mean he does.

How do you propose he get a copy if the state ONLY issues COLB?

Gee whiz... I'd say he goes to the same governor who he had place his birth records under seal and say something like... "I'd really like to get a copy of my original Birth certificate, with all of the official data that is on that record... such as the Hospital, doctor, witnesses and so on... Can ya help a Brother out?"

Where upon, within that hour, the request would be expedited and such a copy would be produced for The Messiah: The Boy King; President Hussein of the People's Republic of the US.

Nothing particularly hard to understand about that.

What you want to do is to take a bureaucratic statement and revise it to mean that which it does not say; that Hawaii does not have in its possession the documentation which it created in course as a function of, if nothing else, census data...

Which again... simply conveys one of two things... First and most likely, your own severe intellectual limitations; or second, your deliberate misrepresentation of the OBVIOUS for the purposes of deception, set forth to conceal the deliberate usurpation of US Constitutional Authority...

You choose... either one represents a sufficient basis to disregard you as a viable candidate for public discourse and it sure as HELL sets aside any viable basis whihc would provide you with the means to VOTE.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

the State does NOT only issue COLBS. You misunderstand the language of the law you are quoting. That's all.

the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth

Please explain how that statement can be misunderstood.

As a matter of fact, it has already been noted that for the Hawaiian Homestead purposes (which requires more than just proof of Hawaiian birth, but proof of lineage), the preference expressed BY the State of Hawaii is to submit the BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

That is their preference. So please read this again.

Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.

How are the assclowns who claim to be looking at the BIRTH CERTIFICATE doing that? It exists.

The original vital records exist. The director of the Hawaii DOH has stated this as fact. Twice. That does not necessarily mean there is an actual paper copy of a birth certificate residing at the DOH. And regardless, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth.

You cannot possibly believe that the person who happens to be the President of the United States would get his request for production of a photocopy of his own Birth Certificate denied, do you?

Are you suggesting they break the law? Are you suggesting that the President has the authority to override state officials and state law in such a matter? Just curious. You being all concerned about the Constitution and stuff.


Bottom line. In order to see President Obama's Certificate of Live Birth, Hawaii is going to have to change their law to allow that. And because of all the noise by the birthers over this, if Hawaii were to do so, wouldn't that come perilously close (at least in spirit) to a bill of attainder?

ROFLMNAO....

So you believe that it is Hawaiin LAW that the State of Hawaii FORBIDS ANY RE-PRINTING of the orginal DATA, which exists in its ORIGINAL FORM... and this, based upon a stated POLICY...

Well I gotta say... that doesn't serve a SCINTILLA OF REASON.

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE SERVED BY A STATE MANDATING SUCH A LAW?

Explain to the board, the reasoning which YOU DISCERN, which would sustain a State LEGISLATING THE FORBIDDANCE WHICH ESTABLISHED THAT THE STATE OF HAWAII WILL NEVER PROVIDE TO THEIR OWN CITIZENS, THE FULL RECORD OF THEIR OWN BIRTH?

There is only one viable reason... and that is to conceal that data... So the question becomes, why would the ENTIRE LEGISLATURE AGREE TO CONCEAL THE FULL BIRTH RECORDS OF THE CITIZENRY... Clearly such is a violation of the rights of those citizens... as simply being BORN in Hawaii provides that they are entitled to the civil records which PROVE THE FACTS INTRINISIC TO THEIR BIRTH... there is surely no intellectually sound basis in reasoning why that civil authority should withhold that information; beyond the need to conceal such information for a very few individuals said to be born there and who want such to be kept from public view... Thus such legislation can not possibly serve equitable justice...

Now since legislation which does not equitably serve justice, is not valid law; then it seems unlikely that such IS legislation.... as it would have been met with a challenge by the FIRST of those who needed their ORIGINAL BIRTH RECORDS and were denied them.

So what we're looking at here is, not a LAW, but A POLICY... and a policy which is designed to streamline the burdensome process of providing basic birth-certs to those thousands, who annually apply, needing passports or other pedestrian bureaucratic necessities requiring minimal proof of Hawaiin birth origins. And it's fairly unlikely that the CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE REQUIRED TO SIT IN THE US EXECUTIVE FALLS UNDER THE SAME PARAMETERS AS THAT WHICH REQUIRES A HAWAIIN TO OBTAIN A PASSPORT!

And it's HARDLY the viable basis on which to claim that one CAN'T PRODUCE AN ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE... which is your claim; and which is a claim of the PATHETICALLY WEAK VARIETY.

The veracity of the Presidency of the US is at question here... ONLY A LEFTIST WOULD TAKE A STAND ON SUCH A PATHETIC LIE... ANY reasonable American would have LONG AGO provided the necessary information to satisfy this question; that he has NOT, says FIRST THAT HE IS NOT REASONABLE and SECOND THAT THE INFORMATION WHICH SUPPORTS HIS CLAIM IS DUBIOUS... which undermines his authority, which stands ONLY UPON THE VERACITY OF HIS OATHE...

Essentially, we're talking about the SAME ISSUE, that would arise if the President Elect showed up at the 'swearing in ceremony' and in response to the demand by the Cheif Justice to raise his RIGHT hand to swear his oathe of office and he responded... "No... I'm not making any promises to defend or protect that document... it's irrelevant... I'm the President and I decide what principles and laws guide the country during my administration."

He's simply gone about it in a less overt fashion... undermining that Constitution at EVERY POINT; and what's more he has flat out stated such throughout his entire political life.

It's subversion folks... plain and simple; and you're watching it unfold.

These people do not give a flaming red rats ass what the Constitution requires... PERIOD.

 

[Liability]

the State does NOT only issue COLBS. You misunderstand the language of the law you are quoting. That's all.

the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth

Please explain how that statement can be misunderstood.

As a matter of fact, it has already been noted that for the Hawaiian Homestead purposes (which requires more than just proof of Hawaiian birth, but proof of lineage), the preference expressed BY the State of Hawaii is to submit the BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

That is their preference. So please read this again.

Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.

How are the assclowns who claim to be looking at the BIRTH CERTIFICATE doing that? It exists.

The original vital records exist. The director of the Hawaii DOH has stated this as fact. Twice. That does not necessarily mean there is an actual paper copy of a birth certificate residing at the DOH. And regardless, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth.

You cannot possibly believe that the person who happens to be the President of the United States would get his request for production of a photocopy of his own Birth Certificate denied, do you?

Are you suggesting they break the law? Are you suggesting that the President has the authority to override state officials and state law in such a matter? Just curious. You being all concerned about the Constitution and stuff.


Bottom line. In order to see President Obama's Certificate of Live Birth, Hawaii is going to have to change their law to allow that. And because of all the noise by the birthers over this, if Hawaii were to do so, wouldn't that come perilously close (at least in spirit) to a bill of attainder?

Emma:

I would like to take this opportunity to startle you. I think my earlier claim that you simply misunderstood the language of the law you were quoting was an overstatement on my part. Upon taking another look (and a slightly deeper look) into that matter, I think I was probably the one who was mistaken. Mea culpa and so forth.

It might very well be, instead, that Hawaii would (usually) decline to provide a copy of a Birth Certificate which they have on file to a person requesting a copy of same.

That said, I STILL believe it is the overwhelming likelihood that President Obama has his own copy of his birth certificate since he cited it in his own tome. Further, I strongly believe that if the President were to make that simple request of the Hawaiian authorities, they would find their way clear to permit the President of the United States to have a certified photocopy of the vault version of the original Birth Certificate.

Regards and all that,

Liability

 

[jvn]

Just so we're all clear on this.

The President's Certification of Live Birth, issued by the State of Hawaii has this statement on it's front page at the bottom: This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.


This is the legal definition of the phrase "prima facie evidence:" Prima facie evidence of a fact, is in law sufficient to establish the fact, unless rebutted. For example, when buildings are fired by sparks emitted from a locomotive engine passing along the road, it is prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of those who have the charge of it. http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p078.htm

So, unless the information on this COLB is rebutted with, you know, evidence, it establishes the fact that the President was born in Hawaii in August 1961. In fact, the statements by the Director of the State Department of Health offer further supporting evidence for the facts already established by the COLB.

Does anyone have any verifiable evidence that rebuts in any way the COLB?

 

[Againsheila]

Just so we're all clear on this.

The President's Certification of Live Birth, issued by the State of Hawaii has this statement on it's front page at the bottom: This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.


This is the legal definition of the phrase "prima facie evidence:" Prima facie evidence of a fact, is in law sufficient to establish the fact, unless rebutted. For example, when buildings are fired by sparks emitted from a locomotive engine passing along the road, it is prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of those who have the charge of it. Legal Definition of Prima-Facie, Evidence, Case

So, unless the information on this COLB is rebutted with, you know, evidence, it establishes the fact that the President was born in Hawaii in August 1961. In fact, the statements by the Director of the State Department of Health offer further supporting evidence for the facts already established by the COLB.

Does anyone have any verifiable evidence that rebuts in any way the COLB?

You mean like his Kenyan Grandmother claiming that she was present at his birth IN KENYA?

 

[Liability]

Just so we're all clear on this.

The President's Certification of Live Birth, issued by the State of Hawaii has this statement on it's front page at the bottom: This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.


This is the legal definition of the phrase "prima facie evidence:" Prima facie evidence of a fact, is in law sufficient to establish the fact, unless rebutted. For example, when buildings are fired by sparks emitted from a locomotive engine passing along the road, it is prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of those who have the charge of it. Legal Definition of Prima-Facie, Evidence, Case

So, unless the information on this COLB is rebutted with, you know, evidence, it establishes the fact that the President was born in Hawaii in August 1961. In fact, the statements by the Director of the State Department of Health offer further supporting evidence for the facts already established by the COLB.

Does anyone have any verifiable evidence that rebuts in any way the COLB?

You mean like his Kenyan Grandmother claiming that she was present at his birth IN KENYA?

LOL! Prima Facie boy and his adherents will insist that Grandma wasn't "verifiably" in Kenya at the time she said she was in Kenya witnessing the birth.

 

[Againsheila]

Just so we're all clear on this.

The President's Certification of Live Birth, issued by the State of Hawaii has this statement on it's front page at the bottom: This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.


This is the legal definition of the phrase "prima facie evidence:" Prima facie evidence of a fact, is in law sufficient to establish the fact, unless rebutted. For example, when buildings are fired by sparks emitted from a locomotive engine passing along the road, it is prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of those who have the charge of it. Legal Definition of Prima-Facie, Evidence, Case

So, unless the information on this COLB is rebutted with, you know, evidence, it establishes the fact that the President was born in Hawaii in August 1961. In fact, the statements by the Director of the State Department of Health offer further supporting evidence for the facts already established by the COLB.

Does anyone have any verifiable evidence that rebuts in any way the COLB?

You mean like his Kenyan Grandmother claiming that she was present at his birth IN KENYA?

LOL! Prima Facie boy and his adherents will insist that Grandma wasn't "verifiably" in Kenya at the time she said she was in Kenya witnessing the birth.

No, they'll claim that according to the tape they listened to, the reporter was trying to confuse her or the interpreter got it wrong.

I watched a video on youtube at the home of my friends from Kenya and they agreed "Yep, that's what she said". Keep in mind that these same friends are now Americans and campaigned for Obama even AFTER watching that video with me.

 

[Sky Dancer]

You mean like his Kenyan Grandmother claiming that she was present at his birth IN KENYA?

LOL! Prima Facie boy and his adherents will insist that Grandma wasn't "verifiably" in Kenya at the time she said she was in Kenya witnessing the birth.

No, they'll claim that according to the tape they listened to, the reporter was trying to confuse her or the interpreter got it wrong.

I watched a video on youtube at the home of my friends from Kenya and they agreed "Yep, that's what she said". Keep in mind that these same friends are now Americans and campaigned for Obama even AFTER watching that video with me.

Your friends picked a winner--too bad you did not. You gonna be sour about it for four years?

 

[Missourian]

So-called "birthers" — who claim Obama is ineligible to be president because, they argue, he was actually born outside the United States

They would be wrong. Even if President Obama were born on freakin MARS, he would still be a natural born citizen of the United States, because of his mother's status as a natural born citizen. This was ruled on by the SCOTUS in the freakin 1800s. If the birthers can somehow prove his mother wasn't a natural born citizen, AND President Obama was born in a foreign land, THEN they might have something.

Until then, they got nothing. Which means they will never have anything, because his mother's status IS certain.

That is not a facual statement MM.

Under the law in 1961, the year Obama was born, it is of vital importance where he was born.

If he was born outside the United States or it's possessions, he is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

 

[Liability]

LOL! Prima Facie boy and his adherents will insist that Grandma wasn't "verifiably" in Kenya at the time she said she was in Kenya witnessing the birth.

No, they'll claim that according to the tape they listened to, the reporter was trying to confuse her or the interpreter got it wrong.

I watched a video on youtube at the home of my friends from Kenya and they agreed "Yep, that's what she said". Keep in mind that these same friends are now Americans and campaigned for Obama even AFTER watching that video with me.

Your friends picked a winner--too bad you did not. You gonna be sour about it for four years?

No. Your mistake.

Those friends picked President Obama. President Obama is the poster fool for "Epic Fail."

 

[jvn]

There is nothing at all reliable about the mistake originally made and then corrected during that interview with Ms. Obama. She stated that the President was born in Hawaii.

But we were talking about verifiable proof in any event. Was Grandma Obama under oath?

If not, this "evidence" (presuming you only look at the part of her statement that you are talking about and ignore the part where she clarifies that he was born in Hawaii) doesn't even come close to rebutting the COLB and the statement of the Director.

Kind if funny that y'all dismiss the Director's statement as hearsay, and yet swear by the self rebutting statement of Grandma Obama.

 

[Liability]

There is nothing at all reliable about the mistake originally made and then corrected during that interview with Ms. Obama. She stated that the President was born in Hawaii.

But we were talking about verifiable proof in any event. Was Grandma Obama under oath?

If not, this "evidence" (presuming you only look at the part of her statement that you are talking about and ignore the part where she clarifies that he was born in Hawaii) doesn't even come close to rebutting the COLB and the statement of the Director.

Kind if funny that y'all dismiss the Director's statement as hearsay, and yet swear by the self rebutting statement of Grandma Obama.

But we were talking about verifiable proof in any event. Was Grandma Obama under oath?

LOL.

I predicted this exact response.

That's not a huge credit to me, of course. jvn is just quite predictable.

 

[Againsheila]

LOL! Prima Facie boy and his adherents will insist that Grandma wasn't "verifiably" in Kenya at the time she said she was in Kenya witnessing the birth.

No, they'll claim that according to the tape they listened to, the reporter was trying to confuse her or the interpreter got it wrong.

I watched a video on youtube at the home of my friends from Kenya and they agreed "Yep, that's what she said". Keep in mind that these same friends are now Americans and campaigned for Obama even AFTER watching that video with me.

Your friends picked a winner--too bad you did not. You gonna be sour about it for four years?

My friends are now complaining about Obama, one of them is actually angry at him.......it's all I can do not to say "I told ya so"....

 

[jvn]

There is nothing at all reliable about the mistake originally made and then corrected during that interview with Ms. Obama. She stated that the President was born in Hawaii.

But we were talking about verifiable proof in any event. Was Grandma Obama under oath?

If not, this "evidence" (presuming you only look at the part of her statement that you are talking about and ignore the part where she clarifies that he was born in Hawaii) doesn't even come close to rebutting the COLB and the statement of the Director.

Kind if funny that y'all dismiss the Director's statement as hearsay, and yet swear by the self rebutting statement of Grandma Obama.

But we were talking about verifiable proof in any event. Was Grandma Obama under oath?

LOL.

I predicted this exact response.

That's not a huge credit to me, of course. jvn is just quite predictable.

Just applying the same standards to your "evidence" that y'all want to apply to the President...

By the way, from the Wall Street Journal:

Best of the Web Today: It’s Certifiable - WSJ.com

FactCheck.org has a close-up photo of the certificate, which states clearly at the bottom: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” If a court were somehow to take up the question of Obama’s eligibility, then, the birth certificate would almost certainly be sufficient to resolve the question in his favor. The opposing side would have to provide serious evidence calling into question the veracity of Hawaii’s official state records. Innuendo and hearsay would not be admissible.

But, I suppose the WSJ is now a part of the "evil librul media," right?

 

[Emma]

the State does NOT only issue COLBS. You misunderstand the language of the law you are quoting. That's all.

the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth

Please explain how that statement can be misunderstood.

That is their preference. So please read this again.

Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.


The original vital records exist. The director of the Hawaii DOH has stated this as fact. Twice. That does not necessarily mean there is an actual paper copy of a birth certificate residing at the DOH. And regardless, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth.

You cannot possibly believe that the person who happens to be the President of the United States would get his request for production of a photocopy of his own Birth Certificate denied, do you?

Are you suggesting they break the law? Are you suggesting that the President has the authority to override state officials and state law in such a matter? Just curious. You being all concerned about the Constitution and stuff.


Bottom line. In order to see President Obama's Certificate of Live Birth, Hawaii is going to have to change their law to allow that. And because of all the noise by the birthers over this, if Hawaii were to do so, wouldn't that come perilously close (at least in spirit) to a bill of attainder?

ROFLMNAO....

So you believe that it is Hawaiin LAW that the State of Hawaii FORBIDS ANY RE-PRINTING of the orginal DATA, which exists in its ORIGINAL FORM... and this, based upon a stated POLICY...

Well I gotta say... that doesn't serve a SCINTILLA OF REASON.

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE SERVED BY A STATE MANDATING SUCH A LAW?

Explain to the board, the reasoning which YOU DISCERN, which would sustain a State LEGISLATING THE FORBIDDANCE WHICH ESTABLISHED THAT THE STATE OF HAWAII WILL NEVER PROVIDE TO THEIR OWN CITIZENS, THE FULL RECORD OF THEIR OWN BIRTH?

There is only one viable reason... and that is to conceal that data... So the question becomes, why would the ENTIRE LEGISLATURE AGREE TO CONCEAL THE FULL BIRTH RECORDS OF THE CITIZENRY... Clearly such is a violation of the rights of those citizens... as simply being BORN in Hawaii provides that they are entitled to the civil records which PROVE THE FACTS INTRINISIC TO THEIR BIRTH... there is surely no intellectually sound basis in reasoning why that civil authority should withhold that information; beyond the need to conceal such information for a very few individuals said to be born there and who want such to be kept from public view... Thus such legislation can not possibly serve equitable justice...

Now since legislation which does not equitably serve justice, is not valid law; then it seems unlikely that such IS legislation.... as it would have been met with a challenge by the FIRST of those who needed their ORIGINAL BIRTH RECORDS and were denied them.

So what we're looking at here is, not a LAW, but A POLICY... and a policy which is designed to streamline the burdensome process of providing basic birth-certs to those thousands, who annually apply, needing passports or other pedestrian bureaucratic necessities requiring minimal proof of Hawaiin birth origins. And it's fairly unlikely that the CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE REQUIRED TO SIT IN THE US EXECUTIVE FALLS UNDER THE SAME PARAMETERS AS THAT WHICH REQUIRES A HAWAIIN TO OBTAIN A PASSPORT!

And it's HARDLY the viable basis on which to claim that one CAN'T PRODUCE AN ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE... which is your claim; and which is a claim of the PATHETICALLY WEAK VARIETY.

The veracity of the Presidency of the US is at question here... ONLY A LEFTIST WOULD TAKE A STAND ON SUCH A PATHETIC LIE... ANY reasonable American would have LONG AGO provided the necessary information to satisfy this question; that he has NOT, says FIRST THAT HE IS NOT REASONABLE and SECOND THAT THE INFORMATION WHICH SUPPORTS HIS CLAIM IS DUBIOUS... which undermines his authority, which stands ONLY UPON THE VERACITY OF HIS OATHE...

Essentially, we're talking about the SAME ISSUE, that would arise if the President Elect showed up at the 'swearing in ceremony' and in response to the demand by the Cheif Justice to raise his RIGHT hand to swear his oathe of office and he responded... "No... I'm not making any promises to defend or protect that document... it's irrelevant... I'm the President and I decide what principles and laws guide the country during my administration."

He's simply gone about it in a less overt fashion... undermining that Constitution at EVERY POINT; and what's more he has flat out stated such throughout his entire political life.

It's subversion folks... plain and simple; and you're watching it unfold.

These people do not give a flaming red rats ass what the Constitution requires... PERIOD.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1387211-post186.html

 

[Emma]

the State does NOT only issue COLBS. You misunderstand the language of the law you are quoting. That's all.

the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth

Please explain how that statement can be misunderstood.

That is their preference. So please read this again.

Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.


The original vital records exist. The director of the Hawaii DOH has stated this as fact. Twice. That does not necessarily mean there is an actual paper copy of a birth certificate residing at the DOH. And regardless, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth.

You cannot possibly believe that the person who happens to be the President of the United States would get his request for production of a photocopy of his own Birth Certificate denied, do you?

Are you suggesting they break the law? Are you suggesting that the President has the authority to override state officials and state law in such a matter? Just curious. You being all concerned about the Constitution and stuff.


Bottom line. In order to see President Obama's Certificate of Live Birth, Hawaii is going to have to change their law to allow that. And because of all the noise by the birthers over this, if Hawaii were to do so, wouldn't that come perilously close (at least in spirit) to a bill of attainder?

Emma:

I would like to take this opportunity to startle you. I think my earlier claim that you simply misunderstood the language of the law you were quoting was an overstatement on my part. Upon taking another look (and a slightly deeper look) into that matter, I think I was probably the one who was mistaken. Mea culpa and so forth.

It might very well be, instead, that Hawaii would (usually) decline to provide a copy of a Birth Certificate which they have on file to a person requesting a copy of same.

That said, I STILL believe it is the overwhelming likelihood that President Obama has his own copy of his birth certificate since he cited it in his own tome. Further, I strongly believe that if the President were to make that simple request of the Hawaiian authorities, they would find their way clear to permit the President of the United States to have a certified photocopy of the vault version of the original Birth Certificate.

Regards and all that,

Liability

Thank you.

Unless they change the law, I don't see how they can (legally) get away with issuing the long form to anyone, regardless of who it is.

 

[anna]

barry hussein never got his american citizenship back!! adopted by lolo soetoro muslim, his mother"s husband from jakarta indonesia. he was brought up by his stepdad and went to muslim schools. he was an american citizen at one time. son of a ann dunham and malcolm x. obama sr. was the scapegoat in this mess!! obama was born in seattle washington!!!

 

[Emma]

barry hussein never got his american citizenship back!! adopted by lolo soetoro muslim, his mother"s husband from jakarta indonesia. he was brought up by his stepdad and went to muslim schools. he was an american citizen at one time. son of a ann dunham and malcolm x. obama sr. was the scapegoat in this mess!! obama was born in seattle washington!!!

US citizenship isn't like a set of car keys. You don't just up and lose it.

*oops* LOL

US CODE: Title 8,1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions



(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if

(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or

(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

(4)
(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or

(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or

(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or

(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.