Hawaii Officials Drop Plan To Name Park After Obama

[norwegen]

They probably realize he is a embarrassment and that he is not a true native son.

Either that or Dicklick Park just doesn't have a very nice ring to it.

 

[Skylar]

She affirms he was born in Hawaii based on fraudulent records entered in their system.

Says who? Hayes never says this. Even Sheriff Joe doesn't make this claim. None of them claim that the original records were forged, as they don't have access to the original records.

Who then are you quoting? And you do realize that you just increased the ridiculous level of pointless complexity and needless elaboration of your silly conspiracy by orders of magnitude, right?

Apparently you missed a few interviews with lead investigator Mike Zullo. Hawaii is covering for Obama.

By all means, quote your source. And of course, recognize that Mike Zullo has no forensic document verification experience. And you have no document specialist that claims that the original vital documents were forged.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

I'll stick with a credible law enforcement entity who deal with fraudulent documents, birth certificates, etc all the time. Hawaii Dept of Health is covering for Obama.

You do know that 212 experts passed until they found Hayes, who violated his own organizations code of ethics, and this is what you consider 'credible.' Your an idiot!

Hayes never violated his code of ethics as anti-birthers tried to say. Hayes is still doing what he does best, detecting forgeries.

Apparently Hayes 'best' wasn't good enough; he was wrong. All the information on the birth certificate was accurate, as affirmed by the State of Hawaii.

In writing. Twice.

And you've still never explained why Sheriff Joe never asked the State of Hawaii if the birth certificate was accurate. Its the first thing any credible investigator would do. But ol' Joe never did.

Why not?

Oh Hayes isn't wrong. He has proven the April 27, 2011 document is a forgery like the Maricopa CCP proved which was updated to a full criminal investigation.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

She affirms he was born in Hawaii based on fraudulent records entered in their system.

Says who? Hayes never says this. Even Sheriff Joe doesn't make this claim. None of them claim that the original records were forged, as they don't have access to the original records.

Who then are you quoting? And you do realize that you just increased the ridiculous level of pointless complexity and needless elaboration of your silly conspiracy by orders of magnitude, right?

Apparently you missed a few interviews with lead investigator Mike Zullo. Hawaii is covering for Obama.

By all means, quote your source. And of course, recognize that Mike Zullo has no forensic document verification experience. And you have no document specialist that claims that the original vital documents were forged.

He doesn't have to have forensic documentation verification experience. Zullo had use of the MCSO full resources which includes their fraud division. Reed Hayes impeccable professional skills were utilized to verify their findings.

 

[Skylar]

I'll stick with a credible law enforcement entity who deal with fraudulent documents, birth certificates, etc all the time. Hawaii Dept of Health is covering for Obama.

You do know that 212 experts passed until they found Hayes, who violated his own organizations code of ethics, and this is what you consider 'credible.' Your an idiot!

Hayes never violated his code of ethics as anti-birthers tried to say. Hayes is still doing what he does best, detecting forgeries.

Apparently Hayes 'best' wasn't good enough; he was wrong. All the information on the birth certificate was accurate, as affirmed by the State of Hawaii.

In writing. Twice.

And you've still never explained why Sheriff Joe never asked the State of Hawaii if the birth certificate was accurate. Its the first thing any credible investigator would do. But ol' Joe never did.

Why not?

Oh Hayes isn't wrong. He has proven the April 27, 2011 document is a forgery like the Maricopa CCP proved which was updated to a full criminal investigation.

The State of Hawaii affirms that the birth certificate that Hayes insists is forged.....is in fact 100% accurate. Explicitly contradicting Hayes. And the State of Hawaii beats any document specialist you can produce, as the State of Hawaii has access to the original vital records. Hayes doesn't.

He doesn't have to have forensic documentation verification experience. Zullo had use of the MCSO full resources which includes their fraud division. Reed Hayes impeccable professional skills were utilized to verify their findings.

I'm guessing 'quote your sources' was a little vague, huh? Quote Zullo directly where he indicated that the original vital records held by the State of Hawaii were fraudulent. By 'quote' I mean show us his words, directly and unedited. Not your paraphrases of his position. And if you have a document specialist that affirms this, name them. Quote them directly.

As so far, you have quoted no one backing your position that the original vital records were fraudulent.

 

[HenryBHough]

Not it wouldn't. The requirements would still stand.The Secretary of State's affirmation of the vote in 2008 and 2012 would be the legal basis of Obama's eligibility. As the determinations by the SoS would establish legally, that all requirements were met.

Any future candidate would have to meet the same requirements. With the final determination of the validity of a candidates eligibility being made by the State Legislatures, individual Electors, and finally the Secretary of State....exactly as it was with Obama.

In your wildest coke-fueled dreams? Maybe.

Precedent is set.

NO candidate for president is EVER to be asked about where he/she/it (trannies OK) was born. To ask them is politically incorrect....and if they are of other than pale pigmentation to even think of asking such a question would be RACIST!

Precedent is not only set, it's a bitch.

 

[Skylar]

In your wildest coke-fueled dreams? Maybe.

The constitution defines no method of determination of eligibility of a candidate to be president. In our history, the defacto arbiter of the validity of a given candidate and a given vote has been the Secretary of State. Given that the Secretary of State has signed off on the validity of the 2008 and 2012 elections, that could easily be the legal basis for Obama's eligibility in your insanely unlikely hypothetical scenario. As the sign off by the SoS establishes that the legal standards have been met.

And completely 'coke' free.

NO candidate for president is EVER to be asked about where he/she/it (trannies OK) was born. To ask them is politically incorrect....and if they are of other than pale pigmentation to even think of asking such a question would be RACIST!

Sure they have. There were elaborate debates on the eligibility of Romney's father when was considered for a presidential run . There were issues with President Chester Arthur, with rumors that he'd been born in Canada, no the US. And McCain's eligibility issues were prominent enough that the Senate passed a resolution affirming that he was in fact a natural born citizen, despite not having been born in the US.

Obama's eligibility has been established more thoroughly than any president in US history. And please take a look at the OP's profile pic....which includes images of Obama and Michelle as monkeys. Yet you still claim race plays no role?

C'mon. Really?

 

[HenryBHough]

Skybar is still steamed about the SECOND song the band played after The New Messiah's Anointment and the "honeymoon" period that typically follows (Congress and President coming together) seemed a distant dream:

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

In your wildest coke-fueled dreams? Maybe.

The constitution defines no method of determination of eligibility of a candidate to be president. In our history, the defacto arbiter of the validity of a given candidate and a given vote has been the Secretary of State. Given that the Secretary of State has signed off on the validity of the 2008 and 2012 elections, that could easily be the legal basis for Obama's eligibility in your insanely unlikely hypothetical scenario. As the sign off by the SoS establishes that the legal standards have been met.

And completely 'coke' free.

NO candidate for president is EVER to be asked about where he/she/it (trannies OK) was born. To ask them is politically incorrect....and if they are of other than pale pigmentation to even think of asking such a question would be RACIST!

Sure they have. There were elaborate debates on the eligibility of Romney's father when was considered for a presidential run . There were issues with President Chester Arthur, with rumors that he'd been born in Canada, no the US. And McCain's eligibility issues were prominent enough that the Senate passed a resolution affirming that he was in fact a natural born citizen, despite not having been born in the US.

Obama's eligibility has been established more thoroughly than any president in US history. And please take a look at the OP's profile pic....which includes images of Obama and Michelle as monkeys. Yet you still claim race plays no role?

C'mon. Really?

McCain was deemed a natural born Citizen born to U.S citizen parents (plural) in the canal zone.

 

[Skylar]

McCain was deemed a natural born Citizen born to U.S citizen parents (plural)

.....by the Senate, who passed the resolution stating as much. Which they wouldn't have to do if there was no question to his eligibility.

And please remember, the issue of eligibility for those born in the US to only one US parent has already been established with Chester Arthur. Who was born in the US to an American mother and a Canadian father. There were no questions to his eligibility based on parentage, as it was well understood that being born in the US made one a natural born citizen. The controversy was the rumor that he was actually born in Canada.

Likewise, when Romney's father's eligibility was debated, his parentage was essentially irrelevant. The question of his natural born citizenship was brought up based on his not having been born in the US.

Wong Kim Ark and their dicta on the understanding of the term 'natural born' in the revolutionary and pre-revolutionary era establish why it was location, not parentage, that makes one's natural born status questionable.

 

[OnePercenter]

Question for a legal scholar - a real one....

IF Obama is proven to have been ineligible to be president are any of His executive orders or any legislation signed into law by him valid? How about his unilateral appointments to various real offices and "czarships"? Should they be void and the people holding those positions forced to pay back their (in the circumstance) illegal wages?

He's not ineligible so your post is moot.

 

[Jackson]

Hawaii officials drop plan to name park for Obama
Posted: 10/07/2014 4:01 PM
HONOLULU (AP) - Two Honolulu city councilmen have dropped plans to rename a popular beach for President Barack Obama.
The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports Councilman Stanley Chang and Council Chairman Ernie Martin decided to withdraw the proposal after hearing from the public.
The councilmen last week introduced a resolution to change the name of Sandy Beach Park to President Barack Obama Sandy Beach Park.
The beach is a popular for bodysurfing on Oahu's east side. It was a favorite for the president as he grew up. He bodysurfed there while on vacation during his 2008 campaign.
Martin says in a statement that he heard historic and cultural sensitivity concerns from the community about the name change.
He says there may be other public facilities more appropriate to honor the president.
Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

​

I wonder what those "concerns" were?

There was a Land Fill that needed a name.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Question for a legal scholar - a real one....

IF Obama is proven to have been ineligible to be president are any of His executive orders or any legislation signed into law by him valid? How about his unilateral appointments to various real offices and "czarships"? Should they be void and the people holding those positions forced to pay back their (in the circumstance) illegal wages?

He's not ineligible so your post is moot.

Yes he is. He is not a natural born Citizen even if it was found to be the truth that he somehow was born in Hawaii.

 

[OnePercenter]

I'll stick with a credible law enforcement entity who deal with fraudulent documents, birth certificates, etc all the time. Hawaii Dept of Health is covering for Obama.

You do know that 212 experts passed until they found Hayes, who violated his own organizations code of ethics, and this is what you consider 'credible.' Your an idiot!

Hayes never violated his code of ethics as anti-birthers tried to say. Hayes is still doing what he does best, detecting forgeries.

Did Reed Hayes Violate the NADE Code of Ethics RC Radio Blog

 

[Skylar]

Yes he is. He is not a natural born Citizen even if it was found to be the truth that he somehow was born in Hawaii.

Says you. The USSC came to a very different conclusion in the Wong Kim Ark ruling. They discussed at length the meaning of 'natural born'. And found that in revolutionary and pre-revolutionary eras, natural born status followed place of birth. And would be conferred even to a child of two foreign nationals. Questions of natural born status typically come up if someone is born outside the US.

And it was these outside the US births that the founders found it necessary to explicitly state were also natural born citizens....if born to two US parents. For those born in the US, they were natural born citizens at birth. As natural born status followed place of birth. Not lineage.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

I'll stick with a credible law enforcement entity who deal with fraudulent documents, birth certificates, etc all the time. Hawaii Dept of Health is covering for Obama.

You do know that 212 experts passed until they found Hayes, who violated his own organizations code of ethics, and this is what you consider 'credible.' Your an idiot!

Hayes never violated his code of ethics as anti-birthers tried to say. Hayes is still doing what he does best, detecting forgeries.

Did Reed Hayes Violate the NADE Code of Ethics RC Radio Blog

The answer is no.

 

[Skylar]

I'll stick with a credible law enforcement entity who deal with fraudulent documents, birth certificates, etc all the time. Hawaii Dept of Health is covering for Obama.

You do know that 212 experts passed until they found Hayes, who violated his own organizations code of ethics, and this is what you consider 'credible.' Your an idiot!

Hayes never violated his code of ethics as anti-birthers tried to say. Hayes is still doing what he does best, detecting forgeries.

Did Reed Hayes Violate the NADE Code of Ethics RC Radio Blog

The answer is no.

Again, says you. And we're still waiting for you to quote Zullo claiming that the original vital documents held by Hawaii are fraudulent. So far, its just you citing yourself.

Which hasn't been a spectacularly useful source.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Yes . is. He is not a natural born Citizen even if it was found to be the truth that he somehow was born in Hawaii.

Says you. The USSC came to a very different conclusion in the Wong Kim Ark ruling. They discussed at length the meaning of 'natural born'. And found that in revolutionary and pre-revolutionary eras, natural born status followed place of birth. And would be conferred even to a child of two foreign nationals. Questions of natural born status typically come up if someone is born outside the US.

And it was these outside the US births that the founders found it necessary to explicitly state were also natural born citizens....if born to two US parents. For those born in the US, they were natural born citizens at birth. As natural born status followed place of birth. Not lineage.

Wong Kim Ark was not affirmed a natural born Citizen based on Article 2 Section 1. He was affirmed just a Citizen based on the 14th Amendment which lacks the wordage 'natural born Citizen.

 

[Skylar]

Yes . is. He is not a natural born Citizen even if it was found to be the truth that he somehow was born in Hawaii.

Says you. The USSC came to a very different conclusion in the Wong Kim Ark ruling. They discussed at length the meaning of 'natural born'. And found that in revolutionary and pre-revolutionary eras, natural born status followed place of birth. And would be conferred even to a child of two foreign nationals. Questions of natural born status typically come up if someone is born outside the US.

And it was these outside the US births that the founders found it necessary to explicitly state were also natural born citizens....if born to two US parents. For those born in the US, they were natural born citizens at birth. As natural born status followed place of birth. Not lineage.

Wong Kim Ark was not affirmed a natural born Citizen based on Article 2 Section 1. He was affirmed just a Citizen based on the 14th Amendment which lacks the wordage 'natural born Citizen.

The courts discussed the meaning of 'natural born' in the case. And found that natural born status followed place of birth. Not lineage. No court ruling has found that someone born in the US since the passage of the 14th amendment isn't a natural born citizen. So your claims that Obama isn't natural born are merely your opinion. Where the findings that natural born status follows place of birth is part of the Wong Kim Ark ruling.

The USSC, much like the State of Hawaii, the Registrar of Hawaii Alvin Tanaka, the Secretary of State of the United States, the Secretary of State of Mississippi, the Secretary of State of Arizona, the Director of the Department of Health of Hawaii Chiyome Fukino, and Republic governor Linda Lingle .....contradicts you.

So you ignore them all. No rational person ever would.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and I'm still waiting for that Zullo quote. I take it from your reluctance to actually quote Mike rather than paraphrasing him.....that the actual quote wasn't what you'd been hoping for?