Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And by 'guilliable', you mean accept whatever hapless batshit you make up and ignore the State of Hawaii on its own documents........because you say so?I love the way you morons invent things I said so you can win an argument.Because Hawaii isn't a real state (-:
I love how you keep ignoring the fact that the State of Hawaii, the Health Department of Hawaii, the Director of Health of Hawaii and the Registar of Hawaii have all affirmed Obama's birth in Hawaii.
I don't.
It's easy to ignore a bunch sleazy lying politicians who have everything to lose by pissing off the President of the United States.
Why do you think George Bush would be pissed off?
After all- that is who was President when the State of Hawaii first confirmed that Senator Barack Obama was a natural born citizen of Hawaii- and that his birth certificate was legitimate.
Stop trying to convince the forum that your are mortally gullible. The election was a month away. Obama was leading in all the polls. Leftwing turds like you pointed out that fact in this forum over and over and over again.
lol
Hilarious
wash, how ya doin', my man?
Snopes took that apart years ago.
Birth Sign
These poor, gulliable souls will believe anything. Conservatives get by on some of the lowest information voters imaginable. People that are eager, even desperate to be lied to. And as long as they want to believe the lie......they'll swallow any batshit dropped into their waiting gullets.
You mean like we are going to give healthcare to 40 million extra people, cover everything, and your premiums will be cheaper.... As gullible and willfully ignorant as that ??? Lmfao
Gullible enough to accept an unsourcecd picture off of a blog as gospel truth. And then never to ask any questions or fact check any of it.
Like birthers did with that brain dead 'birth place of Obama' picture.
That picture is just as credible as the so-called photo of Obama's birth certificate. Why do you accept one but not the other?
I love it.
Birthers believe a photo-shopped photo anonymous post on the internet IS just as credible as official documents authenticated by the the State of Hawaii.
Do you show your library card to a police officer when you are pulled over- telling him that your library card is just as credible as a driver's license?
What "official documents?" No one has seen them.
You mean some sleazy politicians who don't want to piss off Obama "affirmed" it. Their word is less credible than the word of a used car salesman. Why can't they produce the original document for independent verification?
The only one sleazy here is you with the usual Birther slime.
You seem to think that the State of Hawaii is under some obligation to break Hawaii law just because a few irrelevant Birthers stomp your feet.
Everyone who matters knows where Barack Obama was born.
You don't matter.
What law would they break by producing Obama's so-called "birth certificate" for inspection?
Would it matter? You'll ignore it just the same. Just as you have every affirmation of Obama's place of birth.
And for the record, its HRS §338-18.
Look it up if you're interested. Or give us an excuse to ignore it you're not. You're irrelevant in either circumstance.
In other words, no law would have been broken. Thanks for admitting you are full of shit.
Birthers- demonstrating once again that they are impervious to the facts.
What law would they break by producing Obama's so-called "birth certificate" for inspection?
Would it matter? You'll ignore it just the same. Just as you have every affirmation of Obama's place of birth.
And for the record, its HRS §338-18.
Look it up if you're interested. Or give us an excuse to ignore it you're not. You're irrelevant in either circumstance.
In other words, no law would have been broken. Thanks for admitting you are full of shit.
Birthers- demonstrating once again that they are impervious to the facts.
Their argument is literally to ignore anyone or anything that contradicts them. There's nothing to the birther conspiracy but self delusion and desperate, willful ignorance.
It's normal to ignore obvious bullshit and lies when you're disputing a point of fact.
You mean like we are going to give healthcare to 40 million extra people, cover everything, and your premiums will be cheaper.... As gullible and willfully ignorant as that ??? Lmfao
Gullible enough to accept an unsourcecd picture off of a blog as gospel truth. And then never to ask any questions or fact check any of it.
Like birthers did with that brain dead 'birth place of Obama' picture.
That picture is just as credible as the so-called photo of Obama's birth certificate. Why do you accept one but not the other?
I love it.
Birthers believe a photo-shopped photo anonymous post on the internet IS just as credible as official documents authenticated by the the State of Hawaii.
Do you show your library card to a police officer when you are pulled over- telling him that your library card is just as credible as a driver's license?
What "official documents?" No one has seen them.
Sure they have. The COLB issued in 2007 was an official document and seen by plenty. The Secretary of State of Arizona requested verification of Obama's eligibility to be president from the State of Hawaii and had it affirmed by the Registar of Hawaii himself. Confirming both Obama's birth in Hawaii and that the image of Obama's birth certificate on the WH matched their original records.
With the Secretary of State of Arizona acknowledging this confirmation as establishing Obama's place of birth according to the law.
You ignore them all.
Laughing....so? Again, your entire argument is willful ignorance.
The only one sleazy here is you with the usual Birther slime.
You seem to think that the State of Hawaii is under some obligation to break Hawaii law just because a few irrelevant Birthers stomp your feet.
Everyone who matters knows where Barack Obama was born.
You don't matter.
What law would they break by producing Obama's so-called "birth certificate" for inspection?
Would it matter? You'll ignore it just the same. Just as you have every affirmation of Obama's place of birth.
And for the record, its HRS §338-18.
Look it up if you're interested. Or give us an excuse to ignore it you're not. You're irrelevant in either circumstance.
In other words, no law would have been broken. Thanks for admitting you are full of shit.
Birthers- demonstrating once again that they are impervious to the facts.
Which "facts" am I impervious to? All your so-called "facts" are non sequiturs. You are impervious to logic.
Would it matter? You'll ignore it just the same. Just as you have every affirmation of Obama's place of birth.
And for the record, its HRS §338-18.
Look it up if you're interested. Or give us an excuse to ignore it you're not. You're irrelevant in either circumstance.
In other words, no law would have been broken. Thanks for admitting you are full of shit.
Birthers- demonstrating once again that they are impervious to the facts.
Their argument is literally to ignore anyone or anything that contradicts them. There's nothing to the birther conspiracy but self delusion and desperate, willful ignorance.
It's normal to ignore obvious bullshit and lies when you're disputing a point of fact.
Which is why you citing yourself isn't prima facie evidence of anything in any court.
While Hawaii's official documents are. With the State of Hawaii affirming Obama's place of birth 5 times.
So....is there anything to your argument beyond willful ignorance?
Gullible enough to accept an unsourcecd picture off of a blog as gospel truth. And then never to ask any questions or fact check any of it.
Like birthers did with that brain dead 'birth place of Obama' picture.
That picture is just as credible as the so-called photo of Obama's birth certificate. Why do you accept one but not the other?
I love it.
Birthers believe a photo-shopped photo anonymous post on the internet IS just as credible as official documents authenticated by the the State of Hawaii.
Do you show your library card to a police officer when you are pulled over- telling him that your library card is just as credible as a driver's license?
What "official documents?" No one has seen them.
Sure they have. The COLB issued in 2007 was an official document and seen by plenty. The Secretary of State of Arizona requested verification of Obama's eligibility to be president from the State of Hawaii and had it affirmed by the Registar of Hawaii himself. Confirming both Obama's birth in Hawaii and that the image of Obama's birth certificate on the WH matched their original records.
With the Secretary of State of Arizona acknowledging this confirmation as establishing Obama's place of birth according to the law.
You ignore them all.
Laughing....so? Again, your entire argument is willful ignorance.
The only "official document" that matters is Obama's birth certificate. The rest is just political bullshit.
In other words, no law would have been broken. Thanks for admitting you are full of shit.
Birthers- demonstrating once again that they are impervious to the facts.
Their argument is literally to ignore anyone or anything that contradicts them. There's nothing to the birther conspiracy but self delusion and desperate, willful ignorance.
It's normal to ignore obvious bullshit and lies when you're disputing a point of fact.
Which is why you citing yourself isn't prima facie evidence of anything in any court.
While Hawaii's official documents are. With the State of Hawaii affirming Obama's place of birth 5 times.
So....is there anything to your argument beyond willful ignorance?
I haven't cited anything. You're the one offering all the non sequitur cites.
All you've done is cite a bunch of lying politicians who have everything to lose by pissing off the future President of the United States.
What law would they break by producing Obama's so-called "birth certificate" for inspection?
Would it matter? You'll ignore it just the same. Just as you have every affirmation of Obama's place of birth.
And for the record, its HRS §338-18.
Look it up if you're interested. Or give us an excuse to ignore it you're not. You're irrelevant in either circumstance.
In other words, no law would have been broken. Thanks for admitting you are full of shit.
Birthers- demonstrating once again that they are impervious to the facts.
Which "facts" am I impervious to? All your so-called "facts" are non sequiturs. You are impervious to logic.
HRS §338-18 isn't a non-sequitur. Its the law in the State of Hawaii. Your imaginary 'exception' to the law in 'consent' that you pulled sideways out of your ass certainly would be.
He's cited the law. You cited yourself. He wins.
As remember.....you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You didn't even know the law *existed* until we told you about 15 minutes ago.
Would it matter? You'll ignore it just the same. Just as you have every affirmation of Obama's place of birth.
And for the record, its HRS §338-18.
Look it up if you're interested. Or give us an excuse to ignore it you're not. You're irrelevant in either circumstance.
In other words, no law would have been broken. Thanks for admitting you are full of shit.
Birthers- demonstrating once again that they are impervious to the facts.
Which "facts" am I impervious to? All your so-called "facts" are non sequiturs. You are impervious to logic.
HRS §338-18 isn't a non-sequitur. Its the law in the State of Hawaii. Your imaginary 'exception' to the law in 'consent' that you pulled sideways out of your ass certainly would be.
He's cited the law. You cited yourself. He wins.
As remember.....you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You didn't even know the law *existed* until we told you about 15 minutes ago.
Allow me to quote the entire statute for you. You will note there are a large number of people who are qualified to view the document. The first person on the list is the "registrant," i.e., Barack Hussein Obama:
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 338-18 : Hawaii Statutes - Section 338-18: Disclosure of records.
(a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1) The registrant;
(2) The spouse of the registrant;
(3) A parent of the registrant;
(4) A descendant of the registrant;
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8) A personal representative of the registrant's estate;
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child's natural or legal parents;
(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
(c) The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made.
(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.
(e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.
(f) Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies. Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct.
(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:
(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;
(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities;
(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]
- See more at: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 338-18 : Hawaii Statutes - Section 338-18: Disclosure of records.
That picture is just as credible as the so-called photo of Obama's birth certificate. Why do you accept one but not the other?
I love it.
Birthers believe a photo-shopped photo anonymous post on the internet IS just as credible as official documents authenticated by the the State of Hawaii.
Do you show your library card to a police officer when you are pulled over- telling him that your library card is just as credible as a driver's license?
What "official documents?" No one has seen them.
Sure they have. The COLB issued in 2007 was an official document and seen by plenty. The Secretary of State of Arizona requested verification of Obama's eligibility to be president from the State of Hawaii and had it affirmed by the Registar of Hawaii himself. Confirming both Obama's birth in Hawaii and that the image of Obama's birth certificate on the WH matched their original records.
With the Secretary of State of Arizona acknowledging this confirmation as establishing Obama's place of birth according to the law.
You ignore them all.
Laughing....so? Again, your entire argument is willful ignorance.
The only "official document" that matters is Obama's birth certificate. The rest is just political bullshit.
Says you, citing you. Which is pseudo-legal gibbber jabber. Back in reality, official documents from Hawaii are prima facie evidence in any court of law. You can get a passport with them.
See how that works? Your willful ignorance is gloriously irrelevant to any legal document.
In other words, no law would have been broken. Thanks for admitting you are full of shit.
Birthers- demonstrating once again that they are impervious to the facts.
Which "facts" am I impervious to? All your so-called "facts" are non sequiturs. You are impervious to logic.
HRS §338-18 isn't a non-sequitur. Its the law in the State of Hawaii. Your imaginary 'exception' to the law in 'consent' that you pulled sideways out of your ass certainly would be.
He's cited the law. You cited yourself. He wins.
As remember.....you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You didn't even know the law *existed* until we told you about 15 minutes ago.
Allow me to quote the entire statute for you. You will note there are a large number of people who are qualified to view the document. The first person on the list is the "registrant," i.e., Barack Hussein Obama:
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 338-18 : Hawaii Statutes - Section 338-18: Disclosure of records.
(a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1) The registrant;
(2) The spouse of the registrant;
(3) A parent of the registrant;
(4) A descendant of the registrant;
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8) A personal representative of the registrant's estate;
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child's natural or legal parents;
(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
(c) The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made.
(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.
(e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.
(f) Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies. Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct.
(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:
(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;
(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities;
(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]
- See more at: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 338-18 : Hawaii Statutes - Section 338-18: Disclosure of records.
And where, pray tell, is your imaginary 'consent' exception?
Remember, you still haven't read it and weren't aware it even existed until we told you....about 20 minutes ago.
I love it.
Birthers believe a photo-shopped photo anonymous post on the internet IS just as credible as official documents authenticated by the the State of Hawaii.
Do you show your library card to a police officer when you are pulled over- telling him that your library card is just as credible as a driver's license?
What "official documents?" No one has seen them.
Sure they have. The COLB issued in 2007 was an official document and seen by plenty. The Secretary of State of Arizona requested verification of Obama's eligibility to be president from the State of Hawaii and had it affirmed by the Registar of Hawaii himself. Confirming both Obama's birth in Hawaii and that the image of Obama's birth certificate on the WH matched their original records.
With the Secretary of State of Arizona acknowledging this confirmation as establishing Obama's place of birth according to the law.
You ignore them all.
Laughing....so? Again, your entire argument is willful ignorance.
The only "official document" that matters is Obama's birth certificate. The rest is just political bullshit.
Says you, citing you. Which is pseudo-legal gibbber jabber. Back in reality, official documents from Hawaii are prima facie evidence in any court of law. You can get a passport with them.
See how that works? Your willful ignorance is gloriously irrelevant to any legal document.
Your "official documents" are nothing more than the unsubstantiated claims politicians, that is, of professional liars. They are evidenced of nothing.
Birthers- demonstrating once again that they are impervious to the facts.
Which "facts" am I impervious to? All your so-called "facts" are non sequiturs. You are impervious to logic.
HRS §338-18 isn't a non-sequitur. Its the law in the State of Hawaii. Your imaginary 'exception' to the law in 'consent' that you pulled sideways out of your ass certainly would be.
He's cited the law. You cited yourself. He wins.
As remember.....you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You didn't even know the law *existed* until we told you about 15 minutes ago.
Allow me to quote the entire statute for you. You will note there are a large number of people who are qualified to view the document. The first person on the list is the "registrant," i.e., Barack Hussein Obama:
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 338-18 : Hawaii Statutes - Section 338-18: Disclosure of records.
(a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1) The registrant;
(2) The spouse of the registrant;
(3) A parent of the registrant;
(4) A descendant of the registrant;
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8) A personal representative of the registrant's estate;
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child's natural or legal parents;
(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
(c) The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made.
(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.
(e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.
(f) Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies. Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct.
(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:
(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;
(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities;
(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]
- See more at: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 338-18 : Hawaii Statutes - Section 338-18: Disclosure of records.
And where, pray tell, is your imaginary 'consent' exception?
Remember, you still haven't read it and weren't aware it even existed until we told you....about 20 minutes ago.
Are you illiterate? I just posted it.
What "official documents?" No one has seen them.
Sure they have. The COLB issued in 2007 was an official document and seen by plenty. The Secretary of State of Arizona requested verification of Obama's eligibility to be president from the State of Hawaii and had it affirmed by the Registar of Hawaii himself. Confirming both Obama's birth in Hawaii and that the image of Obama's birth certificate on the WH matched their original records.
With the Secretary of State of Arizona acknowledging this confirmation as establishing Obama's place of birth according to the law.
You ignore them all.
Laughing....so? Again, your entire argument is willful ignorance.
The only "official document" that matters is Obama's birth certificate. The rest is just political bullshit.
Says you, citing you. Which is pseudo-legal gibbber jabber. Back in reality, official documents from Hawaii are prima facie evidence in any court of law. You can get a passport with them.
See how that works? Your willful ignorance is gloriously irrelevant to any legal document.
Your "official documents" are nothing more than the unsubstantiated claims politicians, that is, of professional liars. They are evidenced of nothing.
Says you, citing yourself. Which is meaningless.
Back in reality, a COLB is prima facie evidence in any court of law. And you can use it to get a passport.
Is there anything to you but willful ignorance? Do you have anything else, birther?
Which "facts" am I impervious to? All your so-called "facts" are non sequiturs. You are impervious to logic.
HRS §338-18 isn't a non-sequitur. Its the law in the State of Hawaii. Your imaginary 'exception' to the law in 'consent' that you pulled sideways out of your ass certainly would be.
He's cited the law. You cited yourself. He wins.
As remember.....you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You didn't even know the law *existed* until we told you about 15 minutes ago.
Allow me to quote the entire statute for you. You will note there are a large number of people who are qualified to view the document. The first person on the list is the "registrant," i.e., Barack Hussein Obama:
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 338-18 : Hawaii Statutes - Section 338-18: Disclosure of records.
(a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1) The registrant;
(2) The spouse of the registrant;
(3) A parent of the registrant;
(4) A descendant of the registrant;
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8) A personal representative of the registrant's estate;
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child's natural or legal parents;
(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
(c) The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made.
(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.
(e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.
(f) Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies. Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct.
(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:
(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;
(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities;
(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]
- See more at: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 338-18 : Hawaii Statutes - Section 338-18: Disclosure of records.
And where, pray tell, is your imaginary 'consent' exception?
Remember, you still haven't read it and weren't aware it even existed until we told you....about 20 minutes ago.
Are you illiterate? I just posted it.
Then where did it say that with the consent of the registrant, that anyone can inspect it?
No where. You made that up. The word 'consent' isn't listed anywhere in the law. Your 'exception' is imaginary nonsense. You're literally hallucinating passages that don't exist. While ignoring those laws that do exist.
Self delusion matched with willful ignorance is the entirety of the birther argument.
Sure they have. The COLB issued in 2007 was an official document and seen by plenty. The Secretary of State of Arizona requested verification of Obama's eligibility to be president from the State of Hawaii and had it affirmed by the Registar of Hawaii himself. Confirming both Obama's birth in Hawaii and that the image of Obama's birth certificate on the WH matched their original records.
With the Secretary of State of Arizona acknowledging this confirmation as establishing Obama's place of birth according to the law.
You ignore them all.
Laughing....so? Again, your entire argument is willful ignorance.
The only "official document" that matters is Obama's birth certificate. The rest is just political bullshit.
Says you, citing you. Which is pseudo-legal gibbber jabber. Back in reality, official documents from Hawaii are prima facie evidence in any court of law. You can get a passport with them.
See how that works? Your willful ignorance is gloriously irrelevant to any legal document.
Your "official documents" are nothing more than the unsubstantiated claims politicians, that is, of professional liars. They are evidenced of nothing.
Says you, citing yourself. Which is meaningless.
Back in reality, a COLB is prima facie evidence in any court of law. And you can use it to get a passport.
Is there anything to you but willful ignorance? Do you have anything else, birther?
No one has seen the COLB. The lying politicians claim they have seen it, but there's no credible proof of that. We only have their word for it.
HRS §338-18 isn't a non-sequitur. Its the law in the State of Hawaii. Your imaginary 'exception' to the law in 'consent' that you pulled sideways out of your ass certainly would be.
He's cited the law. You cited yourself. He wins.
As remember.....you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You didn't even know the law *existed* until we told you about 15 minutes ago.
Allow me to quote the entire statute for you. You will note there are a large number of people who are qualified to view the document. The first person on the list is the "registrant," i.e., Barack Hussein Obama:
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 338-18 : Hawaii Statutes - Section 338-18: Disclosure of records.
(a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1) The registrant;
(2) The spouse of the registrant;
(3) A parent of the registrant;
(4) A descendant of the registrant;
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8) A personal representative of the registrant's estate;
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child's natural or legal parents;
(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
(c) The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made.
(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.
(e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.
(f) Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies. Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct.
(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:
(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;
(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities;
(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]
- See more at: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 338-18 : Hawaii Statutes - Section 338-18: Disclosure of records.
And where, pray tell, is your imaginary 'consent' exception?
Remember, you still haven't read it and weren't aware it even existed until we told you....about 20 minutes ago.
Are you illiterate? I just posted it.
Then where did it say that with the consent of the registrant, that anyone can inspect it?
No where. You made that up. The word 'consent' isn't listed anywhere in the law. Your 'exception' is imaginary nonsense. You're literally hallucinating passages that don't exist. While ignoring those laws that do exist.
Self delusion matched with willful ignorance is the entirety of the birther argument.
You are in incurable moron. Tell us what you think this means:
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1) The registrant;
What do you think "unless" means?
