Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The certificate from Hawaii is a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH, not a birth certificate. Anyone has been able get a certificate of live birth from the state of Hawaii and it will say the live birth was in whatever city you claim. The certificate of live birth is not a birth certificate that provides all the information always shown on a long form birth certificate, e.g. weight, length, etc.
Here is a copy of the so-called Certificate of LIVE BIRTH issued by the state of Hawaii. Obama was actually delivered (born) in Kenya and the delivery was witnessed by his paternal grandmother. Notice that Barack is a II on the certificate of live birth. http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/n...ertificate.jpg
Okay, bit by bit let's deal with this:
1) The form that you provided is the form that Hawaii sends out as a Birth Certificate - they do not create a new copy of the long form.
2) "Anyone has been able get a certificate of live birth from the state of Hawaii and it will say the live birth was in whatever city you claim." This is false. Further, the State of Hawaii has verified the document you are complaining about as valid.
3) The way one gets a Certification of Birth, as an adult, is if the State already has one on file. That's why Obama's is stamped in 2007, as previously noted.
4) Please read what it says on the bottom of the Certificate. You may not like it, but this is Hawaii's standard form.
5) Yes, it says "II" - why is this a shock? He was named for his father.
Obama was actually delivered (born) in Kenya and the delivery was witnessed by his paternal grandmother.
You've said this several times now. You've referred us to Atty. Berg's video - but the video has nothing concrete in it. Show me something half as credible as the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth.
Show me where the audio of the tape of his paternal grandmother is, or a certified translation by a neutral respected source - and proof that the tape came from the woman in question.
If you applied the same standards of evidence to Berg that you are citing that you demand of Obama, you would be laughing Berg's video off the net.
But instead, you are swallowing Berg's arguments lock, stock, and audio tape.
The certificate from Hawaii is a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH, not a birth certificate. Anyone has been able get a certificate of live birth from the state of Hawaii and it will say the live birth was in whatever city you claim. The certificate of live birth is not a birth certificate that provides all the information always shown on a long form birth certificate, e.g. weight, length, etc.
Here is a copy of the so-called Certificate of LIVE BIRTH issued by the state of Hawaii. Obama was actually delivered (born) in Kenya and the delivery was witnessed by his paternal grandmother. Notice that Barack is a II on the certificate of live birth. http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/n...ertificate.jpg
What do you mean "Anyone has been able get a certificate of live birth from the state of Hawaii and it will say the live birth was in whatever city you claim." Does that mean I can call them up and get a birth cert from them?
A birth certificate is called a number of things.
For example:
My son's birth certificate from New York says "Certificate of Birth"
My daughter's birth certificate says "Copy of Birth Record"
My own birth certificate says "Abstract of Record of Birth"
Both my son and daughter's are long form birth certificate, with as much information as is given on long form birth certificates. Neither give birth weights.
So if either one of my kids tries to be president some day, is some idiot on the internet going to say that a "Copy of Birth Record" isn't the same thing as a Birth Certificate and my daughter is not a citizen?
I think I am going to head over to the Hawaii forum to ask if any of those people over there have their birth certificates handy to compare theirs w/Obama's.
Why don't we start a poll and ask everyone to pull out their CERTIFIED COPIES of their Birth Certificates and see what they are all called?
Location: land of quail, bunnies, and red tail hawks
1,513 posts, read 3,388,682 times
Reputation: 3540
Quote:
Originally Posted by fancofu
I understand the the qualifications for Presidency are different than those of the Senate and Congress. My point was that I would have to assume that Obama's status would be known by whomever does the background checking of individuals running for office. I highly doubt that the DNC would go through all of the trouble only to be rejected at the last moment.
True story: In 1998, John Lindauer ran as a Republican for Governor of Alaska. He was defeated by a landslide when it was determined he was likely ineligible to be Governor due to residency requirements.
Like you, I had assumed that "appropriate agencies" had vetted this man for eligibility before putting him on any ballot (primaries) let alone the gubernatorial one. I was wrong. Most Alaskan Republicans voted Democratic in that election because they were incensed that someone had tried to pull the wool over their eyes. I sincerely doubt that Alaska stands alone in not properly vetting candidates for public office.
While I don't know the truth about Obama's qualifications, I stand with others who have said they are concerned that Constitutional principal be upheld. I can't help but think about Hitler's definition of the Big Lie which is "a lie so 'colossal' that no one would believe that someone 'could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously'." (Thanks Wikipedia!) People are prone to believe the Big Lie as opposed to little lies because little lies are often obvious and easily exposed, whereas a Big Lie requires more homework, skills, and/or insider knowledge than the average person possesses. The assumption is that the Big Lie must be true since no one has exposed it.
It seems that many posters in this debate can't imagine there are people who feel Obama has committed the Big Lie, people who don't trust the "evidence" submitted by Obama. To accurately answer the question of Obama's birth requires diligent homework (investigative techniques), specialized skills (document analysis, Constitutional law, understanding of history), and insider knowledge the average person doesn't possess. Furthermore, there are other issues in Obama's history that put doubt on his eligibility.
I don't know if a Big Lie has been committed, but I wish the issue could be put to rest. Obama doesn't help the matter by appearing to be so secretive about areas of his past, as evidenced by the e-mail NCN shared with us. Why didn't Obama release the documents to the court so they could undergo professional review? Do American citizens have the right to ask these kinds of questions? I think they do.
Obviously, some people believe Obama's assertion that he is qualified to run for president. That's their right, and it's great if they are perfectly satisfied. But that doesn't mean that others will share the same conviction. Some people were satisfied that Bush won the vote in Florida in 2000. Others weren't satisfied, required numerous recounts, and had to live with the court's decision. Ultimately, it will probably take a court to review the issue of Obama's eligibility because this doesn't look like an issue that is going away. It's probably more complicated than either side cares to admit.
I care. Everything ought to be done according to the rule of law. But as I am neither an immigration lawyer nor a Constitutional lawyer nor a judge nor an archivist, I have no choice but to trust that the experts in their fields will come to the correct conclusion about Senator Obama's eligibility.
BTW, wouldn't Hawaii's Republican governor have managed to unearth some evidence before now, if there were some fraud occurring in one of her own cabinet departments?
True story: In 1998, John Lindauer ran as a Republican for Governor of Alaska. He was defeated by a landslide when it was determined he was likely ineligible to be Governor due to residency requirements.
Like you, I had assumed that "appropriate agencies" had vetted this man for eligibility before putting him on any ballot (primaries) let alone the gubernatorial one. I was wrong. Most Alaskan Republicans voted Democratic in that election because they were incensed that someone had tried to pull the wool over their eyes. I sincerely doubt that Alaska stands alone in not properly vetting candidates for public office.
While I don't know the truth about Obama's qualifications, I stand with others who have said they are concerned that Constitutional principal be upheld. I can't help but think about Hitler's definition of the Big Lie which is "a lie so 'colossal' that no one would believe that someone 'could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously'." (Thanks Wikipedia!) People are prone to believe the Big Lie as opposed to little lies because little lies are often obvious and easily exposed, whereas a Big Lie requires more homework, skills, and/or insider knowledge than the average person possesses. The assumption is that the Big Lie must be true since no one has exposed it.
It seems that many posters in this debate can't imagine there are people who feel Obama has committed the Big Lie, people who don't trust the "evidence" submitted by Obama. To accurately answer the question of Obama's birth requires diligent homework (investigative techniques), specialized skills (document analysis, Constitutional law, understanding of history), and insider knowledge the average person doesn't possess. Furthermore, there are other issues in Obama's history that put doubt on his eligibility.
I don't know if a Big Lie has been committed, but I wish the issue could be put to rest. Obama doesn't help the matter by appearing to be so secretive about areas of his past, as evidenced by the e-mail NCN shared with us. Why didn't Obama release the documents to the court so they could undergo professional review? Do American citizens have the right to ask these kinds of questions? I think they do.
Obviously, some people believe Obama's assertion that he is qualified to run for president. That's their right, and it's great if they are perfectly satisfied. But that doesn't mean that others will share the same conviction. Some people were satisfied that Bush won the vote in Florida in 2000. Others weren't satisfied, required numerous recounts, and had to live with the court's decision. Ultimately, it will probably take a court to review the issue of Obama's eligibility because this doesn't look like an issue that is going away. It's probably more complicated than either side cares to admit.
Well said! Let's just have all four candidates produce the documents to some agency like the FBI that proves their eligibility. Also, have all four candidates swear under oath that they have done nothing that would prevent them from being eligible...and if it is later found any of them are ineligible that they will remove themselves from any office or organization that requires them to be natural born citizens of the U.S.
It's really very easy to put this to rest. However, one candidate wants to hide documents and continue to have his background remain a mystery.
You are correct as quoted below. And a court has made a decision calling the lawsuit groundless and frivolous. Good enough for me.
Quote: Obviously, some people believe Obama's assertion that he is qualified to run for president. That's their right, and it's great if they are perfectly satisfied. But that doesn't mean that others will share the same conviction. Some people were satisfied that Bush won the vote in Florida in 2000. Others weren't satisfied, required numerous recounts, and had to live with the court's decision. Ultimately, it will probably take a court to review the issue of Obama's eligibility because this doesn't look like an issue that is going away. It's probably more complicated than either side cares to admit.
All they're asking for is a birth certificate showing he was born in the US. What's wrong with that?
Because it's already been given and shown and verified. It was good enough for the U.S. Department of State. The Hawaiian Board of Health contacted the Obama campaign to try to help get this resolved. But still, people insist there is some Byzantine cover-up going on, when it is so much simpler than that.
Because nothing is enough.
"Where's the birth certificate?" On my website.
"That one looks forged. Show it to somebody else!" Okay. We showed it to Factcheck.org and Politifact.
"Factcheck.org may be tainted - Obama worked for Annenberg! Swear an oath in court!" What about Politifact?
"Why hasn't the state verified it?" They have.
"They didn't verify the exact piece of paper, only an electronic copy!" Have you looked at the newspaper clipping of my birth?
"That could be faked! Nobody else has it, after all, and what about the font? Was that around then? Prove that it's real, too!"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most Alaskan Republicans voted Democratic in that election because they were incensed that someone had tried to pull the wool over their eyes. I sincerely doubt that Alaska stands alone in not properly vetting candidates for public office.
birth certificate
Is your head screwed on straight? 
It really amazes me how far people will take things that are false accusations.
