Unveiled! Hawaii's 1961 long-form birth certificates

Originally posted by PowerSlave
reply to post by SevenThunders

 

There is something Obama wants hidden and it is not necessarily his birthplace.

I have wondered about this since before the election. It is entirely possible that some of the information on the long form may be the issue in keeping this thing sealed up.

If he was born in Hawii on the date specified and parented by the two people listed on this short form. Then there would be no discrepency between the 2 documents. There would be absolutely no reason not to show the long form.

If however, he was born in Hawii on the date specified and parented by different people (specifically the father) then what is listed on the short form would not match the long form. And if that were the case just imagine the fallout............ regardless of his citizenship.


I am curious though, why there are such personal attacks on those so called "birthers"(whatever that means). The names.......... my god

why do people take this so personally?

nutjobs... fringers... etc.


Are people who believe in other conspiracies called nutjobs? Like if I believe JFK was assassinated by undercover gov am I a nutjob? Or if I think 9/11 was an inside job, am i wacko?

Thank goodness someone is still trying to post on topic in this thread. We've got birthers and non-birthers calling each other names and hurling insults and ad hominem attacks, not to mention talking about stuff like the health care bill that should be discussed in a thread on the health care bill. This thread is about the long form birth certificate.

I agree it's possible that by not releasing the long form, Obama may be hiding other information besides his citizenship, like who his real father is? But with all the effort he's going through to keep it from being released it does seem he's hiding something. It would be so easy to end this silly debate by just releasing it if there's nothing to hide.

As for the ad hominem attacks (name calling like birthers nutjob, etc), I find that sometimes when people can't make good arguments on the facts and evidence, they have to resort to other means to make an argument, and ad hominem attacks are one such means of avoiding discussing the real evidence like why hasn't Obama authorized the release of his long form.

There still seems to be some question as to whether the long form exists or not. Even if the state of Hawaii may not have it, I suspect the hospital does, unless they provide sworn testimony to a judge that they don't have it either. So if it really doesn't exist, then releasing it is a moot point. I suspect that it does exist, and if that's the case, why not just release it? That's the million dollar question that people want to avoid answering (because all of the answers I've seen are based on false arguments about what the state or the hospital can release, which are bogus arguments. A letter of authorization from Obama to either the state or the hospital to release the long form would suffice but then the argument is usually "he doesn't want to bother writing a letter" or some other nonsense like that, when he's spending hundreds of thousands in legal fees, you'd think writing a letter would be a lot easier right? So that's why they hurl insults at you when you ask the question "why not just release the long form" because there's really no good answer to that question based on the facts.

Originally posted by RichieScott1
^^^That is what I'm talking about. I have nothing to do with the eugenics part of this discussion. If you actually click the link I provided you will see my explanation for my first reply on this thread.

Nah, it does not work that way. I asked for proof of eugenics, you then write that you already answered me here and put up a link. If you were not responding to my post above that, then you really need to clarify.

Yes, I did ask why you foe'd me because I did not remember you. Now I understand why. You said you put me on ignore. I guess you just like to say whatever you think will sound true at the time.

If you are going to respond after this but are really responding to a post from another page, thread, lifetime - why don't you put it up there.

Either way you are wrong here. You said he altered his birth certificate. I pointed out that that was actually a really stupid thing to say. When does that ignore kick in?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
As for the ad hominem attacks (name calling like birthers nutjob, etc), I find that sometimes when people can't make good arguments on the facts and evidence, they have to resort to other means to make an argument, and ad hominem attacks are one such means of avoiding discussing the real evidence like why hasn't Obama authorized the release of his long form.

There are no facts to discuss here. Apparently, I can say Bush was from Mars and now he has to prove to me that he was not from Mars right? Just because people want to believe Obama was not born in Hawaii with no evidence, does not make it so. If you want people to stick to the facts and make a cogent argument, how about the birthers provide a fact? Just one. Show me one piece of evidence that says Obama was not born in Hawaii. If you want to stick to the facts and make a good argument, please feel free to start any time now. There are countless threads on this and not one of them has anything to back up this nonsense. I refuse to give in to that.

Reagan was the devil. Bush Sr. ate live babies. Cheney shoots a new man in the face every weekend just for fun. I guess now they all have to prove these things are not true, right? Too bad for Reagan.

Originally posted by bigbert81
And this IS a non-issue. Just a bunch of sore losers who are still upset about losing the presidential election. This is ridiculousness to the highest degree.

I agree. But since this is a conspiracy site... an the government has been thought capable of doing 911... would it really be a hard thing for them to create the necessary documennt and no one would ever know

I mean we are always saying the gov lies, covers up and the CIA makes a paper trail

I love double standards

[edit on 30-7-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Show me one piece of evidence that says Obama was not born in Hawaii. If you want to stick to the facts and make a good argument, please feel free to start any time now.

I never said Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. I'm hoping he'll release the long form to show that in fact he was.

There is a lawsuit mentioned in this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Where the soldier is asking Obama to release the long form. I haven't seen their entire complaint, but my understanding from this source:

www.annaraccoon.com...

Is that part of the reason given in their complaint requesting to see the long form, may be the following:

At the time of Obama’s birth, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr, was a subject of the British Commonwealth in Kenya and thereby owed allegiance to Queen Elizabeth.This would be seen on the full version of Obama’s Birth Certificate and this he has steadfastly refused to produce.

So where does this leave us with respect to the facts?
Fact- There is a question about what is on the long form, raised in this lawsuit.
Fact- Releasing the long form would answer this question.
Fact- The long form wasn't released

Those are 3 facts as I know them, correct me if I'm wrong.

They removed this soldier's standing to sue by rescinding his deployment orders so now until someone with standing has a case brought before a judge, the answers to the questions about what is on the long form and why it isn't being released will remain elusive.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I never said Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. I'm hoping he'll release the long form to show that in fact he was.

I am amazed at how you are all starting to backtrack. Suddenly I keep reading "I never said he was not born in Hawaii..." but you all do yourselves a great disservice with the follow up - "All he has to do it prove it to me and I will believe it."

I have to assume that by your style of writing, you are more intelligent than that. Unfortunately, you are the first one I can say that about. You must see how you contradict yourself. You cannot say that you do not believe he is an illegal alien but he needs to prove to you he is not. Logic does not work that way.

So where does this leave us with respect to the facts?
Fact- There is a question about what is on the long form, raised in this lawsuit.
Fact- Releasing the long form would answer this question.
Fact- The long form wasn't released

Those are 3 facts as I know them, correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong. 'Fact' number one is incorrect, therefore negating the facts you follow that with. There is no question about it, there is just rightwing nutjob hatred. Because some of you accuse him of something does not make it a valid question.

or..........

I do not believe you are human. I do not believe that you believe anything you have posted. I do believe that you live with your 16 same sex lovers.

Now, just because I said it, there is a question right?

Ok, let's use your logic and see where it takes us.

fact: there is a question about your humanity
fact: there is a question about your sincerity.
fact: there is a question about your perverted living arrangements.

correct me if I am wrong.

Then explain the difference between my 'questions' and yours.

They removed this soldier's standing to sue by rescinding his deployment orders so now until someone with standing has a case brought before a judge, the answers to the questions about what is on the long form and why it isn't being released will remain elusive.

Hmmmm, you would think that if Obama were born outside of the U.S. it would pretty easy to find someone with standing to challenge that in court. How about his opponents in the race? How about our representatives? Why is it so hard to find someone with standing if it is soooo obviously true?

Look, I keep asking the same things over and over and keep getting bypassed. Why is it that you can all pretend to not believe something yet demand proof and then avoid all pertinent questions that would tear your entire case apart?

What magic stupidity spell is Hannity casting on you people?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
As for the ad hominem attacks (name calling like birthers nutjob, etc), I find that sometimes when people can't make good arguments on the facts and evidence, they have to resort to other means to make an argument, and ad hominem attacks are one such means of avoiding discussing the real evidence like why hasn't Obama authorized the release of his long form.

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So where does this leave us with respect to the facts?
Fact- There is a question about what is on the long form, raised in this lawsuit.
Fact- Releasing the long form would answer this question.
Fact- The long form wasn't released

Those are 3 facts as I know them, correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong. 'Fact' number one is incorrect, therefore negating the facts you follow that with. There is no question about it, there is just rightwing nutjob hatred. Because some of you accuse him of something does not make it a valid question.

Case in point!

What is wrong with fact #1 that makes it incorrect? "rightwing nutjob hatred"? What makes you resort to name calling instead of explaining why you believe it to be incorrect? Oh, I think I already answered that, see above.

Obviously there was a lawsuit, and obviously it demanded to see the long form because of questions about what was on the long form.

Now I think your point is, that nobody has any right to raise such questions about the long form. Whether that's true or not, that's not the fact I presented so you really didn't address the facts I presented.
Maybe the lawsuit was unwarranted and maybe if they hadn't rescinded his orders they would have dismissed the case, who knows, so you could be right about that and the lawsuit was groundless. Even if that's true, the lawsuit was filed, and it did raise questions about what is on the long form so I don't think you've disproven fact one just by an ad hominem attack of name calling.

Your attempts to insert other off-topic questions and then ask me to answer those is evasive, I'm trying to stay on topic here.

I guess Taitz (Cook's lawyer) hasn't given up yet just because his orders were withdrawn:

www.ledger-enquirer.com...

In a pleading revised after the revocation of Cook’s orders, Taitz argues that the application for preliminary injunction is not moot and that retired Maj. Gen. Carol Dean Childers and active U.S. Air Force reservist Lt. Col. David Earl Graeff have joined the suit “because it is a matter of unparalleled public interest and importance and because it is clearly a matter arising from issues of a recurring nature that will escape review unless the Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction.”

[edit on 30-7-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Ok, I was born in Hawaii and both my parents are US citizens. I got out my certificate and it the layout is the exact same. I never got a birth certificate or a Certification of Live Birth (long). All I have is the short version. I don't see what the problem is... of course his could be fake, but then again anyone's could be.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Case in point!

What is wrong with fact #1 that makes it incorrect? "rightwing nutjob hatred"? What makes you resort to name calling instead of explaining why you believe it to be incorrect? Oh, I think I already answered that, see above.

So, examples of what you are trying to do to the president upset you when turned around on you then? Just because someone files a lawsuit does not mean there is a legitimate question. You tell me what the difference is between that and any accusation I want to level at anyone anywhere? As long as I file a lawsuit, there is a question?

Obviously there is no question or else the Republicans would have done something about this but as of yet...nothing. They will not go on record as saying they doubt Obama's natural citizenship, they will just whisper it where it does not matter. Not one of Obama's opponents in the race for president cared about this, and not one of them has bothered to care about it since.

As I already pointed out, your logic here means that I can accuse you of anything I want. As long as I file a lawsuit saying you are guilty of something, then I can legitimately say that there are questions about your innocence regarding...x,y, and z???? Is that really what you are saying here?

Please take a second look at Tatiz' newest evidence before answering. Anyone can file a lawsuit and have it thrown out of court. Thanks to you, I now know that there is nothing incorrect about filing a wrongful death suit against every republican politician in the country and it will then be perfectly ok to spread the word that there are questions about rupublican's guilt in the wrongful death of a person.

I have a far better lawyer than Taitz will ever hope to be though. Mine can spot a phony Kenyan BC before he poses with it on the internet.