Hawaii Senior Elections clerk: Obama birth not here! (now gov't officails saying it!)

Originally posted by mnemeth1

You can disagree all you like, however its written in plain English:

'No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

lol

Its pretty clear to see I was disagreeing with your assertion that the president has to publicly show whatever it is you think he has to publicly show. Not the constitutional amendment explaining natural born citizen requirements.

Nice try though.

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
I requested a copy of mine when this "controversy" arose and they said that the document they sent me (virtually identical to the document Obama has provided) was the only document on record as far as birth certificates go. It also had a "issued" date of 91 I believe, nowhere near the time I was born.

Wow! Really? Go look at your birth certificate again. Does it list the name of the hospital and the name and/or signature of the delivering doctor?

ALL birth certificates (short-form or long-form) should AT LEAST have the name of the hospital listed.

Show me: where on Obama's "birth certificate" is the name of the hospital or doctor?

...I'm waiting.

...Still waiting.

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
lol

Its pretty clear to see I was disagreeing with your assertion that the president has to publicly show whatever it is you think he has to publicly show. Not the constitutional amendment explaining natural born citizen requirements.

Nice try though.

To comply with the Constitutional requirements, the President elect must demonstrate his eligibility.

If he didn't have to, the entire clause would be pointless.

If you can answer this question with a logical answer, I'll shut up:

Why would the framers of the constitution include a clause that said the president had to be natural born if they didn't expect any president to actually have to demonstrate this?


[edit on 10-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

To comply with the Constitutional requirements, the President elect must demonstrate his eligibility.

If he didn't have to, the entire clause would be pointless.

If you can answer this question with a logical answer, I'll shut up:

Why would the framers of the constitution include a clause that said the president had to be natural born if they didn't expect any president to actually have to demonstrate this?

[edit on 10-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

Why you continue to nit pick arguments, and not read my posts escapes me, but sure here goes...

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that someone has to publicly reveal any kind of proof to the mainstream public. There are official channels that kind of information goes through, when those official channels deem the information satisfactory thats where the buck stops.

If you have a problem with the information, take it to the officials that deemed it satisfactory, and lynch them also. They would have to be involved, as well as a multitude of others.

reply to post by coastalite



I'll assume you are still waiting....

me to... from many postings ago.

Good work. S

Wow birth certificate people are always so adamant. Its insane to see a new posting every other weekn or so about the dag on b.c. Give it up already.
I don't even think the supreme court would pay attention to any of this

Originally posted by ThaLoccster

Why you continue to nit pick arguments, and not read my posts escapes me, but sure here goes...

Clearly you have failed to provide me with a logical rational answer to my question, because clearly it would be pointless for the framers to include the clause in the Constitution if they didn't intend for a president-elect to have to demonstrate his eligibility.

If the framers didn't expect a president to demonstrate his eligibility if it was questioned, they wouldn't have put the clause in the constitution. It would have been completely pointless.

The only resolution to this matter is going to be the 2012 election. The states need to require Presidential candidates to present proof of citizenship. And I believe some have. So in 2012 Obama will have to give up the long form birth certificate and have a proper vetting.

Though if for some reason he fails the verification process that could cause interesting legal problems eh?

All laws and legal actions since 1-2009 become invalid. All federal judges put in power since that date would be kicked out of office and their rulings invalidated.

Now that would be a mess eh?

Welll that was a SUPER birther thread!
Great pretend debating, and great job on pseudo-Constitutional interpretation. That whacky Obama!
Bravo!
Looking forward to the next goofball birther thread, though I must say, if youve seen one birther thread, you have seen them all!
Same time, same place?

reply to post by OldDragger



One thing I can assure you. They will return-until the matters identified are answered. Especially when stars, flags, appaluses and great debate occur.

Not to mention the fine display of .......of...... hmmmm..... Flavor that is displayed during them. Thanks for your postings. They contribued much to the debate. made me think some more. so.... it was worth it.

And, we have even more new info. Maybe enough new info will open the right door. Time will tell. But truthfully, I think the damage is already done to Obama and his administartion. Something tells me that this issue will be mute once the other stuff comes out or is confirmed.

Reply to post by anon72

Is it not strange that this, being a conspiracy site, has so many people unwilling to look into a possible conspiracy?

Denying ignorance does not entail bashing, flaming, trolling, etc. Denying ignorance does not mean we ignore sources because we do not agree with them. Hell, any new angle should be investigated, no matter what the source. That is denying ignorance.

If your research leads you down a path, back it with facts, not politics, put downs, and flaming.




Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by ThaLoccster

Why you continue to nit pick arguments, and not read my posts escapes me, but sure here goes...

Clearly you have failed to provide me with a logical rational answer to my question, because clearly it would be pointless for the framers to include the clause in the Constitution if they didn't intend for a president-elect to have to demonstrate his eligibility.

If the framers didn't expect a president to demonstrate his eligibility if it was questioned, they wouldn't have put the clause in the constitution. It would have been completely pointless.

I've actually provided it twice now, you've even quoted the posts it was in but conviently failed to acknowledge it.

Here goes....again...

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that someone has to publicly reveal any kind of proof to the mainstream public. There are official channels that kind of information goes through, when those official channels deem the information satisfactory thats where the buck stops.

If you have a problem with the information, take it to the officials that deemed it satisfactory, and lynch them also. They would have to be involved, as well as a multitude of others.

Ignore it again, won't change anything.

The fact stands that Obama provided his proof of eligibility to the people who determine that eligibility (that would mean not YOU joe public). The people who in turn determine if he is eligible infact declared that he was eligible (he ran for office, and was elected).

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

If he is NOT who he says he is then who is he?

If this is true where did he come from?

When is someone that works dirrectly with him in the White House
going to speak up and tell everything they know about him?

If he's not who he says he is then who is Michelle Obama and who are the children that he says is his daughters?

Just asking

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by OldDragger

 

I can see where you are coming from but it doesn't change the fact the new info comes out every week (or so).

No it doesn't.

Maybe we can focus on the new info for your interest? What is your thoughts on the Long Form B.C that apparently is available to people that were born the day before Obama but not after? Fluke? needs a little more digging? Or just let it go at what it is?

Who said the long form was not available the next day? Who said he was never issued one? You can not get a long form copy now. Wires crossed?

What do you think about a senior elections official from there saying he has personal knowledge and information as he was there at the time of election?

His integrity is questionable at best for reasons already stated. It seems poor character for someone in his position with his knowledge who wanted McCain to win to allow a fraud to take his place instead without raising a peep all this time.

What do you think about NO hospital is able to verify with documentation and/or assestation that Obama was born in their hospital and by the help of what doctor?

I think you need to educated yourself on HIPPA.

Lets focus here and no bad mouth the thread because you don't like the topic. I'll wait.

When you ask people to focus on blurry crap, guess what you get in return?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
People can claim it because B. Hussein hasn't provided us the information voluntarily.

Where is there anything written that says he is required to? Just because you want something and do not get it does not make him invalid. I wanted Bush to be elected fairly, not appointed by judges. I wanted him to speak complete sentences. I did not get either and he still got to be president. I think you are going to have to suffer the same and deal with a president that does not want to give you his 4th grade book report.

Since the Constitution demands that the president be natural born, it is incumbent upon those running for office to provide proof of this publicly.

Not to YOU!

No HIPPA law can override the Constitution.

That little sentence is so stupid my brain is bleeding from reading it.

The Constitution is supposedly the supreme law of the land.

I am not sure you understand the constitution at all.

Originally posted by coastalite
Wow! Really? Go look at your birth certificate again. Does it list the name of the hospital and the name and/or signature of the delivering doctor?

NOPE!

ALL birth certificates (short-form or long-form) should AT LEAST have the name of the hospital listed.

"Should?" What else do you feel they should have on them? I would like pretty flowers all around the border of mine. Sadly, what you feel should be on there and what I feel should be on there are not what are actually required to be on there.

Show me: where on Obama's "birth certificate" is the name of the hospital or doctor?

...I'm waiting.

Keep waiting. Just because it is not there, and you wish it was, does not mean that it should be.

...Still waiting.

Maybe you should stop waiting and educate yourself. I can only get one type of BC in my state and there is no Hospital or Doctor on it!

You people really need to stop basing your truth on simply what you think it should be.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
To comply with the Constitutional requirements, the President elect must demonstrate his eligibility.

If he didn't have to, the entire clause would be pointless.

If you can answer this question with a logical answer, I'll shut up:

Why would the framers of the constitution include a clause that said the president had to be natural born if they didn't expect any president to actually have to demonstrate this?


[edit on 10-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

Show me where in that clause he is expected to demonstrated that to the public at large or you personally. If you are going to go with what a constitutional amendment actually requires, why are you not paying attention to who it actually requires the candidate offer proof too? Do you stop reading when you have just enough to still be uninformed?

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by coastalite

 

I'll assume you are still waiting....

me to... from many postings ago.

Good work. S

You still waiting for someone to come spoon feed you knowledge and information too?

Either you are waiting for Obama's BC to magically change or you are waiting for someone prove the claim that a BC has to have this info. Which is it because either way, you will be waiting a long time.

The name of the Hospital and Doctor is NOT on all BCs.

Originally posted by ntech
The only resolution to this matter is going to be the 2012 election. The states need to require Presidential candidates to present proof of citizenship. And I believe some have. So in 2012 Obama will have to give up the long form birth certificate and have a proper vetting.

No he won't because the short form is every bit as legal, especially from a state that no longer issues a long form. You can sit and wait and hope or you can look into it now. If your only hope for defeating Obama in 2012 is relying on states to reject his short form BC then you will be sorely disappointed.

You would do better to realize that a short form is perfectly legal proof and even the new AZ law delineates them as VALID proof of citizenship. Maybe you want to instead get involved in some issues and use them to get him out of office because this pipe dream will vanish on you.

Though if for some reason he fails the verification process that could cause interesting legal problems eh?

All kinds of fantasies can cause interesting legal problems. Imagine if he was able to become invisible at will.

All laws and legal actions since 1-2009 become invalid. All federal judges put in power since that date would be kicked out of office and their rulings invalidated.

Now that would be a mess eh?

You can only dream, right?

People should really have a close read over the article. Putting aside that this in WND for a moment and the many lies they had posted before, lets focus on the article itself:

"They told us, 'We don't have a birth certificate for him,'" he said. "They told my supervisor, either by phone or by e-mail, neither one has a document that a doctor signed off on saying they were present at this man's birth."

Here even worse then him making this claim with nothing to back it up, he turns to what his supposed supervisor informed him of so he cannot trace this claim directly to the official who stated this.

"Anyone can get that [COLB]," said Adams. "They are normally given if you give birth at home or while traveling overseas. We have a lot of Asian population [in Hawaii]. It's quite common for people to come back and get that."

The law that allowed children born overseas a COLB came into effect 20 years following the presidents birth. In addition to that if you are born overseas, the country of birth would be listed on your COLB regardless. As for the claim regarding childbirth at home, in order for your child to gain an Hawaiian COLB you would need evidence that he was born on Hawaiian soil, this would mean you would have to appear in court with sufficient witnesses and a midwife accompanied. This would be listed on court records that you made the appearance to verify your child's birth at home. It was by no means a cake walk, that is, simply to walk into a hospital and get a COLB. That is a lie.

"In my professional opinion, [Obama] definitely was not born in Hawaii. I can say without a shadow of a doubt"

Without a shadow of a doubt? This man has offered little more than talk.

Neither is he in any way qualified to make such a claim, neither does he have access to such knowledge, even as an elections clerk:

"His title was senior elections clerk in 2008," said Glen Takahashi, elections administrator for the City and County of Honolulu.

Takahashi also confirmed Adams' time frame at the office from spring until the month of August.

"We hire temporary workers, because we're seasonal," he said.

However, when WND asked Takahashi if the elections office could check on birth records, he said, "We don't have access to that kind of records. [There's] no access to birth records."

Adams responded, "They may say, 'We don't have access to that.' The regular workers don't, the ones processing ballots; but the people in administration do. I was the one overseeing the work of the people doing the balloting."

obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com...
Atleast WND can be somewhat honest in some cases.

Whats more interesting is WND's constant modification over the article. Within a matter of hours WND had changed the title of the article and edited out some parts to it. Its unbelievable that the same members here who argue about how biased the media is continue to use this sourse, and they expect people to take a look at it objectively despite the numerous times this site has mislead. This was another part to the article that I can no longer find in the link:

"I had direct access to the Social Security database, the national crime computer, state driver's license information, international passport information, basically just about anything you can imagine to get someone's identity," Adams explained. "I could look up what bank your home mortgage was in. I was informed by my boss that we did not have a birth record [for Obama]."

Again the man relies on secondary testimony on the basis of he/she said.

He is also a former Hillary supporter which then converted to McCain during the elections. Along with his connections to Stormfront, this mans credibility interms of neutrality of the matter is non-existent. Heres another post from him back in 2008 on a website:

Timothy Adams:
Racism is going against Obama, except it isn't, no wait, it really is...no wait, we have to bring up the race issue because the real racists are too smart to do it...no wait, if you don't vote for a Daly Machine, corrupt, racist, islamist, liberal candidate, it's because you're racist...or not, we can't say, but of course we just did, because our chosen messiah is getting whipped like a hebrew slave child by a white woman from Alaska. Wait, I can't say that, it's racist, or is it? Looks like Hillary Clinton (who still had more votes) should have been the nominee. Democrats alienate their own membership by forcing agenda with Obama candidacy, the reason? Dems are overwhelmingly, still, racists...or not, SHUT UP AND RUN THE IDIOT YOU NOMINATED, SEE YOU AFTER NOVEMBER. Had all of us voting for your ticket, not now, oh wait, I guess that's cause we're all racists. FUBAR!@

kathlenec.newsvine.com...

I also suspect this is a book of his:
books.google.com...'ve+Finished+Before+I'm+Dead%22&ei=D-kQTLaFBIbEywSqhsX1Cg&cd=1#v=on epage&q&f=false

But its uncomfirmed whether this is the same Timothy Adams as is the author.

So looking at the entire case, WND as usual is all talk, not walk.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Southern Guardian]