The FACTS ----confirm Obama born in U.S.A-CASE CLOSED******

Originally posted by Conqueror of Seth
reply to post by One Moment

 

I'll vote for him just to drive all of you delusional quacks completely insane.

Um, you should leave this site with your head in shame. Anyone who calls people delusional quacks on ATM is just asking for a whipping with a wet noodle. Come on, man, that's just ridiculous. Do you know where you are???

Originally posted by Kaploink

Originally posted by micpsi
reply to post by MysterE

 

It's rather sad that supporters of Obama always have the knee jerk reaction that racism or hatred of him is the motive for questioning his eligibility to be president of the USA. Actually, it is love of and loyalty to the US Constitution. But, of course, that "Goddam piece of paper" does not mean much any more to some of you.

I have found those opposed to Obama bring up racism far more than the supporters. They seem quick to paint Obama supporters as people unable to discuss issues and instead use the race card.

Racism is very much alive in this country. Living in Texas, I can tell you that many opposed to Obama dislike having a black man as president. It's not some fantasy or race card, it's a reality. I can guarantee that least a portion of the birther movement has racist views as does some people on the left.

I do fully understand the need to quickly paint the Obama supporters as using the race card. As racism will quickly undermine any argument that those against Obama might make. A man can be the greatest debater in the world, but his message will go no where as long as he is wearing a white sheet over his head.

Right...

And in the same fashion these independently thinking physicists use the same tactic
in the reverse fashion and proceed to hide behind it on every thread

Therefore someone hinted at racism which makes any evidence pointing to Obama's
proper vetting moot, because once again, use it a some sort of magical mental shield to deflect any incoming information which may strip one of this gratifying crusade.

"Pa didn't beat up Ma today because he gave her flowers yesterday!"

"Pa ain't done'd that cause he's a police officer!"



I doubt many would pursue this crusade on a public stage surrounded by strangers.

Truly and honestly, this charade is about as sick as it comes, it is a study in psychological distress that historians will mine in the future to point to our societies
cave man like antiquity.

I have my own interests which have merely been tweaked Obama’s current supporters constantly bringing this up when most others have let it go and by the refusal of the leader of our country to refuse to deliver proof of what our Constitution requires.

Since the issue has been hounded so much about the birth certificate itself, I have attempted to think “outside the bun” about this and wondered where I would look if I wanted to investigate this, which I can’t do as well as I would like. Since I have no “need” to know, I have no true resources which can be trusted first hand authentication. But I proceeded as best I could.

To begin with, I went to FactCheck as recommended. What I found was a quote… “Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

In reading the statement, it merely says the birth certificate has been seen and is on record with state policies and procedures. She says nothing about the certificate itself. According to Hawaiian Revised Statues, nothing about the certificate’s entries can be discussed with outside parties. However, there is no mention about whether it is a Certificate of Live Birth, a Birth Certificate or came from the hospital or by late parental application.

After reviewing the above statement, I went to the Hawaii Revised Statutes, online. I was searching for non-hospital birth registrations. The Hawaii statute relating to this issue is HRS §§338-15 which reads
§338-15 Late or altered certificates. A person born in the State may file or amend a certificate after the time prescribed, upon submitting proof as required by rules adopted by the department of health. Certificates registered after the time prescribed for filing by the rules of the department of health shall be registered subject to any evidentiary requirements that the department adopts by rule to substantiate the alleged facts of birth. [L 1949, c 327, §19; RL 1955, §57-18; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-15; am L 1972, c 66, §1(1); am L 1997, c 305, §2]

(I must also say that I do not have the legislative history for this statute from 1964 so it also may have been different.)

So, to me, it appears that Fukino merely said the certificate was on file according to policies and procedures. The term "birth certificate" usually is interchangeable to cover both Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth although they are not the same. She was not specific. The Certification of Live birth is what we would like to see since it has more detail. I personally have yet to see it.

The legal authority for voluntarily establishing paternity is provided by section §§584-3.5, Hawaii Revised Statutes. I must note that I assume this was not the exact rule on August 4, 1961 but I cannot say for sure if the means were similar. I do not have the resources to check but others may. The form (petition) used to record late births can be found in the website for the Hawaiian Department of Health.

The Office of Health Status Monitoring/Vital Statistics office/Registration-Corrections form which voluntarily establishes paternity (and by implication citizenship) by parents reads:

The natural parents are put on notice that they are not required to sign this document. If they sign it, however, it will be assumed that their signature was freely and voluntarily given. The natural parents also have the right to consult a lawyer before signing this document. They have a right to have genetic testing to determine paternity, and the right to have paternity of the child determined by a judge in a legal proceeding. By signing this document the natural parents voluntarily give up these rights.

Continued next thread

Originally posted by Kaploink

Originally posted by micpsi
reply to post by MysterE

 

It's rather sad that supporters of Obama always have the knee jerk reaction that racism or hatred of him is the motive for questioning his eligibility to be president of the USA. Actually, it is love of and loyalty to the US Constitution. But, of course, that "Goddam piece of paper" does not mean much any more to some of you.

I have found those opposed to Obama bring up racism far more than the supporters. They seem quick to paint Obama supporters as people unable to discuss issues and instead use the race card.

Racism is very much alive in this country. Living in Texas, I can tell you that many opposed to Obama dislike having a black man as president. It's not some fantasy or race card, it's a reality. I can guarantee that least a portion of the birther movement has racist views as does some people on the left.

I do fully understand the need to quickly paint the Obama supporters as using the race card. As racism will quickly undermine any argument that those against Obama might make. A man can be the greatest debater in the world, but his message will go no where as long as he is wearing a white sheet over his head.

Dear Kaploink,

I am a born and raised Texan and I am saddened and confused by your generalization of the people in this great state who politically oppose President Obama. This issue really doesn't have anything to do with race as there were those who steadfastly fought this fight with the McCain campaign regarding his own place of birth. Let's also address the issue here that the so called "Birther" movement began from legal challenges by two AFRICAN AMERICAN men, Alan Keyes and Reverend Manning.

What I find even more puzzling is the desire from O-bots to gloss over a few points here:

1. He received almost a million dollars in campaign contributions from Goldman-Sachs that he has yet to return. I find his comments regarding Campaign Finance and Supreme Court rulings suspect seeing as how he was the first Candidate since NIXON to forgo public funds and be entirely privately funded. He also received campaign contributions from several other entities on Wall Street and BP. Obama was quite vocal in opposition to the provisions in the Financial Reform package to Audit the Fed. Strange coming from someone that proclaims that government needs more transparency.

2. Can you say, War, War, War? He's used more drones than Bush ever thought about. Most countries don't use Drones because of their tendency to overshoot the mark and kill lots of civilians in the process. He has continued to fund two illegal wars and has grown the defense budget to almost the largest budget allocated for defense in history. He was the most hawkish in his war views during the Democratic Primary debates. I would expect nothing less from a man who is a protege of Brizienski, a man who himself was aligned with Henry "War Crime" Kissenger.

3. He has upheld almost every violation of civil liberties set forth by the Bush Justice Department.

4. Last I checked, Gitmo is still open and Blackwater is getting more and more "private security" contracts. Rendition still occurs and instead of detaining all of our future "terrorists" in Gitmo, we just put them in a Blackwater compound that is the size of Texas Stadium in Islamabad. Go Team Obama!

5. He has written executive orders that would allow the CIA to assassinate US citizens on domestic soil without DUE PROCESS. That is something that Cheney couldn't even convince Bush to do.

I could go on and on and on and on but you get the idea.

I hated Bush, with a passion.

So to answer your sweeping generalization, I am from Texas and I don't like this President but not because of his race. I don't like him because he's an epic fail who is continuing the same madness we've been victims to for quite some time.

continued from above

In order to record an unregistered birth within one year from birth, a parent must fill out the form (and need not sign it) but fills it out under penalty of perjury. It need not be notarized if completed by a purported natural parent. This is merely an affirmation.

Again, thinking outside the bun, I wondered how, if Obama was truly born in Kenya, how he could have a Hawaiian Birth certificate. It occurred to me that he could have been brought into the country after his birth. Now there is no way I can check this but it remains a question in my mind. A Certificate of Live Birth, if offered could remove this doubt. However, it has yet to be offered so my doubt remains. This would, to me, mean, that August 4, 1961, could not be Obama’s true birth date. However, I cannot prove or disprove that either. All I can consider is that he “may” have been brought into the country up until a year (or even later) if he was born outside the U.S. Nothing has been presented to prove to me one way or the other. Does anyone know the whereabouts of his mother immediately prior to the registration of his birth or newspaper announcements? This could clear up this issue in my own mind.

Next are the newspaper publications of his birth. These seem to be the absolute proof that many accept without question. It appears that the announcements were published in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin on August 13, 1961. I see no problem here except we do not know for sure whether they came from the hospital, Department of Health, or the front desk. My understanding is they publish the announcements from all three sources. They could have received notice from the Department of Health based upon a form which required nothing but completion and non-sworn affirmation long after Obama’s real date of birth.

I think these are some questions that others may have also. I am not per se Anti-Obama. I did not vote for him. However, when he was elected, I told my friends, he has the possibility of becoming one of the best presidents we ever had. I also had new hope. It is with my disappointment in his administration that I have come to the point that I believe we should return to our roots, the Constitution, to re-establish order and unity in our country. I find it very disheartening to hear people say the Constitution is outdated. It is the foundation of our freedoms in this country, including the right to speak here. When I hear others say they don’t care what our basic tenets of freedom require, that I begin to look at where they come from.

If someone can answer these questions that I have posed above, then perhaps my curiosity will be satisfied. Until then, the more it is hidden, the more I will look.

What are the ink marks below the seal from on his certificate?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Paradigm2012

 

The facts are, the short form birf certificate released by B. Hussein could be obtained by anyone and does not require US Citizenship to obtain.

The facts are, the short form does not have a doctors signature or hospital name which can be verified.

The facts are, B. Hussein has refused to release his long form birf certificate because he doesn't have one.

For the umpteenth time: No #$%@ he hasn't released his "long form" birth certificate"

why?

HAWAII NO LONGER PRODUCES LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATES. The SCOTUS has ruled that a "short form" is just as legitimate as a "long form"


Do you nutjobs seriously believe that no one born in Hawaii should be allowed to hold the office of President? Are you seriously that empty-headed? If you nod will your cranium rattle?

So many unanswered questions.

This topic should have been "case closed" within the first few minutes of its actual origination, but some folks are just very thick-headed.

If the republican and right-wing worshipers and groupies would have spent a couple of minutes actually reading credible and accurate info, instead of reading the right-wing LUNATIC, NUT-JOB websites, and rumor-filled, fear-based chain emails, they would have determined "case closed" on this a long time ago.

But then again, most of these LOONIES still believe that there is some invisible white-haired, white-bearded man sitting on the clouds up above us who is at ANY MINUTE NOW, about to send a 2000 year old brown-bearded white guy in a white-robe down to rescue all the republicans and send all the rest to a burning pit of fire for eternity. WOW, JUST WOW!! *rolls eyes at the pitiful stupidity*

I wonder what will be the NEXT fear-based, scare-tactic nonsense RUMOR that will circulate from the LOONIES.










[edit on 14-6-2010 by Shine71]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Paradigm2012

 

FactCheck.org is run by the Annenberg Foundation.

Yes, but the facts that they report are not...the facts aren't "run" by anyone...they are simply facts

I know that logic might seem alien for those entrenched in the propagandist machinery of the far right, but it is true all the same.

Example: Your statement above makes it appear as if the Annenberg Foundation is a left wing, liberal source.

Walter and Leonore Annenberg were very close friends and supporters of Ronald Reagan, Leonore even recieved an appointment from Reagan.

They were both staunch republicans.

The Annenbergs contributed to Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign and upon his inauguration, Leonore was named Chief of Protocol, placing her in charge of advising the president, vice president, and Secretary of State on matters relating to diplomatic protocol.

Here is Walter Annenberg
en.wikipedia.org...

Here is Leonore
en.wikipedia.org...

Why oh why then would the Annenberg foundation being concerned with all that factchecking???

Because the Annenbergs, Leonore in particular believed in HONESTY and TRUTH over political BS and while she was a loyal Republican, she valued the truth more than any politics.

FACTCHECK ONLY APPEARS TO HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS BECAUSE THE GOP HAS BEEN SPENDING THE PAST DECADE SPOUTING BS...

Along the lines of the quip..."REALITY HAS A WELL KNOWN LIBERAL BIAS"

Meditate on those FACTS for a while before you echo the same old propaganda about the Annenberg foundation being somehow unreliable.

And if you can't shake the idealogical fog out of your head long enough to digest the fact that FACTCHECK was founded by Republicans, then follow the sources on Factcheck...you might be suprised to discover they lead to ACTUAL FACTS.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by maybereal11]

He's just another mediocre president in a long line of mediocre presidents. Presidential elections are like watching "WWF" title match wrestling....there's always a crooked call that throws the entire "win" into question. I hate wrestling.

FactCheck merely quoted Fukino. They, like most people, did not analyze what she actually said.

She has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

All she was saying was that she saw a document which she did not completely identify that could be from several different sources, none of which were identified.

the news clip that quoted the Hawaiian govenor stated that she said," we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii."

It would behoove folks to both contact the hospital, AND look for the news release...

reply to post by maybereal11


The Annenberg's support Statism, of course they donate to both parties.

Both parties are run by the same people.

Of course, you don't think its a little odd that Obama sat on the board of the Annenberg challenge, and that Anneberg FactCheck was the site chosen to review his short form?

Annenberg was the only site to supposedly see his birf cert.

This alone is ridiculous.

No one in any of the other press outlets has seen or touched B. Hussein's brif cert, long or short form.

Just Annenberg.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by maybereal11


And I suppose you think that the assassination of JFK was from that lone nut Lee Harvey, right?

Originally posted by TheComedian
Wow,
Now I know what to title a thread to troll out all Obama regime shills.

Your time is coming, parasites.
Your Kenyan master doesn't have much longer to loot and destroy.
And neither do you.

Payback's a comin'...

Most idotic comment of the day goes to..... drumroll please...... TheComodian! Grats!

I am a conservative constitutionalist. I detest Obama. I think he's the worst president in American history. I think every single human being that voted for him is of subpar intellect, gullible, stupid or just plain wrong.

Now because someone like me, a conservative, who voted for Ron Paul, disagrees with the idiotic birther movement, the Indonesian passport BS, the SSN nonsense, it doesn't make me an Obama shill. It doesn't make me a parasite. I've never taken a government dime for anything. I pay my frickin taxes, unlike half of America that doesn't have to pay federal income taxes. We give a good portion of our income to various charities. We donate our time and volunteer. My oldest son had cancer and we went almost 200k over insurance. I didn't cheat the hospital or file bankruptcy or beg the government for help. I paid it. I'm very active in politics.

And you wanna lump me in as an Obama shill? A parasite? Just because someone is more concerned with his atrocious politics than these idiotic fabricated stories that serve no useful purpose other than to distract the people who can make a difference from the real isssues doesn't mean they support Obama. Hell, the people propagating this birther, SSN,Passport crap are helping Obama. And you are too. Because you can't differentiate. Go after his politics. Stop him from turning America into a Marxist country rather than bickering about his birth certificate and other garbage that doesn't matter and will never do any good.

reply to post by mnemeth1


B. Hussein - HAH! That sure is clever!

I'd just like to remind everyone that this dude isn't an actual anarchist. Most anarchists have at least a slight handle on reality.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by maybereal11

 

The Annenberg's support Statism, of course they donate to both parties.

No...They only donated to GOP Candidates...get it? Jesus, check your facts or just stop spouting BS.

Of course, you don't think its a little odd that Obama sat on the board of the Annenberg challenge, and that Anneberg FactCheck was the site chosen to review his short form?

Oh for efs sake...RESEARCH. The Annenberg Challenge was an initiative to help 700 Schools across the country....18 were in Illinois and 1 of them was in Chicago and Barack Obama was on the board of advisors (unpaid) to figure out a way to help Chicago Schools.

Chicago Annenberg Challenge...1 of 700 projects under the Challenge Grant and the Challenge Grant was one of many charities Annenberg ran.

I doubt Annenberg even knew who the hell Obama was. Lets assume a minimum of 5 "board members" (advisors) for each of those 700 projects?...A minimum of 3500 people across the country were also what you like to call "Board Members" of the Annenberg Challange at the time.

This alone is ridiculous.

Yes...very much so.

Doesn't really matter.

He is going to be a one term president with no real legacy...

Hey,

For what it's worth, I have an amended BC. The first page says "Baby Boy."

After my parents decided on a name, the second page lists it, along with everything down to the attending physician.

Every line has a signature. Being amended, that means both pages are complete.

One can't be any more transparent than that? And, in 1970.

I think Lolo adopted him, so his 'original' long-form-BC was replaced with the 'new' long-form-BC that lists Lolo as his father and birth name as 'Barry'.

In this case, the original 'long-form' BC would have been officially sealed, or destroyed.

It's very difficult to get your original birth records and certificates, prior to adoption, especially in those days - prior to computerization. Adoption records, prior to the 80s, are pretty much 'hit or miss; with more misses than hits.