AZ Birther Bill accepts Circumcision Certificate even though it is not a legal document.

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by filosophia
The bill doesn't make sense.

And they said we could never agree on anything

Who said that? I agree with you that the sister's claim is not legitimate, but that's really the only issue you proved me wrong on. I still know that Obama was a chairman of the Annenberg foundation which funds factcheck.org so in my opinion his short form birth certificate can not be trusted.

edit on 17-4-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

here's wiki's take on that org.....uuoohh...scary!!!
en.wikipedia.org...

his birth certificate is trusted by:
1...the state of hawaii
2...the state of illinois
3...the federal state department (incl. passport verification)
4...the secret service
5...the FBI
but...in your opinion his BC can't be trusted...tough choice for me...not

reply to post by filosophia


Can you show me where in the Constitution it says a natural born citizen is one born on US soil to 2 parents who were also born on US soil.

Or for that matter, anything in the Constitution at all that defines what a natural born citizen is?

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
reply to post by filosophia

 

Can you show me where in the Constitution it says a natural born citizen is one born on US soil to 2 parents who were also born on US soil.

Or for that matter, anything in the Constitution at all that defines what a natural born citizen is?

see my comment regarding the constitution as a loop hole like all legal documents.

his birth certificate is trusted by:
1...the state of hawaii

Yes, which the governor couldn't find the birth certificate, so that seems untrustworthy for whatever stooge claimed to have saw it and verified it, but yet can't show the public


2...the state of illinois

Oh, Chicago, where his buddy Rahm is now mayor

3...the federal state department (incl. passport verification)

Passports can be faked, see: history of Mossad

4...the secret service

they can be trusted for anything except protecting the president during a motorcade.

5...the FBI

Oh boy, that's a laugh riot. The FBI trusts him, so should you. That'd be a great marketing slogan for them.

reply to post by filosophia


I'm still confused.

According to "birther" arguments, the Constitution requires a person to be born on American soil to be a President.

But you say it doesn't actually say that, and it doesn't really matter?

reply to post by filosophia


So this is the gist of what I've been saying all along. If infact Obama is not eligible based on his birth status and is somehow President than it encompasses a wide range of government, and would be a true conspiracy.

If all those government agencies covered this up, don't you think there is a more nefarious plan afoot than "Obamacare"?j

And should you be worried about that, or should you spend more time repeating the same lies as other "birthers"?

Obama is not an American. He's a globalist. This is plain for all to see. He is also a liar. He claims to be a constitutional scholar yet his actions are the exact opposite of someone whom you would think had read the constitution a few times through. He has a position on the UN, also unconstitutional, and more of an indication that he is a globalist. He did not prosecute the Bush administration for war crimes, and is continuing the wars that he promised to end. He also is not doing anything about prosecuting the bankers that crashed the American economy.

But yeah, I'm sure he's born in America, as if that has anything at all to do with his other crimes against humanity.

The birther issue is a distraction. For all I know, it may be true, at least I enjoy following people like Orly Taitz around, because I am not a mindless drone that believes she is crazy just because a CIA operative talking into a media camera says so. How valid are the claims? Not sure, but I know that the 'tea party' yokels will not go after the real crimes of Obama, and neither will the liberals. It's a just a tired old game we all play. Never looking at the real picture, just playing the left right paradigm.

From filosophia’s post, we gather that no one and no government agency can be trusted.

But only if that damn Obama released his long form birth certificate — from the same state and government agency we already don’t trust — THEN we’d believe it!

If there were still any doubts, I’m sure people now understand why nothing Obama can do will please the birthers.

You know, I couldn't care less about the situation. The only thing it effects is the constitution (which is pretty much null and void now anyway) and I'm not from the states so it doesn't effect me at all. But it does amaze me how much birthers and truthers are alike in the general scheme of conspiracies.

When a conspiracy is deemed foolish or outlandish and the people who believe it called crazy AND especially when it is given a name or a catch phrase like" truther" or "birther" then in all likelihood this is a good indication that the conspiracy is correct. Also people who waste their time defending the non conspiracy part of the issue. I mean if the people are crazy for believing it what does it matter? Why do you care what crazy people think?

Bad conspiracies fall apart all on their own, the good ones or most likely to be true conspiracies seem to stick around. And when they are actually brought into legal context by more than one person on more than one occasion it is a sure sign that the conspiracy has some teeth.

But to pull out the race card is clear proof that there is an agenda to demonize. It is basically accusing people who are curious about the truth or getting to the bottom of a situation as "racist." That's like disagreeing with Israel makes you anti-Semitic, or like wanting a new investigation into 9/11 is unpatriotic. It is the most obvious demonization tactic.

The more I see people defending the position that Obama was born in America the more I feel that he wasn't.

Originally posted by CourageousEyesoftheHeart
Also people who waste their time defending the non conspiracy part of the issue. I mean if the people are crazy for believing it what does it matter? Why do you care what crazy people think?

This may surprise you, but some people actually care about the facts and what is true and what isn’t.

There’s also that little detail about AboveTopSecret’s motto being “Deny Ignorance,” so perhaps some people take that seriously. Go figure!

The more I see people defending the position that Obama was born in America the more I feel that he wasn't.

Just like the more you see people defending the position the Earth is spherical, the more you feel that it isn’t?

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by CourageousEyesoftheHeart
Also people who waste their time defending the non conspiracy part of the issue. I mean if the people are crazy for believing it what does it matter? Why do you care what crazy people think?

This may surprise you, but some people actually care about the facts and what is true and what isn’t.

There’s also that little detail about AboveTopSecret’s motto being “Deny Ignorance,” so perhaps some people take that seriously. Go figure!

The more I see people defending the position that Obama was born in America the more I feel that he wasn't.

Just like the more you see people defending the position the Earth is spherical, the more you feel that it isn’t?

edit on 17-4-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)

Yeah, like "birthers" care about getting to the bottom of this issue. The truth of it.
"Deny" means refuse to agree with - As "birthers" do with what they are told is "truth". Deny does not mean ridicule, insult or call racist.

Yes you argue the earth is flat. Now I believe it is round.

To those reading this thread... The above line in italics made a lot more sense before aptness edited his comment in order obscure the way our conversation really went.

Nice reversal on the edit aptness I can really see how you are all about denying ignorance!

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Leave it up to the GOP, they are obsessed with what goes on in the bedroom and the male penis!

What if Obama wasn't circumcised? I'm thinking he should just whip it out and put on the table... to lay all the rumors to rest! Thing is... how would the GOP react to that?? Yikes!

(I meant whip out the birth certificate! Get your heads out of the gutter, people!)

Originally posted by filosophia
Yes, which the governor couldn't find the birth certificate, so that seems untrustworthy for whatever stooge claimed to have saw it and verified it, but yet can't show the public

1. The governor couldn't find a hospital-generated birth certificate. (psssst: Hospitals don't keep birth certificates. That's why he couldn't find one)
2. The governor has no legal grounds whatsoever to see Obama's birth certificate that is stored in the Department of Health.
3. The "stooge" that verified it was the director of Hawaii's Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. The long form BC is in the Health Department, not in a hospital.

See this post

The governor might as well have looked at the local state fairgrounds as they would be more likely to have a copy of Obama's Birth Certificate than the hospital.
.

Originally posted by CourageousEyesoftheHeart
To those reading this thread... The above line in italics made a lot more sense before aptness edited his comment in order obscure the way our conversation really went. Nice reversal on the edit aptness I can really see how you are all about denying ignorance!

I made a typo, yes, with no influence whatsoever over what was being discussed. To you, however, this is apparently to “obscure the way our conversation really went.”

This accusation, even if relevant, is diminished by the fact that when you replied to my post I had already corrected the typo. As we can observe from your own post (image).

In any case I’m unsure exactly what I was supposed to be ‘obscuring,’ seeing as you don’t really have an argument, and didn’t even attempt to refute the information I and other members have posted that debunks the birther claims, because the only thing you presented was, your opinion that their claims, you said, simply felt true to you.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


President Bush was portrayed as a chimp and an ape many times............kind of nullifies that one. Look, I have no doubt that a smal minority may have problems with his race, but the broad brushed used to paint everyone disagreeing with him as racist is a joke. I guess holding Bush to a different standard is ok..............weak, you are usually so much better than that.

Regarding the circumcision document, allowing that not only seems biased against females and uncircumcised males, but it hardly seems like an official enough document to prove a birthplace.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
1. The governor couldn't find a hospital-generated birth certificate. (psssst: Hospitals don't keep birth certificates. That's why he couldn't find one)

Something is wrong with your logic here.

"hospital-generated" infers the origin of the document is the hospital. That's where the physician delivered the baby and where he/she signs the document to attest to that. "hospital-generated" does not infer that the completed document isn't forwarded to the DOH to become the source document recording the birth as the vital record in the state archives. Nor does it imply the document stays at the hospital.

Take a look at the example long form birth certificate from Hawaii:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e224d8cd1efc.png[/atsimg]
I don't know the exact procedures for that time period, but looking at the document, I can venture the following guess:
Do you see the line about 3/4 of the way down that begins "THIS CERTIFIES THAT..."?
It looks like Most of the information above that line might have been generated at the hospital, hence the expression, hospital-generated form. (I think the line immediately above that says something about local registrar signature so that may not be a hospital employee. And the line immediately above that looks like signature of Attendant, meaning the person who delivered the baby, like doctor, midwife, etc. So I'm thinking that "Attendant" signature and everything above it was probably generated at the hospital in that example). However the signatures and date after the "THIS CERTIFIES THAT..." line are apparently what makes it the official state record, and my guess is you wouldn't get that from a hospital and that's why a birth record received from a hospital is not considered "official", as most people know.

Regarding whether the governor has the authority to see or verify the document, I don't know of any statutes that say they can or can't, but if it's true the governor has no personal authority to verify the document, then former governor Lingle's claim about verifying the document should also be dismissed along with Abercrombie's alleged failure to be able to verify a long form birth certificate.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
"hospital-generated" does not infer that the completed document isn't forwarded to the DOH to become the source document recording the birth as the vital record in the state archives. Nor does it imply the document stays at the hospital.

I'm not sure where my logic fails. Regardless where the document is generated (and I believe you're right, the whole of the document is generated at the hospital and the Health Dept.), hospitals don't keep copies of official birth certificates. If Abercrombie looked at the hospital, he wouldn't have found it. And if he looked at the Health Department, he wouldn't have found it either, because he has no legal grounds to see Obama's birth certificate. (see the Hawaii statute below)

However the signatures and date after the "THIS CERTIFIES THAT..." line are apparently what makes it the official state record, and my guess is you wouldn't get that from a hospital and that's why a birth record received from a hospital is not considered "official", as most people know.

Yes, I agree. From what I have read, a hospital birth certificate is a "souvenir" birth certificate (sometimes bearing a footprint) and it gets sent home with the mother without going to the state, so it's officially not proof of anything.

I don't know where Abercrombie looked or what, exactly he was looking for, but the statement he made was that he couldn't find a hospital-generated birth certificate. I can only go by what he said.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but I don't see where my logic is off.

Regarding whether the governor has the authority to see or verify the document, I don't know of any statutes that say they can or can't,

Hawaii Statute 388-18

but if it's true the governor has no personal authority to verify the document, then former governor Lingle's claim about verifying the document should also be dismissed along with Abercrombie's alleged failure to be able to verify a long form birth certificate.

Did the former governor say that she personally verified the birth certificate? It could definitely be my memory failing, but I don't remember her saying that. I know she stated that she sent her health director to verify it, which Abercrombie could do if he wanted to.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not sure where my logic fails.

Right here:

(psssst: Hospitals don't keep birth certificates. That's why he couldn't find one)

The clear implication is he was looking in a hospital. At least I thought it was clearly implied. And that's not where you'd look for the hospital generated certificate.

he has no legal grounds to see Obama's birth certificate. (see the Hawaii statute below)

Does that statute permit ANY state officials access? Like Fukino for example? If you're using that statute for evidence, what gave Fukino the right to see it, but not the Governor?

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by CourageousEyesoftheHeart
To those reading this thread... The above line in italics made a lot more sense before aptness edited his comment in order obscure the way our conversation really went. Nice reversal on the edit aptness I can really see how you are all about denying ignorance!

I made a typo, yes, with no influence whatsoever over what was being discussed. To you, however, this is apparently to “obscure the way our conversation really went.”

This accusation, even if relevant, is diminished by the fact that when you replied to my post I had already corrected the typo. As we can observe from your own post (image).

In any case I'm a golden monkey exactly what I was supposed to be ‘obscuring,’ seeing as you don’t really have an argument, and didn’t even attempt to refute the information I and other members have posted that debunks the birther claims, because the only thing you presented was, your opinion that their claims, you said, simply felt true to you.

You edited your post then I edited mine. Posting a screen shot of my post in it's current state and using it as proof of something is laughable. Proof we both edited, you then me.

It's possible you edited while I was replying but it's also possible that you edited the quote. If you look above you can clearly see how I edited your statement to say that you said "I am a golden monkey."

Bottom line "if it's relevant at all" is you changed the entire statement not just a typo. How is falt (flat) a typo for spherical? Besides it's not that big a deal, i just find the irony hilarious.

I'm not going to try to argue where Obama was born because like I said I don't care. My post was regarding the similar demonization of truthers and birthers.

In my opinion the smearing of birthers into racists is demonization. I said this makes me support the birthers more. It means that non-birthers need to make smarter less attacking statements to support their cause.

Of course I trust my feelings, it would be stupid not too. The mind is easily confused, the heart is not. Even better when heart and mind work together.

As far as facts go, since when has the US Government been giving reliable facts?

History shows me that the US government is a lying self serving two faced entity. Logic tells me I shouldn't trust them and my feelings agree.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The clear implication is he was looking in a hospital. At least I thought it was clearly implied. And that's not where you'd look for the hospital generated certificate.

He MAY have looked at the hospital, I don't know. I could have worded it more clearly, but my point was that if he was looking at the hospital, he wouldn't find it because they don't keep them and if he was looking at the state dept., he wouldn't have found it either because he can't get access to it. I made 3 points and numbered them. They go together.

If you're using that statute for evidence, what gave Fukino the right to see it, but not the Governor?

Se point # 3. She was the director of Hawaii's Department of Health. She is the one who GRANTS access. As the head of the Dept, she HAS access.
.

Originally posted by CourageousEyesoftheHeart
You edited your post then I edited mine. Posting a screen shot of my post in it's current state and using it as proof of something is laughable. ... It's possible you edited while I was replying but it's also possible that you edited the quote.

The screenshot was to show that my correction was already quoted in your reply, meaning that when you replied I had already made the correction.

Unless you’re going to accuse me of being able of editing your post, I frankly don’t see your point.

Bottom line "if it's relevant at all" is you changed the entire statement not just a typo. How is falt (flat) a typo for spherical?

You acknowledge I corrected one word, so how did I “change the entire statement”? I incorrectly formulated the phrase, yes, and wrote flat instead of spherical. I noticed it and corrected it.

Even if you had not noticed this when you replied to my post, what’s the relevance of this to the overall discussion, or even our exchange? You didn’t understand the point I was making? I don’t believe you’re that incapable of comprehending a point because one word, that I promptly corrected, was incorrect.

My post was regarding the similar demonization of truthers and birthers. ... I said this makes me support the birthers more.

That’s fine. It, however, doesn’t follow why what they claim must be true. And this is to what I responded.

As far as facts go, since when has the US Government been giving reliable facts? History shows me that the US government is a lying self serving two faced entity. Logic tells me I shouldn't trust them and my feelings agree.

The birthers don’t trust the government and demand proof. And what proof they request? A long form birth certificate issued by the same state and government agency they already proclaimed can’t be trusted.

Is this serious? Does this make sense to you? Or, should I say, does it feel right to you?