Ongoing questions about Obama's birth certificate

Poconoeagle wrote:He is indeed useless as a representative of our once great nation and people and disgusts me.

Amazing. Exactly the way I felt about W.

ErikLaurence wrote:The question is how will the court "verify" it?

I don't know, perhaps a few independent experts picked by those on either side of this issue?

That's what should have been done to begin with instead of letting it fester, something has to be done or it's just going to keep coming to the surface providing fodder for more speculation.

He could verify it by releasing the "long form". Plain and simple. That will contain all the pertinent information.

No court cases, no lawsuits, no nothing.

Just provide the long form.

"CNN has fully investigated the issue," the substitute said (for Lou Dobbs), and "found no basis for the questions about the president's birthplace."

When the issue first surfaced in the presidential campaign last summer, numerous credible news organizations and even the Hawaii Department of Health presented clear evidence that Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu.

But those reports have done little to snuff out elaborate and ever-mutating conspiracy theories.

In a nutshell the man is Black and many white Americans are still not comfortable with this. I believe this rumor is meant to discredit the man an is propogated by bigots. However, there are many moderate who are not bigots who have fed into this conspiracy theory because of political differences.

jpete wrote:He could verify it by releasing the "long form". Plain and simple. That will contain all the pertinent information.

No court cases, no lawsuits, no nothing.

Just provide the long form.

That's total BS.

The long form will be signed by the same person who signed the short form version.

To believe this idiocy one must believe the Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka is currently perjuring himself.

Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka will be the one to sign the long form one too.

If he's perjuring himself now why would he not perjure himself on the long form?

Why is it BS?

The short form was, from my understanding based on what I've read from various sources, given to just about anyone in that time period. You showed up at city hall and requested a birth record.

So I'm quite certain that everything on that form is "true", just maybe not "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

The long form would include the name of the hospital, the name of the doctor and several other pieces of information that at this point, we either don't have or have been given contradictory answers.

And then there are the reports from Obama's relatives in Kenya who claimed they attended his birth in Kenya. No one seems to talk much about that when they busy calling people "nuts" and "crazies".

The long form would put my mind to rest. I'm sure it wouldn't for many. I won't disagree that racism plays a role in some of this. I certainly know people like that.

But that knife cuts both ways. There are many whites suffering from "white guilt" so acutely, that they will accept ANYTHING he says about EVERYTHING.

Myself, I hate everybody equally so I'm more concerned about his policies than anything. I disagree with EVERYTHING he has done so far. And if McCain had been elected, I believe he'd do exactly what BHO is doing now and I'd have the same feeling about him.

jpete wrote:Why is it BS?

It's BS because if you believe the short form is a forgery (with no evidence that it's fake) then you'd probably just believe the long form is a more elaborate forgery.

But I DON'T think it's a forgery. The short form simply does not contain the information I need to make up my mind. The long form would give me the answers I need.

jpete wrote:But I DON'T think it's a forgery. The short form simply does not contain the information I need to make up my mind. The long form would give me the answers I need.

If the current document is not a forgery and it states he was born in Hawaii in 1961 to a mother who is a US citizen then Obama is clearly a natural born US citizen.

I'm not sure what you feel you need to know? Who the doctor was and what hospital Obama was born in has no bearing on his citizenship status.

ErikLaurence wrote:
If the current document is not a forgery and it states he was born in Hawaii in 1961 to a mother who is a US citizen then Obama is clearly a natural born US citizen.

I'm not sure what you feel you need to know? Who the doctor was and what hospital Obama was born in has no bearing on his citizenship status.

Since there have been at least two different hospitals given and reports if Obama's Kenyan relatives claiming to have been present at his birth in Africa, then I think the long form is warranted.

But, I adhere more closely to the Constitution than most so I don't expect I'll ever get to see it.

Maybe then you should check Kenya to see if there is a B.C. for him.

Chris Matthews had Gordon Liddy on Hardball today (7/23/09). Look at it and see if the non US citizen is claim is anything but BS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6ilvPTW ... r_embedded

Here's the thing. Liddy trips over himself when Matthews asks him if Obama is an "illegal alien".

He's not. His mother is a citizen. He has the option of claiming US citizenship. No different than if your parents were on vacation in another country when your mother went into labor.

See here for more. http://www.laborlawtalk.com/showthread.php?t=50462

I HAVE NO DOUBT that the president is a citizen if the USA.

But CONSTITUTIONALLY, and at least for a little while longer, that's still the rule book, a president must be NATURAL BORN which means he was born on US soil.

That is the issue that either is being missed or intentionally squashed.

The document released means nothing. I could easily have been applied for and gotten after the fact. The birth announcement also doesn't mention a hospital in Hawaii so it is no help.

And also, like I've said, I've got no dog in this fight. If BHO gets the hook, we have President Biden and then we're still screwed. I just want the Constitution to be follow. You'd think a "Constitutional lawyer" would also feel the same. But he lied his ass off when he took his oath, so I don't expect him to adhere to this obscure passage.

jpete wrote:
But CONSTITUTIONALLY, and at least for a little while longer, that's still the rule book, a president must be NATURAL BORN which means he was born on US soil.

So says you.

But natural born citizen is not defined in the constitution.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 says "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens".

Both jus soli and jus sanguinis are generally considered natural born.

samhill wrote:Maybe then you should check Kenya to see if there is a B.C. for him.

The complete lack of the introduction of such information is quite revealing.

Basically the birthers are practicing Joseph Goebbels famous dictum. “Repeat a lie often enough and the people will believe it!”


Evidence.

Records that Ann Dunham was outside the country in August 1961.

Immigration records of the admission of her infant into the country.

Airline records that Ann Dunham traveled from Kenya to the US with an infant in 1961.

Records that Ann Dunham EVER was in Kenya.


If there was ANY supporting evidence wouldn't we have heard about it by now.

Right now it is just all innuendo.