Politico Drops Race Card on Donald Trump

Nmysys wrote:

The government of Hawaii did issue a birth certificate for Obama. It's been posted here many times.

What state government employee said the certificate doesn't exist? Can you tell us who he is and what he said?

Actually the first B.C. that was originally posted had a Received Stamp on it. That soon disappeared from the internet. It did not come from the State Government, as you say. Since then there have been many copies of birth certificates posted on here, as well as other places online. I'm not sure any of them have ever been certified as a true and correct copy by anyone truly in authority. If it was, this issue would have gone away by now. It hasn't, has it? Meanwhile POTUS has supposedly spent well in excess of $1 Million to keep from producing it. Why?
That answer is not known. There are many theories that he is hiding something. There are many unanswered questions.

The name and title of this person you ask me to name is not that simple for me to find, but I will look for it and re-post it. If my memory serves me, and YES I am old, 70, the new 50 BTW, is not so old, he was prominent in the State of Hawaii.

The logic that says "since an issue has not gone away, there must be some truth to it" is not sound. Sorry, Nmysys, but there are many people who want to keep this story rolling. That does not make the story true.

I still haven't seen any evidence that he has spent money keeping his birth certificate secret.

There's information on this web site about his birth certificate.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/h ... losed.html

We asked for and received a copy from the Obama campaign. It is too large to display full size on this page, but you may click on this link to see a copy of the document just as we received it.

It indicates Obama was born at 7:24 p.m. Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu. That should be no surprise, as it merely documents what Obama and his biographers have always said. But the document should put to rest groundless speculation raised on some conservative Web sites that Obama might not have been born in the U.S. and therefore might not qualify under the Constitution as a "natural-born citizen" to be president.

The speculation was not based on any evidence. Bloggers raised questions based on the absence of evidence, specifically the lack of a publicly available copy of a birth certificate and the supposed "secrecy" surrounding it. For example, the conservative World Net Daily posted a June 10 article with the headline, "Is Obama's candidacy constitutional?; Secrecy over birth certificate, demand for 'natural-born' citizenship cited." Soon after, some of our readers began asking us the same thing.

The "secrecy" ended when Tommy Vietor at the Obama campaign sent a message to us and other reporters saying, "I know there have been some rumors spreading about Obama’s citizenship, so I wanted to make sure you all had a copy of his birth certificate." A digital image was attached.

Hawaii state law forbids the release of birth or marriage certificates to anyone but the persons named in the documents or their immediate relatives. This copy carries a date stamp of "Jun 6 - 2007" (which has bled through from the reverse side), and is, therefore, probably a copy obtained by Obama himself at that time.

Nmysys wrote: "There is no birth certificate [for Barack Obama]. It's like an open secret. There isn't one. Everyone in the government there [Hawaii] knows this."

"It was openly admitted by everyone in the office that was above me... that there is no documentation... that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii."

"I was told, at the time, that there was no long form birth record, which would have been the case if President Obama was born in hospital in Honolulu... there is no such form in Hawaii. He does have a Certificate of Live Birth which is given to children of families who were residents of Hawaii when children are born outside the state. So I assert that he was born outside of Hawaii."

Tim Adams, a former-Senior Elections Clerk for the City and County of Honolulu Hawaii, has been releasing mega-bomb-shells, like the ones above, for a month now... to anyone who will listen... and yet, the Main Stream Media still refuses to investigate his allegations.

So if you buy into all this, you also have to buy into the lunatic theory that somehow not one but TWO separate birth announcements were "planted" in Hawaii papers announcing the birth. And I do know there are lunatics out there trying to "prove" just that, but I repeat, they are LUNATICS.....This whole thing is right up there with Elvis sightings in credibility. It amazes me that Trump has gotten onto this crazy bandwagon and I predict he will live to regret it.

Nmysys wrote: "There is no birth certificate [for Barack Obama]. It's like an open secret. There isn't one. Everyone in the government there [Hawaii] knows this."

"It was openly admitted by everyone in the office that was above me... that there is no documentation... that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii."

"I was told, at the time, that there was no long form birth record, which would have been the case if President Obama was born in hospital in Honolulu... there is no such form in Hawaii. He does have a Certificate of Live Birth which is given to children of families who were residents of Hawaii when children are born outside the state. So I assert that he was born outside of Hawaii."

Tim Adams, a former-Senior Elections Clerk for the City and County of Honolulu Hawaii, has been releasing mega-bomb-shells, like the ones above, for a month now... to anyone who will listen... and yet, the Main Stream Media still refuses to investigate his allegations.

Perhaps since it's been since June of 2010 that he's been telling this story without any evidence to back it up?

[youtube:s7d27s57][/youtube:s7d27s57]

archer wrote: [There have probably been other presidents that have a short form birth certificate since that is what is customarily provided by states when you ask for a certified copy of your birth certificate, the question then becomes why was it good enough for them, but not for Obama? uh....nmysys, this was my rebuttal earlier which you chose to ignore.....because Obama seems to have been singled out, there could be questions as to the motive for those who made the original objection to birth place, and for those who continue the fight years later. I am saying nothing about the validity of the fight, just asking what the motive is and if it could be that were Obama white this would never have been on the radar.

There probably have been other president's whose short form birth certificates were accepted at face value archer. The hurdle that Obama faces that they did not was that one of his parents was not a United States citizen, which raises the possibility in his particular circumstance that wasn't present in other cases. And while true that other presidents have had foreign born parents, most recently Wilson and Hoover, none have had a parent who was not a citizen of the nation at the time of their birth. Obama is the 7th president born to a household where at least one parent wasn't born on this soil (Jackson is the only when where neither was), but he is the first one whose parents were not both citizens themselves at the time of his birth whose qualification wasn't established by their being here at the time the Constitution was adopted.

Now, you can certainly hang onto the view that only race raises the question, but there is an explanation outside of that one that is most certainly valid as well.

AspenValley wrote: So if you buy into all this, you also have to buy into the lunatic theory that somehow not one but TWO separate birth announcements were "planted" in Hawaii papers announcing the birth. And I do know there are lunatics out there trying to "prove" just that, but I repeat, they are LUNATICS.....This whole thing is right up there with Elvis sightings in credibility. It amazes me that Trump has gotten onto this crazy bandwagon and I predict he will live to regret it.

Yes, there were birth announcements in two Hawaii newspapers - which listed him being born to Mr & Mrs when they hadn't been married and listing an address at which the father had never lived. Stanley Anne was living in Washington with 2 or 3 weeks of Obama II's birth while Obama I remained in Hawaii. There is no documentation that the two were ever married, no documentation that they ever lived together at the same address, no documentation on how Stanley Anne and young Barack traveled to Washington from Hawaii, or anywhere else for that matter. Yes, the birth announcements are there, but what was the manner in which they were collected for publication? I know when I was working at the Canyon Courier the announcements were provided by family members. Sometimes the parents, sometimes the grandparents who still lived in Evergreen even if their child no longer did. I'm certain that Stanley and Madelyn were proud grandparents, perhaps they provided the faulty information to the paper? If the marital status and address were incorrect, could those announcements contain additional errors regarding the location? Was the information collected from official state records and published? I've yet to see anyone explain how the information for publication came into the hands of the newspapers AV. Perhaps you have that answer for us?

PrintSmith wrote: Now, you can certainly hang onto the view that only race raises the question, but there is an explanation outside of that one that is most certainly valid as well.

Oh, there are many possible explanations why people might become attached to the Birther Myth but few of them are rational. You might be one of the three people in America who actually agonize over the insult to the Constitution you imagine this (might) be, but I'd be willing to bet for 95% or more of Birthers, this is simply grasping at the straw of wanting to believe DESPERATELY in anything, anything, that might discredit a President they detest and cannot accept. Only they know if the reasons they detest and cannot accept him have anything to do wtih race or not.

However, I can vouch for the fact that for at least SOME Birthers, whom I happen to be related to, the reasons very definitely DO have something to do with race. At least, that's what they tell me. And they aren't all that shy about it either, so long as they think they are safe among people they assume agree with them.

PrintSmith wrote: I've yet to see anyone explain how the information for publication came into the hands of the newspapers AV. Perhaps you have that answer for us?

Off the top of my head I can think of five or six scenarios that are more plausible than the belief that the whole thing is a "plant". But I'm not going to waste any time trying to fill imaginary holes in goofy conspiracy theories. It happened almost 50 years ago, and a lot of discrepencies are going to turn up in the paper trail of ANY story that happened that long ago. Trying to spin elaborate "what ifs" out of something like that is a pastime on the level of trying to prove that it was really Elvis who shot JFK.

I have no doubt that a racist would have an issue with Obama's race AV, they are a racist after all. However, I was simply pointing out there is a scenario which, contrary to the first impulse of a progressive, has nothing to do with race and everything to do with his actual ability to qualify to hold the office. Is one born to a parent who is not a citizen a natural born citizen? Would the anchor child of two illegal immigrants qualify for that designation? Citizen, under the bastardized interpretation of the 14th Amendment, certainly, but "natural born" citizen? What did those who penned the words mean by that language and does the child of a non-citizen, even if born here, rise to the level that those words encompass?

In his 1758 book entitled "The Laws of Nations" (recognize that phrase from somewhere?) Vattel, whose influence upon the authors of the Constitution is widely known (it was the book that Washington had borrowed from a library in 1789 and never returned), had this to say on the subject:

I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Is this what was meant by "natural born citizen", and does the 14th Amendment change that in any way?

AspenValley wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: I've yet to see anyone explain how the information for publication came into the hands of the newspapers AV. Perhaps you have that answer for us?

Off the top of my head I can think of five or six scenarios that are more plausible than the belief that the whole thing is a "plant". But I'm not going to waste any time trying to fill imaginary holes in goofy conspiracy theories. It happened almost 50 years ago, and a lot of discrepencies are going to turn up in the paper trail of ANY story that happened that long ago. Trying to spin elaborate "what ifs" out of something like that is a pastime on the level of trying to prove that it was really Elvis who shot JFK.

Who said it was a plant? I was merely pointing out that its existence in no way establishes anything as a point of fact, especially given that most of the information contained within it is patently false. If the information came from official State of Hawaii records that is one thing; if it was called in by relatives and printed that is another thing entirely. Would Stanley and Madelyn have an understanding of the benefits their grandchild would have as a citizen of this nation that he wouldn't have as a citizen of his father's nation, especially if the father had shown no interest in actually being a parent to the child? Might it be important to them to establish him as a citizen for this reason? The fallacy that the only reason a fraud might have been perpetrated is that someone looking into the future and realized what he would grow up to achieve fails on so many levels it is almost as laughable as you seem to think the issue itself is.