Hawaii's governor takes on birthers

He's been vetted by so many different sources and organizations that it's silly... But, of course, no matter what proof is given, the wingnuts won't believe it.

(If you look in the encyclopedia under "Moron", you'll find a picture of Orly Taitz... If you look under "Birthers", it says: "See: Moron"....)

Nmysys wrote: I will wait till he gets the laws changed and actually shows the official record of the birth before I accept this. Thanks for the attempt, but a newspaper article doesn't prove anything.

residenttroll wrote: I can get a birth certificate printed from my home state today. It's not the original birth certificate but it's an authentic state birth certificate printed in 2010. I also have an original copy of my birth certificate too. Why can't we see the ORIGINAL birth certificate?

So I'll ask both of you guys, if you do see an original birth certificate produced after actions by the new governor, will you accept it?

Your statements say yes, but my guess is no, but do hope I'm wrong.

I'd also love to hear your explanations about the birth announcements at the time in the Hawaii newspapers.

pineinthegrass wrote:

Nmysys wrote: I will wait till he gets the laws changed and actually shows the official record of the birth before I accept this. Thanks for the attempt, but a newspaper article doesn't prove anything.

residenttroll wrote: I can get a birth certificate printed from my home state today. It's not the original birth certificate but it's an authentic state birth certificate printed in 2010. I also have an original copy of my birth certificate too. Why can't we see the ORIGINAL birth certificate?

So I'll ask both of you guys, if you do see an original birth certificate produced after actions by the new governor, will you accept it?

Your statements say yes, but my guess is no, but do hope I'm wrong.

I'd also love to hear your explanations about the birth announcements at the time in the Hawaii newspapers.

Original? Yes, I would.

Birth annoucement? Who paid for it? Was it the new Governor (i.e. family friends)? It was published 9 days after his birth. I would like to see the original microfilm of the paper announcements too.

pineinthegrass wrote:

Nmysys wrote: I will wait till he gets the laws changed and actually shows the official record of the birth before I accept this. Thanks for the attempt, but a newspaper article doesn't prove anything.

residenttroll wrote: I can get a birth certificate printed from my home state today. It's not the original birth certificate but it's an authentic state birth certificate printed in 2010. I also have an original copy of my birth certificate too. Why can't we see the ORIGINAL birth certificate?

So I'll ask both of you guys, if you do see an original birth certificate produced after actions by the new governor, will you accept it?

Your statements say yes, but my guess is no, but do hope I'm wrong.

I'd also love to hear your explanations about the birth announcements at the time in the Hawaii newspapers.

Original? Yes, I would.

Birth annoucement? Who paid for it? Was it the new Governor (i.e. family friends)? It was published 9 days after his birth. I would like to see the original microfilm of the paper announcements too.

residenttroll wrote: Birth annoucement? Who paid for it? Was it the new Governor (i.e. family friends)? It was published 9 days after his birth. I would like to see the original microfilm of the paper announcements too.

Yes, it was published 9 days after his birth (and again 10 days after). Here's a photo of it along with 5 others born Aug 4th and 5th...



Humm... I wonder if this conspiracy includes those other kids too?

In November 2008, The Advertiser reported that the first published mention of the future president appeared in a Sunday Advertiser birth announcement that ran on Aug. 13, 1961:

"Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4."

The identical announce- ment ran the following day in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

Birthers wave off those birth announcements, saying that Obama family members 48 years ago could have phoned in false information to both newspapers.

Such vital statistics, however, were not sent to the newspapers by the general public but by the Health Department, which received the information directly from hospitals, Okubo said.

Birth announcements from the public ran elsewhere in both papers and usually included information such as the newborn's name, weight and time of birth.

"Take a second and think about that," wrote Robert Farley of the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times' Pulitzer Prize winning Web site PoliticFact.com on July 1. "In order to phony those notices up, it would have required the complicity of the state Health Department and two independent newspapers — on the off chance this unnamed child might want to one day be president of the United States."

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html

Well now, let's see.......

As far as the birth announcements go, we know for certain that Barack Sr. never lived at the address shown in those birth announcements. Stanley Ann, her parents and Barack Jr., possibly, but not Barack Sr.

There is also no record of a marriage license issued to Barack Sr. and Stanley Ann, thus the claim of Mr. and Mrs. would be in error, and if that part is in error, why not the rest of it as well?

Certification of Live Birth, well, we know that Barack was indeed born alive and well - perhaps even in Hawaii as claimed. If the Obama legal team that is being paid to fight any attempts at having any of his bona fides produced is willing to let the Hawaii governor release the original document that resides within the state archives, I'd be good with that, especially if it showed which hospital Obama was born in and the name of the doctor that delivered him at the hospital. That might indeed solve the birth certificate issue which has become Roswellian due to the inaccessability of the document in question.

Of course, that wouldn't answer whether or not he claimed citizenship in another nation as an adult applying for college admission, which is a distinct possibility that continues to exist, especially if he held a foreign passport at the time and renewed it to travel to Pakistan in 1981.

Obama will continue to fight to keep the birth certificate unexamined for the same reason that Nixon fought to keep his tapes secret. Most of the documents being kept from examination are as innocuous as most of the Nixon tapes were. But Obama knows, as did Nixon, what is contained in what is being requested, that if one is allowed to be examined the arguments against allowing the others to be examined disappears, and if all are examined, what is being held back will be discovered with devastating results. Obama is a very intelligent man, misguided, but intelligent without a doubt. He knows what the documents contain and which one, if allowed to be examined, would be harmful to him, just as Nixon knew which of the tapes would harm him. If even one brick is removed from the wall erected around the documents that currently remain unexamined, then the wall is breached an all the documents would eventually have to be released. That can't happen. Why it can't happen is something we won't know unless and until it does, just as we couldn't know what was on the Nixon tapes until others were allowed to listen to them.

Printsmith:

You said it very well, so the only thing I can add is my yes, if the Original is produced.

PrintSmith wrote: Well now, let's see.......

As far as the birth announcements go, we know for certain that Barack Sr. never lived at the address shown in those birth announcements. Stanley Ann, her parents and Barack Jr., possibly, but not Barack Sr.

So what? It doesn't matter where the father lived. And you seem to agree his mother lived there. So unless you can prove otherwise, it's a valid address (not that even that matters).

There is also no record of a marriage license issued to Barack Sr. and Stanley Ann, thus the claim of Mr. and Mrs. would be in error, and if that part is in error, why not the rest of it as well?

Very strange logic here. First, it doesn't matter if they were married or not. The fact is Obama was born in Hawaii to an american citizen mother. The newspapers announced his birth. And here you are saying that if they got the Mr & Mrs wrong in the announcement (not that you've even proven it's wrong), then the whole announcement means nothing? With that convoluted logic then any typo in a newspaper would invalidate everything else in that paper. Utter nonsense! You still have no explanation for how such an announcement appeared in the newspaper. Face it, the newspaper announcements alone are ample proof for any reasonable person that Obama was born in Hawaii, even though they are not legal documents (but I assume they'd be admissable in court as evidence).

Certification of Live Birth, well, we know that Barack was indeed born alive and well - perhaps even in Hawaii as claimed. If the Obama legal team that is being paid to fight any attempts at having any of his bona fides produced is willing to let the Hawaii governor release the original document that resides within the state archives, I'd be good with that, especially if it showed which hospital Obama was born in and the name of the doctor that delivered him at the hospital. That might indeed solve the birth certificate issue which has become Roswellian due to the inaccessability of the document in question.

OK, I'm glad you'll accept it if the original document is produced (even though the Certificate of Live Birth is the only legal document you need). But I'll bet you that the main birthers will not accept it and will claim it's a forgery, just as they did when the Certificate of Live Birth was first produced. You can't change the minds of conspiracy wingnuts (and I mean that in a "nice" way). Prove them wrong and they'll just weave new conspiracy theories.

And your claim about Obama's lawyers fighting the governor from releasing the documents contridicts what other birthers are saying. They are insinuating the new Democrat governer is going to present fake evidence. Why would Obama's lawyers fight that?

Of course, that wouldn't answer whether or not he claimed citizenship in another nation as an adult applying for college admission, which is a distinct possibility that continues to exist, especially if he held a foreign passport at the time and renewed it to travel to Pakistan in 1981.

Obama will continue to fight to keep the birth certificate unexamined for the same reason that Nixon fought to keep his tapes secret. Most of the documents being kept from examination are as innocuous as most of the Nixon tapes were. But Obama knows, as did Nixon, what is contained in what is being requested, that if one is allowed to be examined the arguments against allowing the others to be examined disappears, and if all are examined, what is being held back will be discovered with devastating results. Obama is a very intelligent man, misguided, but intelligent without a doubt. He knows what the documents contain and which one, if allowed to be examined, would be harmful to him, just as Nixon knew which of the tapes would harm him. If even one brick is removed from the wall erected around the documents that currently remain unexamined, then the wall is breached an all the documents would eventually have to be released. That can't happen. Why it can't happen is something we won't know unless and until it does, just as we couldn't know what was on the Nixon tapes until others were allowed to listen to them.

Apples to oranges. The Nixon tapes were one group entity. If you say you are releasing them, then you must release all of them. If Obama (or the new Hawaii governor) releases his original birth certificate, that is in no way tied to expecting Obama to release every other document produced during his entire life. Hell, he's already released the Certificate of Live Birth. By your logic that too should of "forced" him to release all other documents. But it didn't.

You produce lots of words, but you still can't explain the fact that Obama's birth was announced in two newspapers at the time. And I'm sure those announcements have been investigated ad nauseam by the birthers. If they found them to be fake or even questionable, we'd of heard about it.

Even the US House of Representatives voted unanimously that Obama was born in Hawaii. Doesn't even that make you think that just maybe you are a little way to far out in right field here?

On July 27, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.Res. 593, commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood, including the text, "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961."[71] The vote passed 378-0.[72]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

This is whack-job entertainment at its finest...

rofllol rofllol

They can't explain it, so they just keep denying it... Hmmm... just like a couple of other things...

pineinthegrass wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Well now, let's see.......

As far as the birth announcements go, we know for certain that Barack Sr. never lived at the address shown in those birth announcements. Stanley Ann, her parents and Barack Jr., possibly, but not Barack Sr.

So what? It doesn't matter where the father lived. And you seem to agree his mother lived there. So unless you can prove otherwise, it's a valid address (not that even that matters).

There is also no record of a marriage license issued to Barack Sr. and Stanley Ann, thus the claim of Mr. and Mrs. would be in error, and if that part is in error, why not the rest of it as well?

Very strange logic here. First, it doesn't matter if they were married or not. The fact is Obama was born in Hawaii to an american citizen mother. The newspapers announced his birth. And here you are saying that if they got the Mr & Mrs wrong in the announcement (not that you've even proven it's wrong), then the whole announcement means nothing? With that convoluted logic then any typo in a newspaper would invalidate everything else in that paper. Utter nonsense! You still have no explanation for how such an announcement appeared in the newspaper. Face it, the newspaper announcements alone are ample proof for any reasonable person that Obama was born in Hawaii, even though they are not legal documents (but I assume they'd be admissable in court as evidence).

Certification of Live Birth, well, we know that Barack was indeed born alive and well - perhaps even in Hawaii as claimed. If the Obama legal team that is being paid to fight any attempts at having any of his bona fides produced is willing to let the Hawaii governor release the original document that resides within the state archives, I'd be good with that, especially if it showed which hospital Obama was born in and the name of the doctor that delivered him at the hospital. That might indeed solve the birth certificate issue which has become Roswellian due to the inaccessability of the document in question.

OK, I'm glad you'll accept it if the original document is produced (even though the Certificate of Live Birth is the only legal document you need). But I'll bet you that the main birthers will not accept it and will claim it's a forgery, just as they did when the Certificate of Live Birth was first produced. You can't change the minds of conspiracy wingnuts (and I mean that in a "nice" way). Prove them wrong and they'll just weave new conspiracy theories.

And your claim about Obama's lawyers fighting the governor from releasing the documents contridict what other birthers are saying. They are insinuating the new Democrat governer is going to present fake evidence. Why would Obama's lawyers fight that?

Of course, that wouldn't answer whether or not he claimed citizenship in another nation as an adult applying for college admission, which is a distinct possibility that continues to exist, especially if he held a foreign passport at the time and renewed it to travel to Pakistan in 1981.

Obama will continue to fight to keep the birth certificate unexamined for the same reason that Nixon fought to keep his tapes secret. Most of the documents being kept from examination are as innocuous as most of the Nixon tapes were. But Obama knows, as did Nixon, what is contained in what is being requested, that if one is allowed to be examined the arguments against allowing the others to be examined disappears, and if all are examined, what is being held back will be discovered with devastating results. Obama is a very intelligent man, misguided, but intelligent without a doubt. He knows what the documents contain and which one, if allowed to be examined, would be harmful to him, just as Nixon knew which of the tapes would harm him. If even one brick is removed from the wall erected around the documents that currently remain unexamined, then the wall is breached an all the documents would eventually have to be released. That can't happen. Why it can't happen is something we won't know unless and until it does, just as we couldn't know what was on the Nixon tapes until others were allowed to listen to them.

Apples to oranges. The Nixon tapes were one group entity. If you say you are releasing them, then you must release all of them. If Obama (or the new Hawaii governor) releases his original birth certificate, that is in no way tied to expecting Obama to release every other document produced during his entire life. Hell, he's already released the Certificate of Live Birth. By your logic that too should of "forced" him to release all other documents. But it didn't.

You produce lots of words, but you still can't explain the fact that Obama's birth was announced in two newspapers at the time. And I'm sure those announcements have been investigated ad nauseam by the birthers. If they found them to be fake or even questionable, we'd of heard about it.

Even the US House of Representatives voted unanimously that Obama was born in Hawaii. Doesn't even that make you think that just maybe you are a little way to far out in right field here?

On July 27, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.Res. 593, commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood, including the text, "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961."[71] The vote passed 378-0.[72]

First off, the announcements in the Hawaii papers say that a son was born to Mr & Mrs Obama. Doesn't say where that birth took place, only that it did - which is something all of us already know to be true without any form of documentation at all. Yes it appeared in a couple of Hawaii newspapers one day after the birth was registered with the state of Hawaii, but it gives no indication of where the son was born. As evidence in a court of law, it would really prove nothing with regards to where Obama II was born.

The CLB that we all have seen does indeed give a city/town, county and island. To some extent this can be relied on I suppose, but given that an address was published for Obama Sr. that we know he never lived at in the newspapers, it is conceivable that the address of the mother was also used when the birth was registered with the state of Hawaii and that this could account for why those locations are specified. No hospital is named, no physician is mentioned on the CLB that we have seen. Is that because that information is not contained within the Hawaii records for some reason or is it simply never included on any documentation issued by the state of Hawaii when someone requests a copy of their birth certificate from them? I don't have the answer to that question pine, do you? Have you seen any other examples of one issued around the time that they issued this one to Obama? I haven't, so I don't have an answer based upon fact rather than partisanship that I can rely on to relay to you.

And I still wonder about Obama Sr.'s race being entered as African. African is not a race, it is a continent. Race in that day and age was either entered as Negro or Colored. It seems, to me at least, to be an indication that the intent was to show that his father was not a citizen of the U.S., which also then tells me that it is likely that existing blanks on the official form may have been used to enter in information that didn't have it's own place on the form. It is possible that a Y/N box verifying that the parent was a citizen of the U.S. didn't exist of the form, though again I don't know the answer to that question conclusively because I have never seen the form that was used in 1961 in the state of Hawaii, and that this is why African was used rather than Negro/Colored for his father's race when the form was filled out.

Bottom line is I have questions that have yet to be answered regarding Obama's eligibility to hold his current office. I might one day receive answers to those questions, or I might not. That it has been proven to the satisfaction of some is fine for them, but I have yet to be convinced due to the large number of documents that multiple millions of dollars have been spent to prevent anyone from examining. I will admit that my knowledge of the history of the parentage of our previous presidents is far from complete, but Obama is the only one I can recall off the top of my head who only had one parent that was a citizen of the nation when he was born. IIRC because his mother was the one who was a citizen that it would be a lot easier for him to have a claim on citizenship than he would have if it had been his father who was the citizen based upon some of the SCOTUS rulings from the 1980's, but it might still be possible that he was a U.S. national who became a citizen rather than a natural born citizen from the get go under a certain set of circumstances given that both parents weren't citizens. I also want to make one thing very clear. Unless/until it is proven that he is/was ineligible to hold the office, he is the president of this nation in my mind.

I'm just hoping that his hubris won't be responsible for visiting a constitutional crisis upon us in the future if it is found out later that he was indeed ineligible to hold the office. He and his fellow Democrats have instilled their ideology over the objections of a majority of the citizens of this nation on more than one occasion over the last couple of years. That alone gives many all the reason they need to pursue answers to their questions in an effort to have such tyranny tossed aside and their liberty restored to them. Who knows, one of them might have a job that gives them access, proper or not, to some of the documents currently being withheld from being examined. The next Wikileaks type release may just include the information that one of them thinks is the information that Obama doesn't want the rest of the nation to ever have access to. One never knows what the future holds.........

And lastly, last I knew there were 435 members of the House of Representatives, and we know that legislation gets voted on without anyone reading the text of the legislation, don't we?