Posted on 07/26/2009 6:30:14 PM PDT by AdamBomb
[snip] "Now, how can the DOH in Hawaii say she personally saw and handled Obama’s original birth certificate IF IT WAS DESTROYED IN 2001?! Why in the hell do you destroy original birth certificates anyways? This suggests corruption at the highest levels of our Federal and State governments. It means that Hawaii flat-out LIED about the original birth certificate being in Hawaii. Wonder who gave the order? Even if birth certificates are computerized, the originals still normally exist in archives.[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at notanotherconspiracy.com ...
That’s all it has taken for every single candidate that we’ve ever had for President... I guess you haven’t been paying attention to the Presidential elections we’ve had in the past... LOL...
No that has NOT been all it has taken for every other candidate being that none of the past candidates had a father who was NOT an merican citizen as Obama has.
(with execption of Chester Arthur and that case was never resolved legally)
You are comparing apples to oranges.
At least a few times. Each state's requirements are different. I see that document is from the primary. Some states consider the primary to be a matter for the individual parties to handle, with the state merely providing the facilities for the votings. In some states they may have the R and D primaries in different locations. I know in Texas, they have them in different parts of the same building, at least all the ones I've voted in. I don't recall how they did it in my original state, I only voted i the '72 and '76 Presidential elections. The first was the only time I used one of the old mechanical voting machines, the second the only time I used a hand marked paper ballot. In Texas I've used "mark sense", two different sorts, "butterfly" punch cards, and electronic machines, I've voted in 4 different counties over the 33 years I've been here, plus the two counties in my birth state.
ping
No, actually I’m comparing Presidents/candidates to Presidents/candidates... none of them has ever been required legally to produce a birth certificate. And they’ve all had to sign sworn statements that they meet the qualifications of the Constitution for that office...
You may not like the process, but that’s been the process...
And that’s why I’ve been promoting the process of enacting a state law to require a candidate to produce a birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot in that state. That’s how you solve the problem of the process that you obviously want to operate differently than it is right now.
When I made the statement that no one could remember him from school on a previous thread, I was flamed by a poster and told to google the subject and I would not look so foolish as there were many individuals listed that knew him, but I never did. He dudnt post any links to articles Hussain had published.
barbra ann
Nice choice of wording..........
That particular statement of your could be interpreted in more than one way.
If I recall correctly, John McCain went through much grief in regard to his being a "natural born" citizen when he was running for POTUS in 2000. In fact I do believe it even went so far as "congressional" discussion.
I don't doubt 0bam0 is Constitutionally eligible to serve as POTUS. My concern is what he is hiding and why.
It's not just the birth certificate, but nearly everything else about him that he refuses to disclose that "every single candidate that we’ve ever had for President" has disclosed. (emphasis on your words)
The man who claimed to be for transparency is a complete and total CLOSED book.
As I said and you ignored.
There has never been a presidential candidate to have a parent that was NOT an American citizen. (with the possible execption of Chester Arthur and that case was never resolved).
You are comparing apples with oranges and there has been no precedent set in regards to this issue ever.
Then it wouldn't be an "original", would it? The same is true if it was a file on a computer, it's a copy, not the original. Now, more recent BCs may have been purely electronic, the statement by the Hawaii official spokeswoman seems to indicate that they are, but not one dating to 1961. It was strictly paper in those days. Paper and typewriters, no laser printers, for "original" documents. OTOH, people are sometimes sloppy with their use of language, even in official writing. They did say it was "on record" rather than "on file", which would lend credence to the "electronic record" notion.
But so what? If it's electronic, a certified copy can still be made and sent to a court, if any court can find it's spine and issue a subpoena for it.
I tend to think it's not, or they wouldn't be issuing Certifications, they'd just print a copy of the digitized long form and be done with it. The reason for the short form/abstract (Certification in Hawaiian terms), is that they can store, as characters not images, a small subset of the information on the original BC, saving lots of computer storage, and still print something very quickly, and at little cost in manpower, with the latter probably the most important factor.
In Oregon, I wanted my Bush vote to really count (don’t think it made a difference though) and so instead of mailing it in I made sure I went right down to the Election headquarters and dropped it in (on the day of the election, even though I had filled it out a while before that day). I remember there being a lot of provisional voters there (I think that’s what they called them) and there was a line around the block. But, since I was just dropping it off, I just went in and put it in a box. It is a handy way to vote...
This is commopnly referred to as “guilty behavior.”
Commonly also.
The man has REPEATEDLY lied about his genealogy.
He lied About how his parents met and conceived him, he lied about his grandfather liberating Auschwitz, he lied about his father being part of an airlift from Africa paid for by the Kennedys, he lied about his father’s religious upbringing, and he lied about how he met his wife.
Why does anyone think that he wouldn’t lie about something that might get him kicked out of the presidency?????
The man has REPEATEDLY lied about his genealogy.
He lied About how his parents met and conceived him, he lied about his grandfather liberating Auschwitz, he lied about his father being part of an airlift from Africa paid for by the Kennedys, he lied about his father’s religious upbringing, and he lied about how he met his wife.
Why does anyone think that he wouldn’t lie about something that might get him kicked out of the presidency?????
The methodology is the same for everyone. You qualify on the basis of three points and that’s it.
They don’t say, if yo mama’s black, you qualify this way, and if you’re five-foot-five, you qualify that way, and if you’re a woman, you qualify a different way, and if you’re in a wheelchair, you’ve got another kind of qualification, and if you don’t know who your daddy is, then you stand over in that other line... LOL...
Obama qualified for his candidacy the same way the other candidates did, and the same way past candidates did.
And if someone’s sworn statement is false, then that candidate can be prosecuted right then, and they would be.
Either way, you’re correct :)
You said — If I recall correctly, John McCain went through much grief in regard to his being a “natural born” citizen when he was running for POTUS in 2000. In fact I do believe it even went so far as “congressional” discussion.
—
Yeah, but McCain was *not legally required* to do so. He wanted to do it, in order to clear the way “politically” for him and so others couldn’t use “doubt” to hamper him. There’s a difference in what a candidate does out of “political expediency” and what a candidate is required to do by law.
McCain was only required to swear an oath that he was qualified under the Constitution, in order to get on the ballot in the states. But, McCain decided it was “politically expedient” and beneficial for himself if he used those other ways for “cover” and to take away doubt that some would *use against him*... (and actually some conservatives still used it against him, saying he was not qualified Constitutionally).
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
And then you said — It’s not just the birth certificate, but nearly everything else about him that he refuses to disclose that “every single candidate that we’ve ever had for President” has disclosed. (emphasis on your words)
—
And those are matters for the voters, once you clear the Constitutional provisions for office. That’s what voters are supposed to decide on, when they vote.
‘Nothing worth digging into’ ... I got a better one for ay. The media for days now have been holding up an Internet captured image of a fake CoLB first posted online by Barry and his servant shills at factcheck.org. Now, since some are beginning to realize that image was a frogery, the focus is shifted to trusting the later factcheck.org imagery and the statement by factcheck that they have seen and handled the real Obama birth certificate. I mean, factcheck and Obama first promote a fraud then we’re told we must trust that factcheck has seen and touch something that is supposedly not been available since 2001. ... And yes, the media and Barry Soetoro believe we the people are that dumb. And judging by the comments from spittlemouths like Coulter, some really do want to be that dumb!
My thoughts exactly. We would have to be really retarded to take him at his word after seeing the past 6 months flip flopping. Shame on us if we don’t do due diligence!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.