Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: SirJohnBarleycorn
But we are talking here about a newborn infant from Honolulu to Seattle in 1961. Travel then was not as convenient as it is now.

Perhaps not, but I know of no reason why it would be more difficult to take an newborn infant on a flight in 1961 than today. If anything, with fewer security checks and smaller crowds at the airport, I would imagine it would likely have ben easier in the past.

Was there even a direct flight then?

I don't know, but I don't think it matters much. If she couldn't fly direct to Seattle, she'd have to connect in San Francisco or LA. Big deal.

Did she even make the trip by air?

Are you kidding? Do you know of a passenger shipping line that had regular service to Hawaii at that time?

Or did she travel before the birth?

Very doubtful. Air travel during the third trimester of pregnancy is very difficult and medically unadvised. It's a completely different ballgame than travelling with an infant.

Look, it is not inconceivable that she took a newborn infant on such a trip in 1961, and perhaps that is exactly what happened. On the other hand, there may be additional circumstances of this episode of which we are unaware and which accounts for the effort to conceal the information on his long-form birth certificate.

The information on the long form would add no new information that is relevant to his eligibility. The COLB is enough to prove he was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961, which is enough for him to be a natural born citizen.

Please tell me exactly what the information on the long form that's not on the short form does to shed light on this matter.

For example, one possibility raised by those questioning the concealment of the long-form birth certificate by Obama is that Obama Sr. and Ann had gone to Kenya that summer and the baby was premature, or they were somehow delayed in their departure, such that the baby was born in Kenya, and immediately after the birth they returned to Honolulu.

LOL. So now the same person who (at times) expresses his incredulity (you seem to have filp-flopped on this) about taking a newborn from Honolulu to Seattle is suddenly treating it as pluasible that a pregant American woman in her 3rd trimester would undertake a journey halfway around the world to Kenya!

Do you even stop to think about what you post?

or they were somehow delayed in their departure, such that the baby was born in Kenya, and immediately after the birth they returned to Honolulu. In that case, being stuck in a third world country with a newborn, one could understand the desire to undergo the inconvenience and take the risks associated with immediate travel back to Honolulu in order to quickly be in the support system provided by her parents and available medical care.

Uh huh. Tell me then, Mr. Plausibility, what explains her taking the vastly greater risk and inconvenience of traveling not 3000 miles, but over twice that amount while pregnant in her third trimester, to a third world country, no less?

On the other hand, why someone with a newborn infant would leave the support provided by her mother and doctor in Hawaii to take the newborn alone to Seattle is not as understandable.

I see. Let me get this straight.

To you, it's not understandable why a new teenage Mom would run away to Seattle with her newborn to get away from the embarrassment caused by a husband who disrespected her.

However, at the same time, it's totally understanable why she would fly half way around the world to a third world country, in 1961, during the third trimester of her pregnancy? Do I have that right?

You say President Obama is not “obligated” to respond to questions raised about where he was born, such as in which hospital. Well, he is obligated if a court requires him to respond.

None has, and none will. They have no legal grounds to order it.

And the idea that a president should exhibit openness and candor before the American people about the place where he was born apparently is risible to you.

He has been open about where he was born: Honolulu, Hawaii, in Kapiolani Medical center.

You know, it is customary in this country for places of a president’s birth to be honored by a marker or a museum. Will Obama be the first president whose birthplace is a state secret?

It's no secret: Kapiolani Medical Center. Now I suppose he hasn't made public a document proving he was born there, but that wouldn't make him any different than any other president.

You say we should all be satisfied with the purported COLB images, that we have no reason to want to know in which hospital he was born or which doctor delivered him.

The hospital and doctor are irrelevant to the question of his eligibility.

On the other hand, if the long form birth certificate reveals that his Hawaiian birth was based solely on the claim of a family member, such as in the case of a claimed home birth without corroboration of a doctor, midwife or other medical professional, that would suggest there may in fact be reason to doubt his Hawaiian birth.

Uh huh. So what you are saying is that the State of Hawaii can't be trusted when if officially certifies that an individual was born in Hawaii. Too bad the state department doesn't agree with you.

But, one can get a reasonable idea of the magnitude of the legal costs incurred, at least to March, by the information cited in post #283 in this thread.

In other words, you have no credible information on whether he's spent anything, much less how much he's spent, so you go ahead and take a wild guess.

He can authorize the release of the long-form birth certificate at minimal cost.

Sure he can, but by your own admission, it would do nothing to stop the lawsuits. So why should he?

Furthermore, that Obama of all people is contesting the ability of ordinary Americans to have standing in these types of cases appears hypocritical.

Perhaps, but apparently every single judge who has heard these cases agrees with his arguments about standing in cases such as these. There's a good reason for that, but I'll let you figure out why.

335 posted on 07/22/2009 2:42:58 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies ]


To: curiosity

This piece of Cr** was found about 40 some years ago. He kept under wraps, came to U.S. to go to school, then to college, where did he get the money for that?? Then Law School, More mysterious money. He was put into a do nothing job in Chicage ( Neighborhood Organizer) Yeah right the Dems have had Neighborhood Organizers for a long time, they used tommy guns, ball bats, bombs any other thing to impress the neighborhood. Now this Yeahoo, comes up to the Senate, no one knows where he came from, or anything else. He votes 90 some times in the Senate ‘present” Not voicing an opinion one way or the other. Then along comes 2008, EL Zoome is brought out by the Dems. dusted off, shined his shoes, and Walla, the great Savior. My dog has a better pedegree than OBama, and we have the papers to show to all


336 posted on 07/22/2009 2:59:30 PM PDT by BooBoo1000 (Some times I wake up grumpy, other times I let her sleep/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies ]

To: curiosity
The information on the long form would add no new information that is relevant to his eligibility. The COLB is enough to prove he was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961, which is enough for him to be a natural born citizen.

Please tell me exactly what the information on the long form that's not on the short form does to shed light on this matter.

Simply stamping your feet and repeating that the COLB images conclusively prove he was born in Hawaii does not make it so.

Likewise, neither does your assertion that the COLB images conclusively demonstrate that he is a natural born citizen simply make it so.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the question of what is required to be a natural born citizen for purposes of the Constitution. Maybe they would agree that the meaning was intended the cover a situation where the father was a foreign national and the mother was an American, so long as the child was born somewhere subject to US jurisdiction. Or maybe they would rule that the intention was that both parents needed to be US citizens. It's an open question, legally speaking. It's too bad you are inconvenienced by that fact.

I've outlined the possibility that a birth certificate could have been issued on the basis of nothing more than a claimed home birth.

The best you can come back with is insisting that the fact that some low-level state employee registered the birth in such circumstances conclusively proves the asserted facts. It's a good thing you are not using a webcam, because there is no way anyone could type that with a straight face.

You can't understand why a young American woman who unexpectedly gave birth in a third world country would want to hurry back to America to her family and doctor, even though it entailed a difficult trip? That, to you, is not plausible.

But that a woman who just gave birth, would leave her parents and doctor to take her newborn infant to go live alone far away, is completely explained to you in order to get away from Obama Sr.

But she had already dropped out of school. She could just as easily avoid Obama Sr. at her parents' home. What, was Obama Sr. stalking her? Standing outside her parents' home every time she came and went? These are just fantasies of yours.

And you pretend to know just when she conceived, and just how far along she was when she might have traveled to Kenya or Seattle.

But this is just more fantasies on your part. We don't know when she conceived. We don't know if Obama was born at full term or not. If she did leave Hawaii before he was born, we don't know whether she left in the third trimester or not.

And now you say you know, conclusively, that he was born at Kapiolani Medical Center.

Wow - you must have sound evidence for that! Oh wait, it's just a letter from Obama to the hospital. His own self-serving statement.

So it appears you believe whatever Obama says about it. Yes, he has such a track record for being open and truthful about his background and associations (sarcasm).

And perhaps the most telling point of your credulous irrationality is your refusal to consider the possibility that significant resources and effort are being put into the effort to defend Obama and the DNC in this matter.

338 posted on 07/22/2009 3:39:36 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson