Posted on 07/27/2009 7:47:46 PM PDT by Gargantua
Those announcements in the paper mean nothing. They are generated automatically in response to information generated by the Hawaii Health Department. The laws at that time were so lax, than Obami could have been born somewhere else, and a relative of his mother could have mailed in the paperwork that said he was born in Hawaii. If he WAS born in a hospital in Hawaii, then the doctors signature WILL be on the long form. If it is not, I can only conclude that he was not in fact born in a Hawaiian hospital. This would put the lie to his entire story. It's all come down to the doctors signature now. Nothing else matters.
Not gonna happen. Not even a valid concern unless and until Zer0's ratbag buds over at APECORN take absolute control of our electoral process, like through some mechanism such as a census... uh.. er...
...Uh-oh!
We have every reason to be taking this deadly series... it's prolly hugh.
;-/
We must really have 'em rattled. Make that "you..."
Three cheers for Tim Johnson! :-)
Hey jimrob, in your wildest dreams, did you ever envision that you'd be the target of a White House smear campaign when you were planning FR, or was that the goal from the start? This is about as much fun as one can have with their clothes on.
;-/
the better way to go is to have a state house require that the candidate must show a valid birth certificate.
Well they’ve got a birth announcement listed in a newspaper. Kind of like when you go to where your parents live, get married in the company of your relatives, and then go back to your home state and include an announcement in your local paper.
There is no claim of where he was born in that listing, just a date and the names “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama” (even though the marriage was null and void since Mr. Obama was already married).
But what could embarass him on it?
We already know his father was a bigamist.
Is it possible that his father WASN'T Barack Obama?
So he'd have a different dad than his namesake. It really wouldn't be a big deal. Certainly not worth spending a millions dollars on to fight its release.
2009-7-26
Welcome to FR.
The House resolution to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Hawaiian statehood — which included language recognizing the state as President Obama’s birthplace, in a none-too-subtle jab at the Birthers — passed this evening by a 378-0 vote.
Among the Yes votes: Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), the lead sponsor of the infamous “Birther Bill” to require presidential candidates to present their birth certificates, and who had previously said he wouldn’t “swear on a stack of Bibles” that Obama is a natural-born American citizen. Several other co-sponsors of the Birther Bill also voted yes: Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Dan Burton (R-IN), John Culberson (R-TX), Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), and Ted Poe (R-TX).
It’s making the right look maniacal folks. There are better things to be talking about.
You can’t discard... theory simply because it is an inference from evidence. You need to counter it either with new evidence or superior inference. Be careful here. You can’t infer “things” into existence. You need physical measurements to prove that “things, objects” exist.
Where is the proof he has a long form Hawaiian birth certificate?
People saying "I've seen it"? What is the compelling reason to continue to supress it?
Things like what your previous Freeper name was?
:-)
It has already been widely reported that the so-called “long form” for Obama no longer exists. However, the overwhelming weight of the evidence that does exist points to the notion that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii when he said he was. I am not aware of any evidence that he was born anywhere else. Do you have any of that? I swear, I’ll look at it objectively and weigh it against the evidence that he is a natural born citizen. Please, present your evidence. If you don’t have any then I suggest that all this flap is doing is making the right looked crazed.
OBJECTIVITY requires presenting a birth certificate from one place (where he was born).
We have seen neither. At best I can be agnostic on this matter.
Prove you didn’t chew gum yesterday.
I’m not asking you to prove he wasn’t born here or there. There is evidence that he was born in Hawaii. Is there evidence that he was born anywhere else? If there is, I haven’t seen it.
As I said, reportedly, the long-form for Obama does not exist anymore. Thus, by only accepting a piece of evidence that doesn’t exist, you’ve quite fallaciously set up a situation where it’s impossible to have evidence for Obama’s citizenship status. How convenient.
Look again at all those Republicans that voted yes. Are they all “Obamabots” as well?
I haven’t seen the evidence. I’ve heard that the evidence exists.
You try to use a grocery store printed ID to go vote and see what that gets you.
There are legal documents. That is the evidence. The evidence has been long suppressed for some unknown reason. And a whole lot of you don’t give one damn.
Who are the Obamicans you speak of?
Collin Powell?
Ariana Huffington?
When somebody is elected to be President of the United States, we voters have the right to see evidence that he is qualified.
He wasn’t vetted and the public isn’t supposed to question the One.
Nobody I know is claiming he is not a US citizen. Everyone agrees that Obama is a US citizen.
They don't agree that he is a "natural born" US citizen.
The original birth certificate would settle the issue, and any abstract, such as the certification of live birth, will not.
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.