Posted on 09/23/2015 10:18:47 PM PDT by Ray76
‘It would appear that those who assert Hawaii was handing out BCs like lollipops are people who don’t want to accept a Hawaiian birth certificate. They present no evidence to back up their claims which strangely enough did begin until 2008.’
Unfortunately for you huffing puffery, several eyewitnesses described Obama’s birth records prior to the release of the forgery. All agreed they were “handwritten.”
We all know the real reason is I keep listing all the mistakes you've made, whereas you can't name a single thing in error at my end.
You routinely conflate one thing with another and with another and so on ad infinitum.
This is just more of your meaningless blather. Name one instance. Of course, this reply shuts you down cold every time. But it's fun to keep rubbing your face in that reality.
In states which do not have laws allowing for a birth certificate to be created for a child born elsewhere, a birth certificate constitutes proof, not an indication.
A number of states have similar laws.
You have an example of another state that will issue a birth certificate to someone not born there? Put it out so we can see it.
Hawaii’s law was first written in 1982 so wouldn’t apply to a 1961 birth certificate.
No, a 1982 law wouldn't apply to a birth certificate issued in 1961, but the law in effect in 1961 allowed for a birth certificate to be issued for someone not born there. The exact law in effect in Hawaii in 1961 has been posted on these threads numerous times, and because I recognize your name as having participated in many of these "Obama birth certificate threads", I am confident you have seen the Hawaiian law in effect at that time.
Your attempt to claim it as a 1982 law can be interpreted as a deceitful attempt at misdirection. I am having a hard time putting an innocent spin on it given how many times i've seen your name on these type of threads. I can't believe you are that forgetful.
Nowhere in Hawaii law does it state that a delayed birth certificate lists the place of examination as the birth place. Or that an examining Doctor can be listed as the attendant.
That too has been discussed, and the relevant law cited countless times. Of course if you can't remember what the Hawaiian law was in 1961, then perhaps you've forgotten this law too? Well don't look at me. I have no interest in rummaging through my forest of links or through old threads to get the info, and so I will just say you are wrong about this, but I don't feel motivated enough to bother proving it. (as if proof would do any good.)
It would appear that those who assert Hawaii was handing out BCs like lollipops are people who don’t want to accept a Hawaiian birth certificate. They present no evidence to back up their claims which strangely enough did begin until 2008.
To the contrary. Evidence has been put forth so many times that it is apparent that evidence serves no real purpose when arguing with people who simply insist on their talking points. As for none of this being of interest until 2008, why that's because it never applied till we got an unqualified candidate who may or may not have been born in the United States.
On the other hand data shows there was no large spike in record births in the years before, during or after WWII.
I've posted the relevant discrepancies regarding Hawaiian births several times over the last few years. In this case I remember where the Data is. If you want to see it, go over to the daily pen and dig through their articles. I recall they posted the queerness of Hawaii's birth demographics several years ago.
Just unsubstantiated claims.
Which apparently work as well as substantiated claims. Pretending there is any objectivity with you Obama legitimacy defenders is a pointless pastime. You aren't interested in evidence, you are just interested in repeating your mantra.
Anybody who is so stupid as to start the discussion of what "natural born citizen" means by referring to 1898 is not a person who should be taken seriously.
Go chase cars. Then you can tell us all how effective you were at making them run away.
(Representation of Cpn Hook's mental prowess illustrated below.) 
Oh, really? Do tell us, DumbDumb, what law was that? Give us the chapter and statute number.
The exact law in effect in Hawaii in 1961 has been posted on these threads numerous times,
Indeed, you have been one of those to have "posted the law" in the past. Here's an example of you posting to "Ha Ha That's Very Logical." Your grand point then was that in 1961 Hawaii was a newly admitted state, and it had a law allowing for issuance of a birth certificate to a person not born in Hawaii. And here is the link you gave to that law, to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 338-17.8, which reads:
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
Now, what makes you a laughably stupid, historically incompetent boob, is that the very link you provided itself tells you that the law you're citing wasn't enacted until 1982!
Here's a little helpful tutorial on how to read statutory history. See that little part at the end that I put in boldface -- "[L 1982, c 182, §1] ?" In a set of annotated statutes the legislative history is summarized at the end of each statute. So this tells us that the statute you were citing was enacted pursuant to Hawaii Laws of 1982, Chapter 182, Section 1.
Now compare this history to that given for Sec. 338-17 (relating to late or altered certificates):
"[L 1949, c 327, §21; RL 1955, §57-20; HRS §338-17; am L 1997, c 305, §4]"
This shows the statute as enacted in 1949 and then amended ("am") by the 1997 laws, Chap. 305, Sec. 4). But with 338-17.8 there is no earlier version of the law, no amendment.
And about that time you were adding to your list of errors by posting that law as applicable in 1961, it was being discussed publicly that there was no law in 1961 allowing Hawaii to issue a birth certificate to someone not born in Hawaii. This from Joshua Wisch, special assistant to the Attorney General of Hawaii:
We also note that section 338-17.8 was not passed until 1982, so it cannot apply to President Obama, who was born at the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu in 1961, as is reflected on his certificate of live birth, a copy of which can be viewed on the White House website, a link to which is provided on DOH’s website.
Your vaunted "many years of researching these topics" once again has left you in a state of Fail.
Your attempt to claim it as a 1982 law can be interpreted as a deceitful attempt at misdirection. I am having a hard time putting an innocent spin on it given how many times i've seen your name on these type of threads. I can't believe you are that forgetful.
If you had a shred of intellectual integrity, you'd apologize to Zoltan about now. But since you don't, you won't. You'll just remain an unrepentant incompetent and dishonest fool.
The Big Dog is on the hunt, and I predict the little car is soon going find a side street on which to try to run away.
F**k you. I’m not reading your crap.
I've called your bluff on this claim many times now. It's clear you've got nothing substantive left to argue, so you're reduced to pure ad hominem. It's a pathetic display.
and make crap up
Oh, like you make up the B.S. that Hawaii had a law in effect in 1961 that allowed for issuance of a birth certificate to a person not born there? Complete historical B.S.
Actually, as you know, unlike you, I've never just made up something untrue like you do. If you disagree, cite the example and link to it. Your continued frustration is that with two years of my posting history to you on these topics, you can't find a SINGLE example, while I keep knocking you around over your repeated blunders.
Anybody who is so stupid as to start the discussion of what "natural born citizen" means by referring to 1898 is not a person who should be taken seriously.
And when you're not responding with meaningless blather, you so often can only muster straw man distortions.
From a legal perspective, that's where it should start -- with the most relevant SCOTUS case on topic. But I've looked at the historical side as well, pointing out to you now several times that "natural born" had a meaning in English usage -- then as now -- of "having that nature or characteristic at birth." By contrast it did not convey the meaning "from like parents." Just as today, being termed a "natural born" athlete doesn't require either or both parents to have been gifted athletes (though they may be), in the 1700's being a "natural born" citizen didn't require that either parent or both be citizens (though they may have been).
It's one of those arguments I keep hammering you with because you have no substantive reply other than to post cutesy pictures of dogs or faces of illustrious persons and pretend you've made a point.
And right there is the summation of the trouble in dealing with Obama Legitimacy supporters. You can't show them something once. You can't show them something twice. You have to keep showing them each and every time the same old subject is once more broached, and when you have gone to the trouble of looking up your proof, they simply move on to the next quibble without admitting they were wrong.
And then they bring it up again later. There is simply no traction when dealing with such folk. They have no intellectual honesty. `Arguing with them is like digging sand. More simply flows back into the hole.
It's your choice, DumbDumb. If you wish to remained mired in error and keep posting things like "Hawaii in 1961 had a law allowing for issuance of birth certificates to persons not born there," then have at it.
But it's also my choice to keep pointing out how stupid you are.
I do not care what you think. You are a deluded imbecile.
You are just a mouthy little sh*t who hasn't gotten nearly enough @$$ whuppings to teach you better, and no verbal rebuttal will be sufficient to solve the problem that is you.
I've already saved you the time and looked up what you posted to "Ha Ha" in 2012 as being the 1961 law allowing for issuance of certificates to persons born outside of Hawaii. You cited to the Ha. Rev. Stat. § 338-17.8 -- the one that wasn't enacted until 1982!! ("DumbDumb" is just SO fitting an appellation for you.)
And you've never cited to any other law beside that one as being the operative one in 1961. So of course you're not going to bother to "look it up" now. It doesn't exist. You've been wrong all along.
You are just a mouthy little sh*t who hasn't gotten nearly enough @$$ whuppings to teach you better,
Boy, you must have really been something on the middle school playground. I'll bet you won most of your "arguments" because you could out "potty mouth" the next kid with your rapid-fire expletives.
And I'll bet once the years passed and the debate rightly moved to actual substance, you haven't one since. Because when it comes to substantive points, you fail. Over and over and over and over.
and no verbal rebuttal will be sufficient to solve the problem that is you.
Certainly not a verbal rebuttal that is just name-calling. You're right, that won't work. But the trouble for you is that you don't have any substantive rebuttals to me that you can make stick, that don't just further weaken your case. It's such a frustrating dilemma for you. The impotent rage is showing again.
“Stanley Ann did not give a mistaken address. She had no HI address at that time,..”
How do you know that?
Because numerous obot biographers have beaten the bushes in HI looking for some trace, any trace, of a clue as to where SAD was living during her pregnancy, and all they’ve come up with is a big black hole.
It’s as if...she wasn’t even in the state.
Good post! Two small suggestions. First, in addition to being Obama supporters, they are trolls. One of the defining traits of trolls is that they spam threads with repetitious, discredited rubbish in the hope of disrupting the site. I.e.: they don’t add to the discussion so much as attempt to derail it.
Second, you said:
“They have no intellectual honesty.”
I agree with that wholeheartedly. However, there is another component: limited, not-overly-bright intellects. Meaning, sometimes their spamming is intentional disruption, but other times it’s bc they simply cannot grasp the issue. Things are clearly explained to them, but the point goes right over their heads. Thus, when they post a discredited ‘fact,’ they believe they have made a brilliant contribution to the discussion. The actual fact—that what they just posted is false—will forever elude their limited faculties.
To illustrate these mental anti-giants, consider this. I once made the point that Obama rules like the foreign-born America hater he is, and that his every action favors the foreign invading horde over lawful American citizens. One of the obots took it upon himself to cite an instance in which Obama favored US citizens over foreign invaders. Hold onto your hat: what follows is bizarre.
Namely, the obot informed me that Obama favors legal citizens in that Obama (claims) he’s deporting foreign invaders who commit crimes, while at the same time allowing US citizens who commit crimes to remain in the country.
Think about that. It’s as if the obot imagines Obama would buy an island—maybe even a continent, Australia—and deport all US criminals to his new penal colony. Except, of course, that if he didn’t, it means he hearts US citizens more than he hearts foreign invaders, since he will graciously allow even US citizens criminals to avoid deportation.
SMH.
And this is what we’re up against. No bleeding wonder we can’t/don’t make headway. We are arguing with some pretty dull knives, any way you slice it.
citizens criminals = citizen criminals
They didn’t look very hard...
“A search of the Polk’s Directory of Honolulu for 1961-1962 indicates 6085 Kalanianaole Highway was being rented by the grandparents. Madelyn L. Dunham is listed as a loan interviewer and escrow agent at the Bank of Hawaii, and Stanley A. Dunham is listed as a manager with Pratt Furniture.
image: http://www.wnd.com/images/090818annobamahawaiiresidence.JPG
(Polk listing for Ann Obama)
In a separate listing, Ann S. Obama, Obama’s mother, is identified as a student living at the 6085 Kalanianaole Highway address; Barack H. Obama, her husband, is listed as a student living at 625 11th Avenue.”
http://www.wnd.com/2009/08/107337/#RuG8A6hUklYi3UYv.99
Save
This is the real genius of obots. They can discover more by sitting at their little keyboards and clicking away than can trained, professional researchers who actually travel to HI, conduct countless interviews and engage in on-the-ground research. Wow—what talent! You should be the one writing the definitive obot biography, not the pros whose puny skills you spit on, as you ride your high horse roughshod over their failed efforts.
To mention just one of the researchers, leftist obot David Maraniss. As a result of his in-HI research and interviews, he established that SAD did not live with her parents during her pregnancy (nor was she a student during that period, as your Polk listing states) nor was she there when she gave birth, nor did she return there after (supposedly) giving birth in a HI hospital.
But I’m sure you’ll discover some online ‘fact’ to prove Maraniss wrong. Actually interviewing the people directly involved is so overrated; keyboard jockeying is a far superior approach.
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.
