Well, it's no longer just a "theory" now.
Just a question of how much it will cost.
Posted on 03/01/2009 8:22:44 AM PST by STARWISE
I didn't say the election officials had the right to look at it; it said that the pertinent officials (such as the Registrar of Vital Statistics) do have that right.
That being said, how then did Obama qualify for the Hawaii State ballot?
Well, it's no longer just a "theory" now.
Just a question of how much it will cost.
You are not even trying to make any sense.
NO official, of Hawaii, has the right ot examine Obama’s birth records, without Obama’s permission or the permission of a Court.
Election officials have NO SUCH RIGHT and you are a liar to boldly state otherwise.
Put another way, where does any “vital statistics” officer have ANY authority in an electoral manor?
You are absurd.
There is no evidence of the point you are trying to make.
You are not telling the truth.
You are wrong on the facts.
You are wrong on the law.
YES
I am saying that it would be ILLEGAL for anyone in Vital Stats to talk to any election officer, or vice versa, about this issue and provide documentation.
Not without a law demanding such (which I would support)
Or a Court order
Or permission from Obama.
I've come the conclusion that no manner of evidence will be enough to sate some people here. They will believe what they want to believe no matter what reasoning, logic, facts or evidence is presented - and certainly no matter who authenticates the document in question.
NO. Obama was not born in Hawaii. No way. No how.........
So where was he born?
“In every courtroom, in every city, county, state and federal court...
When the person in the state of HI, who’s job it is to verify documents like the one in question, comes out and says it’s authenticate, I’ve seen it and I’m authenticating it, isn’t good enough, then nothing ever will be.
you are so wrong it is embarrassing.
what you described is INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY.
No evidence has been presented in court- there havent been any evidenciary proceedings because the defendant is stonewalling.
You obviously have no clue as to what the law of evidence really says.
You, like most obamanoid apologist, you assume —ASSUME— that relevant officials did see the vault copy. You know they didn’t because one of them would have spoken out by now. THAT is frankly how liars get away with their deceits, by inferring silence is ascent. Are you trying to help the affirmative action fraud get away with his deceits?
“That being said, how then did Obama qualify for the Hawaii State ballot? “
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have just come upon this issue.
Here’s the answer for you: The only way any one “qualifies” for a state ballot is by signing a piece of paper SAYING that they qualify. There is no vetting, there is no verification. In any state.
In other words, by law a person must be eligible. But there is no office which is obligated/required to verify it. That is the loophole that Obama may have flown right through. That is why there is a state movement now to match the requirement of eligibility with an obligation/law that the eligibility be verified.
Removing a person from the WH IS the heavy lifting. You don’t have to EXPOSE his socialist polcies he’s been doing every week.
No evidence has been presented in court- there havent been any evidenciary proceedings because the defendant is stonewalling.
Exactly. Do these idiots even realize how many bureaucratic foul ups there are doing the course of a year...? That's why they want you to provide a certified copy of the document in question.
That make 2 out or 330 Million. But they still haven't said that they have examined it personally, or what it says.
You said — “I do seem to remember you or someone discussing the states remedy to this stuff in the future and it’s a grand idea. If Obama is not going to be litigated to show his birth certificate after the fact..our only other solution is to be ready when he tries to run again in 2012.”
I could be wrong — but — I think was the only one that kept mentioning that solution (per the states...). I don’t think it’s an “automatic given” that this try at state laws will go through in all states. Even though Oklahoma is very conservative, maybe that legislation won’t make it through on the first try. It’s too early to say right now, though, as the legislation is making its way through.
—
And lastly you said — “I say we do both though. The thing about Obama, is that he is clearly hiding something in his long form birth certificate. What-ever it is..it needs to be exposed. The man lies with abandon and he is lying about his birth certificate too.”
I said the very same thing, before the election. The refusal to show the original documentation — instead of being “politically expedient” and showing it, made me wonder (in my postings here) what there was to hide.
I was of the opinion that this issue would carry the most weight before the election. Apparently not, since almost 10 million more voters voted for Obama than McCain. I was wrong there.
But, I really did not think the issue would carry any weight at all (for the masses, anyway) — after the election. That’s because it was still a *question* and all that was brought to bear on the issue were assertions and allegations but no proof in any court, that a court decided on as valid and authenticated.
However, as you know, there were many here that thought “results” would be forthcoming. I questioned that, after seeing that no results were forthcoming. I also saw that no one could produce any proof in court, for a court of law to authenticate. All that could be produced were accusations and “various deductions”, but absent the solid proof. So, in my judgement, and from seeing the “results” (i.e., “no results”) — it appeared that nothing more (in terms of “results” in getting rid of Obama) would be forthcoming from the courts.
But, I was *assured* that it would *soon* be happening and Obama would be prevented from taking office. When that didn’t happen, then it was very clear that a court could no longer intervene with the office of President of the United States (once he took office). At that point in time, it was only for Impeachment and Conviction (by the House and the Senate).
So, when you say to do “both” — I just don’t see even the “theoretical possibility” at this time for the courts, since it requires “Impeachment”.
My judgement is that the laws enacted in the various states are going to end up being *the only way* to get any such documentation from Obama.
Well, you’re mistaken there, since I’ve been posting about Obama producing documentation since before the election. After the election, I saw that I lost. The problem is — now he’s in office, and all the stuff that was said would be “done” before his inauguration never happened.
So, it appears that recognizing the reality of the situation is more than some can bear...
I got news for you, it doesn’t matter what conservative do or say the news media and the democrats are going to attack them anyway.
Always have and always will.
If it wasn’t this it would be pro life, pro gun or dare I say it CHRISTAINS!!!!!!!!
So grow up and get a clue, it really doesn’t matter what conservatives do The left will use whatever they can to destroy us.
Well, you’re right that nothing now can be done “before his inauguration”, since it is past. But that doesn’t mean something can’t be done NOW. Past is past. Now we work on what’s possible now, we don’t have to just give up.
I don’t have a problem with people pursuing this from different angles. Attention focused on new state laws, on getting him to release all his hidden info, lawsuits about NBC for different reasons (British dual citizenship, birth in Canada, birth in Kenya, etc) —
we don’t know what the exact truth is, and we don’t know what strategy will work. Makes more sense to me to encourage a multi-pronged approach, such as is being done.
The reason why I pointed this out for “before the election” was that there could have been an outside chance that something would work before he was President, although I thought it was “slim to nothing” that it would work at that time.
BUT, *now* — it’s what I call “theoretically impossible” for the courts to do anything in connection with a sitting President. For *now* — the only option is an Impeachment and then a Conviction...
That’s why I’ve been saying that it has become clear to me *after the inauguration* that there are many people who want to get rid of Obama so badly, that they’ve lost all their critical thinking abilities and have gone to the Obama Derangement Syndrome side of things (for not being able to even recognize the “theoretical impossibility” of the courts for removing a sitting President)...
That’s my current thinking on the matter...
And therefore, that leaves only one other possibility — which are the state laws.
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.