Posted on 09/10/2009 9:42:35 PM PDT by moonpie57
The birth record is part of the vital record. Duh. When he dies, his vital record will also include information about his death. Birthers get so hung up on semantics, it amazes me.
And, yes, that's nothing.
I see, so let me clarify this. Are you saying the Hawaii Director of Public health is lying when she says Obama's vital record says he was born in Hawaii?
Who says it is sealed?
Which one is it?
It's online.
It can't be both ways can it. You see red and tell me it is blue so who can believe you?
I have consistently told you one thing: the COLB is online. Here's a link if you don't believe me:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg
The obvious reason is a fraud is because it contradicts both what McCain says about his birth, as well as Panamanian birth announcements. According to McCain, his mother, and the birth announcements, McCain was born in the hospital on the military base in Panama.
The fraudulent birth certificate says he was born in Colon.
FYI, the fake birth certificate was not made public by McCain, but rather was submitted as evidence in Hollander v. McCain, a case that was dismissed.
You can read more information here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/the-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/
She stated vital RECORDS. Plural. She did not state what it was. Specifically. She is very good at parsing and being oblique. So. He has more than one BC? He had it amended? If it was ONLY an original BC, she would have said what you claimed in post 1083:have verified that he has a birth record on file in Hawaii
Me:And, yes, that's nothing.
I see, so let me clarify this. Are you saying the Hawaii Director of Public health is lying when she says Obama's vital record says he was born in Hawaii?
Apples and oranges.
Let's return to your post 1083.
He's posted an image of his COLB online.
My response: And, yes, that's nothing. You and I have gone round on this before when you first started trolling for Obama. Kos and Factcheck posted Colb's. Both are biased.
You’ll not that stinky and his associate noids always point to the third exhibit and avoid the first two the affirmative action figure fraud-in-chief posted as ‘genuine’. LOL Just like criminas to want us to trust sources which first try to pass of fraudulent exhibits then claim aq third exhibit is genuine. Bwahahaha, such weak minds these Obamanoids have!
The guy that put the Kos Colb up admitted it was a forgery.
So I wonder what the fightthesmears excuse was for posting a fraud? That was Barry’s website so you would think he could post a genuine image rather than a fraud the first two times he has something posted.
” but do you really think she is so lacking in curiosity that she has never looked at it online? “
Let’s see.
Dr Fukino was unable to get into medical school after graduating college via the usual route.
She had to be tutored for a year in Hawaii’s Imi Ho’ola Affirmative Action program
before she could enter medical school.
http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20090606_UH_med_school_program_helps_students_gain_entry.html
She is not Board Certified in Internal Medicine per
the American Board of Internal medicine:
http://www.abim.org/services/physver.aspx
Dr. Chiyome Leinaala Fukino
Internal Medicine -Not Certified
No Certification History
This physician has not completed the requirements for ABIM certification.
You may wish to check again periodically.
The soon to be arrested doctor who gave Michael Jackson the deadly Propofol was not Board Certified, either.
The surgeon who botched the plastic surgery of Kanye West’s mother , which resulted in her death , was not Board Certified.
He’s been stripped of his medical license.
And is in jail.
Either Fukino flunked her Boards or was afraid to take them for fear of flunking.
Yes-I would say she is lacking in curiosity among other things.
Probably because he didn’t have the one he presented to factcheck yet.
Another incompetent bureaucrat at helm.
Figures that they would put someone like her in charge of the Department of Health.
Tyler, Arthur, Hayes ... problem presidents. I’ve thought of a challenge question for the skeptics you battle with:
If Judge Carter allows this to go to trial and allows discovery ... and it is appealed to FEDERAL APPEALS ... which grants a “stay” on discovery ... then it goes to SCOTUS:
5 or more SCOTUS judges believe that the federal courts probably have no jurisdiction in the matter ... but they see no reason why a trial cannot determine such questions ... so they allow Discovery to proceed.
Is this plausible or will the skeptics argue that by allowing discovery SCOTUS is admitting federal jurisdiction? And when would SCOTUS rule on ‘standing’?
Are these reasonable questions, or am I missing something major?
I call bull shiite.
If the analysis towards making McCain’s BC is fraudulent, the one towards Obama is even more fraudulent.
But at least you posted a link, that’s more than I actually expected from you.
I’d be pleased as punch to find out both McCain and Obama were usurpers, and that the election should be as a result, done over. Of course, that’s unconstitutional, but it happens to be the same view as JimRob.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2162695/posts?page=129#129
There are a lot of things in this controversy that don’t add up, and that official act is one of many.
I believe that this is likely.
And when would SCOTUS rule on ‘standing’?
Who knows. I honestly believe that any John Q Citizen has standing. I believe that view is Constitutional. Others do not.
most people I talk to have a very hard time viewing this as anything other than an impeachment case. Even if I ask them to let their imagination work on it. They say there is “no judicial philosophy” involving SCOTUS removing a president.
And it is plausible that the Justices MOST determined to keep the SCOTUS out of it are Scalia, Thomas, Alito ... they might figure if it becomes a controversy in some lower court: great!, but they don’t want the circus coming to their desk.
I can't blame them. Look at the Bush-Gore mess.
Bush v. Gore, the Clinton impeachment ... the left realizes there is a reluctance to get into another crisis and they are using that fact to push the envelope on everything.
The DNC should have vetted Obama but they didn't. Or they knew he wasn't eligible. Seems to me they introduced a bill that would have changed the requirements but I didn't save the info. After them, it was Congress. Well we know that ain't happening. At least not now. But 2010 isn't that far off.
I have to say Good Night!
Good to chat with you. :-)
If the pirate Roberts swore me in as president, would that make me a president? Your reasoning is flawed, starting with a false assumption that an ineligible person could actually legally be president. This is a fradu case. If the affirmative action figure proves he’s Constitutionally eligible, there is no fraud. He so far has spent a lot of money to avoid proving he is eligible. Keyes brought suit because there is a strong likelihood that the man who won the election was not eligible to run and hold office, thus defrauding Keyes directly. But Barry also defrauded anyone who ran and anyone who voted. If he sits in the Oval Office by fraud, he is not legitimately a president to be removed by the courts, he is a criminal to be arrested and prosecuted.
there has never been a case where the Courts have removed someone from the presidency. There is no case where someone asked the courts to remove someone and they refused.
Fraud is a crime. The Keyes case is civil, not criminal. I can think of numerous ways to proceed on the NBC, BC issue, but none of them are “Have the SCOTUS remove him from office.”
What does the TYLER example tell us? Or Hayes?
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.