Posted on 02/16/2011 7:38:10 AM PST by Rational Thought
A new poll shows just over half of likely Republican primary voters question where President Obama was born. What’s up with “birtherism” and why does it have such staying power?
The evidence shows Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama released a “Certification of Live Birth,” a document produced by the state of Hawaii certifying the state holds records that a person was born there.
Further, two Hawaiian newspaper announcements from 1961 tell of Obama’s birth. Janice Okubo, a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, told the Honolulu Advertiser in July 2009 that such newspaper announcements were based on notifications from the Health Department, which received information directly from hospitals.
The certification of live birth Obama released is legally sufficient documentation to apply for a U.S. passport, but it’s not the same thing as a “long form” birth certificate, called a “Certificate of Live Birth” in Hawaii. That document is issued by hospitals and includes additional information not on the certification.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Your point?
You're assuming he wants to quell the controversy, but he doesn't.
You’re assuming he wants to quell the controversy, but he doesn’t.
I see you still think you can read minds..ROFLMAO. Its more likely he can’t quell the controversy.
Thanks—makes sense now! I concede the possibility that the President wants to keep the controversy going; if this is the case, he is a complete buttplug.
That pretty much sums up my opinion of him. Unfortunately, that doesn't make him ineligible for office.
So now that we know the eligibility issue is a non-starter, how about we drop this birther stuff and focus on convincing the American people that he doesn't deserve re-election?
Do you know how I can get the page to show in English?
The national security implications of having somebody the rest of the world knows is ineligible are staggering. Of course, the goals of our enemies are the same as Obama anyway so maybe it’s just taxpayer money they might be able to get from us in return for keeping Obama’s little secret - like Kenya. God knows Obama would give Russia a 2-for-1 just to be able to say he made a treaty with Russia: sell the Brits’ security and our missile defense both, in return for nothing. What a deal.
Gag.
Abercrombie said he wanted to quell the controversy and after looking everywhere has to admit that he can’t.
That’s an admission against interest for Obama’s friend - one of the strongest forms of evidence there is.
Anybody who’s not asking WTH is going on in Hawaii by now is either brain dead or bought off.
With the hardcore birthers, you have a point. People like you would never be convinced of his eligibility, no matter what he does. Even if he personally mailed you a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate, complete with physician and registrar signature, and the Hawaii health director personally called you on the phone to verify its authenticity, you would still find some excuse to dismiss it. Then, just for good measure, you would double down on the myth that his father's citizenship disqualifies him, or that he was adopted in Indonesia and that somehow disqualifies him.
Hence why should he bother to quell anything, if birthers can't be satisfied?
Are you claiming that Obama told the HDOH to admit that his BC is amended and thus not legally valid, in order to keep this issue going?
Are you claiming that Obama had the Nordykes showed their long-forms and the HDOH clarified that the BC# was given by the HDOH on the “date filed” so everybody would know the Factcheck COLB is forged.... so he could keep this issue going?
Are you claiming that Obama told Abercrombie to tell Mike Evans there is no proof of a Hawaii birth, in order to keep this going?
If so, I think that is a bigger conspiracy than anything I’ve come up with. But even if it was the case, it would still be criminal actions going on and any moron who would commit crimes and get other people to commit crimes for him in order to score political points deserves not only to be booted out of the White House but to be thrown in the slammer. So if Obama is stupid enough to jump from the frying pan into the fire I’m happy to be the person making sure the fire is nice and hot for him when he gets there.
So - this being your theory - are you pushing for him to be convicted of the crimes you believe he has committed? Why or why not?
I am not interested in proving Obama ineligible; rather, I want to know why he is hiding his school records, etc. I believe there is something incredibly damaging there. Its disclosure would certainly help the American public decide he shouldn’t be reelected—but, most of all, it would allow us all to know the truth about this man.
You Funny. Get real He needs to prove his eligibility and that entails where he was born with verification, whether he was adopted or not and if his supposed father’s citizenship precludes him from being a Natural Born Citizen. At least you have identigied the questions, now why don’t you demand he answer them? Go ahead make people who doubt him look silly!
Ha Ha Ha he won’t because he can’t. Those who support his refusal to be transparent are just as guilty as he is.
How can you believe him after all his lies? Go ahead explain them away.
Satisfied? He hasn’t taken one step towards satisfying questions about his life and in fact has hidden them. He is either ineligible or a psycho-or both. No rational person would let the numerous questions go unanswered.
People like you who don’t want answers are not patriots but Lemmings. Go ahead continue following your leader off the cliff.
LEMMING LEMMING LEMMING
He shouldn’t bother—as long as he doesn’t care about reelection. If he actually wants to be reelected, he might want to quell this controversy, since there are plenty of Independent, and even a few Democrat, Birthers.
Are you just stupid DemBOt? A definite rhetorical question since the answer is obviously yes.
Red Steel informs us that all grand juries are “runaway grand juries,”
No you dingbat, I cite a source that is case study about the history of grand juries in particular of a rule change that you apparently did not comprehend. I'll let you try to figure out which is which.
Here it is again in a larger excerpt. It looks like some guy named Orfield made up the term "runaway grand jury" to justify his federal rule change that helps corrupt government officials get away...
A "runaway" grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today's "runaway" grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact "runaways," according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.[7]
Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes — grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors.[8] One recent criminal procedure treatise sums up the inherent inconsistency of the modern grand jury regime:
In theory, the grand jury is a body of independent citizens that can investigate any crime or government misdeed that comes to its attention. In practice, however, the grand jury is dependent upon the prosecutor to bring cases and gather evidence. Except in rare instances of a "runaway" grand jury investigation of issues that a prosecutor does not want investigated, the powers of the grand jury enhance the powers of the prosecutor.[9]
Thus, while the grand jury still exists as an institution — in a sterile, watered-down, and impotent form — its decisions are the mere reflection of the United States Justice Department.[10] In practice, the grand jury's every move is controlled by the prosecution, whom the grand jury simply does not know it is supposed to be pitted against.[11] " "The term "runaway grand jury" did not appear in legal literature until the mid-twentieth century.[12] The reason for this is that the term would have been inapplicable in the context of previous generations: every American grand jury known by the Constitution's Framers would be considered a runaway grand jury under modern criminal procedure. Constitutional framers knew criminal law to be driven by private prosecution and did not contemplate the omnipresence of government prosecutors.[13] Additionally, early American common law placed far more power and investigative judgment in the hands of grand juries than does the criminal procedure of the twentieth century." And in particular OBot that supports my statement above,
According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, who served as a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Rule 6 consciously decided that the term "presentment" should not be used in the Rules — even though the term appears in the Constitution.[94] "Retention," wrote Orfield, "might encourage the use of the 'run-away' grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney."[95]
Again dingbat, read for comprehensions:
"Thus, Rule 6 represented a monumental — and deliberate — change of grand jury practice.[97] Orfield's peculiar use of the term "runaway" grand jury in the committee notes may mark both the advent of this term into the legal lexicon[98] and the loss to history of true grand jury independence.[99]
Its time to give up and move on. There is no one with standing on the civil side and there are no legitimate grand juries to indict on the criminal side.
It's time for you to give up your bullcrap.
Too bad BOR O'Reilly has his pinhead somewhere else. Oh, that's right, "It doesn't matter" is his latest machinations.
If he wanted to keep this thing going, why did he post his (forged) COLB?
Make up your mind. Did he post a genuine COLB (in spite of what his good friend Abercrombie and the HDOH have said) in order to convince people, or did he post a forged COLB just to keep the story going?
Your claims aren’t even internally consistent.
What evidence do you have that they were paid?
The evidence is in two parts:
1- I said "MAYBE." THAT MEANS: it's a possibility as the one you advanced about people’s longevity is affected by 0b0z0id’s contact. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
2- I can’t show you the real evidence. Unfortunately, it is sealed. You can try looking for it or ask your Congressman to demand unsealing the evidence and while you're at it, ask him/her to find out who killed Quarels Harris and why. Hint: 0b0z0's passport records, among others, where looked at by poor Quarels Harris.
The only reason I could think of for offing Harris is my Proportionality Theory explained above. It works every time!
Professor Alinsky, Proportionality Theory Expert
All week we’ve been hit with ‘birther’ stories, starting with the grilling of Speaker Boehner on the Sunday talk shows.
Maybe it's all been a pre-emptive strike against Jack Cashill's Deconstructing Obama which comes out today...showing in detail that Obama's story is, in part, fabricated.
Ah, but even a Hawaii coach was so famous and so important that the public interest outweighed his “privacy rights” enough that the Hawaii Office of Information Practices required his contract to be made public.
If only Obama was as famous and important as that Hawaii coach in 2003, then the public could demand answers and get them.
See http://www.obamasgarden.wordpress.com .
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.