I agree with you that it is mostly useless to argue with HD. He is nothing but a troublemaker. So blinded by his own lack of common sense, ignorance, and pride that he could not find the truth if were pinned to his lapel. It’s tough to find the truth when you already know it all.

Liberals have gained momentum by becoming the the whiny, squeaky wheel of society. Conservatives generally speaking are more reserved and don’t make too much fuss. So I believe it is time to meet them head on in their own game and let the chips fall where they may.

HD is nothing more that a spoiled, undisciplined child. He can’t accept the fact that there are people who don’t share his world view and his only available means for dealing with it are playground antics. He wouldn’t dare behave like this face to face with anyone. But I admit, he is awfully tough sitting behind that keyboard throwing out his barbs.

I will be looking for a new representative next time around!

Have Obama release all of his supporting documentation and records to the American people now, since you now know the truth. No big deal! Right?

Thank God, Hawaii officials confirmed it after so long, and after thinking and saying they could not legally do that. I’m so glad they resolved that matter.

This will really put mud on those faces of the Bithers!!! Let’s show those pests how stupid they are! Go ahead show’em the facts….Stupid Bithers….Right?

You wrote to HD: “Until you can provide me the list of UserId’s on this site that you claim to have converted to your way of thinking, you are nothing more than a rather dimwitted liar.”

I have been reading this site since Jan. and I have seen no one converted by HD’s blather.

I don’t argue with HD anymore, not because he is right, but because he is lost. Prayer alone can now save his soul…

His personal issues seem to be to debunk anyone he can: whether he is here to do that, or because he has some personal issue with Obama as an atheist or someone of non normal life styles, is his own affair: but he is thoroughly intellectually dishonest…

If there is one good thing that does come from him: he will correct the egregious factual error anyone makes against Obama: to that extent his existence is useful (sarcasm)!

t would be much simple and effective for Obama to release his certified copies of his original long form Birth Certificate and College entrance records to a roomful of reporters.

Simple? Yes.

Effective? Doubtful.

The right thing to do? Absolutely not.

The precedent it would set would be a disaster to the institution of the Presidency and the functioning of our civil judicial system. I know Birthers do not care about that, but Obama is the President. He has to care.

Either it is a resolution which means absolutely nothing, or it is an ex post facto law.

Why is it that so many Birthers live in a universe composed almost entirely of false dichotomies? Those are not the only two options.

Here’s at least one more:

It is a resolution which means that the US House of representatives unanimously believes that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

If it is an ex post facto law, Congress has finally gave us what Obama has tried for so long to deny us, STANDING.

Well, it’s not an ex post facto law, but let’s pretend that it is, just for a second. Why not explain to us the remarkable reasoning that leads you to imagine it gives you standing?

I’d be fascinated to read it.

Obviously you, MSM, and the majority of Congress thinks that we “the Birthers” are a minority.

Don’t you?

Clearly this vote was in response to the Birthers claims. Therefore using the opposition to each lawsuit filed to date, we now have a unique injury, one not shared by the general public.

And what injury would that be? Hurt feelings?

Great answer. You have just exposed yourself to be a fraud. You completely sidestepped the issue.

I addressed the issue directly. You’re just frustrated and angry that Dr. Fukino has put sand in your Vaseline, so you are whining about her authority rather than dealing with the fact that her statement is absolutely authoritative.

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

Obviously, her job is to the be caretaker of records. But neither you or anyone else can show that the job description includes the option to open and examine records without authority to do so. Basically just because a particular record is of interest to her personally.

1. She is the custodian of the records. She can pretty much do anything with them she wants that doesn’t violate the law. There is no law forbidding her from looking at anything she wants to.

2. She did not look at Obama’s birth certificate on a whim or because it was “of interest to her personally.” She did it specifically so that she could make the statements she has made.

Phil admonishes to keep it civil, but I see no reason to do so since by your own admission you are going to “mock and ridicule” these posts. I suppose that you think that by doing so makes you superior somehow. And that’s fine, it will be your own undoing.

Are you ready for more mockery and ridicule? It’s coming up next.

And I stand by my last statement. You are nothing but liar.

Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. You almost hurt my feelings.

But the accusation would be so much more powerful if you actually could demonstrate a lie. You know, a lie like… like… oh, here’s a good one…

“Obama was born in Kenya.”

Great answer. You have just exposed yourself to be a fraud. You completely sidestepped the issue.

Obviously, her job is to the be caretaker of records. But neither you or anyone else can show that the job description includes the option to open and examine records without authority to do so. Basically just because a particular record is of interest to her personally.

Phil admonishes to keep it civil, but I see no reason to do so since by your own admission you are going to “mock and ridicule” these posts. I suppose that you think that by doing so makes you superior somehow. And that’s fine, it will be your own undoing.

And I stand by my last statement. You are nothing but liar.
You are making statements you can’t back up. You are the master of the Straw Man argument.

Either it is a resolution which means absolutely nothing, or it is an ex post facto law.

If it is an ex post facto law, Congress has finally gave us what Obama has tried for so long to deny us, STANDING. Obviously you, MSM, and the majority of Congress thinks that we “the Birthers” are a minority. Clearly this vote was in response to the Birthers claims. Therefore using the opposition to each lawsuit filed to date, we now have a unique injury, one not shared by the general public.

What do you want for dinner History DUD, peas and carrots, or carrots and peas.
Tèo Bear `,:-)

Sorry my fingers are to tired to point out that citizen and Natural Born Citizen as mentioned in the Constitution appear to be two different things. As I have state previously, I firmly believe that a British Citizen at birth (as Obama has claimed) would never qualify for POTUS unless born prior to roughly 1790. Be that as it may, it is just my opinion. What I have noticed about all the Obots is they can’t seem to explain one nagging little fact….

It would be much simple and effective for Obama to release his certified copies of his original long form Birth Certificate and College entrance records to a roomful of reporters.

This, and I have stated this before is a done deal on ‘place’ of birth if a Physicians name and hospital and footprints are attached. The newest statement by Fukino should be like blood in the water for the ‘investigating reporters’, and just brings up the same ole questions about the documents. This looks counter-productive for Obama, he would have been better off releasing the original certified documents to quell the controversy.

How can they pass such laws without an actual birth certificate document in front of them? Also, what about the fact he was adopted in Indonesia and became an Indonesian citizen?
____________________________________________________________________
There is nothing to the birther rumor about President Obama because there is no documented proof that President Obama was ever adopted. Do you have some proof that he was adopted? If you do please share it with us. Secondly do you have proof that President Obama became an Indonesian citizen? If so would it be the infamous school registration form that is inadmissible in a US court because its authenticity has not been established? And you do realize that it states the President’s city of birth as Honolulu. And even if the off chance that the President did get Indonesian citizenship, you do realize that as a result of the Supreme Court ruling in Perkins v. Elg that he cannot lose the US citizenship he recieved at birth. So that is why it was not addressed.

Give it a rest. Her Job Description ??? Really. That’s the best you could come up with? You disappoint me.

Given the vast font of disappointment that is the Birther movement, I must take a certain amount of pride in even deserving notice in such a way. The fact that you imagine that my response was anything other than the absolutely correct answer, though… now that’s just funny.

She is the custodian of those records. How do you propose she do her job without having complete access to those records? How do you imagine anybody in her employ could perform the most routine and repetitive of their jobs without full and unfettered access? How, for example, could Dr. Onaka certify that a COLB was a true copy unless he had the opportunity to actually check? How do you imagine any of their reporting and demographic functions could take place? Do you guys even allow a minimum 30 seconds of thought before you propose the ad hoc objections that you feel compelled to offer in the face of yet another (your word) disappointment?

Understand this very simple and basic fact: Privacy laws are enacted to prevent custodians of information (like the Hawaii Department of Health) from revealing private information to people who do not deserve access to it (like Birthers). They were not designed to make it impossible for bureaucrats to do their jobs.

Your very good at citing references when it suites your current argument, but you always substitute a flippant reply when you know you can’t provide one.

That’s one possibility. Another is that you get a flippant reply when the question asked was so thoughtless that it deserved to be mocked and ridiculed.

As I originally asked, since you seem to believe you have the answers to everything. What is the Statute that allows her to access those records and then make public comments about them?

Well that’s two different questions, and finally one of them is meaningful. The answer to the first (her access) is unchanged from my last post; her job description.

The answer to the second (her making comments) is there there are none. She is not allowed to make public comments on them without the approval of the person whose information has been released. Now… a second’s thought should have led you to one of two (and as far as I can tell, there actually are only two) possibilities here.

The first is that she got permission from the White House. Given that I know from personal sources that the Hawaiian DoH has been begging for that permission for months, this is likely.

The second is that she has broken the law.

Either way, her statement remains unchanged and authoritative. Obama was born in Hawaii.

Until you can provide me the list of UserId’s on this site that you claim to have converted to your way of thinking, you are nothing more than a rather dimwitted liar.

Yawn.

You and I both know her statement provides nothing new about how births are registered in Hawaii.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697
________________________________________________________________

I just wanted to point out that the same site that you are referencing the report, they also stated the following…

“Orly Taitz asserts that “to be president there have to be two parents who are citizens.” This is false. Here is Blackstone’s classic exposition in 1765 of the legal meaning of the term from the Commentaries on the Laws of England.
William Blackstone, Commentaries 1: 354 361–62

“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it…all children, born out of the king’s ligeance [i.e on foreign soil], whose fatherswere natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.” [The italics are Blackstone's]

Also from the same article…

Blackstone explicitly grounds natural-born status on location (jus soli), not parentage, except when the child is born abroad. The notion that both parents have to be citizens is false. All children born on American soil are natural-born subjects or citizens. If Obama was born on American soil there would be no controversy. If he was born on foreign soil, the fact that his father was not an American citizen would disqualify him from natural-born citizenship

http://www.westernjournalism.com/?p=2686

It also goes on to address the infamous registering foreign births in HI myth….

However this statement does not take into consideration US Immigration law…

SEC. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

http://www.theodora.com/ina_96_title_3.html

So according to US Immigration law even if Obama had been born in Kenya, he could have recieved citizenship through his mother….