Still didn’t answer my pithy question – one that gets to the heart of the matter rather than just pulling out the old frayed and worn “short form gives you everything necessary” sound bite which it obviously does not.

Is there some part of Honolulu you think to be outside the Untied States?

So then you would have no objections to the fact that, a court, or some authority with the need to know, could actually discover more information re: THE birth since it is apparently still filed in a fuller form than what you offer up. You seem to have a great fear of that information becoming public for some reason.

I just know how conspiracy theories work. Acceding to the theorists’ demands is worse than useless in dispelling them.

And you seem to not wish to acknowledge the various possibilities that do exist for just what Hawaii could quote as a basis for a certificate of live birth.

Whatever their basis, Hawaii has jurisdiction. How much faith should we have in their state records and how much credit should we give them? “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” — U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1.

Still didn’t answer my pithy question – one that gets to the heart of the matter rather than just pulling out the old frayed and worn “short form gives you everything necessary” sound bite which it obviously does not. So then you would have no objections to the fact that, a court, or some authority with the need to know, could actually discover more information re: THE birth since it is apparently still filed in a fuller form than what you offer up. You seem to have a great fear of that information becoming public for some reason. And you seem to not wish to acknowledge the various possibilities that do exist for just what Hawaii could quote as a basis for a certificate of live birth. But, I just bet that you actually do have some knowledge of the many nuances that exist for full disclosure but, for your purposes, just don’t feel it necessary to divulge any further facts than what sound bites have been offered to suffice for public information! You must have joined the Obama “transparency” brigade!

FYI

http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/blog-1523-sen-orrin-hatch-admits-obama-is-natural-born-us-citizen.html

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=51

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=3883

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=3884

******************************************************************************

None of what you post above Sue makes the FRAUD a “natural born” citizen….it doesn’t matter how many resolutions the Congress passes or letters they write declaring the FRAUD is a “natural born” citizen…..IT JUST ISN’T SO….face reality and quit making a habit of quoting morons who probably have never read the Constitution let alone know what the meaning of a “natural born” citizen is!!! It has been shown that the ordinary citizen is able to pass a test about our government with a score of around 50%…these politicians average around 30%….that tells me we have a lot of HOT AIR and ZOMBIES walking around on Capitol Hill!!

Another Reader,

“You are the desperate ones. This is all nonsense, so why bother?”

Because I don’t like people who lie. And, you are right, this is all nonsense because:

1. President Obama was born in Hawaii
2. Hawaii DOH officials verified this twice now.
3. President Obama published his certified COLB online
4. FactCheck.org inspected and photographed the certified COLB
5. Others in the media were invited but did not show up–hmmm, speaks volumes, doesn’t it? Contact FactCheck.org Director Brooks Jackson for verification of my statement regarding this.
********************************************************************************

And none of your BS above makes him eligible to be POTUS per the qualification stated in the US Constitution of needing to be a “natural born” citizen…..WHICH HE AIN’T!!!! Talk about lying and desperate….that would be you OBOTS….using the BC issue to avoid the unavoidable….face the music SUE…you were duped and voted for a FRAUD who is now destroying our country using puppets like you!!!

Judging by Google’s cache, WND made the change sometime between Aug 2, 2009 20:42:48 GMT and Aug 3, 2009 16:58:35 GMT.

Here’s the August 2nd Cache:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:HPBNGZ-sc4cJ:www.wnd.com/index.php%3FpageId%3D73214+http://www.wnd.com/index.php%3Ffa%3DPAGE.view%26pageId%3D73214&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

So you are trying to convince us and yourself that the information on the expedient short form (sound bites) is exactly the same as the long form birth certificate which is still being held in some kind of file??

No, I was correcting your false characterization. My claim was was sourced and linked to the compete article, which you snipped so you could say that all I offered was a sound-bite. Here’s the article again: http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

Are you stating that a form with more limited info and which is permitted for certain purposes by the state can substitute for someone who legitimately will need to know the more involved info on the long form birth certificate?

We’ve already seen the birth certificate proving President Obama was born in Honolulu Hawaii. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html Do you think there is some constitutional requirement that the president be born in a hospital? Is there some neighborhood of Honolulu you think not to be in the United States?

Are you saying that a court with the need to know more specific information which is admitted by the state to still exist in their file cannot be ordered when there is a legitimate need to know?

The courts have shown no interest at all in the eligibility-deniers’ tantrums.

Somehow, by presenting the link that you did, it appears that you would like people to think that that proves that the greater amount of birth information has just disappeared into thin air and no longer available in any way.

No, the citation puts the lie to the oft-heard claim that what Obama showed is not a birth certificate. It is the official birth certificate of the state of Hawaii.

Because I don’t like people who lie

Please cite an example where I have lied. Be prepared to back that up with something other than rhetoric.

All of this is actually pretty funny, because I have watched those on your side of the fence attack this Kenyan BC in the exact same way as they complain about the supposed birthers.

All I have done is point out inconsistencies, and ask questions. The information that you feel are answers, I do not. As I have said here before, we can banter on this board until the end of time and it will not matter. Because the real evidence that would decide this matter has not been made available for inspection by the right authorities.

I will not be satisfied, until SCOTUS makes an actual ruling on the Natural Born Citizen issue. And by that, I mean a definitive ruling on the meaning and how it will be enforced. As far as I am concerned it is our duty as citizens to ask questions and hold our elected leaders accountable. For if we do not, then we have no one to blame but ourselves when our Government is not what we expect it to be.

You and I disagree on the nature of the evidence that has been provided. That’s fine, that is what the courts are here to handle. The fact that I question it does not make me evil or stupid or any of the other derogatory remarks that are bandied about on this and other sites. Besides, the folks who vent all of their vile and anger on these sites are nothing but pathetic wannabes anyway. There is nothing quite like an anonymous beat down of someone you don’t know to build self esteem. Right?

I personally have no respect for people who can not present a fair and balanced argument without resorting to personal attacks. They present a few details that THEY deem as all of the relevant facts and when the opposition does not agree, they begin behaving as children. As far as I am concerned, the moment you begin attacking your opponent personally, you have already lost. It would seem that many of opposition posters can not make any comment without including some type of ridicule. Almost as if they are following some type of script. I have read Saul’s book and am keenly aware of the tactics advocated. While it is not my normal way of doing things, for those who want to play by those rules I have no problem with returning the favor.

The real problem here is the partisan nature of the conflict. This has become a win at all costs game for certain groups within each of the parties. The real losers in this battle will be the American people. Besides, the relatively small number of people who comment on these sites will have little or nothing to do with the final outcome anyway. I suspect that there will be a huge turnaround in the 2010 election cycle.

Black Lion did not leave that out. WND added that in.

It is a new note, added (apparently by my records) over the last couple weeks in the attempt to make excuses for their later about face.
Are you able to verify that? If so, please post in another comment.

-Phil

__________________________________________________________________
Phil, that was recently added by WND. Probably in the last week or so. I have posted that link her on numerous occasions and reviewed that article for months and that so called editors note was never there. WND is covering themselves. For almost a year they had never addressed the fact that they had authenticates President Obama’s COLB. So now they added that note to justify and reconcile what they wrote then to what they are writing now.

Black Lion did not leave that out. WND added that in.

It is a new note, added (apparently by my records) over the last couple weeks in the attempt to make excuses for their later about face.

Are you able to verify that? If so, please post in another comment.

-Phil

So you are trying to convince us and yourself that the information on the expedient short form (sound bites) is exactly the same as the long form birth certificate which is still being held in some kind of file?? Are you stating that a form with more limited info and which is permitted for certain purposes by the state can substitute for someone who legitimately will need to know the more involved info on the long form birth certificate? Are you saying that a court with the need to know more specific information which is admitted by the state to still exist in their file cannot be ordered when there is a legitimate need to know?

Somehow, by presenting the link that you did, it appears that you would like people to think that that proves that the greater amount of birth information has just disappeared into thin air and no longer available in any way. The link you provided only states what we already know re: what the state deems necessary for those who need to present some form that would suffice for their basic needs, but does not change the fact that, in the case of Obama, that more information about the facts of his birth, if contained on the long form of birth certificate, still is kept on file. Unlike what certain media outlets have advertised and perhaps what you would also like to imply, the larger amount of info was not destroyed just because there was a change in what is required and what is issued for certain basic needs of the population.

However, I don’t see that he did. It looks to me as if he got photos of pages from a 1961 Kenyan birth registry. So?

The so-called Kenyan birth certificate proferred by Dr. Taitz is a “certified copy” from 1964 authenticating that there’s a birth record IN the 1961 registry.

Different forms altogether.

To disprove the document Taitz proferred, he’d have to get a copy of another “certified copy of registration of birth” FROM 1964. 1964, not 1961. And a “certified copy” NOT a copy of pages from the actual registry. Sheesh!

If Miller and another reporter actually were there, and if one of them is holding the COLB, then why crop out the face?

The date stamp in the exif information, posted with those photos at FactCheck BEFORE they scrubbed the information, indicated that the photos were taken just days before the break-in at the passport office, not in August when the photos were presented on FactCheck.

The time was off, because daylight was streaming through windows, suggesting that it was daytime in Chicago, not approx. 10 p.m., which was indicated by the exif data.

The date and time may have been set at the factory when the camera was manufactured, and never reset by that photographer.

My own cameras, both digital, neither re-set by me, have a correct date but the time is off by about 12 hours, because my cameras, like so many others, were made in Asia.

FactCheck NEVER gave an explanation for WHY they downsized the photos and removed that exif data, after this discrepancy was pointed out to them.

WHY, if they are the sole arbiters of truth?

For the benefit of Black Lion, that posting by “anonymous” at 12:04 was from me. I must have forgotten to put in my pseudonym.

Black Lion: You left out the WND editor’s note, immediately following the paragraph concerning their investigation of the COLB:

“Editor’s note: WND’s investigation into the certification of live birth did not include inspecting the actual document, but only asking experts to evaluate the online image. Those experts, therefore, could not ‘prove’ the document’s authenticity. The experts told WND merely that many of the forgery claims made against the image were inconclusive or falsified, leaving them no evidence that would cast doubt on the image’s authenticity.”

Black Lion did not leave that out. WND added that in.

It is a new note, added (apparently by my records) over the last couple weeks in the attempt to make excuses for their later about face.

They are doing the same thing again today. Having already insisted that they had obtained authentic Kenyan birth certificates that were identical to the Orly doc, they have now purged all related stories from their front page and suddenly published a new one in which they say the exact opposite.

That’s the risk when you choose to lie through your teeth and call it “news.”

You are being played, anonymous, by both sides of this issue. For the naturally paranoid that must be deeply unsettling.

“