Obama Birth Certificate Issue Goes to Hawaii Supreme Court

[bigdavediode]

Quote from fhl:

The copy being used by factcheck.org is a certification of live birth, not a birth certificate, and now through further review, we see that the document factcheck.org is using is not even a summary of information coming directly from the vault version of the birth certificate. It comes from an "abstract".

In Hawaii a certification of birth is a short form birth certificate.

I can see for myself that you guys are absolutely desperate -- given that the birth certificate shows his place of birth.

An abstract does not necessarily carry all relevant information.

It carries the PLACE OF BIRTH. What other information do you need, and please be specific.

 

[Gord]

Quote from fhl:

Further evidence we need to see the original birth certificate of Obama, the vault version.

The copy being used by factcheck.org is a certification of live birth, not a birth certificate, and now through further review, we see that the document factcheck.org is using is not even a summary of information coming directly from the vault version of the birth certificate. It comes from an "abstract".

You can see this for yourself on the copy of the document's backside at factcheck.org.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

An abstract does not necessarily carry all relevant information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstracts

It is well within reason, given the facts surrounding Obama's birth, to request the vault version of the birth certificate, which will tell us when the birth certificate was applied for, the hospital information, and if there were any "amendments" made to it.

It is possible in Hawaii to apply for a birth certificate long after the birth of a child, and I mean years. It is also possible through the use of affidavits to amend a birth certificate in Hawaii.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/latereg.html

Why is Obama hiding this from the American public?

I'm not saying he's not a citizen. I'm just saying "show us the proof". The certification of live birth which has been provided leaves holes big enough to drive a truck through.

Good post!

 

[fhl]

Quote from bigdavediode:

In Hawaii a certification of birth is a short form birth certificate.

I can see for myself that you guys are absolutely desperate -- given that the birth certificate shows his place of birth.



It carries the PLACE OF BIRTH. What other information do you need, and please be specific.

I was specific about what we need.

1 When the birth certificate was applied for.
2 The hospital information
3 Were there any amendments to the original birth certificate

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from fhl:

I was specific about what we need.

1 When the birth certificate was applied for.
2 The hospital information
3 Were there any amendments to the original birth certificate

Which one of these is a requirement for the office of the Presidency of the United States?

 

[fhl]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Which one of these is a requirement for the office of the Presidency of the United States?

If the information from the vault version shows that the birth certificate was obtained long after Obama was born, without hospital information, and/or it was amended, there is reasonable doubt, given the circumstances of his family, as to whether he was born in this country.

And, I would add, Kenya is reported to have sealed all records with regard to Obama until after the election.

 

[bigdavediode]

Perhaps you didn't understand the question: which information above, other than place of birth and birthdate which has been provided, is required for the Presidency of the United States?

 

[fhl]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Perhaps you didn't understand the question: which information above, other than place of birth and birthdate which has been provided, is required for the Presidency of the United States?

If you don't like my answer, well, that's too bad.

With regard to your allegation that we republicans are desperate, I don't think we are any more desperate than Obama has been throughout his political life.

After all, he was elected to the state senate in Ill by having his opponents thrown off the ballot.

Then, to get elected to the US senate, his acolytes in the media, namely the Chicago Tribune, sued to have the private divorce records of his opponent unsealed, so as to use them to discredit his opponent and win the election.

Why is this different? And please be specific.

 

[151]

bio, If you have time and want to play along

Imagine in this debate you had to argue the other side. If you do not want to here its cool. I am just curious how it would go if you and some of the other guys switched sides of the argument.

I can't figure out why when S. Obama was just there he didnt get the "vault" version and make it public.

I would have used it as a source of great pride and shown the world how happy I was to be born in America. And shut up all these consiracy people.

I am sure there are reasons not to make it public also but in my mind the reasons to make it public are greater.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Perhaps you didn't understand the question: which information above, other than place of birth and birthdate which has been provided, is required for the Presidency of the United States?

Nothing.

But that isn't the point.

The point is whether or not he was actually born in the US or not, and whether or not he is actually elligible for the position is...

And so it is reduced to whether or not the document you show means anything, and if it is a lie.

To settle the issue, he needs to produce the vault version.

Your avoidance ( and his ) of this issue speaks volumes.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from fhl:

If you don't like my answer, well, that's too bad.

With regard to your allegation that we republicans are desperate, I don't think we are any more desperate than Obama has been throughout his political life.

After all, he was elected to the state senate in Ill by having his opponents thrown off the ballot.

Amazing how you exaggerate one point (by making "opponents" plural when it was only one opponent and she didn't obey the rules. That's politics. And no, it's not desperate and not dishonest.

Then, to get elected to the US senate, his acolytes in the media, namely the Chicago Tribune, sued to have the private divorce records of his opponent unsealed, so as to use them to discredit his opponent and win the election.

So a newspaper tries to get a story and Obama is guilty. Fascinating. Does this apply to all candidates who read newspapers?