emergency obama birth certificate

Congress can investigate anything they want.

Of course Congress has already confirmed Obama as President, and passed a resolution stating that Obama was born in Hawaii- including Michelle baby.

Let me know when there is any indication at all that even one of them suddenly decides that they didn't know what they were voting for.

 

i will do that but you will hear it before i can tell you probably. right now the odds are 535 to 1

 

HRes.593

http://citizensagainstproobamamediabias.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/hr-593-barry-was-born-in-hawaii/

SFJEFF; If your talking about the above, Ms. Bachmann never opposed HR 593, but wanted and received a delay in the vote, for a quorum. NO ONE voted against recognition of Hawaii's Statehood.

 

Yeah- thats the one- lets review the language:

"Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961;"

Jul 27, 2009: This resolution passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The vote was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the resolution, needing a two-thirds majority. This usually occurs for non-controversial legislation. The totals were 378 Ayes, 0 Nays, 55
Yea MN-6 Bachmann, Michele [R]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-647

So here we have a resolution that recognizes that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and that Michelle Bachmann voted "yea" on it.

Yep- thats the one.

 

there were 55 nays in congress ?? about obama being born in hawaii ?? they suspended rules and cut short debate ?? why ? who would sponsor such a bill ? this is hillarious and red flaggy.

 

SFJEFF;

If the petitioner (Candidate) is questioned, it's not the voters responsibility to prove eligibility, it's the Candidates to each State, according to their satisfaction. Don't come back with some clause or interpretation of one, as each State still controls most of how they perform an election.

If the two staff members were forensic experts, were allowed to perform certain test and saw any corroborating evidence, they should have been summoned by the defendants (Obama) attorney's to each of the trials involved. Additionally their are too many unanswered questions on "Fact Checks" findings...

http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/obama-bc-seal-contradicts-factcheck.pdf

I have many times, in my short time messing around here, shown how easy it is today and more so in the 1960's, to falsify application for a BC or COB and tens of thousands of people on any number of Welfare Programs or that have had the need to SHOW one. There are far more important reasons people have to cheat a little, than their kid might someday run for POTUS...

[

Don't be silly; SOME people, a very few, have purportedly seen one document or another and according to party lines accepted, declined there validity or simply don't care.

These are not facts, if anything offered as evidence were fraudulently produced.

9) It is a fact that the majority of voters in the 2008 election voted for Obama, that the Electoral College elected him, that Congress confirmed his election without a single objection and that Chief Justice Roberts swore him in.
10) It is a fact that item #9 makes Obama our legitimate and legal President until he is either termed out of office, voted out of office, he resigns or is impeached.

I'll grant you Obama is officially the President of the US, very possibly the last one if re-elected, but I remain skeptical as to whether the title was legitimately acquired. Do you understand you facts are all based on other peoples opinions and little of what your 'Three Musketeers" answers the dozens of questions for his obvious obfuscation (important) of his history?

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=obfuscation

Yes Clinton also came from a dysfunctional family, but I can find any information on his past wante, and at least he had some history in Governing.

Well back to the same analogy!!! Exactly what was not known about any modern day (20th Century on) President, that compares with Obama's known history and his gaps. I simply want SOME gaps filled and there are an large number of folks claiming proof he WAS born in Kenya, I'd like cleared up, which no other President has ever experienced. Here is one interesting read, although it is slanted....

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/npr-says-obama-born-in-kenya/





washington; 55 Didn't vote, 0 voted against motherhood...oops meant Hawaii's 50th Anniversary and it was the current Governor then [Rep Abercrombie] that introduced the bill, adding several notable Hawaiians....

It is interesting in that the South Texas districts, near all on the Border didn't vote, knowing how easy BC forgery can be.

 

what a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing joke. with (*)(*)(*)(*) like that no wonder the story will never die.

 

The link provides the answers to all of your questions. I know the link is not to a Birther website, but even so, I am sure you can manage to get to it.


Originally Posted by SFJEFF
Yeah- thats the one- lets review the language:

"Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961;"

Jul 27, 2009: This resolution passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The vote was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the resolution, needing a two-thirds majority. This usually occurs for non-controversial legislation. The totals were 378 Ayes, 0 Nays, 55
Yea MN-6 Bachmann, Michele [R]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-647

So here we have a resolution that recognizes that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and that Michelle Bachmann voted "yea" on it.

Yep- thats the one.

 

No. It's the voter's responsibility to decide whether or not the candidate has met their standards of proof of eligibility. And then... they vote.

You are deeply, deeply confused. Very few of the Birther cases even had Obama as a defendant, so he had no lawyers involved. Second, as self authenticating documents under the Federal Rules of Evidence, no forensic experts are necessary at all. Third, you need to find a competent Birther lawyer who can manage to get a case that far. So far, it hasn't happened.

Oh... and dear, dear Butterdezillion is insane.

Splendid. Now... provide evidence that this one is fake. You manage that and the criminal indictment of the Hawaii DoH is slam dunk. Why have none of the Birther fleet of Lawyers pulled that off yet?

Oh yeah, because they keep filing civil cases since they know they have no evidence of crime.

 

this is almost proof in itself that the whole thing is a hoax. the family friend who keeps changing his story sponsered obama fake credentials tucked into a commemorative bill, i'll bet nobody read it. typical obama bull(*)(*)(*)(*). why would they even do that ?

 

Thanks for continueing to play Jackson

\ it is still a fact that Barack Obama showed the voters his birth certificate- and he is the only Presidential candidate to have done so. Fact.

So you response wasn't really related to that fact, but since very state allowed Obama to be on the ballot, therefore even by your own opinion, Obama satisfied that requirement.

So based upon your statement we can add:

Every State allowed Obama to be on the ballot, and per your opinion, Obama satisfied their responsibility to establish eligibility to the States.

It is a fact that Factcheck employees said they saw and confirmed the certified COLB that was published on the internet.

Why would Obama's attorney's Factcheck if there were ever a trial? They could just show the actual certified COLB itself. Hawaii has already verified it is authentic and accurate.

And your evidence that there are unanswered questions? A Birther website...seriously....

3) It is a fact that Hawaii says that the Certification of Live Birth is an official Hawaiian Birth Certificate.

Wait- did you refute my fact? Nope- you didn't.
Did you provide any facts?- Nope you didn't.
Have you provided any evidence that this COLB is fraudulant- nope.
Have you provided anything other than speculation and innuendo- once again- nope.

4) It is a fact that voters have seen a copy of Barack Obama's Certified copy of his original birth certificate (long form).
4) It is a fact that Reporters saw and handled the original certified copy that Obama showed at his press conference.

My facts still stand. You once again- offer nothing but conjecture and speculation.

5) It is a fact that the State of Hawaii has officially, and unequivocally, stated that they provided a certified copy of the original birth certificate to Obama- at his special request- that it was given to his lawyer and that the birth certificate shown by Obama was the birth certificate issued by Hawaii.
6) It is a fact that the State of Hawaii has officially stated twice now, that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
7) It is a fact that Barack Obama's Birth Index Data is available for public review in Hawaii.
It is a fact that Barack Obama's birth announcement was published when he was born and that anyone can go to the public library in Hawaii and read the announcement.

These are not facts, if anything offered as evidence were fraudulently produced.

Again, the Birther inability to distinguish between facts and speculation.

Everything I stated is indeed a fact. For instance- the official statements of the State of Hawaii that Obama was born in Hawaii are legal statements that could be submitted to any court. Now- if you could actually provide any evidence to the State of Hawaii, that the information it has is incorrect, then Hawaii would likely change its statement. But until it does, hawaii's statement is still a fact- a legal fact. Unlike anything Birthers have produced.

No- my facts are the actual facts that I can back up. The statements of the State of Hawaii are not just 'based upon people's opinions', the statements of the State of Hawaii are the official statements of the legal authority on birth certificates of the State of Hawaii. Unlike any of your speculation or innuendo.

for his obvious obfuscation (important) of his history

This is just another example of you confusing your opinion with fact.

 

Yeah- who can believe that every other President was elected without us ever seeing their birth certificate or having the State they were born in confirm repeatedly that they were born there?

What Birthing joke.

 

why bother with a second certificate ? the american people will be relieved when obama admits he's a phony.

 

No, the American people will be relieved when Birthers stop wasting tax payers money.

 

that's pretty funny... maybe the funniest thing you've said yet, thank you for that.

laughing out quite loudly..

 

The State of Hawaii has issued numerous official statements saying that THIS birth certificate is real.

What is your proof that any of the current Republican candidates is eligible to hold the office, and why have you not demanded more from them, unless you admit this is all just a partisan hack job?

Furthermore, what proof beyond a birth certificate verified as being genuine by the holding/issuing authority would you suggest is needed? What additional proof is even possible for a 50-year-old question?

 

It's not a 50 year old question, as no body is questioning the requirements for the Senate, becoming a "Community Organizer" or attending Harvard. The founders and many members of today's society want the question resolved, not capped from being answered. They wanted their leader of this Union of States, familiar with at least one of them and some understanding of the whole society. I challenge any of you to tell me, Obama believes in the TRADITIONAL AMERICAN CULTURE....or the Constitution.

--------------

I have never accepted any Governments assessment, evaluation or determination of anything that in any manner that could harm that Government. This said, whether or not any of the COB or LB records are authentic or fake, is for those that understand basic forensics, not employees or party members who might benefit from their comments. I could carry this on to media, even simple forums and so on, where as threads here are generally based on personal opinions according to some personal bias (including myself) that can not be properly validated EITHER direction.

Read more: 'Rathergate' expert on birth certificate: 'Highly suspicious' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=314297#ixzz1dK0d176t

There are too many links to list them all and I have no idea how many times you "Three Musketeers" have already given your standard reply (I trust Obama and our media), but here is another one with several "claims"...
http://obamacrimes.com/?cat=34

 

What founders? Do you think John Adams is still alive? What are you talking about?

The members of today's society that are relevant to electing our President have already spoken- they spoke in 2008. The same relevant members of our society will have the opportunity to speak- and ask any questions they want for the 2012 election. So far the voters have absolutely no interest in the 'questions' being raised by Birthers.

That is entirely a political question- and completely unrelated to eligiblity. Once again, Birthers show that they are unable to seperate eligiblity with their own political bias. The voters already expressed their opinion on this political view point in 2008.

But as an aside- and completely irrelevant to eligiblity- yes I do think that President Obama believes in the Constitution- and in America. I imagine you have a different definition of 'traditional American culture' than I do...and that is the problem with such a vague concept. I do imagine that he has some different beliefs than you do, and I imagine so do I.
--------------

Okay this is your opinion. I understand that there are Americans who don't ever trust the government- except in day to day life. But whether you like it or not- at the moment the very clear legal evidence presented by the State of Hawaii- as the official agency responsible for such information- is that Barack Obama was born in the United States.

The onus is upon you to prove Hawaii's claim to be false. Until that time, all you have is speculation and innuendo- and I have seen no evidence the voters are buying into that.

Here is what is so ironic about your statement.

It is not just Obama or the Media that have provided the proof that Obama is eligible- it is the State of Hawaii. I rely upon actual evidence that we citizen's rely upon everyday.

Meanwhile- what do you provide as evidence- WND- which calls itself 'news media' and a Birther blog.

Seriously- this is truly Conspiracy mania- distrust of anything official, and embracing any Conspiracy blog which spouts what you have already decided is correct.

 

actually it's the four musketeers, or il divo as i like to call them. figaro

wnd has six million daily readers.


Originally Posted by jackson33
It's not a 50 year old question, as no body is questioning the requirements for the Senate, becoming a "Community Organizer" or attending Harvard. The founders and many members of today's society want the question resolved, not capped from being answered. ]

this really describes where we are stalemated at today. jeff john adams is gone.

 

Pravda has 20 million.

 

washington post has six people. wnd is really four million, i wanted to see if wonki would notice.

 

While this is painfully difficult to decipher, it is at least clear that it has nothing to do with eligibility.

Your personal standard is noted. The legal standard is different.

This is frankly absurd, and can only be understood as rationalization to support a particular political agenda.

The only reason vital records were invented in the first place was to establish the standard of absolute legal proof for details of birth, identity, marriage and death. The assignment of responsibility and authority for collection, custodial control and certification of vital records is designed explicitly to protect the integrity of the information as it is being maintained and shared among interested parties. The law establishes that state issued and certified copies of those records are prima facie evidence of the information contained.

It is with the State Departments of Health (or their equivalents) that all such authority lies. Period.

There is no conceivable legal circumstance under which any forensic examiner can second-guess the legal certification of the State regarding the contents of their records. As prima facie evidence, it warrants no defense absent an evidence based rebuttal by a challenging party.

We are now more than three years into the Birther phenomenon. There still to this day does not exist any evidence based rebuttal to either of Obama's released birth certificates; either the short or the long form.

To the extent that you are unhappy with this reality, that is entirely in your control. You can do one of two things; you can accept the circumstances as they stand or you can actually come up with that evidenced based rebuttal.

No other option is open to you.... certainly not the "hail Mary pass" of somehow getting people who "understand basic forensics" into examine the archives.

 

The question of where Obama was born is 50 years old.

But thank you for completely dodging the question I asked: What additional evidence would you need before you would agree the President of the United States was born in Hawaii in 1961?

Please explain why that evidence is superior, in terms of its probative value, to the evidence we already have, which is a collection of documentation that is, under both Hawaiian and Federal law, prima facie evidence of the President's Hawaiian birth, plus additional, unnecessary verification of those documents by the issuing/maintaining authority.

The Founders answered it. As far as members of today's society, no one with a rational mind doubts the President's Hawaiian birth. No one.

Please show me where "belief in the traditional American culture" is a Constitutional requirement for the Presidency. And thank you for showing yet again that the eligibility argument is simply a ruse to push your continued hatred of the President's "values".

Please explain to me how a GOP Secretary of State and Governor verifiying the birth of a Democratic candidate for President makes sense in light of what you just said.

You can accept it or not, but in order to maintain any sense of reasonableness you need to admit that your "acceptance" is not the one which is legally correct, or correct in any other sense, and that it is entirely based in your hatred for Obama.

After all, you "accept" the assessment that every single one of the GOP candidates is eligible to hold the office, despite any evidence proving same. Right? Yes or no?

Those who understand basic forensics know that, when an issuing authority verifies the authenticity of a document, there is no cause or gain by further examination. If a person hands you a signed piece of paper and says "this is my signature," there is no further investigation that is relevant or probative with regard to whether that person signed that document. Period.

Now that you have that statement from someone who understands basic forensics - me - as well as the interplay between forensics and the law, I trust you'll be changing your position on the matter?

Of course not. Because this is not about the facts, or eligibility, or forensics, or law, for you. It's about your obsessive hatred of the President.

Please describe for me the "personal bias" in the following:

1) Obama, on 4/27/11 and in 2008, produced a COB and a COLB, respectively, that show his birth as being in Hawaii in 1961.
2) Hawaiian and federal law state that those documents are prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein, notably, the date and place of birth.
3) The GOP governor of Hawaii and her GOP Department of Health director verified the authenticity of the 2008 documentation, as well as Obama's Hawaiian birth, based upon the records they keep, the only existing evidence of Obama's birth.
4) A subsequent governor and Department of Health director verified the authenticity of the 4/27/11 COB, and that it was a true and correct document representing all the information that the State has regarding Obama's birth in Hawaii.

I don't see any personal bias in there. The personal bias is all yours, namely, when you refuse to acknowledge those statements are more than sufficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Obama was born in the United States and is eligible to hold the office of President.

Why would I need to trust either of them? The source material stands on its own.

The failure of trust is yours - you place your trust in anti-Obama blogs and propaganda rags. I place my trust in documents which, under the law of the land, are true and correct documents until someone produces clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

Your quote is nothing more than a strawman on your part.

"Response" that does not directly answer my queries in 3..... 2..... 1.....

 

that's what theory is bull. remember watergate, that happened.