Either Tea Party Members are lying or Conservatives are lying or Obama is lying. Here’s a news story from a Hawaiian elections official that no record of Obama’s birth certificate could be found.
Either Tea Party Members are lying or Conservatives are lying or Obama is lying.
As Epimenides, if he’d known only politicians (in addition to Cretans) might have said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT9hkX9M26M
Here’s a news story from a Hawaiian elections official that no record of Obama’s birth certificate could be found.
Rather than providing evidence for your original assertion, you’re offering up yet another one! Again, when did Obama’s attorney say that the birth certificate is a forgery? Quote up or shut up.
Couldn’t resist posting this here:
Snopes has an interesting article on the legitimacy of Obama being a natural born citizen, including examples of other Presidential candidate who were directly challenged in the courts while seeking election to the Presidency. By the way, it is not true, according to my dad, that Obama could be a natural born citizen regardless of where he was born due to his mother being an American citizen. Both parents would have to be American citizens and they would have to be working for the US government in some official capacity for their child to be an American citizen if born abroad. This issue came up with McCain,since he was born in Panama, but his parents were working for the US government at the time,so he qualifies. There is also an issue of residency, and more complicated issues, since it seems that the phrase “natural born citizen” is NOT clearly defined in the Constitution. Seems to be clear to me, that you have to be born here, and the children of immigrants who have children here are considered natural born citizens, but it seems there are other issues involved that don’t make it so simple.
Added on edit: My dad was in the US Navy while he was having children, so it was a great concern of his that if he had children while stationed oversea that they would be American citizens, which is why he checked up on this issue and closely followed the issue regarding McCain. In my dad’s case, all his children were born in the United States, so we are automatically natural born citizens, but he was concerned about having children outside of the United States.
By the way, the issue seems to center around the short form versus the long form. The long form is what they claim he faked. Still waiting for the transcript to verify or not. Either way, I do think that any legitimate means ought to be made to boot Obama out of office. I just don’t think the Republicans have the balls to do it, though the Senate is controlled by the Democrats right now.
Rather than providing evidence for your original assertion, you’re offering up yet another one! Again, when did Obama’s attorney say that the birth certificate is a forgery? Quote up or shut up.
Following links from the story linked to in the OP, the plaintiff attorney Mario Apuzzo Esq. has an account of the case at his blog. This is not as good as a transcript, but hopefully Mr. Apuzzo’s professional ethics will keep the account from straying too far from what actually happened.
Link: Update on the Purpura and Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Access Objection
What happened was that Obama’s attorney maneuvered to block testimony by an expert witness in digital images about the publicized “long form birth certificate” publicized on Apri 27, 2011. She did so by agreeing to stipulate “that the internet image of his birth certificate could not be used as evidence by either Judge Masin or the New Jersey Secretary of States and that he presented to the court or the Secretary of State no other evidence of his identity or place of birth.” That is entirely reasonable to stipulate without construing it as an admission of forgery. An electronic image of the document is not the same as the actual document, and would not meet the requirement of a law to produce such a document if such a law even existed, which Obama’s attorney also disputes.
The Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin has since then issued a ruling that Obama is not required to produce documentary evidence to be nominated “because he does not have to consent to his nomination” (quoting Apuzzo). The New Jersey Secretary of State, Kimberly M. Guadagno, has accepted the ruling of the ALJ as final. Nothing more will come of the case unless the New Jersey Supreme Court decides to entertain itself with the appeal.
Either Tea Party Members are lying or Conservatives are lying or Obama is lying. Here’s a news story from a Hawaiian elections official that no record of Obama’s birth certificate could be found.
That guy was in no position to know, he did not have access to the records. If you pay attention to what is quoted you will realize this story is nothing but reporting on rumors.
Well, it appears that if he was born in Kenya, he would have to be naturalized. I’m not ruling out a legal defense, but the implications of the charge do seem to be more serious than I originally thought.
Ninth Doctor, I’m reminding you to be civil in your disagreement. If you are right and Thomas is as wrong as you think he is you will be able to do so in a civil manner.
I certainly did not expect a Tea Party affiliate to outright lie about what Obama’s attorney actually agreed to, if the report above is correct (I’m still waiting for the transcript). Of course, a careful reading of the original story does not quote from Obama’s lawyer admitting that it was a forgery. It looks like what they agreed to was that the digitized image was not a bonefide legal copy of the original, and therefore could not be used against Obama, since he never represented it to be a bonefide legal copy of the original. In a sense, if one is lawyerly enough, it was a forgery in that it wasn’t a legal copy, but that appears to be stretching it. But this gives the digital image a hell of a lot of wiggle room as to what could be put on there without violating the law, since it is inadmissible in court; and as I’ve said before, Obama didn’t make the digitized copy, so he is not personally responsible for it no matter what it says. Sometimes watching two lawyers arguing is like watching Alice in Wonderland. But here’s the kicker – regardless of what may or may not have been faked on the digital image – Obama can not be held responsible for it, and yet, he can present it to the people of the world without suffering any legal damages should it be proven that it was a fake all along.
Neat hat trick, if you can do it.
Here’s the Tea Party argument in a nutshell: The long-form birth certificate that Obama presented on the internet was not a bonefide legal copy of the original, which means that it was a forgery. Not sure I actually buy that argument, but that is what they are saying. If you made a photocopy of your birth certificate and tried to pass it off as legitimate, then you would be guilty of forgery under the law, because that piece of paper would not have an original signature on it, but only a copy of an official signature. For a copy of birth certificate to be legal, it must contain the embossed imprint of the correct office that keeps the records, and a photocopy would not have that, making it illegal. Likewise, if you made a photocopy of a hundred dollar bill and tried to pass it off as a hundred dollar bill, you would be guilty of counterfeiting. So, it all depends if you buy the argument that a digital copy presented to the world and not presented as a bonefide legal copy of the original is either a forgery or a counterfeit. I think the Tea Party lawyers were fudging a bit, but so was the Obama lawyers; and, yes,I think this can all be tied back in to the dominance of Kantian philosophy in our culture. Maybe the law has not yet caught up with digital technology, but if you put a scanned image of your driver’s license on the internet, are you guilty of breaking the law because it is not a bonefide copy of the original? I certainly hope not.
If you made a photocopy of your birth certificate and tried to pass it off as legitimate, then you would be guilty of forgery under the law, because that piece of paper would not have an original signature on it, but only a copy of an official signature. For a copy of birth certificate to be legal, it must contain the embossed imprint of the correct office that keeps the records, and a photocopy would not have that, making it illegal. Likewise, if you made a photocopy of a hundred dollar bill and tried to pass it off as a hundred dollar bill, you would be guilty of counterfeiting. So, it all depends if you buy the argument that a digital copy presented to the world and not presented as a bonefide legal copy of the original is either a forgery or a counterfeit.
It’s true that you need the original original of a birth certificate for certain kinds of bureaucratic transactions (marriage license, Social Security), making it in that sense the “legal” copy (just as you would need an actual hundred dollar bill for its use as legal tender), but that doesn’t mean that it is illegal to copy a birth certificate, or to possess said copy, or to use it outside of the context of those bureaucratic transactions (just as, I would hope but do not strictly know, that it would be legal to photocopy a hundred dollar bill for one’s private amusement).
This is a waist of your energy Thomas.
It doesn’t matter if Obama wasn’t born in the US for the following reasons.
-
I haven’t seen anything that would indicate that Obama is “unamerican”. His policies fit the majorities opinions and he really isn’t as leftist in practice as people feared (compare to lets say, the Anarchists in 1920s-30s spain, any real socialists, or europeans in general). He acts and makes policies like a IV league educated rich old white guy. Sounds like an American president to me.
-
Even if he isn’t American this issue is really besides the point on whether or not he is a good president.
A) All Politicians lie. This isn’t new and people who act supprised at this aren’t naive and idealistic but are actually cynics who are attempting to manipulate people around them. Nixon had people break into a hotel room? Really is this news? Please.
B) If he was a far right near-objectivist politician, who was of great ability, we wouldn’t care about his origin.
- I haven’t seen anything that would indicate that Obama is “unamerican”.
You can’t be serious, or maybe you’re not paying close attention. Do you want a list of the several of the first ten amendments that he’s totally obliterated in his first 3 years? Or his previous statements on his opposition to negative liberties? The fact that he hasn’t accomplished as much damage as he and other pinkos had hoped is an indication of the genius of the system and has next to nothing to do with his own restraint or moderation. He’s every bit as bad as I expected and then some. If you don’t feel it now you will later and your children and grandchildren will certainly suffer as a result of his policies.
That’s why the birth issue is a minor detail. It pails in comparison to the amount of heinous precedent this piece of work has set for us. Just wait.
You can’t be serious, or maybe you’re not paying close attention. Do you want a list of the several of the first ten amendments that he’s totally obliterated in his first 3 years? Or his previous statements on his opposition to negative liberties? The fact that he hasn’t accomplished as much damage as he and other pinkos had hoped is an indication of the genius of the system and has next to nothing to do with his own restraint or moderation. He’s every bit as bad as I expected and then some. If you don’t feel it now you will later and your children and grandchildren will certainly suffer as a result of his policies.
That’s why the birth issue is a minor detail. It pails in comparison to the amount of heinous precedent this piece of work has set for us. Just wait.
Obama is not the first president to have problems with the Constitution. (Roosevelt)
You can’t be serious, or maybe you’re not paying close attention. Do you want a list of the several of the first ten amendments that he’s totally obliterated in his first 3 years? Or his previous statements on his opposition to negative liberties? The fact that he hasn’t accomplished as much damage as he and other pinkos had hoped is an indication of the genius of the system and has next to nothing to do with his own restraint or moderation. He’s every bit as bad as I expected and then some. If you don’t feel it now you will later and your children and grandchildren will certainly suffer as a result of his policies.
That’s why the birth issue is a minor detail. It pails in comparison to the amount of heinous precedent this piece of work has set for us. Just wait.
Hairnet is right in context of today’s voter. Too many American’s don’t understand the Bill of Rights and most don’t understand the principles behind them. Too many cheer politicians on when they violate them outright for pet causes. While Obama is certainly in violation of the American Ideal he is certainly a product of the American voters.
Here’s the Tea Party argument in a nutshell: The long-form birth certificate that Obama presented on the internet was not a bonefide legal copy of the original, which means that it was a forgery. Not sure I actually buy that argument, but that is what they are saying. If you made a photocopy of your birth certificate and tried to pass it off as legitimate, then you would be guilty of forgery under the law, because that piece of paper would not have an original signature on it, but only a copy of an official signature. For a copy of birth certificate to be legal, it must contain the embossed imprint of the correct office that keeps the records, and a photocopy would not have that, making it illegal. Likewise, if you made a photocopy of a hundred dollar bill and tried to pass it off as a hundred dollar bill, you would be guilty of counterfeiting. So, it all depends if you buy the argument that a digital copy presented to the world and not presented as a bonefide legal copy of the original is either a forgery or a counterfeit. I think the Tea Party lawyers were fudging a bit, but so was the Obama lawyers; and, yes,I think this can all be tied back in to the dominance of Kantian philosophy in our culture. Maybe the law has not yet caught up with digital technology, but if you put a scanned image of your driver’s license on the internet, are you guilty of breaking the law because it is not a bonefide copy of the original? I certainly hope not.
So… you should have named this topic “Obama’s Birth Certificate *WAS* Digitally Scanned”. I guess when you state it like that, it looks pretty uncontroversial, considering that it was put on the internet digitally. More accurate than “faked” though.
So… you should have named this topic “Obama’s Birth Certificate *WAS* Digitally Scanned”. I guess when you state it like that, it looks pretty uncontroversial, considering that it was put on the internet digitally. More accurate than “faked” though.
Actually, considering that the State of Hawaii refused to sanction the internet display of the birth certificate, because they thought it would lead to those printing it out and pretending to be Obama, the scanned copy may not have been a scanned copy of the original. There is no record that Obama or anyone was provided with the original for the purpose of scanning. It is not an official presentation of his birth certificate. But, yes, in retrospect, I was going by the headline of the article and didn’t realize the argument behind it because they didn’t make that clear in the article. Is it an important issue? In the proper context it could be because I think Obama et al have done incredible harm to the country and it would be important to legitimately remove him from office if that were feasible. Obama is the most explicit Marxist / Nihilist President we have ever had, and with a better culture, he could have been impeached before he did any real damage.
But, yes, in retrospect, I was going by the headline of the article and didn’t realize the argument behind it because they didn’t make that clear in the article. Is it an important issue?
Never go by the headline. You fell victim to sensationalism. You did not practice objectivity, which in this case involved nothing more than reading the text and following the links rather than being satisfied with the emotional reaction the headline evoked.
Never go by the headline. You fell victim to sensationalism. You did not practice objectivity, which in this case involved nothing more than reading the text and following the links rather than being satisfied with the emotional reaction the headline evoked.
Not true…I read the article, which also said that it was a forgery, according to the writer.
Added on edit: From the opening of the article:
Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.
So, it wasn’t a form of emotionalism, but rather taking the article at its word.