Fake birth certificate part "new"

[LDB]

I have no idea what part we're on with this but it's past part two I'm sure. Anyway, here is a very detailed analysis of Hawaiian laws clearly showing just how easily Obama would have been able to falsify a birth record. I'm thinking about going out to Hawaii and getting my own birth certificate from them just as an interesting souvenir. Maybe I'll get invited to the WH and compare phony certificates with the interloper.

Clearing the Smoke on Obama?s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report : Western Journalism.com

 

[Turtle]

And you believe that very detailed analysis? Why, because an unnamed retired CIA officer commissioned an unnamed investigator to look into it? Because it sounds official, even with the very un-investigator-like prose? Because you read it on the Internet, therefore it must be true? Because you want it to be true so badly that you'll dismiss logic and intelligence in favor of what you believe? Really?

The "Western Center for Journalism" is a Blog. That's it. That's all it is, a Blog. The "commissioned" investigative report is nothing more than a post on a Blog. That's it. An entry on Wordpress.

No professional investigator worth his license would use the language that you find in this "unedited" report. The report is rife with "almost certainly's" and other unsupported conclusions and monster leap assumptions, rather than pure facts that would then be used to reach conclusions. Also, there are at least 2 glaring "facts" which jumped out at me that were absolutely gleaned solely from the Internet (which is where I suspect that every bit if the investigation took place) that turned out to be pure fiction, yet they are included in the report as if they are actual facts. For example, it lists Newsmax as a source, and presents information from them as fact that Newsmax has since been forced to retract. The images included in the report aren't even native to the report, but were taken from cfourstrategies.com (owned by Christime Carmouche of C Strategies in Lorton, VA, a very conservative political "consultancy" firm) something that would not happen with a legitimate investigative report, even a purely Internet one. Blogspot after Blogspot is referenced as factual sources.

This report is a Blog posting passed off (badly) as something official. The author didn't even try to make it sound official, other than tossing in some official sounding lingo like "disputants" which is pretty funny, but in the same sentence utters a personal conclusion which is not supported by anything other than a belief. He continues to sound objective, and then reaches a very subjective conclusion, over and over again. Eventually, he just gives up on sounding official and objective and it quickly begins reads like a cross between a short story written for homework and a Blog.

I mean, come on, the very first thing that jumped out at me was, "a retired CIA officer commissioned an investigator to look int..." and that didn't jump out at you, too? Who is this mysterious retired CIA officer, and who is this mysterious investigator? Is an investigator capable of a report this incompetently done the best that a former CIA officer has at his disposal? Is our intelligence community that screwed up?

Best that I can tell, there is no evidence whatsoever that Obama has forged his birth certificate. None. Accusation and conjecture is hardly evidence, and that's all this report contains. Links to another Blog which contains additional accusation and conjecture, all of it based on no evidence whatsoever, is likewise not evidence. Truth does not change whether it is or is not believed by the majority, or even a large minority of the people. A lot of people saying something is true doesn't make it true. 600 years ago the world was flat, and everybody knew it. The Internet makes it real easy for a whole lot of people to say something is true, and to say it with no evidence at all. People read it, and they believe it. But the truth is often something else entirely.

 

[greg334]

Isn't this a vast conspiracy where the state of Hawaii, the FBI, the CIA and the Secret Service has been directed by Chaney with Bush's approval to help forge the document because Bush, Chaney, Obama, even Rove all belong to the same mens club in Chicago that is run by Oprah who over sees the entertainment at the club?

I think I covered all the bases.....

 

[RLENT]

Best that I can tell, there is no evidence whatsoever that Obama has forged his birth certificate.

While I don't believe that it has been demonstrably proven that Obama is not a natural-born citizen, or that his birth certificate has been forged, there are enough questions (more than there are answers) that the issue is a legitimate one which deserves to pursued - particularly in light of the fact that Obama has been less than forthcoming on the matter.

The "Western Center for Journalism" is a Blog. That's it. That's all it is, a Blog.

Ahhhh ...... not quite:

"Founded in 1991 by Joseph Farah (the brains behind WorldNetDaily.com website) and James H. Smith (former publisher of the Sacramento Union), The Western Center for Journalism has been sponsoring investigative journalism for eighteen years.

It first made its mark following the suspicious death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster during the Clinton presidency. Officially ruled a suicide by authorities, reporter Christopher Ruddy–with assistance from the Center for Western Journalism–unearthed evidence that shouted, “cover up!” No matter how hard they tried to conceal the real cause of Foster’s death, Ruddy’s dogged investigations clearly showed that the suicide ruling was phony.

Today the Center is led by columnist and veteran broadcaster Floyd Brown. The Western Center for Journalism is a vigorous watchdog that keeps a check on government abuse and the media. The Center believes strongly in open public debate. It also believes that informed public debate requires quality journalism and reporting.

The Center is working to provide quality journalism and reporting by exposing bias and falsehoods in the mainstream media so that true information will be available. The Western Center for Journalism website covers a wide variety of topics from media bias, to media industry news, and articles about online news sources and the impact of “citizen journalists”. Sign up for our regular e-mail updates to stay informed.

In addition, the Center trains individuals to become “Citizen Journalists” and bloggers. These individuals are provided with technical training and practical advice on quality reporting and commentary."

These guys (WCJ) are the money guys - and Floyd Brown (it's current leader) is the guy that did "Willie Horton" for Bush I:

Floyd Brown

No professional investigator worth his license would use the language that you find in this "unedited" report.

Don't bet on it ..... BTW, I didn't see anything in the report that claimed "professional" status for the investigator.

For example, it lists Newsmax as a source, and presents information from them as fact that Newsmax has since been forced to retract.

Cite the retraction.

Who is this mysterious retired CIA officer, and who is this mysterious investigator?

I dunno who the investigator and the CIA officer are, but the issues with Obama's SS registration was investigated by this guy:

"His name is Stephen Coffman. He retired last year from the position of the Resident Agent in Charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Galveston, Texas office. He has over 32 years of government service and has held a Secret or higher security clearance for the majority of those years.

He filed the FOIA with Selective Service and has the original letter and the attachments. He first notified the Selective Service of his findings and they ignored the questions.

He can be reached via email at [email protected]."

I can rather imagine that someone investigating such issues as are involved here might wish to remain anonymous - for fairly obvious reasons.

 

[Turtle]

Best that I can tell, there is no evidence whatsoever that Obama has forged his birth certificate.

While I don't believe that it has been demonstrably proven that Obama is not a natural-born citizen, or that his birth certificate has been forged, there are enough questions (more than there are answers) that the issue is a legitimate one which deserves to pursued - particularly in light of the fact that Obama has been less than forthcoming on the matter.

A mountain of questions does not make it a legitimate issue if there is no legitimacy to it. You just said it yourself, it has not been proven that he is anything other than a natural born citizen, nor has it been proven that his birth certificate was forged, therefore there is no issue surrounding either, other than the same questions that keep getting asked over and over. The State of Hawaii produced the birth certificate, and there are newspaper reports from the time that chronicled the birth. The fact that some dismiss those facts as irrelevant do not make the issue any more legitimate.

As for Obama not being forthcoming on the matter, I'm not sure what you mean. The State of Hawaii certified his birth certificate to Congress, and Obama posted a certified copy of his birth certificate online for those to see. There is nothing else for him to be forthcoming about, nothing else he needs to do, except to perhaps acquiesce and produce the long form, a request for which there is no legal basis and something he need not do. I can't imagine what else he needs to be forthcoming about, unless of course you want to introduce something other than the birth certificate issue as being relevant to the birth certificate issue.

The "Western Center for Journalism" is a Blog. That's it. That's all it is, a Blog.

Ahhhh ...... not quite:

"Founded in 1991 by Joseph Farah (the brains behind WorldNetDaily.com website)...

WorldNetDaily >>> Also a Blog <<< with a definite agenda, and also a place where traditional journalistic standards and restrictions do not apply. That's one of the reasons Farah started the site, to get around some of the red tape that is inherent with the traditional media. IIRC, the phrase he used was "journalistic freedom". I'm not saying that's good or bad, it just is.

and James H. Smith (former publisher of the Sacramento Union), The Western Center for Journalism has been sponsoring investigative journalism for eighteen years.

It is, essentially, a special interest group that has been sponsoring investigative journalism with a decided bias, and not true impartial investigative journalism where facts are gathered and then the story goes where the facts take them. They by and large won't make something up, but they will omit certain facts if they take a story in a direction they don't want it to go. The do a lot of solid work, but they also do a lot of highly slanted work.
Just the same, Western Journalism is a traditional Blog done by both journalists and amateurs without the traditional checks and balances of traditional journalism, which is one reason journalists like it.

No professional investigator worth his license would use the language that you find in this "unedited" report.

Don't bet on it .....

Why? I would bet on it, absolutely. Everything about this report screams unprofessional. It uses casual language and lists the personal views of the investigator, not to mention he reaches conclusion after conclusion throughout the report, something that any professional investigator would refrain from doing at any time in the report except perhaps at the very end, if he were to offer up any conclusions at all.

BTW, I didn't see anything in the report that claimed "professional" status for the investigator.

"a retired CIA officer commissioned an investigator..."
I can infer that a retired CIA officer would not hire a hack to investigate something like this, and I can also infer that since the investigator was commissioned, that he was a professional investigator.

In both cases, a CIA officer, and an investigator, I think it's a pure fabrication.

For example, it lists Newsmax as a source, and presents information from them as fact that Newsmax has since been forced to retract.

Cite the retraction.

"“Sources who tracked the investigation tell Newsmax that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to ‘cauterize’ the records of potentially embarrassing information."

“ ‘They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion,’ one knowledgeable source told Newsmax. ‘But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file.’

That was proven to be conjecture that could not be substantiated, the Newsmax source was debunked (rightly or wrongly, I dunno) and Newsmax removed it from their site, then edited to state "knowledgeable source", leaving out the actual source. That gives them plausible deniablility and absence of malice, but it's hardly rock solid journalism. It's certainly journalistic Freedom, tho.

I dunno who the investigator and the CIA officer are, but the issues with Obama's SS registration was investigated by this guy:

"His name is Stephen Coffman....

Yeah, exactly, we know who he is. He's not a mystery. Yet we have an unnamed CIA officer hiring an unnamed investigator to investigate Obama's birth certificate. Why all the mystery? If they are legit, name 'em.

I can rather imagine that someone investigating such issues as are involved here might wish to remain anonymous - for fairly obvious reasons.

They're not obvious to me, that's for sure. The investigation consists of gathering up posts from Blogs and other Web sites and collating them into a report that allegedly took months to do, yet uncovered nothing we haven't read before. Well, OK, when you look at it that way, I can certainly see why they would want to remain anonymous. Who would want to take actual credit as being the author of a report like this?

I distrust nearly everything I read on the Internet unless and until it can be verified by several sources, and if it's a political issue, I want it verified by people of both sides and by those on neither side. I don't want facts omitted or embellished. I want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

This report omits, embellishes and reaches conclusions based on pure conjecture and illusory corollary. What's worse, there is nothing, nada, zip, new in the report. It's a aggregate of other Web sites with an agenda, and it completely omits any facts to the contrary of the pre-drawn conclusion. This issue has gotten to the point where Obama or the State of Hawaii could produce his 100% stone-cold genuine long form birth certificate, and it will be dismissed as a brilliant forgery and will be used to launch a barrage of even more questions, more questions that would make some people think the question of the birth certificate is legitimate because there are now more questions. Therefore, he has no reason to do anything other than what he is doing right now.

The only way this issue will be settled is for someone to prove beyond all doubt that the birth certificate was a forgery and that he was, in fact, born somewhere else. They will never be aqble to do that by asking question after question, constantly rephrasing them so as to make them appear to be different questions. They will also never be able to do it by saying, "He's hiding something, therefore he's guilty, even though I have no idea what he's hiding. But he's still guilty. And since therefore he is guilty of something, then therefore he must be guilty of this, ergo, therefore, ipso factum, he's guilty! Dаmnit, he's guilty! And because he's guilty, he should give me his long form birth certificate so I can prove he's guilty! Because he's guilty! So there!"

Meanwhile, they're proving nothing. All they're doing is aggregating conjecture and circumstantial evidence, trying to build a mountain of conjecture, and then pass it off as the only conclusion that can be reached.

It reminds me of what happened when the first high tech telescopes were trained on Venus. All that could be seen was the fact that Venus was completely enshrouded in clouds. Not a single surface feature could be seen. Lots and lots of questions. So, we know Venus is cloudy. What causes clouds? Water vapor, and water. Lots and lots of water. Radio spectroscopy showed that Venus had a very high concentration of carbon dioxide. So, Venus has a lot of carbon dioxide, and lots of clouds, which means lots of water, therefore, the surface of Venus must be vast oceans of carbonated water.

Turns out that Venus has no water, no oceans of seltzer water, and instead has an extraordinarily rocky surface. All the right questions were asked, all the right conclusions were reached, yet every one of them were dead wrong. That's what happens when conclusions are reached, and labeled as fact, without any actual proof. The difference between Obama and Venus is, when a spacecraft landed on the rocks of Venus, the rocks weren't dismissed as irrelevant, but Obama's birth certificate was.

 

[LDB]

If it hadn't taken a very long time to get a very minimal response with a birth certificate questionable to many I might blow it all off. If the various birth certificate options in that report are true then my skepticism towards Obama's birth certificate is increased from what it was before learning of those possibilities. I'm sorry but Obama has done nothing to instill one iota of trust or confidence in him or his word. Your defense of him is touching but unconvincing.

 

[Turtle]

Please don't misplace my defense for something it is not. I am not defending Obama at all. I am not an Obama fan by any stretch of the imagination. I am defending the truth and the process with which to get at it. I am defending the right to be innocent until proven guilty. I refuse to defend or condone the right to prove someone guilty simply by virtue of the accusation.

For example, the "report" hits hard on the various types of birth certificates that could have been obtained in Hawaii in 1961. It offers up no proof whatsoever as to what kind Obama actually has, it merely postulates the possibilities, and then goes a step further to look for hidden meaning in Dr Fukino's straightforward statement, calling it "lawyered up".

“I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” If this is the case, Dr Fukino would have perpetrated so unusually disgusting a deception that I find it practically incredible (and I greatly doubt that anyone could be that shameless). On the other hand, if the original birth certificate is of types 2, 3, or 4, Dr Fukino’s statement would be only somewhat less deceptive and verbally tricky. I only bring up this possibility to show how cleverly hedged and “lawyered” and basically worthless Dr Fukino’s statement is.

OK, first of all, the conclusions and language here is not the language of an investigator, it is the language of a Blogger looking to prove or disprove something. It is the language of a Blogger with an agenda. An investigator, professional or otherwise, would be putting together facts and then presenting them as facts, but this report puts together facts in a very specific order to make a point, to support a specific conclusion. What kind of birth certificate does Obama have? The investigator has no idea. But he lists facts and draws conclusions that support the notion that any and all birth certificates in the State of Hawaii are worthless, since they do not indicate the kind of information that he wants about Obama. He's actually making a case that no one born in Hawaii can prove they were born in Hawaii, since the State no longer issues long form birth certificates.

But the statement from Dr Fukino, and the "investigator's" interpretation of it, is what is most interesting, as he thinks the statement is highly lawyered up and was worded very specifically to mean something other than what was said, stating that Dr Fukino's statement was deceptive and verbally tricky. His problem is with the prepositional phrase, "in accordance with state policies and procedures." That's a phrase that is grammatically attached to "on record", and not to what he wants it to be attached to, the "birth certificate". If the statement was lawyered up to mean what this guy wants it to mean, the statement would have read:

“I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate in accordance with state policies and procedures on record.”

It's a stretch, but grammatically it is slightly ambiguous, in that the "in accordance with state policies and procedures" could be referencing the birth certificate directly. It could also be referencing how it is stored "on record", which is how it refers in the Doctor's original statement. Trying to twist the doctor's statement to mean something other than what was said, and then drawing a factual conclusion based on that, is just absurd.

Another glaring error is in a quoted document from the Hawaii State Web site, where the "report" states:

2. On June 7, 2009, a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health told a rather obvious lie (or engaged in a pretty transparent verbal deception) in another attempt to discourage further investigation into the issue of whether Barack Obama was born on Oahu. “The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past”, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. “The department only issues ‘certifications’ of live births, and that is the ‘official birth certificate’ issued by the state of Hawaii, she said. ” [Honolulu Star Bulletin] Born identity - Kokua Line - Starbulletin.com

This statement was false or deliberately very misleading. Here, from a Hawaii state document that was posted on June 10, 2009, is a description of how to apply for “the original Certificate of Live Birth” (the original birth certificate) as opposed to the Certification of Live Birth:

​

“In order to process your application [to prove native Hawaiian ancestry], DHHL [Department of Hawaiian Homelands] utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. [<---Totally made up] This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

​

“Please note that DOH [Department of Health] no longer offers same day service. If you plan on picking up your certified DOH document(s), you should allow at least 10 working days for DOH to process your request(s), OR four to six weeks if you want your certified certificate(s) mailed to you.” [<--- Not sure why, but this entire paragraph is also totally made up]

And goes as far as to list the actual Web page where the quote was taken from:

[noparse]http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl[/noparse]

The problem is, that quote doesn't exist on the Hawaii Web page, nor is there anything that says essentially the same thing. The investigator asserts the spokesperson was lying when she said the State no longer issues the types of birth certificates in the past, yet the quoted Web page states the same exact thing that the spokesperson said. From the State of Hawaii Web page:
​

"Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification."

"The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth."


Without additional information, and a lot of it, there's just no way I'm gonna believe that this report was commissioned by anyone other than the Blogger who wrote it, much less by an investigator commissioned by a former CIA officer.

Yeah, there are a lot of questions being asked about Obama's birth certificate. The problem is, almost all of them are being asked based on the kind of purely fabricated information you find in this "investigative report". Questions based on fabrication and fantasy can hardly be considered legitimate questions. Why did the spokesperson from Hawaii lie? Well, the answer of course is she didn't, but making up a story that shows she did certainly begs the question.

Questions. Lots of questions. No proof. Show me proof, not questions, and not conclusions based on assumptions. Actual proof. Obama could have been given the broadest type of birth certificate you could get, one that could be open to all kinds of fraud and errors. It doesn't prove that fraud or error was committed, nor does it prove that he wasn't born there. It doesn't even prove that the mindset of rampant fraud and error of today existed in the 1961 mindset. The only thing that is for sure is, even in 1961, if you had a non-Hawaiian name and were born in Hawaii, there had to be all kinds of no-doubt-about-it that you were, in fact born there, in order to receive a Hawaiian birth certificate. There are a number of stories of people born in Hawaii prior to the 1960's who never had a birth certificate, and the only thing that finally got them one was an old newspaper clipping that recorded their birth (something Obama also has, BTW, but that keeps being dismissed as irrelevant or a forgery, too).

If you go back through the early birth records of many states, you could easily conclude that a lot of people where never born where they said they were, including Lincoln. There is no long form birth certificate on file for Abraham Lincoln. No one has ever seen it. The only logical conclusion is that he was therefore not the President, the South must then be retroactively awarded the victor of the Civil War, and that Obama should probably report to a cotton field just outside Greenville, MS post haste.

I love the smell of Internet in the morning. Smells like.... stupidity.

 

[LDB]

For example, the "report" hits hard on the various types of birth certificates that could have been obtained in Hawaii in 1961. It offers up no proof whatsoever as to what kind Obama actually has...

The bigger point to me is that Obama offers up no proof whatsoever as to what kind Obama actually has. Maybe I've seen too many episodes of "Dragnet" but the ones who withhold information for a long time and evade legitimate questions are the guilty ones not the innocent ones. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a nice theory in a vacuum or Utopia but in the real world, especially with someone like Obama whose history, associates, actions etc. color one's perception of the individual, a pretty large MAYBE attaches to that theory. Obama has convicted himself more than any of us have convicted him.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, for this arguement; and say he was born in Hawaii. The fact that neither Congress, nor the courts, clarified what defines a "Natural Born Citizen" should disqualify him. His daddy was a British subject, as a citizen of Kenya. Blah blah blah... I'm sure you've heard all about that subject.

Now, Congress went thru the charade of declaring McCain a natural born citizen for purpose of his candidacy. Why not Obama? What were they afraid of? There were more questions about Obama's being a NBC than McCain. IMO, by not questioning his status, they were merely stating "his s*** don't stink according to Democrats in Congress".

Well... there are a good many Americans who would like the term Natural Born Citizen clarified by a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, the Constitution means less to them than their own opinions. Thus, an amendment is just a formality they don't think they need.

 

[Turtle]

The bigger point to me is that Obama offers up no proof whatsoever as to what kind Obama actually has.

That's the thing, he doesn't have to show proof of what kind of birth certificate he received. The State of Hawaii doesn't even issue whatever kind he had anymore, anyway, whatever kind he had. It is quite absurd to have his birth hinged on whether or not he, his parents or grandparents did or did not lose or misplace a piece of paper issued at his birth. The State issued an official certificate of birth, corroborated by a newspaper announcing the birth, so beyond that there really and truly are no legitimate questions surrounding his birth certificate.

Maybe I've seen too many episodes of "Dragnet" but the ones who withhold information for a long time and evade legitimate questions are the guilty ones not the innocent ones.

I'm pretty sure I've seen all the episodes of Dragnet, and I can't recall a single episode where anyone was convicted without some kind of proof. Not a single episode had someone be convicted on the basis of withholding information or evading legitimate questions.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a nice theory in a vacuum or Utopia but in the real world,...

A nice theory?!?! Newsflash, in the real world it's the foundation of not only our legal system, but of liberty itself.

You can't find someone is guilty just because you say they're guilty. You can't assume a bunch of stuff and pile it all up as evidence of someone's guilt. It's not about what you believe, it's about what you can prove. And it doesn't matter whether it's a court of law or a court of public opinion (i.e., a court of public belief), it's still about what you can prove.

Otherwise, the truth means nothing.

...especially with someone like Obama whose history, associates, actions etc. color one's perception of the individual, a pretty large MAYBE attaches to that theory. Obama has convicted himself more than any of us have convicted him.

One's perception of the individual does not equate guilt. Sometimes the perception turns out to be right, but the perception in and of itself means nothing. There is no exception of "especially" when it comes to innocent until proven guilty. Guilt by association is not guilt, nor is past history, nor are actions unrelated to the issue. Guilt because you don't like him is not guilt. Guilt because you have questions about his innocence is not guilt. Those questions must be answered with "just the facts, ma'me."

If you put that shoe on the other foot, especially if perception is allowed to creep in, then you're guilty of all kinds of stuff you (probably) didn't do.

 

[LDB]

Sigh.. overload.. anyway.. I'm well aware of our system and it's foundations. My point is that people's actions and associates affect how they are perceived. The statues and pictures of "justice" holding the scales shows the blindfold symbolizing the ideal and the goal. The real world isn't quite like that even if it should be. And no, nobody was convicted on Dragnet due to their lifetime of lies and prior crimes, they just weren't automatically believed as they professed their innocence in the case at hand. That was my point and very applicable to Obama in my opinion.

 

[mypie]

I'm thinking about going out to Hawaii and getting my own birth certificate from them just as an interesting souvenir. [/url]

Oh, c'mon guys. LDB needs a good Hawiian vacation, just to give him a rest! Besides, when he returns back to the mainland, he will be so disappointed that he was wrong that he will need to tide one over! He will wonder how he could have been so gullible as to have believed something that he found posted on some blog on the internet, that he just might have to review all of the sources of his "reliable information".

Put it to bed LDB, it has been proven. Barack Obama is more of an American citizen the John McCain (born in Panama), and John McCain was qualified to be president.

 

[layoutshooter]

MY son WAS born overseas, in England. HE IS an American citizen. I am and my wife is. When a child is born overseas and his parents are U.S. citizens posted on U.S. government business, like the military, intell, state dept etc that child IS a U.S. citizen. All the child has to do is file the correct documents if they choose to run for office. We do NOT strip Rights from our children when they are born overseas when their parents are busy serving their country.

As to Obama. He is a liar, therefore I believe that there is a VERY good chance he is lying about the birth certificate. Lie about one thing you cannot be believed about anything else. PERIOD. He has surrounded himself with liars, scoff laws and tax cheats. He has "shakey" associates. People like that cannot be trusted. He made his bed, now he is stuck with it.

 

[Turtle]

When a child is born overseas, if either of his parents are US citizens, then the child is a US citizen. Doesn't matter why the parents are overseas. They could be on vacation, or posted in the military, doesn't matter. There was a time when the parents had to be overseas on official government business for the child to be a US citizen, but that hasn't been the case for a long time.

As for Obama being a liar, therefore he's lying about his birth certificate, that still doesn't explain why the State of Hawaii would lie for him, especially if he wasn't born there. It also raises the question of why everyone in Congress, including the Obama haters, would also lie for him. In addition, it raises the question of why the FBI and the Secret Service would also lie about their independent background checks on Obama.

 

[layoutshooter]

Yep, you are right on the birth thing.

As to the rest, they are all government groups and just by nature I just don't trust any of them. It is always a good thing to keep a VERY wary eye on those goobers. Thats all. He is a liar though. LOL!