Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: tired_old_conservative
You work hard to sell yourself as objective and logical, but I think you have intentionally offered a misleading statement here, that has so far slipped under the radar.

I will agree that there is no compelling evidence that Obama was born in Kenya.

I will agree that there is no simple, easy, readily available consensus that as a Dual-born, Obama is not NBC.

I disagree that we can call a case “a non-starter” that seeks a ruling from the courts as to whether a dual-born citizen like Obama can actually be eligible. I think that the courts should be pushed and should be willing to render an answer on whether NBC should be interpreted as reflecting Vattel’s sentiment or not, but I will chalk that disagreement up to a matter of opinion.

I will agree that the executive order for record concealment has probably been misunderstood by some birthers.

I will agree that there’s no law on the books requiring a Candidate or presumed President to hand over a Birth Certificate or other documents to prove he is a citizen.

I will agree that the HI Governor never “sealed up the certificate in a special vault.”

But here’s why I tend to think of you guys as trolls. How do you come up with this?:

It conforms to what Hawaii issues and Hawaii doesn't dispute it, which they are legally allowed and obligated to do if someone offers fraudulent state documents.
Tired_old_conservative gets sloppy in post 89
REALLY?! If I went to get a driver’s license, and when asked for a Birth Certificate, I said, “You can view it online. I have it as a hi-res .jpg saved from photoshop at this URL: www . . . “. You would expect that my online image should be regarded as conforming and legally sufficient?

REALLY?! Do you think Hawaii Dept of Health would describe themselves as legally obligated to step in and say, “No, that image on the web does not accurately reflect the records we have on file?” How does that fit with their constant insistence that they cannot legally comment on whether or not the online short-form COLB is accurate? Do you suppose it’s their policy to withhold verification on documents that are accurate, while at the same time, being obligated to declare any frauds to be frauds? “Well, we can’t legally verify it as accurate, but if it were inaccurate we’d tell you instantly.” That’s almost as dumb as Patrickl saying, “The certificate of birth that is supported by the current Republican Governor of Hawaii.” What?

Ok, I’m sure you’ve given good logical explanations to this that I’ve heretofore missed, so just give me a link if that’s all you have time for. If you don’t have a good answer for this sloppiness, retract your statement or else further solidify your place on the troll list.

The maneuvering of the Hawaii DOH makes me think more than anything else that there is something troubling about Obama’s birth records, and I don’t think they are applying their own laws fairly on this matter. Given the tremendous strain they’ve been under in terms of records requests and the need to make strange, cryptic public statements about Obama’s records, and the need to rework their web site and terminology to deal with Obama questions, I simply can’t see how we should conclude that there is nothing to hide. If what he has on his long-form COLB is exactly what is reflected by his short-form COLB, why in heaven’s name has HDOH not found a way to say so. Even if it is a stretch of their rules (which I think it isn’t) to provide verification, do they fear retribution for merely verifying that what Obama says as truth. Who do they think will sue them, or what court will penalize their officers? Given the full story about the DOH machinations, I think the most reasonable, logical conclusion is that there is something to hide.

Do you really think that HDOH is totally playing this one straight?

136 posted on 12/27/2009 3:12:33 PM PST by ecinkc (Socialism: America's Darkest Hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]


To: ecinkc
“REALLY?! Do you think Hawaii Dept of Health would describe themselves as legally obligated to step in and say, “No, that image on the web does not accurately reflect the records we have on file?” How does that fit with their constant insistence that they cannot legally comment on whether or not the online short-form COLB is accurate? Do you suppose it’s their policy to withhold verification on documents that are accurate, while at the same time, being obligated to declare any frauds to be frauds? “Well, we can’t legally verify it as accurate, but if it were inaccurate we’d tell you instantly.” That’s almost as dumb as Patrickl saying, “The certificate of birth that is supported by the current Republican Governor of Hawaii.” What?

Ok, I’m sure you’ve given good logical explanations to this that I’ve heretofore missed, so just give me a link if that’s all you have time for. If you don’t have a good answer for this sloppiness, retract your statement or else further solidify your place on the troll list.”

So, to the question: “Do you think Hawaii Dept of Health would describe themselves as legally obligated to step in and say, “No, that image on the web does not accurately reflect the records we have on file?”

Yes. I do. It's really that simple. If (1) Hawaii has no record of a major Presidential candidate being born in Hawaii, and (2) his campaign is passing off an online image that resembles an official Hawaiian document and that purports to state he was born there...then yes. They are under absolutely no privacy regulation or other legal obligation to support the scam. They don't have to collude in illegal behavior and would not do so.

In this context, Hawaii representatives specifically said they have verified they have the original records. The only reasonable interpretation of that is that said records say he was born in Hawaii. At that point, it doesn't even matter if his grandmother filed it. It's done. The official records of a state admitted to the Union say he was born there. That's presumptive, requires real evidence to dispute, not speculation and laughable Kenyan birth certificates.

My position really is that simple. And it's not just Hawaii. Both John McCain and Hillary Clinton had very real incentive to demonstrate Obama was not born in the US if there was any truth to it. Neither went there.

I think anyone who talks about stunning backroom collusion, real live states with damning evidence being intimidated by a campaign, etc., etc. has been watching too many movies. The stories for why he wasn't born in Hawaii are all convoluted and hidden and have any number of interlinking trip wires that fall apart on examination (you know, when you watch one of those movies and suddenly go “hey, wait a minute...). The story for his being born in Hawaii is simple and straight forward. It's staring you right in the face. How the math shakes out seems pretty obvious to me.

It's that old adage: When you stare too long at the shadows, you start seeing things that simply aren't there.

And, no offense, but I honestly could care less about the troll list. If I'm on it, it's imaginary, too.

147 posted on 12/27/2009 7:49:41 PM PST by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies ]

To: ecinkc

Congratulation. The best post so far on this thread, KUDOS, and hallelujah!!!


185 posted on 12/28/2009 8:13:38 AM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson