Huckabee: No need for birth-certificate legislation

WND ^ | March 06, 2011 | WND

[wistful]

“Obama produced a birth certificate. Birthers responded by saying that the birth certificate was not authentic.”

Both of those statements are completely incorrect. That means your whole position is worthless.

[Josh Painter]

“Is Mike Huckabee trying to hide something? :)”
______________________

No, he’s really that stupid.

- JP

[Colonel_Flagg]

Mike Huckabee needs to be reminded of the First Law of Holes.

[rlmorel]

Ah. I’ll bet it is optional for children under 12. Saves money on fees and such...

[rlmorel]

This is NOT completely worthless. It may very well be a waste of time to pursue Obama himself, but it is in NO way useless to ensure that any candidate in the future running for office (PARTICULARLY the Presidency) is eligible according to the Constitution.

No ifs, ands or buts about it.

Obama may or may not be a genuine US citizen eligible to assume the Presidency, and we are unlikely to turn back the clock. But we can be damn sure that in every single election going forward, that every candidate has a viable birth certificate on record with other documentation when they declare their candidacy.

Starting in 2012, that should be the rule. If this POS cannot produce a document, he cannot run. Plain and simple. At that point, it can be tied up in court if he so chooses. But to disregard the Constitution is abhorrent. The founders PUT that requirement in there for a specific purpose, and that purpose is just as valid and important today (perhaps even MORE so) than it was when they framed the document.

[Liz]

Obama’s Deficit Avalanche isn’t Bush’s Fault / scottuystarnes.com / 2/9/2010
SOURCE http://scottystarnes.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/obama-deficit.jpg?w=400&h=308

Washington Times reports: Even more staggering than the mountains of snow in the capital are the deficits the Obama administration plans for the next decade. Huge spending increases will add about $12 trillion to the national debt for budget years 2009 to 2020.

The scariest part is that these deficits are based on unrealistic budgeting assumptions; the real fiscal outlook is much bleaker. In the proposed 2011 budget, the White House defensively attacks the “irresponsibility of past” deficits.

For example, the 2009 budget deficit of $1.4 trillion is blamed on the George W. Bush administration as if President Obama’s $862 billion stimulus package and more than $400 billion supplemental spending bill had nothing to do with it. Mr. Obama’s planned 2010 budget deficit rises to an even higher record level of $1.6 trillion.

By comparison, all of Mr. Bush’s deficits from 2002 to 2008 – the seven years during which his team had the most control over the budget – produced a combined deficit of $2.1 trillion.

Obama has spent more in 2 years than Bush did in 7 years. Obama’s BIOB (Blame it on Bush) defense just won’t work anymore.

[Libloather]

NOBODY REMEMBERS OBAMA AT COLUMBIA

Wouldn't there be a yearbook with his mug in it?

[politicianslie]

Wouldn't there be a yearbook with his mug in it?

Obama and most everything about him is a scam.

Get it? He didn't "attend" any school like an average student.

[philman_36]

To get his original U.S. passport, what documents were submitted to the DOS for proof of citizenship?
Beats me—but he’s got a passport now.

He probably used the same abstract he's using as proof of his birth. For some, depending on their State, abstracts are allowed. For others a long form is required as an abstract isn't allowed.

[Libloather]

Get it? He didn't "attend" any school like an average student.

Yeahbut, there will be folks in those yearbooks, during those years, who could answer a few simple questions about the rookie Hussein. After all, he did TEACH constitutional law somewhere - no?

[jamese777]

Wouldn’t there be a yearbook with his mug in it?

---

There is the Columbia Student Magazine with his article in it: “Breaking the War Mentaility”.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/10978031/1983-article-by-Barack-Obama-Breaking-the-War-Mentality-in-Columbia-Universitys-Sundial-magazine

[bvw]

Obama produced a birth certificate? When, how, who?

You are a damn liar. And just for this: “Birthers responded by saying any foreigner could have planted those announcements.” A cad. Is your wife a blow-up doll, because you sure like to f^ck with straw men?

[jamese777]

He probably used the same abstract he’s using as proof of his birth. For some, depending on their State, abstracts are allowed. For others a long form is required as an abstract isn’t allowed.

---

According to the Hawaii state Department of Health, the “abstracts” were first introduced in 2001 when Hawaii digitized its birth records.

[jamese777]

Obama produced a birth certificate? When, how, who?

You are a damn liar. And just for this: “Birthers responded by saying any foreigner could have planted those announcements.” A cad. Is your wife a blow-up doll, because you sure like to f^ck with straw men?

---

Both Honolulu newspapers confirmed to Worldnetdaily.com that they didn’t accept birth announcements from anywhere but the “Health Bureau.” And if you look at the section of the newspaper with the Obama announcement in it, it says: “Health Bureau Statistics.” It doesn’t say “birth announcements.”
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif

[bvw]

Very obfuscatory of you as usual jamese777.

(1) I was quoting the other poster.

(2) The Hawaiian Department of Health compiled a list and forwarded it to the papers each week. That list included “called in births”. Births attested to by some party.

(3) The legal evidentiary provenance — the chain of custody and the validation of those newapaper archive images — are at question. Serious question. They may be planted.

(4) Research done on where Stanley Dunham lived and where Barack Obama Sr. lived at the time of the birth, and their status as man and wife has produced evidence that disputes the veracity of the address shown in those documents, and to the veracity of the claims that they were married.

(5) The certificate number on the purported Obama BC is out of order, as best we know of the method of sequencing certificate numbers issued at that time.

[jamese777]

Very obfuscatory of you as usual jamese777.

(1) I was quoting the other poster.

(2) The Hawaiian Department of Health compiled a list and forwarded it to the papers each week. That list included “called in births”. Births attested to by some party.

(3) The legal evidentiary provenance — the chain of custody and the validation of those newapaper archive images — are at question. Serious question. They may be planted.

(4) Research done on where Stanley Dunham lived and where Barack Obama Sr. lived at the time of the birth, and their status as man and wife has produced evidence that disputes the veracity of the address shown in those documents, and to the veracity of the claims that they were married.

(5) The certificate number on the purported Obama BC is out of order, as best we know of the method of sequencing certificate numbers issued at that time.

---

Any investigative committee of the House of Representatives could look into what you allege. A local, state or federal grand jury could also be convened to subpoena documents and witnesses to testify under oath.

I certainly see it as being within the realm of possiblity that Madeline Dunham and/or Stanley Amour Dunham had birth documents created for their daughter’s new baby and that those created documents have been in the files at the Hawaii Department of Health since August 4, 1961 but proving that 50 years later has been difficult. Folks have been trying for four years now, without success.
It is also within the realm of possibility for me that a person who wants to be president and who has three quarters of a billion dollars in campaign funds at their disposal can wipe clean any trace of a past that could get in the way of election to office. Third world countries like Kenya and Indonesia, decades ago, probably had one hard copy of any documents on file. Get rid of that copy and you erase the history.
That also does seem plausible to me. And then again, it is also possible that Barack Hussein Obama II was born at Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children at 7:24 p.m. on Friday, August 4, 1961 and that he was delivered by Dr. Rodney T. West.
We may never know for certain.

[bvw]

When you get very specific, and compare something not specific to something very specific it is a con’s technique to make the very specific thing appear as the obvious fact, when it may not be a fact at all.

Say Norma says James was born in the 1970’s. But Paul says James was born on September 17th, 1973 at Muhlenberg Hospital in Plainfield, NJ, delivered by Dr. Abram J. Abeloff.

Who sounds like like know what they are talking about? Norma or Paul. Well, in this case Paul doesn’t know, he just made it all up. He heard Norma’s answer and like a true con, vamped on it.

But it sure sounds like Paul knows what he was talking about, doesn’t it?

[bvw]

Oh, my mistake. Paul says it was not Dr. Abeloff. It was Dr. Dudley A. Roberts who died a few years ago. Can’t be called to testify.

[jamese777]

When you get very specific, and compare something not specific to something very specific it is a con’s technique to make the very specific thing appear as the obvious fact, when it may not be a fact at all.

Say Norma says James was born in the 1970’s. But Paul says James was born on September 17th, 1973 at Muhlenberg Hospital in Plainfield, NJ, delivered by Dr. Abram J. Abeloff.

Who sounds like like know what they are talking about? Norma or Paul. Well, in this case Paul doesn’t know, he just made it all up. He heard Norma’s answer and like a true con, vamped on it.

But it sure sounds like Paul knows what he was talking about, doesn’t it?

---

Sorting through discrepancies is why we put people under oath and subject them to cross-examination.
Now if only the “Obama is ineligible” movement could find a plaintiff with Article III legal standing...

“Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to prove his “natural born” status.”—US District Court Judge Clay R. Land, Rhodes v MacDonald

“A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”
—US District Court Judge Clay R. Land

[bvw]

Also, you might consider how a third party will read my posts to you. They’ll wonder I’m I talking about you? Have I managed to dope out who you are, and even who delivered you?

The REALLY interesting thing is that there will always be some doubt, even if you deny it. And clearly it’s all just a fiction, right? But now that I’ve been — I mean “Paul” has been — SO SPECIFIC, who knows?