He doesn't, and I don't care.
Posted on 04/21/2011 2:29:18 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
How better to make a half-black bastard legitimate?
I cannot believe the level of ignorance on this subject from such a “powerful” political wonk...
You have to be a Natural Born Citizen, not just a citizen and the Founders made a clear distinction between the two.
I almost wrecked my damn car from yelling at the radio.
Such an example, if clear enough, would entirely slay the Obama rationale for not issuing his long form.
If billionaire Trump has private investigators in Hawaii, maybe they should be posting a $10,000 reward on Craigslist for any person with a foreign original Birth Certificate, that was issued a HI CertificaTION of Live Birth.
One example is purportedly Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama's half-sister born in Jakarta, Indonesia August 15, 1970. Everyone says she has a HI COLB, but no one proves it.
“The second, they do not want to be held responsible by “Holder’s People” for removing the first Black President of the United States”
Do they think it might chill the republican black vote?
Okay, you’re making the accusation that his maternal grandmother submitted this information to the paper, because obviously a newspaper clipping is going to be enough evidence for a state to go by to make a claim that a particular person was born within its jurisdiction, never mind the fact that there is no evidence for this assertion.
I doubt that Holder considers Black Republicans to be part of “his people”.
Emperor, you’ve hit that nail squarely. Well said.
He doesn't, and I don't care.
To them this would ignite America’s urban centers.
They’re more concerned about property damage, destroyed and looted merchandise, and loss of money if and when cities burn under this scenario than they are of maintaining the integrity of the Constitutional Republic.
Were you in town (Oakland, California, that is) for the Johannes Mehserle (Bay Area Rapid Transit cop who shot Oscar Grant) verdict, last fall?
Angry men were roaming the streets. Some stores in downtown got smashed and then the rioters wandered off somewhere else.
The merchants, who had seen this before (think 1992 and 1995) shrugged and got out the plywood.
When you see boarded-up storefronts (for businesses still open) and haven't yet heard anything on the news, you know something's up. It's like living in the tropics during monsoon season. The sky is clear and blue, but then the ocean starts serving up big dirty swells loaded with dirt and kelp. Something ugly looms on the horizon.
>>>I think the most likely scenario is that Momma or Grandmomma submitted an affidavit to the effect that Bammi was born in Hawaii. At that point, either the newspaper notices were generated automatically by the health department, or Grandmomma phoned them in as icing on the cake. She was a bank V.P., and she would know about things like this. No conspiracy, just a competent person doing a little white-lying to get U.S. citizenship for her grandson (whom she probably knew she was going to get stuck with anyway).<<<
Good reasoning. What seemed like a little fib back in the day now comes back to bite Obama in the butt, so to speak.
I can also speak as a newspaper editor about birth notices. The notices came to me two ways - the hospital sent me a list of babies born and the date of birth, or the family called me and told me that baby was born. I’m sitting here thinking about all the babies whose names I wrote down in the late 1980s, merrily accepting every one that came across my desk. Strictly speaking as a media guy it isn’t something that screams out the need to verify. I’d imagine the guys at the Honolulu Advertiser (which I think was the name of the paper) would have just taken down the information, published it, and not given it a second thought. My guess, like you said, is that grandma called in the name - and maybe just to see it in the paper. It still doesn’t prove much.
The mere fact that the man has hidden his paper trail is enough to trigger my sh*t detector. Too bad that kind of thinking rarely occurs in the media any more.
So what? Some states call it a "Certificate" while other states call it a "Certification," a distinction without a difference.
No. You made the unsupportable assertion (and please correct me if I am wrong) that in order to fake the newspaper listings a person in 1961 would have to look ahead 50 years in anticipation of presidential aspirations. I responded that that is nonsense because sufficient motive was already present in 1961 for faking US citizenship without looking down the road very far at all. That’s a red herring, a rebuttal in search of a nonexistent assertion. No one that I know who doubts Obama’s eligibility believes anything remotely like that, nor do they need to, because it is simply unnecessary under the circumstances.
As for the utility of newspaper classified as legal proof, I heartily agree with you that they are useless, and courts agree and would classify them as inadmissible hearsay. So I’m not sure what you’re responding to, what you thought I said, because it appears we agree on that point, that Obama could not and we should not be using those clippings as meaningful evidence of his birthplace. They’re useless, just as you say.
BTW, I never suggested the method by which they were submitted to the paper. The route you suggest seems unlikely, and as you say, there is no particular evidence for or against it as a method of incorporation. However, routine business practices can sometimes be used as evidence, which is why the debate teams here on FR go back and forth over the affidavit theory, mentioned by NurdlyPeon in post #30.
Under the affidavit theory, parents or grandparents would not submit birth announcements directly to the papers, which it is argued was not a standard business practice of the time. Rather, the responsible adults would submit an affidavit asserting the facts of the birth to the hospital, and it was then the hospital, if they accepted the affidavit, that would submit the announcement to the papers. As an attorney, I work with affidavits all the time, and I can tell you with confidence they are mostly a formality that is given little regard as a truth-bearing instrument by our courts. I’m not saying its right, but it is what it is.
BTW, interesting to note that the two papers apparently used the same data source for their classifieds sections, meaning they do not represent two independent lines of evidence, but only one.
There are two further divisions of the affidavit analysis. The first assumes we are limited to applying business practices as they are officially recorded, implying that no one ever broke, bent, misinterpreted, or misapplied the rules. The other division says hey, humans are involved, so it’s anybody’s guess. I think Trump is a fake and a disaster for the electoral process, but on this issue his response is succinct and to the point: It happened 50 years ago - who knows?
Which gets us back to the question of evidence. The reason these kinds of announcements are routinely thrown out in court under the hearsay rule is that they really are a lousy way to prove anything. Too many uncontrolled variables. No traceable record. He said she said. So the paper notices are only good, if at all, as a suggestion of what might have happened, and any true smoking gun definitively proving Hawaiian birth beyond the shadow of a doubt has yet to surface.
Nooo, use it on the RINOs. Afterward everyone else will just fall in line, like good little boys & girls.
Nobody will give the GOP any credit for sincerity on a touchy issue like entitlement reform and budget-writing, if they can be seen publicly and cravenly to capitulate their principles on a constitutional issue -- after talking about constitutionalism!
Their credibility will depend in part on a forthright inquiry into Obama's credentials. They can't let a street punk intimidate them with "Chicago way" thugpunk politics.
Alternatively, my Master, they're just so incredibly rich that they
JUST DON'T CARE!
</Vader>
The CERTIFICATE in the State of Hawaii is distinctively different. The first and foremost issue here is that there is a hospital and the name of a doctor on it. It also provides the name given at birth. Only a fool at this point would believe that Obama has spent several million dollars to hide a $15 certificate to "trick" conservatives. He is a fraud and it is a shame that everyone is not demanding he hold to his campaign promise of "transparency."
I’m saying that you’ll be laughed out of the place if you try to show a newspaper clipping to prove to a government official that a child was born in this country and is thus a citizen. However, in the context of it being 50 years later, and given the fact that the information was gleaned not from the boy’s grandmother, but from the state’s records, it seals the fact that at least the “not born here” part of the Birther conspiracy is laughable and not worthy of serious consideration.
I guess we are having a failure to communicate.
Legally, the birth announcements are a nullity, mere hearsay, like they didn’t exist. In themselves, they prove nothing, one way or the other (though they may eventually provide clues re fraud and other mischief). The fact that state records may or may not exist that validate a Hawaiian birth is precisely the point in contention, and while the clippings may or may not have corresponding records at one of the two hospitals, or with the HDOH, they are insufficient in themselves to prove the existence of such records, which you have effectively agreed is true.
What I see happening is this. You are inferring the existence of state records of birth simply because you do not believe the information in the papers originated with Grandma et al, whether by affidavit or by other means. I honestly do not know how you have eliminated those possibilities. I have seen nothing anywhere, nor have you stated any evidence, that prohibits the possibility of a fraudulent reporting by Grandma or others of a birth for economic and social advantage. The 50 year gap is utterly meaningless with reference to that point, whether you or BOR or anybody else uses it. Fraud would have created the same record in the papers as the real thing. It is the very essence of a canard, and that is why I grow weary of people using it. Nothing personal. It just makes no sense.
Now don’t misunderstand me. I think the true issue, ultimately, is eligibility, and that is not directly dependent on birth location. So it is also a misdirection to be solely obsessed with birth location. I think we may agree on that.
All I am saying is there was both motive and capacity for fraud in 1961 that might well have produced the newspaper listings, yet with Obama being not born in Hawaii. If your construction of the problem is the best there is, the “not born here” theory remains alive and well and anything but “sealed.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.