Guess who's covering sensational claim on Obama's birth

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | July 5, 2010 | Joe Kovacs

[Eva]

McCain’s situation was completely different than Obama’s. McCain’s parents were both US citizens and his father was a member of the military, stationed in the canal zone.

That said, if anyone demanded McCain’s birth certificate, he should have produced it. i wish someone had demanded the certificate because it might have hurt McCain’s propects of winning the nomination, which would have made me very happy. Maybe it would have damaged Huckabee too, which would also have made me happy because I will never trust Huckabee after the way he helped McCain.

[curiosity]

So your claim that the McCain BC copy posted previously was a forgery is a falsehood.

LOL. The very blog post you link to proves it's a forgery. The Washington post reporter who saw McCain's real BC says it lists the Coco Solo base as the birth place, a fact that McCain, his mother, and the Panamanian birth announcements confirm. Hollander's fraudulant birth certificate says Colon was the brithplace, which is in direct conflict with the available evidence. McCain's lawyers claim Hollander's birth certificate is a fraud.

Ergo the evidence suggests the Hollander BC is a fraud.

McCain’s staff eventually released his birth certificate after first declining to do so.

No they did not. Did you even read the blog post to which you linked? All McCain ever did was PRIVATELY show his long form to a Washington Post reporter, the same guy who wrote the blog post. That's it. That's all he ever did. He never showed it to anyone else, nor did he ever make images of it public.

So I stand by my claim. McCain never publicly released his long-form birth certificate.

[Red Steel]

No, that's not what the law says. You posted it, and yet it seems you did not read it. Let me help you:

You are a klutz. No, let me help you.

This is what it says and straight out of the federal court case filing:

"For example, under § 57-9(a) allows for a situation where the official then knows as the “local registrar” can obtain information from “any person having knowledge of the birth” and prepare and file the birth certificate. We ask the Court to take notice of the latitude for inaccurate information that is thus created. Further, § 57-9(b) allows there to be a filing of a certificate of birth on which required information is simply missing and can thus be filed by a “supplementary report” and yet the filing of initially unsupplied information by a “supplementary report is not considered as causing that report with information that was not supplied at the outset to be treated as “delayed” or “altered.” It must be noticed that this creates great latitude for mistakes or even abuse of requirements. Thus, although § 57-18 gives the same time frame—one year—that was incorporated in the 1982 state statute, for a “delayed” or “altered” certificate, the procedures give greater latitude for there to be mistakes and abuse of the procedures and for incomplete information."

The court filing is accurate that the law made it easy to abuse and be defrauded.

Birthers act as if this were somehow a super lax law, but it's not. Virtually every state has similar provisions.

Oh yes it was fool. You think the Dunhams had any integrity to tell the truth in anything they thought that it would not satisfy them? Only fools would believe they were not a bunch of liars and after-birthers.

Note the bolded text. Yes, registrars could (and still can) prepare a BC based on information from someone other than the parents for a home brith, but only when the parents were unable to fill out a registration. That means some proof of the parent's incapacitation would be necessary before any registrar would accept a registration based on the word of someone other than the parents.

The subject was that anyone can witness a birth where a birth certificate can be issued. You're such a clown. Granny Dunham: I witnessed the birth behind a coconut tree and that the parents are unavailable stating to the clerk at the registrars office. You think they would have turned her lying ass down in 1961?

Not unless they committed fraud. In Obama's case, there's not even any motive, much less any evidence, that such a fraud was committed.

Again you are the fool.

And I'll point out that you lied as you said,

You curiosity - LOL. Did you see the thing in the brackets by the law? You know, this thing:

[L 1982, c 182, §1]”

It means that provision under the law wasn't passed until 1982. Obama's birth wass registered in 1961. Nice try, though.

Then I point out that there was Hawaiian statutes that proceeded that 1982 law. You get proved incorrect and have your little snit, which is a regularity in your case.

[curiosity]

You are a klutz.

You're projecting. What I posted was the actual text of the law.

This is what it says and straight out of the federal court case filing:

I quoted to you the actual text of the law, straight from the pdf which you posted.

"For example, under § 57-9(a) allows for a situation where the official then knows as the “local registrar” can obtain information from “any person having knowledge of the birth” and prepare and file the birth certificate

Yup, and like you, the incompetent lawyer who filed this brief ommitted the passage of the law that says the registrar could only do this if the parents were unable to fill out the birth certificate themselves.

The court filing is accurate that the law made it easy to abuse and be defrauded.

It is not accruate, as a quick comparison with the actual law will reveal.

You think the Dunhams had any integrity to tell the truth in anything they thought that it would not satisfy them?

And what evidence do you have that they were without integrity?

The subject was that anyone can witness a birth where a birth certificate can be issued.

Do yourself a favor. Go read the law for yourself. Why do you insist on relying the interpretations of it by hack lawyers who misquote it?

If you read the law for yourself, you would see that this only applied in cases where the parents were unable to register the birth themselves.

And I'll point out that you lied as you said,

I did not. I told the truth. The current provision in Hawaii's law provides for legal registration of foriegn births did not come into being until 1982. That is a fact, your namecalling notwithstanding.

Then I point out that there was Hawaiian statutes that proceeded that 1982 law.

There was no provision in Hawaii's statutes that provided for legal registration of foriegn births prior to 1982. That is a fact, and I stand by it.

[Red Steel]

You're projecting.

No, more like correcting. You get slammed pretty good all the time. Anyone can easily see that by reviewing your postings and the responses to them.

What I posted was the actual text of the law.

But you come up with the wrong conclusions.

Yup, and like you, the incompetent lawyer who filed this brief ommitted the passage of the law that says the registrar could only do this if the parents were unable to fill out the birth certificate themselves.

It's pretty simple to answer the clerk from a relative or any other false witness by saying the parents are not on the Island, or are unavailable for whatever reason the false witness can come up with.

It is not accruate, as a quick comparison with the actual law will reveal.

And it was answered on how easily the Hawaiian statute could be easily abused. You know, the way you try to pass off posts that you think that are credible.

And what evidence do you have that they were without integrity?

She raised this guy in Hawaii.

I did not. I told the truth. The current provision in Hawaii's law provides for legal registration of foriegn births did not come into being until 1982. That is a fact, your namecalling notwithstanding.

There was no provision in Hawaii's statutes that provided for legal registration of foriegn births prior to 1982. That is a fact, and I stand by it.

No you didn't. You do see where a foreigner born baby could easily get a Hawaiian BC by any false witness to its birth by gaming the Hawaiian 57 statute? I'll quote the law to you again: “from anyone having knowledge of the birth.” And The descriptions I've said accurately fits you.

[Hostage]

Good, you have just been outed.

On the one hand you say that McCain never released his BC. On the other hand you use the Washington Post reporter’s witness of his BC revealed by a SENIOR MCCAIN STAFF AIDE.

When a senior McCain aide reveals to the Washington Post a document of evidence, that is DE FACTO disclosure of such evidence, ergo McCain disclosure his BC.

Because McCain was born on a small sub base in Panama, there was not a non-military Vital Records office where it would be recorded on the base. It was recorded in a Navy records office in Panama. Hence there was interference and difficulty in releasing military base documents, especially from a base that is reconfigured greatly from what it was. The senior McCain aide showed the reporter the BC while on the run, and the reporter followed up on it to verify the attending physician’s name. There is no denying a disclosure of his long form BC in these actions. The reporter was so satisfied with the disclosure that he chose to end his reporting case.

Furthermore, there is no proof of forgery of the Hollander BC. The Navy may very well have had the Colon records office issue a BC for children born at Coco Solo.

Your jumping to the conclusion that it was a forgery is your own invention. It has never been proved to be a forgery period. It was not admitted into the court case because the case was dismissed. If the case had gone forward, Obama’s lawyers could have claimed the McCain BC was a forgery and sought to prove it. It was never proven to be a forgery, so you can’t prove it was. You can think it, but you can’t prove it. So your claim that it was ‘proven’ a forgery is bunk.

But it is clear that you accept disclosure of his BC to the Washington Post reporter but claim forgery without proof to the Hollander BC.

You have shown yourself to be a hack rather than an investigator.

“NICE TRY THOUGH!”

[television is just wrong]

why is he always pointing his middle finger in the air? (FU too, Mr Zero.)

[Cboldt]

-- Congress has decided that they are satisfied with a foreigner in the WH. --

No matter how you slice it, that's true. He's at best born a dual citizen of UK and the US.

As an intuitive proposition, citizenship and allegiance of the parents would carry lots of weight in deciding eligibility. You grow up, your Mom (or Dad) is a citizen of a foreign country - maybe you have siblings there too. And in aristocratic times, your parents might be influential in that foreign country. There then exists at least the appearance of mixed loyalty, if not the reality of it.

Congress is corrupt. Hell, the whole government is.

I hope this article cranks up the grocery store audience "bigtime" as likewise finding the government to be like a bad joke.

[Red Steel]

why is he always pointing his middle finger in the air? (FU too, Mr Zero.)

In that particular moment as I recall, Obama is flipping off the Republican congressional leadership in a White House meeting.

[Tennessee Nana]

i wish someone had demanded the certificate because it might have hurt McCain’s propects of winning the nomination, which would have made me very happy. Maybe it would have damaged Huckabee too,
_______________________________________________

I dont know how it wouild have “damaged Hucvkabee”

his parents were Americans and he was born in America...

But it would have “damaged” Romney...

His father was born in Mexico of parents who were not loyal to the United States...

[BobS]

I don't like McCain. But he was born on US-owned property. All those overseas bases are leased by the US in status-of-forces contracts with those countries. If you download a little baby in the base hospital he/she is a US citizen. You get a SSN and US passport for the baby through the local US embassy or consulate. It takes 2 weeks and $50.

I was active duty and know this from married couples I knew. Why doesn't anybody else know this? A lot of guys marry women from the countries they are based in.

[Eva]

I meant that any scandal or near scandal for McCain might have rubbed off on Huckabee because Huckabee was helping McCain, hoping for the VP slot. A problem for McCain, might have been a problem for Huckabee. I blame Huckabee for giving us McCain.

[Eva]

The problem comes up when the baby is not born at the base hospital. My husband’s brother-in-law was born in Cuba during WWII, while his father was working for the state department. He got out of Vietnam because of some glitch in his citizenship. I suppose that he hadn’t registered for a SS # and hadn’t registered for the draft, either.