Because it had no impact on the salient point. Just the same old talking points being pushed by the same old "Obama is Legitimate!" trolls.
Now why don't you go find and find a bridge to crawl under.
Posted on 09/23/2015 10:18:47 PM PDT by Ray76
Chris Matthews reported back on December 18th, 2007 that 2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama was born in Indonesia and has an Islamic background.
Video at link
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
[Note: This discussion confirms what has been obvious for quite some time: obots’ dishonesty is second only to their lack of intellectual acuity. No bleeding wonder they’re obots; more honest, intelligent people would have abandoned Obama years ago.]
Maraniss was unable to find any trace of SAD in HI during her pregnancy. He wrote that she and the baby “never” lived with her parents at the address listed on the BC. Here is a good summation:
http://mobile.wnd.com/2012/06/biographer-admits-there-was-no-obama-family/
Ah but that was when Hillary was the assumed candidate. He was backing the wrong horse at the time.
That sounds like the very essence of Cpn Hook. He often strikes me as unable to grasp concepts beyond what some "expert" has spoon feed him.
Namely, the obot informed me that Obama favors legal citizens in that Obama (claims) he’s deporting foreign invaders who commit crimes, while at the same time allowing US citizens who commit crimes to remain in the country.
I would tell a person who said something like that that they are an idiot, and not worth the trouble to argue with. Such an opinion demonstrates a level of comprehension so low as to preclude any rational discussion.
And this is what we’re up against. No bleeding wonder we can’t/don’t make headway. We are arguing with some pretty dull knives, any way you slice it.
I know they certainly have a hard time remembering what has already been covered many times before. Of course I think much of their dullness is feigned.
Responses that contain some actual relevant content are more helpful.
You keep saying that, but it's not really relevant. Neither of the statutes in question--the 1982 one or the old territorial statute--say that the Hawaiian birth certificate will also say the child was born in Hawaii. Do you have any evidence that they're not just Hawaiian birth certificates that list the truthful non-Hawaii birthplace?
Doesn’t answer the question. Here it is again..
Show me where Marannis says SAD didn’t get pregnant in Hawaii, live in Hawaii during her pregnancy or give birth to a n Hawaii. If it has to be from that specific biography, fine but I’m happy to read the same from any other sources by Maraniss.
Try again.
Because it had no impact on the salient point. Just the same old talking points being pushed by the same old "Obama is Legitimate!" trolls.
Now why don't you go find and find a bridge to crawl under.
Oh, and it's funny that i'm "living in your head rent free" to the extent that you need to look at stuff I wrote two years ago.
I certainly do not care about stuff you wrote two years ago, or for that matter, what you may have written two minutes ago.
‘I would tell a person who said something like that that they are an idiot, and not worth the trouble to argue with. Such an opinion demonstrates a level of comprehension so low as to preclude any rational discussion.’
Hint: you’re talking with him.
I have another example of obot stupidity to share—it will shock and amaze even you—but it will have to wait. My phone isn’t getting a good connection and I’m too busy to outwait the intermittent signal.
Later.
They also don't say that they won't. I'm pretty sure the disposition of this particular is entirely up to the registrar that's processing the thing, or to the judge that's ordering an amendment or replacement. The 1957 statute seemingly leaves it up to the regulations created by the bureaucrats which run the Department, and who knows how stringent they are till someone comes up with a copy.
I know for a fact that accurate information is changed on Adoption generated replacement birth certificates, and I am pretty sure the limitations on what can get changed is entirely up to the judge, and the judge will likely follow whatever the Adoption attorney asks for.
Double Down’: How Obama beat the birthers in 2012
In “Double Down,” the sequel to their 2010 New York Times bestseller “Game Change,” “Mark Halperin and John Heilemann train their investigative focus on the presidential election of 2012. Here’s an excerpt.
Barack Obama was back in Chicago and back on the campaign trail, two realms from which he had been absent for a while but which always felt like home. It was April 14, 2011, and Obama had returned to the Windy City to launch his reelection effort with a trio of fund-raisers. Ten days earlier, his people had filed the papers making his candidacy official and opened up the campaign headquarters there. Five hundred and seventy-two days later, the voters would render their judgment. To Obama, Election Day seemed eons away—and just around the corner.
Working his way from two small events for high-dollar donors at fancy restaurants to a crowd of two thousand at Navy Pier, the incumbent served up the old Obama fire. He invoked the memory of the last election night in Grant Park, “the excitement in the streets, the sense of hope, the sense of possibility.” He touted his achievements as “the change we still believe in.” He ended the evening with a “Yes, we can!”
But again and again, Obama cited the burdens of his station. Although he’d always known that as president his plate would be full, the fullness was staggering—from the economic crisis to the swine flu pandemic, the BP oil spill, and the hijacking of an American cargo ship by Somali pirates. (“Who thought we were going to have to deal with pirates?”) He acknowledged the frustrations of many Democrats at the fitfulness of the progress he’d brought about, the compromises with Republicans. He apologized for the fact that his head wasn’t fully in the reelection game. “Over the next three months, six months, nine months, I’m going to be a little preoccupied,” Obama said. “I’ve got this day job that I’ve got to handle.”
The president’s preoccupations at that moment were many and varied, trivial and profound. In public, he was battling with the GOP over the budget and preparing for a face-off over the federal debt ceiling. In secret, he was deliberating over an overseas special-ops raid aimed at a shadowy target who possibly, maybe, hopefully was Osama bin Laden. But the most persistent distraction Obama was facing was personified by Donald Trump, the real estate billionaire and reality show ringmaster who was flirting with making a presidential run under the banner of birtherism—the crackpot conspiracy theory claiming that Obama was born in Kenya and thus was constitutionally ineligible to preside as commander in chief.
Obama had contended with birtherism since the previous campaign, when rumors surfaced that there was no record of his birth in Hawaii. The fringe theorists had grown distractingly shrill and increasingly insistent; after he won the nomination in June 2008, his team deemed it necessary to post his short-form birth certificate on the Web. The charge was lunacy, Obama thought. Simply mental. But it wouldn’t go away. A recent New YorkTimes poll had found that 45 percent of Republicans and 25 percent of voters overall believed he was foreign born. And with Trump serving as a human bullhorn, the faux controversy had escaped the confines of Fox News and conservative talk radio, reverberating in the mainstream media. Just that morning, before Obama departed for Chicago, ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos had asked him about it in an interview, specifically citing Trump—twice.
As Obama made his fund-raising rounds that night, he avoided mentioning Trump, yet the issue remained much on his mind. What confounded him about the problem, beyond its absurdity, was that there was no ready solution. Although Trump was braying for his original long-form birth certificate, officials in Obama’s home state were legally prohibited from releasing it on their own, and the president had no earthly idea where his family’s copy was. All he could do was joke about the topic, as he did at his final event of the night: “I grew up here in Chicago,” Obama told the crowd at Navy Pier, then added awkwardly, “I wasn’t born here—just want to be clear. I was born in Hawaii.”
Obama was looking forward to spending the night at his house in Kenwood, on the city’s South Side—the redbrick Georgian Revival pile that he and Michelle and their daughters left behind when they took up residence in the White House. He arrived fairly late, after 10:00 p.m., but then stayed up even later, intrigued by some old boxes that had belonged to his late mother, Ann Dunham.
Dunham had died seven years earlier, but Obama hadn’t sorted through all her things. Now, alone in his old house for just the third night since he’d become president, he started rummaging through the boxes, digging, digging, until suddenly he found it: a small, four-paneled paper booklet the world had never seen before. On the front was an ink drawing of Kapi‘olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, in Honolulu. On the back was a picture of a Hawaiian queen. On one inside page were his name, his mother’s name, and his date of birth; on the other were his infant footprints.
The next morning, Marty Nesbitt came over to have breakfast with Obama. The CEO of an airport parking-lot company, Nesbitt was part of a tiny circle of Chicago friends on whom the president relied to keep him anchored in a reality outside the Washington funhouse. The two men had bonded playing pickup basketball two decades earlier; their relationship was still firmly rooted in sports, talking smack, and all around regular-guyness. After chatting for a while at the kitchen table, Obama went upstairs and came back down, wearing a cat-who-ate-a-whole-flock-of-canaries grin, waving the booklet in the air, and then placing it in front of Nesbitt.
“Now, that’s some funny s__t,” Nesbitt said, and burst out laughing.
Clambering into his heavily armored SUV, Obama headed back north to the InterContinental hotel, where he had an interview scheduled with the Associated Press. He pulled aside his senior adviser David Plouffe and press secretary Jay Carney, and eagerly showed them his discovery.
Plouffe studied the thing, befuddled and wary: Is that the birth certificate? he thought.
Carney was bewildered, too, but excited: This is the birth certificate? Awesome.
Obama didn’t know what to think, but he flew back to Washington hoping that maybe, just maybe, he now had a stake to drive through the heart of birtherism, killing it once and for all—and slaying Trump in the bargain. Striding into a meeting with his senior advisers in the Oval Office the next Monday morning, he reached into his suit pocket and whipped out the booklet, infinitely pleased with himself.
“Hey,” Obama announced, “look what I found when I was out there!”
http://www.today.com/popculture/if-not-knitting-nine-hours-what-could-you-watch-8C11522147
No, DumbDumb, the Territorial law didn't make one mention about certificates for persons born outside of Hawaii.
PART II. CERTIFICATES OF HAWAIIAN BIRTH
§ 57-40. Issuance; procedure. The secretary of the Territory may, whenever satisfied that any person was born within the Territory, cause to be issued to such person a certificate showing such fact; provided. that such person has attained the age of one year. The secretary, with the approval of the governor, may make such regulations respecting the form or application and certificates, the method of proof, kind of evidence and time, place and manner of hearing, and all other manners and circumstances connected with such application . . .
You see that, DumbDumb? The statute on birth certificates speaks only of "any person born within the Territory." In the Territorial Laws, there were only 4 -- count them; four -- statutes pertaining to birth certificates: 57-40, 57-41, 57-42, and 57-43. And none of them says one peep about registering a foreign birth or issuing a birth certificate for someone born outside of Hawaii!!!!!
What in fact the territorial statute in effect before the 1982 statute sets out is an even greater latitude enabling and entitling persons to register a child for up to a year after its birth and to do so, if not attended by a locally licensed physician or midwife, for the parents or one of them to fill out the birth certificate or for a “local registrar” to fill out a birth certificate “from anyone having knowledge of the birth.” Thus a child born outside of Hawaii and attended by a non-Hawaii licensed health care provider or born unattended could get a Hawaii birth certificate nonetheless.
Are you just this stupid so as not to realize that what you're quoting here is the argument of a litigant (NOT a statement from the State of Hawaii or a court), that the copy of the Territorial laws submitted by that litigant simply DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIM that the laws allowed for obtaining a certificate for someone born OUTSIDE of Hawaii, and that that litigant LOST? (Well, that's a rhetorical question: you are that stupid.)
The simple fact remains that in Hawaii you could get away with registering a birth merely on people's "say so", which effectively means that foreign birth's can be registered as Hawaiian.
This is your hand-waving technique at work again. Make the assertion, link to 18 pages of crap from a litigant who LOST, and then claim you have proven your point.
No, DumbDumb, your claim made over a period of at least 3 years on this forum that there was a law in effect in 1961 that allowed for obtaining a birth certificate for one born outside of Hawaii was and remains B.S.
Oh, but you're ramping up the cutesy photos. That's always a sure sign you've grown desperate.
Thank you
That's because when you accept information from anyone, pointing out that it could also allow foreign born persons is rather redundant, isn't it dumb dumb?
It's like saying "The constitution doesn't specifically mention Smith and Wesson 9mm." No it doesn't, but that is more or less covered in the blanket category.
Take you're "I'm so fucking smart that i'm stupid" clown show to a place where someone wants to stroke your narcissism. I have no interest in indulging a fool like you.
No, it's just that you keep alluding to the past stuff, like you said about a week ago: "As I have mentioned before, this topic was discussed ad infinitum before you ever showed up, and the time for you to have gotten a good fight was back when the topic was fresh and I could remember where I put the salient bookmarks."
But like I said, looking back at that older stuff just reinforces how incompetent you are. When you were trying to claim to Ha Ha that the law in effect in 1961 allowed for certificates for foreign-born persons, you didn't cite the supposed Territorial Law that says this, you cited a 1982 Law! That pegs you as an idiot no matter how you try to spin this one away.
Well we know Obama didn’t write his own books, (because he’s a dishonest, lazy, ignorant, stupid but very mouthy fool) and much of the events in them are demonstrably made up, (read Jack Cashill’s dissection of it) so there is no reason to put much credibility on anything else sourced from ignorant, lying Obastard.
Blah blah blah. I hear the wind blowing.
Learn to read the actual source materials rather than reading just the spin on that offered up by the loser in the case.
Under the Territorial Law, information about the birth could be obtained from some other knowledgeable person ONLY WHEN 1) it's an unattended birth and 2) the birth mother is not available to provide the birth information. NEITHER of those circumstances existed with Obama, as the certificate which Hawaii has issued and the repeated statements from that State have affirmed over and over. So the law you're now trying to haul out in a desperate attempt to cover your blunder in repeatedly citing to a 1982 law simply DID NOT apply under the facts.
I have no interest in indulging a fool like you.
If you don't want me pointing out what an idiot you are, there's a simple solution. Stop posting stupid, erroneous things. Stop posting that there was a law in 1961 speaking of certificates for foreign-born persons and supporting that by linking to a 1982 law. Stop making a fuss about a pithy agency bio while ignoring that the year prior it was published nationally that Obama was born in Hawaii. Stop claiming that persons like Matthew Bacon and James Otis support your jus sanguinis view when they in fact are merely adopting the rule in Calvin's Case. Stop posting dishonest, truncated quotes from the likes of Joseph Story and James Falconer Wilson in the attempt to claim they support you. (And, DumbDumb, you still have no clue why September 15, 1776, was significant). Stop claiming that citizenship is a matter of international law after I've pounded you with multiple sources (including the Supreme Court) that it's a function of municipal law. Stop claiming that the NY Legislature in 1848 rendered Lynch v. Clarke moot when both the 39th Congress and the SCOTUS later cite to that case as relevant to the Constitutional rule under discussion.
And I could go on and on about the utterly erroneous things you've claimed.
You want me to take it elsewhere? Fine. Stop posting error.
Yep. Because it enters one ear and passes out the other without much obstruction.(It's a roomy space to rent, I'll grant you that much.)
Stop your whining. You lost. Get over it.
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.