Gee - sounds like a typical day in Republican paradise.
(laughter)
Except for one slight problem-as previously noted, Hawai’i has been run by the Democrats since the 1960s. They have a handful of token Republicans there, like the Governor, but that’s all.
nano and I have both lived there, so we know a little bit more about the subject than the average Leftist college kid.
Oh, and I actually read the book itself. Not just the review.
So Now, Suddenly, After All This Time, Hawaiian Officials Announce That Obama’s Birth Certificate Is, You Should Pardon the Expression, Kosher
WHAT??? The (so-called) liberal media has been saying that from day one, so have government officals. This has ALWAYS been a faux story.
The real question is, “Why were so many people duped by the Right Wing media outlets into believing that Obama wasn’t a native born American?”
Marko,
Because:
1. Obama hasn’t been forthcoming about his past, has denied all his connections, and the media has been reticent to explore it. This creates an appearance of something to hide.
2. Obama hasn’t (and apparently wasn’t required to) show his ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE, and has resisted each and every attempt to have it documented. We are told to rely upon the veracity of Democrat officials. This thing could and should have been a non-story, eliminated when he filed for candidacy, had he but shown what is required by the Constitution.
3. Obama has a foreign father, was adopted by an Indonesian father, has a muddled time-frame in his early years, and as I said, hasn’t been forthcoming about it. Of course the question should have come up, and were he the actual uniter that he claims, he would have had enough integrity to have dispelled the rumor. What he has done is NOT what a person who “reaches out to the other side” does - he simply allowed his campaign to obstruct and deny.
Marko, if this is a silly tempest, it is because Obama has made it so. Not because of paranoia from the Republicans. Were the situation reversed, you would be screaming for his birth certificate. Along with the rest of the media. And it would have been produced. Let’s not pretend that this wouldn’t have been so.
If you really look back the Dem party took over politics in Hawaii even before it became a state with the help of the at that time communist controlled unions and they have never looked back.
Because they all - ASSUMED - someone - ELSE - had done the checking. Even the FEC, in complaining to be let out of Berg’s suit said - THEY - wouldn’t check.
Face the fact, Marko - Barry, REFUSES to turn over the physical document, if he has it. Just because some Hawaii Dem, in official capacity albeit but not under oath, insist there is a record, and that it was sealed a) doesn’t mean there is and b) if there is, there must be something unusually embarrassing in the document that makes Barry rather keep all the questions open than answer them by showing the document.
All this after Barry’s ‘field trip’, is just another attempt to ASSERT that the original birth certificate exists. But when asked in various suits, now, to produce the certificate which is supposed to exist - Barry’s new campaign slogan becomes - I . . CAN’T! (before it had been - YOU . . CAN’T, WITHOUT ME)
BARRY! YOU KNOW YOU WANNA! LET’S SEE THE DOCUMENT!
Gee - sounds like a typical day in Republican paradise.
(laughter)
Except for one slight problem-as previously noted, Hawai’i has been run by the Democrats since the 1960s. They have a handful of token Republicans there, like the Governor, but that’s all.
nano and I have both lived there, so we know a little bit more about the subject than the average Leftist college kid.
Oh, and I actually read the book itself. Not just the review.
I realize that Hawaii is run by Democrats - Duh. You didn’t read my post very carefully. Two points: 1) the Bishop Trust (a private entity - not the Hawaiian government) apparently was run just like the Republicans believe that economy and businesses should be run: concentration of power and money and total lack of regulation, 2) conditions were corrected when they fully saw the light of day… if corruption was simply the way things were done, it would have not been corrected. I do not have to live in Hawaii in order to understand things I read…
If you really look back the Dem party took over politics in Hawaii even before it became a state with the help of the at that time communist controlled unions and they have never looked back.
Yep, those unions played a big role.
Republicans out there have been a novelty more than enything-until Linda Lingle came along in 2002, they had held the Governor’s office for 4 decades.
Gee - sounds like a typical day in Republican paradise. Me loves me some concentration of power and money and total lack of regulation. Good things always come from that… it’s that trickle down thingy…
(Oh - and by the way - it doesn’t really sound like Hawaiian business as usual… as the book was written by two prominent Hawaiians - and as a result of the publicity from the original editorial [printed locally] breaking the story an investigation followed that eventually led to a change of the entire board, and a management reorganization.)
Amazing how much you read just like Frank Marshall Davis and his writings in the communist funded Honolulu Record.
Amazing. He’s a sarcastic anti-Republican? We must be exactly alike.
As I have posted many times before your attempt to derail the issue the COLB is not sufficient to document what happened and the source documents it is produced from need to be examined.
There are too many variations in the Hawaii law for issue of a COLB to allow it alone to suffice.
I doubt you could have missed this in threads so I find your motives suspect.
Nano,
One thing I haven’t seen answered: How can a COLB claim a Honolulu birthplace if indeed he was not actually born there? (I understand the assertion that a COLB might be issued for people not born in Hawaii… but if true are you claiming that it is actually legal for INCORRECT information to become part of the official record?) Please explain (and provide link if at all possible) - thanks. So… to me so far - if the COLB reports a Honolulu birthplace - which it does - then that is enough for me. I don’t care whether Obama Sr. was his dad, whether he was adopted or anything else. If he was born in Honolulu: end of story.
For Obama to have not been born in Honolulu requires a whole series things: 1) it being legal and proper for COLBs to report incorrect information (Honolulu birthplace) as fact OR Obama to have forged the document, 2) High-level administrators in Hawaii to publicly lie and risk their careers for the sake of Obama’s cover-up, 3) Vital Statistics to fabricate their report to the Honolulu Advertiser in 1961 OR the Dunhams to inexplicably and mysteriously be allowed insert a personalized report into a section of the paper who’s normal source is Vital Statistics - and while their at it, to make the entry completely consistent in format with the other entries (down to noting the couple as Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama - despite the apparent fact that they didn’t care for their relationship), 4) a very young pregnant Stanley Ann Dunham to travel to Kenya (where is the documentation?? how did she pay for it?) for god knows what purpose (to meet Obama’s other wife and young baby perhaps? - that would go well...), 5) a pregnant woman to be refused passage back to Hawaii - even though she was able to go there shortly before while also pregnant - and even though pregnant women are actually allowed to fly (see also: Sarah Palin). This is the sort of thin gossamer that conspiracy theories are made of.
§338-17.7 Establishment of new certificates of birth, when. (a) The department of health shall establish, in the following circumstances, a new certificate of birth for a person born in this State who already has a birth certificate filed with the department and who is referred to below as the “birth registrant”:
(1) Upon receipt of an affidavit of paternity, a court order establishing paternity, or a certificate of marriage establishing the marriage of the natural parents to each other, together with a request from the birth registrant, or the birth registrant’s parent or other person having legal custody of the birth registrant, that a new birth certificate be prepared because previously recorded information has been altered pursuant to law;
(2) Upon receipt of a certified copy of a final order, judgment, or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction that determined the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship between a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file and the birth registrant;
(3) Upon receipt of a certified copy of a final adoption decree, or of an abstract of the decree, pursuant to sections 338-20 and 578-14;
(4) Upon receipt of an affidavit of a physician that the physician has examined the birth registrant and has determined the following:
(A) The birth registrant’s sex designation was entered incorrectly on the birth registrant’s birth certificate; or
(B) The birth registrant has had a sex change operation and the sex designation on the birth registrant’s birth certificate is no longer correct; provided that the director of health may further investigate and require additional information that the director deems necessary; or
(5) Upon request of a law enforcement agency certifying that a new birth certificate showing different information would provide for the safety of the birth registrant; provided that the new birth certificate shall contain information requested by the law enforcement agency, shall be assigned a new number and filed accordingly, and shall not substitute for the birth registrant’s original birth certificate, which shall remain in place.
(b) When a new certificate of birth is established under this section, it shall be substituted for the original certificate of birth. Thereafter, the original certificate and the evidence supporting the preparation of the new certificate shall be sealed and filed. Such sealed document shall be opened only by an order of a court of record. [L 1973, c 39, §1; am L 1975, c 66, §2(3); am L 1979, c 130, §1 and c 203, §1; am L 1982, c 4, §1; am L 1983, c 65, §1; am L 1984, c 167, §1; am L
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
§338-17.7 Establishment of new certificates of birth, when. (a) The department of health shall establish, in the following circumstances, a new certificate of birth for a person born in this State who already has a birth certificate filed with the department and who is referred to below as the “birth registrant”:
(1) Upon receipt of an affidavit of paternity, a court order establishing paternity, or a certificate of marriage establishing the marriage of the natural parents to each other, together with a request from the birth registrant, or the birth registrant’s parent or other person having legal custody of the birth registrant, that a new birth certificate be prepared because previously recorded information has been altered pursuant to law;
(2) Upon receipt of a certified copy of a final order, judgment, or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction that determined the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship between a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file and the birth registrant;
(3) Upon receipt of a certified copy of a final adoption decree, or of an abstract of the decree, pursuant to sections 338-20 and 578-14;
(4) Upon receipt of an affidavit of a physician that the physician has examined the birth registrant and has determined the following:
(A) The birth registrant’s sex designation was entered incorrectly on the birth registrant’s birth certificate; or
(B) The birth registrant has had a sex change operation and the sex designation on the birth registrant’s birth certificate is no longer correct; provided that the director of health may further investigate and require additional information that the director deems necessary; or
(5) Upon request of a law enforcement agency certifying that a new birth certificate showing different information would provide for the safety of the birth registrant; provided that the new birth certificate shall contain information requested by the law enforcement agency, shall be assigned a new number and filed accordingly, and shall not substitute for the birth registrant’s original birth certificate, which shall remain in place.
(b) When a new certificate of birth is established under this section, it shall be substituted for the original certificate of birth. Thereafter, the original certificate and the evidence supporting the preparation of the new certificate shall be sealed and filed. Such sealed document shall be opened only by an order of a court of record. [L 1973, c 39, §1; am L 1975, c 66, §2(3); am L 1979, c 130, §1 and c 203, §1; am L 1982, c 4, §1; am L 1983, c 65, §1; am L 1984, c 167, §1; am L
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
Etoipi,
That is why Nano has hammered home to anyone paying attention that the COLB is not worth the paper it is written on,
THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS used to get that COLB is the key to the WHOLE thing.
And IMHO, I think he has “Mohammed” as one of his middle names, thus those supporting documents will NEVER see the light of day.
For Obama to have not been born in Honolulu requires a whole series things: 1) it being legal and proper for COLBs to incorrect information (Honolulu birthplace) as fact OR Obama to have forged the document, 2) High-level administrators in Hawaii to publicly lie and risk their careers for the sake of Obama’s cover-up, 3) Vital Statistics to fabricate their report to the Honolulu Advertiser in 1961 OR the Dunhams to inexplicably and mysteriously be allowed insert a personalized report into a section of the paper who’s normal source is Vital Statistics - and while their at it, to make the entry completely consistent in format with the other entries (down to noting the couple as Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama - despite the apparent fact that they didn’t care for their relationship), 4) a very young pregnant Stanley Ann Dunham to travel to Kenya (where is the documentation?? how did she pay for it?) for god knows what purpose (to meet Obama’s other wife and young baby perhaps? - that would go well...), 5) a pregnant woman to be refused passage back to Hawaii - even though she was able to go there shortly before while also pregnant - and even though pregnant women are actually allowed to fly (see also: Sarah Palin). This is the sort of thin gossamer that conspiracy theories are made of.
1) see all the legal reasons a COLB can be altered from the Hawaiian statutes
2) not lied...carefully parsed wording..they did not say it fully matched for example such as birth name or listed father of the child
3)The ‘Vital Statistics’ section of the paper was just a heading they used and not an official output from the state government. All entrants were paid vanity announcements from the families that were not verified and only put into a common format. There were many more births than reported in that section , very similar to wedding announcements only were few and far between.
4)Obama could have planned a home trip much earlier and family there claim they were in the hospital room for the birth of Obama.
If Frank Davis is the real father then the whole Kenya trip was all part of the cover for him having a child by her while he was still married.
5) You don’t know how early they made the flight to Kenya...it could have been a couple of months prior to the birth.
Class years ended in June and he wasn’t born until August.
