Sure it. If he released it there would be no need to fight lawyers since that is what they are after. To simply say he is fighting lawsuits fails to address the question.
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
New case to demand evidence of Hawaiian birth
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
Sure it. If he released it there would be no need to fight lawyers since that is what they are after. To simply say he is fighting lawsuits fails to address the question.
Then without the long form which has not been released we do not know based on the short form that he is a natural citizen.
Sorry the only one disputing this is you.
There's nothing being "hidden". When crackpots file crackpot lawsuits, defense costs money.
See factcheck.org. They have images.
Really, folks, there are numersou legitimate reasons to criticize Obama. This is not one of them. This just makes conservatives look like fools.
Last edited by a moderator:
Describe in detail the lawsuits and list why they are "crackpot lawsuits" if you know.
What Fact check produced was the short form that non residents can obtain as well therefore it is not enough to verify.
You first. Describe in detail which current lawsuits claim Obama's mother wasn't a US citizen.
There's no such thing as a "long form". That's a standard certified copy of a birth certificate. There is no other birth certificate. Your "nonresidents" quip makes no sense. Residency has nothing to do with a cerfiticate of live birth.
I see well since you are lost this discussion is fruitless.
In Hawaii in the early sixties, one could get a birth certificate issued up to a year after the fact purely by statement.
Only the original document will reveal the facts.
A million dollars is a lot of money to just throw away on something so easy to prove.
The fact that he's spending so much money over this issue shows us one of two things.
1. He has something to hide.
2. He has no idea on how to responsibly handle money.
Either way, not what you want in a President.
Assuming this is true, it doesn't ignore the fact that there's those who accuse Obama of being foreign born have no evidence to back up their claim.
As for the money speant on legal defense, how come no one has a problem with the millions of dollars people spend on filing these lawsuits? They only have a problem with Obama spending money to defend himself.
I am not accusing Obama of being foreign born, I just want to know what he is hiding - and why?
Because the people filing the suits don't have the opportunity to not spend the money (short of not filing the suit). All Obama has to do is produce this document and it's over. It's that simple.
The problem is, those accusing him of hiding something are accusing him of hiding somethign that doesn't exist. It's actually WND that speculated on the existence of a supposed long form, or whatever form people are callng it.
That doesn't even begin to address the fact that the Honolulu Observer and Honolulu Star-Bulletin both have published birth announcements for Obama, one appearing on the 13th, and one on the 14th. It seems rather odd that someone would publish a false birth announcement in the off chance that their kid might someday be potus.
Last edited by a moderator:
Since Obama was born in Hawaii, the issue of the citizenship of his mother is not relevant because he would be a citizen by birth. The law you're citing covers a different situation, about having just one parent with U.S. citizenship applied to persons born outside of the United States (or specified U.S. territories). Between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, the law specified that if you were born outside of the United States and only one of your parents was a citizen, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 16. The age of his mother at birth is irrelevant because he was born in the United States.
Bub you made the claim and you will not support it.
We do not know that.
All he has to do is provide the document and that will be proven. Why won't he provide it?
You can look back on this board (your name at the time was JustChristian -- just to give you a time reference) and you'll see that I was against this whole "birther" thing. I thought it silly. Now it's gone silly in the other direction. If the President doesn't have anything to hide, he could stop this entire debate today. All he has to do is have his staff call someone in Hawaii and give him the documentation. It's really that simple. I'll even foot the bill for the long distance call.
And by the way this is not simply a conservative thing. There are liberal democrats who have initiated a number of suits involving this issue.
I've never claimed that Obama is ineligible, nor dis I claim his mother wasn't a citizen.
Yes, Philip Berg, former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, and staunch Hilly Clinton supporter. He filed a suit against Obama in 2008. The court dismissed the complaint as "frivolous and not worthy of discussion". Berg also sued Bush for complicity in the 9/11 attacks. He got laughed out of court that time.
See my earlier post. No such thing exists. Neither is there any evidence to suggest the standard certified copy provided by Hawaii's hall of records is false.
Last edited by a moderator: