RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Anti-Obama 'Birthers' May Get Spiteful Slapdown by Hawaii Government

Hawaii considering law to ignore Obama 'birthers'

• By MARK NIESSE, Associated Press Writer
  Wed Mar 17, 2:48 am ET
  
  HONOLULU – Birthers beware: Hawaii may start ignoring your repeated requests for proof that President Barack Obama was born here.
  
  As the state continues to receive e-mails seeking Obama's birth certificate, the state House Judiciary Committee heard a bill Tuesday permitting government officials to ignore people who won't give up.
  
  "Sometimes we may be dealing with a cohort of people who believe lack of evidence is evidence of a conspiracy," said Lorrin Kim, chief of the Hawaii Department of Health's Office of Planning, Policy and Program Development.
  
  So-called "birthers" claim Obama is ineligible to be president because, they argue, he was actually born outside the United States, and therefore doesn't meet a constitutional requirement for being president.
  
  Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued statements last year and in October 2008 saying that she's seen vital records that prove Obama is a natural-born American citizen.
  
  But the state still gets between 10 and 20 e-mails seeking verification of Obama's birth each week, most of them from outside Hawaii, Kim said Tuesday.
  
  A few of these requesters continue to pepper the Health Department with the same letters seeking the same information, even after they're told state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest. Responding wastes time and money, Kim said.
  
  Both Fukino and the state registrar of vital statistics have verified that the Health Department holds Obama's original birth certificate.
  
  The issue coincides with Sunshine Week, when news organizations promote open government and freedom of information.
  
  "Do we really want to be known internationally as the Legislature that blocked any inquiries into where President Obama was born?" asked Rep. Cynthia Thielen, R-Kaneohe-Kailua. "When people want to get more information, the way to fuel that fire is to say, 'We're now going to draw down a veil of secrecy.'"
  
  Nobody at the hearing questioned the fact that the president was born in Hawaii.
  
  Attorney Peter Fritz asked why the state would pass a law punishing repetitive requests for open records. Instead, the state could simply say it would only answer each person's question once.
  
  If the measure passed, the state Office of Information Practices could declare an individual a "vexatious requester" and restrict rights to government records for two years.
  
  The committee will schedule a vote on the measure, said Chairman Jon Riki Karamatsu, D-Waipahu-Waikele.
  
  ___
  
  The measure is SB2937.

I'm sure that Hawaii's government being as liberal as California has nothing to do with it

Again: Despite Obama's not volunteering his birth certificate, two newspaapers in Hawaii had his birth notice posted, and that's good enough for me.
This is just arrogance on Obama's part, not providing his birth certificate as demanded.
And arrogance of the Hawaiian government, in making it easy for Obama to spite voters who legitimately demand Obama's birth certificate, in accordance with what is required to be elected.

Why? I can't think of a single U.S. president who's had his birth certificate "demanded" of him before this.

Besides, Obama's no fool. He knows that as long as he refuses to show it, it keeps a certain number of people busy on that instead of his radical transformation of America into some sort of socialist third world banana republic.

At least in our lifetime, until Obama, there's never been a president whose U.S. nationality has been in possible dispute. But presidential candidates are required to show proof of their native-born citizenship, to even be eligible to run.
(Oddly, only his rival John McCain comes close to having his native-born eligibility in question, since he was born on a militasry base outside the U.S., and I recall an element of the left questioning McCain's eligibility during the 2008 campaign at one point)

You're right, though, that Obama plays to his base and makes the birthers look like wackos by simply not providing the proof that I'm fairly certain he could provide any time. While I think the request is legitimate, it still is providing nothing but posturing and political theatre.

You have a citation for that? I'm not saying you're wrong. But I've never heard of anyone having to do that.

Is it just me or is there no point to this thread?

I think its you. Like or not, this is an political issue that some people care about and this is a "politics and current events" forum.

Why can't you and wondy spout your tea party rhetoric in any other thread?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=66787

I've seen multiple articles on this subect over the last 2 years, mostly on worldnetdaily.
The mainstream media prefers to just label the birthers as wackos, and ignore the legitimacy of the issue they raise.
I'm not a birther, but I think the issue they raise is legitimate.

There's nothing in that WND article that says a candidate has to "show proof of citizenship" to run. The article is about the general concept that a president must be a natural born citizen.

I'm looking for a citation to the specific law that says presidential candidates are required to show proof of their native-born citizenship, to even be eligible to run

Wondy linked to worldnetdaily.com I was right.

WB's use of a poor source is no more proof that the thread is pointless than your use of no sources.

You did see that McCain had the same allegation raised against him and he disclosed what was necessary to disprove the allegation?

Logic would dictate that if one has to be a native-born U.S. citizen, they can be asked to prove that prior to their election, and proof must be supplied on demand.



The article also says that even if Obama were born in the U.S., the fact that his father was not a U.S. citizen, combined with his mother not being in the U.S. for all of the 14 years before he was born, could also disqualify Obama.

The fact that McCain chose to do so in no way proves he was required to do so.



No. In a legal action, the party making the claim first has the proof of going forward. Then the party defending the action may or may not have the burden to rebut.

As such, there is a good chance than anyone claiming Obama isn't eligible would first be required to make a legally sufficient showing of (for lack of better term) probable cause that Obama isn't a natural citizen. To date, no one's made that showing.

G-man, not being a lawyer myself, I bow to your superior knowledge on what is legally required.

If you say someone has to present proof (or substantial legal question) that Obama's birth certificate is forged or not otherwise legitimate, before Obama's birth certificate in question can be demanded, then I'll take your word for it.

Here's the counterpoint to what WorldNetDaily says on the subject:

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2009/wndbirthlies.html

It at least raises an overview of what the Obama Birth Certificate issues are, links WND articles, and gives a counterpoint that I'm sure is at least as misleading as he alleges WND to be on the subject.

Especially when you see the "About" section of the link above, where the blogger identifies himself as a Media Matters writer, in addition to his own partisan blog.

Now you're linking to a tripod page? Seriously?

I clearly identified it as a partisan-Left MediaMatters-related spin site. But at least one that gives an overview of what the relevant issues are, even though clearly partisan-Left-tilting.

And what are you contributing to the discussion, rex?
Oh, that's right. Nothing. As usual.

I have a question: who do people want Barack Obama to show his Certificate of Live Birth to?

He's already proven that he was born in Hawaii. Its the fringe right that will only be pleased once time travel in invented so they can go back in time and witness obamas birth.

It's the age old question; If you had a time machine, would you use it to kill HITLER?

I'd just like to point out that McCain went through the same allegations, and provided the documentation necessary to prove his elegibility.

Obama would present it to individuals qualified to legally verify his eligibility to be President.

No more than McCain.
Other than McCain's respectful compliance, and Obama's arrogance.

I'll remind you that Kerry would not provide his records before the election, thus allowing the partisan-liberal media to paint Kerry as a genius. Then 6 months after the election, Kerry quietly released his grades, proving him to have a GPA slightly lower than George W. Bush.
So much for the heralded genius.

Likewise Al Gore.

I fully expect that Obama can provide documentation. But there's always a distant chance that he can not, and that the the facts would demonstrate Obama to be unqualified for office.

He used to bring a teleprompter to school

You do realize that he showed his birth certificate, don't you? All of this doesn't matter anymore. Its time to move on. Why don't you bring up some real problems? Like Obama raping the economy? Or Obama destroying Toyotas reputation to boost the sales of government owned car companies? Or how about you go outside and enjoy the weather?

From my opening post:

He did.

Yes, we already know there is no point to your rants. You're just re-enforcing your own stupidity.

Nope,I'd use it to get a copy of Action Comics #1 and Detective Comics #27 and then come back and sell 'em for a million bucks each.

and then use the million bucks to kill HITLER!

Uh...

How do you masturbate topic



How could anyone possibly compete with that level of stupidity?

That post is one hundred times more intelligent than anything you have copied and pasted or repeated from one of your racist heroes.

Wonder Boy content User rex's personal obsession
5000+ posts 1 minute 18 seconds ago Making a new reply
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Re: Anti-Obama 'Birthers' May Get Spiteful Slapdown by Hawaii Government

Snopes, and Factcheck (linked in the snopes piece) seem to agree with you.

Again: that two newspapers showing Obama's birth notice in August 1961 is enough evidence for me. But I fail to see the fault in others legitimately asking to see the evidence authenticating Obama's birth.
It's no less than McCain was asked, and complied with.

Obama is unquestionably withholding documentation from the so-called "birthers" just to spite them and keep them out there, so the Dems can say "look at those crazies.."

He could make them go away by simply and respectfully complying. But he doesn't.

Truly being a racist, and simply being slandered as a racist (by you), are not the same thing.

Now this...



...is truly racist.

And this...

...where you go on to stereotype all asian women as hookers.

When will your racism end?

Coming from the guy who worships one of hitlers biggest fans.

You're referring to a liberal misrepresentation of Pat Buchanan's views.

Buchanan most certainly has condemned Hitler in a number of articles and books of his I've read. On a minor point, he said that historians have turned Hitler into a cartoon, a charicature, of who he truly was. Hitler is often portrayed as a coward in World War I. All Buchanan says is that it is bad and innacurate history to portray Hitler as a coward, when in truth he was very courageous on the battlefield, and was decorated multiple times --and repeatedly wounded-- for his courage on the battlefield. He was a messenger who carried orders back and forth from rear command posts and officers on the front line of battle. Other soldiers who did what Hiler did had a very high ratio of being killed.

As a young man, Hitler was brave on the battlefield.
As a statesman, Hitler early on created jobs and prosperity in Germany. These are facts, and many Germans who lived through the 1930s era described those as prosperous and happy times.
But that does not negate the destruction and genocide that Hitler orchestrated from 1939-forward.

And Buchanan, among many others who are falsely portrayed as pro-nazi, is simply pro-historical-accuracy, not pro-nazi.

You sure do have a hard on for that guy, don't you?

I further challenge you to read Buchanan's book CHURCHILL, HITLER, AND THE UNNECESSARY WAR (2008), and try again to allege that Buchanan is pro-Hitler. While he describes Hitler as brutal, he puts forth the evidence that the British, and particularly Winston Churchill, are just as much to blame for both World Wars, and that Hitler and the Germans were pushed toward two wars they never wanted.

The Germans up until both wars wanted to be partners with the British, and viewed the British as their natural allies. But in both wars were pushed into war with the British they never wanted.

If Britain had not signed a secret pact to side with France, the Germans would not have declared war in World War I, they would have told the Austo-Hungarians to negotiate with Serbia.

If Britain had not given Poland a war guarantee in 1939, Poland would have negotiated into a very reasonable proposal by Germany (giving up only the city of Danzig, and allowing Germany to build highways and railways over the Polish corridor to connect East Prussia with the rest of Germany).
And Germany would have focused all its energy on attacking Russia, leaving the British and French empires (along with Norway, Denmark, etc., taken as a defensive move against a British pre-emptive attack) untouched.

Not really.
I don't like him much as a TV pundit. And I never really paid much attention to his opinion until he started writing books.

I disagree with some of the details of what Buchanan says, but I do think he gives a great overview of the problems facing our country.
Buchanan would have been a better president than any of the guys we've recently elected.

I think Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are the two best prospects for 2012, at present. And possibly Newt Gingrich.

I didn't read either of those posts.