CNN: Hawaii Gov. tries to end birther debate once and for all

[Bruno]

What is your definition of a naturally born US citizen?

What the courts decide that definition is doesn't concern me. I want to know where he was born.

 

[Pericles]

Here is why it is still an issue that could be resolved by the long form-

From: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.HTM

[§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]

 

[Bruno]

Thanks for sharing that, Pericles. I clicked on the next page, and found this.

§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:

(1) The registrant;

(2) The spouse of the registrant;

(3) A parent of the registrant;

(4) A descendant of the registrant;

(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;

(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;

(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;

(8) A personal representative of the registrant's estate;

(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;

(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child's natural or legal parents;

(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;

(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and

(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.

(c) The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made.

(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.

(e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.

(f) Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies. Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct.

(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:

(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;

(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities;

(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;

(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or

(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]



Cross References



Rulemaking, see chapter 91.





Previous Vol06_Ch0321-0344 Next

 

[crazyfacedjenkins]

What the courts decide that definition is doesn't concern me. I want to know where he was born.

This explains it all. The last desperate punches from a someone who knows they've lost the fight. It's clear from the election of George Washington, who's parents were British subjects and Thomas Jefferson, a French citizen, how the founding fathers felt about that requirement.

 

[Bruno]

This explains it all. The last desperate punches from a someone who knows they've lost the fight. It's clear from the election of George Washington, who's parents were British subjects and Thomas Jefferson, a French citizen, how the founding fathers felt about that requirement.

I've lost nothing.

That's not a fight I'm fighting, nor something I'm arguing at all. You are. That seems to be your battle, not mine.

Your last desperate attempts are "well, it wouldn't matter anyway where he was born, because...". Maybe you should contact the Hawaii Governor and try to convince him of that so he'll drop his attempts to release "end the discussion once and for all"?

I want to see the long form birth certificate. I want to be convinced he was born in this country. No one has done that sufficiently. Those that have tried have succeeded only in creating more questions and uncertainty.

 

[Bruno]

Obama: "I am Santa Claus."

Me: "Prove it."

Obama: "I give presents to people. Reindeer follow me. Trust me."

Me: "Um, I'm still not convinced you are Santa Claus."

Obama: "Then I'll spend millions to avoid proving to you that I am."

Me: "Well, in that case, I'm unlikely to become more convinced then that you are Santa."

AxisMundi: "Prove there's no Santa Claus, I bet ya can't!"

Mainstream media: "Obama says he is Santa Claus. Stop it, kooky racists, it's good enough for us. Now look at the shiny trinkets he brought!"

Crazyfacedjenkins: "It really doesn't matter if he really is Santa Claus or not, because Santa lives in all of our hearts..."

Hawaii Governor: "I knew Obama when he was just a little elf. I'm going to do my best to end this Santa debate once and for all."

 

[AxisMundi]

I've adressed that the "legal US document" is highly questionable to tens of millions and why, and even the HI Governor friend of the family agrees. Feel free to post the legal document you are talking about as your source.

You have refused to cite why you believe what you believe, the documents that prove it enough for you, and your sources. You haven't cited one single source that shows Obama was born in the U.S. I'm open-minded. What proof is there that he was born in America? I really don't know where he was born, that's why I am skeptical. Maybe you can convince me.

And for the record, I really don't care where you, the courts, the law, or anyone else believes the burdon of proof is. I believe it is on him. So that argument has no weight at all with me.

I give up. You refuse to attempt to address the proof of BHO's citizenship, ie the short form, and merely sit there with your fingers in your ears going "nah nah nah" very loudly and demand I provide proof easily available online.

Either attempt to dismantle this proof or our conversation is done.

 

[AxisMundi]

What a greedy bastard, you could have fed thousands of impoverished people for a year with all that money.

Blame the guys trying to force me to show them something they have no right to see.

 

[Bruno]

I give up. You refuse to attempt to address the proof of BHO's citizenship, ie the short form, and merely sit there with your fingers in your ears going "nah nah nah" very loudly and demand I provide proof easily available online.

Either attempt to dismantle this proof or our conversation is done.

I have told you the short form and the newspaper articles are unconvincing and why. The Hawaii Governor agrees with millions of Americans that they are convincing.

You have failed to prove what is so convincing, and have refused to even cite a single source, saying "It's all out there, easy to find." Post some links you find "reputable" and we can discuss them.

Your "our conversation is done" is why millions of Americans are yet uncertain where Obama was born.

 

[AxisMundi]

I have told you the short form and the newspaper articles are unconvincing and why. The Hawaii Governor agrees with millions of Americans that they are convincing.

You have failed to prove what is so convincing, and have refused to even cite a single source, saying "It's all out there, easy to find." Post some links you find "reputable" and we can discuss them.

Your "our conversation is done" is why millions of Americans are yet uncertain where Obama was born.

A majority of Americans believe we are a species created by God too. What's your point?

A vast majority of human beings also once thought the world was flat. Again, what's your point?

Your argumentum ad populum is not proof in the least.

 

[Bruno]

A majority of Americans believe we are a species created by God too. What's your point?

A vast majority of human beings also once thought the world was flat. Again, what's your point?

Your argumentum ad populum is not proof in the least.

My point is people remain unconvinced. I am one of them. You are convinced. You are not one of them.

I never claimed the amount of people who don't believe he was born here is proof that he wasn't. That would be ridiculous. Try another approach.

You have proven nothing. What's your point exactly?

You're certainly not doing a very good job of proving to me or anyone else he was born here, if that is your goal, with your failure to provide any convincing evidence. Maybe you'll have better luck with the Governor of Hawaii?

 

[AxisMundi]

My point is people remain unconvinced. I am one of them. You are convinced. You are not one of them.

I never claimed the amount of people who don't believe he was born here is proof that he wasn't. That would be ridiculous. Try another approach.

You have proven nothing. What's your point exactly?

You're certainly not doing a very good job of proving to me or anyone else he was born here, if that is your goal, with your failure to provide any convincing evidence. Maybe you'll have better luck with the Governor of Hawaii?

You now claim that you have not been attempting an argumentum ad populum, yet you continue to bring up "millions of people are unconvinced". I am certainly unconvinced at this point, and not only of your argument.

And your continual attempts to wiggle out of the burden of proof is also noted. Proof has been supplied. Using your argument fallacy, since a vast majority of Americans accepted that proof,t he burden is on you to discredit said proof.

 

[Bruno]

You now claim that you have not been attempting an argumentum ad populum, yet you continue to bring up "millions of people are unconvinced". I am certainly unconvinced at this point, and not only of your argument.

And your continual attempts to wiggle out of the burden of proof is also noted. Proof has been supplied. Using your argument fallacy, since a vast majority of Americans accepted that proof, the burden is on you to discredit said proof.

Are you being purposely obtuse? I'm not saying that because people are not convinced it is proof he was born elsewhere, Your attempt to claim my reasoning is argument ad populum is an argumentum ad absurdum.

I'm saying people are not convinced because insufficient proof has been provided to them.

Go ahead and copy/paste any post of mine showing that "because some people don't believe was born here, therefore it is proof that he wasn't born here." You won't find one. Here is what I said: "Well, tens of millions of rational Americans aren't convinced. Believe what you want. I'm certainly not convinced, and won't be until we find out more what he is spending millions to hide."

You're attempts to twist my words is laughable and unproductive.

I don't care where YOU think the burdon of proof is. I think the burdon of proof rests on the president. Don't expect me to prove he is not Santa Claus. I want proof that he is. The supplied "proof" (a 2007 lame short-form recreation of info on a sealed long form birth certificate??, seriously??) is insufficient for reasons already cited here and elsewhere.

You continually try to wiggle out of providing ONE SINGLE SOURCE of valid proof that has not already been discussed in how it it is insufficient "proof" in my eyes.

I don't care what you, the courts, or anyone else believes. I'm unconvinced.

 

[Bruno]

Sucks when your own words come back to bite you. I don't know how i missed your earlier post that directly conflicts with your later response to my post.

WND.

'Nough said.

Source or not, the info in the link is accurate.

 

[libertarian4321]

Actually, this is a bit too simplistic. The birther conspiracy theory is far more complex, bizarre, and unbelievable.

 

[dannno]

Actually, this is a bit too simplistic. The birther conspiracy theory is far more complex, bizarre, and unbelievable.

So you should be able to justify the millions spent to avoid showing said birth certificate then

 

[Bruno]

So you should be able to justify the millions spent to avoid showing said birth certificate then

Be prepared for an answer that is "complex, bizarre, and/or unbelievable."

 

[Zippyjuan]

Here is why it is still an issue that could be resolved by the long form-

From: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.HTM

[§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]

That did not take effect until 1982- 21 years after Obama was born and his original birth certificate issued.

 

[Krugerrand]

That did not take effect until 1982- 21 years after Obama was born and his original birth certificate issued.

How did you get information about the original birth certificate? Did you see something we didn't?

 

[Bruno]

Fox News: Why do Democrats keep talking about the birth certificate?

ht tp://nation.foxnews.com/birthers/2011/01/03/why-do-democrats-keep-talking-about-birth-certificate#

Neil Abercrombie is not an American household name.

But he sure did grab some "name-making" headlines recently, when he spoke to the New York Times.

In what is theoretically a "slow" period for news (the last couple of weeks of the year), Hawaii's newly inaugurated Governor sat down with Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times. In the interview, the Governor addressed some serious issues - like the fact that the tiny state of Hawaii is facing an enormous $71 million deficit, and that Hawaii's public education system has been so mismanaged that teachers are being furloughed so as to avoid layoffs and class time reductions.

But, not surprisingly, the issue that captured hearts and minds was Governor Abercrombie's personal and passionate rebuke of the so-called "birthers" - that's the derogatory nick name given to those who question whether or not President Obama was born in Hawaii, as he claims he was, and therefore question Obama's constitutional eligibility for the presidency.