To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true (TOUGH WHEN YOU KEEP LOSING CASES), if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. The way our US Courts work is that you get a competent lawyer, verifiable facts and present them to a judge, if the facts are real and not half baked lies, then, and only then, you proceed to trial. The Birthers seem to be having a problem with their so called facts that they present to our US Courts. Let’s face it no one will go along with you until you guys win a case, but until then, you will continue to appear dumb, crazy or racist, or maybe all three.
This is one of those issues I find fascinating because of the sheer volume and intensity of conflict it generates, like Darwinism, same-sex 'marriage,' the Novus Ordo liturgy, Islam & terrorism, or the person of Barack Obama.
Unlike some of those other issues, I have no dog of my own in this particular race, but I do find the back-and-forth and flare of tempers quite amusing, I admit. It seems quite a touchy subject on all sides.
Something that puzzles me a bit is why the question of a valid birth certificate is so often classified as among "conspiracy" theories. Why should there have to be any "conspiracy" involved? But oh, well.
"Abercrombie Admits There Are No Obama Birth Records In Hawaii"
Just another falsehood of the Birthers. Abercrombie admitted no such thing. The Birthers at World Nut Daily simply made that up. What Abercrombie said is that he isn't going to pursue the matter any further since Hawaii state law makes it impossible for him to release the original birth registration. He did affirm, however, that the state's archival index, which IS accessible to the public, does list Obama's birth in Honolulu in 1961.
You seem to have little understanding of the concept of onus and how it works.
Nope. Montana has the concept of onus exactly right. All available evidence says Obama was born in Hawaii. Those who doubt or deny it must produce solid evidence that he was born somewhere else. It is not up to those who accept the documentation of Obama's birth to prove he was born in, say, Mombasa, Kenya -- it is up to those who claim his birth certificate is fraudulent or meaningless, that the newspaper announcements don't prove he was born in Hawaii, to show cogent reasons for doubting their testimony. As it is now, we have ample genealogical and legal proof of when and where he was born, and absolutely no evidence he was born anywhere else.
You would be right about where the onus lies if there is anything seriously doubtful about the publicly posted "Certification of Live Birth" from the State of Hawaii posted online by Obama's party in 2008. So far, the public consensus, including the opinions of judges at every level on up to the Supreme Court is that this document serves as sufficient evidence of Obama's US citizenship, particularly since the Hawaii Health Dept's director has issued the statement: "I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen," Fukino said in a statement. "I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008, over eight months ago."
On the other hand, Jordanes551's statement that "Montana has the concept of onus exactly right" could still end up looking rather silly if, years from now, it comes to light that the alleged archived original certificate was a forgery or nonexistent, and the historians ended up vindicating you.
There is nothing in principle to prevent your hunch from turning out right, but there seems to be a considerable weight of support for the view that it would be silly not to give Mr. Obama the benefit of a doubt here.
8 comments:
To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true (TOUGH WHEN YOU KEEP LOSING CASES), if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. The way our US Courts work is that you get a competent lawyer, verifiable facts and present them to a judge, if the facts are real and not half baked lies, then, and only then, you proceed to trial. The Birthers seem to be having a problem with their so called facts that they present to our US Courts. Let’s face it no one will go along with you until you guys win a case, but until then, you will continue to appear dumb, crazy or racist, or maybe all three.
Back and forth back and forth. ... I would like some resolution. Nice post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Release_of_birth_certificate_and_its_rejection_by_conspiracy_theorists
This is one of those issues I find fascinating because of the sheer volume and intensity of conflict it generates, like Darwinism, same-sex 'marriage,' the Novus Ordo liturgy, Islam & terrorism, or the person of Barack Obama.
Unlike some of those other issues, I have no dog of my own in this particular race, but I do find the back-and-forth and flare of tempers quite amusing, I admit. It seems quite a touchy subject on all sides.
Something that puzzles me a bit is why the question of a valid birth certificate is so often classified as among "conspiracy" theories. Why should there have to be any "conspiracy" involved? But oh, well.
isn't it interesting how
"To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true ..."
You seem to have little understanding of the concept of onus and how it works.
"Abercrombie Admits There Are No Obama Birth Records In Hawaii"
Just another falsehood of the Birthers. Abercrombie admitted no such thing. The Birthers at World Nut Daily simply made that up. What Abercrombie said is that he isn't going to pursue the matter any further since Hawaii state law makes it impossible for him to release the original birth registration. He did affirm, however, that the state's archival index, which IS accessible to the public, does list Obama's birth in Honolulu in 1961.
You seem to have little understanding of the concept of onus and how it works.
Nope. Montana has the concept of onus exactly right. All available evidence says Obama was born in Hawaii. Those who doubt or deny it must produce solid evidence that he was born somewhere else. It is not up to those who accept the documentation of Obama's birth to prove he was born in, say, Mombasa, Kenya -- it is up to those who claim his birth certificate is fraudulent or meaningless, that the newspaper announcements don't prove he was born in Hawaii, to show cogent reasons for doubting their testimony. As it is now, we have ample genealogical and legal proof of when and where he was born, and absolutely no evidence he was born anywhere else.
Shirley,
You would be right about where the onus lies if there is anything seriously doubtful about the publicly posted "Certification of Live Birth" from the State of Hawaii posted online by Obama's party in 2008. So far, the public consensus, including the opinions of judges at every level on up to the Supreme Court is that this document serves as sufficient evidence of Obama's US citizenship, particularly since the Hawaii Health Dept's director has issued the statement: "I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen," Fukino said in a statement. "I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008, over eight months ago."
On the other hand, Jordanes551's statement that "Montana has the concept of onus exactly right" could still end up looking rather silly if, years from now, it comes to light that the alleged archived original certificate was a forgery or nonexistent, and the historians ended up vindicating you.
There is nothing in principle to prevent your hunch from turning out right, but there seems to be a considerable weight of support for the view that it would be silly not to give Mr. Obama the benefit of a doubt here.
Here's the link to the posted scanned image of Obama's certificate of live birth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BarackObamaCertificationOfLiveBirthHawaii.jpg
Post a Comment