CANADIEN

You know me. You know that unllllike you I do not believe that diversity in a society is in and by itself a source of either strenght or wekness. Sooooooo why don't YOU amuse us by providing 'proof' of what you claim. And don;t forget about advocating for "separation of races either", since it's the enxt step in your progression towards the absurd.

I do not think that websites are court of laws. That you mistakenly assume I believe this to be the case proves how little you understand. The certification is, in and by itself, a legal proof of the birth. If a court of law asked: "Prove that you were born in Hawaii" and he submitted a birth certification similar to the one he submitted, the court would have to accept the document submitted unless it determined that there is reason to suspect that: a - the document submitted is a forgery, that is it is not a certification, in which case it would be a criminal matter and the border of proof would belong to the party claiming the forgery b - the certification the government files is a forgery, or false information was provided when the certificate was provided; same as a c - the government agency did not follow its procedures when issuing the certification. The court cases launched by the lunatics seeked to either; a - force the State of Hawaii to give them access to the certificate or provide them with a copy of the certificate or a certification, or make the certificate, a copy thereof or a certification publicly available. The Courts dismissed all such cases on the ground that the plaintiffs had no legal standing to make such a request under Hawaiian law. In fact, the law FORBIDS the State of Hawaii to do such a thing, and a court cannot logically compel someone to break the law. b - force Barack Obama to submit a copy of the certificate or the certificate itself to the Court. The Courts dismissed all such cases. Which proves they did not see any reason for them to order Obama to provide them with any documents; in other words, the cases had no merit. As for the idea that you found a logical reason why Obama should have to jump into hoops in the vain hope of satusfying the lunatics... give me a break. The "if and when" argument is nothing but logical. It's in fact arguing that the President of the United States should act based on the possibility that somebody will one day produce a proof of something that has not been proved, for which there is not even a credible evidence, that can only be explained though the most ridiculous conspiracy theory in recent years, and that is disproved by all the credible evidence. Might as well suggest that Barack Obama resigns here and now, since the lunatic will never be convinced and there will always be someone to say "OK, there's something in there that looks authentic, but what if it's still a fake prepared at the time by the hospital/the government/whoever with the right signatures so it can fool even experts, and one day someone may come with a photo of mommy Obama and her new born in Kenya".

Parents don't want their kids to learn science, i.e. evolution? They're welcome to school their kids at home. Or they don't get to complain if SCIENCE faculties at university don't accept their kids. They don't get to complain if their lids don't qualify as teachers.

The usal nonsense. Homosexuality equates pedophilia.

What's next. Should parents be also allowed to withdraw their kids of any class where there are teachings that contradict their views on immigrants, non-Whites, religious freedom? But if that's they want, fine. Then schools should be mandated to put a big sign in front of the school: Once the parasites have been thrpwn out, their parents can raise them and teach them exactly as they want.

What is bullshit is YOUR refusal to admit that he had already submitted evidence, in the form of a legal document that fulfill the requirement to prove one's name, date and place of birth. He does not provide the document or a copy bbbbecause: a - he had already done what was required by law, and beyond b- there is no logical or legal reason why he should be compelled to

I knew you would be coming to this one day. People are more or less intelligent based on their race. Now diversity is bad. No wonder you believe that people should not confront racism.

The two kids should be suspended. The bully should then be expelled from the school. Neither bullying nor racism should be tolerated.

There is no reasonable doubt. Only rantings from the lunatic fringe, with no shreds of credible evidence. The burden of proving things beyond a reasonable doubt belongs to those who claim wrong doings, since those wrongdoings would be clearly criminal in nature. The Office of the President of the United States is too important to have people who have provided LEGAL PROOF they qualify for the office been forced to jump through hoops every time some conspiracy nuts utter their latest nonsense. And if you believe the detractors would just cease and desist, I have a nice parcel of swamp land to sell you in Florida. Heck, I'll give it for free.

Or course I do not understand their concerns. It's lunacy. And what you do not not understand (or wilfully ignore), is that they will NEVER be satisfied, they will ALWAYS come with something new.

Except a certification produced legally... And that's not a legal theory. A legal theory is based (at least loosely), on the law. The theory we have here is that every lunatic whim should be entertained just because...

You convinced me. The Supreme Court of the United States should ORDER the State of Hawaii to take the birth certification from its file, in the presence of the Justices of the Court, the Governor of Hawaii, the Vice-President, each and everyone of the people who have filed a court claim, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, the Majority and Minority Leaders in both Houses, and the media. It should also order that the certificate be brought to Washington, accompanied by a detachment of marines, that it be examined by forensic analysis experts (at least three, in case one has been brought by the Obama campaign), in the presence of all the people mentioned above. If the experts state that the document is authentic, the court should direct the FBI to check the finances of the experts. Once that's done, the Court should order than each and every person whose name appears on the document and is still alive to testify, before it, that they indeed signed the document or did what it said they did. Their finances too should be examined. Then, and only then, the Court should issue a statement that they BELIEVE that Barack Obama was born in hawaii. After all, they were not there. So, as experts at law, they know they should not state as a fact something they cannot prove. After all, it is possible that someone, some day, will come public stating, and proving, that she saw Sarah Obama's mother walk in the hospital with the baby, hide for a few hours, then start running hysterically though the corridors screaming and demanding to know why nobody took care her her and baby Barack for five days after the birth. We know that's more plausible than Obama's releasing the original.

:lol: Looks like we have a new law theory. The legality of a document produced according to the rules of laws can be challenged and the State can be compelled to violate its own laws on the ground that some people claim, without producing any credible evidence whatsoever, that the document is based on a forgery and they may same day maybe, perhaps, possibly, who knows provide the evidence they are not currently providing.

The U.S. Constitution states that a candidate to the Presidency has to be natural born. Barack Obama has sworn an affidavit, swearing he meets all the requirements, as required by law, and has made public a legal document stating he was born in Hawaii. The Court system has rejected attempts to force the State of Hawaii to break its own law and provide access toor copies of vital records to people who do not fall within the categories specified by law. It has also in one question rejected what is actually harassment though lawsuit, that is going from court to court in the hope of finding judges who will forget what the law is and what their job is.

Evendently, those who are bringing the issue to court, especially those who do it again and again and again in different courts trying different approaches have little understanding of the law. Like each and every candidate, Barack Obama had to sweear an affidavit stating that he met the qualifications to become President of the United States. He has gone further, and released a legal document stating he was born in Honolulu. The people who are now wasting court time are the ones who have to show evidence that Obama lied under oath, not the other way around. And they don't get to cry foul when judges state, correctly, that they do not meet the requirements set by the State of Hawaii as to whom they will release a certification or certificate of birth of another individual. The assumption here is yours, the assumption that people have to jump in hoops to prove what has already been proven, just because some lunatics refuse to join the realm of reality.

Imagine that. A judge knowing that a LEGAL document constitute a LEGAL proof of what is stated on it. And recognizing a frivolous lawsuit when a lawyer who loses his case in a court goes to another court trying the same thing using a different approach. Well well, we can't have a judge understanding the law, now can we?

Mobody has trampled on the Constitution. PERIOD. All candidates to the Presidency of the United States have to be natural born citizens, and Barack Obama has produced a document that legally proves that he was born in Hawaii. He therefore meets thie citizenship requirement and he has provided a document that proves he meets the requirement. PERIOD. He HAS provided the proof. PERIOD.

What cuts it for me is a legal document issued by the Department of Health of the State of Hawaii in accordance with the laws, regulations and procedures of the State of Hawaii, that is deemed by law to be proof of the birth reported on it, and is being accepted as such by numerous state and U.S. federal agencies. What helps, of course, is the fact that there is no logical reason to believe any of the theories put forward on why we should not accept this document as a proof that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. What does it say? That Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Honolulu. If it didn't say that, the State of Hawaii would not have issued a certification staing it.

I have a problem with the use of campaign fund for the purpose of defending Mr. Obama's against the suits, since they were about him, not his campaign management. But tha's secondary. Each and every of the suit have been dismissed so far.. ALL OF THEM. In at least one case, Hollister vs Soetero, the plaintiffs were told, in court, by the judge, that they were waisting the court's time. One of the lawyers was ordered to demonstrate why he should not be forced to reimburse Obama's legal fees. Another lawyer in that suit, Philip J. Berg, is a Democrat abd former Deputy Attorney General pf Pennsylvia, who also launched is own suit against Obama, was successfully for malpractice by some of clients in 2005, and who was the lawyer in an unsuccessful 2004 suit seeking a RICO indictment against George W.. Bush, George Bush Sr., the United States and a total of 156 people and organizations for being the ones who destroyed World Trade Centre (the charges ranged from murder to... abducting women and children and selling them for sex (!)) The plaintiff in another suit, Andy Martin, has a history of vaxatious lawsuits. Another one sued to have not Obama, but also John McCain and a third-party candidate disqualified from running. And Obama should not defend himself?

And how should we do that?

Changes in E.I. eligibility, to cite one example have meant it was more difficult to obtain E.I. payment. Which meant that people who could have obtained a sufficient (and temporary) amount of money while looking for another job ended up with welfare payment which in many case (Harris cuts being an example) were lower and insufficient. Key elements of the safety nets that come into play when someone falls on hard time are EI and welfare/workfare. Somebody who is fully employed is not affected by cuts in EI or workfare/wlefare because he/she does not need them. Someone who has lost his/her job is far more likely to be affected by those cuts. A safety net that provides just enough money to that person keeps him/her out of poverty. A safety net that does not is far more likely to rsult in this person becoming poor. Same with another key element of a safety net is minimum wage. When the Harris Government froze it for years, it did not negatively impact on most of the population, since they eran more than minimum wage. But it sure imoacted on those who had to rely on it for a living, Food banks have reported that the fastest growing group of clients in the late 1889's were working families.

And other people with the same knowledge have stated it is not a fake. The difference is, outside evidence supports the contention that the document is legit. But hey, feel free to believe that the Barack campaign, with tens of million of dollars, would produce a forgery so bad about everyone with above average computer knowledge would detect it. Same thing. The newspaper is available on microfilm in probably few hundreds libraries in the U.S. Why has noone put on the Web a copy of the page in question "without the tampering". Could it be because they won't bother checking, or that indeed the page shows the exact information as has been reported? Bizarre, went to their web site and did not find anything by them of the sort. I have put s link to a press release from the Department of Health of the State of Hawaii stating there IS an original certificate in their files. See my last posting. I believe the Vice-President of Kenya IS saying the truth.

Of course it matters. And it is a proven fact he was born in Hawaii. That you and an assortment of disgruntled right-wingers, racists and conspiracy theorists do not accept that doesn't change things. Yes. He is, rightfully, defending himself against baseless court challenges . And you can of course prove the Government of Kenya has made such an announcement. I mean, you can provide a link to the press announcement, official speech, media interview etc. by authorized representatives of the Kenyan government stating clearly "Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Kenya", right?. Here's what I found: From the Web-site of the Vice-President of Kenya From a Kenyan newspaper In the first one (and half a dozen speeches posted on his web site), the Vice-President speaks of Obama's Kenyian roots and ancestry. In the article, he is quoted as inviting Americans to visit the country where Obama's FATHER was born. Does not look to me like he's saying Obama was born in Kenya. But I don't wish to make fun of them, nor do have any reason to make fun of them. I'll make fun of you and your childish attempt at insulting me about a province I am not from, instead. The answer HAS been provided.

I am sure glad that you acknowledge the truth. I'd hate to see what it would be if you didn't believe it. I mentioned a doctor. How often do you see doctors, nurses go public and say "I gave birth to so and so 47 years ago"?

As to the idea that there was no document filled by the Bureau of Health in 1961. Let me say it again, the ad in the newspaper was placed by the Bureau of Health, which means the birth had been reported to them, which means a certificate was filled and filed with them. BTW (1) Nobody can verify the hospital he was born... You know, of course, that no hospital can confirm or deny that they're the place baby Barack was born, because of confidentiality laws. BTW (2) I don't remember anybody saying they were the doctor who gave birth to Sarah Palin either. Maybe she was born in another country... BTW (3) Most people don't remember their neighbours from 10 years ago, unless they were friendly or hostile. And of course, any claim by anybody that they knew the Obamas when they were living in that house, the conspiracy theorists would reply "Yeah right, like anybody would remember 47 years later a family that was there less than two years". BTW (4) I've checked, and indeed baby Barack would not have been a U.S. citizen at birth had he been born in Kenya. Which is a moot point, since he was born in Hawaii.