CANADIEN

As I said before, poverty is when someone goes hungry at night and can't find decent lodging. Nothing relative about that. Not if the appartment is fit for human beings and they can afford three meals a day. And I have not claimed otherwise.

It's merely saying "some are making bad decisions, it's not saying what to do with them. I'll pass over the use of the term weediing, even though we're talking about humans, not dandelion. And as I have said before, some people need a kick somewhere. But someone who is poor is poor, no matter how they became poor or whether or not the best way to help them includes a good shake.

And unfortunatly, when I mentioned government actions have been a contributing factor, you seemingly ignored it. And unfortunately, calling Harris' cuts a success and saying that poverty is "sometimes" the result of bad choice is not the start of a solution. Solving a problem starts by seeing there is a problem.

If the Commission of inquiry had said to the world that Maher arar was a terrorist, despite the absence of any evidence, you would probably praise the justice system. That would say a lot more about you than about our justice system. You are of course free to take the word of the people to send him to Syria for one purpose, and one purpose only (we both know what that was, don't we). An examination of Maher Arar conducted on behalf of the Commission of inquiry concluded that while he had recuparated physically from his torture he still suffered the spychological consequence. The widespread use of torture in the Syrian prison where he was detained is well known. The recourse by the Bush administration of rendition, that is the oursourcing of torture to foreign country, is equally well known. Call it hearsay, I call it a lot, lot more convincing that any of the so-called evidence against him. Or, to be more accurate, pressure from the public who wanted the truth and who got it. In the end, the decision by the U.S. Government to bar Arar is stil reprehensible. Pt course you have evidence of that, I mean something that would have escaped CSIS and that Stockwell Day didn't find when he read the U.S. file.

When I see a sick man, I kbnow what his problem is... he's sick. I don't need further evidence. Same when I see dire poverty in the midst of a simingly prosperous society,

Prolongued operiods of sleep depravation, beatings, short-shackling, repeated use of stress positions, refusal of medical treatment, forced labour designed specifically to make an injury worse, threats of torture, threats of rape. At least, he didn't have to read your postings.

Let me repeat: It means one thing: a birth WAS registered with the State of Hawaii. Let's keep that in mind when going step by step through the chain of events: 1) Baby Barack is born in Kenya. Let's remember, his mother is a U.S. citizen, which makes him a U.S. citizen at birth 2) Mommy rushes back to Hawaii to make sure the birth will be registered there, so that he will be a U.S. citizen. Well, she may not know that baby Barack is already a U.S. citizen. 3) She enters the United States with no documentation, or with a Kenyan birth record for which nobody has ever been able to produce a copy. On her way, she would likely had changed plan at least once or twice. 4) Once she arrives, she goes to the Hawaii Bureau of Health, and says to the clerk that baby Barack was born a few days ago and that the idiots at the hospital forgot to give her the papers. She is hoping that she'll get a clerk who is enough of a moron to believe her without checking. And it's her lucky day becaue guess what, the pimpled nephew of the office manager's wife is behind the counter, getting bored fast, and he just nods and say "it's so terrible, let me help you" when lied to by mommy Obama. He does not even have the presence of mind of looking into the birth records sent by the hospital so he can say "don't worry Ma'am, they sent it to us already", he doesn't ask uncle Benny what to do, nothing. So far, we have a mother who doesn't know her son IS a citizen by birth, either an illegal entry into the U.S. and at least one other country OR a Kenya birth record nobody can find now, and an imbecile at the counter. Where does it go from there? I see three possibilities. a - the idiot clerk add Baby Baracks's name to the list of announcements to be sent to the papers, but forgets to fill the certificate that has to be filed in the records of his office. Years later, Obama requests a certification of birth, is told that there is no certificate, and conspires with officials at the Department of Health to either forge a certificate or make up a bogus certification and lie about the existence of a certificate. b - the idiot clerk grabs a blank certificate, but mommy Obama tells him not to bother and that just putting baby Barack's name announcements to be sent to the papers should be fine. Which means that she is clever enough to have her son's birth recorded, but stupid enough not to have it actually registered (also means that the clerk doesn't know the requirements for the registration for a summer job, but hey we already know he's a moron on a summer job). Years later, Obama requests a certification of birth, is told that there is no certificate, and conspires with officials at the Department of Health to either forge a certificate or make up a bogus certification and lie about the existence of a certificate. c - the idiot clerk grabs a form, fills it with the information provided by mommy Obama, and files it. So, what we have there is a certification in the files of the Department of Health of the State of Hawaii. Which means that if the Department decided tomorrow to have a forensic expert look at the original document, the expert would find a document created in 1961, and would be in no position to notice the information on it is bogus. This scenario is so plausible it's scary.

Except for the fact Arar is known to be an innocent man, and there is nothing in the file that indicates he is a threat... other than a threat of ambarassment when the practices of the Bush administration are revealed.

In 1961, it was part of the procedures of the Hawaii Bureau to publish the list of newborns whose birth had been registered, with parents' names, address and date of birth, in newspapers. They did so in the Sunday Advertiser (Honolulu) on August 13, 1963. One of the babies listed was Barack Hussein Obama II. Now, I am sure, some will argue that all the family had to do was to pay for the advertisement, even while not being there. Too bad that it is clearly said at the top of the announcements that they came from the Bureau of Health. Hey, but maybe the Obama campaign just forged that one too. Making sure of course that every existing copies of the paper, in original or on microfilm, found anywhere in Hawaii or throughout the U.S., had been alterned just in case someone decides to check. Which would mean that 20 years ago or so *the likely time the paper was microfilmed, if it was not done before) the conspiracy to make Barack Obama the President of the United States was well under way.

Indeed, the smugness of believing innocent people should be treated like innocent people. In the end, Canadians have the right to say out loud that the U.S. Government is wrong on this one.

You mean, like when you write this? Looks like I am not the only one "making my own argument". But do not worry, I understand the the main contributer to poverty in our society over the past 20 years have been the destruction of the safety net by governments at all levels. Doesn't change the fact the poverty is the problem.

That's called torture, no matter how you put it. Somehow, I thought you had higher standards than that.

Perhaps you can't read. So let me help you. Thirteen lines from the end, and I quote: We know now that interrogation methods that amount to torture have been used by members of the American security agencies, and that they were approved by Bush.

No, let's start form the fact Barack Obama's mother was an American citizen, which made him an American citizen by birth, regardless of where he was born. As I said before, the original is in the records of the department of Health of the State of Hawaii. Are you accusing or entertaining the idea that the Department or its officials were part of the forgery of an official document? As I said before, you don't seem to understand, so let me explain it again. The certification is an abstract of the certificate, which is the official record of the birth kept by the Department of Health of the State of Hawaii. People at factcheck.org saw the CERTIFICATION. When they had questions, they checked with officials at the Department of Health of the State of Hawaii, and the responses were sufficient to convince them that what they had held in their hand was indeed a certification issued by the State of Hawaii in 2007. They didn't need an historical document examiner. The Health Director of the State of Hawaii declared in a press released that she had verified with her own eyes that her Department holds a birth certificate for Barack Obama. By law, records in the custody of the Department of Health are deemed authentic, so unless one wants to argue and PROVE in a court of law that the Director lied, or that the Department or its official filed a forged document... It would not solve anything. The moment a forensic expert looks at the certificate in the files of the Department of Health of the State of Hawaii and says "Yes, the ink is from that time, the paper is from that, time and the signatures are indeed those of officials at the time", the conspiracy nuts will come with something like "he/she must be lying", "that doesn't prove this is not a forgery". or "who can prove to us that Obama's mother didn't give birth in Kenya, came back right away to Hawaii and told some story to an idiot clerk at the DOH about how the hospital forgot to do the paper work". Besides, the laws and regulations of the State of Hawaii are very clear about how birth records are created, how they are maintained, how, to whom and in what format the information from those records is to be released. No evidence has been presented that the State or its officials violated those laws and regulations. The Department of Health cannot, and should not, violate its legal obligations directly or indirectly just because of some nonsensical conspiracy theory.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov...20051129-2.html

That would be an interesting question, save for the fact in DID NOT HAPPEN. Something is not a forgery just because you and an assortment of sore losers, conspiracy lunatics and racists have convinced yourself that's the case. The birth certification held by the Obama campaign IS an official document issued by the State of Hawaii. What is not curious is how little you understand. The birth registration, the document filled and filed at the time of Obama's birth, is where is has been since it was filed, in the records of the Department of Health of the State of Hawaii. This was confirmed by the Director of Health of the State of Hawaii, Dr. Choyome Fukinon, in a press release dated October 31, 2008 text of the release, Change computer. I was able to download the images. me kettle, you pot

As i said before, an individual's intelligence has nothing to do with race. Neither is his/her character. Nice of you, btw to try to argue that because you believe it to be so I must believe the same in reverse. Had I been an American Democrat, I would have voted Cinton, not Obama. Of all the candidates for the Presidency, from both parties, I thought McCain was the most decent (didn't like his foreign policy, though). There is no doubt in my mind that skin colour influences your political choices, I don't care about that when I make mine. This is not about Brack Obama's ancestry. it is not about his political views. This is not even about whether or not he will be a good President. It's about one irrefutable FACT: he was born in Hawaii, and met the legal qualifications to become President.

http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vit...ords/index.html And I have put the link to the piece of legislation voted in 1982, 21 one years after Obama's birth, that clearly establishes the conditions under which somebody can obtain a Hawaiian birth certification. One does not just get to walk into the head office of the department of health and say "please give me a certification of birth'. Besides, the certification of birth issued in 2007 to Barack Obama, an OFFICIAL document issued by the State of Hawaii, clearly states he was born in Honolulu. Which means one thing, and one thing only - the birth certificate, the document filled and filed by the State of Hawaii to register Obama's birth, states he was born in Honolulu. If he had been born elsewhere, the certification would have indicated that he was born elsewhere. Don't you worry, I do not expect you to get it. Skin colour has nothing to do with my capacity to grasp FACTS, such as the fact Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. BTW, I'm white.

I don't particularly care for HIS standards, but for OURS. As for his mistreatment, there's plenty of evidence. In other words, for not murdering him?

I didn't say punishment, or penalty, I said remedy.

In other words, there's poverty in our cities, but hey everything is fine, because hey, poverty is the result of bad choices.

Bush lied, among other things, about the use of torture. As for the "bringing freedom" to the Iraqis, one would have to believe that was the intent of the war. But this is not about Bush, it's about the fact his skin colour has nothing to do with how he's perceived. We'll start with the fact that there would have been only one reason for her mother to do so - wanting, right from the moment of birth, from her son to become President of the United States. The requirement to be "natural born", that be not only a citizen but to be born in a territory subject to US authority, exists in only two cases - to become President and Vice_president. Baby Barack was already a U.S.. citizen. Your understanding is faulty. A certificate of live birth (long form) was issued by the hospital and filed in the records of the Hawaii Department of Health (or, if one has to believe the "Mom gave birth in Kenya, then flew to Hawaii because her more pressing priority was to make sure baby Barack would one day because U.S. President, a certificate was issued when some clerk was dumb enough to believe that"they forgot to register my son's birth at the hospital", then it was filed" theory). A certification was issued at the request of Barack Obama in 2007; under law, it consists of information abstracted from the original birth certificate as kept by the Department of Health, and is stamped by that office certifying that the information comes from the certificate they have on file. In this case, the Department has gone as far as issuing a statement confirming that they did issue the certification posted on the Internet by the Obama campaign, and that they DO have the birth certificate on file. (btw, there is no "original birth certification", since certifications are issued only when a person who has a legal right to it requests it, like Obama did in 2007; doesn't change the fact that the certification was based on the certificate in the government files) He has already provided a birth certification, an official document issued by the State of Hawaii, which confirms that there is in the State's records a birth certificate stating that he was born in Honolulu. The State of Hawaii has already confirmed that they released the birth certification, and has taken the unprecedented step of confirming they have the birth certificate, which they do not have to do since the very issuance of a certification is legally proof enough that there is a certificate in their files. The fact that the certification was indeed issued by the State of Hawaii, and was not a forgery, was confirmed independently. What else should Obama do? Provide a copy of the certificate? Have the Hawaii Department of Health grant aaccess to the original birth certificate in their records itself (which, btw, would be against Hawaiian law)? Provide the copy that was given to his parents when the birth was registered (how many people can still find their's 48 years later?) It would solve NOTHING, since the conspiracy nuts, the sore losers and the racists would still find a way to claim either that "this is not the true original" or that "we have proof that false information was provided to the State authorities in 1961". When people are willing to believe that type of nonsense, they're unlikely to change their mind no matter the amount of evidence is shown.

Indeed. In this case, one is committing an illegal action, the other one is applying the only available remedy for that action.

The conspiration to make Barck Obama the President of the United States despite not being born in the US. most have started right when he was born in Kenya. Imagine this. On August 13, 1961 the Honolulu Advertiser published a notice of the birth of a son of a Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama, born on August 4. That notice, and others were supplied to the paper by the State's health authorities, on the basis of birth records received from hospitals. One must applaud the cleverness of the family, which in less than nine days arranged to bribe a hospital and state official to plant a bogus birth notice so that little Barack would one day become President. Or maybe the whole State government, the government of Kenya, the Democratic Party, the newspaper and al-Queda were into it.

He would still have been a liar, a man who started a war under pretense that were later proved unfounded, who botched the war, who presided over an attack on the individual freedoms of his fellow citizens, and who gave his sanction to torture. Unless you want to argue that a Black president would have been more decent :lol: