CANADIEN

Speaking to yourself, i see

If Betelgeuse is 600 light-years away, aything we see now has already happened... 600 years ago.

Stetement by the Director of the Department of Health of the State of Hawaii Case closed

You got it in reverse. It has never been proven in a court of law or by any federal agency that Barack Obama did not meet the requirements to become a President of the United States, or that he made public a forgery. In fact, each and every case submitted to courts to invalidate his election has been thrown out or is in the process of being thrown out. BY LAW, a certification of life birth produced by the State of Hawaii is legal proof of the veracity of the information it contains. Courts can not reject it unless it is proven that it has been issued fraudulently, that it is a forgery, that the process for recording all births or issuing all certified copies does not meet certain standards, or that the form used in all cases does not contain sufficient information. Similarly, a federal agency cannot reject any birth certification submitted to it, unless in one of the cases above.

Not only has Obama provided the proof already, but since he is accused by the nutjobs of having issued a forgery and.or occupying the Office of the President of the United states illegally, it is up to THEM to prove their allegations, not the other way aroiund. The non-sense in that paragraph has been debunked months ago in another thread. You will never learn.

Under the U.S. Constitution, all matters not specifically delegated to the federal government belong to the State or the people. Registration and certification of births is not mentioned in the Constitution, therefore it is a State issue. Certifications of live birth issued by the State of Hawaii are accepted on face value by federal authorities so, unless there is reasonable ground to believe that a federal crim has been committed, the issue is, by law, strickly a State one. Needless to say, the FBI has not seen fit to investigate the issue.

Too bad that I cannot find the link anymore, but apparently one of the FAILED court actions against Obama stated as proof of a conspiracy that his grandmother was a witch who had put a curse on George W. Bush so that people would hate him ;-)

How often must it be repeated that has HAS produced a VALID document and that he has no obligation to produce another document, which in any case the State of Hawaii will not issue. So of course he wil defend himself against frivolous lawsuits. To do otherwise would be legal suicide.

Actually, the requirement is that the person be a "natural born citizen" (that is, born a citizen), be at least 35 year old, and has lived in the United states for at least 14 years. Nothing in there about place of birth. the text from the National Archives and Records Administration's website The requirement that the mother had lived for a certain period of time in the US if the father is a foreigner applied at that time only if the child had been born outside of the U.S. As a result of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in U.S. vs Won Kim Ark, 1898 (link), any child born in the U.S. is a noatural born citizen, regardless of the citizenship status of the parents (exception: foreign diplomatic personnel and agents, or members of hostile foreign occupying forces).

deleted

Thank you for proving my point. Even though the terminology used by the Hawaii Department of Home lands differ a little from the pne used in the State statutes and by the Department of Health (the Department responsible for Vital statistics records, what they say will serve my purpose just fine. That department will accept either a certificate (long form) issued shortly after the birth, or a certification which the ONLY certified copy of the birth record the State will now issue. Clearly, if the Department of Home Land thought the informaton on a certification was not sufficient or was less of a proof, they would not accept it. Also, the Hawaii Department of Health's website states: As already determined, the only certified copies the State of Hawaii will issue is title "Certification of Life Birth". Clearly, the Department of Health would not be issuing only a document that is insufficient to meet requirements for passport, Social Security, driver licenses, etc. In other words, the idea that a certified copy of a birth record (no matter how it is called) is incomplete unless physician information is included is based on what people wants thing to be, not on what they actually are.

Look at the ethnic originis of the few people (less than two dozens) who have committed those crimes. To my knowledge, Middle-Eastern and South Asian origins only.

They're murders. And you are a troll.

By birth certificate, you mean a document issued by the government providing information from the original record, right? Gotta ask, becasue terminology varies by jurisdiction, and because so many people don't even have a clue as to what document they're talking about. Parents forget to request one (interesting tidbit here: in Ontario, parents have to request the registration of the birth AND for a certified copy of the record (known in Ontario as a certificate - they don't ask for a certificate, they don't get it). People send the certificate and they forget to ask for it to be sent back, or it is not returned (interesting tidbit: Canadian passport offices will return your request if you photocopy the certified copy you have received as a toddler; they want that one, or another certified copy issued more recently -- they rightly view both as valid, and btw THEY will return them with the passport). People lose them in fires, accidents, theft, or simply because their place is a mess. Which is EXACTLY why all jurisdiction will re-issue another certified copy on request of the person whose birth is documented on the original registration. The format may change overtime, the title on it may change overtime, what information is transcribed on it may change overtime. It still have the same legal value whether it was issued three weeks after the birth or more than 40 years later.

And you source of information is? Got to ask. Because the actual laws (which I have quoted) distinguish between a certification (the document issued on request) and the certificate (the original record of the birth as kept by the Government). Bizarre, the law does.

An apt description for your drivel. who is saying that? Nobody. But, unlike you, I don't feel the need to be paranoid. That a person, a family, a large section of family even thinks that honour justifies murder does not make it honourable. And it is EXACTLY because there is no honour in it that those who would condone it must be told "you are wrong". Are you saying that there's honour in it? That's what an apologist would say. Or, in your case, someone who has given up his capacity to think because it clashes with his hatred. I am saying there is nothing honourable in them. In the end, it is murder indeed. That a significant proportion of people in some Muslim societies think otherwise makes that crime even more heinous, no doubt about. Murder is still murder. Those who commit it are to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Those who condone it are to be told they are wrong, And so do those who put number out of proportion, would have us treat each and every Muslim on this planet as "guilty until proven innocent", and who feed the flames of hatred and prejudice. To use your "logic", those who would say "acts of domestic violence in Western societies are just irrational", thus ignoring that archaic views on women are still held by some in our societies, are apologists for batterers and abusers. Obviously, they're not.

Call the tactics of the Tamil protesters anything you want. including illegal. Which they were at times, indeed. You are of course welcome to show images of their RIOTS on the streets of ottawa and Toronto. Further, last time I checked, neither Tamils nor Sikhs belonged to the Islamic faith. I say that "honour" killings exist in some Muslim society but not in others, and you ask a stupid question like that? There is no honour in those murders. Hence my use of brackets.

You mean the "right out of their mind". This will prove to be a gift for the Democrats and a nightmare for Republicans. They align themselves with the morons, they risk losing the votes of people who have no time to waste with such idiocy. They shun them, and they lose their votes. Perhaps there is an Obama conspiracy after all... create the false story around his alleged Kenyan birth to put the Republican in disarray.

Better question still. Why is it that a document that constitute legal proof of his birth in Hawaii not good enough? I'll be generous here. I'll assume that it is your hatred of Barack Obama that causes you to be unable to think logically on that one.

I still shudder at the thought of all those billions of dollars their rioting caused the City of Toronto when the Ontario Government wisely decided against religious bodies, Muslim or otherwise, getting involved in arbitration on civil law matters. Let's start with... You know of course, that "honour" killing occurs mostly in some Muslim societies, and not in others. It seems to be virtually unknown in Eastern Africa, South East Asia, Albania or in Muslim population in the Russian Federation, for example. You know that, right?

I believe it's a she, but in any case that doctor made that statement in his/her capacity as Head of the Hawaii Department of Health, the branch of the State government responsible for the vital statistics systems and records.

Now you would have us believe that you believe in equality for all?

There are various categories of murders depending on the circuumstances and the intent (btw, yes I know nobody died in this case). Manslaughter is not homice. So the motive already plays a role in the determination of what someone should be accused of. No difference here.

One of our neighbours had a feud with about everyone of oour neighbour. After she moved out, nobody in the neighbourhood had a feud with the new neighbour. Those whose mtovation is racism do not stop because they're dealing with a new person of the hated group. That's the difference.

He's implying a lot more than that Be surprised. Stormfront did not cross my mind. Why would I want or try to shut him up? He's a constant source of comic relief Him being about half right once in a blue moon does not hide the absurdity of his ideology. Even George Bush had a good idea once in a while