Where were all the republican candidates born?

There is only ONE legitimate republican candidate in the race, and he was born in USSR. are you halucinating about the imbeciles on the establishment media? oh, sorry.

 

Talking about birth certificates, I lost mine damit.

 

Lol.............................

 

So let's see all the long forms for the republican candidates! Surely they'll end the controversy before they get elected, won't they?

 

Nah, I'm just asking a question. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm not claiming that Rick Santorum was born in Antarctica or that Newt Gingrich's birth certificate looks like it was made on the wrong typewriter. I'm not asking a question and then supplying my own answers, I'm not starting up a conspiracy theory, I'm not attacking just for the sake of attacking.

I'm just asking a question.

 

You could say that. But that would mean you give up the birther argument and the liberal position (as you describe it) was right all along.

Is that the case? Are you agreeing with the liberals as you see them?

 

Little bit.

You can't possibly expect us to just take your word for that, can you? 'Cause I heard once on the internet that someone else heard on the internet that Mitt Romney's grandmother once said he was born in Canada. Let's see birth certificates! Mountains of 'em! Long form, short form, braille and the audiobook version! I want blood samples! Stool samples! Soil samples! I want somebody's pinky toe as proof!

 

Prove that he was born in the USSR! What if he was actually born in America, wouldn't there be egg on your face?

 

Ha! A likely story.

(Man, that's rough. I had to go find mine once and I thought I had lost it and it was a nightmare.)

 

This is a too complicated of a question, but I have better takes of my recent speech, wait till I re edit it. change is coming.

 

Where were all the republican candidates born?

They weren't born - they were sploshed unchanged out of the Primal Soup.

 

Not all slime sploshed from the soup became Repubs...

 

I can only go by what I see and read. Here is suppose to be a phone call talking with his grandmother.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlFc4wCpvSo"]Obama Grandmother audio: Barack Born in Kenya - YouTube[/ame]

 

Okay- great. From your posts, I think you are a serious commentator and actually think about this stuff.

Did you listen to the conversation? I have....and to me, it is quite clear that McRae has an agenda- he is 'leading the witness' as Perry Mason might say.

But what is dishonest about that clip is that it is edited so that we do not hear the entire conversation.

First of all- because I think that knowing bias is important is to know something about "Bishop McRae" who makes these claims. McRae is the self appointed Bishop of a church he founded, which is not that important. What is relevant is that he was vehemently opposed to Obama, most likely over abortion.

here is an article from an admitadly anti-Birther website- but if you are willing to accept a Birther Youtube video, then you should be willing to review this article and decide for yourself:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/sarah-obama-speaks/

Mr. Doudna writes:

The full tape transcription makes clear that this phone conversation has not been represented accurately. There never was a statement by Sarah Obama at any point in this phone call saying or intending to say that Barack Obama Jr. was born in Kenya. Sarah Obama herself said that Obama was born in Hawaii and never said differently. There was a confusion over the meaning of where Mrs. Obama was “present” when Obama was born in Hawaii, but not over whether Obama was born in Hawaii. The Berg lawsuit affidavit transcript quotes a portion of the phone call in which, according to the Berg transcript, Sarah Obama answered that she was “present” when Obama was born (actually others speaking for Mrs. Obama, not Mrs. Obama, may have given that particular answer). But the Berg transcript omits the rest of the phone call which shows the sense intended was not that Barack Obama Jr. was born in Kenya, but rather that Mrs. Obama was present in Kenya when Barack Obama Jr. was born in Hawaii.



The full version of the tape has been available here on Obama Conspiracy Theories for some time. Now the full, unedited transcript of that conversation is available here and it says in no uncertain terms that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii!


Ron McRae
MCRAE: OK I’m sorry. I, I thought she said she was present when he was born. I was–”
TRANSLATOR OGOMBE (sounding exasperated): No, no! The, the woman was not present. She was uh not, a what–you see, she was here in Kenya, and Obama was born in America. That is, that’s obvious.

Read the article and listen to the full transcript. And ask yourself- why did McRae not publish the entire transcript, but instead a highly editted version?

 

I did just find this where they claim this minister didn't play all the confersation which later shows that he was told he was born in the US.

FACT: Salon Reported That The Full Audio Of The Interview Indicates That McRae Was Told "Over And Over Again, That Obama Was Born In The U.S." In a December 5, 2008, War Room post, Salon.com's Alex Koppelman similarly noted that the full audio of the interview indicates that McRae was told "over and over again, that Obama was born in the U.S.":


During the interview, which was conducted through a translator by a street preacher named Ron McRae, Sarah Obama does in fact say she was present. But it's clear that there was a mistranslation, because as soon as McRae very excitedly starts to try to get additional details, the people on the other end of the line realize what's happened and say, over and over again, that Obama was born in the U.S.

 

So it would seem that what people heard was that he was born in Kenya. They just didn't hear the rest of it. So you can understand why they believed that.

 

Here is where they get the birth record contraversy


d by Mijgreb on Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:00:00 AM

Generally, folks don't know that Hawaii law, even in 1961, provided for multiple kinds of birth records, most of which are not what people think of when they think of birth certificates. The following is a description of those, including certificates for people not born in Hawaii. Go figure!

1. In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were three different birth certificates that were obtainable:
a. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
b. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or mid wife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, an adult could, upon testimony, file a “Delayed Certificate”, which required endorsement on the Delayed Certificate of a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing, which evidence must be kept in a special permanent file. The statute provided that the probative value of the Delayed Certificate must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. (See Section 57-18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
c. If a child born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult including the subject person) if the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
2. In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fourth kind of birth certificate for children born outside of the Territory or State of Hawaii. HRS Chapter 338 was amended to add a new section authorizing the Director of the Department of Health to issue a birth certificate for a person NOT born in Hawaii either as a Territory or State, upon sufficient proof that the legal parents of such individual had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth of such child.
3. The language of the statute clearly applies to births in the days of the Territory of Hawaii, so also births in 1961. 4. A press release concerning numerous questions raised across the country as to whether or not Obama was a natural born citizen was issued on October 31, 2008 by the Hawaii Department of Health by its Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino.
5. In that very carefully worded press release, Dr. Fukino said that she had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
6. The intentional ambiguity of that statement raises more questions that it answered.
7. That statement failed to resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation across the country over the issue of Obama’s birth and qualifications for the office of the President of the United States, including:
a. The specific type of certificate was not identified. Could it be the certificate for someone born outside of the State of Hawaii?
b. Being “on record” could mean either that its contents are in the computer database of the department or an actual “vault” original. If the latter, those are the words used to describe what is there. The data base record could have been entered based on a birth record for someone born outside of Hawaii.
c. Therefore, the value as prima facie evidence is limited and easily overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained and verified with a Court Order.
8. It should also be noted that in the face of all this litigation, the simple presentation of Obama’s vault birth records would put the questions to rest.
9. Obama has not taken this approach to a single one of the cases, but instead has hired legal counsel across the country at no small expense to defend the claims with motions to dismiss on standing and similar procedural grounds.
10. Such response to the request for proof that he is qualified to serve as President of the United States of America only serves to raise more questions about this election.


http://mijgreb.blogtownhall.com/200...ds_of_birth_records_does_hawaii_provide.thtml

 

I could find nothing that confirms or denies this

 

Oh I agree- that was confusing in 2009- but it has been debunked for over 2 years now- and Birther Blogs continue to post that misleadingly editted version.

So think about this- what is the motivation of people who run websites which post such misleading material, knowing it is not the truth?

 

So again I go to Obamaconspiracy- and look at their analysis

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/not_born_in_hawaii/#foreign

The claim:

Hawaii allows residents to register foreign-born infants as being born in Hawaii:

Hawaiian Law §338-17.8 says:

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… [L 1982, c 182, §1]

The law cited preceding did not exist until its passage in 1982 (the “L 1982&#8243 , 21 years after Barack Obama’s birth registration on August 8, 1961.

Conspiracy theorists suggest that some similar law may have existed before 1982, but this is not true. When Hawaiian law is amended, the previous laws and dates are included in the citation and there is no previous law citation above. In addition, examination of the 1959 code shows no such provision.

But most importantly Marine-

Look at the 'long form BC' that Obama released last April. It clearly shows the name of the hospital and name of the deliverying doctor. This BC has been verified by the State of Hawaii- google "hawaii health department obama" and it will take you right there.

No matter what the law was in Hawaii- it would not allow for issuing a BC with a false hospital and doctors name on it.

This myth is really one started before the long form was released, and was an attempt to raise doubts by suggesting the possibility that the short form was concealing his fraudulant home birth or birth outside the country.

 

That it has, but you still have it. What gets me, is that this minister only putting out part of what was told him and not the corrected version he heard. You don't expect that coming from a minister.

But you get so many lies and half truths in the paper, television and especially on the Internet. People on both sides want to win so badly, they will lie their ass off. Mostly, they tell only half the truth so to make you believe it all.

 

The long form is what they were asking for to show the hospital he was born in. It usually shows the doctor who attended the birth. which Obama refused to release until Trump said he would get it. There was no need to go through all that if Obama just put it out a couple of years earlier.

They are not saying a simular law existed before 1982. They are saying it would still cover those born before 1982, if they chose to ask for one.

 

I have argued this point from both sides for over a year on THC. I have never said he wasn't born in Hawaii. But I have said many times people had an excuse to doubt it with what was said. I think I have shown that. I have also said from the other side, the notice of his birth was in the news paper and I don't know how Birthers can get around that.

 

Two things- again- if you feel that 'there was no need to go through all that' then- what is the excuse now? He released the long form 9 months ago, and Birthers are still passing this myth around. Your point was marginally valid up until April 2011, but you aren't really arguing that this is a valid point now are you?

And the second part- is again- that argument predates the release of the long form- which clearly shows the hospital and signature. Do you really think that is still a valid reason to raise the argument- especially since the State of Hawaii has officially confirmed its authenticity?

 

Did you ever go read what the State of Hawaii says?

Unless you are into conspiracy theories, the State of Hawaii debunks all of those claims with their very simple statement that they checked the original BC and they have it, and it shows that he was born in Hawaii.