False FlagFollow

You know what you failed to do? Link the legal failures of the lawsuits to "The Left" since you seem intent on blaming their failings on anyone but the Birther movement.

Source.

That's not a discharge, though. It's a revocation. That kind of thing takes time, considering position you volunteered for now needs to be filled with a replacement before you can get out of the deployment and a complete dick move, but that's standard. His obituary says he was a LTC, so he was promoted at least once more after this. That doesn't sound right either. He was a Major at the time, so he couldn't have possibly just joined. Especially the reserves.

I mean, I don't doubt the possibility that Cook volunteered to deploy just to use it as a platform to make noise about the birth certificate. Just that a lot of words are being misused here and it's throwing me off.

If there is a conspiracy anywhere, and ignoring the part where he contacted Orly (the Owl just doesn't really sound verifiable enough for my tastes), it is pretty suspicious to volunteer to deploy five months after the inauguration of the guy you claim is also the reason you shouldn't have to deploy for in the first place.

Funny story about that. I got into a discussion at work with a couple co-workers about this very issue (Obama's long form birth certificate). One of them made some kind of claim that it was such a burden and whatnot to obtain one, or have one available (it's not btw). I argued that it wasn't, and frankly everyone should have this important document available, just in case. He did the same kind of thing, asking if I had one (presumably assuming I didn't). Unknown to him, just a couple years earlier, I'd gone through the passport process for business travel, which required me to get my long form certificate, and while I was at the town records hall, I spent the extra $10 to get a second copy for myself. Since I'd been doing this in conjunction with the work travel, I'd tossed that second copy in my desk drawer at work.

So yeah. He got a pretty red face, when I just turned, opened the drawer, and after about 5 seconds of rummaging through papers there, pulled out my full long form birth certificate, complete with official seal.



EDIT: Missed part of what you are saying. The one you get at the county courthouse *is* the long form birth certificate. That's the exact document that was being requested. That's all he had to provide. You can google for images of the form Obama eventually released. Pay particular attention to the difference between the "certificate of live birth" and the "certification of live birth". The latter was the form originally released. Which provides some, but not all of the information. It's basically a short form that sufficient for many purposes, but not for full identification. The long form is the form you get when you go to the court house. That's really all that was being asked, and as soon as he finally provided it, the issue went away. Well, aside from a very very small number of nutters, but they're less numerous than people who think the moon landing was faked, so I think we can safely ignore them. We certainly should not paint their position as being in any way typical of most conservatives, or even "many" conservatives.

Seriously. It's not that difficult. You go to the court house or hall of records in the city you were born. You provide your name, date of birth, and mothers maiden name (and a small fee), and they print you out an official sealed certificate in like 5 minutes. The idea that this would be at all burdensome to provide, or that it's some kind of bizarre legal request (judges order vital records for examination all the time), is just plain absurd. I still to this day can't understand why the first judge in the first case didn't just make a bit of history and put his name in the book as the judge who set precedent as to how one can legally pass the "natural born citizen" requirement in the constitution.

Instead, every single one of them chose to dismiss on standing, not merit. Which is basically not saying "we don't think there's any evidence that he's not a natural born citizen", nor even "we think the evidence you're asking for isn't relevant to determining if he's a natural born citizen". Dismissing on standing is telling the plaintiff "You have no right or reason to know whether this person is a natural born citizen, or meets that requirement". In other words, it does not matter how much or how little evidence or question there is about someone's natural born citizenship status. None of us have a right to challenge the issue. Period. Not when the person is running. Not during a transition. And not even after inauguration.

The person could clearly be a foreign national, with no citizenship at all, and every judge just told us that as long as the people vote for him and elect him, you have no standing to complain. That's a *huge* problem IMO. It basically says that the natural born citizen requirement in the constitution is completely unenforceable. Which is a problem.



You can't get a passport. In most states, you can't get your first drivers license or state ID card (once you have one, and are in the system, it's no longer required). Not sure if it's required at some point in the process of obtaining a Social Security number, but it might (I think it used to at least, because I remember my mom having to obtain them to get us kids SSNs. Today, I think they just like hand them out at birth or something). Point is that at some point in your life, you probably had to have obtained this, and used it.

It's just not that difficult to get it. So why balk for like 2.5 years on this? Obama did it because it was politically valuable to do so. As soon as it ceased to be so, he just handed it over, right? Could have saved a lot of time and trouble.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 4:15pm by gbaji

If the standard is that people's cases should be thrown out because they contrived the conditions in which their case rests, we'd have to toss out a good portion of civil rights cases, including some pretty major landmark cases.

Requiring that people accept a presidents natural born citizenship as a condition to volunteer for the military and/or be deployed while in the military is pretty circular, right? By that argument, no one should complain if blacks are prohibited questioning something like segregation as a condition of serving in Congress, since... well... they didn't have to go through the trouble of running for office, right? Want to work at my company? You must be ok with our unfair hiring practices, since you didn't have to come work for us, right?

That's an... unworkable standard Joph. And you know it.

EDIT: Oh. And you're also failing to consider the fact that some people actually do want to serve their country in the military, and do actually want to be deployed to help out. Those people, presumably, have a right to make sure that the orders they're following are legitimate legal orders.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 4:03pm by gbaji

Uh huh. So he wanted to be deployed, but was refused the right to serve his country in this way because he had the temerity to ask for clear proof that the commander in chief, who's orders he would be following while in a combat zone, was qualified to hold the office and thus qualified to give those orders. Got it!

And that form has the name of the hospital and is signed by the doctor and witness. That's what was missing from the original electronically provided "certification" that Obama provided, and was precisely why it was not considered sufficient.

At the risk of rehashing an old argument, the reason this was at all relevant was because during the period of time that Obama was born in Hawaii, the state (having only been a state for just over a decade) has in place a method to apply for vital records "after the fact". So basically, anyone who was already a citizen of the state could sign that someone else was born in the state, and they would create vital records for that person that just filled in the data that was provided. This form would be different in the vital records than a long form certificate, would not have signatures from doctors from the hospital the person was born in (would not include any hospital information at all), but when transferred into the "certification" would contain the exact same data as one generated via a normal long form (so no way to tell which type of vital records were used to generate the certification).

The document provided originally could not be said to be conclusive proof that Obama was actually born in Hawaii. Only the full long form could do that, since it would contain unquestionable data provided, not by a third party after the fact, but filled out by licensed physicians at the time and place of birth.

That's why this actually mattered. Now, does that mean that most of us thought he wasn't born in the US? No. But it did mean that most of us did think that the best possible documentation should be used, not the weakest. And frankly that by using the weaker form of documentation, it was innately raising the question itself (why not start with the full form from day one and prevent even a question?). Obama literally created the issue (at least among most people) by choosing to put the electronic certification out there instead of a full form.

If someone provided a paper learners permit they obtained 20 years ago as proof that they are licensed to drive, it would be reasonable to demand that they provide an actual current license, complete with photo instead. Doing so in no way says that I don't believe that the person is actually licensed to drive, but rather than I don't believe the documentation provided is sufficient proof of that fact. It's not all or nothing here. Some of us (many of us, in fact) do believe that the correct documentation should be used, and were curious at what appeared to be a deliberate effort to use something less than complete.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 4:37pm by gbaji

You think that's what makes it a long form?

Huh.

Edit: In fact, I don't even care what you think. You lost. Sorry, you "Just asked questions" and lost. Go cry now that the mean liberals destroyed justice forever.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 6:39pm by Jophiel

You may be thinking of something sent home with your parents or something. That's not what we're talking about though.



No. the "long form birth certificate" is the full long form that's on file with your state. Period. That other additional documentation may have been provided to your parents, but not to the state is irrelevant. The full form the hospital fills out and puts into the states vital records is what we're talking about here.

It existed the whole time. Obama chose not to provide it the whole time. That's the entirety of the issue. Once he did, the issue went away. For most of us, it was not about what we personally believed about where Obama was born, but that we felt he had not provided sufficient information to verify that information. That's it. Really. It's no different than the guy carding you at the liquor store not accepting an expired license. He may totally personally believe that you're old enough, but you failed to provide the document that he's required to obtain to make the sale.

The difference here is that there are no hard rules for what is "required" to prove natural born citizenship. And the unfortunate upshot is that we now have multiple court rulings that essentially say "if the candidate and his party says they meet the conditions, then they do, and anyone who might question that just has to accept it". Which kinda seems problematic to me. Our courts had an opportunity to clarify and set good precedent on this area of law, and failed miserably. Now, we're basically back to "we have no rules, just whatever the loudest voices insist should happen". Which is never a good way to do things, regardless of which "side" you are on.

ALSO:

You're kinda missing the forest for the trees. Does the document you get from the county courthouse or hall of records contain the hospital you were born in and the signatures of the doctor and some other witness to that birth? If so, that's what was missing from the original document Obama released, which was present on the one he finally released after being asked for 2 and a half years.

You're getting caught up on labels and ignoring the content of the documents themselves. I thought I explained quite fully why one was sufficient to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii and was thus a natural born citizen, while the other did not.