Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (31736)	1/23/2009 1:03:54 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: "The original stored in a vault is irrelevant to the discussion" Why? Wouldn't the original be the ONLY DOCUMENT that mattered? (Since NONE of the Web-posting Wingnuts would EVER believe anything other than the original. Hell... they probably wouldn't believe the original either... it would just be 'on to the next conspiracy theory!' So, why even waste time with copies? :-) Re: "because the state has never revealed what is on it." That is because the State must OBEY the LAW. And Hawaii has a data privacy law on the books. However - without violating the law - State officials have visited the data vault and confirmed that the original Hawaii-issued birth certificate is in the State's possession, and in the data vault where it is supposed to be. (As you are already aware.... <g>) Re: "The fact remains that nobody but Obama and a couple state employees know what it says. Is it just embarrassing? Last name Soetero? First name listed as Barry? Father listed as unknown? Is it problematic? Religion listed as Muslim? Is it undefinitive? Claimed to be born in Hawaii but no medical records?" Nope.... HERE'S the REAL CONSPIRACY SCOOP: The Hawaiian birth certificate mentions "immaculate conception" and "E.T."!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, the HORROR! The HORROR! <GGG>

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (31736)	1/23/2009 2:44:29 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 71588

Anything you list as embarrassing or problematic obviously wouldn't disqualify Obama. "Undefinitive" wouldn't either. "Born outside of the US by a citizen who had not lived in the US for five years after the age of 18" - might, but even if that is the case (and I see no reason to think it is), it wouldn't be a clear cut disqualification. There was a law at the time granting citizenship, where the 5 year requirement is mentioned, but I'm pretty sure the law doesn't use the phrase naturally born. If someone can link to and/or quote the relevant law I'd appreciate it. Someone did post it to me with a link, but I can't find it now.