Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Hawaii Considers Unconstitutional Law To Silence 'Birthers'

Story here.

Hawaii is desperate to protect the man it believes is its native son.  It's considering unconstitutional (I believe) and totalitarian legislation to ignore questions by the People.

Who decides whether a question is legitimate, anyway?  Can they just deem it illegitimate whenever they prefer?
The issue coincides with Sunshine Week, when news organizations promote open government and freedom of information.

"Do we really want to be known internationally as the Legislature that blocked any inquiries into where President Obama was born?" asked Rep. Cynthia Thielen, R-Kaneohe-Kailua. "When people want to get more information, the way to fuel that fire is to say, 'We're now going to draw down a veil of secrecy.'"

(...)

Attorney Peter Fritz asked why the state would pass a law punishing repetitive requests for open records. Instead, the state could simply say it would only answer each person's question once.

If the measure passed, the state Office of Information Practices could declare an individual a "vexatious requester" and restrict rights to government records for two years.
Hmm. Makes me think of totalitarianism, the way they want to treat people who ask questions.

If passed, the law will only set a dangerous precedent.

For Leftists, they must realize that the same law would allow non-Leftist governments to ignore Leftists' questions, whether legitimate or not. Is this a risk they want to take?

Hawaii has claimed that they have Obama's REAL, ORIGINAL, AUTHENTIC, GENUINE, LONG-FORM, COMPLETE birth certificate.

But Obama himself has directed that no one be permitted to see it, even though millions want to see it so as to be satisfied that he actually meets the Constitution's Eligibility Clause requirements to be eligible to be President.

To date, no one has ever provided valid proof that this is the case.

There's a widespread urban legend that it's proven.  But the funny thing is that no one offers any proof and simply says that anyone who wants to see proof is some kind of a nut or something.

Weird.  The President could be an impostor, a criminal, an usurper.

Yet The People aren't allowed to know for sure that he's the real deal under the Constitution of the United States of America!


*Sigh*... I should mention to those who might assert that Obama's "birth certificate" was shown to us all, well, sorry, but that's actually false.

The "Certification of Live Birth" (COLB) uttered by the Obama Campaign propagandists during the election... that's just a condensed, electronically-generated document that, at the time of Obama's claimed birth, was issued by Hawaii for babies BORN ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, even though the birth was "registered" in Hawaii.  Understand?  Those leftist "fact-check" websites either don't, or they do, and they're lying through their teeth, acting as propagandist pawns.

5 comments:

Kez Creates said...

I suppose even though so many people say 'it doesn't matter' and give me a funny look if I bring up this issue, it annoys me because I had to show my childrens' birth certificates in order to put them in SCHOOL - something they are supposed to have the 'right' to. I have a different last name so the idea was to prove that I am really their mom and legally allowed to be their primary caregiver, etc etc... so I brought the papers in. I felt slightly offended that my kids' files were 'red flagged' until I brought in proof, but I understood the legal and valid need for it (because so many children are kidnapped and no one asks important questions, and that should not happen in this day and age!). I brought in their papers, they were photocopied for proof, and then I went home. All done. The end...... but I had to do that for little kids who had the right to an education, were using the publicly funded system, and here down south of the border is a man who was elected President of the United States but does not want to show his birth certificate? WTH is up with that? I don't get it, and that's why it irritates me - legality issues aside.

Anonymous said...

Apparently it’s easier to kidnap a country. Let’s see we’ve got an Amber alert. Yep what we need is a F_A_S_C_I_S_T__A_L_L_E_R_T!!!!!!!

∞ ≠ ø ☺

Montana said...

In my opinion this is what the small portions of the republican party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” have brought you. They are good at “Follow the Leader” of their dullard leaders, they listen to Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush and Savage and the rest of the Blowhards. Are you surprise at what they do when you know what they think? The world is complicated and most republicans (Hamiliton, Lincoln, Roosevelt) believe that we should use government a little to increase social mobility, now its about dancing around the claim of government is the problem. Although most republicans are trying to distant themselves from this fringe they have a long way to go. And as they said in WACO "We Ain't Coming Out".

Anonymous said...

"Montana" has used her scissors again to cut and paste the identical banal leftist commentary into a discourse on the legitimacy of the sitting president. This thread has nothing to do with the use of government to promote social mobility (an entirely liberal precept) nor does it in any way invite a comparative slur between conservative politics and the historic difficulties of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. In doing so Montana uses metaphor to suggest that staunch conservatives are like Branch Davidians and people like “Montana” are... the FBI. How odd is that? Let's be clear. The commenter “Montana” is the problem here. ∞ ≠ ø ☺

Canadian Sentinel said...

Well said, Anon 7:02.

Kez, you got it right- why should everyone except Obama have to prove they are who they claim to be?

Why is it that we're admonished that we'd better toe the line and accept that Obama's eligibility is beyond question, but we still have to bend over backwards just for something little? I mean, Obama's the most powerful guy in the world (after his puppetmasters, that is), and HE doesn't have to prove he has legal, legitimate business in that position? It's so bizarre that I can see historians using all sorts of adjectives to describe the insanity that's going on, even amongst folks like Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, who claim that there's "nothing to see here, folks... don't be a crank", while themselves failing, uncharacteristically, to offer evidence to make their case. The mass delusion is obviously THAT difficult to resist...