If you wish to argue about evidence, or about statements that I actually made, that’s reasonable debate. But to toss out insults over statements that I made only in your imagination — well, come on, it’s no wonder that so few take you seriously.

The dishonest, sleazy rant was yours. Apologies to Jack.

You need another hobby.

LOL

Yes, I am ‘correct in stating “no one born in Hawaii since 2001 has been issued anything but a Certification of Live Birth, which is now the only form of official Birth Certificate the State of Hawaii will give anyone, even a newborn.”‘ That’s obvious to anyone who has done a little research — well, most people call it research; you call it “parrot[ing] the Hawaii website”!

So, yes, your statement that “You couldn’t get a child signed up for Little League with a short form birth certificate in America today” was a flat-out lie.

So what do you do? You list a bunch of statements that I never made — “do you now deny [something I never said]?” “are you going to say [something I never said]?” “Are you still saying [something I never said]?” — and bellow and bluster as if I had said them.

Nice try, Jack. Another dishonest, sleazy rant, just as we’ve been seeing all along.

Arthur B., are you going to say, the government of the state of Hawaii, has destroyed all historical paper and microfiche records created prior to 2001?

Arthur B., the government of the state of Hawaii, has attested to the existence of long form birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama II, in their custody. Are you still saying, a certified copy of that vital statistic record cannot be produced under subpoena and presented in a court of law or to the US Congress?

Arthur B. are you that hard core stupid?

I did not say that a child could get into Little League by referring officials to an online photograph of a document, or that one could get into Little League with an altered document. In fact, nowhere have I said that an online document image was proof of anything. Those are all sleazy, dishonest strawman arguments that you have created in your desperation.

What you said — and it’s still up there for all to see in #272 — was a lie:

“You couldn’t get a child signed up for Little League with a short form birth certificate in America today.”

As I pointed out to you, no one born in Hawaii since 2001 has been issued anything but a Certification of Live Birth, which is now the only form of official Birth Certificate the State of Hawaii will give anyone, even a newborn.

As I said last week (in #273),

“Either no one under the age of 9 is playing Little League in Hawaii (or getting a passport!), or you are a bald-faced, shameless liar.”

What I said about the Little League is not a lie and I will not retract it. What follows is my explanation why I stick to this statement.

As for the Little League heightening their requirements, this was the result of a scandal or two in NY years ago where an older teen Willie Bonilla (he went on to play in the major leagues) was falsely entered into a team and later the championship tournament where his false age papers, i.e., he was a “ringer,” became a national issue. Since then the Little League greatly tightened its standards of proof. Granted, I’m not an attorney and I don’t have a child applying for Little League membership and thus have relied on news reports and anecdotal tales of fathers (based on their screen names) posting on the web that they had to furnish high levels of proof for their children to enter the Little League. And even though the official written standards may be looser, the head of a Little League program in each individual area/town may install stricter standards than the official ones, be it with or without the national Little League organization’s agreement.

Your argument is based on the assumption that “the map is the territory,” i.e., if something exists in official standards on paper, then every community will enforce the standards uniformly. Life is not conducted on paper – only court cases are. The parent of a child most likely does not have the time and the money to take the local Little League to court if the local officials demand long form birth certificates rather than short form ones. And the national Little League has their high standards of proof which didn’t exist years ago because they fear another Willie Bonilla scandal in the the national and international press (the final championship tournament often includes a team from Taiwan), as well as the organization truly wanting the competition to be fair for children of the same age category.

The posted on the internet birth certificate of Barack Obama had the numbers blanked out, as if people were going to go around claiming they were Barack Obama by copying them. You touted this certificate as “proof.” Whereas I have no absolute proof that this is a settled matter proving Obama is not a citizen, a certificate with blanked out numbers does not constitute proof that he is a citizen.

Still, it’s noteworthy that you haven’t yet retracted the lie you told a few days ago (#272) —

“You couldn’t get a child signed up for Little League with a short form birth certificate in America today.”

What’s the problem? Are you still standing by your lie?

But this is secondary. American Thinker reports today, via the NY Daily News, in a blog piece called Reigning in Eric Holder:

White House officials have told the Justice Department to consider other venues for the 9/11 terror trial that was to be held in lower Manhattan, the Daily News has learned. The decision came after Mayor Bloomberg and other politicians across the state railed against President Obama’s plan to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Manhattan Federal Court.
END OF QUOTE

Since I live in NY, the end of the trial increases my personal physical safety. Even Sen. Schumer and Mayor Bloomberg came out against the KSM trial in NY. THIS is the main issue to me. Orly Taitz and the Little League are tertiary in comparison. Excuse me, Arthur B, for changing the subject to my own physical safety and those of my fellow New Yorkers. And if you don’t excuse me, too bad.

Michelle Malkin reports about the current trial in Manhattan of jihadi woman scientist Aafia Siddiqui, an MIT trained scientist. She – Siddiqui – has been removed from the courtroom for her outbursts. Among the things she insists on is that jurors be DNA tested to make sure they have no Jewish or Israeli “blood.” She also screamed out loud during testimony by a US Army officer. A man in a white headdress appeared in court and made a pistol image with his hand and pointed it at two jurors, staring at them. The two jurors were then allowed to leave the case. This is the type of thing a KSM trial would bring about. And Siddiqui has no al Jazeera coverage. Yes, this is more of my “changing the subject” – to the real issues at hand.