Barack Obama Birth Certificate Controversy Heads to Supreme Court!!!11!1!1!!!!
All you conspiracy theorists who think Barack Obama isn’t really a U.S. citizen, take heart. The case challenging his citizenship is headed to the Supreme Court tomorrow, the Chicago Tribune reports.
I think anyone who puts any stock in this lawsuit is crazy. But that’s just me.
Why can’t he just produce the effing document?
Comment by Mossberg500 — 12/4/2008 @ 6:44 am
Why should he. My daughter was born overseas while I was stationed in Germany. Her mother was a British citizen and I’m American citizen. So you tell me she’s not an American citizen. This is all a bunch of B. S.
Comment by Keith Williams — 12/4/2008 @ 7:02 am
@Keith:
Because your daughter isn’t the president of the united states which carries a unique requirement that she must be a natural born citizen
Comment by Jonathan — 12/4/2008 @ 7:06 am
The Constitution sets a requirement of being a natural born citizen over the age of 35 to become president, but it includes no enforcement mechanisms at all. The president is chosen by the members of the Electoral College; if an absolute majority of the Electoral College decided to vote for a 17 year old Nepalese boy who spoke no English, had never set foot in the United States and was sympathetic to the Taliban, as long as the Congress certified the Electoral College’s votes, that 17 year olf Nepalese boy would become the next president of the United States, and there isn’t anything anyone could do about it.
Perhaps something more reasonable. There’s no enforcement mechanism for the 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to being elected to two terms. If the Electoral College voted for Bill Clinton to become president for a third term, and Congress certified the results, Bill Clinton would become president again. The only way to remove a sitting president is through impeachment and conviction.
The Framers naïvely thought that the Electors would never vote for someone who wasn’t qualified, or that anyone who wasn’t qualified wouold ever run for prersident. Rather, those genteel men thought that common sense would lead people to simply obey those clear restrictions, and they never bothered with any enforcement mechanisms.
Comment by The Dana who realizes that this is a thoroughly dead horse — 12/4/2008 @ 7:18 am
Okay Mr Prosecutor,
You, like me, took “Evidence” in LS. Why partake in ad hominem attacks by labelling those whose question BHO’s qualifications as “conspiracy theorists”, rather than demanding the “best evidence ” of his natural-born citizenship qualification?
Oh, that’s right, prosecutors don’t give a damn about evidence establishing the truth, only that evidence which aids in bolstering their own personal win-loss record in court!
Since you can’t score a precious personal win on this issue, you’re so very dismissive of those who want to know the truth!
Comment by Earl T — 12/4/2008 @ 7:21 am
You have the burden of proof, Earl T. What’s your best evidence that Obama is not a natural born citizen?
Comment by nk — 12/4/2008 @ 7:27 am
Someone who’s not a natural-born citizen cannot be President and therefore cannot be impeached:
“. . .if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly. . .”
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 12/4/2008 @ 7:41 am
I think this will need nowhere…BUT…why hasn’t an actual birth certificate ever been produced?
Comment by Fred — 12/4/2008 @ 7:44 am
Nk, I think since Obama has to prove he’s eligible to be President, the burden falls upon him.
I admit, I haven’t been following this issue (and I think those that are pursuing it are wasting their time), so it’s entirely possible Obama already offered evidence of his citizenship. If that’s the case, it’s up to Earl (wondering if his middle name is Grey) T to refute that evidence.
Comment by Steverino — 12/4/2008 @ 7:45 am
“…those genteel men thought that common sense would lead people to simply obey those clear restrictions…”
Comment by The Dana who realizes that this is a thoroughly dead horse — 12/4/2008 @ 7:18 am
I believe they were also relying on a sense of personal honor and morality that seems to be glaringly lacking in today’s politicians.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/4/2008 @ 7:52 am
Suppose we could prove absolutely that Oswald killed JFK by producing one document that would conclusively put the whole issue to rest, wouldn’t we just produce this document and hey presto all the wild conspiracy theories are no more.
Ditto the 9/11 attacks. The Moon Landing. And so forth.
I believe Oswald, acting alone, killed Kennedy. Al Qaeda carried out 9/11. And, yes, NASA put men on the moon.
I’m disposed to believe BO was born in Hawaii. This is not a complicated scenario like the ones mentioned above. It’s a single event. It is easily proved. A valid birth certificate is all that’s required. Obama has refused to produce one.
Why?
His failure to do so is the only thing driving the skepticism of the people demanding he do so. Any rational person is compelled to conclude that he does not possess such a document.
Therefore those who are pressing this issue are not “conspiracy nuts” a la the “Kennedy buffs” and 9/11 Truthers who construct elaborate contradictory scenarios of Rube Goldstein complexity that defy rationality and logic. They’re simply doing the job of the MSM in demanding openness and transparency of a politician. They’re asking him to show that what he claims for himself is true. This is not loony or kooky or bizarre in any way. It’s quite normal. It has only gotten this far bcos Obama has not done what anyone else in his position would have done long ago: produce his birth certificate!
It’s a birth cert. for God’s sake, not the Dead Sea scrolls. It’s on file. Somewhere. It’s a basic part of everybody’s documentation. Driving License. Security Number. Marriage Certificate. Divorce papers. They’re as basic as footwear. Or Chinese take-out. And as easy to produce - if you have them.
If I’m charged with driving without a license, do I refuse to produce it and allow the authorities to take me to court, all the while keeping it tucked away in my wallet? Absurd.
The bloggers on the right who dismiss all this as looniness and not worthy of serious consideration don’t want to be tarred by the Truther/Kennedy/I-was-abducted-by-aliens brush. Understandable. They refer to Snopes and Factcheck.org and so forth. They point to Obama’s Certication of Live Birth (which merely establishes that BO was born alive(!) not his Place of Birth) and an announcement of his birth in a Hawaiian newspaper (which proves somebody paid for an ad announcing he was born not his place of birth which is the crux of the matter). All these things are suggestive - straws in the wind - but they fall far short of establishing the truth.
The fact is that the longer this whole question drags on the more any normal person feels that there’s something to it, jawdropping as that prospect appears.
I’m not constructing a conspiracy theory here. I’m simply seeking clarification of a single fact: where did Madalyn Durham Obama give birth to her son? She had to do this in a particular place to the exclusion of all other possible places. If she did so in Hawaii this fact was registered in the appropriate way with the appropriate authorities in the State. If so there is a record of this in the appropriate archive. Let this be produced.
This is not an issue where we are obliged to take “sides”. It’s merely a question of fact which needs to be clarified. The demand that BO produce his Birth Certificate should not be treated as a sign that those making the demand are morons or lunatics or wierdos or last-ditch foaming at the mouth Rethuglicans. If the demand is reasonable - and who can credibly claim otherwise - then those making the demand are acting reasonably and their motives or politics or personal traits are neither here nor there.
In my view all bloggers - especially those, like Patterico, with influence - should join in the call for the President-Elect to set these legitimate concerns to rest by a simple act performed by so many people for so many reasons every day: produce the Certificate of his Birth.
Comment by liamascorcaigh — 12/4/2008 @ 7:55 am
I would tend to agree with Patterico except for the fact that, when I was an Administrative Law Judge, I found that, in most cases where I was offered testimony or a documentary substitute instead of easily obtained documents, there was good reason for the party being questioned to conceal the original document.
In more than one case, the party’s attorney stated that the document in question had never been received by the client. The client, ready to support the attorney’s statement, then produced all of the correspondence between the parties and said “Judge, this is all the mail that I have received from the government. Take a look - the disputed document was never received.”
Well, I looked and, guess what?, in more than half of the cases, I found the “missing” document.
I have been following this issue carefully and, like Mossberg, I wonder why the President-Elect has not produced the document in question instead of the substitute “Certificate of Live Birth.”
As an attorney, with many attorneys advising him, he should know enough to follow the “Best Evidence Rule.”
Comment by longwalker — 12/4/2008 @ 8:02 am
Unless I’m missing something, the Certification of Live Birth was issued by the State of Hawaii and lists Obama’s place of birth as Honolulu.
Case closed.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/13/bobirthcertificate.jpg
Comment by Steverino — 12/4/2008 @ 8:03 am
[...] inelligible for the Presidency (does Biden get it? McCain? a new election?), but I agree with Patterico here; there’s nothing to this. It’s nothing more than Obama opposers trying to find [...]
Pingback by The Great Obama Birth Certificate Brouhaha Heads To The Supreme Court | Conservative Insurrection — 12/4/2008 @ 8:10 am
They point to Obama’s Certication of Live Birth (which merely establishes that BO was born alive(!) not his Place of Birth)
Unless I’m missing something, the Certification of Live Birth was issued by the State of Hawaii and lists Obama’s place of birth as Honolulu.
Case closed. -Steverino
If that were so the case would indeed be closed but a Certification of Live Birth is not a Certificate of Live Birth. A Certification can be issued to anyone not born within the US. The Certificate of Live Birth on the other hand is a record of the birth itself at the time and place it occurred. It is Obama’s Certificate that is required. That is the authentic record.
Comment by liamascorcaigh — 12/4/2008 @ 8:16 am
Furthermore, I fail to see why this is even an issue. My understanding of the law is that if one (not both, but just one) of your parents is a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, you’re a natural-born U.S. citizen, no matter where in the world you were born. And especially so if you were born in the U.S., as Obama was. There’s no question, as far as I know, that Obama’s mother has always been a U.S. citizen.
Now, if it takes both parents to be U.S. citizens, then the case would be very different. But since that’s not how the law stands, I really don’t see why this lawsuit hasn’t been summarily thrown out.
The only mystery is why the heck Obama hasn’t simply produced his birth certificate. Especially now that the campaign’s over and there’s no way it could hurt him. If the document posted by Steverino in commetn #13 is genuine (and to my non-expert eyes it certainly appears to be genuine), then producing the document would put this whole thing to rest.
So given all that, why won’t he release the darn thing??? It should put this thing to rest in a heartbeat. The only explanation I can come up with that doesn’t descend into conspiracy-theory territory is that someone (maybe Obama himself, maybe someone on his staff) is unsure about immigration law and thinks that you need both parents to be U.S. citizens, and therefore that there might be a legitimate question about Obama’s citizenship. That’s not a very flattering scenario for Obama, since it would mean that he ran for President while not being certain of his qualifications for the office — but every other scenario I come up with turns utterly bizarre.
Comment by Robin Munn — 12/4/2008 @ 8:22 am
I’ve always assumed that the reason he didn’t produce the actual birth certificate was because it listed religion on it. The contemporaneous birth notification in the local newspaper tells me he that he was, almost assuredly, born there, so there had to be another explanation and that’s the simplest reason I can come up with that matches the known facts.
Comment by Skip — 12/4/2008 @ 8:32 am
Clarification of the difference between a Certification of Birth and a Certificate of Birth in Hawaii can be found at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/why_the_barack_obama_birth_cer.html, Scroll down to the paragraph marked 1. In fact read the whole thing.
Comment by liamascorcaigh — 12/4/2008 @ 8:35 am
You’re splitting hairs. The two are synonymous.
Did you look at the image I linked? It shows the following:
Date of Obama’s birth
Time of Obama’s birth
Place of Obama’s birth
Now you’re just looking foolish.
Comment by Steverino — 12/4/2008 @ 8:42 am
Thank you, Patterico, for putting those who think that this is actually going to amount to anything in their places. You’re wishing upon stars in a fictional galaxy if you think that the president-elect will be affected in any way by this garbage. McCain wasn’t born in America, Obama was. Who is an American citizen? Trick question! Both.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/4/2008 @ 8:44 am
The only reason I don’t put any stock in it is because if it were true, surely Hillary would have used it by now.
Comment by Jim Treacher — 12/4/2008 @ 8:57 am
Actually, McCain was born in the Canal Zone, which at the time was US territory.
I’ll have to check, but I don’t think Kenya had the same ststus when Barry was born
Comment by Fred — 12/4/2008 @ 8:59 am
Here we go again. Every time we lose an election, the nutjobs come swarming out from under their rocks. Remember evil black UN helicopters coming to take us away? How about the “Vice Foster was murdered!” crap? And in 2006, we got that nonsense about the North American superstate, or whatever it’s called.
I think we should put lithium in the water supply nationwide, for both sides of the fence, not just the moonbats.
Comment by rightwingprof — 12/4/2008 @ 9:01 am
I have to laugh at the Obama supporters who spin and spin.
A. If Obama has a birth certificate that documents not only when, but where he was born, why not produce it and end this.
B. The govenment of Kenya says that is sealing its records of Obama’s birth. If Obama was born in Hawaii, how the Hell would Kenya have records to be sealed????
C. How about some absolute clarification of the law in 1961 on citizenship of children born to one US citizen on foreign soil. I don’t think Obama qualifies as his mother was 19 or younger and not in the US for the required time.
Comment by PCD — 12/4/2008 @ 9:04 am
I am just happy that the Obama campaign has served as a model of transparency and disclosure over the past two years. Not the good kind of model, either. It’s been a model of deflection, delay, obfuscation, and denial. It’s not the way to create confidence in the country’s least experienced Presidential candidate ever, but for some reason his supporters don’t seem to mind.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/4/2008 @ 9:13 am
Who you calling an Obama supporter?
I just happen to know how these things work. A baby is born, the parents get a copy of the birth certificate signed by the attending physicians and the hospital administrators and a duplicate is sent to the whatever registry of vital statistics. Now if the original birth certificate that your parents got is around, you can take it to a notary who’ll Xerox it and certify it as a true copy. If it’s not, you go to the registry and they give you what they have. Before computers, it would have been a photostat off the microfiche. Now it’s a printout on fancy paper.
Comment by nk — 12/4/2008 @ 9:14 am
P.S. My daughter’s original birth certificate is locked away along with the piece of her umbilical cord that falls off after a while. When we travel, we carry a Certification of Live Birth from the County Clerk because it’s more official, and convenient, than a certified copy.
Comment by nk — 12/4/2008 @ 9:19 am
I think the whole issue is a bunch of crap. My question is: Why is the Supreme Court wasting the time, paper and ink it took to put the issue on the court’s docket for review? If there is nothing to it, there is nothing to it.
Comment by tmac — 12/4/2008 @ 9:27 am
You’re splitting hairs. The two are synonymous.
A Certification can be issued to anyone not born within the US.
The Certificate of Live Birth on the other hand is a record of the birth itself at the time and place it occurred. It is Obama’s Certificate that is required. That is the authentic record.
Did you look at the image I linked? It shows the following:
Date of Obama’s birth
Time of Obama’s birth
Place of Obama’s birth
Now you’re just looking foolish.
Comment by Steverino — 12/4/2008 @ 8:42 am
A birth certificate and a birth certification are not synonymous. Several individuals in my wife’s family do not have birth certificates, but rather certifications of birth. These individuals were not born in hospitals, but in order to be conferred with all the rights as a natural born citizen, and benefits thereof, there has to be some record that they were actually born.
This system does not definitively establish where the actual birth took place unless there witnesses to provide testimony. Hospitals, by law, are required to keep record of births.
Every birth certificate I’ve seen lists the doctor and hospital of the birth. It is the oficial record.
There has been a survey of ALL the hospitals in Hawaii. NONE have any record of Obama being born there…or any record of his mother being in one for any reason.
Hawaii regularly issues Certifications of Birth to foreign born children. Even the government there admits they have erred many times in doing so. Why they would do it? idon’t know, but I suspect that it has something to do with the fact that there are many in it’s population from Asis and it’s done just to avoid legal hassles.
The bottom line is that Obama claims to have been born in a hospital in Hawaii. Why doesn’t he just offer the proof and stop the legitimate inquiry?
Comment by Fred — 12/4/2008 @ 9:30 am
Here’s an interesting factoid that was posted over at Clayton Cramer’s blog.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/4/2008 @ 9:30 am
The Berg suit was not dismissed on merit,but rather because it was ruled that he did not have standing..meaning that he does not suffer legitimate harm.
If a US citizen does not have standing with regard to this constitutional issue, who does?
Comment by Fred — 12/4/2008 @ 9:44 am
The bottom line is that Obama claims to have been born in a hospital in Hawaii. Why doesn’t he just offer the proof and stop the legitimate inquiry?
Ain’t no judge gonna overturn the will of 52% of the electorate, YOU STUPID FUCKING MORONS!!!!!!!
Comment by nk — 12/4/2008 @ 9:48 am
Ain’t no judge gonna overturn the will of 52% of the electorate, YOU STUPID FUCKING MORONS!!!!!!!
Comment by nk — 12/4/2008 @ 9:48 am
Darn that Constitution anyhow!!!
Comment by Fred — 12/4/2008 @ 9:56 am
Shouldn’t you guys be spending your valuable time re-building the Republican party?
Seriously
I hope Obama wins in 2012 not just because I’m a Democrat, but also because it will be a good indicator that our country is doing well. If he’s going to lose to a Republican, I would like to know that you guys have gotten your act together and could fix the ills of Bush/Obama.
This kind of conspiracy talk doesn’t re-assure me.
(Friendly Advice)
Listen to our good blogger Patterico on this one:
I think anyone who puts any stock in this lawsuit is crazy. But that’s just me.
Comment by Oiram — 12/4/2008 @ 9:56 am
Ain’t no judge gonna overturn the will of 52% of the electorate, YOU STUPID FUCKING MORONS!!!!!!!
Yeah, but it might be worthwhile to establish whether anyone running for President has to prove that he/she’s “natural born” as defined by the intent of the Founders. Maybe this might even effectively amend the Constitution? Slippery slope?
Comment by J."Trashman" Peden — 12/4/2008 @ 10:00 am
“Ain’t no judge gonna overturn the will of 52% of the electorate, YOU STUPID FUCKING MORONS!!!!!!!”
RULES, WE DON’T NEED NO STINKIN’ RULES!!!!111!1!ELEVENTY!
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/4/2008 @ 10:03 am
Ain’t no judge gonna overturn the will of 52% of the electorate, YOU STUPID FUCKING MORONS!!!!!!!
Sooo, what you’re saying is that facts and the Constitution don’t matter? Got it–just want to make sure we’re both on the same page.
Comment by ECM — 12/4/2008 @ 10:07 am
Has anyone seen a photo of his belly button? Maybe he is a space alien. Like that Brazilian model (no, not the Czech one).
http://photoshopd.blogspot.com/2008/02/playboy-clone-tool-beats-belly-button.html
Comment by Amphipolis — 12/4/2008 @ 10:09 am
For crying out loud. The battleground for the Presidency is not the courts. It’s the institutions (organization and money) and the electorate. We lost in both. You should have made your case that Obama is not a natural born citizen to the Daley brothers, two years ago.
Comment by nk — 12/4/2008 @ 10:10 am
In response to the ‘no enforcement mechanism’ comment way at the beginning of this thread, the entire Bill of Rights is pretty much without listed ‘enforcement mechanisms.’
There’s no enforcement mechanism for ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion’ or ‘abridging the freedom of speech’ either. So what happens if they do?
It goes through the courts and the courts tell them to stop it because it’s against the Constitution and they stop it. And if they don’t, (”The Supreme Court has given us its ruling, now let them enforce it,”) then we have a problem.
Comment by luagha — 12/4/2008 @ 10:19 am
The Daley’s were only interested in putting forth to the electorate someone they could control, and profit from. Their use of the courts to advance the career of BHO, by bringing info into the open, or suppressing it, when needed, demonstrates the cynicism, and the lengths to which they will go for personal power, and damn the legal/moral requirements that were only meant to restrain lessor men.
If this is just a harbringer of the new Politics of Hope and Change,
2008 will mark the end of PAX AMERICANA,
just as the battlefields of France and Belgium marked the end of PAX BRITTANIA!
Comment by Another Drew — 12/4/2008 @ 10:21 am
While it would be amusing if the democrats were sloppy enough not to check this out before the election, I suspect they did partly because there were a couple of times they appeared to be goading these accusations on.
Anyway, this is a problem. We need to change the rules so that, in the future, a presidential candidate must prove he is eligible. It’s a serious charge, and if Obama were ousted at this point people would die in riots. We need to have a mechanism in place where the basics like age and citizenship are proven. Of course, Obama’s folks could easily have solved this problem very early on, and are showing disrespect for not doing so.
Comment by Juan — 12/4/2008 @ 10:23 am
Robin Munn-
From memory, at the time of Obama’s birth, the law required that one parent be a citizen who had lived for more than four years after age 18 in the USA. Obama’s mom wasn’t old enough to count.
I *do* wonder why the very simple act of bringing out a birth certificate hasn’t been done. What, exactly, does Obama have to hide?
Comment by Foxfier — 12/4/2008 @ 10:24 am
The linguistically-challenged reverse-moonbats who insist there is a difference between a birth “certificate” and a birth “certification” would do well to actually read HRS 338-17.8, which AFAIK is the only law that would have enabled Obama’s parents to obtain a birth certificat* for BHO if he had been born elsewhere (and then only if the parents could prove they’d been HI residents for a year before that). Funny how the legislature calls it a “certificate” just like the rest of us do.
The HI Legislature’s web site seems to be incomplete, though. Perhaps Liamascorcaigh, PCD, Daleyrocks or Fred can point to the statute that says birth certificates issued to people not born in HI should state in plain English that they were.
Lastly, I know we need a better ephithet for these people than “reverse moonbat,” I just couldn’t think of it off the top of my head. “Winger” and “wingnut” are out, as there are two wings. Can anyone suggest a better one?
Comment by Xrlq — 12/4/2008 @ 10:29 am
Comment by Foxfier — 12/4/2008 @ 10:24 am
“What, exactly, does Obama have to hide?”
This question applies equally to his time at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard.
Where are those records?
Why do we know less about significant, large blocs of his life,
than we know about the time Sarah Palin has spent as Governor of Alaska?
Comment by Another Drew — 12/4/2008 @ 10:31 am
It’s a serious charge, and if Obama were ousted at this point people would die in riots
Last time I looked, rioters weren’t the fourth branch of government.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 12/4/2008 @ 10:34 am
Comment by Xrlq — 12/4/2008 @ 10:29 am
Those who are sticklers for minutia, are sometimes identified as pickers-of-nits, aka,
nit-pickers.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/4/2008 @ 10:34 am
I’m agnostic on the birth certificate thing actually. I just think that harping on presidential legitimacy after the election has been decided is just so eight years ago.
Obama will succeed or fail on his own merits, and it’s far better that those who will support his opponent in 2012 not have spent the intervening four years sounding exactly like the “stolen-election” types have sounded since 2000.
Comment by McGehee — 12/4/2008 @ 10:41 am
Actually, if there are any merits to this argument (and we might find out more beginning tomorrow),
this should be avoided by the GOP Party apparatus, and handled by someone such as Judicial Watch;
who, though created to bring accountability to the Clinton Administration,
has also demanded such in actions against the Bush Administration too.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/4/2008 @ 10:46 am
OIDO,
Oh, don’t get me wrong: if Obama isn’t eligible of course he shouldn’t get to serve. My complaint about rioters is that we should have settled this ages ago. At this point, it would be the most absurd thing that ever happened in presidential politics, and blacks would be understandably miffed about it. I’m only arguing for a mechanism that requires candidates to prove eligibility months before the election… and these riots would show why that’s better than decertifying Obama after the election.
I don’t think there’s anything to this scandal, but I do think it’s completely reasonable for Obama to be required to prove he is eligible. The idea that someone can’t challenge him for lack of standing, or that they have to provide evidence, just doesn’t fly. I have to prove my eligibility for many jobs I would want. Obama has staff for this. He’s the office seeker, and the burden must reside with him and the eligibility demonstration must be mandatory for all candidates in the future.
I don’t know if Obama feels this controversy is helpful to him, but it is getting absurd… especially with the left’s reliance of the obviously insufficient birth record.
Comment by Juan — 12/4/2008 @ 10:51 am
XRLQ - A challenge has been made in the courts. The Obama campaign has not responded. My position is merely that the process should be followed as opposed to nk’s blanket dismissal. Point to a comment if you feel otherwise.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/4/2008 @ 10:52 am
Clerks at the USSC are playing delaying games with cases.
This is from an email I received:
Leo Donofrio called me on December 1, 2008, with more news regarding treachery inside the U.S. Supreme Court. These lawsuits are challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president of these united States of America. … he also informed me there was another case out of Connecticut that he was assisting on and would let me know the details soon. This is the case:
[…]
Leo informed me by phone that he wrote the 39 page brief for Cort. It was submitted to the Supreme Court and (no surprise) rejected by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Perhaps she was asleep when it came across her desk, as that seems to be how she spends her time serving the people of this nation: asleep on the bench.
As is his right, Cort resubmitted to Justice Scalia. This filing is an emergency stay application and should have been addressed immediately. Instead, and this is beyond outrageous: someone inside the Supreme Court referred Cort’s over night mail package for anthrax testing!
[…]
Cort’s case should have been enjoined with Leo’s and under ‘normal’ circumstances would be - except for the continued interference by clerks at the U.S. Supreme Court. Leo and Cort were informed by the PIO (Public Information Officer) at the Supreme Court that the anthrax testing process would take nine days. Perfect timing to foil enjoining of the two cases.
Leo lamented in his frustration that he simply cannot believe what has been happening over these lawsuits. “This is the U.S. Supreme Court we’re talking about,” said Leo. “This is where the American people go for justice and look at what is happening!”
[…]
http://whitewraithe.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/treachery-inside-the-us-supreme-court/
Comment by PCD — 12/4/2008 @ 10:52 am
Another Drew, any institution challenging Obama… pretty much in any way, will be branded as far right, racist, and deeply partisan. Leaving this to Judicial Watch would probably undermine the organization permanently.
That’s just how it’s going to be.
This isn’t going to happen anyway, but it is the absolute worst way to win an election. Yeah, OBama voters didn’t know jack about Obama, and none of us really do, but he won the vote and I can’t imagine how Mccain would govern this nation while it tore itself apart over Obama being ousted.
Comment by Juan — 12/4/2008 @ 10:55 am
I was actually more interested in the points raised by Debbie Sclussel over Obama’s Selective Service Registration, but have not checked for any recent developments.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/4/2008 @ 10:55 am
Mr. Patterico, there are some basic errors in your initial post.
1. The case which will be conferenced in the Supreme Court tomorrow, 12/5, is Donofrio v. Wells. Link to the Supreme Court docket:
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm
Copy of stay application to SCOTUS:
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/myimages/album2165.html
Mr. Donofrio’s web site is: http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/myimages/album2165.html
2. Donofrio v. Wells has nothing to do with Obama’s birth certificate or his U.S. citizenship. It questions whether he, and McCain and Calero who were also on the NJ ballot as Pres. candidates, are qualified under the Constitution as natural-born citizens. Donofrio, in fact, believes that Obama was born in Hawaii.
3. Donofrio alleges that Obama is NOT a natual-born citizen because at the time of his birth his father was a British subject (becoming a Kenyan citizen in 1963 when Kenya became independent). Thus, Obama had dual nationality and cannot be a natural-born citizen.
Comments that need clarification:
11. liamascorcaigh — Obama’s mother is Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro, not Madelyn Dunham, who is Obama’s grandmother.
13. Steverino — In the 60’s, a foreign birth could be registered in Hawaii. Obama’s sister Maya Soetoro has a Certification of Live Birth like the one Obama posted, and she was born in Indonesia. Case NOT closed!
16. Robin Munn — As I mentioned above, this court case is not questioning Obama’s citizenship, but his status as a natural-born citizen. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he had dual nationality at birth — U.S. citizenship by virtue of his birthplace and British subject by virtue of his father’s nationality. In 1963 Obama, like his father, became a Kenyan citizen upon independence. That citizenship expired at age 21 if he did not take an oath of allegiance to Kenya.
However, if Obama were born in Kenya (as his paternal step-grandmother and Kenyan ambassador have both stated), he would not be a U.S. citizen at all because his mother was too young to pass on her citizenship (under the law at that time). In that case, he would be British subject (later Kenyan citizen) by both birthplace and his father.
17. Skip — a notice in the newspaper means nothing. It states only that his parents were residents of Honolulu and that he was born — but it doesn’t say WHERE he was born.
32. nk — If Obama is not eligible to be President under the Constitution, it doesn’t matter what percentage of the electorate voted for him, HE IS NOT QUALIFIED. If the Constitution is not upheld, the foundation of our country and our laws, we have nothing left.
Furthermore, name-calling is not necessary, and just demonstrates a weak intellect.
45. Another Drew — Precisely, there is a great deal we do not know about Obama. Why won’t he release his birth certificate — ordinary citizens have to present one for numerous reasons, is a presidential candidate/President Designate better than all of us, above the law? Why has he locked up all his other records, do they contain some damaging information? There are too many questions, and he has told too many lies already for us to trust him on this matter of such importance.
Comment by CalifGirlInMaine — 12/4/2008 @ 11:02 am
The certificate photos given by the Obama campaign were obviously photos of a document run out of a laser printer after 2001. (Look at the form type in the bottom left corner) The conspicuous lack of explanation is the Obama team playing with the deranged on the right. Obama IS a natural born US Citizen. They are messing with the far-right fringe the way a laser pointer darting on the wall drives a cat crazy.
This is yet another issue which shows how Republicans are in serious need of soul searching. There are serious, obvious, popular, fiscal conservative principles in California and the US which are dropped on the floor because the current crop of idiot Republican politicians are not competent.
Comment by Wesson — 12/4/2008 @ 11:02 am
Personally I think this is a waste of time for those who question his citizenship.
From a purely conspiratorial angle though; what would happen if in 2 years or so the Pulitzer Prize winner is the reporter who uncovers that he is in fact not a US citizen by birth.
Would this mean that every piece of legislation he signed could be challenged?
Comment by voiceofreason2 — 12/4/2008 @ 11:06 am
56, Everything Obama touched would be null and void. I wonder if Biden could legally assume the Presidency since the VP means nothing constitutionally until after the ticket is legally elected and sworn in.
Comment by PCD — 12/4/2008 @ 11:10 am
Perhaps Liamascorcaigh, PCD, Daleyrocks or Fred can point to the statute that says birth certificates issued to people not born in HI should state in plain English that they were.
Comment by Xrlq — 12/4/2008 @ 10:29 am
Again, we have seen a Certification of Birth, not a Birth Certificate. Obama has been asked time and time again to produce the latter. The reason for the inquiry is that the Obama relatives in Kenya claim he was born there. Obama has not produced evidence to demonstrate otherwise. This is a legitimate line of inquiry based on the claims by his relatives.
Until he provides documentation of his eligibility he should not be considered legitimate.
Again, each of the hospitals in Hawaii have no records of his birth, despite state law requiring such, nor any record of his mother ever having been treated.
What is he hiding?
Comment by Fred — 12/4/2008 @ 11:12 am
Comment by Juan — 12/4/2008 @ 10:55 am
You will notice that I said someone such as Judicial Watch, not JW per se.
The idea that we should just stand aside, and let someone whose constitutional qualifications for the office are unproven obtain that position, is the definition of Banana-Republic, at least in my mind (as feeble as it may be - take your best shot).
Comment by Another Drew — 12/4/2008 @ 11:14 am
I see a lot of assertions of a factual nature by the conspiracy fans here that have no actual foundation.
Comment by SPQR — 12/4/2008 @ 11:16 am
No President has been elected, technically speaking, until after the Electoral College casts their ballots on December 15, 2008, and only after they have been counted by Vice-President Dick Cheney in a joint session of Congress on January 6, 2009, and certified by Congress. (That’s right–Dick Cheney!)
However, an interesting question to ask at this point, if only just for fun, is:
“How could Stanley Ann Dunham have delivered Barack Hussein Obama Jr. in August of 1961 in Honolulu, when official University of Washington records show her 2860 miles away in Seattle attending classes that same month?”
If you are intrigued by that, click here and keep scrolling.
Hillary Clinton, please pick up the white courtesy telephone!
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 12/4/2008 @ 11:28 am
OIDO, that’s a great example. The only fact there is that she was confirmed as attending during the semester, but you then translate that to “attending classes that same month”.
This is what we see with all conspiracy theories, “facts” get created from nothing.
Comment by SPQR — 12/4/2008 @ 11:38 am
If nothing else, this has been a great opportunity to learn something about an obscure area of the law that is very important yet one we don’t much think about. As it unfolds, I’m really surprised, given the fact that there are requirements for serving as president beyond receiving a majority of electoral votes, that there isn’t a mechanism in place to qualify the candidates, or at least the winner.
Why is this playing out the way it is? There should be an established system for verifying that the candidate is a natural born citizen over 35 years of age. In nearly every case, it would be simple and straightforward.
It is also obvious to me that the initial burden of proof should be on the candidate, not on any challenger. Since it seems to be the position of the Hawaiian government that Obama was born in Hawaii more than 35 years ago, I’d say Obama’s met his burden–the state would be the final authority for who is born in that state and when. It may be possible for his challengers to overcome this obstacle but I don’t see how.
Comment by tim maguire — 12/4/2008 @ 11:51 am
@Robin Mann (#16)
“Furthermore, I fail to see why this is even an issue. My understanding of the law is that if one (not both, but just one) of your parents is a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, you’re a natural-born U.S. citizen, no matter where in the world you were born. And especially so if you were born in the U.S., as Obama was. There’s no question, as far as I know, that Obama’s mother has always been a U.S. citizen.”
Depending upon which laws were in effect when someone is born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent, they may qualify to have citizenship transmitted to them.
Prior to 1986, when a child was born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. citizen parent, the U.S. citizen parent was required to have had TEN years of U.S. residence prior to the birth of the child, at least FIVE of which were after reaching the age of 14 years.
See the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Sec. 301g; also P.L. No. 99-653.
If publicly available (i.e., Google) dates of birth for Pres.-designate Obama and his mother are correct, then she had not yet reached her nineteenth birthday when he was born. Thus (assuming the dates are correct, as well as his non-citizen paternity), IF he was not born in the U.S. or its outlying possessions it would be a mathematical impossibility for him have been a citizen from birth.
That’s assuming, as I think is the non-judicial national consensus, that someone born overseas who is a U.S. citizen from birth meets the Constitutional “natural born citizen” requirement.
Which I happen to agree it does.
Comment by Consul-At-Arms — 12/4/2008 @ 12:01 pm
@PCD (#24)
“B. The govenment of Kenya says that is sealing its records of Obama’s birth. If Obama was born in Hawaii, how the Hell would Kenya have records to be sealed????”
Question: How in the Hell does the U.S. have birth records for people born abroad?
Answer: We have consular records for children of U.S. citizens born abroad of U.S. parents. They are not retained at individual embassies and consulates, but are returned to the State Dept. in Washington, D.C.
There is a perfectly logical explanation that at some point the president-elect’s Kenyan/British subject father documented his son’s birth abroad (from Kenya) with their equivalent authorities.
As someone born abroad, I have not only my U.S. CRBA (Consular Report of Birth Abroad) but a foreign birth certificate from that foreign country as well. Unlike a U.S. birth certificate, under the laws of that country their birth certificate alone doesn’t provide proof of citizenship there.
Comment by Consul-At-Arms — 12/4/2008 @ 12:08 pm
Case (not quite) Closed:
A copy of Obama’s birth certificate was found buried in muck beneath a horse trailer at a Rodeo in El Paso last Thursday evening by Lucy Ramirez. Ramirez made copies and sent one to Mary Mapes who made copies and sent copies of her copies of Lucy’s copy to document experts for examination.
Unfortunately, the experts are not in full agreement as to the authenticity or provenance of the copied documents. However, Mapes says that since no one has been able to demonstrate conclusively that her copies are not faithful copies of a copy of an original birth certificate, they must be assumed to be valid.
Dan Rather agrees with Mapes and will say so on national TV as soon as he can find a network or cable channel willing to put him on the air. Dan says he has no doubts whatsoever about the validity of the documents and is willing to stake his reputation on the outcome. Courage!
Comment by Ropelight — 12/4/2008 @ 12:09 pm
Comment by Ropelight — 12/4/2008 @ 12:09
And, the nominee for best screenplay adapted from another medium, is ……
Comment by Another Drew — 12/4/2008 @ 12:25 pm
CAA, Again, if Obama was born in the US, why lock up all the documents?
Comment by PCD — 12/4/2008 @ 12:30 pm
No, here is the bottom line:
We have an official record from the State of Hawaii that says Obama was born in Honolulu. What evidence do you have that he was not born there?
Comment by Steverino — 12/4/2008 @ 12:52 pm
Steverino, it says he was born in Honolulu?
I didn’t know that. Are you sure you understand that document and what it means?
Comment by Juan — 12/4/2008 @ 12:55 pm
You realize your making this into a new version of “Hanging Chad’s” right?
Is it a vendetta or something?
The good news in all this?
Obama must be doing too good a job so far as pres elect, if you guys are hanging on to this nonsense.:)
Comment by Oiram — 12/4/2008 @ 12:57 pm
Juan, go to the document I linked at comment #13. It clearly shows the city of birth was Honolulu.
Please explain why that is incorrect.
Comment by Steverino — 12/4/2008 @ 1:02 pm
“The Berg suit was not dismissed on merit,but rather because it was ruled that he did not have standing…”
Yeah, and if this case goes to the SCOTUS, they’ll probably say the same thing.
Whatever gets decided, it’ll be based on expediency, not on the law, just like it pretty much always is when the choice is between the government following the law, and the government doing what it views as expedient.
If the government actually followed the Constitution then there would be no such thing as the Selective Service, the Smith Act, or gun control laws.
However, the government thinks it’s expedient to have such things, therefore they ignore the Constitution.
You can forget about this lawsuit…it ain’t going nowhere, law or no law.
Comment by Dave Surls — 12/4/2008 @ 1:02 pm
SPQR, you’re certainly right that most of this mess is innuendo that is probably mostly wrong.
If Obama really weren’t a citizen, if he were really that kind of charlatan, I’m sure he’d have produced extremely good fakes by now instead of inviting more and more controversy by acting is such a terrible manner.
The idea that he should have to produce the original 1961 document is simple disrespect of the nation. I suppose he’s just trying to create a controversy he knows he can come out on top of, or at least I hope that’s all this is. but the idea that the candidate for a job doesn’t have the burden of showing the most basic of eligibility requirements is ridiculous.
How many hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars have been wasted to this point? How many death penalty appeals are delayed because SCOTUS clerks are dealing with this case? What in the hell is wrong with Barack Obama that he can’t just give out his flipping Birth Certificate and shut off this discussion? If he doesn’t have it (I read one theorist claim Obama wrote about having the original in a book, but who knows if that’s accurate?), it still wouldn’t be hard to produce the hospital he was born at.
We all know that the Democrats already looked into this ages ago (I’m sure the Hillary campaign among them). They would never have taken such a risk as to run an ineligible man. But the people deserve to have some damn confidence in their democracy, instead of Obama playing around with this issue.
Comment by Juan — 12/4/2008 @ 1:05 pm
Barack Obama’s (BO) REPEATED refusal to produce an authentic copy of his original birth certificate & the passport he travelled to Pakistan on - presents a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS.
When he threw his hat in the ring (entered the presidential race), thus BO HIMSELF undertook the burden to prove that he was Constitutionally qualified to hold that office.
The ordinalry citizen has to show a library card to check out a book. Produce their original birth certificate to get a passport.
Yet, BO and his website http://www.fightthesmears.com, RATHER than produce the BEST EVIDENCE of his authentic original birth certificate, instead put up a BOGUS copy of a 2007 Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth”. WHY?
Why instead of putting this issue to rest, garning trust from the American People, did BO instead “fight the smears” with a PITIFUL and BOGUS substitute & add flame to the fire? WHY?
BO has created this problem, but repeatedly REFUSES - despite Constitutional, legal & moral duties - to provide the easy solution to a potential Constitutional crisis. WHY?
Is that leadershhip? BO has caused more & more & more of these lawsuits to be filed, and he has hired & paid law firms to defend against them, wasting considerable court (and others) time & money, and has caused uncertainty, mistrust & possible chaos. WHY?
When resolution was SIMPLE - just produce the original birth certificate. BO instead REPEATEDLY REFUSES. WHY?
And recall in his earlier other runs for public office, BO routinely mounted legal challenges to the bona fides of his opponents. Yet for himself, BO applies another set of rules, standards. WHY? Yet didn’t he tell us he was a different type of pol?
Phillip Berg much earlier challenged BO, the DNC & the Fed Election Comm. to SIMPLY prove he met the Constitutional requirements to RUN for president DURING the DEM primary. That act put the BURDEN OF PROOF & DUTY on those three to - SIMPLY pony up the proof then. They could have put this puppy to bed a long time ago, but instead - all REFUSED. WHY?
Why have they all caused this problem to fester? Mistrust to grow? People to wonder, does BO have something to hide?
Berg then filed suit - went to court. The courts are supposed to be the GATEKEEPERS, the FINAL BACKSTOP - where questions are answered, controversies are determined, cleared up, resolved. The court - a federal judge - who took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, could have put this puppy to bed a long time ago, but instead ignored his DUTY & dismised Berg’s suit claiming Berg lacked STANDING. WHY?
Berg’s suit is now in the USSC - along with several others. WHY?
On 12/1&3/08 WeThePeople’s full page ad (letter to BO) demanding BO produce his birth certificate was published in the Chicago Tribune (BO’s home town paper that endorsed him). Just the fact that that ad appeared is a NEWSWORTHY event. Later on each of those days BO - in Chicago - held a press conference (standing at a podium displaying his seal for “The Office of President-Elect”), yet on both days NOT ONE member of the media/press asked BO about the ad. WHY?
Nor did they ask BO why he REPEATEDLY had refused to produce his birth certificate?, and, Was he going to continue to produce the birth ciertificate? WHY? Seem reminicsent of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”?
Compare the lack of coverage on this issue, with:
A) the MOveOn.org ad “General Petraeus, General BetrayUs that appeared in the NYTimes; and, B) the fraudulent documents Dan Rather & CBS put forward just before the 2004 election re George Bush’s National Guard service.
A DOUBLE STANDARD perhaps? No, it has gotten so bad that there in fact NO longer are any standards in both the MEDIA & the COURTS, as this issue shows.
Do you think if the current president-elect was a Republican, the coverage would be the same, evers so lacking, so derelict?
Justice Louis Brandies stated: “If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.”
The USSC can easily put this issue to rest. It (and each individual justice) in fact has the sworn duty to do just that.
If the USSC (and all the other Courts) REFUSE to take up this issue/case and publicly properly resolve this issue (give the facts & law public airing, whatever they in fact are), they will be derelict to their duty, mock the Constitution, invite disprect for the law, and will light fuse to a Constitutional CRISIS that may destroy this country. Clearly they can present that.
Brandies further stated: “The most important political office is that of private citizen.”
Is that not just what Berg & the others who have brought tthese suits have in fact proven to us, because all the government officials who have taken oaths and have sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, from both state & federal offices & courts, from both major parties, have been derelict, have sherked their duty, have taken a powder, and are AWOL.
And as Justice Robert Jackson stated: “It is not the function of the Government to keep the citizen from falling into error, it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.” (Communications Assoc. v. Douds, 335 US 382 (1950), at 442.)
Senator (and President-Elect) BO has fallen into error by not doing the simple (but requried) act requested of him - produce your original birth certificate. Is his repeated refusal anyway to start a presidency?
The Courts (and lets hope that does not include the USSC) have fallen into error by dismissing all the lawsiuts that have been brought on this issue.
And has not Berg (and the others) who have filed these suits acted in the best traditions of American citizenship & patriotism by attempting to ensure that the Constitution is in fact followed here, tried to prevent the government from falling into POSSIBLY the GREATEST error EVER?
BO may not meet the Constitutional requirements to be our President. I personally DO NOT KNOW the bona fides, however I definitely see there are major unresolved issues: BO (and to many others) certainly have acted strange by REPEATEDLY failing to answer simple questions & REPEATEDLY failing to produce the simple proof - his original birth certificate - to establish that he meets Constitutional requirements for the office of the president. WHY?
This issue is too important to have not gotten answers to these questions much, much, earlier. It only shows how derelict & broken our government & media are.
We are fortunate though that we can still get the answers before possibly making that great & terrible error. The media and the USSC have the duty, the opportunity & the power to get those answers - BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.
Our Constitution, Liberty & Country hang in the balance. Only time will tell if they will MEASURE UP to the task?
Comment by Gary L. Zerman — 12/4/2008 @ 1:09 pm
Steverino, you’ve got me on that. If that document isn’t forged, then the State of Hawaii is certifying that Obama was born in the USA.
I don’t see why the fact that it’s not an actual Birth Certificate matters if it shows where Obama was born.
Is this verifiably the official document? I thought it just showed up on KOS and Factcheck.org. Has this document been given to the courts, or is it just on the internet? I would think if someone has testified under penalty of law that this document is what it claims to be, that the matter indeed is closed.
Comment by Juan — 12/4/2008 @ 1:09 pm
Juan, you and I largely agree on this. Since there’s a document from the State of Hawaii saying Obama was born there, and no one has proved this document to be fake, that’s enough for me.
There are kooks on our side of the aisle as well as the other side. Unfortunately, the kooks on our side are making us all look bad.
Comment by Steverino — 12/4/2008 @ 1:18 pm
nk wrote:
Like the California Supreme Court didn’t overturn the previous same-sex marriage ban from years ago, and isn’t now considering whether to accept challenges to Proposition 8, which passed, coincidentally enough, with 52% of the vote?
Comment by The deadpan Dana — 12/4/2008 @ 1:20 pm
Steverino: what many people are saying is that even if the Certification of Life Birth is real, it is a generated document. The facts on it were generated from an original document, an actual long-form birth certificate. The long-form birth certificate will have many details on it that can be corroborated with other sources (like the hospital and the doctor’s name and signature). People have pointed out that Certifications of Live Birth could have been legally generated in a number of ways that would prove Obama’s lack of natural-born citizenship (applied for after baby Obama arrived from Kenya) or make it impossible to prove (listing an ‘at-home birth’ with no corroborating material).
(The other people claim that the Certification of Live Birth is a forgery of one kind or another. The original birth certificate can also be a forgery, but because it links to other corroborating evidence, it’s harder to manage. The real conspiracy types should now be making up fake webpages listing all of the Honolulu doctors who were performing deliveries at that time suffering mysterious demises. The fact that most of them are in their 80s or 90s can easily be discounted.)
As for me, it seems unlikely that the Certification of Live Birth would list Honolulu, Hawaii, and Oahu specifically as the location of birth if the birth occurred in Kenya and the US birth certificate was generated from the Kenyan birth certificate. However, I also believe that Obama’s failure to disclose is ludicrous given the Constitution and he should be required to disclose on that basis alone. It would be good for him to remember who the People are now, lest things become dire.
Comment by luagha — 12/4/2008 @ 1:25 pm
I understand that. But those claiming the information on the document is incorrect have offered no evidence to support that assertion.
Bottom line: the State of Hawaii, in the document I linked, has declared that Obama was born in Honolulu. The document itself says: This copy serves as prima facia evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding. If its authenticity is unchallenged, that’s all the proof Obama need offer. It’s up to those that disagree to prove the document wrong.
Comment by Steverino — 12/4/2008 @ 1:34 pm
Because that isn’t what a birth cert looks like from hawaii. As an example, here’s one from a guy born in ‘63 in Hawaii (with certain information redacted): Looks NOTHING like what you linked to.
Thus why I don’t completely accept what you linked as definitive. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he should be able to produce (either from personal records, or from Hawaai’s “whatever they cll the place that handles Vital statistic” department) somethiing that looks a lot like whi I linked to.
You’ll notice there is a great deal more information than his mother’s name, father’s name, date and what island.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 12/4/2008 @ 1:54 pm
They have goofy ‘document experts’ with blanked out faces nattering on YouTube links, Steverino. Isn’t that enough for you?
I’m sorry, that should be, “Isn’t that enough for you?!?!!?”
But in addition, Obama’s Certification of Live Birth is being challenged in any number of these lawsuits and hasn’t been authenticated in court either. It’s just had pictures of it shown - some of them showing evidence of Photoshop work (which could just be in making it presentable for the Web). Realistically, in any actual proceeding Obama would present said Certification and actual document experts would examine the actual document as opposed to making up pixellation theories based on JPGs.
Comment by luagha — 12/4/2008 @ 1:56 pm
Saddam Hussein said “I have no weapons of mass destruction,” but refused to open up certain facilities to prove there was nothing. Barack Hussein says his certificate of live birth is on the up-and-up, but refuses to open up his records and prove there is something.
I am always suspicious of people who decry a media circus that they could easily end by answering a simple question or producing a document or object they insist is in their possession. A prime example of this is the case of John Kerry in 2004. Never mind the controversy about whether or not he suffered injuries sufficient for his multiple medals, I mean his hissy-fit when ABC News’ Brian Ross was fed a videotape of Kerry on a public affairs show 33 years before insisting that he had indeed tossed his medals away at a Capitol building antiwar rally in 1971. (Video of Kerry tossing several objects into a “TRASH” container here @ 00:05). Kerry, who over the years had modified his recollection of that day by saying that the medals he discarded weren’t his and that he was still in possession of his own, refused ABC’s Chris Vlasto’s request to put the whole thing to rest by producing the medals in the future, instead whining that ABC had did “the bidding of the Republican National Committee.”
I don’t know why people are so anxious to stop this whole thing from playing itself out. If the guys behind the challenges are not to be believed, it’s on them, but personally, I want to know exactly what the mechanism is for legally proving one’s Constitutional qualifications for being President. It doesn’t make sense to me that a candidate can just say, in effect, “Take my word for it,” and anyone who challenges him or her legally can be found not to have “standing.”
It’s funny how some were suggesting after the election of Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger and Canada native Jennifer Granholm to governorships that the Constitution be amended so that foreign-born naturalized Americans could run for President, but now that someone has raised the issue regarding half-Kenyan Barack Obama, the requirement’s too trivial to even consider without a hearty guffaw.
If the Supremes say that it should end, fine, but I say not a moment before. Bite the bullet once, and we won’t have to ever again.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 12/4/2008 @ 2:02 pm
Personally, I would go to the county records in KS for the county I was born in, get a certified copy, redact the REALLY important info, and show it to anyone who asked. I would hold the actual piece of paper up in public, should anyone ever want to see.
I certainly wouldn’t make someone make a federal case out of it.
Then again, I know for a fact I’m a natural-born citizen, so my take might be a bit different than that of Ocarter…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 12/4/2008 @ 2:10 pm
Scott Jacobs, I understand where you’re coming from, but if this document isn’t a Birth Certificate, is that relevant?
It isn’t… it’s a document that (if unforged) does show that Obama was born in the USA. That’s all we need to know.
It’s extremely lame of Obama not to produce the best evidence and dispose of this, but it seems to me you’re really saying that this Certification of Live Birth is inaccurate, not that it’s insufficient.
Comment by Juan — 12/4/2008 @ 2:13 pm
I don’t particularly care whether this stops, aside from these two points:
1. The document issued by the State of Hawaii is adequate proof for me, unless that document is proven to be false. (So far, it hasn’t.)
2. As a result, it looks like Obama will easily prove his citizenship from birth, and everyone contesting this is going to look like a fool. And it’s making the Republican party look foolish by association.
If I had less faith in the document I linked, I’d agree with you, Mr. Smithee, but as it stands I’m convinced by the evidence I’ve seen.
Comment by Steverino — 12/4/2008 @ 2:18 pm
This copy serves as prima facia evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding. If its authenticity is unchallenged, that’s all the proof Obama need offer. It’s up to those that disagree to prove the document wrong.
Comment by Steverino — 12/4/2008 @ 1:34 pm
Ummm..I don’t think you really understand what prima facie means
Comment by Fred — 12/4/2008 @ 2:22 pm
I do, but apparently you don’t. According to this link:
Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted
That’s pretty much how I used it, typo aside.
Comment by Steverino — 12/4/2008 @ 2:27 pm
Steverino wrote:
Philip Berg is a Democrat.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 12/4/2008 @ 2:28 pm
Ummm..I don’t think you really understand what prima facie means
It means “I’ve proven what I have to in order to win, now rebut it if you can”.
Comment by nk — 12/4/2008 @ 2:29 pm
Mr. Smithee, Phil Berg’s party affiliation aside, you know as well as I do that the backsplatter on this will hit the Republicans. Especially if it’s played that way in the popular press. I mean, what are the odds on that happening?
Comment by Steverino — 12/4/2008 @ 2:36 pm
Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted
That’s pretty much how I used it, typo aside.
Comment by Steverino — 12/4/2008 @ 2:27 pm
A Certification of Birth is not a legally accepted document that assigns place of birth. The equivalent is someone producing a gum wrapper written on it “Yep, Barry was born in Hawaii. Trust me. Signed, Anonymous”.
Comment by Fred — 12/4/2008 @ 2:44 pm
Okay, now you’re just making an ass of yourself. The Certification of Birth was issued by the Hawaii Department of Health. It carries the full legal weight of any other document issued by the state. Your comparison here is downright moronic.
I take it you’re conceding that I really do know what prima facie means?
Comment by Steverino — 12/4/2008 @ 2:50 pm
Prima facie is Latin for ‘first appearance’. It means at first glance.
As NK says, it really means that someone is leaving the door open for rebuttal evidence.
Comment by Juan — 12/4/2008 @ 2:56 pm
Okay, I’ve spent too much time on this today. Here are the questions I have for the naysayers:
1. Was the document I linked in comment #13 issued by the State of Hawaii?
2. Does it list the date of Barack Hussein Obama II’s birth?
3. Does it list the time of Obama’s birth?
4. Does it list the location of Obama’s birth?
5. Is the document a forgery?
If the answers to 1, 2, 3, and 4 are “Yes”, and the answer to 5 is “No”, then Obama’s citizenship from birth has been proven.
If you are claiming the document is a forgery, what evidence do you have to support that claim?
Comment by Steverino — 12/4/2008 @ 2:59 pm
I want to know exactly what the mechanism is for legally proving one’s Constitutional qualifications for being President
Obama takes his birth certificate out of his suit pocket, unfolds it, hands it to the nice Italian man in the robes and says, “Here you go, Mr. Justice Scalia.”
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 12/4/2008 @ 3:06 pm
Juan, that’s pretty much what I said way above with:
Comment by Steverino — 12/4/2008 @ 3:13 pm
Steverino wrote:
So lemme get this straight: A DEMOCRAT challenges DEMOCRAT Barack Obama’s citizenship and REPUBLICANS are supposed to stop it because a what a DEMOCRAT is doing makes REPUBLICANS look bad?!
For heaven’s sake, man, are you afraid to state the TRUTH because of the way the MSM will LIE about it? Well, take a bow — or should I say, curtsy? You’re officially whipped.
This is how the GOP got to where it is now, Steve. It worries about saying, for example, Barack Obama’s only true executive experience — as the the chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge — was a failure. $100,000,000 of philanthropic dollars down the tubes because there was too much emphasis on social engineering in school curricula (under the influence of William Ayers) and not enough on the basics. But the RNC and McCain wouldn’t go there because they didn’t want to be falsely accused of…you know what.
Get it through your head — the “popular press” doesn’t like Republicans in general and conservatives in particular, and nothing will ever be good enough for them. However, the MSM are losing credibility among the general public because it knows now (if it didn’t know then) that they are biased up the wazoo. The overwhelming majority of reporters coast-to-coast are still on their Obama high, but only a little more than half the electorate voted for him; they know what’s up.
The truth will always be there, and will only lose if you let lies win. The more you put the truth out there without concern with the way it will be lied about, the more opportunity there will be for people to discover the difference!
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 12/4/2008 @ 3:18 pm
Another story for the fake intellects on this site to argue about.
Makes for great headlines though.
Comment by Da'Shiznit — 12/4/2008 @ 3:28 pm
Steverino wrote: If its authenticity is unchallenged, that’s all the proof Obama need offer. It’s up to those that disagree to prove the document wrong.
Berg IS challenging the Certification of Live Birth’s authenticity. He’s saying what the Obama camp put on its “Fight the Smears” site is a forgery. If that’s NOT true, the Obama camp should have no problem presenting what they scanned before a judge. They’ve refused to do so.
Why do YOU think they haven’t, Steve? Do you think they enjoy all this? Would you?
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 12/4/2008 @ 3:29 pm
Livin’ down to your nick, Da’Shiznit.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 12/4/2008 @ 3:30 pm
I’m scoring Steverino ahead on punches
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 12/4/2008 @ 3:31 pm
I’m not afraid of the truth, so turn your flame somewhere else. Go back to what I said:
The document I linked, issued by the State of Hawaii is sufficient proof to me. I haven’t seen any evidence beyond pure speculation that the document is false, or that the information it contains is incorrect.
As far as I’m concerned, continued pursuit of this will be futile, not because the press will lie about it, but because that document appears to prove Obama’s citizenship. The people pursuing this will look like kooks as a result, and it’s a very wide brush that will tar far more than the small enclave.
Comment by Steverino — 12/4/2008 @ 3:31 pm
L.N. Smithee #100:
Fair enough. I’ll read through that tonight.
Comment by Steverino — 12/4/2008 @ 3:37 pm
Hawaii allows for the amending of a certificate of birth if there is either another birth certificate already on file:
A person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and
has become legally adopted, or
has undergone a sex change operation, or
a legal determination of the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship for a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file has been made, or
previously recorded information in relation to the person’s surname and/or the father’s personal particulars has been altered pursuant to law.
A person born in a foreign country who has been legally adopted in the State of Hawaii.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/newbirthcert.html
I believe the point that the lawsuits are going on is this:
For a person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and previously recorded information in relation to the person’s surname and/or the father’s personal particulars has been altered pursuant to law
relating to his father’s citizenship.
Some also point to this:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.HTM
Both of which show that a non-original Hawaiian certificate of birth– such as the one here, generated by the legal information on file– isn’t enough.
*grin* Maybe Obama was born Bonnie-Anne Obama and thinks it’d make too much of a fuss, who knows?
On a more serious note, maybe his mom didn’t list his dad. Some other thing that’d embarrass him.
Comment by Foxfier — 12/4/2008 @ 3:42 pm
Ah, here’s the third argument:
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.
Would the original have Obama Sr’s citizenship listed?
Comment by Foxfier — 12/4/2008 @ 3:45 pm
Steverino
What I think this metamorphed into is that there is SOME smoke and fire in this controversy, but that opportunity has passed and weakened in insensity.
I have little doubt that Obama was most likely born in Hawai’i
But - there are some hints of records that he “claimed” in certain instances - that he was a Kenyan citizen
Case in point - the missing records at Columbia
Did he or did he not put in a Foriegn student application?
The mysterious passport - did he have a Kenyatti passport? Was it issued by his father in Obama’s name when he was a child? Why is Kenya detaining several journalists who are inquiring about this?
Now non of this disqualifies him at all from taking office and had the answers to these questions been answered thoughtfully by a non partisan press before the election
Then we’d be seeing alot more of Tina Fey….
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 12/4/2008 @ 3:48 pm
If Barack really was born here,
Then this is all just a big smear
Of a fine man,
Who will when he can
Tax us so much we simply can’t live here!
Comment by The Limerick Avenger — 12/4/2008 @ 3:48 pm
If Barack Hussein Obama was not born in Hawaii, then he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus a citizen of Kenya. Since he was never naturalized, he would still be a citizen of kenya, but not an American citizen at all. If he is actually a Kenyan, and he has neither a visa nor documents of permanent residency, then he’s an illegal alien!
Deport the bastard!
Comment by The ICE Agent Dana — 12/4/2008 @ 3:51 pm
Steverino wrote:
The question is whether or not the document you linked from the LA Times blog was indeed issued by the State of Hawaii or if it is a 100% forgery.
And again, what you linked is a Certification of Live Birth, not a Certificate of Live Birth. It is not a distinction without a difference; one is a subsequently generated piece of paper that says “This is proof we have the genuine article if you want it,” and the other IS the genuine article. It’s akin to the way paper currency used to be silver or gold certificates reading “payable to the bearer on demand” the dollar amount in actual bullion before the gold standard was done away with, and the paper became valuable in itself.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 12/4/2008 @ 3:58 pm
Most of the comments here are focusing on Obama’s birth certificate.
There are other issues, including his traveling to Pakistan under his Indonesian passport as an adult.
The President of the United States may not have allegiance to any other country. The use of a foreign passport as an adult shows the holder (opposed to a parent) making a claim of allegiance to the issuer, in this case Indonesia.
This is similar to say a man born in the United States to parents who immigrated from Turkey. Turkish law states that an adult male must serve in the Turkish Army to continue his Turkish citizenship in good standing.
So: Hakan X was born in Maryland and is 37 years old; but when he was 19, he served 2 years in the Turkish army; and so has shown allegiance, as an adult, to a country other than the US.
He would meet the requirements of the Natural Born rule; but would be legally ineligible to become President.
Comment by Adriane — 12/4/2008 @ 4:02 pm
“The President of the United States may not have allegiance to any other country. ”
Can you explain where you get this rule?
Comment by imdw — 12/4/2008 @ 4:30 pm
I am assuming you have a link or some evidence supporting this?
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/4/2008 @ 4:50 pm
Here’s a claim that one of the cases challenging Obama’s citizenship in the Supreme Court has been referred to conference by the full court–not only by Justice Thomas, as the Chicago Tribune stated:
“12/1/08–Donofrio’s case in the Supreme Court was actually referred to conference by the full Court, not just Justice Clarence Thomas. Bob Vernon, from the Plains Radio Network, spoke with Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Director of Public Information at the SCOTUS. She confirmed that Mr. Donofrio’s application was first referred to conference by Thomas on the 19th, but after that referral, the full Court distributed the application for Conference on December 5, 2008. Unusual. The docket was not clear to these facts.”
And here is the difference between what a Certification of Live Birth looks like (the one belonging to The One) and a real Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (issued to somebody else born in Hawaii in that era, and heavily redacted).
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 12/4/2008 @ 5:30 pm
Of course Obama won’t release the original birth certificate (he hired 3 law firms to fight it, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars) - or his college records….You’ve been “had” by this man. If you think I’m wrong, look how Barack Hussein Obama’s brother, George Hussein Obama is living: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/2590614/Barack-Obamas-lost-brother-found-in-Kenya.html CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN! hahahhahhahah!!!
Comment by Patriot — 12/4/2008 @ 5:40 pm
Why do I suspect that Obama is hiding something OTHER than not being a natural-born US citizen? Something like; the name on his birth certificate is Elvis Obama? Barak X? Something that dumb.
Even the Democrats are not arrogant enough to believe they can flout the Constitutional requirements for eligibility. They ARE arrogant enough to try to hide some stupid, embarrassing detail, and then not know how and when to back down before it lands in front of the Supreme Court.
Comment by C. S. P. Schofield — 12/4/2008 @ 6:34 pm
There is something on that birth certificate that Obama does not want released to the public, IMO. I have no facts to back this up, just the actions of Obama. There now have been 17 such actions filed, either with the courts or Secretaries of State and Obama has three law firms engaged in fighting every one of them, paying what, $1K per hour?
He could pony up $12 and clear up all but one of them (Donofrio’s) and be done with all this. It is interesting that no one has mentioned nutball Keye’s suit. It would appear to this layman that he would certainly have standing and his suit cites the precedent of Calif SOS vetting and declaring ineligible two candidates in prior elections.
I don’t know where it will all end up but I would rather look like a loon and be proven wrong than have it turn out the POTUS was not qualified. What kind of Constitutional mess would that be? Could any taxpayer who was effected by an increase in taxes under a law Obama signed sue to get his money back?
Comment by rls — 12/4/2008 @ 7:59 pm
The thing is, the court can determine that Obama is a legit eligible President but they can’t do it without defining “natural born” in the process. It’s about time that we settled this matter.
Also, they can’t define “natural born” citizenship without also defining the other kinds of citizenship for comparison. Maybe the anchor baby insanity will come up.
Comment by jcurtis — 12/4/2008 @ 8:53 pm
I think it stemms from the “Can’t have dual citizenship” thing…
But I have no idea where it comes from.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 12/4/2008 @ 8:58 pm
Scott,
It comes under the several statutes but a good summary is here
US State department Travel Website
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 12/4/2008 @ 9:08 pm
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/breaking-obama-admits-dual-citizenship/
This guy has some interesting takes on it.
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 12/4/2008 @ 9:22 pm
It’s unbelievable that the US recognizes dual citizenship. When someone becomes a naturalized citizen, they must swear off any other allegiances. It is exactly the oath! It’s absurd that they be allowed to acquire new allegiances the day after they are naturalized or that natural born citizens are ever allowed to do this. It’s as unconstitutional as it gets.
Comment by jcurtis — 12/4/2008 @ 9:40 pm
I always figured that ‘natural born’ would mean that he was a citizen from birth.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/5/2008 @ 4:17 am
Fred:
L.M. Smithee:
Contrary to popular opinion, you can’t convert bullshit into non-bullshit simply by stating it a second time and prefacing it with “again.” I’ve already linked to the only Hawaii statute under which anyone can get any certificate/certification of birth from the State of Hawaii if they were not born there. The rest of the statutes relating to birth certificates/certifications are all in that same area. Go read them, for Christ’s sake. If you can find a statute supposedly distinguishing certificates from certifications, cite it here, with chapter and verse. If you can’t, then do everyone involved a big favor and admit you are full of shit.
Comment by Xrlq — 12/5/2008 @ 4:22 am
Also, I think everyone makes a HUGE mistake if they read too much (read: almost anything) into the fact that the case is now “before” the Supreme Court. That doesn’t mean they’re going to rule on the merits, and even if they do, the ruling will probably be that the issue is nonjusticiable.
Comment by Xrlq — 12/5/2008 @ 4:55 am
Supposed Conspiracy Claim Turns REAL on Obama
It is becoming painfully obvious that we may very well have a criminal President in 2009. No this isn’t a joke. What I speak of is the curious developments in the supposedly racist, biased, dumb, as well as insane case of where Obama was born.
[…]
The Queen’s Medical Center
1301 Punchbowl StreetHonolulu, HI 96813 Link to Site
Phone number 808-538-9011 General Medical Records 808-547-4361.
After it was concluded that Obama and his mother were never there, his sister was in an interview (Mary) and claimed that Obama was born at Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children - Obama and Mom Never Here 1319 Punahou StreetHonolulu, Hawaii 96826(808) 535-7000 Link to site
Hospital after Hospital - all Have No Record of Obama being born or Mom Ever being There.
Hospital after hospital in Honolulu all have NO RECORD of Obama or mother ever being there. Is this some state secret? Are we to believe that even the hospital that he was born in should remain secret? Why lie to us as if it matters I mean the man did win the Presidential vote? Why the lies and secrecy?
We already know that Obama’s family and the entire nation of Kenya (which is about to have a national holiday for Obama) know that Barack Obama was born in Mombasa Coastal Hospital in Kenya. The government of Kenya has sealed these records. More and more secrecy due to the fact that once proven, Obama will not be constitutionally allowed to become President of the United States!
All of these were called or visited from November 20 - December 2nd 2008. It is confirmed, OBAMA not born in any hospital in Honolulu County! NONE FACT!
Hospital employees bribed, some gave info for free. All to be released on video shortly.
Hospitals you can check yourself
The Queen’s Medical Center - Honolulu, Hawaii Obama claims as his birth hospital
Kapi’ olani Medical Center Obama’s sister claims Barack Obama born here
Honolulu Shriners Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
Straub Clinic & Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
Hawaii Health Systems Corporation - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
Cancer Institute of Maui - Wailuku, Hawaii No Comment ???
Kuakini Hospital - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
Rehabilitation Hospital of the Pacific - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
St. Francis Healthcare System of Hawaii - Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
Straub Heatlh - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
Tripler Medical Center - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
Wahiawa General Hospital - Wahiawa, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
Wilcox Memorial Hospital - Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
We were pretty detailed in our calls and visits thanks to dozens of native Hawaiian patriots! To the College Republicans all over the Island kudos!. You can look at every hospital here and call or visit any of them. Everyone has a family member working in a hospital. Talk, pay and bribe. You can file freedom of information acts, you can do everything and anything you wish. Barack Obama was never born in a hospital in Hawaii as claimed.
[…]
http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog/?p=135
Comment by PCD — 12/5/2008 @ 6:07 am
WHY IS HE SO AFRAID OF THIS AND WHY CAN’T ANYONE SEE THAT HAWAAI WASN’T A STATE THEN SO IT WAS STILL FOREIGN LAND. HE EVEN ASKED PRESIDENT BUSH TO LEAVE THE WHITE HOUSE NOW SO HIS FAMILY COULD TAKE OVER, DON’T YOU SEE THAT WAY HE CAN PROCLAIM THAT HE IS ALREADY TAKEN OVER AS PRESIDENT SO HE WONT GET THROWN OUT BECAUSE HE KNOWS HE IS NOT LEGAL TO BE PRESIDENT. TTTOOOO BAD!
Comment by aharer — 12/5/2008 @ 7:02 am
Obama’s Birth Certificate Verified by the State
Apparently, the State of Hawaii has come out publicly and stated they have Obama’s birth certificate.
So, it really doesn’t matter what the hospitals are reporting.
Comment by Steverino — 12/5/2008 @ 7:12 am
aharer - ALL CAPS IS TEH SUxXoR
Comment by JD — 12/5/2008 @ 7:15 am
Capslock - cruise control to “cool”…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 12/5/2008 @ 7:21 am
Lets question all 300 million in this country USA birth. The certificate isn’t worth crap. The only citizen’s of this country are on reervations and refered to as “indians”.
Comment by Ron — 12/5/2008 @ 7:32 am
Steverino,
Just where in that empty article does it say ANYTHING about where Obama was born? Put it this way, does it say anything about the specifics of that Birth Certificate? It doesn’t. Nothing was proven or disproven except that the BC is locked up.
Comment by PCD — 12/5/2008 @ 7:45 am
The “Official Birth Certificate Verified By State” story linked above was not published today, but on October 31.
Two state employees, made comments, but not under oath, of course:
“[DOH Director Dr. Chiyome] Fukino said she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.”
DOH Director, indeed.
As Senator Arlen Spector would say: “Not proven!”
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 12/5/2008 @ 7:48 am
Comment by aharer — 12/5/2008 @ 7:02 am
I think you’ll find that HI became a State on 21 Aug 1959!
However, Kenya, at the time of Obama’s birth, was still a British Colony.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/5/2008 @ 8:17 am
Hey, PCD, when you’re proven wrong on this issue, are you going to acknowledge it like a man or are you going to whine that it’s still not enough proof?
First, I never said when the story was published. Second, the date of publication is not relevant.
Again, not relevant. They spoke as state officials. If you’re going to argue that every statement must be made under oath before it can be regarded as truthful, you’ll never be satisfied with any level of proof.
What remains unproven is the contention that the Certificatation of Live Birth is incorrect. I read the whole link L.N. Smithee provided: Phil Berg is long on wind, but short on proof, and he’s never actually seen the original, so I’d say he’s unqualified to judge its authenticity.
But keep howling about this. I see a sucker punch coming from the Obama camp, and you all are going to look like idiots for pursuing this.
Comment by Steverino — 12/5/2008 @ 8:37 am
Steverino,
in 136, you cnc’d OIDC’s 134, not me.
Now, answer me on 133. Where do you have any facts in what you posted. I’ll make it simple for you to duck or whine about. Name a fact other than these officials say they have Obama BC locked up. Name one fact that they attested to from the BC. They were very artful in their one sentence about the BC, that they have it, that it is locked up.
Now, stevie boy, where do you have any evidence what that BC says? I am quite familiar with Birth documents of children born out of the US, but adopted in the US, as I have adopted a Korean daugher, born in Seoul, but has a California BC, and is a US Citizen, but not a natural born citizen. IE., my Brenda is not leg