Patterico's Pontifications

Why can’t he just produce the effing document?

Mossberg500 (9fd170) — 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.

Keith Williams (cdfd37) — 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

Jonathan (d8a056) — 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.

The Dana who realizes that this is a thoroughly dead horse (3e4784) — 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!

Earl T (3ffdc9) — 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?

nk (5fa892) — 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. . .”

Official Internet Data Office (7d692c) — 12/4/2008 @ 7:41 am

I think this will need nowhere…BUT…why hasn’t an actual birth certificate ever been produced?

Fred (fcf819) — 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.

Steverino (69d941) — 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.

Another Drew (410846) — 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.

liamascorcaigh (541b8d) — 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.”

longwalker (ce69ff) — 12/4/2008 @ 8:02 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.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/13/bobirthcertificate.jpg

Steverino (69d941) — 12/4/2008 @ 8:03 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.

liamascorcaigh (541b8d) — 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.

Robin Munn (088890) — 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.

Skip (ba6438) — 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.

liamascorcaigh (541b8d) — 12/4/2008 @ 8:35 am

If that were so the case would indeed be closed but a Certification of Live Birth is not a Certificate of Live Birth.

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.

Steverino (69d941) — 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.

truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 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.

Jim Treacher (592cb4) — 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 🙂

Fred (fcf819) — 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.

rightwingprof (fbb932) — 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.

PCD (7fe637) — 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.

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 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.

nk (5fa892) — 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.

nk (5fa892) — 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.

tmac (f9e092) — 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?

Fred (fcf819) — 12/4/2008 @ 9:30 am

Here’s an interesting factoid that was posted over at Clayton Cramer’s blog.

Another Drew (410846) — 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?

Fred (fcf819) — 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!!!!!!!

nk (5fa892) — 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!!!

Fred (fcf819) — 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.

Oiram (983921) — 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?

J."Trashman" Peden (7d0686) — 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!

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 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.

ECM (de5660) — 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

Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 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.

nk (5fa892) — 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.

luagha (5cbe06) — 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!

Another Drew (410846) — 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.

Juan (4cdfb7) — 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?

Foxfier (db0f51) — 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?

Xrlq (e0ec4f) — 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?

Another Drew (410846) — 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.

Official Internet Data Office (7d692c) — 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.

Another Drew (410846) — 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.

McGehee (25adee) — 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.

Another Drew (410846) — 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.

Juan (4cdfb7) — 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.

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 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/

PCD (7fe637) — 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.

Juan (4cdfb7) — 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.

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 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.

CalifGirlInMaine (aee5f5) — 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.

Wesson (3ab0b8) — 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?

voiceofreason2 (590c85) — 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.

PCD (7fe637) — 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?

Fred (fcf819) — 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).

Another Drew (410846) — 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.

SPQR (72771e) — 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!

Official Internet Data Office (7d692c) — 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.

SPQR (72771e) — 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.

tim maguire (72f509) — 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.

Consul-At-Arms (f4574f) — 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.

Consul-At-Arms (f4574f) — 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!

Ropelight (5b609a) — 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 ……

Another Drew (410846) — 12/4/2008 @ 12:25 pm

CAA, Again, if Obama was born in the US, why lock up all the documents?

PCD (7fe637) — 12/4/2008 @ 12:30 pm

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?

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?

Steverino (69d941) — 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?

Juan (4cdfb7) — 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.:)

Oiram (983921) — 12/4/2008 @ 12:57 pm

I didn’t know that. Are you sure you understand that document and what it means?

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.

Steverino (69d941) — 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.

Dave Surls (13a5f6) — 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.

Juan (4cdfb7) — 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?

Gary L. Zerman (55474e) — 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.

Juan (4cdfb7) — 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.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/4/2008 @ 1:18 pm

nk wrote:

Ain’t no judge gonna overturn the will of 52% of the electorate, YOU STUPID FUCKING MORONS!!!!!!!

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?

The deadpan Dana (3e4784) — 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.

luagha (5cbe06) — 12/4/2008 @ 1:25 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).

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.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/4/2008 @ 1:34 pm

Comment by Steverino — 12/4/2008 @ 1:02 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.

Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 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.

luagha (5cbe06) — 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.

L.N. Smithee (47463a) — 12/4/2008 @ 2:02 pm

I want to know exactly what the mechanism is for legally proving one’s Constitutional qualifications for being President.

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…

Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 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.

Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/4/2008 @ 2:13 pm

I don’t know why people are so anxious to stop this whole thing from playing itself out

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.

Steverino (69d941) — 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

Fred (fcf819) — 12/4/2008 @ 2:22 pm

Ummm..I don’t think you really understand what prima facie means

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.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/4/2008 @ 2:27 pm

Steverino wrote:

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.

Philip Berg is a Democrat.

L.N. Smithee (47463a) — 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”.

nk (5fa892) — 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?

Steverino (69d941) — 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”.

Fred (fcf819) — 12/4/2008 @ 2:44 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”.

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?

Steverino (69d941) — 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.

Juan (4cdfb7) — 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?

Steverino (69d941) — 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.”

Official Internet Data Office (28a571) — 12/4/2008 @ 3:06 pm

Juan, that’s pretty much what I said way above with:

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.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/4/2008 @ 3:13 pm

Steverino wrote:

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?

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!

L.N. Smithee (47463a) — 12/4/2008 @ 3:18 pm

Another story for the fake intellects on this site to argue about.

Makes for great headlines though.

Da'Shiznit (089453) — 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?

L.N. Smithee (47463a) — 12/4/2008 @ 3:29 pm

Livin’ down to your nick, Da’Shiznit.

L.N. Smithee (47463a) — 12/4/2008 @ 3:30 pm

I’m scoring Steverino ahead on punches

EricPWJohnson (d66a90) — 12/4/2008 @ 3:31 pm

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.

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.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/4/2008 @ 3:31 pm

L.N. Smithee #100:

Fair enough. I’ll read through that tonight.

Steverino (69d941) — 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.

Foxfier (db0f51) — 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?

Foxfier (db0f51) — 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….

EricPWJohnson (d66a90) — 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!

The Limerick Avenger (556f76) — 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! 🙂

The ICE Agent Dana (556f76) — 12/4/2008 @ 3:51 pm

Steverino wrote:

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.

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.

L.N. Smithee (47463a) — 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.

Adriane (b8ecd8) — 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?

imdw (603c39) — 12/4/2008 @ 4:30 pm

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????

I am assuming you have a link or some evidence supporting this?

truthnjustice (c313be) — 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).

Official Internet Data Office (28a571) — 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!!!

Patriot (e077b3) — 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.

C. S. P. Schofield (2f879a) — 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?

rls (14b9d3) — 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.

jcurtis (415b60) — 12/4/2008 @ 8:53 pm

Can you explain where you get this rule?

I think it stemms from the “Can’t have dual citizenship” thing…

But I have no idea where it comes from.

Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/4/2008 @ 8:58 pm

Scott,

It comes under the several statutes but a good summary is here
US State department Travel Website

Dual Nationality

The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.

A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

Intent can be shown by the person’s statements or conduct.The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.

Information on losing foreign citizenship can be obtained from the foreign country’s embassy and consulates in the United States. Americans can renounce U.S. citizenship in the proper form at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad

EricPWJohnson (d66a90) — 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.

EricPWJohnson (d66a90) — 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.

jcurtis (415b60) — 12/4/2008 @ 9:40 pm

I always figured that ‘natural born’ would mean that he was a citizen from birth.

truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 12/5/2008 @ 4:17 am

Fred:

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.

L.M. Smithee:

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.

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.

Xrlq (62cad4) — 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.

Xrlq (62cad4) — 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

PCD (7fe637) — 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!

aharer (8d42ad) — 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.

Steverino (db5760) — 12/5/2008 @ 7:12 am

aharer – ALL CAPS IS TEH SUxXoR

JD (bda7e2) — 12/5/2008 @ 7:15 am

Capslock – cruise control to “cool”…

Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 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”.

Ron (91d61b) — 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.

PCD (7fe637) — 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!”

Official Internet Data Office (d35eaa) — 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.

Another Drew (46c816) — 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?

The “Official Birth Certificate Verified By State” story linked above was not published today, but on October 31.

First, I never said when the story was published. Second, the date of publication is not relevant.

Two state employees, made comments, but not under oath, of course:

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.

As Senator Arlen Spector would say: “Not proven!”

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.

Steverino (69d941) — 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 legal to be President, and in my opinion, neither is Obama in the same way.

PCD (7fe637) — 12/5/2008 @ 8:48 am

What remains not proven is that Obama is eligible to be President, under the Constitution of the United States.

You say, “when you’re proven wrong on this issue” and that, of course, means you still haven’t proven it yet.

Official Internet Data Office (d35eaa) — 12/5/2008 @ 8:56 am

“…Phil Berg is long on wind, but short on proof, and he’s never actually seen the original…”

I think that is a crucial point to his lawsuit:
He wants the original produced in Court, so that everyone may examine it and the question can then be decided.

Another Drew (46c816) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:13 am

Tell me something, because I’m confused and maybe naive. Name a time and place in America when the person running for president in this country have had to explain his religion, birth, race, nationality, patriotism, gender,…all at the same time, before or after the election. From what I’ve been able to garner NONE. Just this one black guy. All 43 presidents before him had to explain nothing and took office. Some of the biggest hypocrites in this country prior to President-Elect B. Obama took office and set up exactly what is going on now. Here is a sincere man at the cost of his life willing to change the B.S. that 43 other AH’s set up.

Ron (91d61b) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:24 am

in 136, you cnc’d OIDC’s 134, not me.

I never said I was copying you, nimrod. The first statement was directed at you, the rest to OIDC.

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.

The fact is that the State of Hawaii has issued a Certification of Live Birth which shows Obama’s place of birth to be Honolulu, Hawaii. That document has not yet been proven false. Nothing you have shown proves otherwise.

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 legal to be President, and in my opinion, neither is Obama in the same way

Does her California birth certificate list her place of birth as Seoul? Or does it list it as somewhere in California? Obama’s Certification of Live Birth lists Obama’s place of birth as Honolulu — a fact which none of you have refuted.

What remains not proven is that Obama is eligible to be President, under the Constitution of the United States.

The Certification of Live Birth is prima facie evidence of the facts of Obama’s Birth. Obama has met his burden of proof, it’s up to your side to rebut it…which you haven’t done adequately.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:31 am

Comment by Ron — 12/5/2008 @ 9:24 am

There wouldn’t be so many unanswered questions if PE Obama had not shrouded so much of his life from public scrutiny.

Remember the first rule of Washington DC:
It’s not what you do, it’s the cover-up of what you do, that will get you.

Another Drew (46c816) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:31 am

Name a time and place in America when the person running for president in this country have had to explain his religion, birth, race, nationality, patriotism, gender

Mitt Romney had to explain his religion.

President Andrew Jackson was rumored to have been born in Ireland.

Republican Vice President Charles Curtis was 3/8 American Indian.

Democratic vice-presidential candidate Richard M. Johnson was almost denied election, even though he won, because he had a black girlfriend.

Vice-presidential and Presidential candidate John Edwards was alleged to. . . never mind.

Official Internet Data Office (d35eaa) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:37 am

> I have simply asked, given the implausible, if possible, circumstances, that a person running
> for vice-president provide some basic evidence for a very strange and unclear story.
The Atlantic: More Palin “Pregnancy” Pictures!

Wesson (3ab0b8) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:41 am

Hi ho, Steverino.

The Certification of Live Birth is a digital image of something, maybe with stuff added, maybe with stuff removed. It’s not the piece of paper that was allegedly produced in 1961. It’s also not a hard copy Certificate of Live Birth.

They painted you a picture, that’s all.

Official Internet Data Office (d35eaa) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:43 am

Stevie, No, Obama has released nothing. You are fighting off of a doctored photoshop from Fight the Smears and from Kos that was admitted to be false.

Again, what direct, verifiable proof you have? I posted that ALL the Hawaii hospitals denied having “Mrs. Obama” or her child there.

You have officials attesting they have the document, but no one can see it, and none of these officicals have said one word about the Certificate, not the Certification, which was explained to you.

Stevie, I sure hope you don’t practice law.

PCD (7fe637) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:46 am

The Certification of Live Birth is a digital image of something, maybe with stuff added, maybe with stuff removed. It’s not the piece of paper that was allegedly produced in 1961. It’s also not a hard copy Certificate of Live Birth.

They painted you a picture, that’s all.

The State of Hawaii holds that the document is sufficient to prove the facts of Obama’s birth.

Again, what direct, verifiable proof you have? I posted that ALL the Hawaii hospitals denied having “Mrs. Obama” or her child there.

That’s not proof of anything, other than that the hospitals you asked wouldn’t answer you. Off the top of my head, I can think of three reasons for this:

1. Obama wasn’t born in a hospital
OR
2. The hospital Obama was born in no longer exists.
OR
3. The hospital Obama was born in refused to cooperate.

Seriously, if you think this is proof that Obama wasn’t born in Honolulu, you’re dreaming.

You have officials attesting they have the document, but no one can see it, and none of these officicals have said one word about the Certificate, not the Certification, which was explained to you.

What the officials have said was that as a matter of policy, they don’t issue certified copies to people who don’t have a tangible interest in the birth record. It’s the same in California: even if you knew my date and place of birth, you couldn’t get a copy of my birth certificate without proving you’re a direct relative.

What you refuse to admit is that the State of Hawaii has issued a document which it holds to be prima facie evidence of the facts of Obama’s birth.

Patterico, nk, Xrlq all practice law, and they all think you’re full of crap. I don’t need a law degree to concur with them.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:56 am

Given current law, no hospital is going to discuss patient records or even their existance.

The conspiracy nuts in this are acting just like conspiracy nuts always do, lots of froth, speculation circulated as fact and no actual logic.

SPQR (72771e) — 12/5/2008 @ 10:03 am

147, Steverino, don’t speak for Patterico, nk, Xrlq. That is beneath you, and it makes you look like you are dancing to avoid the truth.

2nd, you don’t have the BC either, therefore you can not make statements as to what is on it. Because you can’t prove what is on it, you can’t prove that Obama is eligible to be President under the Constitution as written.

PCD (7fe637) — 12/5/2008 @ 10:04 am

By the way, PCD, you haven’t answered my question regarding your daughter’s California birth certificate.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/5/2008 @ 10:05 am

147, Steverino, don’t speak for Patterico, nk, Xrlq. That is beneath you, and it makes you look like you are dancing to avoid the truth.

I’m not speaking for them, I’m just noting the sentiments which they have expressed.

It’s rich that you accuse me of dancing to avoid the truth: I have held from the beginning that the State of Hawaii asserts Obama was born in Honolulu, and you have yet to refute that point.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/5/2008 @ 10:07 am

150, 151, I’m going to pull the Obama shuffle on you, just like Obama is pulling on the public. You prove what is on my daughter’s birth certificate WITHOUT SEEING A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORIGINAL!

As to Obama’s BC, all that is being Officially said by Hawaii, is that they have it and it is not going to be displayed publicly.

Steveo, you have not proven one specific thing on that BC. Start with the central point, where specifically was Obama’s birth? Not that there is a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, but a public document that can be verified stating where Obama was born.

On my original photostat of my BC, it says when and where I was born, and who delivered me. You can’t testify to any proof of any of that for Obama.

PCD (7fe637) — 12/5/2008 @ 10:21 am

SPQR, it is not nuts to demand that the Constitutional qualifications of a President be fulfilled and publically verifiable.

Now, how has any of the absolute facts of when and where Obama been proven publicly? Don’t give me Obama campaign propaganda or Kos Krap. I want legal proof, and that is all people are demanding.

PCD (7fe637) — 12/5/2008 @ 10:24 am

Also, to one and all, if you think Obama has proven his place of birth, show me how he could verify such if he was a Little Leaguer or Olympian needing to verify his birth statistics and place of birth to be eligible.

Also, show me where the documentation is that would satisfy the backgroud check for the when and where of his birth if he were applying to be a Federal Agent or Applying for employment requiring a security clearance.

PCD (7fe637) — 12/5/2008 @ 10:32 am

Start with the central point, where specifically was Obama’s birth? Not that there is a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, but a public document that can be verified stating where Obama was born

Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. The Certification of Live Birth is a public document, issued by the State of Hawaii. You appear to be stating that it is not. The COLB states Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.

150, 151, I’m going to pull the Obama shuffle on you, just like Obama is pulling on the public. You prove what is on my daughter’s birth certificate WITHOUT SEEING A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORIGINAL!

I don’t have to prove anything. I asked you a question: whether your daughter’s birth certificate says she was born in Seoul or California. I asked that question because you seemed to think it was relevant that your adopted daughter had a California birth certificate. The point I was making is that even with such a birth certificate, it probably doesn’t say she was born in California. Since you have ducked the question completely, you’re looking like an idiot here.

On my original photostat of my BC, it says when and where I was born, and who delivered me. You can’t testify to any proof of any of that for Obama.

A document issued by the State of Hawaii lists the date, time, and city of Obama’s birth. If that’s not enough proof for you, I suspect nothing will be. God Himself could come down from Heaven, appear in front of you and tell you that Obama was born in Honolulu, and your only comment would be, “He was paid off by Soros.” Seriously, dude, you’re looking like a nut case.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/5/2008 @ 10:34 am

Oops. Forgot to turn off bolding. Sorry about that.

[No problem. It’s easy to miss and I fixed it. — DRJ]

Steverino (69d941) — 12/5/2008 @ 10:34 am

Comment by Ron — 12/5/2008 @ 9:24 am

McCain was challenged if he was qualified.
https://patterico.com/2008/02/27/the-new-york-times-as-desperate-as-hillary/

As I pointed out above– folks want to see a certified original because Hawaii allows for the editing of a certificate of live birth.

I honestly don’t know what to think, but when a politician freaks out this much, I want to know why. Double-plus so when it’s someone who is as much of a liar as Obama– he keeps lying about things that make him look bad. (Wright, anyone?)

Foxfier (db0f51) — 12/5/2008 @ 11:15 am

Here’s something to play around with:
http://stubbornfacts.us/politics/2008_election/on_mccains_birth_and_eligibility_to_be_president
argues that:
the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of plftliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador.

B. Obama Sr. was put in for the scholarship that sent him to the US by the Kenyan Independence movement; could he be considered an embassador? (Lord only knows of whom– Brit-Kenya that was in power, or Independent-Kenya that was forming?)

Foxfier (db0f51) — 12/5/2008 @ 11:27 am

Kenya was declared independent of the United Kingdom on 12 December 1963.

Another Drew (46c816) — 12/5/2008 @ 11:31 am

Doesn’t something smell fishy with Obama, anyway? His whole rush to establish his own “Office of the President-elect” when there is no such office, and no previous president-elect felt the need to invent one (with its own “seal,” no less) seems to me to be one big hustle. The whole act seems designed to forestall critics who might say that he’s not a genuine President-elect (which no one can be until January 6th, 2009, technically speaking).

Official Internet Data Office (d35eaa) — 12/5/2008 @ 12:22 pm

Do you think we’re dealing with someone with a huge “self-esteem” problem?
And, if so, how would this possibly manifest itself to our detriment in the future, when he actually has real power?

Another Drew (46c816) — 12/5/2008 @ 12:25 pm

The whole “Office of the President-Elect” thing is really funny, and kind of sad too. It does, however, flow naturally from the campaign, when they had already made their own Presidential seal.

JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 12:44 pm

Xrlq ranted:

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.

Since you’re getting on me for not reading every one of your precious posts, let me remind you that my statement regarding the difference between a Certification and a Certificate is simply an addendum to an earlier reply to Steverino informing him that Philip Berg believes the Certification posted on Obama’s site is a FORGERY.

In the event that Berg is correct and it IS a forgery, that means he has no right to an authentic Certification, which would indicate that he either does not have an authentic Certificate or the actual legit Certificate contradicts his official story, which would be detailed in an accurate Certification.

Which brings me back to a question that I asked Steverino, and I direct now to you: Why do YOU think the Obama camp hasn’t just presented a legitimate Certification to a judge in response to Berg, and nipped this whole thing in the bud, X? Do you think they enjoy all this? Would you? What principle do you think they think they’re defending by ignoring all of this?

For someone who wants to “Fight the Smears,” he’s sure doing a piss-poor job.

L.N. Smithee (47463a) — 12/5/2008 @ 12:55 pm

I have had to provide more documentation to my new employer in order to complete the new hire process than Baracky did to become President.

JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 12:57 pm

Which brings me back to a question that I asked Steverino, and I direct now to you: Why do YOU think the Obama camp hasn’t just presented a legitimate Certification to a judge in response to Berg, and nipped this whole thing in the bud, X? Do you think they enjoy all this? Would you? What principle do you think they think they’re defending by ignoring all of this

Actually, I do think they’re enjoying all of this. They’re making their opponents look like shrill, braying ninnies. Heck, I’d enjoy that. The simplest explanation for their behavior is that they feel they have already presented enough evidence to prove their point, and the attempts to rebut have fallen short.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/5/2008 @ 12:58 pm

For someone who wants to “Fight the Smears,” he’s sure doing a piss-poor job.

The idea that Baracky is new and changey, and wanted to bring some kind of post-partisan post-racial feel-good BS everyone is going to get along kumbayah to Washington was one of the biggest farces hoisted upon the American public in this whole election.

JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:01 pm

PCD, it is nuts however, to claim that a failure to be given information means that the information is what the conspiracy nut wants to argue.

I suspect that the Obama camp does not want to produce the original birth certificate because it contains some inconvenient or embarrassing entry on it regarding the circumstances of his birth other than where he was born. His name is different, or the notations regarding his parents is different, or something of that nature. This is very likely given the circumstances of his birth. I don’t think they think that they can conceal a foreign birthplace.

SPQR (72771e) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:02 pm

To those who think Obama isn’t a natural born citizen:

In order for this to be true, you would have to believe that Obama schemed his way into the White House knowing he wasn’t eligible and hoping no one would ever find out. Do you think he’s really that foolhardy?

I’ll admit Obama’s a narcissist, a tool, even a crypto-socialist. But he’s not an idiot, and the thought that he’d take this big a risk is beyond comprehension.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:09 pm

steverino – In your opinion, why have they not simply produced the actual Birth Certificate?

JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:10 pm

To those who think Obama isn’t a natural born citizen:

You are conflating a bunch of positions in the above. How about a class of people that suspects that he was born in Hawaii, but has never proven same, and thinks that the President of the United States ought to actually do so.

JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:15 pm

JD wrote: The whole “Office of the President-Elect” thing is really funny, and kind of sad too. It does, however, flow naturally from the campaign, when they had already made their own Presidential seal.

The Obama for America quasi-Presidential seal was created by the talented vandalist Shepard Fairey, who was the disturbed mind behind the “Andre The Giant has a Posse” stickers, and also created the now world-famous “HOPE” poster.

You probably haven’t seen a Fairey portrait of George W. Bush. Here’s one now, from the week following his re-election in 2004. Note the collar pin.

L.N. Smithee (47463a) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:18 pm

steverino – In your opinion, why have they not simply produced the actual Birth Certificate?

I have no idea, and my opinion why they have not done so is irrelevant.

What is relevant is whether the COLB is authentic.

You are conflating a bunch of positions in the above. How about a class of people that suspects that he was born in Hawaii, but has never proven same, and thinks that the President of the United States ought to actually do so.

I’m not conflating anything. I’m directly addressing those who think Obama isn’t a US citizen.

If the COLB is authentic, then I don’t see why anyone is complaining that Obama hasn’t proved he was born in Hawaii.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:22 pm

It is irrelevant? He could have ended this, at every step in the entire legal process, by simply producing his birth certificate.

When you get pulled over driving a car, you present the officer with a copy of your drivers license, not a copy of a letter saying you passed your drivers exam.

JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:28 pm

For the conspiracy theorists, who faked the microfilm of this newspaper page?

SPQR (72771e) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:29 pm

#169

John Edwards made a serious run for the presidency, regardless of the affair and the kid. He later said he felt above it all. That was moral obviously as opposed to legal. But BHo has the same deep narcissism and sense of entitlement. Plus, the trip to Hawaii right before the election. Grandma in the freezer or what? No obit, no news.

Vermont Neighbor (5ea336) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:30 pm

JD, the drivers’ license is a certification in its own way, its not the original drivers’ exam.

SPQR (72771e) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:30 pm

177 comments, and Mossberg hit this whole issue directly on the head in the first comment.

Why can’t he just produce the effing document?

Comment by Mossberg500 — 12/4/2008 @ 6:44 am

JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:32 pm

SPQR – That was a bad analogy. He should be able to produce the birth certificate, not a letter from an agency saying he was born.

JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:34 pm

It is irrelevant? He could have ended this, at every step in the entire legal process, by simply producing his birth certificate.

What I said was that my opinion of why he has not done so is irrelevant. And, of course, it is thoroughly irrelevant.

However, if the COLB is authentic, does it matter why Obama has not produced the birth certificate? To his mind, he’s already produced enough information.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:40 pm

Sure, JD, he should be able to, but obviously he does not want to, and if Hawaii law gives the certification the legal effect necessary, he won’t have to.

Since there really is no particular institution that he is forced to present it to, it is going to continue to be a nutty conspiracy theory from now on regardless of whatever he does. That probably is yet another reason not to present the original if there is anything on it he does not want public.

SPQR (72771e) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:41 pm

He should be able to produce the birth certificate, not a letter from an agency saying he was born.

What is a birth certificate if it is not some letter from an agency saying that he was born?

(I’ll ignore your attempt to trivialize the information contained on the COLB.)

Steverino (69d941) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:41 pm

Comment by JD — 12/5/2008 @ 1:34 pm

He was born?
And here all this time I thought he just sprang, full grown, from a drawer in Daley’s desk –
just another pod-person!

Another Drew (46c816) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:44 pm

Why does he not produce the damn BIRTH CERTIFICATE? How effin’ difficult can that be? And,yes, I am trivializing a COLB, because it is not a Birth Certificate, something that the effin’ next President of the US should be able to produce. Good Allah.

JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:46 pm

Steverino wrote:

To those who think Obama isn’t a natural born citizen:

In order for this to be true, you would have to believe that Obama schemed his way into the White House knowing he wasn’t eligible and hoping no one would ever find out. Do you think he’s really that foolhardy?

The fact that you’re even asking that question while simultaneously predicting this issue will vanish without his having to provide any more evidence illustrates that the correct adjective isn’t “foolhardy,” it’s “brilliant” … and “diabolical.”

It’s funny reading that question from you Steverino, since you are the one who feared the reaction of “the popular press” if Republicans don’t condemn the whole controversy. You’re acting as if B-HO already doesn’t have the MSM in his pocket. Remember what Obama said at the dinner honoring Palestinian terror supporter Rashid Khalidi? Remember what William Ayers said about him at the same dinner? Oh yeah — none of us know, because the L.A. Times said they have a video of the event, but they weren’t going to release it.

Bill Clinton durn near got away with getting blowjobs in the Oval Office after his candidacy was nearly derailed by the revelation of his extramarital affair with Gennifer Flowers. Who knows what he got away with that we don’t know about. You surely remember why he said he tried to get away with it, despite the risks: “Because I could.” And as long as there are people who are just so annoyed about having to discuss his birth certificate that they want to just forego the legitimate question of what evidence should be brought to fulfill Article II of the Constitution come election time, Obama will be able to say, “Yes I can!”

(BTW, for the record: I don’t have any idea what he’s hiding. But we know what he would do if he had NOTHING to hide.)

L.N. Smithee (47463a) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:51 pm

JD, lots of legal documents are nothing more than a certification by a clerk that a record exists.

SPQR (72771e) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:53 pm

One more thing, Steverino: George W. Bush almost was elected President without disclosing his DUI arrest.

L.N. Smithee (47463a) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:56 pm

But we have to produce our actual birth certificates for lots of things, SPQR. That you should have to do so for the Presidency of the US does not seem to be such a herculean task, and since the Constitution requires certain things, maybe we ought to follow their rules.

JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:56 pm

JD, actually in many of the circumstances you mention, certifications of the kind mentioned are acceptable proof too.

SPQR (72771e) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:57 pm

Seriously. People are being marginalized for this, yet it’s important to produce such an easy document.

I realize with Obama we have to pick and choose our scandals. Opening Jack Ryan’s court records? Knocking off his opponents through litigation? How about disabling the credit card codes and accepting foreign funding?

Also Bill Ayers’ statement that “America makes me want to puke,” said while Obama was working in the state senate and already connected to the guy. Ol’ Jem Wright is good for a little dialogue, too. I wish the SOB could be deported, but seeing as he’s headed for the WH, his arrogance and sure-footedness might one day catch up with him. It’s been known to happen.

Vermont Neighbor (5ea336) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:58 pm

SPQR – if, for the sake of argument, the BO camp cannot produce the Certification of Live Birth for examination to prove it is not a forgery, does that or does that not cast doubt on the existence of an actual Certificate of Live Birth?

L.N. Smithee (47463a) — 12/5/2008 @ 1:59 pm

L.N. Smithee, who is going to examine it?

Meanwhile, who faked the newspaper microfilm?

SPQR (72771e) — 12/5/2008 @ 2:02 pm

Why does he not produce the damn BIRTH CERTIFICATE? How effin’ difficult can that be?

If the COLB is authentic, WHY SHOULD he produce the birth certificate? The COLB is prima facie evidence of the facts of his birth, and left unrefuted it is sufficient.

And,yes, I am trivializing a COLB, because it is not a Birth Certificate, something that the effin’ next President of the US should be able to produce. Good Allah.

For the umpteenth time, the COLB is issued by the State of Hawaii, it contains the date, time, and place of Obama. Assuming the COLB is authentic, that is sufficient to prove Obama is qualified to be President (as far as the fact of his age and birthplace are concerned). The State of Hawaii says as much on the document itself. So, you need to have more reason than “I don’t think it’s good enough” to gainsay its contents.

The fact that you’re even asking that question while simultaneously predicting this issue will vanish without his having to provide any more evidence illustrates that the correct adjective isn’t “foolhardy,” it’s “brilliant” … and “diabolical.”

I predicted nothing of the sort. What I did predict is that your side is going to lose this issue, and

Steverino (69d941) — 12/5/2008 @ 2:02 pm

his arrogance and sure-footedness might one day catch up with him. It’s been known to happen.

And O.J is living proof.

ML (14488c) — 12/5/2008 @ 2:06 pm

Assuming the COLB is authentic,

People have questioned this, and it is not being produced for examination, to my understanding.

You are assuming that everything is authentic. I do not share your assumptions, steverino. If they had it, they could have produced this, and ended it. Just because they have something close to it, and they refuse to produce that for examination, should tend to make you question whether or not they are being forthright with you.

But, I guess I am just an old-fashioned play by the rules kind of guy. We cannot expect Baracky to do something as simple as produce a Birth Certificate prior to becoming President. Racists.

JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 2:09 pm

For the umpteenth time,

I could care less if you say it 95,824 times, it will not change a certificate of live birth into a Birth Certificate. And assuming everything to be true does not make it so.

JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 2:10 pm

ML,
heh !

Vermont Neighbor (5ea336) — 12/5/2008 @ 2:12 pm

Another thought.. it was DRJ who posted that it could state Muslim somewhere on the doc.

Vermont Neighbor (5ea336) — 12/5/2008 @ 2:14 pm

I could care less if you say it 95,824 times, it will not change a certificate of live birth into a Birth Certificate. And assuming everything to be true does not make it so.

Here are some facts to chew over:

1. The State of Hawaii issues the COLB
2. The COLB contains the date, time, and place of birth
3. The State of Hawaii prints on the bottom of the COLB “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding”

Those are undisputable facts. Please explain to all of us why an authentic COLB does not prove the place of birth in any legal matter.

Finally:

4. There is no Constitutional obligation for a President to produce a birth certificate.

Since Obama can prove his place of birth without producing a birth certificate, please explain his obligation to do so merely at your behest.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/5/2008 @ 2:16 pm

People have questioned this, and it is not being produced for examination, to my understanding.

You are assuming that everything is authentic. I do not share your assumptions, steverino

I have listened to their questions, and so far they haven’t sufficiently rebutted the authenticity of the document.

I’m giving the document the same treatment I’m giving you: assume it’s authentic until proven otherwise.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/5/2008 @ 2:19 pm

Since Obama can prove his place of birth without producing a birth certificate, please explain his obligation to do so merely at your behest.

Because it appears inadequate and insufficient, jmo. Again, the courts will roll over this to make it look like Barry walked over hot coals to get to his coveted desk.

Vermont Neighbor (5ea336) — 12/5/2008 @ 2:23 pm

Because it appears inadequate and insufficient, jmo

Please explain why a document issued by the state which says, “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding,” is not adequate or sufficient.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/5/2008 @ 2:31 pm

JD asked Steverino, at #170, “In your opinion, why have they not simply produced the actual Birth Certificate?”

In response, at #172, Steverino said, “I have no idea, and my opinion why they have not done so is irrelevant.”

There you have it folks. JD asks a reasonable question, a key question, and gets tap dance and double talk instead of an answer.

Now, clearly, obviously, it’s not too much to ask for the President-Elect to demonstrate he meets the minimum Constitutional requirements for the office of POTUS. That he declines to do so is more than questionable, and it’s perfectly legitimate and relevant to inquire why Obama refuses to put an end to the speculation.

What is truly “irrelevant” is anything other than the public disclosure of an original birth certificate, not some digital image of a similar document, not the word of someone else, and certainly not silence.

Obama must show the American people the original document, nothing else will do. Until then it is indisputably relevant for JD and anyone else to ask, if not, why not?

JD’s question is reasonable, relevant, and logical, and it deserves an honest and forthright answer.

Ropelight (5b609a) — 12/5/2008 @ 2:34 pm

Ropelight, there is nothing “key” about why they have not supplied the original certificate. The motivation for not supplying it does not answer the question of whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen.

This is just a red herring.

Further, Obama does not have to show the original document. Period. If an institution with the power to inquire, like the electoral college or Congress requests, he may have to prove it in some manner. But nothing requires him to shown a document that did not even exist when the Constitution was adopted.

SPQR (72771e) — 12/5/2008 @ 2:37 pm

There you have it folks. JD asks a reasonable question, a key question, and gets tap dance and double talk instead of an answer

It’s not a tapdance, it was a complete answer to the question. I don’t know why they haven’t done so, I don’t know what’s in their minds. The truth is my opinion about why people do things is not relevant. If you think it’s relevant, please explain why.

What is relevant is whether the COLB is authentic. If it’s authentic, then this argument is over, and you all lose. If it’s not authentic, then we look for some other proof of Obama’s citizenship.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/5/2008 @ 2:39 pm

I find it very frustrating that people think that they can dictate how Obama proves his status. If Hawaii says that the COLB is evidence of his birth, then it simply is.

SPQR (72771e) — 12/5/2008 @ 2:44 pm

Poppycock!

Ropelight (5b609a) — 12/5/2008 @ 2:57 pm

Steverino is arguing against some image in his head, certainly not the people that are actually commenting here.

Other people have raised questions about the legitimacy of the COLB. Lots of questions, and if you were curious, you could easily find them. Simply assuming that it is valid when they will not even produce a live copy of the COLB is quite a stretch.

SPQR – I admit to my partisan instincts in this one. Baracky has skated through everything without even the barest examination from the electorate and the media, and to me, this issue is a microcosm of that lack of scrutiny. I understand that a COLB, if authentic, can be used as evidence. Given Baracky’s willingness to outright ignore laws like with campaign finance, and the underhand tactics and overt lies that have permeated the entire campaign, I do not see how one can simply take them at their word.

Having said that, I think this lawsuit is silly, but am happy that a Dem brought it, instead of a Republican.

Again, I think he was born in Hawaii. But, Baracky is giving everyone the big fuck you and laughing that he does not even have to prove something when he could simply produce his actual birth certificate and make this all go away.

JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 3:02 pm

#206, you’ve only described your own comment. Not mine.

SPQR (72771e) — 12/5/2008 @ 3:08 pm

Steverino is arguing against some image in his head, certainly not the people that are actually commenting here.

Seriously, JD, this was uncalled for. I’ve responded on point to everyone attacking my positions. You have yet to respond adequately to several of my questions.

Other people have raised questions about the legitimacy of the COLB. Lots of questions, and if you were curious, you could easily find them. Simply assuming that it is valid when they will not even produce a live copy of the COLB is quite a stretch.

I’ve gone out and looked at the questions, JD. The questions are pretty much inuendo, and lacking in fact. In my opinion, they have not adequately rebutted the authenticity of the COLB.

Now, please go and respond to my questions in #198. Failure to do so indicates that you are not arguing in good faith.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/5/2008 @ 3:19 pm

SPQR – I admit to my partisan instincts in this one. Baracky has skated through everything without even the barest examination from the electorate and the media, and to me, this issue is a microcosm of that lack of scrutiny. I understand that a COLB, if authentic, can be used as evidence. Given Baracky’s willingness to outright ignore laws like with campaign finance, and the underhand tactics and overt lies that have permeated the entire campaign, I do not see how one can simply take them at their word.

Junior Detective: you spelled that wrong. Bush is not spelled that way.

truthnjustice (c313be) — 12/5/2008 @ 3:47 pm

I have yet to respond adequately to your questions?

Your position assumes honesty from a party that has shown itself to not be honest. We start from different points.

Is Baracky willing to produce a live copy of the COLB? If so, then my position would be different. If not, why not?

Your question in 198 is not asked in good faith. Baracky has no obligation to me, and I am not the one that filed the lawsuit. I am Joe Q citizen who is amazed that they refuse to simply but his birth certificate into the record and end this silliness.

JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 3:48 pm

Steverino: These people do not respond to questions when the answers would prove them wrong.

truthnjustice (c313be) — 12/5/2008 @ 3:49 pm

tmj – Do you ever tire of being a complete asshat?

JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 3:56 pm

I have yet to respond adequately to your questions?

That’s correct. You ignored my question about your daughter’s birth certificate. You seemed to think the certificate was relevant when you brought it up, but when questioned on it, you dodged. You have yet to explain why an authentic COLB is not adequate proof of Obama’s place of birth. I could go on, but those are the two at the top of my head.

Your question in 198 is not asked in good faith.

Nice try. Here’s what you said:

I could care less if you say it 95,824 times, it will not change a certificate of live birth into a Birth Certificate

The implication there is that a COLB is not adequate proof of place of birth. Is that the point you were making? My response was:

Those are undisputable facts. Please explain to all of us why an authentic COLB does not prove the place of birth in any legal matter.

You have completely ignored that. You accuse me of not acting in good faith, and yet you refuse to answer legitimate questions. Some might call that “projection”.

My final remark in #198 was:

Since Obama can prove his place of birth without producing a birth certificate, please explain his obligation to do so merely at your behest.

Perhaps that was a bit over the top, so I’ll rephrase it: since Obama can prove his place of birth with an authentic COLB, please explain his obligation to produce a birth certificate, especially since the Constitution does not require it.

Baracky has no obligation to me, and I am not the one that filed the lawsuit.

And you accuse me of dodging? Wow. Just wow.

Look, I wouldn’t vote for Obama if you held a gun to my head. But this is a dead issue, and the continued screaming about it reflects badly on you.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/5/2008 @ 3:58 pm

Junior Detective: Do you ever tire of using the same tired adjectives to describe people with whom you disagree?

truthnjustice (c313be) — 12/5/2008 @ 4:04 pm

Why search around for something new, when the tried and true will do?

Another Drew (46c816) — 12/5/2008 @ 4:07 pm

That’s what they said about using leeches to cure chicken pox…. probably.

truthnjustice (c313be) — 12/5/2008 @ 4:08 pm

You have yet to explain why an authentic COLB is not adequate proof of Obama’s place of birth.

If Baracky’s folks produce a live COLB for inspection, then I will change my position. Until then, not so much. You are assuming authenticity based on … ?

Please explain to all of us why an authentic COLB does not prove the place of birth in any legal matter.

You are assuming authenticity. I never question whether or not a COLB proves birth in a legal matter. It does.

So, you have studiously avoided answering the legitimate question as to why Baracky does not simply produce live copies of the actual birth certificate, or even the COLB, and end this. Project often?

since Obama can prove his place of birth

He can? You have touched and seen the COLB or the birth certificate? Who exactly has, if you haven’t?

I am not screaming, steverino. I am trying to have a conversation with you (with that nitwit tmj interrupting). We disagree on the assumption of authenticity, and our disagreement stems from there.

JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 4:12 pm

tmj – When you quit acting like an asshat, people will quit noting that you are acting like an asshat.

JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 4:13 pm

Steverino, JD is arguing in good faith. He’s just not willing to accept a questionable COLB when only an original birth certificate will suffice. I see it the same way.

Furthermore, it’s quite reasonable to ask for the best available evidence to establish if Obama is a natural born citizen of the USA or not. If Obama meets the minimum qualifications for POTUS, and he can prove it, why not do so?

We have every right to expect such forthrightness from our leaders, and every right to question their motivations when they refuse such simple and direct remedies to end controversial issues.

So, really, what’s all the hubbub about? Where’s the beef? Either produce the damn birth certificate or say why not. I don’t want to read any more crap about COLBs or to be told the issue is irrelevant.

It’s relevant alright, otherwise there wouldn’t be such strenuous efforts to stonewall the issue, deny the obvious questions, or play for time to sweep the whole matter under the rug.

It’s high time for Obama to step up to the plate, fish or cut bait, put up or shut up: we’re talking about the President-Elect of the USA here, this isn’t bean bag.

Ropelight (5b609a) — 12/5/2008 @ 4:25 pm

truthnjustice, your interjections are trollery and are interrupting the adults in the room.

Ropelight, you are not entitled to “best evidence”, only sufficient evidence. And frankly, it is not clear who is “entitled” under the Constitution.

SPQR (72771e) — 12/5/2008 @ 4:36 pm

Hi ho, Steverino. You said (#198):

“There is no Constitutional obligation for a President to produce a birth certificate.”

That’s right. Now we’re getting somewhere!

When someone takes the oath of office of President, he must be qualified as a natural-born citizen. That’s the test.

If, for example, he shows everyone a hard copy of a birth certificate stating he was born in Peoria, Illinois, but later technically renounces his citizenship by traveling on another country’s passport, then he is not eligible any more, even if he was at one time.

By the way, even if you don’t question Obama’s eligibility, the left is still going to call you crazy. Who cares? They did that when you voted for Bush!

Official Internet Data Office (98d98f) — 12/5/2008 @ 4:42 pm

When someone takes the oath of office of President, he must be qualified as a natural-born citizen. That’s the test.

Right, and my point all along has been that a valid COLB issued by the State of Hawaii satisfies that test.

If, for example, he shows everyone a hard copy of a birth certificate stating he was born in Peoria, Illinois, but later technically renounces his citizenship by traveling on another country’s passport, then he is not eligible any more, even if he was at one time.

That’s a side issue, not relevant to anything I’ve been saying. Such a thing wouldn’t show on his birth certificate, and it wouldn’t show on the COLB. Further, no one has alleged this has happened in Obama’s case. So, why bring it up?

By the way, even if you don’t question Obama’s eligibility, the left is still going to call you crazy. Who cares? They did that when you voted for Bush!

I’d prefer not to give them any more ammo. Further, it’s not the left I care about, it’s the folks in the middle who might be put off by all this. There’s an old saying: don’t interrupt your enemy when he’s in the process of making a mistake. The converse would be: try to stop your friends when they are in the process of making a mistake. But, apparently, some of my friends would rather not be stopped.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/5/2008 @ 4:55 pm

Comment by liesntyranny — 12/5/2008 @ 4:08 pm

I’m sure you have an ongoing relationship with both the pox, and leaches –
one marked by professional courtesy if nothing else.

Another Drew (46c816) — 12/5/2008 @ 4:56 pm

and my point all along has been that a valid COLB issued by the State of Hawaii satisfies that test.

And my point is that you assume this, based on nothing but faith.

JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 5:01 pm

You are assuming authenticity. I never question whether or not a COLB proves birth in a legal matter. It does.

Then why the caterwauling for the birth certificate and only the birth certificate? If Obama produced the hardcopy of the COLB (hard to do online, don’t you think?), that should be enough. But you said back in 195 that the COLB could never be a birth certificate, which implied that only a birth certificate would satisfy you. Now you’re apparently changing your mind and saying a COLB is sufficient. I’m glad you finally came to your senses.

If you want to argue the authenticity of the COLB, fine: do so. But up to this point you’ve been insisting on a birth certificate and wailing about why Obama hasn’t produced it.

As to why he didn’t show it to Phil Berg, it’s another matter entirely. Perhaps he felt Berg had no right to see it; perhaps he felt Berg was a worthless crank. Whatever the case, I don’t think Obama has an obligation to show Berg the document any more than he is obliged to show it to you.

Steverino, JD is arguing in good faith. He’s just not willing to accept a questionable COLB when only an original birth certificate will suffice. I see it the same way.

It’s only recently that JD made the distinction between an authentic COLB and a questionable one. For many of his posts, he was insisting on a birth certificate. My point has always been that an authentic COLB was sufficient proof, and everyone else has gone off about why Obama hasn’t produced his birth certificate.

By the way, ropelight, my definition of “good faith” does not include ducking questions and then saying your opponent is arguing with voices in his head. YMMV.

Steverino (69d941) — 12/5/2008 @ 5:08 pm

If Obama produced the hardcopy of the COLB

He has not even done that, to date, has he?

A COLB cannot be a birth certificate. Correct. Just like a Ford F150 cannot be a Dodge Ram. They are not the same thing.

I am tired of you. I answered all of your questions, and you respond with non-responsive answers, and wailing and caterwalling, blah, blah, blah. Claiming some high ground that you do not occupy. I just want the fucker to have to follow some rules, preferably the Constitution, and it is really not asking too much to have him produce basic documents that everybody else in the country has to routinely produce.

an authentic COLB was sufficient proof,

And you ASSUME authenticity.

I think he should have to produce a birth certificate. I said if he would actually produce a live copy of the COLB, I would be satisfied, but even that is too much for The Messiah and his sycophants.

JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 5:19 pm

About 3 weeks ago, I posted this remark on another thread on this site:

“What if they find out that Obama’s not really a natural born American citizen? Then the fun starts!”

But, of course, it won’t be fun. Please see this essay to get an idea what a mess it could be with someone who is Constitutionally ineligible to be President pretending to be President. The chilling part of the essay begins with the sentence, “What are some of those consequences?”

Official Internet Data Office (98d98f) — 12/5/2008 @ 5:22 pm

OIDO – Does not matter. He is never going to have to produce anything, nor will he to make it go away.

JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 5:44 pm

JD, you realize that at this point, like all conspiracy theories, it does not matter what Obama produces, the theory will live on. Just as the 9/11 theories do, regardless of the fact that the 9//11 theories are based on brazen lies that have long been debunked.

There is no real incentive for Obama to produce anything because it would not make it go away. People are now invested in the theory.

SPQR (26be8b) — 12/5/2008 @ 6:49 pm

SPQR – I do realize that, but the fact that there are quacks that will not believe anything that is produced should not eliminate the need for him to actually provide the proof.

JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 7:02 pm

God, but this shit is tedious.

People, to whom should the President-elect produce said document? Should he hand it to Alito in a dark alley? To Karl Rove at the Fox News studios on 6th Avenue?

When we applied, last-minute, for my kid’s passport, we had to get a ‘long form’ from the state of his birth. We were able to do so, with a little money to grease the wheels, in about 12 hours. We presented this to the passport office and got a passport office. Since Obama has a passport, I trust that at some point, he has done same. Get over it.

This conspiracy bullshit is counter productive.

carlitos (52fcd8) — 12/5/2008 @ 8:50 pm

Ugh – passport, not a passport office.

carlitos (52fcd8) — 12/5/2008 @ 8:50 pm

Well, we know he has an Indonesian passport, which he used for a trip to Pakistan in the past.
But, do we know if he has a U.S.Passport?
A blue one?
Not the red one that a U.S.Senator would be given, or the black one he’s going to get as President.

Another Drew (46c816) — 12/5/2008 @ 8:54 pm

Amazing what you can find by searching the web. I can see several reasons the One may not want his Birth Certificate to be released. From the Hawaii Revised Statutes:

338-15 Late or altered certificates
338-16 Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates
338-17 Late or altered certificate as evidence
338-17.5 Judicial procedure to establish facts of birth
338-17.7 Establishment of new certificates of birth
338-17.8 Certificates for children born out of State

From a quick read, there appear to be many ways to get birth certificates issued, amended or modified in Hawaii. Many of the situations listed here would allow you to get a certification of live birth which read entirely differently than your Certificate of live birth.

For example, had Barack been adopted by Sotero, then his BC could reflect that per 338-17.5. If this were the case, then Obama would have lost his US citizenship because Indonesia does not accept dual citizenship.

338-17.8 covers children born out of state.

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

So If he had been adopted, his mother could have had the BC modified to reflect that. If he was not born in the state, it was possible to get a BC that said you were if you had been a legal resident of Hawaii for one year prior. If he had a sex change…..Well you get the picture.

For those that were claiming that there was only one way to get a BC if you were foreign born, it helps to read the entire section of the statutes.

😎

Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:20 pm

#215 Comment by Steverino — 12/5/2008 @ 3:58 pm

&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp(JD #196): “I could care less if you say it 95,824 times, it will not change a certificate of live birth into a Birth Certificate”

&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbspSteverino #215: “The implication there is that a COLB is not adequate proof of place of birth. Is that the point you were making?”

There is no implication. JD explicitly states that a COLB is not a Birth Certificate. In other words, A does not equal B. There is no implicit argument made.

A COLB is not a Birth Certificate; however that fact does not exclude the possibility that such a document can be used for proof of citizenship.

What does strike me as odd is why a Justice of the Supreme Court is now involved. I have only a laymen’s knowledge of the law (which means it is a scary black hole where weird stuff often happens), but thought there was a whole network of lawyers, judges and rules designed to prevent a case without merit for getting to this level. What gives here?

Pons Asinorum (cb0a34) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:54 pm

Even if he is proven not to be a natural born American citizen, he will become President no matter what. The illuminati Obamaniacs have taken control of this nation and they’re going to get their messiah.

Rj (b3eac0) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:56 pm

Apologies for the “&nbsp” repeats. I was writing this on an HTML editor and forgot—my goof 😉

Pons Asinorum (cb0a34) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:57 pm

Even if he is proven not to be a natural born American citizen, he will become President no matter what.

Um, no. In that case, he won’t be President. It’s illegal.

Official Internet Data Office (b89658) — 12/5/2008 @ 10:08 pm

I’ve been looking around, and not a single place accepts a certificate of live birth that isn’t a certified copy as proof of citizenship.

http://peoplespassions.org/peoplesvoice/BirthCerts/Archive/Birth_Certificate.htm
The one on the right would be what it needs to look like.
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl
mentions that the certification of live birth can be issued even if there is nothing on file.

Foxfier (db0f51) — 12/5/2008 @ 11:10 pm

Steverino makes good points, but he is not addressing certain excellent points others have made. JD has kept it simple and basic, and I too would like a nice simple proof from Obama that he satisfies the requirements set forth in the Constitution for the Presidency.

#65 Consul At Arms makes the most powerful argument that there is a problem, citing the fact that Obama’s mother didn’t satisfy the requirements that would make Obama a citizen through her (if Obama was born out of country). Maybe there is a flaw in the argument, but certainly it deserves checking.

When a person won’t do a simple thing to avoid a big controversy, either he is letting the other side hang themselves by overplaying their hand (Steverino has this interpretation, I think), or they would rather see the controversy than a calm analysis of a slightly different real problem (which is what I think). There is likely a problem such as identified by Consul At Arms, and Obama lets this controversy about his birth certificate continue so it will distract people from the real problem.

When Obama finally shows the birth certificate, he can say “wasn’t that foolish. Let’s not waste any more time on this” Then when someone brings up the real problem, he can say “are you still beating that dead horse?” A born in US birth certificate would eliminate the issue that Consul At Arms raises, but maybe Obama did something himself that would put his citizenship in jeopardy, and making the subject radioactive would make it less likely to be discovered.

The argument that there is something “embarrassing” that Obama doesn’t want publicized is weak: a judge on the case could look at the records privately, then make a ruling based on actually seeing the relevant documents.

Ken in Camarillo (aa2192) — 12/5/2008 @ 11:19 pm

A lot of people are still confused about what a vault copy birth certificate looks like. If you search google pictures for “Hawaiian birth certificate”.You will find a real one posted on snarkybytes.com

Barry Donovan (976755) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:01 am

Everybody needs to focus on the most important matter. ALL Hawaiian hospital records show obama was NOT born in any Hawaiian hospital and their records are probably correct. Hospital employees are usually conscientious about not losing someones birth records! It happens sometimes, but the chances are about 99 out of 100 that the records were not lost. It is far more likely that obama and his sister are not giving people truthful information about the circumstances of his birth. Is there any evidence of this? Yes there is!! obama has spent 800 thousand dollars on three law firms who are fighting every day to prevent the the public from seeing the original vault copy. That is very suspicious behavior. What is he hiding? He’s no dummy. He’s been trained as an attorney. What could possibly be on that document that he’s so determined not to reveal?… I think I know…. Again its the obvious. The original Hawaiian certificate is very detailed and it contains about 35 different pieces of information about his birth. Parts 6a,6b, 6c and 6d will be the problem. It will probably confirm his absence in Hawaiian hospital birth records and list his birth as an at home birth…. and give a street address for that birth… and list it as a late registration birth. This means that for the past two years obama and his sister have been giving people false information about the circumstances of his birth, just as his mother , Anne Dunham , probably did did before him…. Why would she do that?? The most common reason would be to cover up an out of country birth so that obama would be a natural born US citizen and not have to deal with the US Immigration Services. This sort of thing happens all the time with recent immigrants. We may soon have a president who is not a US citizen The supposed free press in this country should be ashamed of themselves for not doing the right thing and investigating this. One last thing. The Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a “Certification of Live Birth” as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From its web site: “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.” that you were born in Hawaii.

Barry Donovan (976755) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:13 am

Dear Mr Patterico, I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I don’t have much confidence in this lawsuit. I do however think that Mr. Obama is lying about the circumstances of his birth. If a “Certification” of Live Birth is not considered reliable proof of being born in Hawaii by the State of Hawaii then why should the american people accept it. Can you explain that?

Barry Donovan (976755) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:42 am

Pons Asinorum:

There is no implication. JD explicitly states that a COLB is not a Birth Certificate. In other words, A does not equal B. There is no implicit argument made.

You’re right, there is a factual assertion made, and one no one in this thread has offered a shred of evidence to support. I’ve already pointed readers to the only Hawaii statute under which a person not born there can obtain any kind of birth certificate / certification of live birth / etc., and Jay Curtis even copied and pasted the text into the thread since (he also stupidly claimed that the resulting certificate would falsely claim the person was born in Hawaii, an assertion the statute does not bear out, but that’s another matter). That statute refers to the certificate/certification in question as a “birth certificate,” not as anything else. If you honestly believe there is a difference between the two under Hawaii law, then it’s up to you to find the statute or statutes that supposedly create that difference. Just quoting other truthers’ statements as though they were evidence does not count.

Barry Donovan:

If a “Certification” of Live Birth is not considered reliable proof of being born in Hawaii by the State of Hawaii then why should the american people accept it.

Your premise is wrong. Truther propaganda notwithstanding, there is no difference under Hawaii law between a “Certification of Live Birth” and a “birth certificate,” except in teh sense that if the individual in question had been stillborn, the resulting certificate probably would NOT have said anything about “live” birth. That issue not being in question (maybe that will be the subject of Berg’s next suit?), there is no difference between a birth certificate and a COLB.

Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/6/2008 @ 5:45 am

FoxFire’s links actually proves the opposite of what FF sought to prove:

In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

In other words, both certificates – the original “Certificate of Live Birth” and the more recent, computer generated “Certification of Live Birth” – legally certify one’s birth. The difference is that the original certificate contains more information than the fresh certification. That matters to DHHL, because DHHL requires applicants to prove Hawaiian ancestry, and not merely that they were born in Hawaii.

The Constitution doesn’t require Obama to prove his ancestry. At most it requires him to prove he is a natural born citizen (though I’d argue that the burden of proof is on the nutcases who argue that he isn’t). All the information you need to prove that is on the COLB. And both are legal “birth certificates” under Hawaii law.

Game over, guys. If there ever really was a game to begin with.

Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/6/2008 @ 6:01 am

obama has spent 800 thousand dollars on three law firms who are fighting every day to prevent the the public from seeing the original vault copy. That is very suspicious behavior. What is he hiding?

My guess is any evidence that his was not a Virgin Birth.

nk (5fa892) — 12/6/2008 @ 6:02 am

175, Birth announcements are not proof of anything. It does not say if the baby was born in HI or Kenya.

PCD (7fe637) — 12/6/2008 @ 9:41 am

I just want the fucker to have to follow some rules, preferably the Constitution,

The Constitution does not specify how Obama is required to show he is a natural born citizen. My point all along is that an authentic COLB from Hawaii is sufficient proof of that. You seemed to agree to that recently, but now you seem to want Obama to follow some rules which you have not yet defined. What are they?

And you ASSUME authenticity.

Once again, my position has been that lacking sufficient rebuttal, I conclude the document is authentic. You have not offered any rebuttal other than, “I don’t believe anything Obama says.” That’s not evidence.

I am tired of you. I answered all of your questions,

No, you have not. I asked you about your adopted daughter’s California birth certificate, and you have steadfastly refused to answer the question. Answer this one: is your daughter’s birth certificate relevant to this debate? If it is not, then why bring it up? If it is, then please answer my question regarding it.

Claiming some high ground that you do not occupy.

I never claimed any high ground, I’ve just claimed that I am right about the COLB.

There is no implication. JD explicitly states that a COLB is not a Birth Certificate. In other words, A does not equal B. There is no implicit argument made.

Oh, puh-leeze. JD has been arguing throughout this thread that Obama should be required to produce his birth certificate. If the COLB is authentic and contains the necessary information to prove Obama is a natural born citizen, then why argue that it’s not a birth certificate? What difference does it make?

JD has kept it simple and basic, and I too would like a nice simple proof from Obama that he satisfies the requirements set forth in the Constitution for the Presidency.

My position from the start has been:

1. The COLB is issued by the State of Hawaii and is prima facie evidence of the facts of Obama’s birth
2. The COLB lists the date, time, and place of Obama’s birth
3. That information is sufficient to prove Obama is at least 35 years old and a natural born citizen.
4. Therefore, the COLB satisfies the requirements set forth in the Constitution.

Is that so hard to understand? What other rules must Obama follow to prove his eligibility?

If a “Certification” of Live Birth is not considered reliable proof of being born in Hawaii by the State of Hawaii then why should the american people accept it.

Your premise is incorrect. A Certification of Live Birth is prima facie evidence of the facts of birth. Those aren’t my words, those are the words of the State of Hawaii. Therefore, the State of Hawaii does consider the COLB to be reliable proof of being born in Hawaii.

Does anyone have any evidence that the COLB is not authentic? If not, then shut up about it and go tilt at another windmill.

Steverino (db5760) — 12/6/2008 @ 10:16 am

“Once again, my position has been that lacking sufficient rebuttal, I conclude the document is authentic.”

Steverino – Isn’t this the position Mary Mapes took with the TANG documents?

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/6/2008 @ 10:21 am

PCD, your response is another red herring. If Barack’s parents were not residing in Hawaii at the time of his birth, why did a Hawaii newspaper print the item under “Health Bureau Statistics”.

SPQR (72771e) — 12/6/2008 @ 10:21 am

daleyrocks, no, Mapes took the position that the mass of rebuttals were something she could ignore.

Quite a difference.

SPQR (72771e) — 12/6/2008 @ 10:22 am

Quite a difference.

SPQR – Not as I see it. Steverino is willing to entertain the idea that what is on the internet is not authentic, which puts it in the same category as Mapes.

I’m not advancing that argument, just pointing it out.

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/6/2008 @ 10:33 am

Steverino – Isn’t this the position Mary Mapes took with the TANG documents?

SPQR already answered that nicely. I’ll go with his answer.

I have see Philip Berg’s page, the one cited by L.N. Smithee earlier. Berg’s “evidence” that the image is a fraud is pretty skimpy.

I have, at one time in my career, been involved in developing image compression algorithms. There’s nothing I see in the image (the one I linked to in comment #13) that makes me believe it’s a fake. And the issues Berg raises about the text on the green coloring are red herrings: with the right scanner and compression setting, I could produce the same effect with a bona fide original. So, Berg has fallen well short of rebutting the document’s authenticity.

My point here is that Berg doesn’t know what equipment the original was scanned on, doesn’t know the compression settings, doesn’t know what the original looks like and yet can conclude the image is a fake. That’s beyond belief.

One important thing to me was the partial bleed-through of the date stamp. Not all of it, mind you, just part of it. At the same time, the embossed seal does not show in the scanned image. In order to produce a fake image like that, you’d have to be stupid enough to forget to fake the embossed seal, and yet smart enough to bleed through only part of the date.

Steverino (db5760) — 12/6/2008 @ 10:36 am

cripplecreek, posted the following at FreeRepublic:

“One thing that isn’t getting much attention and should is the possible international implications that could result from the question of Obama’s eligibility being left unanswered.

Russia’s Pravda has already raised the question of validity of treaties and agreements signed by Obama. A great deal of international instability could be created by a USA with a leader of dubious legitimacy.

I also wonder about the possibility of American soldiers being seized by nations that could claim that they are unlawfully acting on behalf of an illegitimate leader.”

Ropelight (5b609a) — 12/6/2008 @ 10:44 am

Comment by Xrlq — 12/6/2008 @ 5:45 am

Nah, I don’t think there is any difference in substance between the two documents when it comes to proving birth/citizenship. Almost certainly President-elect Obama is an American citizen by birth.

Still, it is curious about the reluctance to release the Birth Certificate. Why insist on this battle.

Perhaps it is not so unreasonable to think that there is information on the BC (that is not present on the COLB) that is awkward for the President-elect. Of course that is pure speculation on my part, but hardly outside of the realm of viable probabilities.

How or why was this matter able to get a review by a Justice of the Supreme Court? Not sure how this works, but is there not a mechanism to prevent baseless claims from getting this far?

I am looking forward to the ruling by Justice Clarence Thomas as it should prove fairly entertaining at the least and vastly intriguing at the most.

Pons Asinorum (cb0a34) — 12/6/2008 @ 10:51 am

Still, it is curious about the reluctance to release the Birth Certificate. Why insist on this battle.

I’m going to turn that around, Pons:

Why the insistence on Obama’s producing the birth certificate? Why fight this clearly losing battle, except to snipe at and embarrass a politician one doesn’t care for?

What would be our reaction were such behavior be directed at a Republican?

Steverino (db5760) — 12/6/2008 @ 10:56 am

I read somewhere that even if Barack was born in Hawaii he may not be a citizen because the law at the time was that because his father was a citizen of Kenya and the British Commonwealth Barack’s mother had to be at least 19 years of age for Barack to be a citizen and she was only 18. Seems like a minor detail but to me this whole issue is about Barack being honest with the American people. Seems to me he is trying to hide something and it goes along with all the other issues he sidestepped during his campaign.

Brev (dda662) — 12/6/2008 @ 10:57 am

The case that’s been distributed at the Supreme Court by Justice Clarence Thomas is the Donofrio v. Wells case out of New Jersey, which doesn’t get involved with the existence of any Hawaiian birth certificate.

Donofrio says:

“The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen–at birth–a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a ‘natural born citizen’. The word ‘born’ has meaning. It deals with the status of a presidential candidate ‘at birth’. Obama had dual nationality at birth. The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not as relevant to the provisions of the Constitution as is his status ‘at birth.’ If one is not ‘born’ a natural born citizen, he can never be a natural born citizen.”

Factcheck.org (via the Obama website Fight the Smears) says:

“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.

“Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”

Expired, he says. Heh.

Official Internet Data Office (e6858c) — 12/6/2008 @ 11:06 am

“What would be our reaction were such behavior be directed at a Republican?”

Steverino – McCain’s eligibility was challenged early on and as I understand it his citizenship remains challenged as part of one of the remaining lawsuits.

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/6/2008 @ 11:14 am

Comment by Steverino — 12/6/2008 @ 10:56 am

Why the insistence on Obama’s producing the birth certificate? Why fight this clearly losing battle, except to snipe at and embarrass a politician one doesn’t care for?

That is precisely why this battle is being fought. Sad but true (American Politics at its worst). Perhaps we are in agreement on this point. What I find so curious is President-elect Obama’s tactical decision to fight this battle – why not just produce the BC and be done with it?

What would be our reaction were such behavior be directed at a Republican?

My reaction would be exactly the same: Sad but true (American Politics at its worst), but why fight this battle– why not just produce the BC and be done with it?

Pons Asinorum (cb0a34) — 12/6/2008 @ 11:17 am

OIDO, if what you say is true, then Obama had dual citizenship at birth…which means he was a US citizen at birth.

Daleyrocks, I understand that, and was just as outraged about it when it came up as I am about this issue. It was a stupid issue to fight McCain over, and this is a stupid issue to fight Obama over.

Pons, you and I are at least partly of a mind here. Were I in Obama’s shoes, my reaction would be something along the lines of, “I’ve already shown what the state of Hawaii considers to be legal proof of my citizenship. I’m don’t have to show you another damn thing. Stop wasting your time and looking like a fool.” In short, if I’ve already done what I’m legally required to do, you’re going to have to get a court order to make me do more.

(Not directed to anyone in particular) By the way, I have stated why I think the image I linked to in comment #13 is authentic. To put it more precisely, I have shown why I believe that image is a scan of an actual Hawaii Certification of Live Birth. Those who claim the image is fake, please state your evidence.

Steverino (db5760) — 12/6/2008 @ 11:45 am

“Daleyrocks, I understand that, and was just as outraged about it when it came up as I am about this issue.”

Steverino – My reaction was anger because McCain ran in 2000 and the issue presumably was put to bed then. With Obama, the issue has not come up before to my knowledge.

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/6/2008 @ 11:53 am

One other point: JD claims he said the COLB would be proof enough. And others have supported the thought that JD wasn’t calling for Obama to produce his birth certificate. Here are JD’s own words on the subject:

And,yes, I am trivializing a COLB, because it is not a Birth Certificate, something that the effin’ next President of the US should be able to produce. Good Allah.

A reasonable person would conclude from that the JD would not be satisfied with a COLB, and that only a birth certificate is sufficient. Otherwise, JD would not have trivialized the COLB, as he said so.

I’m glad to see JD has since changed his mind, come to his senses, and admitted that a COLB is now sufficient proof.

Steverino (db5760) — 12/6/2008 @ 11:55 am

daleyrocks, I honestly don’t remember the issue ever being raised in the 2000 election. But suppose it had been McCain eking out a close victory then, instead of Bush: I’d bet my next paycheck the Dems would have taken the issue all the way to the Supreme Court in an effort to undermine him.

Again, it’s a stupid issue to press.

Steverino (db5760) — 12/6/2008 @ 12:01 pm

Steverino – The Obama campaign has done a disservice to their candidate with their lack of transparency throughout the election, which has created doubts in the minds of many people over their willingness to tell the truth.

There are serious gaps in Obama’s background which they are reluctant to fill in, his college days and law school days and they have attempted to restrict access to people he knew during those periods. They attempted to shut down access to the records of the Annenberg Challenge and suppress discussion of that period of Obama’s experience. It even disappeared from Obama’s resume when it was a highlight during his 2000 run for Congress.

He has had to walk back from initial less than forthcoming positions related to Tony Rezko, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and told outright lies about his relationship with ACORN.

I think people are justified in having some skepticism over the campaign’s motivations in not providing documents given it’s history of delay, obfuscation, dissembling and distortion over the past two years.

I don’t think that means there is necessarily a legitimate citizenship issue here, but in each prior issue in which the Obama campaign has stonewalled, there has turned out to be fire. Who knows if there is something this time. I agree that this should have been a dead issue at this point.

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/6/2008 @ 12:09 pm

The UK/Kenya citizenship suit is even stupider than the certificate/certification suits, if such is possible. At least the COLB *could* be a forgery; there’s just no evidence that it is. Regardless, the 14th Amendment makes it clear anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen by birth. That one may also be a citizen of another country (or 12) is irrelevant. There is no legal or constitutional bar to a dual national being elected Presideny (though there should be IMO).

Xrlq (e0ec4f) — 12/6/2008 @ 12:20 pm

Steverino wrote:

I’d prefer not to give them any more ammo. Further, it’s not the left I care about, it’s the folks in the middle who might be put off by all this. There’s an old saying: don’t interrupt your enemy when he’s in the process of making a mistake. The converse would be: try to stop your friends when they are in the process of making a mistake. But, apparently, some of my friends would rather not be stopped.

If this weren’t a Constitutional issue, I would feel the same way you do. But like it or not, that’s what it is, because Obama is unlike anyone who has run for President in the history of the nation (due not only to his lineage, but the implications of the travels of his parents and his dual citizenship status). The question as to what is proper proof of eligibility and who has standing to question it demands an answer. Unfortunately, it appears the SCOTUS will punt, to its shame. Thanks anyway, Justice Thomas, for being a rock among quivering dishes of Jell-O like David Souter.

As for “the middle who might be put off by all this”; Take an opportunity like this to explain what’s in the Constitution and why it’s important that it not be stretched like Silly Putty to fit changing demographics, mores, and pop culture trends. If they can’t grasp it immediately, they might if one of their pet freedoms is threatened in the future. If they refuse to engage because their heads might explode, screw ’em. Until they stop being Frank Luntz swing voters who are amateur body language experts and get chills up their spines when “key words” are used in vapid speeches, there is nothing you can do to educate them.

As I said before, they’ll never discover what the truth is if those who search for it and possess it are too intimidated to speak it.

L.N. Smithee (47463a) — 12/6/2008 @ 12:52 pm

In answer to the question, “What would be our reaction were such behavior be directed at a Republican?” Pons Asinorum wrote:

My reaction would be exactly the same: Sad but true (American Politics at its worst), but why fight this battle– why not just produce the BC and be done with it?

The MSM would demand the original Birth Certificate of a Republican. And a Republican would provide it — if s/he had nothing to hide.

L.N. Smithee (47463a) — 12/6/2008 @ 12:56 pm

Pons Asinorum:

Nah, I don’t think there is any difference in substance between the two documents when it comes to proving birth/citizenship. Almost certainly President-elect Obama is an American citizen by birth.

And the “almost” consists of the possibility the document is a forgery. Which, for all you or I know, could be true of the original, long-form birth certificate, as well.

Still, it is curious about the reluctance to release the Birth Certificate. Why insist on this battle.

Why not? He’s already produced a document proving all the needs to be proved to make the phony constitutional issue go away. Why on earth should be provide anything else? As an attorney, I would never advise my client to give up more than he has to. And as a political strategist, if I were one, I wouldn’t think of advising my client to do anything to stop his opponents from making asses of themselves in public.

Perhaps it is not so unreasonable to think that there is information on the BC (that is not present on the COLB) that is awkward for the President-elect. Of course that is pure speculation on my part, but hardly outside of the realm of viable probabilities.

Maybe, but if so it’s NOYFB. Maybe that is why Berg, Keyes and the other assorted nuts and dolts are pushing for a long-form certificate, not to prove any legitimate legal or constitutional issue (the short-form COLB took care of those) but simply to harass and embarrass their opponent any way they can.

I am looking forward to the ruling by Justice Clarence Thomas as it should prove fairly entertaining at the least and vastly intriguing at the most.

Don’t get your hopes up. By far the most likely ruling is going to be a simple denial of certiorari. The second most likely result is that the court will take the case, then easily dismiss it for lack of standing; after all, it’s not as though any of these clowns would become President if Obama were disqualified. The third most likely result is that the court will take the case, overlook or explain away the obvious standing problem, and nevertheless rule that the underlying issue is nonjusticiable (i.e., a constitutional issue to be resolved exclusively by the political branches of government and not by the courts). The fourth most likely result is that the court will hold that Obama has proven on a preponderance of evidence that he is a natural born citizen, as he has presented a prima facie showing of natural born citizenship and the nuisance plaintiffs have offered zero evidence to rebut it. The fifth most likely result is that President Obama will personally appear before the court, rip off what we all assumed to be his face but is actually a mask, and show himself to be one of the lizard people that idiot in Minnesota voted for.

Every other possible outcome is a very distant sixth.

Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/6/2008 @ 1:55 pm

Xrlq, you are totally missing the point of the case that they have agree to discuss in conference. It has nothing to do with where he was born, doesn’t question Obama’s citizenship and agrees that he was born in Hawaii. It simply asks the court to rule on whether dual citizenship at birth is enough to disqualify a candidate under the natural born citizen clause.

Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:27 pm

President Obama will personally appear before the court, rip off what we all assumed to be his face but is actually a mask, and show himself to be one of the lizard people

Yes, except that he won’t be President at that point.

Official Internet Data Office (2284a0) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:29 pm

I think people are justified in having some skepticism over the campaign’s motivations in not providing documents given it’s history of delay, obfuscation, dissembling and distortion over the past two years.

Skepticism is one thing, evidence is another. If people have any evidence that the COLB is fake, let them present it. Saying, “I don’t believe the Obama camp because they’re all a bunch of liars,” isn’t evidence.

If this weren’t a Constitutional issue, I would feel the same way you do.

The problem with all this isn’t the Constitutionality, it’s the abandonment of critical analysis by those who say the COLB isn’t enough evidence.

Go back to the 4 points I made in comment #250. Are any of them wrong? If so, why? If they are all correct, do you concede that the COLB is sufficient proof that Obama has satisfied the Constitutional requirements of the office? If not, why not?

Now look at the COLB. Is it fake? Why? I’ve already stated my reasons for believing this image is a scan of an actual COLB issued by Hawaii, and no one has even attempted to rebut those points.

Steverino (db5760) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:43 pm

I’ll grant you the COLB being authentic, if you’ll grant that BHO is not.

Another Drew (98abde) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:50 pm

#274 I have enough experience editing scanned documents to be skeptical of any document that I have only seen a scanned image of. Present the real hard copy version of the COLB for verification and I would be more inclined to agree with you. Until someone whose integrity I have faith in has verified that the COLB being presented as Obama’s is legit, then I will be skeptical.

Nobody in a position to know has verified that the COLB shown is legitimate. The Hawaii representative stated that he has one and that she has verified that Hawaii has it locked up. Nothing more.

So for this issue, I am a Missouri boy. “Show Me.”

Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:52 pm

Why not? He’s already produced a document proving all the needs to be proved to make the phony constitutional issue go away. Why on earth should be provide anything else?

All true, but I guess I would just expect a higher standard from a President. I am not surprised in the President-elect’s behavior in this matter (indeed it is about what I expected); I was just hoping that he would rise above my expectations.

Of course, now I am extraordinarily curious about what the big mystery is (yes, I was one of those suckers glued to my TV when Geraldo Rivera opened that safe—with absolutely nothing in it, probably the same case here).

As an attorney, I would never advise my client to give up more than he has to.

Good advice for a client, bad advice for a President who should desire transparency and rise above the mentality of minimum standards.

And as a political strategist, if I were one, I wouldn’t think of advising my client to do anything to stop his opponents from making asses of themselves in public.

Not a bad strategy, standard political fare, and is what I expect, but what about something better.

Here is an alternative strategy: reveal the BC, and if solid, embarrass his political opposition and build credibility in an easy way with not only his supporters, but with many Americans who are still on the fence. If not solid, deal with it now, show courage and honesty, and introduce a new standard of transparency.

Don’t get your hopes up. By far the most likely ruling is going to be a simple denial of certiorari. The second most likely result …

Although I am no lawyer, your assessment seems logical to me — save for the lizard-people scenario (that was quite amusing).

I think you made an assumption, so please allow me to clarify; I do not want the new President to fail, as this would harm our Country. Nor do I want him to stumble or look bad. My hopes are for the new President to succeed at the helm of our Country – so in that regard yes, I will keep my hopes up that this whole thing dies because it is without merit. However, this matter has my curiosity and will no doubt be at least entertaining (by which I mean the thing will die) or at most intriguing (by which I mean the unlikely occurs and we are all in trouble – the invasion of the Lizard-People).

Pons Asinorum (cb0a34) — 12/6/2008 @ 3:20 pm

#274 I have enough experience editing scanned documents to be skeptical of any document that I have only seen a scanned image of.

Skepticism aside, what evidence do you have that the image is not a scan of an actual Hawaii COLB?

If you have none, your post boils down to, “I don’t believe it because I don’t want to believe it.”

I’ll grant you the COLB being authentic, if you’ll grant that BHO is not.

Good one, AD. I agree, BHO is about as genuine as a 3 dollar bill.

All true, but I guess I would just expect a higher standard from a President.

Quit beating a dead horse: Obama isn’t obligated to provide anything more than he already has. It doesn’t matter what YOU think a President should to, what matters is the law, and Obama has fulfilled his obligation under the law.

Steverino (db5760) — 12/6/2008 @ 4:15 pm

Steverino,

Is there a legal obligation to provide proof of citizenship? There may be a practical reason to provide proof (to satisfy public concerns and curiosity) but is there ae law that requires the candidates from major parties to provide proof absent a challenge? This Slate article suggests there isn’t one.

DRJ (b4db3a) — 12/6/2008 @ 4:23 pm

Quit beating a dead horse: Obama isn’t obligated to provide anything more than he already has.

True, but I still expect a higher standard of behavior from my President.

It doesn’t matter what YOU think a President should to, what matters is the law, and Obama has fulfilled his obligation under the law.

You are correct that my opinion and (if I may be so bold) the opinions of millions upon millions of our fellow citizens do not matter. Perhaps that’s part of the problem.

Legal obligation does not always equate to principled obligation.

Anyway, for me (and yes I concede my opinion is about as meaningful as a speck of dust in a sandstorm) it is mostly curiosity. Tell me to look left but not right, guess what I am going to do. Tell me there is nothing to see on the BC, guess what I am going to want to see.

I have learned when an American politician says “nothing to see…”, well there usually is something to see (not always, and maybe that is the case here). I seriously doubt that President-elect Obama is not legally qualified under the Law to be President. Given that, what is the big mystery?

Pons Asinorum (cb0a34) — 12/6/2008 @ 5:01 pm

Pons Asinorum wrote:

Of course, now I am extraordinarily curious about what the big mystery is (yes, I was one of those suckers glued to my TV when Geraldo Rivera opened that safe—with absolutely nothing in it, probably the same case here).

Here’s the difference: Whatever is or is not in the possession of the state of Hawaii, Obama knows. Geraldo didn’t know there was nothing in “Al Capone’s vault.”

The Mystery of Al Capone’s Vaults special — broadcast live to the East Coast — was Rivera’s first TV program after he and ABC parted ways over ABC News chief Roone Arledge’s killing of Geraldo’s story of a JFK-Marilyn Monroe affair (Arledge was a friend of RFK widow Ethel Kennedy). The Vaults special was syndicated shortly before the Fox Broadcasting Company (not to be confused with Fox News Channel) scooped up all the major independent stations throughout America and created a fourth major network. It was a ratings bonanza at 30,000,000 viewers — the highest rated syndicated special in history — but it ruined Rivera’s rep as a legit news reporter. He then did his infamous talk show until climbing aboard CNN after cancellation.

Video of a promo for the show here.

L.N. Smithee (34e392) — 12/6/2008 @ 5:50 pm

I want to hear Frank Chu’s earnest assessment of the birth certificate condundrum. (Impeach Clinton! 12 Galaxies Guiltied! to a hextronic rocket society. . . )

Official Internet Data Office (2284a0) — 12/6/2008 @ 5:58 pm

#279 DRJ

From checking Ohio and Kansas online resources, the Secretary of State of the respective states provide a form for the major parties to submit that states “I hereby decare that I desire to be a candidate for President of the United States….I further declare that if elected I will qualify therefor…”.This document requires a signature and must be notarized. The parties usually submit these on behalf of their candidates.

From what I can find, at least these two states do not make any effort to verify the qualifications of the candidates. Common sense would conclude that it was the responsibility of the Parties to validate their own candidates, however, there doesn’t seem to be any law, rule or regulation stating this. There is just the one piece of paper filed in each state where the candidate is on the ballot, where the candidate swears under “penalty of election falsification” that he is eligible to become President.

Common sense would indicate that any citizen would have standing to challenge a candidates credentials and that when challenged, the Secretary of State as the judge of elections would the verify the credentials of the candidate. So much for common sense, huh?

Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 12/6/2008 @ 7:31 pm

True, but I still expect a higher standard of behavior from my President.

Okay, now you’re sounding like a crank. Obama has met his legal obligation, but you want more from him. Not for any legal reason, but because you think he should do more. Seriously, this is like a three year old child saying, “Not that cup, daddy, this cup.”

Mr. Smithee: Go back to my comment #250. Tell me which of the 4 points I made is incorrect. If they are all correct, do you concede that the COLB is sufficient proof of Obama’s citizenship? If not, why not?

If you duck this question one more time, I’ll know you’re not debating in good faith.

Steverino (db5760) — 12/6/2008 @ 10:54 pm

This is the most thoughtful and coherent comment I have read on this issue. I wish I had written this comment. This writer goes to he heart of the issue and does it in a very unbiased way.

Really? (#129849)
by Hank Rand on December 6, 2008 at 9:44 PM
“What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on US soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the Constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for President trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if 5 Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?”

A proponent of the reality that there is an outstanding question that exists relating to Barack Obama’s natural born citizenship (not that I have an answer, but rather simply that no answer has been given), my personal opinion is that this has less to do with the merit of this particular Constitutional law…and more to do with the character and integrity of a man who may have gone to such great lengths to, knowingly, break it. And in that course of action, our entire country (not just those who didn’t vote for him) and our most coveted process of Democracy (our vote), were defrauded.

If he’s found to be ineligible per the Constitution, proving he knowingly and willfully defrauded our people and process, it won’t be the Justices who will have disenfranchised 64 million voters. It’s Barack Obama. How many times are you prepared to claim “you fell down the stairs” for this man? I was an initial supporter. I started seeing very real and very questionable issues raised about the nature of his past associations, and the laughable explanations he would give…and I was sure it would hurt him in the press and among supporters. But what did I see? The press and most supporters to engrossed in their partisanship to care. In fact, the more reasonable questions came up about him…the harder the press and the 64 million that same press brainwashed, drove to the hoop for him. As I stood back watching this, again, as an initial supporter of his, even making phone calls on his behalf…I realized what I was seeing, was nothing short of WEIRD. Just, plain, weird.

And I thought this birth certificate issue (check that, “Certificate of Live Birth” issue…as opposed to “Certification of Live Birth”) was cleared up a long time ago. I thought there was no way the DNC would have been capable of such a gross oversight. Then the court cases came up, and nothing was done to quell the question. What finally landed me understanding that something is not right, is when Chiyome Fukino, Director of Health for Hawaii, released the statement about his birth. That statement actually did more harm than good, and it only demonstrated further how moronic far too many public officials and people in the media and governing bodies, think Americans are.

Sure, America has it’s slew of idiots. And sure, the aisle that questions Barack Obama’s natural born and/or properly maintained citizenship statuses has it’s smattering of fringe wingnuts. But just because one contingent of people happen to be on board, doesn’t nullify the fact that the question is still outstanding. I hear the same 5 refutations over, and over, and over. “He posted his birth certificate on his website”, “Factcheck proved it”, “The state of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born there”, “There was a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper”, “Judges meritoriously threw it out as ‘frivolous'”; and while each of those statements hold an element of truth, they’re also easily debunked. And “truth” is objective. There is no debunking it. We should be able to move past this on to more subjective and productive lines of communication…with all the dissent we’re accustomed to…forging, like competition, improvement. But here we are. And one man can answer this objective question. And sure, not everyone will get on board if he were to release his college records and actual Certificate of Live Birth (as opposed to the factually less credible, more easily attained and more easily forged “Certification” – which bears no corroborating evidence like the hospital or doctor’s name)…but many would get on board. Coming off a platform of transparency, directly in to a promised pursuit for unity…why leave so many of us divided on what is a simple and objectively debunked question? If the Certification is authentic, the it’s more credible parent – the Certificate, exists. But rather than produce it, he has fought those requests so fiercely that he’s allowed the same requests to land in court rooms…where he continues to fight them. Why? So rather than quell the reasonable, objective and easily answered outstanding question…he opts non disclosure. I wrote somewhere else that the production of Certificate of Live Birth is a very small price t pay for unity. And yet, here we are. And Barack Obama, and Barack Obama only, is responsible for that. I am certain of that beyond any reasonable doubt, because Barack Obama, and Barack Obama only, can quell it…with an actual Certificate of Live Birth, and he has watched requests transition to court cases, and still refuses. So as a first order of business, in a promised pursuit for unity, he leaves us divided, on what should be a very simple, very objective, very basic matter. Who among us can applaud that? “I do, Hank. Because you’re all just whackjobs.” That’s all well and good if that’s your opinion. My brother said to me, “Yeah but if we pull him out, we’re going to look corrupt to the rest of the world.” I replied, “I’d rather look corrupt and not be it, than be corrupt and not look it.” So goes my position on being called a whackjob, for maintaining through nothing more than logic and fact, that there is a still outstanding question regarding Barack Obama’s natural born and properly maintained citizenship statuses. I’d rather be called a whackjob and stand by truth, than submit to mistruths and be called sound.

I didn’t hear any of the 5 standard press talking points in your piece, which leads me to believe the transition I anticipated is occurring. That is, virtually all of supporters (and I don’t know if you were one prior to November 4th or not), will go from, “He didn’t commit fraud. He is a natural born citizen”, to “So what if he committed fraud. So what if he isn’t a natural born citizen.” I’ve challenged others, staunch supporters in fact, as to whether or not they’d concede a gross misstep in character and judgement, and support his being held accountable for that, if he did commit this fraud. They’ve uniformly claimed they would. This article, blog, whatever it is…demonstrates the first piece I’ve actually seen that goes out of it’s way to say, “No. I wouldn’t. Barack Obama can lie, cheat and steal all he wants. And if he gets held accountable for it, it’s the fault of the Justices…because Barack Obama himself, is simply incapable of wrongdoing.”

Running that red light you sit at, day after day, when no one is looking, is pretty harmless too. But you know it’s wrong. This man, if not a natural born and properly maintained citizen of the United States, will have knowingly and willfully cheated our entire country, and more critical than that – our absolutely, inherently, unquestionably most coveted process of democracy – in what can only be articulated as a relentless pursuit for unapologetic, integrity-free, and division-inducing pursuit for power.Link.

The Intellectual Redneck

The Intellectual Redneck (2c07a1) — 12/7/2008 @ 8:47 am

The Constitutional requirement for President is NOT that one be a citizen, but that one is a NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. Native-born, born within the United States, is not the same as NATURAL-BORN.

It really does not matter if Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or on the moon. It really does not matter if Obama lost his citizenship when Lolo Soetoro adopted him, or when/if he used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan in 1981 (as far as I know, it is only conjecture he used an Indonesian passport, but solid question as to HOW he was admitted to Pakistan because at that time, Pakistan was not admitting U.S. citizens).

What DOES matter is a fact that Obama has admitted and is not in question: that his father was a British subject when Obama Jr. was born, and became a Kenyan citizen at independence in 1963. Also, that Obama Jr., because of his father’s nationality, was a BRITISH subject when he was born, and became a Kenyan citizen upon independence in 1963, same as his father.

EVEN IF Obama acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and never lost it (which is possible, but not proven IMO), Obama is NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN because of his dual nationality/citizenship at birth. Therefore, under our Constitution, he does NOT qualify to be President.

It really doesn’t matter why he would try such a thing, if the DNC vetted him and ignored the truth, if the DNC took his word and did not vet him, if Hillary and/or the RNC knew his status or not, etc. etc. BOTTOM LINE: Under our Constitution, he does NOT qualify to be President because at the time of his birth he was subject to the jurisdiction/under the control of another nation.

To those who say, “So what? He was elected by a majority of the popular vote, the Electoral College will vote for him, the Congress will certify him and he will be President,” I say, regardless of whether 100% of the people voted for him, he is NOT qualified under the Constitution, and to allow him to be or make him President is trampling on the Constitution, ignoring the foundation of our country and laws. If we ignore this provision now, what will be next? If we don’t follow this provision, why should we follow any other, including freedom of speech, religion, the press; freedom to bear arms and peaceably assemble; the election of Senators and Representatives, instead of having them appointed? We have rules and laws, we should ALL follow them; the President is not above the law, and is NOT THE LAW.

CalifGirlInMaine (48575f) — 12/7/2008 @ 7:00 pm

CGM: the real bottom line is that you are talking out of your ass. Dual, triple, quadruple or quintiple nationality has zero/zip/nada to do with whether or not anyone is a natural born citizen of the US. Personally, I think there should be a constitutional bar to a dual national serving as President, but that doesn’t mean there is one. You just made that crap up.

Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/7/2008 @ 7:30 pm

CalifGirlInMaine, the more bold you put in your sentences, the less likely they were to have any relation to facts. Your claim that if Obama was born with a claim to dual citizenship that he was not then a “natural-born” citizen has no basis in law.

SPQR (26be8b) — 12/7/2008 @ 7:35 pm

#284 Comment by Steverino — 12/6/2008 @ 10:54 pm

Okay, now you’re sounding like a crank. Obama has met his legal obligation, but you want more from him. Not for any legal reason, but because you think he should do more. Seriously, this is like a three year old child saying, “Not that cup, daddy, this cup.”

We both agree that President-elect Obama is certainly legally qualified to be President. We both believe that there is no obligation under the Law that the President-elect explains what is on his Birth Certificate.

Then we part company. You believe that since there is no obligation, he should not explain (as is his right). Whereas I believe that is precisely why he should explain, because he is not legally compelled to do so (what I call the higher standard).

You referred to the possibility that I am a Crank because of my belief, and maybe so, but using the exact same derivation of logic, the same could be said of your position. In terms of your childish remarks; you and I are arguing which cup “daddy’” should choose.

To be honest, I fully expect the President-elect to fight this tooth-and-nail. This is the normal pattern of most American politicians: ignore, deny, defend/fight, (and if he does not get lucky) explain, and apologize.

My fellow cranks and I were just hoping for something more.

PS:
The Law is not the only thing that matters. There are codes of conduct in this world that far exceed the limited scope of the Law.

Pons Asinorum (cb0a34) — 12/7/2008 @ 8:52 pm

Pons, what code of conduct obligates Obama to do anything to stop his opponents from making fools of themselves? If my opponents were making fools of themselves, my only job would be to get out of the way.

Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/7/2008 @ 9:39 pm

You are correct – obligate is entirely the wrong word. I guess I was just hoping that something better would happen this time.

I voted against this man for many reasons, and now I am hoping he gives me one reason why I was wrong.

This is not the biggest issue in the world. Maybe the next issue will illuminate some measure of our new President will prove inspiring to our nation as a whole.

Till next time then–

Pons Asinorum (cb0a34) — 12/7/2008 @ 10:05 pm

12/4/2008

Barack Obama Birth Certificate Controversy Heads to Supreme Court!!!11!1!1!!!!

291 Responses to “Barack Obama Birth Certificate Controversy Heads to Supreme Court!!!11!1!1!!!!”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out