The sadly obligatory SCOTUS birth-certificate post
posted at 10:20 am on December 4, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
The Chicago Tribune briefly revives the Obama-birth-certificate kerfuffle in an update today, if only to throw more cold water on it. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court confabs over whether to grant a review to Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit after having it rejected in district and appellate courts:
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama’s election.
The meeting of justices will coincide with a vigil by the filer’s supporters in Washington on the steps of the nation’s highest court.
The suit originally sought to stay the election, and was filed on behalf of Leo Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells. …
The Obama campaign has maintained that he was born in Hawaii, has an authentic birth certificate, and is a “natural-born” U.S. citizen. Hawaiian officials agree.
The latest buzz surrounds the decision by Clarence Thomas to circulate the appeal petition to the entire court after David Souter rejected it immediately. That really doesn’t mean much, as the Tribune explains. Of the 842 petitions circulated in that manner, only 60 got a spot on the court calendar, and not all of those succeeded. Thomas may have been interested in the technical aspects of the suit rather than the merits, or perhaps it was a slow week.
It does, however, make it news, no matter how much some of us wish it would go away. The state of Hawaii has repeatedly insisted that their records show Obama was born in Hawaii, as the Certificate of Live Birth states. The COLB would get any Hawaii native an American passport with no questions asked, even without the official endorsement of the Republican governor and her Department of Health. There is even a contemporaneous birth announcement in a local paper confirming it.
I’m sure the comments section will fill with various conspiracy theories over Indonesian school records, Kenyan births, and so on. None of it — absolutely none — has any real, solid evidence showing that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii apart from sheer speculation and hearsay, and even less evidence that Obama’s stepfather renounced Obama’s birthright citizenship, which he didn’t have the power to do anyway. It’s a conspiracy theory spun by conspiracy theorists (Philip Berg is a 9/11 truther) who use their normal thresholds of evidence for this meme.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court can’t kill the conspiracy theories. It can only kill the lawsuits, which is what they will almost certainly do tomorrow when they meet.
Update: From October 31:
The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed on Friday what Barack Obama has been saying all along: the presidential candidate was born in Honolulu.
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate,” said Chiyome Fukino. “State law prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.”
Citing her statutory authority to oversee and maintain Hawaii’s vital records, Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii,” Fukino added.
Update II: From the comments, a link to Donofrio’s explanation:
“Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.
The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”.
Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)
If so, this is an even dumber argument than first thought. The children of immigrants born in this country are ineligible to be President? Since when does “natural born” refer to the parents of citizens? Natural born means the person at question was born in US territory, and it always has. Immigration-enforcement activists have been trying to change that definition to eliminate the “anchor babies” issue.
Also, adoption only changes the parentage on the birth certificate, not the place, date, or time of birth. I’ve done an adoption myself and can personally attest to that fact. If Obama had been adopted by Mr. Soetero, Hawaii would only have changed the father’s name on the record — and since Barack Obama Sr has been listed on the birth certificate, it appears that Mr. Soetero didn’t adopt Obama anyway.
Update III: As a rebuttal to Update 1, this from the comments:
The paper lied on purpose. The HI Dept of health went of its way to say everything but that. They do have his original birth certificate, but from where?
The State of Hawaii only keeps birth certificates from births in Hawaii. The State of California only keeps birth certificates from births in California, Minnesota only keeps those from births in Minnesota, and so on. They don’t store information on births outside of their state. Why would they bother to do that? Use some common sense.
Update IV: The Honolulu Advertiser reported on the Dept. of Health statement on November 1 in a little more detail:
State Health Department employees continue to be barraged by requests from people demanding to see Barack Obama’s birth certificate, including some who have called the department’s registrar of vital statistics at home — in the middle of the night.
“This has gotten ridiculous,” state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday. “There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy.”
So, in what likely will be a vain attempt to halt the inquiries, Fukino yesterday issued a statement saying that she and the registrar of vital statistics personally inspected Obama’s birth certificate and found it to be valid.
Will this be enough to quiet the doubters?
“I hope so,” Fukino said. “We need to get some work done.”
Fukino issued her statement to try to stomp out persistent rumors that Obama was not born in Honolulu — and is therefore not a U.S. citizen and thus ineligible to run for president.
Fukino, however, repeated the Health Department’s position that state law prohibits her or any other officials from actually releasing the birth certificate, which Obama’s campaign says shows he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961.
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate,” Fukino said in the statement. “State law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes ¤338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. … No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai’i.”
I guess they’ll have to wait a little longer to get any work done.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 9 Next »
What organization would you be comfortable with looking at those documents?
right2bright on December 4, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Because it’s no longer necessary. I believe it was done in case of baby kidnapping and hospital mix ups. Later, blood tests could determine within a high percentage who the parents were. Today, of course, there is dna testing. And since babies don’t like their feet messed with, they also lobbied to have it discontinued.
Blake on December 4, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Several things come to mind while I peruse the preceding comments:
1. There are enough questions bouncing around about the legality of Obama’s natural born status that we probably need a thorough national investigation to definitely confirm or deny the validity of all those points. If this is not done, we will be living with this discussion and the generated animosities forever.
2. This whole thing was started when the dems questioned McCain’s eligibility to run for president because he was born in the canal zone.
3. It is the progressive/socialist mo to use lawyers to force or settle political questions instead of established political processes. Can’t conservatives or even truthers use the same weapon?
4. Point 1 not withstanding, if the SCOTUS decides to hear the case, then the the results will probably settle nothing because we are still getting crank calls/posts/documentries from Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, Kennedy, the hindenburs, Titanic conspiracists. Some paranoids will never be satisfied.
5. Finally, most people only accept SCOTUS decisions if they agree with them, thus the living constitution. Note the Bush/Kerry fiasco.
Old Country Boy on December 4, 2008 at 12:18 PM
au contraire right2bright on December 4, 2008 at 12:12 PM
My wife obtained a passport 30 years ago using her “official” photocopy from the State of Missouri. No problem. We just went to get a new passport for her a week ago and they would not accept it because it did not have a raised seal. She has used this copy for everything she’s ever needed it for.
And no, it wasn’t just one passport agent, we tried two at two different locations because we didn’t have an appt with the first who required it. I’ve learned you never take the word of a government worker the first time you ask. Ask twice and you usually get two different answers.
The point is, what they used to accept as proof of citizenship may no longer be valid.
http://snarkybytes.com/?p=521
iamsaved on December 4, 2008 at 12:18 PM
I’m sorry. As much as I would like to see a President Biden so we can have a good laugh for the next four years, this story has about as much leg as the Bill Clinton fathered a black child nonsense we went through in the 90’s. If someone asked me to produce a birth certficate because they had unsubstantiated proof that I wasn’t American I would tell them to f-off.
grdred944 on December 4, 2008 at 12:18 PM
But the fact is that the two events (BHO being in Hawaii and the BC sealing and announcement of it) took place at the same time. Make of it whatever you will.
progressoverpeace on December 4, 2008 at 12:18 PM
I was just thinking, (and yes, it did hurt).
The people that claim the COLB is PROOF, are the same ones that thought the documents produced by damn dan blather were real and PROOF. Then some one did some checking and found them to be FALSE.
I want Obama to be eligible , but if he isn’t then we will look like a banana republic.
ColdWarrior57 on December 4, 2008 at 12:19 PM
I’m surprised that the crazy spammer guy isn’t back urging all of us to sign his petition.
Frankly, the entire birth certificate thing is about as valid as all the crazies talking about WTC 7 or Bush’s torture chambers under the White House.
Illinidiva on December 4, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Did you not read my comment that you quoted? The courts. But, up to now, they have refused to even try and resolve the issues, claiming that individual voters had no standing to bring these cases.
progressoverpeace on December 4, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Problems arise because it depends on the treaty we have with the Host country. Some bases ARE American soil… some are not.
To be Natural Born, the common definition is to be born on American soil… If you are born to American parents outside of the country, you have to submit paperwork to become a Citizen… and are thus Naturalized (given Citizenship by law). Thus kids born in foreign countries to American parents are citizens… but whether they meet the Natural Born level has yet to be adjudacted…
Which is what this lawsuit is about…
Romeo13 on December 4, 2008 at 12:21 PM
If he was born in Hawaii, and the long form contains the same info as the certificate that verifies he was born “alive”, then there should be no problem whatsoever releasing that document. Simple stupid. Get to it, Zer0.
Chris37 on December 4, 2008 at 12:21 PM
There are too many road apples laying around for their not to be a pony running around loose somewhere…
iamsaved on December 4, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Well, John Kerry’s signature comes to mind. He must sign a thousand papers a day, but it’s been four years now, and he still hasn’t been able to spare the two seconds it would take to sign a release of his military records.
Or the paternity case for Anna Nichole Smith’s kid. Two guys said they were the father; one offered to take a blood test, and the other fought it tooth-and-nail. Guess which of them turned out to be a liar?
logis on December 4, 2008 at 12:21 PM
even if this were true, legit, etc.
anyone think even Scalia would rule against Obama here, and accept the full blown wrath of the Obama worshipers?
jp on December 4, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Donofrio emphasizes that Obama was a British citizen ‘at birth’ through his father, but one could place equal emphasis that Obama was an American citizen ‘at birth’ through his mother and being born on American soil (since both blood and soil provide citizenship). I guess that is ultimately the question that the SCOTUS has to determine. Does the ‘British’ negate the ‘American’? It seems to me that he was an American citizen at birth, so is therefore a natural born citizen. Just because he also had British citizenship does not negate that as far as I can tell. It may be that Donofrio’s case is actually a good one to have at SCOTUS to get the definition of ‘natural born’ settled in law.
kemphd on December 4, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Yep, and the birth certificate is not the issue when the Supreme Court meets for conference tomorrow. You can thank Hotair for mixing the facts from two cases. He even added an update, further confusing the matter. This thread is a big fiasco. It is clear that most, including Hotair, have not taken the time to study the facts or legal issues of the Donofrio lawsuit.
flyfisher on December 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM
That wasn’t my only link…and doesn’t it make sense, that since only he can have the birth certificate, that only he would give access?
Link please
There would be no reason for him to fight this, since it is state law not to release them. No reason to fight the release it is already a state law.
Thanks for the name calling, I am sure that helps makes your reasoned and logical post seem, well, “reasonable and logical”.
I have no problem going after him as Donofrio is doing, but I just can’t gather up my energy to support a nut like Berg…but I can see where you would.
right2bright on December 4, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Nice piece Ed, and spot on comments right2bright. It’s always entertaining reading the comments on topics such as this on on both the right wing and left wing blogs. There are some very odd and troubled folks lurking out there in the dark corners of both the far right and the far left. Entertaining stuff, but slightly disturbing and more than a little embarrassing. No credible/reputable commentator, reporter, expert, etc. believes that the Obama citizen nonsense is anything but the product of tinfoil hat wearing nutjobs with way, way too much time on their hands. You hear that I Took The Red Pill, you delusional buffoon you?
dakine on December 4, 2008 at 12:25 PM
coldwarrior on December 4, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Why yes they have,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2141909/posts
allahallahoxenfree on December 4, 2008 at 12:25 PM
I get it, and I don’t like HA guys running around like truthers, we should be better then that.
And through this process, if it is taken up (odds are no), then the other will be resolved by the process.
right2bright on December 4, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Forgive me if this has already been covered in posts upthread but:
I think it’s ridiculous to suggest that only people born on American soil are “natural born.” I don’t think that interpretation is in the spirit of what the Founding Fathers intended. Are we honestly going to say that someone born to parents overseas while they are serving their country are, by accident of birth, prohibited from ever running for president? That’s a lawyer’s argument; it has no basis in common sense. Obama’s mother, flake that she may have been, was unquestionably an American citizen. That makes Obama a U.S. citizen regardless of where he was born. I think the only question mark in this case is whether he also holds citizenship in either Kenya or Indonesia or both. I think it’s very possible he does, unless he renounced it when he turned 18. The only trouble with that is, the Supreme Court ruled in cases in 1967 and 1980 that dual citizenship was allowed, and that to prohibit it was a violation of the 14th Amendment. One would think that same right extends to the presumptive President-elect as much as it does to any citizen. Certainly Article II doesn’t expressly declare a person ineligible on those grounds.
I think the only reason SCOTUS has shown any interest at all here is that they want the opportunity to clarify precedent and perhaps expressly define what “natural born” means for purposes of running for president.
I really would have rather they decided to hear Berg’s case than Donofrio’s though. It’s an outrage that any court should be able to arbitrarily declare that an ordinary citizen doesn’t have standing to challenge a candidate’s eligibility to become president. If the voters don’t have standing in such a case, who does?
All of that said, I don’t know why Obama doesn’t just produce the document and put an end to all of this. If he doesn’t have it, either because it was lost, or because of shoddy recordkeeping in Hawaii at the time, why can’t he just say so? The fact that he continues to stonewall on this issue only gives the cases against him more merit, IMO.
NoLeftTurn on December 4, 2008 at 12:27 PM
You’ve got it; that’s the question the Supremes are being asked to answer.
Then why did the Framers feel the need to provide an exception which applied only to themselves? Most were born on US soil and possessed British citizenship, just like Obama. Why did they need that exception?
I don’t have the answers. I’m justing asking. As a lawyer, I see it as a close call. I can argue it both ways.
flyfisher on December 4, 2008 at 12:27 PM
First, the issue of what does “natural citizen” mean is an important one, no?
Moreover, I do hope the Supreme Court will take the case and render a decision confirming that ordinary citizens of this country have a right to go to court to challenge a President’s Constitution qualification, or not, to hold the office. If the Supremes say we have no standing to raise such matters, we are in a world of hurt–no matter what they say about the issue of the meaning of “natural citizen.”
james23 on December 4, 2008 at 12:28 PM
kemphd Actually the Britain/American thing would not make him an American citizen only. It would make him a DUAL citizen, and Donforio is questioning whether “dual citizen” is the same as “natural born citizen.”
UnderstandingisPower on December 4, 2008 at 12:28 PM
The US Code (Title 8, Chapter 12, Section 1401) defines what is a ‘natural born’ citizen. Some of what follows clearly does not apply here, but the part that does leans not only on whether or not Obama was born in the USA or a possession or territory (this settles the question), but the status of his parents if born in a foreign country.
Yes, it is possible to be born in Kenya and still be a natural born citizen.
All Obama has to do is provide the certified birth certificate. The “short form” certificate of live birth, that his campaign allegedly provided, is not enough to prove US citizenship or to get a passport. Why he has not done so, while instead, allegedly, spending $800,000 in legal fees in fighting these suits, makes no sense.
The conspiracy theorists read way too much into where he was born, or whether his Indonesian stepfather renounced his US citizenship as a child, as being definitive. The fact is that the circumstances of his birth, and whether or not a birth certificate was filed in Hawaii for a birth outside a Hawaiin hospital or even outside of the USA (which can be done), will be examined if the Court allows the multiple suits challenging his citizenship to go ahead.
The US Supreme Court, if they grant cert. to hear the case will have to move swiftly to determine if Obama really is a natural born citizen.
It is possible that the result of this will be that the electors sworn to Obama would be required to select another, perhaps Biden or Hillary. That’d be up to the DNC, I think.
Really, this is a simple “yes” or “no” question before the court. Obama either IS a natural born citizen, or his is not.
If 4 of the justices agree, cert will be granted to hear the case. If not, then the case is over, for now.
One further point: The withholding of a public record and vital statistic by the state of Hawaii smacks of a cover up. It is hoped that if the USSC grants cert., the record will be subpoenaed by the Court and made public once and for all.
georgej on December 4, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Key to that question is the framers intent on putting in the natural born clause…
Remember, back then there was no such thing as dual citizen. Your citizenship followed either your FATHER, or where you were born…
IMO the Founders put that in to ensure there was no split loyalty. You were an American Citizen, only an American Citizen, and had always been an American Citizen…
Framers intent is NOT followed if Obama is a dual Citizen….
Romeo13 on December 4, 2008 at 12:28 PM
We actually don’t care about the Donofrio case. That may the wrong case to prove Obama is constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.
All most of us want is for Obama to produce the legal, certified copy of his birth certificate (long form) and prove he was natural born in the United States. Pure and simple.
We’ve seen all the other cases thrown out because they didn’t have “standing” or it wasn’t the right legal case to be heard and thrown out on technicalities.
Let’s keep it simple: Is Barack Obama eligible to serve as President of the United States based on the requirements of the Constitution?
All the courts have to tell Obama is produce the proof just like every other citizen has to in order to get a passport or pass a security clearance.
How difficult can that be?
iamsaved on December 4, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Agreed. I know some others get it as well, but most commenting here do not.
flyfisher on December 4, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Romeo13,
Are you sure that kids born to two American parents overseas aren’t considered natural born citizens? Yes, they have to submit paperwork, but the citizenship is automatic. In the states when a kid is born you have to submit paperwork and the citizenship is automatic. I’m not sure that natural born is limited to the ’soil’ part. Again, probably a good reason for this to get into the court and become defined.
kemphd on December 4, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Whether or not Berg is a nut has nothing to do with whether his case has merit. If you had a valid case and the ACLU filed an amicus brief on your side, would you withdraw your case so as not to be supporting the ACLU?
progressoverpeace on December 4, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Mine had an embossed seal…which authenticated it, similar to Obama’s.
right2bright on December 4, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Round and round we go,
Thanks a lot, B H O.
I think it’s time for me to quit
Trying to sift through all this shit.
hillbillyjim on December 4, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Originalists on the Court would likely see that as a good question, too, and they’ll go back to the source documents to find the answer.
A shame the blogger doesn’t recognize a good constitutional question when one comes up.
james23 on December 4, 2008 at 12:32 PM
But they are not completely disconnected, which is more of why there is confusion. Unless I’m missing something, the birth on US soil trumps blood, or else there is no validity to the “anchor baby” thing that is associated with illegal immigration. (If the blood trumps place, then we can begin mass deportations.)
Which is why the birth certificate is really an issue. Without the copy stating explicitly that he was born in HI, it is all just speculation as to where he was born. John McCain is another question, but he was honest and up front with his documents, so the discussion isn’t centered around if he was born in the Panama Canal zone as he states, but if he qualifies as natural born.
Marine_Bio on December 4, 2008 at 12:33 PM
The US does not require most dual citizens to renounce one of their citizenships. This is from the State Dept website: http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
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.
jim m on December 4, 2008 at 12:33 PM
I believe Alan Keyes’ suit in California may prove to be stronger because he can make a better case for standing. His case is not against Obama and the DNC, but against electors and state officials. But like Berg he is seeking Obama’s long-form birth certificate. I am persuaded Donofrio’s natural born case has more merit, but these other cases are interesting as well. Also, Leo Donofrio has said that Cort Wrotnowski’s action, which is also before the Supreme Court, is stronger than his own.
We live in fascinating times.
flyfisher on December 4, 2008 at 12:34 PM
The paper lied on purpose. The HI Dept of health went of its way to say everything but that. They do have his original birth certificate, but from where?
faraway on December 4, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Before I began a campaign, I would want to know who is driving it…If it is some nut, and I still believed in the purpose, I would find someone reputable to team up with. If the attorney was a scum bag, no, I would find a reputable one that believed in my case.
Do I think Ayers may have some good ideas on education, maybe, would I team up with him to promote his agenda…absolutely not…Would I team up with Berg to promote his agenda, no, I will leave that up to some of you posters.
Your don’t build a reputation by following people who have no reputation…and some of you spewing his facts, without any research, I just shake my head.
right2bright on December 4, 2008 at 12:36 PM
It looks like all he would need to show is his mother was a US citizen who spent five non-continuous years in the United States, with at least two of those being after she reached 14, before he was born. The citizenship is automatic under (g) above.
jim m on December 4, 2008 at 12:37 PM
“I’m sure the comments section will fill with various conspiracy theories over Indonesian school records, Kenyan births, and so on. None of it — absolutely none — has any real, solid evidence showing that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii apart from sheer speculation and hearsay, and even less evidence that Obama’s stepfather renounced Obama’s birthright citizenship, which he didn’t have the power to do anyway. It’s a conspiracy theory spun by conspiracy theorists (Philip Berg is a 9/11 truther) who use their normal thresholds of evidence for this meme.”
If Barry was born in Honolulu and not in Kenya, (which his grandmother maintained), then why hasn’t he submitted the appropriate birth certificate?
And, if someone is said to be a 9/11 truther (as some on both sides maintained about Corsi–which is not true BTW) does that disqualify all of his/her research? Is it possible that he can be right on certain things and wrong on others?
Ok…so if he was 4 days old when he moved to Hawaii it’s no big whoop BUT it reveals just the tip of the Obama scam iceberg and illustrates just one reason why the man cannot be trusted. Perhaps we should agree with the lefties who say that being a natural born citizen is not important when you run for POTUS.
Oh, I better shut up tho…I’m a NAU conspiracy nut, so I must be wrong on this too.
That’s my sadly obligatory self-incriminating post.
Christine on December 4, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Actualy, you don’t have to submit paperwork to get citizenship if your child is born here… the fact that they were born here grants that… which is the whole “Natural Born” thing… there is no question of US citizenship if they are born on US soil. Thats why to get a passport you don’t show proof of citizenship, but a Birth Cert.
Romeo13 on December 4, 2008 at 12:39 PM
This is the sadly obligatory “Evidently, grade schoolers’ rec league sports is more important than POTUS, as they have to provide a birth certificate” post.
/
Christien on December 4, 2008 at 12:41 PM
There are only two possible explanations, either:
1) Obama is lying, and the document does not exist, or
2) Obama is telling the truth, and he is such a full-blown psychotic narcissist that he would rather fight to the death than admit that a mere human has the right to question The Word Of The One.
There is no other possible explanation.
logis on December 4, 2008 at 12:41 PM
right2bright, now I know that you are here to spread lies and misinformation, since this is the second time I have had to correct you.
[1] The HI Dept of Health has only stated that they have his original BC. They don’t state anything about it’s authenticity. They also don’t state where the original BC is from.
faraway on December 4, 2008 at 12:42 PM
If all this talk about O’Bama being a NBC is hooey, then why did his paternal grandmother say that she was in the hospital room in Kenya, when he was born?
Why does he say that he was born at a different hospital in Hawaii, than his sister says he was born at?
Just asking…
thebronze on December 4, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Its actualy even worse… I’d have to find it again but to renounce US citizenship you have to go to an Embassy and fill out a form renouncing your citizenship. Even saying in an oath to another country that you give it up, no longer qualifies….
But thats current law, what is important is what the law was when these things took place.
Romeo13 on December 4, 2008 at 12:42 PM
What happens to a child born over the Atlantic ocean…is a plane considered “soil”. Is an army hospital considered “soil”. Of course they would be.
I think an important issue could be “slippery sloped” into, are babies, just because the parents are standing on our soil, really natural born citizens? That is, can we (legally) deny “anchor babies” citizenship?
right2bright on December 4, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Here’s one problem with Donofrio’s argument: Reading the clause literally, none of us could be the President of the US since we weren’t around when the consitution was adopted.
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
jim m on December 4, 2008 at 12:46 PM
I would tend to agree with you, though I have very strong suspicions that the BC has problems and should be produced just because it is integral to the whole issue. I am not sure what the dual citizenship story really is – though I cannot imagine a nation on Earth that would want a dual citizen, or someone who was a dual citizen, running it. That just seems like common sense to me but I’m not really sure about the legal issues surrounding it. I do want the Court to rule on the whole dual citizen issue, since we have many dual citizens these days and will face this same problem in the future, if not resolved now.
I thought that the best cases were the ones that went after the Secretaries of State to prove that BHO was eligible to be put on the ballot, but they were all rejected and the election is now over, so Keyes’ case is the most sensible for the current circumstances – though the other cases still have merit, in my mind, and need resolution.
progressoverpeace on December 4, 2008 at 12:46 PM
I don’t know if it’s current law or the law in existence when he was born that’s important in this case. It’s only now when he was elected as President.
jim m on December 4, 2008 at 12:47 PM
AP:
Meh..
Eh..
Kokonut on December 4, 2008 at 12:48 PM
sorry, its much more complicated than that.
A Natural Born Citizen is one born on American soil, in the US… they only have to produce a Birth Cert to proove citizenship.
If you birth cert says somthing OTHER than you were born in America, you are a Naturalized Citizen… ie… a citizen by law, not by being Naturaly born in America.
Constitution is clear, that to be President, you must be a Naturaly born Citizen.
Even if you are born in an Army hospital, if you are born on foreign soil (depends on the treaty with that country) you would be a Naturalized Citizen, not Natural Born.
You’re still a citizen… you just can’t run for President ( I know, unfair, but that using the common definitions ).
This case will decide if those definitions are still valid or not…
Romeo13 on December 4, 2008 at 12:51 PM
right2bright (and logis, etc) brought up some great points and they reminded me of the slippery slope of Obama’s sealed records. Why can’t we see his college transcripts and medical records…could it be that he wasn’t considered a natural-born citizen? What else is he hiding in those sealed records? I guess, since we are knee-jerk, illogical, conspiracy nuts, we don’t deserve to know the truth or even ask about it.
Bottom line: If Barry would have been vetted we wouldn’t be in this situation, just in a slightly better one. :-(
Christine on December 4, 2008 at 12:52 PM
I don’t find this analogy to be accurate. “Teaming up” is not the same as coming to a decision as to whether a suit has merit.
So forget Berg. There are more than 20 cases floating around about this. Pick any other one you want. But, if someone presents you with the facts of the Berg case, I would hope that your assessment as to whether it has merit is not dependent on who brought it. You seem to be arguing more for your dislike of Berg than whether his case has merit.
progressoverpeace on December 4, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Here
The certificate states the city, island, and county of birth…and the state says it is authentic.
They also state they have seen the BC, and it holds the same information. State laws say they can not release it.
It is all so plainly stated by officials…now you can say the officials are lying, then that is another argument…one more for Berg and his cult.
right2bright on December 4, 2008 at 12:54 PM
right2bright on December 4, 2008 at 12:36 PM
You skepticism on Berg and the 911 Trutherism in his past warrants that. What is your response to the other 15 or so lawsuits filed against BHO?
This is a simple matter, he authorizes the release of certified copy of his original birth certificate and it shows hes born in HI and that problem solved. Donofrio and the others can parse words over dual citizenship and let the chips fall where they may.
Explain to me what YOU think his reasons for failing to authorize the release of teh original is? Now I know this is hard for you, but NOT the computer generated COLB. That is produced using info off the original vault copy. THATS the one that needs to see the light of day. Why do YOU think he refuses?
I can think of two reasons:
1- Its a principle thing and hes laying the groundwork to discredit future criticism of him. This would make him an a-hole but Eligible
2-It would show him INeligible and leave him open for arrest for fraud and accountability for 650 million + of election funds.
Can you think of another legitimate reason?
allahallahoxenfree on December 4, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Chimps lack one pair of chromosomes that humans posses. It sounds like those creatures pushing this tripe are probably sharing that extra pair.
The Race Card on December 4, 2008 at 12:57 PM
ACTUAL TRUTHS:
1. No one knows if Billy Jeff fathered a black child. (actually, it is racist to call the result of a white male and black female “black”) We just know that ONE story had no evidence to support it.
2. Nobody cares whether you are natural born or not since you are not trying to occupy a public office which “belongs” to all of us.
3. BHO is most likely a bastard child. (not the pejorative meaning – the legal meaning) While not facially disqualifying on its face, this certainly might be an embarrassing fact if one is campaigning on family values.
4. I submit that it is legally arguable that the constitution necessarily bars bastard children from serving as president IF there is no judicial determination of paternity by an American citizen. It might be enlightening for some of the commenters here to do some basic research on paternity law (especially the jurisprudence regarding modern child support laws). You might be shocked to see all the things they’ve done to the law.
5. The Supreme Court has not ruled on a dispute regarding the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to natural born. This is primarily because the government has never disputed that the 14th means the act of physically giving birth inside the United States. Imagine what would happen to all those “citizens” who have heretofore been “assumed” to be covered by the 14th (commonly known as “anchor babies”)
Obambi wishes (and believes) that this is all about him but it is not. Far from it. Proper resolution of this issue is likely to have cataclysmic consequences for these United States.
platypus on December 4, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Look at my recent links, it shows the officials stating that the document is fact, matches up with the original, and that he was born in Honolulu, on Oahu, in the county of Honolulu.
It is authentic, and matches to the original, which by state law cannot be released.
right2bright on December 4, 2008 at 12:58 PM
FYI–from the link to the Hawaii paper. See http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081101/NEWS05/811010345/1001/localnewsfront.
“Fukino {Hawaii’s health dept director], however, repeated the Health Department’s position that state law prohibits her or any other officials from actually releasing the birth certificate, which Obama’s campaign says shows he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961.”
“In Hawai’i, birth, death, marriage and certain divorce documents can only be released to people with a “tangible interest,” such as the people themselves, their parents, spouses, grandparents or other relatives.
As a result, Fukino said she does not believe Health Department officials could release Obama’s birth certificate to the public even with his permission, although she would need to get a legal ruling to be certain.”
jim m on December 4, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Who has time to read all comments. This might have been said a few times already. This could be solved so easily. Why does the Obama camp keep this so veiled?
Schadenfreude on December 4, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Here
The certificate states the city, island, and county of birth…and the state says it is authentic.
They also state they have seen the BC, and it holds the same information. State laws say they can not release it.
It is all so plainly stated by officials…now you can say the officials are lying, then that is another argument…one more for Berg and his cult.
right2bright on December 4, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Oh and by the way, there is evidence even that COLB was tampered with, photoshop or somthing similar. lack of green color between the letters indicative of cut and paste job. look up Dr Ron Polarnik on youtupe or at http://www.obamacrimes.com
I know thats Bergs website, but just hold your nose while you do it.
allahallahoxenfree on December 4, 2008 at 1:00 PM
I wanna jump in this wagon, it is a very interesting issue. I was born in Puerto Rico. The unusual thing about my situation is that I have TWO Birth Certificates. Yep, two!
What happened was that I have the old, original Birth Cert. that says time of birth (very useful in Astrology charts ;D ), white and detailed info. including my mother and father’s info. After I was born, as I was told, the hospital burned down so they had to reissue birth certs. for all the children born in that hospital. So I have the old, original and the new, light beige, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico sealed Birth Certificate (no time of birth) and a bit more “formal” since it was computer generated.
In PA hospitals still do the baby footprints. My daughter had hers done which I have in her baby book :) This makes me wanna go to the safe and gather them both to type in the differences between the two and post them here. I feel after all this mess to scan them, make them digital-ready in case of a disaster.
ProudPalinFan on December 4, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Vast left wing conspiracy.
Tin foil hat kind of kookiness.
getalife on December 4, 2008 at 1:02 PM
There are two simple points at issue here, and one can argue them without being certain they know what the “right” answers are:
1. A “natural-born citizen” and a “citizen” are two different things. The Constitution allows only members of one group to be President;
2. Osama Obama could have ended the controversy at the start by providing a copy of his genuine birth certificate. for whatever reason, he chose not to do so.
People like right2bright amaze me. They will go to great lengths — replete with plenty of name-calling — to quash discussion of an issue that is so simply resolved.
The answer in this case is not as important in and of itself as Obama’s evasion of the answer. That alone raises suspicion about so many other aspects of his life and “career.”
If a would-be President is excused from answering questions the rest of us must deal with many times in our lives, something is definitely wrong.
MrScribbler on December 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Yes, we are the crazy ones…not the guy spending half a million dollars to hide something that no one person can give a good reason to hide…
I think you need to take Obama’s balls out of your mouth before you can request the rest of us to “get a grip”.
javamartini on December 4, 2008 at 1:05 PM
So why is his Kenyan grandma saying she was in teh delivery room in KENYA when he was born?
dogsoldier on December 4, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Just because I have not seen it here and it is central to the whole issue
STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.
There is NO repeat NO statement that Obama was born in Hawaii OR that the certificate on record says so.
America1st on December 4, 2008 at 1:06 PM
If a would-be President is excused from answering questions the rest of us must deal with many times in our lives, something is definitely wrong.
MrScribbler on December 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Thank you, that is what is the most appalling.
and yes right2Bright is a pseudo-intellectual lemming, but a lemming none the less.
allahallahoxenfree on December 4, 2008 at 1:06 PM
How else do you reproduce a copy? Either you “Xerox” it or you computer generate it.
So naturally if it is not the original, it is by definitions a copy.
You cult guys are tough…
He produced a copy of the original, which by law is all he can do.
That copy was embossed, signed, and deemed authentic by the dept of health services. The compared it to the original (which by law they cannot release) and said it was authentic. His birth place is Honolulu, so the cultist who say it never says he was born in Hawaii is correct…he was born on Oahu, in the city of Honolulu.
And now he has the proof, he has shown it… and he is sitting back watching hundreds make fools of themselves. Why should he help out the right wing nut jobs?
BTW, when this started, a bunch of you said that it was never confirmed by that state that the document was accurate. Now that it has been confirmed, any one change their mind?…I didn’t think so, thus the name “cult”.
right2bright on December 4, 2008 at 1:08 PM
That’s a misreading of what that clause says. Those of us who are natural born citizens are eligible. The only people the exception applied to were those American citizens alive at the time of the adoption of the constitution. Read it carefully.
flyfisher on December 4, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Section 8, Clause 1 of Article 1 of the US Consitution gives the US Congress the right “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States”. They passes a resolution earlier this year clarifying John McCain’s status as a natural born citizen and could certainly do it again for Obama.
In addition, several prior presidential candidates were likely not a natural born citizen under a strict definition of the term:
Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona in 1909. Goldwater’s natural born citizenship status was questioned because Arizona was a territory of the United States, and did not become a state until 1912.
George Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney’s grandfather emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney’s parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States in 1912. Romney was 32 years old when he arrived in Michigan.
Lowell Weicker, the former Connecticut Senator, Representative, and Governor, entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980 but dropped out before voting in the primaries began. He was born in Paris, France and acquired his citizenship at birth through his parents. His father was an executive for E. R. Squibb & Sons and his mother was the Indian-born daughter of a British general.
Róger Calero was born in Nicaragua in 1969 and ran as the Socialist Worker’s Party Presidential Candidate in 2004 and 2008. In 2008, Calero appeared on the ballot in Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Vermont.[17]
John McCain, who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and was the Republican nominee in 2008, was born in 1936 at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents. In March 2008 McCain was held eligible for Presidency in an opinion paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe. In April 2008 the US Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain’s status as a natural born citizen. In September 2008 a Federal District judge said obiter that it was “highly probable” that McCain was a natural born citizen of the United States owing to the citizenship legislation existing at the time.[21][22] These views have been criticized by Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, who claims that McCain was at birth a citizen of Panama and was only retroactively declared a born citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1403.
jim m on December 4, 2008 at 1:10 PM
So now you come up with proof, official written State documents that show that those documents he has are not accurate.
I showed proof, now you counter with your proof and we will see who the lemming is…
right2bright on December 4, 2008 at 1:10 PM
dogsoldier,
To suggest she isn’t a lying Troofer is racist!
/
Christien on December 4, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Now I know this is hard for you, but NOT the computer generated COLB. That is produced using info off the original vault copy. THATS the one that needs to see the light of day. Why do YOU think he refuses?
He produced a copy of the original, which by law is all he can do.
NO HE DID NOT
I don’t know what else to say to you. We are talking about different pieces of paper.
allahallahoxenfree on December 4, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Don’t think so flyfisher. If they had meant to write it the other way, they would have changed the location of the second comma: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…….
jim m on December 4, 2008 at 1:13 PM
The birth cirtificate has nothing to do with Donofrio’s case. I don’t know why the author of this post confuses crazy conspiracy theories with the case before the SCOTUS. Berg is the one who’s going after the birth cirtificate and Leo wants nothing to do with that guy.
The author of this post is more conspiracy minded than the most crackpot article I could read online. And believe me, I’ve read a lot of stupid stuff.
Take this quote:
“The children of immigrants born in this country are ineligible to be President?”
Leo never says this. What the Constitution says is that they CAN be President as long as the parents were US citizens when the child was born. This has actually happened a few times with past Presidents. But the purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to have 100% allegiance to the US. No split allegiances. Being born on US soil is NATIVE born citizen and is something completely different and is not enough to be eligible for President. There are plenty of cases that state exactly that.
Here’s another of the author’s crazy quotes.
“Natural born means the person at question was born in US territory, and it always has.”
No it hasn’t. That’s NATIVE born. It’s different than natural born. What you’re saying in your quote is crazy talk. Completely nutjob stuff.
So please stop spreading conspiracy theories and stick to the Constitution. It’s not that hard.
MrX on December 4, 2008 at 1:14 PM
First of all, I too believe the birth certificate is problematic for Obama. My suspicion has always been that there is something on it that would prove highly embarrassing. Perhaps it would expose a lie he has been telling, or writing, about himself for years. Who really knows? I want to see the birth certificate only because he is fighting so hard to keep it under wraps. That said, I believe the best chance to beat him is on the natural born citizen question.
Also, the Donofrio lawsuit is one of those you mentioned. It was filed against Nina Mitchell Wells, the Secretary of State of New Jersey. His theory was that she violated an affirmative duty to the citizens of New Jersy by not verifying Obama’s eligibility. Apparently New Jersey courts have previously ruled that citizens have the right to sue public officials for such violations, thus standing is not at issue.
flyfisher on December 4, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Honolulu Advertiser lied
Here is the statement from the State of HI.
The state does NOT say it validates the BC.
right2bright, you are here to lie and misinform HA readers.
Further, HA readers are not aligning with Berg. He is a Hillary supporter.
Obama has quite a team of rivals. One of them is actively trying to have the Supreme Court invalidate the election.
faraway on December 4, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Well, in that case, nevermind. I mean, all we’re doing is hiring the guy…what gives a boss the right to do a background check anyway? Oh yeah…immigration laws. Does that mean that Janet Napolitano will get to deport him if he’s working here illegally?
Javiel20 on December 4, 2008 at 1:16 PM
I don’t follow your logic. I believe that clause specifies the only two classes of people eligible to become POTUS:
1. Natural born citizens, and
2. Citizens of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted
All other citizens were/are ineligible.
flyfisher on December 4, 2008 at 1:19 PM
NoLeftTurn on December 4, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Obama’s mother being American does not automatially confer American citizenship on him at birth.
The statutes in place in 1961 when he was born state that the child of an American citizen and foreigner born on foreign soil may be an American if the American parent has resided in the USA for 10 years with 5 of them being after the age of 14. (ie 19 years old). She was 18 when he was born. Thus if he was born in Kenya – HE IS NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN BY BIRTH and he can never be a natural born citizen.
txdoc on December 4, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Exactly.
flyfisher on December 4, 2008 at 1:20 PM
You are 100% correct on that statement, the statement that the little cultists use…
The document that they (the state officials) verify says that he was born in the city of Honolulu, on the island of Oahu, in the county of Honolulu…no mention of Hawaii.
They inspected the birth certificate issued to Obama’s against the official one on record and their were no discrepancies….except for the ones that are made up.
right2bright on December 4, 2008 at 1:22 PM
I confess-I don’t know what Obama has been doing about this.
Does anyone truly know what he has produced?
I’m not into this conspiracy thing. Did he produce a real birth certificate? Did the right people see it?
If Hawaii is saying it’s there, then shouldn’t we have to take their word for it?
After all, they can’t let anyone else have it except Obama or close family.
But has Obama gotten a copy to show anyone?
I really don’t know what the man has done concerning this issue.
Badger40 on December 4, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Hey Jim M,
Interpreting that clause is the whole point of Donofrio’s lawsuit. I am likely interpreting it the way most beneficial to my politcal beliefs. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong. Let’s hope the Supremes give us a definitive answer on how to interpret that clause so this question can never arise again.
flyfisher on December 4, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Ed’s argument is pretty much the same as Medved’s, and all other defenders of Obama’s arrogance on this issue – “move along folks, nothing to see hear”, followed by an imperious “why would an elected official of Hawaii lie?!”
To which I can only ask – is that a trick question?
I think Obama’s a nautural citizen, and should be inaugurated. Whomever is in charge of verifying that should verify it. He’s not a king, just an elected President.
Jaibones on December 4, 2008 at 1:24 PM
If you adopt a child from overseas, then you can petition the State of Hawaii to have one of these made up for your child to make it seem like he was born in Hawaii. Again this is NOT a Birth Certificate, but a State of Hawaii Certificate of Birth.
JeffinSac on December 4, 2008 at 1:24 PM
If requiring Obama to answer these lawsuits and put them to rest makes me a tinfoil hatter, then I’ll be in the corner sucking my thumb sporting my tin.
abinitioadinfinitum on December 4, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Three main points
1 – What the Hawaii state officials said is that they have birth documentation. They have not said what’s on that document – and they would have such documentation if he’d been born elsewhere and then been registered in Hawaii or if his mother had put another father’s name on the form.
2 – The “African” on the photocopy so many people cite clearly marks it as a fake. It should have said “Negro” (Obama) or “Negroid” (Davis).
3 – He says he traveled in Pakistan in 1981. That makes him a non American at the time – because American passports were unacceptable there. So either he lied about his citizenship then, or he’s lying now.
Paul Murphy on December 4, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Yeah, I have been posting here for two years, just waiting to deceive you on this…
You are trapped in the web of cultism, and you can’t see your way out.
Now you can see how truthers, JFK, and others think…they don’t.
You have officials stating that the original matches to the one sent to Obama, and you still reject.
Now you think I am planted here to misinform you…ohhh boy, we got a live one here.
right2bright on December 4, 2008 at 1:27 PM
But it matches to the original BC, get it, they are a match. They can’t release the BC, but they can and did inspect it.
right2bright on December 4, 2008 at 1:28 PM
If it’s written “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President… doesn’t “at the time of the Adoption” modify natural born Citizen.
If it’s written “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.. doesn’t “at the time of the Adoption” modify Citizen of the US?
jim m on December 4, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Badger40 We know he has not produced it in any court of law, and no government official has come forward to say he produced it for them to see (DNC, FEC, etc.).
There are, at present, two different “copies” of a document that is NOT the BC on the ‘net. Some people think this should be enough to settle the issues. However, if that doc is enough to settle it, why in the last month since the suits were filed and the SCOTUS asked for a response from Obama has he not even brought THAT one down there for them to see?
And if you were going to get a passport or get into kindergarten (not even try to be President), it would not be “enough” that the state of your birth verify that they have a document. You would have to produce it. So why hasn’t Obama produced this doc that would cost $24, if the one he has (the “copies” posted on the ‘net were supposedly taken from), isn’t already the “real” one that would settle the matter?
Far more questions here than answers.
UnderstandingisPower on December 4, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Badger, here are the real facts.
I believe the State of HI did verify that the COLB on his website is valid. This COLB is not the original, but a printout of info on file. (I don’t have the link at hand)
The state has also verified that they have the original BC.
The state has not said the original is from HI. HI will issue BC to people born in other countries.
Several people have filed lawsuits to see the original BC. Obama has hired (3?) lawfirms and (must have spend thousands of dollars) has refused to produce the original BC.
faraway on December 4, 2008 at 1:30 PM
For such a “non-issue”, right2bright sure is expending a lot of energy defending the validity of the “web” copy of Obama’s birth certificate.
Are you sure you’re not part of the “Defend Obama Against Smears” club he set up during his campaign and no one told you the election is over? You don’t have to patrol the conservative web sites looking for smears to crush anymore.
If all this is from the looney “tinfoil” conspiracy people, why would you bother responding to it. If it’s just a conspiracy and has no validity, it will disappear on its own accord.
iamsaved on December 4, 2008 at 1:31 PM
No, he has NOT produced a copy of his origional Birth Certificate.
He has produced a document written in 2007, which may or may not have been based on information changed during his one or more adoption processes.
The State of Hawaii did NOT say the form on the website was correct, they said they have a LEGAL Birth Certificate on file… which while being legal, may or may not be the ORIGIONAL Birth cert, because of the adoption proceedings where it is COMMON practice to change the Birth Cert to reflect the adoption…
Sorry, but a suspect document is NOT good enough when we are talking about the guy with his finger on the Nuclear Button.
Romeo13 on December 4, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Step away from the websites…in Hawaii, they asked the parents their nationality, the father said African…they take what is told to them. The nurse does not make that decision. That was discussed already.
When you base assertions on things so easily reputed it makes everything else suspect.
right2bright on December 4, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Hi, noting that Puerto Rico is not a 51st. State (yet!) I have here both birth certificates, the original and the one issued afterwards.
The original birth certificate (PR) has the following information:
This, both in Spanish and English – will spare the Spanish.
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Department of Health
Division of Demographic Registry and Vital Statistics
BIRTH CERTIFICATE// REGISTER NUMBER
Area Number//Year CERTIFICATE NUMBER
CHILD’S NAME
(My)Name/Father’s Surname/Mother’s Surname
Sex/Time/Month/Day/Year REGISTRATION DATE Month/Day/Year
BIRTHPLACE
Barrio or Urbanized Area/Street and Number/Municipality, Puerto Rico
FATHER (Here is his name, Place of Birth, State or Country)
MOTHER (Here is her name, Place of Birth, State or Country)
INFORMANT (My mom’s name, address, personal signature) *sniff* passed away +10 years ago!
ATTENDANT AT BIRTH – I Hereby certify that the birth occurred at the date and place indicated above.)
Name/Signature/Address/Date/Month/Day/Year. *There is a space for Witness but no name was provided.*
Bottom part is a “THIS IS TO CERTIFY…” statement that this is a photostatic copy of the original, so and so, yadda yadda..) bottom middle has a seal of the Department of Health, blue, with a .50 cent stamp and signatures on each side of the Secretary of Health at the time, and the signature of the Director of the division of Demographic Registry and Vital Statistics at the time.
At the end, Date Issued, stamped in blue.
*A wealth of information that The One is not providing.*
ProudPalinFan on December 4, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 9 Next »