Shocker: Berg lawsuit denied by Supreme Court
posted at 9:45 am on January 13, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
I haven’t seen any reporting on this development, but Philip Berg announced late yesterday that the Supreme Court has refused to hear his lawsuit on Barack Obama’s status as a natural-born citizen. Berg provides no links to any opinion, but the court docket shows that they indeed denied him certiorari. Berg doesn’t sound happy, needless to say:
Berg said, “I am disappointed for the 300+ million U.S. citizens, our ‘Forefathers’ and for the tens of thousands that have died defending ‘our’ Constitution.
I am committed to keep our efforts going to continue litigation until the truth of Obama being ‘not qualified’ for President comes out. The Obama candidacy is the biggest ‘HOAX’ ever to be put forth to the citizens of the United States in 230 years.
Really? And here I thought that was the one involving the eye on the back of the one-dollar bill. Or perhaps the “culture of corruption” argument the Democrats used in 2006 to pretend that all corruption was Republican while one of their Congressmen hid $90,000 of kickback cash in his freezer. Or the JFK assassination conspiracy theories. Or, for that matter, Berg’s own 9/11 Trutherism.
Berg swears to continue the fight, apparently with the same enthusiasm he uses to convince people that the government really masterminded the attacks in New York City and Washington DC. He’s preparing a number of other legal challenges that will go exactly nowhere, including a lawsuit from a military officer challenging Obama’s legal authority to act as Commander in Chief. These will make for great reading and long comment threads on slow news days, but otherwise will be entirely pointless except as a commercial enterprise for Berg.
Hopefully, whatever opinion was generated from this denial will shortly become available. In the interim, one can guess that it amounted to, “You have got to be kidding me.”
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 Next »
So you’re saying that the COLB is the only documentation that exists as proof of citizenship in HI. and hospital records of the birth procedure are not produced?
I did not know that, and that would change things. You can’t produce something that doesn’t exist.
Thanks
Itchee Dryback on January 13, 2009 at 2:04 PM
I agree with tommylotto.
I disagree with those implying that asking for the long-form birth certificate is racist.
I definitely disagree with the insults towards those of us who like to see Constitutional t’s crossed and i’s dotted.
Like, say, that the person going to become President is actually qualified, legally, to do so.
My guess is that it is likely he was born in Hawaii, and is a natural-born citizen.
But I think it will be TOTALLY HILARIOUS if it’s proved that he is not!
Then you will reconsider your insults, perhaps.
Alana on January 13, 2009 at 2:06 PM
I’m not sure how you get to no duty existing if there’s a requirement listed in the Constitution. I’ll illustrate a slightly off topic example to address your dismissal.
There is a fairly goofy cottage industry built around denying the validity of the income tax. One of the “arguments” is that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. Torpedoing this point is an earlier controversy in which the Constitution lays out the procedures for ratifying Amendments but there’s nothing that actually says specifically *when* an Amendment is considered ratified. The SCOTUS responded by saying Congress had the power to provide for the actual legal mechanism by which an Amendment is considered ratified, and Congress turned around and said an Amendment is ratified when it is certified so by the Secretary of State.
I see the answer to this to be something similar…but the SCOTUS needs to affirm Congressional power in this situation first. From there Congress can provide the mechanism by which POTUS qualifications are verified.
However, to suggest that because a specific duty to verify a requirement is not specifically provided for in the Constitution is, I think, to require that the Constitution specifically list all contemplatable circumstances…and it’s this requirement that consigns Ron Paul to the looney wing of the Conservative Manor. The Constitution is only a framework describing HOW decisions are made…it doesn’t actually MAKE decisions.
JohnTant on January 13, 2009 at 2:09 PM
I believe the COLB is not accepted by the state of Hawaii for purposes of claiming land (grants? somethings?) under this thing they have going for people who are native Hawaiians.
Alana on January 13, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Only because it was ruled that the plaintiff didn’t have standing (yet?) to bring it to trial. To my knowledge, Obama’s eligibility status has never been addressed by a court.
dominigan on January 13, 2009 at 2:12 PM
No I did not post that, I never used the words exist, you did…I said every person born in Hawaii was given a COLB as the only proof of his birth. That is the official document that Hawaii as used since I believe the 1920′s. It is unique to the all the other states, because it is the official document, every bit a valid as your birth certificate.
That is the only document they provide, and the only one that is needed to obtain anything that an “original” birth certificate is needed for.
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Kind of odd how the liberal media pays more attention to the 9/11 Bush hating truthers then the locked down Barry birth certificate .
ODD
I mean come on already,..how much of a moron are you, if you don’t find it at least a little strange that he’s keeping it locked up?
Wait until he pisses the wrong person off.
This is NOT going away, a lie never does.
christene on January 13, 2009 at 2:16 PM
I agree with tommylotto.
I disagree with those implying that asking for the long-form birth certificate is racist.
I definitely disagree with the insults towards those of us who like to see Constitutional t’s crossed and i’s dotted.
Like, say, that the person going to become President is actually qualified, legally, to do so.
My guess is that it is likely he was born in Hawaii, and is a natural-born citizen.
But I think it will be TOTALLY HILARIOUS if it’s proved that he is not!
Then you will reconsider your insults, perhaps.
Alana on January 13, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Good post.
The idiots calling others “truthers” here probably wouldn’t reconsider their insults if proven wrong, at least not with real humility. How often do you see people who argue like liberals do so?
Bizarro No. 1 on January 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Really? Where was Berg found not to have standing? When was Alan Keyes found not to have standing? When was Donofrio found not to have standing? I’d like to see those opinions.
Pablo on January 13, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Go RAVENS GO!
:-)
Buckaroo on January 13, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Yes, GO Ravens, go home after your defeat.
Now shut it.
Liberal.
Bishop on January 13, 2009 at 2:37 PM
From: http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%20Ka%20Aina%20Hoopulapula.pdf
Please… right… since I’ve been “spanked”… continue with your disinformation to people on this site… you are truely amusing me…
Seems that the Hawaii state Entity which decides if you are a Native Hawaiin disagrees with your assertion that there is only one type of document…
But then, that has been pointed out to you before… please continue to ignore any evidence that you don’t want to believe….
I for one, tend to admit when I’m incorrect… to bad others will not do the same…
Romeo13 on January 13, 2009 at 2:37 PM
What I was trying to say (perhaps unclearly) was that someone used a state issued document and a federal issued document (social security number) as proof of citizenship, when truly they were not a citizen.
Johan Klaus on January 13, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Donifrio’s origional case was dismissed because there was a time limit in the state law under which he sued, to complain about what was on the ballot…
Berg’s case, just like the case against McCain’s, were ruled against because they did not have standing to sue…
Problem here is that there are two tracks going… the origional cases, some of which are still going forward… and the Emergency stay stuff before the Supremes (all of which so far have not been granted…).
The Supremes not hearing them on an emergency basis does NOT mean the origional case does not have merit, just that the Supremes don’t want to hear it on an Emergency basis.
Romeo13 on January 13, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Tell this idiot what document you don’t believe…the COLB?
So then you don’t believe that everyone living in Hawaii is really a citizen?
You call someone an idiot…yet you believe that a document that has been used for over 50 years, has been accepted by every government agency in the world is not valid?
So every judge, attorney, magistrate, gov. official, who ever accepted the COLB is an idiot…but you’re not…Okey dokey
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 2:44 PM
And to think we laughed at the Russians!
grapeknutz on January 13, 2009 at 2:45 PM
It seems to me that the SCOTUS keeps simply sidestepping the issue. I have seen nothing that makes me think the SCOTUS has affirmed Obama’s credentials, only denied hearing all the various suits.
So, exactly how does one go about challenging a Presidential candidate’s qualifications? If the qualifications are unchallengeable, then they have no effect in practice because anybody can ignore them and not risk being challenged.
While I don’t know that Berg has a case, it seems to me that nobody has affirmed that Obama really does meet the qualifications.
PersonalLiberty on January 13, 2009 at 2:58 PM
ligth bright and mad cow, allow me to clearify a few point for you, on my behalf.
1. I don’t care about the Indo thing, weather or not he was adopted or not.
2. I don’t care if he went top Paakistaaan
3. I don’t care if he went to school as a foreign national
4. I don’t care if his grandma was there or not there
5. I dont’ give a rats A#$# about Philip Berg
And when this subject was brought up, I said it was a bunch of bumkess. The only thing, the one thing that baffles me is he would rather fight in court than release vault copy. Now you have your opinion on weather or not he has done that or not. But there are alot of people, smart people, not padded room people that believe he has not. So COLB is the same thing that you get when you are born out of the country. If, (and he probally was) was born in Havhee then just pay $12 and show the damn thing. Its not going to go any further. We may never know the truth, or maybe we already do. But I have said it before and will say it again. The Vault Copy would prove either side right. That is what is funny, the answer, the evidence to prove those who want to know for sure and those who think we are dumb a$#$ hicks that belong in padded rooms and watched through peep holes right.
To be clear, I do not care about one through five, I care about his actions he has taken to fight them. That is clear.
Now type your respnse, call me stupid, but in my tax bracket i would kinda like to know. Cause it’s about to go crazy. WOOOOOOO
excuse my spelling, can’t spell worth a crap, LOL
kara26 on January 13, 2009 at 3:14 PM
I never said there is “only one type of document”.
Looks like to prove that you have the right amount of “Hawaiian blood” they need extensive documentation to show the % of Hawaiian ancestory…similar to some of the American Indian tribes requesting more proof then just a birth certificate…that does not mean that birth certificates are not valid…
This has nothing to do whether someone is born in Hawaii or not, but with the % of Hawaiian blood…other words, unless there is a certain % of Hawaiian blood that is mandatory to become President, this is a strawman argument.
Good try though…much better then your “Obama couldn’t get a drivers license with a COLB” argument.
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Your spelling is fine, we are concerned with the ideas not the grammar (however Firefox does spell check).
The reason is that all that is required by law is that he show the COLB, that is the accepted document.
The same reason Palin won’t show Trig’s BC. Any attorney will point out you don’t give anymore information then is requested. It opens up new lines of discovery. Just like Bush doesn’t hand over everything that is requested, even if it would clear him, you only release what is absolutely required. It opens up avenues of “discovery” that legally can pull you down a sink hole of perpetual disclosure. And that is what truthers do, they just keep asking for more and more. If he showed the BC, everyone would say it was a fake, where is the doctor, and doctor would be hounded, if the doctor was dead, then “how did he die?”, and on and on. Look at some of the reports…he couldn’t get a drivers license, comparing his COLB to % of blood of Hawaiian’s, the border is correct, not enough folds, wrong color, African instead of Negroe, I mean it never ends.
Let’s wait until he screws up, then nail him on substance.
Listen, I don’t care for Obama, I think he is bad for the country and I am just heartsick about him winning…nothing would please me more then to have him forced to step down.
But he won’t show it, because he doesn’t have to, what he has is acceptable and has been for decades.
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 3:26 PM
You’re an idiot if your first action is to insult people who have questions about Obama’s BC rather than to dispassionately address the points/questions they raise. It’s a sign of intellectual shallowness to presume that every Rightie who has suspicions about BHO and his peculiar behavior is as retarded as the 911 truthers are.
How many red flags does it raise with you that BHO has put so much effort into keeping his past hidden the way he has? Why won’t he release his college transcripts, for instance. Do you believe the reason he hasn’t publicly released his long form BC is because of principle alone? If so, I’d say you are blind and naive. And you know what? If it does turn out that he hasn’t released it because of principle alone, I’ll humbly admit that my assessment of his character has been lower than it should have been.
How principled of a person do you believe BHO is anyways?
Bizarro No. 1 on January 13, 2009 at 3:31 PM
If Obama is truly going to bring about transparency and be more open than Bush and his administration was then he MUST SHOW US HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE and not keep it sealed and hidden in Hawaii.
TheMightyQuinn on January 13, 2009 at 3:44 PM
If Obama meets the requirements can someone tell me why he is hiding the documentation? I seriously want to know what good reason a person would have for refusing to prove they are an American. I would proudly wave my birth certificate in the face of anyone who wishes to qeustion my citizenship and I find it curious that a person so patriotic as to wish to be president wouldn’t do the same.
Bfunky292 on January 13, 2009 at 3:47 PM
After all that rant and rage your answer to my question was what?
What hasn’t he provided that is requested by law?
We have been over this for months, the truthers keep getting all their complaints fully answered and they shut their ears to the truth. It makes conservative look bad and like nut cases.
He has provided the documents that is required by law…that is all that is needed.
Bush was requested by congress to turn over some documents, phone logs, and he said “no”…he was right, there was no requirement for him to do so, you only turn in the documents that are required.
So I ask you…What legal document has Obama not given that is required of him to give?
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 3:50 PM
bright,
see i dropped the light.
the reason because your post was thoughtful and not full of insults. see thats how you do it. I agree that if he released vault there would be those that would take the path that you described, but not me or those i would call the sane ones who would like to see it for case closed. I guess that would be those how would agree with my last post.
kara26 on January 13, 2009 at 3:50 PM
You answered your own question…because he met the requirements…nothing else is needed. He isn’t “hiding” them, they are where every other BC in Hawaii resides. The COLB is the standard for all gov. documentation (except I suppose to determine the % of Hawaiian blood).
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 3:53 PM
btw
using vista on my wifes computer, not as good as apple. fire fox better?????
kara26 on January 13, 2009 at 3:53 PM
As I stated, Bush did the same thing when congress demanded tapes and phone logs of him and others…he didn’t just hand them over, because he knows that discovery opens up a bag of worms.
I hope you are never on the jury stand, but the one thing your attorney will say is to answer the question, and only that question and offer nothing more, never nothing more.
Obama is a disaster, but what he is doing is correct.
And quite frankly, when people insult me on a blog it just amuses me, so no problem with adding insults. I would assume that someone behind a keyboard that “insults” you would have little affect on your life…besides in a blog world most of the insults are really aimed at the substance, not the person since we don’t know the person.
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 3:59 PM
I find it much better…I believe the majority uses firefox…
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 4:00 PM
For what its worth:
1. Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.
A. From Hawaii’s official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: “Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country” (applies to adopted children).
B. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.
C. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.
D. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error. See, for example, HRS 338-17.
E. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.
F. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate 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.”
Itchee Dryback on January 13, 2009 at 4:01 PM
…Did you really mean to compare the two circumstances?
Itchee Dryback on January 13, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Sorry, but a HI COLB does not prove PEBO was born in Hawaii. From what I have gathered, COLBs in HI can be issued days after the actual birth takes place.
The COLB that was released by the Obama campaign to the Kos kids, as well as to others, was carefully looked at by many fairly respectable people. Many of them raised numerous concerns about the ducument’s validity.
I am not willing to dismiss their concerns so easily, and, given my observations of Barack Hussein Obama over the last couple of years, I am certainly not willing to take his word for it, nor the word of some Hawaiian government official, given the predominant political persuasion that exists on those islands.
Regardless, PEBO is hiding something, else he wouldn’t be going to the lengths he has to keep it all under wraps.
If it isn’t his POB, is it possibly that his real father isn’t who he says it is?
The Constitution requires a higher hurdle be cleared for POTUS than for any other elected office in this country. I do not think it unreasonable that PEBO be required to demonstrate that he, in fact, meets those standards.
What happens if a year or two down the road, somebody is able to prove that Obama doesn’t meet the minimum standards set forth by the Constitution for his office? Should it turn out that he is inelligible, every bill he signs into law, and every executive order he signs, will be invalid.
Care to guess how long all those lawsuits are going to tie up an already severely over-loaded federal legal system?
Obama could clear this all up very quickly, and it would cost him all of $12.
The fact that he has chosen, for whatever reason, not to do so, raises certain questions.
-Dave
Dave R. on January 13, 2009 at 4:15 PM
and once again, the Capt just. doesn’t. get. it!
More attempt to appear “non-partisan” and “unbiased”, and in doing so, insults the millions of American Citizens who have legitimate, and unanswered questions about Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s (PBUH)(SAW)(SWT) legal right to occupy the Oval Office.
Does the Capt KNOW if he so qualified?
Let me answer: NO!
But will he continue to insult and put down those that legitimately raise the question?
YES!
Why am I not surprised?
That’s what happens when you Blog, and you decided you’re above it all!
Dale in Atlanta on January 13, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Because the COLB in the state of Hawaii hold special significance…it is the only document given at birth. It is the official document that every state, every country, every government agency has accepted for over 50 years, and it has never been not accepted for anything…never…if it has, show it to us.
mrsmwp on January 13, 2009 at 4:17 PM
I have not reviewed the comments in this thread yet, and still I know some of the inaccuracies and second-hand MSM lies that will be repeated as gospel truth:
FALSE. In reality, what Obama has posted on his so-called “Fight the Smears” campaign site is not a “birth certificate” in the traditional sense. It is a Certification of Live Birth, which was issued in 2007 rather than in 1961.
FALSE. In reality, the contemporaneous birth certificate (aka “vault copy”) is a document signed by an attending medical professional issued within days of an infant’s arrival into the world within the borders of Hawaii with 23 separate sections. A Certification of Live Birth (COLB) is a computer-generated summary subsequently produced by the state with only 11 sections.
There is indeed a legal difference between the two: If one seeks to legally establish him or herself as being a descendant of pre-statehood native Hawaiians with the privileges that brings, the state will NOT accept a COLB as evidence — it will only accept the “vault copy.” That is the policy despite the fact that there is no specific section in the vault copy form regarding blood lineage.
FALSE. The actual COLB document does say that it is “prima facie evidence” in a court proceeding. But so far, the Obama camp has fought with all its might to avoid producing the document it put online in a courtroom. If the prima facie status of the BHO COLB were the slam dunk everyone says they are, he would have no problem submitting it to an authority higher than Factcheck.org.
FALSE. The state of Hawaii has made only this statement for the record regarding this entire controversy, and that is what was contained in the October 31, 2008 press release from Hawaii Dept. of Health honchette Dr. Chiyome Fukino:
This press release pertains only to the existence of “the official birth certificate” — the vault copy — within the files of the Dept. of Health for Barack Hussein Obama. It did not address the COLB at all. Which leads us to …
TRUE — AND FALSE. Janice Okubo, the Hawaii DOH(!) spokesmouth, has been widely quoted by MSM reporters as confirming in phone conversations and email that the purpose of Fukino’s press release was to send the message that Obama was born in Hawaii. That being said, it is curious that none of the reports quote those alleged emails verbatim, and they have not been shown in print. Even curiouser is the fact that Okubo has gone back and forth as to the legality of even commenting on the authenticity of the COLB Obama says should be good enough for everyone.
When PolitiFact.com — a joint venture of the St. Petersburg (FL) Times and Congressional Quarterly — “investigated” charges that the putative COLB could be a forgery, they emailed a copy to Okubo (bold mine):
As a veteran of the Clinton Impeachment era, that sounds like MSM weasel wording to me. It also wasn’t good enough for the folks at IsraelInsider.com, some of the more intense skeptics regarding the COLB. They also contacted Okubo, and got an entirely different response (bold mine):
In the DOH release above dated October 31, 2008, Director Fukino also makes reference to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18 in declaring that she could not legally release Obama’s vault copy, going only as far as stating that it does exist. Two days earlier, read what Okubo said regarding the COLB according to James Janega, a Chicago Tribune reporter well known as an Obama suckup (bold mine):
If Okubo has in fact intended to give reporters the impression that she or Fukino know for a certainty that 1) the vault copy says Obama was born in Honolulu, or that 2) the COLB posted on the Obama site is authentic and “real,” she has — according to other quotes she has given — done so in violation of Hawaii privacy laws and against the advice of Hawaii’s Attorney General.
And NO, right2bright, neither Okubo nor Fukino has EVER been quoted as having said, “Hopefully, this will end the speculation.” As I predicted, you could NOT produce a link for that quote because neither has ever said it.
Ed Morrissey, Michelle Malkin, Patterico, and all the rest of you diminish yourselves by rushing to drown the Constitutional issues inherent in these cases in ridicule by returning to the red herring of Berg’s 9/11 trutherism. That’s no more intellectual than the silly suggestion that if you state you say you want President Obama to be “successful” (i.e., you don’t want him to weaken the nation any further), that’s an endorsement of his cryptosocialism.
Facts have no ideology or biases, but those who purport to faithfully report them to us do. Yet, in these cases, you all uncharacteristically trust them without question. We’ve all been watching our next President lie like a rug about matters large and small for over a year now, but just because Berg has a record of being the proverbial stopped clock, we’re not supposed to even question whether or not this is one of two times a day he may be right. Well, thanks a lot for giving aid and comfort to B-HO and his lackeys in the MSM who you’ve mistakenly taken at their word and disappointingly refused to correct. That attitude will come in handy for them when they are shoving his expensive, dubious agenda down our throats.
None of your tax dollars are going toward the furthering of these cases, and you sure aren’t making donations. Why the endless invective? And why the constant defense of the guy who continues to repeat that he’s all about “transparency” when he couldn’t be more opaque?
L.N. Smithee on January 13, 2009 at 4:18 PM
I screwed up the quote thing. Top quote is right2bright’s and middle quote is Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
mrsmwp on January 13, 2009 at 4:18 PM
I wouldn’t either. Which might be relevant if the question were whether Obama is of native Hawaiian ancestry. But the question is whether or not he was born in Hawaii, which, according to the documentation, he was.
Pablo on January 13, 2009 at 4:21 PM
I have always suspected that there is something on the original birth certificate that would be embarrassing to him. Perhaps the father’s name or other information that would skew the carefully crafted myth he has created of Himself.
That said, however, I do seriously wish Berg, and all discussion of this ridiculous issue, would go away.
califcon on January 13, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Sigh… so people will not have disinformation…
There are TWO documents that the state of Hawaii will produce for you…
The CERTIFICATE of Live Birth… or what most of us call a Birth Certificate. It has witness signatures, hospitals of birth, Doctors… things of that nature.
There is also a computer genterated form that Hawaii will give you, called a CERTIFICATION of Live Birth. Its a computer generated form that may, or may not, be based on information which can be modified either by Parents, by yourself, or by the Courts during Adoption proceedings.
Now, knowing there is a difference in these documents, and the information they contain… please read this:
From: http://www.honolulu.gov/csd/vehicle/dlrequirements.htm
right seems to think I’m wrong, because I am literate, and from their OWN WEBSITE it says State certified Birth Certificate…
Problem is that a Certification of Live Birth, is NOT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE! The information on a Certificate of Live Birth can be based on modified information (see above). As it CAN be modified, with no way of knowing if it WAS modified (like on a modified CERTIFICATE of Live Birth, which would be marked as modified), the Dept. of Homeland Security, through the Real ID Act, will not take them as proof if IDENTITY (one of the four criteria, Age, Place, Name, and IDENTITY). In other words, there is no way to check the authenticity of the document through either hospital records, or witnesses.
Thus the problem… two documents, two different levels of information, and proof… but some wish to equate the two as equalivalent, when even Hawaii itself does not seem to know which is which…
I do know for a fact, the Dept of Homeland Security would not take the CERTIFICATION of Live Birth as valid under the Real ID act, because it can be modified without any way for the Feds to track Identity… but then again, its hard to track there the Real ID act is right now, as some have implemented it, and some have not.
And I do know for a fact, that because Obama went by other names LEGALLY during his life, that the Military would ask for that info, and documents about them, before allowing him into the military…
But I guess its to much to ask for the Commander in Chief to be held to the same types of standards.
But, just as with the Berg arguement (ie, Berg said it, he’s a nutter, so it must be false), right tries to dismiss anything I say, because he seems to believe that he, on ONE occasion, ONCE, prooved me incorrect (which I don’t admit, but that seems to be his arguement)…
Well… as Bill O would say… I’ll leave it up for the audience to decide.
Romeo13 on January 13, 2009 at 4:25 PM
No, I didn’t answer my own question….I said “IF” he meets the requirements then why doesn’t he prove it?
Just because we have never had an president elect with a “questionable” citizenship doesn’t mean (to me) that the people don’t have the right to ask someone to prove it.
Bfunky292 on January 13, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Lee Harvey Oswald Killed Kennedy
Palin is the mother of her last child.
Obama is a natural born citizen
Al Qaeda brought down the Towers
The Holocaust happened,
Did I miss anything?
rob verdi on January 13, 2009 at 4:28 PM
/Aplauds….
Romeo13 on January 13, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Well, ya got 4 out of 5 right….
Romeo13 on January 13, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Why I am disappointed in the Supreme Court is that they do NOT set out any guidelines to what a ‘natural born’ citizen’ is, when attention or a lawsuit should be brought about to determine whether one is indeed ‘natural born’ and qualified to be POTUS and who has standing or should have standing to bring this to the court’s attention or file a suit to the Court so it can determine whether a Presidential candidate meets this Constitutional requirement to serve as President.
technopeasant on January 13, 2009 at 4:33 PM
The whole “the science is settled”…”the debate is over” (sound familiar?)..etc, is based on what particular piece of evidence?
As I stated earlier, whats the problem with responding like an adult and just release the records and be done with it?
O may be very clever to let this go on and then release the documents in order to discredit any future questions about his history or connections to people, by being able to say “This new issue, is just like that issue”….or not, but what the fuck is the big deal? It’s particularly annoying coming from someone who declares himself to be the start of a “new way” in politics..one with trust, transparency, and openness, with nothing to hide, so “the people” can trust their representatives. GREAT!!..you first. ( by the way, wanna buy a picture of me, or a plate?..or just donate me some money?..gettin’ a bit strapped. Thanks)
Itchee Dryback on January 13, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Itchee…Don’t forget a set of coins that have him sharing a coin with George Washington, Abe Lincoln, and J.F.K.
What a blowhard, what has he done to rate so high as to share a coin with the father of our country?
Bfunky292 on January 13, 2009 at 4:58 PM
I am sorry to say this but
1. Everyone who has a brain knows Obama is hiding something
Because even i still have my original birth certificate…
Made when paper was still a new invention..
2. But i also realize that both the Liberal press, Liberal judges, the ACLU and every other leftist wakjob in government is doing everything they can to ensure
obama is sworn in..
So i really believe that these kinds of suits wont do any good (except get the word out about obamas hiding his birth certificate..)
when obama falls apart (which he will if i am Rigth)
Then the press will be asked how come you didnt do your job..
jcila on January 13, 2009 at 5:01 PM
lol
“rant and rage“? You inferred that from my post? Do you know what the term “projection” means, psychologically speaking? You are clearly a prime practitioner of it. No wonder you believe that anyone who doesn’t think like you is nuts! You need professional help, seriously.
I have been following BHO’s BC saga since it first came up, and I know both sides of the issue fairly well. Sure, he’s legally done what he has been required to do. However, all concerns about his BC have not been answered, not even close, thanks to good ol’ BHO himself.
You are are missing the point, intentionally or not, I was making as to the reason(s) why BHO is so secretive about his BC. He could just release the long form to quell the curiosity, but he won’t. Looking at his track record with openness, I’d like to know how you could blame anyone for assuming the worst about his motivation(s) for not releasing it. I dunno about you, but I can say the only words I’d trust coming from his mouth would be expressions of love for his wife and kids.
btw, I am taking this time to point out that you didn’t answer the qs I asked you in my last post to you. What are you afraid of?
Bizarro No. 1 on January 13, 2009 at 5:01 PM
or State Certified Birth ID Card.
Did you miss that part? And I’d put money that they’ll take your COLB all day long.
Pablo on January 13, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Any change from the actual place of birth or any other significant change is dealt with by the COLB, it must have stamped on it, a large stamp stating it was revised.
So yes you can “change” it, but it has to be noted on the COLB.
That is something others always seem to “forget” to include.
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Did you notice that George Washington on the Obama commemorative coin is black? JFK on the Obama commemorative coin is white. Why is that?
txsurveyor on January 13, 2009 at 5:04 PM
And what’s with the plate? Who the f*ck do they think this guy is? Dale Earhardt?
Pablo on January 13, 2009 at 5:07 PM
I watched the Alito confirmation hearings. Chuck Schumer asked Alito if children of illegal aliens born in the US were citizens. Alito refused to answer the question, because there was a possibility a case on that issue could come before him and he refused to pre-judge any case that might come before him. He said he was aware of the precedent that granted citizenship to them (Wong Kim Ark) but was also aware of arguments that would deny them citizenship. Though difficult to read, I think he would be sympathetic to the argument that “subject to the jurisdiction” means more than just born in the county.
That being said, I think the conservative Justices are running scared from this. Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas may be prepared to overturn the apple cart, but Kennedy would never side with them because of the huge political implications. Knowing they would lose, the conservative justices do not want to create bad law. Plus, if they went on record as trying to overturn (another) election their credibility would suffer dramatically with more than half the population.
tommylotto on January 13, 2009 at 5:08 PM
That should not matter. Their job is to interpret law.
Itchee Dryback on January 13, 2009 at 5:21 PM
For me it’s pretty cut and dry. What is on Obama’s birth certificate that makes it such a top secret document? Not an unreasonable question. But this is just another drop in the bucket about the things we don’t know about Obama.
When Obama first won the election, I was trying to convince myself to accept it and not dwell on it. But know with the SCOTUS appearantly suppressing evidence in support of Obambi. Yea, they are afraid of riots in the streets is he is somehow disqualified.
I still say, support and defend the Constitution. If that makes me a tin foil cap wearing fool, then I wear a size 7 1/2.
Hog Wild on January 13, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Also, right2bright is spreading misinformation again. The certification of live birth only shows the current information. It does not show the original information on the original vault copy of the birth certificate, nor whether there were any alterations. The BC could be amended for $3 to change names and that often happens where there is an adoption. It would be nonsense to think that a COLB would reflect a person’s pre-adoption name and current name — (that is the private information that the person is entitled to conceal by divulging only the COLB as oppose to the original BC).
So, according to Hawaii’s statutes concerning BC’s, Obama could have been issued a late birth certificate up to one year after his actual birth. He could have been issued a Hawaiian BC reflecting an overseas birth if he was born in Mombassa, if his parent merely attested to Hawaiian residency during the prior year. Then his parents could have amended the original BC indicating a Mombassa birth to reflect a Honolulu birth, if the parents claimed the first BC was in error. The Hawaiian state officials might have required further proof in the circumstances set forth above, but it gives you an idea of what is possible — unlikely maybe, but possible.
I for one would be assured by seeing an original BC that gave a name of a real doctor at a real hospital in Honolulu. On the other side, my suspicions would be raised if the BC reflected a Mombassa birth but was amended to say Honolulu or if it was a late birth certificate and did not list a doctor or hospital, or if it listed a doctor’s name that there is no record of him ever practicing. None of this is reflected in the COLB but would be found in the original vault copy of the BC that Hawaii has already said they have. We need discovery in one of these cases so that the plaintiffs have a fair opportunity to prove their allegations.
tommylotto on January 13, 2009 at 5:27 PM
This is from the U.S. Passport service…a COLB is a certified birth certificate.
Please put this to rest.
Romeo thinks that every attorney and judge in Hawaii is a fool, and doesn’t know the law.
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 5:29 PM
If there is a change, it is noted on the COLB, that is the way it was, and still is.
The change noted, as I stated are birth date, place of birth, we are discussing Obama’s situation.
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 5:35 PM
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 5:36 PM
What do you the reason for not releasing the vault copy..or his school records..or his med records etc. is? Being a rational person, I can’t think of anything. Do you have any ideas?
Itchee Dryback on January 13, 2009 at 5:43 PM
That statute only discusses the BC, not the COLB which is only a summary of the current information. Only the BC shows the alterations. As you noted in the quote you provided it says “certificate” (as in (BC) not “certification” (as in COLB). Stop spreading misinformation.
tommylotto on January 13, 2009 at 5:46 PM
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf
there is where you can obtain a “Certificate of Birth” what used to be called a “Certificate of Live Birth”.
Which is actually called a “Certified Copy of Birth”, which was the COLB.
The problem is Romeo and others are using 2009 Government terms for 1971 certificates and forms.
So in 2009 you do not request the “COLB”.
Go into their site and search for a COLB or it’s actual name, and you won’t come up with anything.
Man, you guys may be illiterate after all…
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Go to the site, look at my previous post, then sit down and eat your crow…COLB doesn’t seem to exist in “now” Hawaiian Gov. But they Certified copy of birth is the same as the COLB, a short form that is acceptable, as the previous, previous post from the Passport office states.
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 5:49 PM
The amendment angle may be a bogus line of reasoning. What if it wasn’t amended? It cases where HI. allows foreign born children to be adopted, yet be issued a HI. BC, would that show on the certificate or not? Do you know?
Again….stop acting like a immature little twit, and just release the originals. Whats. The. Problem?
Itchee Dryback on January 13, 2009 at 5:50 PM
and others…being rational has nothing to do with it…being legal and not exposing yourself to “discovery” does.
Bush didn’t, Cheney didn’t, Clinton didn’t, no smart politician does.
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 5:52 PM
The problem is, he has met all the requirements…he doesn’t have to do any more then that.
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 5:53 PM
If I am right, and you are wrong…who is spreading what.
If I am wrong, then every judge, attorney in Hawaii, every magistrate and every court that has held probate is wrong also…and only you are right…you normally have excellent intelligent posts, buy you guys are losing your mind on this.
Think, you are stating that every judge ever holding probate in court had no idea that the COLB was not an official document of birth…
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 5:57 PM
The updated “now” format of the certificates would seem useless. Whats needed is the vault copies that contain the information entered “at that time”..wouldn’t it? If regs and methods changed between now and then, it would seem that information or format that may be updated for convenience …or format, would simple disappear from the “new” format of copies.
Again..whats the problem?
Itchee Dryback on January 13, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Why is that?
Itchee Dryback on January 13, 2009 at 6:07 PM
I blame Bush.
Itchee Dryback on January 13, 2009 at 6:09 PM
So let me get this straight, Fukino or Okubo stated that Obama was born in Hawaii, both verbally and by email…and you think Obama should not be president because I didn’t link that one quote (which I did, but let’s pretend I didn’t)…that is your argument, don’t tell me, you are not an attorney.
Wow, you sat on the bench of the debate team huh?
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 6:16 PM
To the satisfaction of … whom?
Remember, his camp’s strategy in dismissing the issue in all of its different forms is that nobody has standing to challenge his contention he is legally eligible to run for President, not that he has somehow proven that he has met the Constitutional standard.
Disagree? Fine, then no doubt you can reveal the person(s) to whom Obama has submitted evidence of his eligibility.
L.N. Smithee on January 13, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Because, we are right and you are wrong…why do you worry about a guy who has met all the qualifications…meanwhile he is doing real harm, and he is just the “elect”.
Any diversion from his real problems, just allow them to point to the wacko’s and say “they still think he is not legal” and the rest of the country laughs at you.
Even if you were (and you aren’t) pick your battles so you don’t look foolish when you have a real battle.
I think half of you are really Obama supporters that want to keep this alive to diminish the support when we need it.
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 6:22 PM
I linked it once, it may have been Cheney, but there is a particular person whom this information is given and it resides.
Really I linked so many for so many weeks, I can’t believe this is still going on. As I had stated, it really gives me the insight to the 9/11 truthers and the people who adore Obama…once someone is convinced, all reason goes out the window.
It is the strangest of the strange things I have ever witnessed…
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 6:25 PM
Berg may be a nutcase but it is hard to figure out why Obama will not put all this to bed by simply providing a copy of his “on file” documentation. Since it came up he should cover it before being sworn in.
duff65 on January 13, 2009 at 6:28 PM
This is a sarcastic post right? After all this discussion this is what you came up with all by yourself?
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 6:34 PM
This is true, and most often is not recognized by the one involved.
So..there is no such reality such as Obama refusing to release or “sealing” any records?
Itchee Dryback on January 13, 2009 at 6:46 PM
Here is the case I was talking about earlier this morning but had to leave. Dont’ know if any one else brought it up but this case may find its way to the SCOTUS with some merit…
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=84966
katy on January 13, 2009 at 6:52 PM
From the statute that I have read, it is clear that a birth certificate that is amended or altered will contain the original information. Right2bright seems to think that a “Certification” of Live Birth issued in 2007 will contain all the information on the original (even the delineations), but cannot cite to any authority for the proposition.
Frankly, I think he is just having fun trolling these threads looking to pick a fight. Why else would someone convinced this is nonsense spend so much time on these threads arguing?
tommylotto on January 13, 2009 at 6:54 PM
right2bright wrote:
Dr. Fukino has NEVER said either verbally or by email that Obama was born in Hawaii. The totality of her opinion on Obama’s birth status is contained in that press release, in which she says nothing about where he was born. MSM Obama boosters implied that she really wanted to say more, but Fukino — citing Hawaiian privacy statutes — has been careful not to say or write anything to indicate otherwise.
OTOH, Janice Okubo, as I outlined earlier — complete with links so you know I’m not blowing smoke — has been more reckless in her conversations, being quoted as saying the alleged Obama COLB is “valid” but then refusing to confirm or deny having done so. She has also been on record as stating that she was legally prevented from speculating one way or the other whether the COLB was authentic by the same statute Dr. Fukino cited in not releasing the vault copy or making reference to its content.
IOW, If Fukino and Okubo know that the COLB is a forgery and the vault copy somehow reveals that Obama is NOT legally eligible for the Presidency, THEY CAN’T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT. Which is why it’s important to know whether or not the COLB is real and that the 1961 vault copy backs it up, and why it’s interesting that Obama refuses to produce what he says is his COLB in court or release the vault copy once and for all.
If the truth is Obama’s friend, he sure is treating it like it’s a mortal enemy.
Like the Obama-worshipping MSM, you’re putting words in people’s mouths.
My opinion is this: If Obama’s a natural-born citizen, then he should be POTUS because he won the election. If he’s not a natural-born citizen, he should be disgraced as a fraud like we’ve never seen in this country, and Congress should act to formulate a procedure by which Presidential candidates’ eligibility is assured before their names hit a ballot. As I am sure you know by now, only because of Leo Donofrio’s suit did we find out a Nicaraguan national with no claim as a natural-born citizen made ballots in five states.
Finally, please stop with the silly games. You didn’t, didn’t, DIDN’T link a source with that quote. You pretended that line was contained within another wire report with authentic Fukino quotes. Of course, if you linked the REAL story, it would have been clear that “Hopefully, this will end the speculation” was not included. So don’t bother demanding that I say “pretty please” to get you link it, because I already have my answer.
L.N. Smithee on January 13, 2009 at 7:06 PM
That is what I stated, plus it will have the term “altered” stamped on the certificate, you seem to have overlooked that.
What is now called the certified copy of birth does not have all the information, I never said it did. It is commonly called the short form, and has all the pertinent information. Place of birth, date, parents, etc.
The COLB, basically, as far as I can tell does not exist now, it is now called certified copy of birth.
But you can call the number I posted and correct me if I am wrong.
As I stated, you and Romeo are confusing 2009 terms with 1971 terms.
The certified copy of birth, which is acceptable for passport and all the other things (besides apparently % of lineage) is basically the same as the COLB, or short form. The “Original birth certificate” or long form (I think that is the same) has all the doctors, hospital, place, but more importantly for Hawaii, the lineage of the parents.
Now all your snide remarks aside, it is ironic that you can post mis-information and when it is corrected (as I have done in this post) you are somehow insulted by the truth? I am just stating counter facts to your wrong facts…so far we agree that the short form does not have all the information…but it does have all the information that the passport people need, and that all the other (besides homesteading in Hawaii) needs.
So that is what Obama presented, and seeing as he is not homesteading in Hawaii, he meets the qualifications.
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 7:08 PM
With all those words let me just clarify what you read or had not read.
Did I link where one of those ladies stated that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii?
Did you read that link, and did she make that statement?
No need to obfuscate with a bunch of words.
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 7:12 PM
You can take every quote I stated, throw them out the window, except for the important one, that of Fukino stating “Yes” to the question if Obama was born in Hawaii.
I don’t care, it changes nothing…The official statement, acknowledged by you, is that he was born in Hawaii.
You don’t believe he was, I don’t know, I have to go with what the official who made the official statement said.
If you want to whine abut whether she said “Hopefully this will end the speculations” or “I hope so” or whatever quote there was. I cited where the official stated he was born in Hawaii. You said I couldn’t, I did, you blasted me saying no such quote existed, I provided it…deal with it, suck it up.
Now if you have other information, bring it forth. If you have other information from a more reliable source, bring it forth. So far no one has better information then the official word from Hawaii.
Otherwise, you are just dreaming and living in a fantasy world. Facts trump your “faith”, when it comes to law.
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 7:20 PM
Love how you think WE are the ones confused, when we ask for verifiable documents…
And yet have spent many many hours both defending Obamas “privacy”, and researching in order to defend him….
Yet WE are the closet Obama supporters?
Romeo13 on January 13, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Dude, by YOUR OWN QUOTE THAT IS NOT WHAT SHE SAID!!!
The quote is a spokesman, saying THIS IS WHAT SHE MEANT!
And I might add… this from a spokesman who LEGALY could not have seen Obamas Birth Cert… and then in other interviews said she could not comment on it!!!!
OK…. I think that when Obama said he was for Gay Marriage…. what he really meant was that Right2Bright was GAY! Thats not what he said… but thats what he meant… don’t listen to the words… listen to the “Greater Truth”… see how it works?
This is amusing…. and sad… at the same time…
Romeo13 on January 13, 2009 at 7:40 PM
right2bright:
Dude, you can’t even read your own writing. Okubo — the one who was quoted as affirming the authenticity of the COLB and then denying she actually had — is the one who ascribed that meaning to Fukino, but Fukino never said it.
Both Okubo and Fukino have gone on record as saying they can’t reveal anything about the vault copy other to say that it exists, and they can’t comment on the authenticity (or lack thereof) of the alleged Obama COLB.
As I have mentioned before, the Obama suckups all over the MSM have strained themselves to dismiss the issue, failing to make distinctions between the vault copy and the COLB (which is vital to having a full understanding of the nature of the lawsuits), and going so far as to contradict what they previously wrote about the Hawaii AG’s admonition against commenting on whether the COLB is real. Those inaccuracies are not small matters. If the unvarnished facts are important enough to them to lie about, that makes them important enough for to me to try and expose those facts.
I don’t believe those reporters or their reports. They lie. They’re worse than truthers, because at least truthers really believe what they say. But hey, if that chocolate mousse they’re serving up is good enough for you, “Bright” boy, chow down — never mind the texture or the odor.
And you STILL haven’t linked that quote.
L.N. Smithee on January 13, 2009 at 7:48 PM
I would agree with right2bright that it is Hawaii’s official position that Obama was born in Hawaii, because that is what the COLB says… I agree the spokesperson’s words were carefully parsed and down right Clintonian. But that does not matter. The COLB says Obama was born in Hawaii and I believe that the COLB that we have all seen is accurate and accurately reflects the current information as found on Obama’s original birth certificate. However, the COLB does not tell us if the information was altered or amended. We have to see the original BC to know that information. If Obama’s grandparents bribed a state official to amend the birth certificate to assure their grandchild US citizenship, that will not be reflected on the COLB, but evidence of the unusual amendment would be reflected on the original BC.
We are all Whistlin’ Rufus until we see the BC.
tommylotto on January 13, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Berg may be a nutcase but it is hard to figure out why Obama will not put all this to bed by simply providing a copy of his “on file” documentation. Since it came up he should cover it before being sworn in.
duff65 on January 13, 2009 at 6:28 PM
duff65 on January 13, 2009 at 6:28 PM
This is a sarcastic post right? After all this discussion this is what you came up with all by yourself?
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 6:34 PM
Ok you have earned Light2Bright back….
Dude the person just asked a question, he may have not read every god blessed word you and others have posted. And you just insult him or her like that. Oh well. btw, LOL for some one who is wore out by this you sure do post ALOT, lol
kara26 on January 13, 2009 at 7:55 PM
Well I guess you are illiterate…imagine me a closest Obama supporter.
It is beyond you to think that someone can support a concept of law, but not support the person the law is applied to.
By your reasoning, if you supported free speech, then you would be supporting Obama.
Notice I tied into the threads of Bush not turning over documents just because a small body like the Senate demanded them…he followed the law and said “shove it”, you don’t give up anything you don’t have to. That is a little advice if you ever are in a legal battle.
You show me proof that the COLB that Obama gave is not acceptable and I will concede…but you can’t, no one has been able to, so I will side with the law and not you.
…and yes it is sad, Obama will make so many mistakes, cost us so much (pray it is not lives, but I don’t have much hope), and you and others focus on whether a legal document is legal, citing 2009 terms for 1971 documents, you are so turned around you lash out at someone who is just stating facts…backed by an official, the courts, and 50 years of history.
goodnight, pleasant truther dreams…
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 7:56 PM
As I understand it, a denial of certiorari is simply a denial to hear the case.
No opinion is generated as a result.
That is why such denial on an appeals case does not imply that the Supremes agreed with the lower court’s ruling.
It simply means that they denied to hear the case.
(Same result, to be sure, but this is the legal difference.)
Hawkins1701 on January 13, 2009 at 8:06 PM
right2bright seems to have great difficulty in comprehension. Passport requirements are not as strict as POTUS requirements because passports can be issued to American citizens who are not natural-born.
OldEnglish on January 13, 2009 at 8:16 PM
right2bright does not debate the issue in good faith. We need to stop feeding the troll.
I am officially adding “what’shisname” to my official Hot Air ignore list.
tommylotto on January 13, 2009 at 9:00 PM
I saw nothing. I heard nothing. I was not there. I did not even get up the morning that Obama was born.
OberfeldwebelSchultz on January 13, 2009 at 9:25 PM
With all due respect to those who insist that a printed “certification” is not a “certificate,” you are retarded. Come back after you find the Hawaii Revised Statute that supposedly authorizes the state to issue “certifications” that don’t actually “certify” the facts that are printed on them. Until then, shut your pie holes, ‘cuz all you’re doing is making Obama opponents look like the idiots that you are.
Xrlq on January 13, 2009 at 9:43 PM
None of that would matter if the chain of information did not go back to the original.
IF..a big if..HI. allows foreign born children to get a HI. through some method like adoption, that information would most likely only appear on the original document.
Do I know this?..no. Do you?
Again…just release the original. Whats the problem? Its not like he would have to go there and dig through the files himself. Would you release them? I would, and that decision would be a no brainer imo.
A lot of information going back and forth from people who know a lot more than I do. I don’t recall if anyone has answered my question about whether “O” refuses to allow it to be viewed or not, or if that is just part of the hoax? I don’t know. Does anyone here?
Does anyone here know if the information is correct, that HI. allows foreign born children to get HI. birth certificates?
Itchee Dryback on January 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Before you go around calling people idiots, maybe you should do a little research yourself:
There is clearly a legal difference between an certificate and a certification. I agree that the certification reflects the current info on the certificate, but it does not show amendments or alterations and it does not provide all the information on the certificate which could be used to verify or question the the presumptive fact it claims to assert.
tommylotto on January 13, 2009 at 10:56 PM
As sarah palin slides inexorably back into obscurity, it makes my heart swell to see the Birthers are still fighting the good fight!
benny shakar on January 13, 2009 at 10:59 PM
I have one word to you FAUX Cons who want to use Berg’s 9/11 trutherism against him…
IRRELEVANT!
BobAnthony on January 13, 2009 at 11:24 PM
I think Philip Berg is done – stick a fork in this turkey and close the oven door.
Truther bastard, he’s toxic and treasonous.
They should all be shuned for accusing our President of attacking his own country, it’s disgusting.
Bottomline, no matter how much time you waste writing some long drawn out post about the birth certificate – it doesn’t matter.
It’s over.
Obama was born here, he will be President and all of the Truthers and PUMAs and others who live for Urban Legends and Conspiracy Theories – do youself a favor – take a break, get all of this craziness out of your system and go rent Capricorn One or The Da Vinci Code.
AprilOrit on January 14, 2009 at 2:02 AM
Both are full of crap. Strange that you should be able to quote them.
OldEnglish on January 14, 2009 at 3:13 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »