Posted on 09/30/2009 4:39:49 AM PDT by opentalk
Rumors of the "birther" movement's death appear to have been greatly exaggerated. The group has been demanding for months that President Obama produce a "valid" birth certificate to prove he's a natural-born citizen of the United States - and it's not giving up just yet. A Christian website called LivePrayer.com produced an infomercial that the United States Justice Foundation organization is set to air in seven Southern states. Highlights can be seen here:
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
At least they referred to it as a “Controversy” and not a “Conspiracy”.
I’ll take a baby step.
LOL if it was’nt so serious.
That is a simply brilliant, inspired graphic.
Nice work!
He has produced a short form document for his website and Kos and some hand-picked reporters. Hawaii has stated that he was born in Hawaii, but they have NOT confirmed that the documents produced are legitimate.
Well, they ALMOST said he was born there, but stopped short of it. This is the statement:
I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.
Original vital record(S) (plural, not vital RECORD, singular...like birth certificate) indicates that there are "supporting documents" that have been accepted by the state as evidence of Hawaai birth. Under Hawaii state laws these could simply be statements by Barak Obama or his grandmother.
(1) A properly certified copy of the adoption decree, or certified abstract thereof on a form approved by the department; and
(2) A copy of any investigatory report and recommendation which may have been prepared by the director of social services; and
(3) A report on a form to be approved by the department of health setting forth the following:
(A) Date of assumption of custody;
(B) Sex;
(C) Color or race;
(D) Approximate age of child;
(E) Name and address of the person or persons adopting said child;
(F) Name given to child by adoptive parent or parents;
(G) True or probable country of birth.
The true or probable country of birth shall be known as the place of birth, and the date of birth shall be determined by approximation. This report shall constitute an original certificate of birth; and (4) A request that a new certificate of birth be established.
(b) After preparation of the new certificate of birth in the new name of the adopted person, the department of health shall seal and file the certified copy of the adoptive decree, the investigatory report and recommendation of the director of human services if any, the report constituting the original certificate of birth, and the request for a new certificate of birth. The sealed documents may be opened by the department only by an order of a court of record or when requested in accordance with section 578-14.5 or 578-15. The new certificate of birth shall show the true or probable foreign country of birth, and that the certificate is not evidence of United States citizenship for the child for whom it is issued or for the adoptive parents. [L 1979, c 203, §3; am L 1990, c 338, §3]
(http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0020_0005.htm)
§338-16 Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates. (a) Birth certificates registered one year or more after the date of birth, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”.
(b) A summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for late filing or the alteration shall be endorsed on the certificates.
(c) Such evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.
(d) When an applicant does not submit the minimum documentation required by the rules for late registration or when the state registrar finds reasons to question the validity or adequacy of the certificate or the documentary evidence, the state registrar shall not register the late certificate and shall advise the applicant of the reason for this action.
The department of health may by rule provide for the dismissal of an application which is not actively prosecuted.
(e) As used in this section, “late” means one year or more after the date of birth. [L 1949, c 327, §20; RL 1955, §57-19; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-16; am L 1972, c 66, §1(2); am L 1997, c 305, §3]
If someone was born at home without a doctor than the only "proof" would be that statements of family members. I'm betting he was born in Kenya and came to Hawaii shortly after. I'm also betting that he didn't apply for a late birth certificate until relatively recently...the last 5 years...and used affidavits from gramma and himself. It's why he won't let Hawaii release an official copy of the COLB. The official COLB has a stamp of "late" or "altered" on it. The one floating around on the internet is bogus and has never been declared authentic by the state of Hawaii.
hehe... thanks
I hope you birthers are happy.
Nope. The birth announcements and the photos of the COLB provide pretty solid evidence that his birth was registered with the DOH within 4 days of his birth. The passage your cite only applpies to births registered one your or more after the birth.
So now you’re suggesting that Dunham adopted Obama?
Since, presumably, they were not present at the birth, they can only attest to "the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i."
The COLB circulated online has never been verified as authentic by any official agency including Hawaii.
Birth announcements in the paper, whether evidence or not, are not proof that one was born in the state.
Yep. But note the usage of vital record(S) plural. If it were a single birth certificate it would be a vital record. The state of Hawaii won't release a COLB for verification.
The relevant information on it, namely that he was born in Hawaii, was.
Birth announcements in the paper, whether evidence or not, are not proof that one was born in the state.
They are proof that his birth was filed with the state DOH within a few days. That precludes the possibility of a late filing.
When the above is combined with the fact that state officilas confirmed his DOH records list him as being born in state, the evidence that he was born in state becomes overwhelming.
There is no other plausible scenario consistent with both of these facts.
LOL. The way birthers analyze various texts, reading meaning into the most insignificant bits of syntactical minutia, reminds me of fundamentalist Biblical exegesis.
Why do I not find that surprising?
Nice sidestep. Now refute the statement with fact. Fukino said "vital records".
have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying
LOL. Amazing what a birther can read into a single "s."
Can’t defend it can you.
The Truther movement is still out there claiming that 9-11 was a US attack on ourselves to justify a war.
And Whoopi Goldberg recently said that the Apollo 11 moon landing was faked.
But the media just won’t let the “birthers” go without slams.
the media will tar regardless of any certificate controversy.
Recall Rush wanted “America” to fail with Obama as president.
Recall the Joker’s makeup being “racist”.
They engage in the worst sort of yellow journalism.
It is no excuse to not discuss anything.
So those footprints match the ones on file with Obama’s birth certificate?
>>> So those footprints match the ones on file with Obama’s birth certificate?
Ummm... that is the right footprint from the Kenyan Birth Certificate that is at the center of the Keyes lawsuit being heard by Judge Carter.
I got it from the article here which publicized it.
Logical, but why do you suppose Obama won’t release his long-form certificate? Keep in mind that McCain did exactly that. It seems to me that Obama is hiding something. He may well have been born in Hawaii, but there’s probably something else on the long-form certificate which would be damaging if disclosed to the public.
I've got three reasons. (1) It is unnecessary to prove birth in Hawaii (2) getting a long-form is a hassle in Hawaii (they generally only give you a short form if you ask for a birth certificate), and (3) by keeping it hidden he feeds a movement of nutjobs who make his opposition look stupid.
Keep in mind that McCain did exactly that.
That is actually not true. It is one of those birther urban legends.
It seems to me that Obama is hiding something. He may well have been born in Hawaii, but there’s probably something else on the long-form certificate which would be damaging if disclosed to the public.
I doubt it. I've seen copies of long forms (other than Obama's), and I don't see any items on them that could possibly be damaging to him.
What do you think is on the form could possibly damage him?
Your statement: Well, they ALMOST said he was born there, but stopped short of it.
My response: Since, presumably, they were not present at the birth, they can only attest to "the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i."
Your new response: "Yep. But note the usage of vital record(S) plural..."
Why do I have to note the usage of a plural, when it had nothing to do with your point, or my response?
These strawmen just get so tiresome after a while. "Whoops! OK, I lost that point, about them stopping short of saying he was born there, so let's pretend I never said that -- now about that plural...."
Enough. I'm off to do something constructive, and sane, with the rest of the evening.
But first, let me look into my crystal ball, and predict your response: "Aha! See you Obamabots (who just happen to be anybody who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with the true believers in every hare-brained theory that comes down the pike) don't have any good answers!" "I win!!!" (Possibly followed by a sermon on the ininquities of Obamabots.)
There's a PDF floating around on the net proporting to be an image of McCain's birth certificate. It says he was born in a hospital in Colon, Panama. Lots of people mistakenly believe this BC was made public by McCain. That is not true.
Just to set the record straight, that BC did not come from McCain. It came from a Mr. Hollander who submitted into evidence in a lawsuit challanging McCain's eligibility.
McCain disputes the authenticity of that BC, and the facts on the BC contradict what we know about McCain's birth from other sources. For example, McCain claims he was born on the base, in the Canal Zone, NOT in Colon, as the BC claims. The fact that he was born on the bace in the Canal zone is corroborated by a birth announcement in a military paper, as well as by a Washington Post reporter to whom McCain showed his real BC.
Therefore, it's a pretty good bet that McCain birth certificate you've seen on the net is a fake, and it did not come from McCain.
In point of fact, McCain never released even an image of his BC to the public. The most he ever did was show it to a reporter.
You can read about the Hollander lawsuit here:
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/hollanderv.mccain.php
I guess I might have made my point more clear. The point was that the vital record(s) (plural) which establish his birth in Hawaii could, under Hawaai law, be documents provided by Obama or his relatives. He could have been born elsewhere.
The evidence of this is that there is NO long form birth certificate. There is no official release of a COLB by the state of Hawaii. The COLB "on the internet" has never been certified as authentic by any binding legal authority.
Now if you want to take Obama's word for it, fine, do it. But don't pretend that there's evidence of something that's just not there.
I don't know. But word actually mean something. If there's a long form birth certificate to establish a birth then why isn't it a vital record (singular)? Using Hawaian law concerning late, amended or adoption is the only reason to refer to "documents" instead of "document". Unless of course you have an explanation.
1) It was not presented by McCain, but rather by a Mr. Hollander who was suing McCain. McCain's attorney's are on record disputing its authenticity.
2) We know it is a fake because the facts contained therein contradict what is known about McCain's birth from other reliable sources. Namely, McCain was not born in Colon, but on the base in the canal zone. This is verified by testimony from McCain's family, birth announcements in the military press, and a Washington Post reporter to whom McCain showed his real BC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.