Posted on 05/26/2009 1:08:58 PM PDT by doug from upland
FROM THIS POST CAME A FREEPER SUGGESTION
To: doug from upland
"Those listed as entitled to obtain a copy of an original birth certificate include the person born, or “registrant” according to the legal description from the governor’s office, the spouse or parent of the registrant, a descendant of the registrant, a person having a common ancestor with the registrant, a legal guardian of the registrant, or a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant." Well HERE's a thought. Why not wave some money under that half-brother of Zero's living in a shack in Kenya to request a copy. He's living on less than 5 bucks a day in some tin shack according to news reports. Common ancestor and all that. 128 posted on Monday, May 25, 2009 11:31:56 AM by gemoftheocean (...geez, this all seems so straight forward and logical to me...)
I briefly spoke to Berg on the phone today and inquired whether someone having the right to a copy of the infamous "birth" certificate would demand one from the county recorder in Hawaii. His immediate response was that no one in the family has turned on him. When I suggested that someone might for the right amount of money, he paused, then said that there is no money. He then had to get back to a long distance call which I had apparently interrupted.
So, there's the story. For enough money, would someone entitled to a copy demand a copy? Would Obama and his thugs pay him off to back down from such demand? Would that person simply disappear from the face of the earth?
The idea is a good one. If a million bucks was raised, wouldn't a relative cut a deal? Hmmmmmmm.......
Not to my knowledge, but all you need is ONE, and this kind of thing can never happen again.
Good stuff
I just spoke with someone at the Department of Health, Vital Records in Hawaii. If I can trace an ancestor, I indeed have the right for a copy of that tnfamous birth certificate. The problem, I suspect, is whether the records submitted to them could be verified. Ancestral records would be very difficult to prove, particularly from another country. Obama’s evil legal team, of course, would challenge any such effort.
WASHINGTON - Though they may spar across the political aisle, Vice President Dick Cheney is close enough to Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama to call him “cousin.”
Eighth cousin, that is.
Lynne Cheney, the vice president’s wife, revealed this tantalizing bit of political trivia during a television interview Tuesday.
She said she uncovered the long-ago ties between the two while researching her ancestry for her latest book, “Blue Skies, No Fences,” a memoir about growing up in Wyoming.
“This is such an amazing American story that one ancestor ... could be responsible down the family lines for lives that have taken such different and varied paths as Dick’s and Barack Obama,” Lynne Cheney told MSNBC.
According to her spokeswoman, Sen. Obama, D-Ill., is a descendent of Mareen Duvall. This French Huguenot’s son married the granddaughter of a Richard Cheney, who arrived in Maryland in the late 1650s from England, said Ginny Justice, a spokeswoman for Lynne Cheney.
The vice president’s full name is Richard B. Cheney.
A spokesman for Obama, who wants to be the first black U.S. president, offered a tongue-in-cheek response. “Every family has a black sheep,” said spokesman Bill Burton.
Lynne Cheney did not reference the ancestral ties between her husband and Obama in the book.
I imagine there’s more too.
Why the Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate
CLOSE [X]
Does this Barack Obama birth certificate issue bug you because, although improbable, it’s possible that he’s not a natural born citizen, isn’t eligible to be President under the Constitution, and this issue could be bigger than Watergate — or any other “gate” in history?
Are you afraid that if you were even to raise the subject with your friends that they will think you wear a tinfoil hat, bec More..ause Factcheck.org, the final arbiter of truth in the universe, said so?
Are you with the news media, and after spending so much money to get Barack Obama elected, you’d hate to ruin your investment?
Are you a talk radio host who thinks that if you say the burden of proof needed to demonstrate one is eligible to be Commander in Chief should be at least as high as, oh, say, the level to be eligible for Hawaiian homestead status (see 1.F. below), that you’d be forced to give equal time to someone who disagrees?
Are you a conservative, libertarian, or any conscientious constitutionalist from any ideological side of life, who’s convinced something’s not right, but you’re afraid your reputation might be tarnished because, after all, this could be one big Saul-Alinsky-style set-up, and the joke would be on you?
Fear not! Joe the Farmer has prepared an outline showing that no matter how this issue is ultimately resolved, you have legitimate concerns, and that Barack Obama should, simply out of respect for the nation he was elected to lead, disclose the sealed vault copy of his birth certificate.
Given the circumstances, if Barack Obama respected this nation, he would prove it by the simplest and easiest of gestures - unless, of course, all this talk about change and hope was just a bunch of bull, and he’s just “another politician.” Here’s the outline:
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.”
2. Contrary to what you may have read, no document made available to the public, nor any statement by Hawaiian officials, evidences conclusively that Obama was born in Hawaii.
A. Associated Press reported about a statement of Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Fukino, “State declares Obama birth certificate genuine.”
B. That October 31, 2008 statement says that Dr. Fukino “ha[s] 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.” That statement does not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained above, under Hawaiian policies and procedures it is quite possible that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii. Unlikely, but possible.
C. The document that the Obama campaign released to the public is a certified copy of Obama’s birth record, which is not the best evidence since, even under Hawaiian law, the original vault copy is the better evidence. Presumably, the vault record would show whether his birth was registered by a hospital in Hawaii.
D. Without accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, we nevertheless know that some people have gone to great lengths, even in violation of laws, rules and procedures, to confer the many benefits of United States citizenship on themselves and their children. Given the structure of the Hawaiian law, the fact that a parent may register a birth, and the limited but inherent potential for human error within the system, it is possible that a parent of a child born out-of-state could have registered that birth to confer the benefits of U.S. citizenship, or simply to avoid bureaucratic hassles at that time or later in the child’s life.
1. We don’t know whether the standards of registration by the Department of Health were more or less stringent in 1961 (the year of Obama’s birth) than they are today. However, especially with post-9/11 scrutiny, we do know that there have been instances of fraudulent registrations of foreign births as American births.
2. From a 2004 Department of Justice news release about multiple New Jersey vital statistics employees engaged in schemes to issue birth certificates to foreign-born individuals: “An individual who paid Anderson and her co-conspirators for the service of creating the false birth records could then go to Office of Vital Statistics to receive a birth certificate . . . As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally . . . Bhutta purchased from Goswamy false birth certificates for himself and his three foreign-born children.”
3. Even before 9/11, government officials acknowledged the “ease” of obtaining birth certificates fraudulently. From 1999 testimony by one Social Security Administration official: “Furthermore, the identity data contained in Social Security records are only as reliable as the evidence on which the data are based. The documents that a card applicant must present to establish age, identity, and citizenship, usually a birth certificate and immigration documents-are relatively easy to alter, counterfeit, or obtain fraudulently.”
3. It has been reported that the Kenyan government has sealed Obama’s records. If he were born in Kenya, as has been rumored even recently, the Kenyan government would certainly have many incentives to keep that undisclosed. Objectively, of course, those records may prove nothing. Obama’s refusal to release records at many levels here in the United States, though, merely fuels speculation.
4. Obama has refused to disclose the vault copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate. This raises the question whether he himself has established that he is eligible to be President. To date, no state or federal election official, nor any government authority, has verified that he ever established conclusively that he meets the eligibility standard under the Constitution. If the burden of proof were on him, perhaps as it should be for the highest office of any individual in America, the more-than-dozen lawsuits challenging his eligibility would be unnecessary.
A. Had he disclosed his vault copy in the Berg v. Obama lawsuit (which was the first lawsuit filed on the question of his eligibility to be President), and it was established he was born in Hawaii, that would have constituted res judicata, and acted to stop other similar lawsuits being filed. Without res judicata (meaning, the matter is adjudged and settled conclusively) he or government officials will need to defend other lawsuits, and valuable court resources will be expended. Strategically from a legal standpoint, therefore, his refusal to disclose doesn’t make sense. Weighing factors such as costs, resources and complexity of disclosing versus not disclosing, he must have reason of considerable downside in disclosing, or upside in not disclosing. There may be other reasons, but one could speculate that he hasn’t disclosed because:
1. He was not born in Hawaii, and may not be eligible to be President;
2. He was born in Hawaii, but facts that may be derived from his vault copy birth certificate are inconsistent with the life story he has told (and sold);
3. He was born in Hawaii, and his refusal to provide the best evidence that he is a natural born citizen is a means by which to draw criticism of him in order to make him appear to be a “victim.” This would energize his supporters. This would also make other charges about him seem suspect, including his concealment about ties to Bill Ayers and others of some infamy. Such a clever yet distasteful tactic would seem to be a Machiavelli- and Saul-Alinsky-style way to manipulate public opinion. But while this tactic may energize his supporters, it would convince those who believe him to be a manipulator that he’s not only just that, but a real pro at it. This would indeed be the basest reason of all, and would have repercussions about his trustworthiness (both here and abroad), which Americans know, is a characteristic sorely lacking in its leaders.
B. His motion to dismiss the Berg case for lack of standing could be viewed as contemptuous of the Constitution. See, “Who Enforces the Constitution’s Natural Born Citizen Clause?” Are we to expect yet another White House that hides behind lawyers, and expects Americans to swallow half-truths on a just-trust-me basis?
C. This issue poses the potential for a constitutional crisis unlike anything this country has seen. Disclosure at this stage, however, could even result in criminal sanctions. See, “Obama Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down.” Thus, he has motive not to disclose if he were ineligible.
The question not being asked by the holders of power, who dismiss this as a rightwing conspiracy, is what’s the downside of disclosing? This is a legitimate issue of inquiry because Barack Obama has turned it into one. The growing number of people who demand an answer in conformance with the Constitution are doing their work; the people’s watchdogs aren’t.
The pen name Joe the Farmer pays tribute to Joe the Plumber, who had the audacity to ask a question.
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
Great info from document examiner
WOULD YOU “PROTECT” Obama’s “birth” certificate?
PENDING LEGISLATION TO PROTECT barrys real birth!! WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA? Revealed: ‘The Obama birth certificate protection act’? Bill would prohibit compelling executive branch from r... PENDING LEGISLATION TO PROTECT barrys real birth!!
WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA?
Revealed: ‘The Obama birth certificate protection act’?
Bill would prohibit compelling executive branch from releasing documents
Posted: May 24, 2009
9:12 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Barack Obama, the man elected president
WASHINGTON – A bill approved by the House of Representatives and referred to the Senate would prohibit federal employees
of the executive branch from being compelled to release any document unless a court makes a specified determination by a preponderance of evidence – legislation at least one group suspects is designed to protect Barack Obama’s elusive birth certificate from release.
The legislation, HR 985, resides in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Check out this ancestry. There may be thousands of people who have a right to see the birth certificate.
http://www.wargs.com/political/obama.html
The very fact that Obama et all have spent over one million regarding this should be proof enough that this endeavor is a futile one. It will become the latest conspiracy theory and therefore, like all conspiracies will on long after Obama has left office. The time spent on this is time that could be spent on urgent battles such as Sotomayor, universal healthcare, veterans benefits, and the war on terror.
Obama hasn't spent dollar one on this, it's all come from his campaign. And one million dollars is what, a fraction of a percent of the amount of money he raised? This is petty cash for them.
obumpa
Bush and Cheney are distant cousins of Obama.
How about the bro in the shack in Kenya. He could use some cash.
Nope. One of Cheney’s ancestor’s cousins married one of Barry’s ancestor’s sisters. (And had no children.) No common ancestor. They’re not actually cousins. (They don’t even have common cousins!) That was a bogus non-story.
I had thought I might have been a 12th or 13th cousin when the story came out that Barry was descended from the Washington family... but that turned out to be a bogus dead end also. It seems one of Obama’s 19th-century ancestors apparently fabricated a link to the Washington family... I guess this sort of thing must run in his family.
Maybe one of Frank Marshall Davis’ cousins could petition for the birth cert?
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.