Don't Rush et.al. and the rest of us have access to all the "valid info" that everybody else has allegedly discovered?
All we know is that Barack Obama has spent considerable effort to keep his original Hawaii birth certificate from being released.
All we know is that you cannot cover up a Hawaii birth certificate that never existed.
All we know is that George W. Bush, a Republican, was President of the United States after the Democrats had nominated Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.
If there was actually documentary evidence that Barack Obama was not a "natural born" U.S. citizen, the U.S. Government of George W. Bush would have had access to that information and that information would have been released as the "MOTHER OF ALL OCTOBER SURPRISES".
George W. Bush's Department of Justice would have been on Barack Obama in October of 2008 like a pitbull on a pork chop.
Yes, Obama is probably hiding his birth certificate because it will show that he was named "Barry Dunham" at birth, it will show that he probably added "Hussein" to his name to get political "street cred" in Chicago black politics and it will show that the State of Hawaii considered him to be born out-of-wedlock since his father was already married in Kenya and bigamy is illegal in the U.S.
While that is certainly embarrassing and will give Obama's fake image a body blow, it is not unconstitutional.
The U.S. Constitution does not say that a man born out-of-wedlock who changed his name for political "street cred" is ineligible to be POTUS.
We do know more than that. For instance that the Hawaiian DNC did not certify Obama as eligible to be president because they knew he was not a natural born citizen or even that he was born in Hawaii. See here:
"Democratic Party of Hawaii Refused To Certify Obama" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXFwqUi3zR0
All we know is that you cannot cover up a Hawaii birth certificate that never existed.
Yes we do know that the State of Hawaii have violated their own rules and laws to cover up for Obama. Care to weigh in Butter? We do know that a Hawaiian Election Official says there is NO long form Hawaiian birth certificate or that Obama was born in a Hawaiian hospital.
Yes, Obama is probably hiding his birth certificate because it will show that he was named "Barry Dunham" at birth, it will show that he probably added "Hussein" to his name to get political "street cred" in Chicago black politics and it will show that the State of Hawaii considered him to be born out-of-wedlock since his father was already married in Kenya and bigamy is illegal in the U.S.
A not very likely scenario you paint. And the State of Hawaii gave Stanley Ann a divorce from Barack Obama Sr. so they did recognize the marriage as legal.
No, the mother of all October surprises would be if Soros and the Islamists made an electronic run on the bank which created a panic that collapsed the entire western economy.
If Bush and Co was threatened with that if they balked at the Soros-Islamist coup that put Obama in power, Bush would have chosen to let the free world economy survive.
Obama is hiding his BC because it is not legally valid. It was amended in 2006 and there is very good reason to believe it was only actually COMPLETED in 2006 with that amendment and is thus also late. Late and amended are both reasons that a BC would not be legally valid.
See http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/the-summary-cnn-doesnt-want-you-to-see/
Interestingly enough, OIP Paul Tsukiyama cited HRS 338-13 as the reason why the HDOH did not need to release all of Obama’s BC’s on file, along with any supporting documentation. That denial of access is an admission that those records existed. And his citation of 338-13 rather than the usual 338-18 when the BC alone was requested is VERY interesting - because 338-13 specifically says that disclosures have to be compliant with the requirements for the statutes governing LATE and AMENDED birth certificates specifically.
1) Since Hawaii has no statutory limitations for annulment on the grounds of bigamy, Stanley Ann could have filed for an annulment, but she did not. She filed for a divorce, which was granted by a court of law. A court cannot dissolve something UNLESS it is first recognized as being 'legal'.
2) Citizenship is based on the FATHER of the child, not the HUSBAND of the mother, so the question of the legitimacy of the marriage is pretty much immaterial in the first place.