Barack Obama - Born in Kenya II [1 min 58 sec VIDEO]

Barack Obama - Born in Kenya II ^ | Added: October 21, 2008 | From: livingonplanetZ

[Sibre Fan]

justlurking asked about the history of the 1982 law permitting Hawaii BCs for out of state births don’t get that that law was passed 21 years after Obama’s birth.

You can check out the law yourself here.
Note the last bracketed language: "[L 1982, c 182, §1]"
This means that the law was passed in 1982, per chapter 182, Section 1. There was no such provision prior to 1982.

To see an example of a law amended multiple times, go back to that link, and click "next" at the bottom. It will take you to the next subsection.

At the end of that section, you'll see " [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]"

This means that the law was first passed in 1949. It was then amended in 1955, again in 1959, 1967, 1977, 1991, 1997, and 2001. This site doesn't show you what the amendments were, or what the original law said, but you can get at least some of that by (paid) subscription on Lexis.com or Westlaw.com.

"Another claim (which is anecdotal) is there are certain circumstances where birth records are completely sealed to protect the identify of biological parents, in adoptions."

For info on Hawaii adoption law as it exists today, start here. As you're reading, always check the bottom part, showing when the law was passed and when amendments were made. Some of the laws reference cases. Again, you need to look at the date of the case, and compare it to the law (and amendments), because several of the cases were based on prior versions of the law.

Hope this helps you in doing your own verification - wherever it may lead you!

[Sibre Fan]

If it's just like the COLB that has been posted elsewhere, there's still a potential issue. As I said earlier (and is discussed on the posting you linked), the COLB does indeed satisfy the requirement for proof of citizenship. So, it's enough for driver's license, passport, etc.
However, the Presidency has a unique requirement, and it's not clear to me that the COLB satisfies it. I don't know enough about the VA Board of Elections to know if they actually vetted Obama's application to meet that requirement, or if they understand that the COLB may not meet it.
I'd be curious exactly what the affidavit of authenticity said on this matter. Have you seen anything further about it?

First, I haven't been able to find more info about the Hawaii affidavit of authenticity submitted to the VA Board of Elections, no. But I'll post it.

Second, people keep saying that the COLB isn't sufficient for the requirements of the Presidency, but no one cites any law to support that. Now, before you jump down my throat, give me a moment to explain.

It seems to me that, if nothing else, this whole thing has highlighted a "hole" in our various states' election laws governing the presidential election. I have not looked at all 50 states, but I've looked at a bunch of them, and it seems that most states do not require documentary proof of "eligibility" to get on the ballot. It seems that some states require nothing more than for the DNC or RNC to "announce" their candidate. Some states require the candidate to submit an affidavit, under oath, declaring that they are (or will be) eligible to be President. Virginia is the first and only state I've seen that actually requires documentary evidence to support the claim – and there, they clearly accepted the COLB, with affidavit, as sufficient.

While I'm not one for passing more laws, it seems to me that we should consider asking our state representatives to amend the election law in each state to require documentary evidence to prove a presidential candidate's eligibility in all future elections. If this whole "controversy" has taught us anything, I think it's shown us that our state election laws do not sufficiently address this issue.

[Marine_Uncle]

But he offers hope. Those that reach out to him don't understand the basics of our Constitution nor care a bit of all the stuff exposed about him. They need change and hope.
Besides. If he failed an FBI investigation to vet him for a given level of secret clearance then how can he be considered for the POTUS and CIC position.

[justlurking]

Thanks for doing the research on this. I appreciate it.

The notation for amendments is similar to my state, so I expected something like that.

But, I'd like you to take a look at an example:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/ViewChapter.aspx?key=20600.17898

It will load a large file, so you may need to be patient. Then, use your browser to search for this string:

SUBCHAPTER H. LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN

Page down just a bit, and you'll see the same kind of notation, in reverse chronological order. The "top" entry is:

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

If you didn't have any other knowledge, it would look like this law was enacted in 1997.

But, it wasn't. It was enacted in 1995. However, it was added to a different statute by the Legislature. The identical language was moved from that statute to this one, by a bill that is enacted every year to make "nonsubstantive additions to and corrections in enacted codes, to the nonsubstantive codification or disposition of various laws omitted from enacted codes, and to conforming codifications enacted by the [previous] Legislature".

This bill is always huge. If you are really interested in it, I'll follow up with a link. However, my point is that the modification history doesn't show this particular statute existed before 1997.

I'm not saying that Hawaii might have done the same thing. I just wanted to point out one of the possibilities. Without more research (you have already done plenty, and thank you!) using a paid subscriptions to Lexus or Westlaw, it's going to be difficult for the average guy to piece all this together conclusively.

In Texas, all of the legislation is online back to 1989, and one can eventually find the bill that enacted a new law or a change in a law, along with the bill analysis that explains the rationale. If I have time later this week, I'll check the Hawaii websites to see if they have something similar. But, I doubt they go back that far.

For info on Hawaii adoption law as it exists today [....]

One thing I noticed was the birth certificate for adoption of a foreign born person -- but the original certificate must show the known or probable country of birth. I'm not claiming or even suggesting that this situation applies to Obama, but I wonder what a Certificate of Live Birth derived from this birth certificate would show?

[editor-surveyor]

Bump!

[editor-surveyor]

"Or -— he may not have been born in Kenya -— "

Then what rational reason could there be for the government of Kenya to "seal his birth records?"

[justlurking]

Second, people keep saying that the COLB isn't sufficient for the requirements of the Presidency, but no one cites any law to support that. Now, before you jump down my throat, give me a moment to explain.

Nope, I'm not going to -- because I saw exactly where you are going with it. And I think you are right.

I can't remember exactly were I read it, but I remember something to the effect of: "The Constitution isn't the law. It's the standard(s) by which laws are judged." In other words, statutes have to be enacted in accordance with the Constitution to actually put it into practice.

And since the situation has never really come up, I can believe that the various states and/or federal laws have not anticipated this situation. It's one of those things that is just accepted as fact, and no one has ever tried to circumvent it.

Has Obama succeeded in "gaming the system"? I dunno. But, I think he is acting like he has something to hide, when he could have settled this conclusively long ago.

[editor-surveyor]

"Give it UP!!!! The state of Hawaii has confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii and that they have his ORIGINAL birth certificate."

That is a flat-out lie. Hawaii has confirmed nothing except that they will not divulge the truth.

[editor-surveyor]

You proudly quote one of our nut cases?

[Sibre Fan]

"...The state of Hawaii has confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii and that they have his ORIGINAL birth certificate."

That is a flat-out lie. Hawaii has confirmed nothing except that they will not divulge the truth."

-----------------
I refer you to the following additional references to Hawaii DOH statements on the issue:

1. Obama's birth certificate: Final chapter, St. Petersburg Times/Politfact.com:

---quote---
"On June 13, 2008, Obama's campaign finally released a copy, while launching a fact-check Web site of its own, Fightthesmears.com. * * *
When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.
'It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,' spokesman Janice Okubo told us."
---end quote---

2. Lawsuit questions Obama's eligibility for office, Washington Times:

---quote---
"Backers of the idea that Mr. Obama isn't a natural-born citizen say Mr. Obama's certification of live birth doesn't quell the issue. They say a certification can be obtained after birth.
But the Hawaii State Department of Health said Monday that there is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID, said Alvin Onaka, a research and statistics officer at the Department of Health."
---end quote---

3. Plaintiff in Virginia Lawsuit Challenging Obama's Eligibility:

---quote---
"We just received the response from the Board of Elections and haven't closely analyzed it yet, but they seem to argue that they properly vetted Mr. Obama's canidacy. Most interestingly, they have submitted to the court (with a photocopy to us) an original COLB, claiming it was submitted by the Obama campaign as part of the ballot qualification process."
---end quote---

4. Plaintiff in Virginia Lawsuit Challenging Obama's Eligibility:

---quote---
"The state presented a copy of the certification of live birth that looks basically like the one posted on the Obama website, but this one had a certificate number, a stamped seal, and an authentication signature stamped. It was presented with an affidavit from a Hawaiian official attesting to authenticity and explaining how it was prepared and what it means etc.""
---end quote---

[Sibre Fan]

Hey - you are absolutely correct that the law could possibly have been enacted somewhere “else” and then moved to this provision. (Believe it or not, I actually started to add that caveat, then got distracted and simply forgot.)

So, that is a possibility. I can say that I checked both Lexis and Westlaw and could not find any prior “version” of that law in any other provision. Might I have missed it? Absolutely!! But I couldn’t find it.

[editor-surveyor]

You quote all the refuted junk.

Case closed: You are a TROLL.

[Sibre Fan]

Links please, to refutations of World Net Daily, or St. Petersburg Times, or WildBill, poster at ObamaCrimes?

I will be more than happy to concede I made a mistake if you can provide sources showing that any one of these sources has been proven inaccurate.