Obama Birth Certificate - Hawaii Revised Law

vibe.us ^ | 12/27/2008 | Forsetti

[jamese777]

Hawaii confirms Obama birth certificate is real:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm

[lucysmom]

She also plainly affirms the “issues that Ron Polarik raises.” Those were her exact words were they not?

These are the words I copied and pasted from your post:

Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm.

Unless your original post did not accurately quote Ms. Lines, no, those are not her exact words.

Further, Polarik may raise valid issues and his work still be total bunk (which it is). It is the "issues" she is validating, not his process (work).

Read carefully!

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

As I previously posted:

“The state health department in Hawaii did produce a “short form” birth certificate for Obama, ....”

Absolutely false statement ...

An OBAMA friendly WEBSITE has produced a SCAN of a document called the short form .... who the hell “produces” documentation needed by posting a SCAN ?

Try that with the DMV.

Or little league.

Where is the original piece of paper? Why, after two years, are we still asking for it???

—— McCain stood up in Congress and handed his original, on a piece of paper, around to everyone who wanted to see it. Why can’t and won’t Bambi do the same???

Why can’t Obama do the same, when he evens says in his ghost written book “I found my birth certificate in a pile of old papers”. Lose it? Somewhere in the $3,000,000 mansion that Tony Rezko, convicted felon, bought for him???

Why can’t he, and won’t he, just hand an original piece of paper to Chris Matthews, or someone else, to hand to and show to , everyone?

Hiding behind a SCAN? Not very Presidential ...

So “Hawaii has produced a certificate” is a laughable mis-statement ...

And while we’re at it:

The SCAN shown on the internet is a Certification of Birth, NOT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE, a SUMMARY which can and perhaps has been changed many times, as O was adopted and then sent back to the USA by his momma.

The original Birth Certificate is called the Hawaiian LONG FORM -— (there are 4 different versions and his CERTIFICATION seems to be usually used for special cases such as after adoptions).

which is why you see on FR “Free the Long Form”.

No scan or anything else of a Long Form BC citing hospital and doctors has ever been produced ———— or scanned. Why?

**********No witness has ever come forward -— no one who was in Hawaii in 1961, NO ONE has ever come forth and said that they were at the birth or afterwards, with statements or photos, ********no doctor, no nurse, no neighbor, no friend -— only people in Seattle and Kenya have made statements about O’s birth.

So, as of today, 2-2010, no one knows the hospital or the doctor’s name since the Long Form has never been produced.

Even the neighbor has said “Gee, I didn’t know Obama or his mother ever lived next door”. Must be invisible.

Any person with common sense knows that this guy doesn’t wave his paper long form or even short form birth certificate over and around his head cuz he can’t. Why can’t he? No one knows for certain.

Two announcements in the newspapers: these are produced automatically when someone files notice of a birth with the Department in Hawaii. No proof needs to be filed, it seems it even could have been done over the phone and with just one grandparent’s statement. Then the data was given to the newspapers. This was done since the grandparents wanted Bambi to be an American, which Hawaii allowed to be done due to its unusual and unique laws letting people born elsewhere still register in Hawaii. It’s not a “conspiracy” as that horse’s ass Matthews said - it’s just common sense. An American birth registration is valued very highly and gets you all sorts of travel and other benefits.

*********Does everyone know that Obama’s Short Form serial number is “out of order”? That his number comes 10 numbers BEFORE the twins born and registered 3 days AFTER Obama’s “date of birth”???

How could that happen? Doesn’t the Department registering births handle them sequentially as the dates and data are submitted???

No one finds this odd?

Here is another’s opinion:

Sources who tracked the investigation tell Newsmax that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to “cauterize” the records of potentially embarrassing information.

“They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion,” one knowledgeable source told Newsmax. “But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file.”

At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign.

Chuck Feney says:

The issue that Soetoro / Obama is running from is his mother’s renunciation of his American citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro.

Soetoro / Obama was an Indonesian citizen and never reclaimed his American citizenship in the legally allotted time frame to do so.

Add to this issue his Occidental College records of admittance as a FOREIGN student and it is clear that the Kenyan birth is a straw dog.
It just goes on and on.

I wonder if we’ll ever know the true story, as the true believer’s continue to shout and scream and cover-up and excuse upon each and every new revelation.

The insults to us alone are overwhelming.

[thecodont]

I wonder if we’ll ever know the true story, as the true believer’s continue to shout and scream and cover-up and excuse upon each and every new revelation.

I am confident the truth will finally come out.

[Red Steel]

You are being deliberately misleading. Hawaii has never said that DailyKos.org jpg image purported to be Obama’s COLB as genuine. They refuse to comment on that pixel image to whether it is real or accurate.

[TigersEye]

Hawaii Changes The Rules

According to the Hawaii Star-Bulletin, the State of Hawaii, Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.

The department only issues "certifications" of live births, and that is the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.

And, it's only available in electronic form.

Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.

"At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting," she said.

Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.

"The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests," Okubo said.

Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate."

"The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models," she said.

Okubo also emphasized the certification form "contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate."

She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state's current certification of live birth "as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements."

The issue of what constitutes an official Hawaii birth certificate received national attention during last year's presidential campaign.  Those who doubted Barack Obama's American citizenship called the copy of the Hawaii birth document posted on his campaign web site a fake.

Asked about that document, Okubo said, "This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate."

Is Ms. Okubo trying to say that Hawaii no longer has a copy of Obama's original birth certificate on file? --  how convenient.

Is Ms. Okubo saying that the previous statement from Hawaii state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino is not true?

"Therefore, I, as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have 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."

Why does everyone in Hawaii have a different story?

Maybe Indiana Jones can find Obama's original birth certificate.  After all, he found the Ark of the Covenant.

[TigersEye]

Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm.

As you say; this was exactly what she said.

[Man50D]

Thanks. That last half meg is still downloading. I think I can put another birther myth to rest.

It is far more than a myth. There is too much documented evidence for it to be anything but fact.

First, in 1961, a lot of this stuff was done by hand and typewriter. Not a lot of control over input fields. There was nothing on page 231 to prevent “African” from being input, because, if you go back up to the beginning, there is a chart of the route the records took. (page 5)

The classifications specifically listed are there for a reason. They are regulations. Regulations are laws. Laws are to be followed. If any portion of any (birth, death etc...) certificate is not filled out per the law, then it will be invalid. The term "negro" is specifically listed and therefore is one term that was required to be used for BO's/BS's father. Citing the chart is also irrelevant since it also does not specifically address race classifications. It merely presents a general outline for steps to complete and submit a birth certificate.

This is a federal document and there are several steps in the states before the records make it to the feds.

You contradict yourself. Your second statement argues a law does not have to be followed by using a term ("African") not listed in the manual but now you are arguing a federal document must be followed by complying with specific steps.

Page 231 includes Japanese and Chinese as races. What if daddy or mommy came from India? Vietnam? Samoa? Eqypt? The preparer would probably type in whatever they wanted because the form don’t specify. HDOH says they put in the race the couple wants but who knows if this was done in 1961 or not. Or they could opt out to “Other non white”.

Try using a little common sense. The preparer would type in "Other non white" as the classifications of race you illustrate do not fall under any of those listed in the manual.

Whatever, there is nothing here to indicate that anything couldn’t be put in the blank. Presumably, recoding could be done either at the state level or the federal level.

Except for the fact the manual was federal law and was required to be complied with by all states. To claim otherwise renders the any or all portions of the Vital Statistics Manual irrelevant.

From the brief scan, some states for example used the “illegitimate” field, others didn’t. In short, there appears to be no mechanism to force the data at the input level to be coded a certain way.

Again except for the fact the manual was federal law.

So, birthers can not claim that “African” could not have been entered.

Your twisted reasoning is based on the false premise that laws do not have to be followed! Someone else tried to use the same illogic BO/BS doesn't have to comply with the requirement in Article 2 Section 1 of natural born citizenship because the word "prove" is not in that section. This ignores the fact the Constitution is the foundation of all laws and therefore all portions of it must be obeyed. You are attempting to use a similar fallacy with The Vital Statistics regulations. It couldn't be more disingenuous.

[Beckwith]

The KING of all strawmen: “birthers can not claim that “African” could not have been entered.”

It doesn't matter. The COLB doesn't matter. Your whole line of reasoning doesn't matter — it's all Obot bullsh!t.

http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/IssuesObamaCircumstances.htm

You can bang away for the next three years with your cutesy, self-satisfied posts — Obama ain't eligible.

[Uncle Chip]

I think it is planted by DU people.

I think you're a DU plant.

[parsifal]

No. You have missed the point. First, the “book” is not law. It is simply a “report”. We know this by looking at the cover page. It is a “Vital Statistics” report.

The report has been made off of collected state records submitted mostly by microfilm. We know this from page 5 of the REPORT, where it gives us the “General Pattern of Vital Registration, etc...” We know about the microfilming from later on in 5-8 or 59 as I recall. Note the word “general”. Also note the charming manner that some stuff is “handwritten” on this page. This was before desk top computers. You see, back in those days, people tended to fill in the blanks and stuff was not “field” edited at that level. It may have been at the “key punch” level.

Go to page 227. They even say there under “Standard Certificate” that “it has been modified in each state to the extent necessitated by the particular needs of the State vital statistics law.” continuing, “However, the certificates of most states conform closely in content and arrangement to the standard certificate.”

What that means is, each state prepares its info in accordance with its own laws, most of which dovetail into the standard, and then ship the info off to the feds where it is re-input. I am sure that if somebody sent one that said “African”, the key punch people would have crammed it into Negro or Other Non-white prior to input.

Somewhere in there, I think the Error Correction section near 5-8 or 5-9 they tell you they take the data and prepare punch cards to make computer input.

So once again, NO there was no “law” that said some official in Hawaii could not have put “African” on the birth certificate. To the best of my memory, Louisiana was putting “colored” and “octaroon” on birth certificates for quite a while. I may look it up if I have time.

So, once again, another Birther myth is either debunked or the evidence put forth doesn’t really say what the birthers want it to say.

parsy, who wonders why you guys go thru all this tortured reasoning on collateral issues

[parsifal]

What you are doing is JUMPING TO A LEGAL CONCLUSION. What you have and what I have are LEGAL THEORIES. A court COULD well adopt your line of reasoning. IMHO, it PROBABLY wouldn’t.

Kim Ark or Wong Fong, whatever it is, sets forth relevant law, and a current court would probably adopt much of that Court’s reasoning. Maybe not. Until then, the eligibility issue is open to some degree. It is also closed to some greater degree because OBAMA HAS BEEN SWORN IN AS PRESIDENT.

That FACT would also induce a Court to find he is qualified to run, not wishing to throw us into turmoil like some of the Banana Republics.

parsy, who thinks his view is closer to reality

[70th Division]

Did anyone archive the work done by some forensic guy on his COLB to show it was a forgery? I did but can’t find it. Thanks much.

[Beckwith]

Kim Ark or Wong Fong, whatever it is, sets forth relevant law...

Wrong again, genius.

The US Constitution, the US Code, and the Naturalization and Immigration Act is the relevant law.

And, please, don't throw the "fact" word at me.

Your history here shows you don't know the meaning of the word. You use the "fact" word as a synonym for "opinion."

The only reason the eligibility issue is "open" is because we have Obot dissimulators like yourself obfuscating the issue.

A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

[parsifal]

Well, why don’t you try reading this decision BEFORE you come out with statements like you made.

GRAY, J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

169 U.S. 649
United States v. Wong Kim Ark

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

I. In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature or a constitution established by the people as the supreme law of the land, regard is to be had not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history [p654] of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted.

The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.” By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been “seven years a citizen of the United States,” and every Senator to have been “nine years a citizen of the United States.” and “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.” The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

also declares that

no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that

the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]

parsy, who says this isn’t Wonderland, and you ain’t the Queen of Hearts

[parsifal]

Well, why don’t you try reading this decision BEFORE you come out with statements like you made.

GRAY, J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

169 U.S. 649
United States v. Wong Kim Ark

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

I. In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature or a constitution established by the people as the supreme law of the land, regard is to be had not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history [p654] of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted.

The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.” By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been “seven years a citizen of the United States,” and every Senator to have been “nine years a citizen of the United States.” and “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.” The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

also declares that

no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that

the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]

parsy, who says this isn’t Wonderland, and you ain’t the Queen of Hearts

[rxsid]

Notice that the post concerns only the B.C. issue that Barry has. Which of course, is a legitimate issue itself. What about his, born with, foreign citizenship? Can a NBC of the U.S., also, be born the subject of a foreign crown? Of course not.

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

 

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

 

It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born).
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!

http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com

 

Furthermore:  Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaii birth certificate based on the word of 1 relative. That is how a foreign born baby could get a HI BC on record, which in turn generates the "birth announcements" in the newspapers.

[curiosity]

All this article proves is that it was theoretically possible for an unscrupulous person to get away with a fraudulant birth registration in Hawaii in 1961.

Big deal. The same is true with every state, even today. What is a state supposed to do with babies born in unfortunate circumstances? Unless we're prepared to deny them citizenship, there have to be provisions under the law that allow registration of unattended births, and that is going to make fraud possible.

What the author fails to do is distinguish between the possible and the plausible. Yes, it is possible that Obama wasn't born in the US, and his mom exploited provisions in the law to fraudulantly register her son. But is it plausible?

No. There was no reason for her to commit fraud to register his birth in Hawaii, even if he were born outside the US. Under immigration laws at the time, he was eligible for naturalized citizenship as the minor child of a US citizen. All his mom would have to do is fill out an application and produce proof of her own citizenship, as well as her maternity.

Therefore, unless she had the incredible clarvoiyance to know he would one day run for president, there would have been no reason to committ fraud to secure all the benefits of US citizenship for her son.

So yes, fraud in this case is theoretically possible, but it's not plausible because 1) there's no motive for it and 2) no evidence of it.

Here's a question the birthers never want to answer. Suppose his long form is released and it shows an unattended birth. What then? How are you going to prove it's fraudulant?

I don't see how they could, given that to date they have failed to unearth a single shred of evidence suggesting Bambi was born anywhere other than Hawaii. Further, I don't see how the release of the long form would in any way make their search for such evidence any easier.

[Seizethecarp]

“What about his, born with, foreign citizenship? Can a NBC of the U.S., also, be born the subject of a foreign crown? Of course not.”

Unfortunately, 100% of the Congress chose to accept Obama as eligible, even though through unidentified proxies (with potential future deniability) he stipulated that the (legitimate only) children of his father were governed by the 1948 BNA.

This was, in my opinion, an unconstitutional defacto amendment of the constitution, but the matter has never properly come before SCOTUS for a definitive ruling as to what NBC means specifically for Obama.

For this SCOTUS review to occur, his original records must actually be subjected to discovery and challenge in court including witness testimony and international document authentication regarding any evidence that Obama was not born in HI or was adopted or expatriated and held Indonesian passports and citizenship.

[Seizethecarp]

“What about his, born with, foreign citizenship? Can a NBC of the U.S., also, be born the subject of a foreign crown? Of course not.”

Unfortunately, 100% of the Congress chose to accept Obama as eligible, even though through unidentified proxies (with potential future deniability) he stipulated that the children of his father were governed by the 1948 BNA.

This was, in my opinion, an unconstitutional defacto amendment of the constitution, but the matter has never properly come before SCOTUS for a definitive ruling as to what NBC means specifically for Obama.

For this SCOTUS review to occur, his original records must actually be subjected to discovery and challenge in court including witness testimony and international document authentication regarding any evidence that Obama was not born in HI or was adopted or expatriated and held Indonesian passports and citizenship.