Posted on 11/21/2008 2:05:30 PM PST by pissant
So much for those pledges of "open government."
So much for those promises of "change."
So much for his upcoming oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
Barack Hussein Obama is still refusing to disclose to the American public something as innocent and as basic as his full, undoctored birth certificate to establish beyond any shadow of a doubt – and that doubt is growing daily – that he is a natural-born American citizen.
Ironically, now that the election is over, the pressure is building. A few bold members of Congress are getting interested in demanding hearings on the issue. The lawsuits are increasing. More pundits and activists are beginning to mobilize.
I, too, am raising the stakes.
Beginning today, I am personally sponsoring a petition campaign right here at this Internet news source, to all controlling legal authorities to determine Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency under Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution and to use all of their persuasive powers to make this information freely available to the rulers of this country – we the people.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
You mean the Annenberg Political Fact Check, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation? The same foundation that hired Obama as chair men of the board and his buddy Bill Ayers as head of the operating arm of their Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which spread millions of dollars in the wards of Chicago, but whose final report admited they had not made any difference in the academic achievement of area students? That "Unbiased" organization?
Let's keep our terminology straight. The Certificate of Live Birth is the original "Birth Certificate", usually signed by the doctor or nurse/midwife and a hospital official. In the case of "after the fact" registration, it would show the names of witnesses or others with direct knowlege of the circumstance of the birth. It should in either case show the proper city, state and/or country of birth. It's also known as the "long form" birth certificate, and the original would be the "Vault copy". It can however be modified, as in the case of an adoption or legal name change.
The Certification of Live Birth, OTOH, is a "generated on request" extract of data from the state's birth records database. It is AKA the "short form" birth certificate. If legitimate, it would also show place of birth. In the old days, if generated at all rather than just making a copy of the original "Certificate", it would be produced by manually extracting data from the original "Certificate". Now however it is a computer generated form, and thus much easier to fake, with the information extracted from the electronic records in the state's database.
No it was the Certification, a computer generated abstract of data originally filed on the Certificate of Live Birth.
Only the copy, or copies it's not clear, posted on some website. The State itself has not, and absent a court order, cannot reveal the true contents of their database, nor of any other information contained on the original "long form" Certificate of Live Birth.
The reason the Certification of live birth cannot be used to prove "natural born citizenship" is that it only reflects the *current* information in the database, not any changes that might have been made. Names can be changed, by court order, and if the baby is adopted the birth parents information can be replaced by that of the adoptive parents.
I see you are back Oldschoolreformer
....
say, weren't Bill Ayers and PE Obama involved in "school reform", "back in the day"?
Boy, with all the "Drive by", just signed up posters on this thread, we must be getting too close to the truth.
And they purport to give us advice on how to win elections. More of the same as John McCain (and Bob Dole before him) tried.... Riiight.
Remember what Ronald Reagan said?
"Trust but Verify".
I think it applies in this situation as much when dealing with the old Soviet Union.
Not especially. But I bet they'd not look kindly to those who perpetrated a massive electoral fraud on the American people either. I would wager that some of Obama's staunchest defenders, outside of political hacks, would become his harshest critics. And he would carry lots of Congressional, and even state and local, candidates down the toilet with him.
I don't think so. If there were no votes in the EC for anyone but BHO, then yes, but there will be votes for John McCain, and possibly, since there are usually a few "faithless electors", for others as well. In fact If I were the Democrats, which I was in high school (Young Democrats), I'd be darn sure there was at least, and preferably only, one other Democrat with one or more electoral votes. Just in case the selection of President is forced into the House. By the Constitution, they can only select from among the top three electoral vote getters, if BHO was found ineligible, that would only leave McCain, unless one or more "Obama" electors votes for someone else, in which case the overwhelmingly Democrat House could select that person, rather than McCain. That person would then become President. But if no one other than BHO and JM get electoral votes, then JM would become President should BHO be found ineligible.
Why have a law at all if you are just going to disregard it after the fact? The SCOTUS might avoid involvement - that remains to be seen - but they can't just wave their hands and say "oh, phooey!" and make the whole issue go away. They also cannot make the law unconstitutional. The Constitution gives the power to make citizenship laws to Congress, aside from the ones already written into the Constitution, and not to the Judiciary. Five years is five years, not 4 years 8 months and 6 days. Besides, to make the exception for Obama would ignite protests from the right, instead of from the left, differing only in the regard that we wouldn't be burning down or shooting up our own neighborhoods. But a march on Washiongton? You betcha'!
So am I, and I have 35 years experience doing it. (Well, less 1 1/2 years in graduate school, MSEE '77, but my thesis was basically massive analysis of historical data to attempt to predict "next summer's" peak demand on a power system.)
I also understand that ignoring the data to avoid challenging a desired result never ends well.
Little "data points" like Obama's "grandmother" (actually a different wife of his grandfather) being on record as having witnessed his birth in Kenya. Or the current Kenyan Ambassador to the US agreeing that he was born in Kenya and that there is a plan for a commemorative marker on or near the spot.
Little data points like that, that don't "fit the model" Now I also know that not all data fits "the model" exactly, and that is why more data is better.
After all, what could it hurt to have Hawaii send a certified true and complete copy of either the Certificate of Live Birth, or the Certification of Live Birth to a court of law, assuming the posted versions were on the up and up?
But if Obama is disqualified after “winning” the EC vote but before the Inauguration there is no qualified President and Biden becomes Acting President. The election never gets to the House. There would be no qualified President and no way to remove Obama because he never actually assumed the office. [20th Amendment, Section 3] He couln’t be impeached and he couldn’t resign an office he never held.
bookmark
Not fact, there are at least two ways to get a Hawaii BC without being born there. If your parents (or just one) were resident there before your birth outside the territory/state of Hawaii, you can apply for a BC from the State of Hawaii. If you are born in a foreign land, and legally adopted in Hawaii, you can, and will, get a BC from Hawaii.
It will be an "amended" certificate of birth.
See Hawaii State Department of Health and
It's also possible to apply for a "late certificate" for:
Any person born in Hawaii who is one year old or older and whose birth has not been previously registered in Hawaii, or that person’s parent, guardian, next of kin, or older person acting for that person and having knowledge of the facts of birth may request the registration of a late certificate of birth, except that an application will not be accepted for a deceased person.
This proceedure is subject to fraud, if the "person's having knowledge" lie on the application.
It's also possible to get a Hawaiian BC if one's parent(s) have/has resided for one year in Hawaii
Hawaii Revised Statutes[§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.
But in any of these cases, the BC will, if legitimate, show the place of birth. So the statements from the Hawaiian Department of health official that they have an official Birth Certificate for BHO, means exactly, nothing, unless we are told what is on it as far as place (and date) of birth. Father's name and nationality also matter. (Remember "Certificate" means "original/vault copy/long form", Certification means short form/extract.)
None of those are Constitutional dis-qualifiers. Not being a natural born citizen is.
Except for that little disclaimer on the bottom of the form of the document.
Without some truly impartial, and preferably official, review of a certified copy of the document, how can we know that alterations have not been made? It would really only take one, place of birth, but alteration of date of birth might also be required to fit with the "date accepted", or the "date filed" could have been changed to fit the date of birth. Then again the certificate file number must fit the "date filed" , so changing the date of birth would require less alteration.
Well, I think the coke ingesting (spelled right this time!) and bomb belt wearing might disqualify him...
oldengineer and oldschoolreform signed up together on the same day. Either from the same office or I think they are the same person, same vibe, same smell, same spew. Maybe even Ayers!
Wrong, the law does not allow them to reveal what is really on the "base documentation, or even on a valid extract, such as the Certification of Live Birth, except at the request of the person themselves, or certain close relatives. Or of course under a court order.
Yes, INS agents, DEA agents, and BATFE agents have lots of practice at that sort of thing..however most are probably Obama supporters. At least the BATFE agents, if they even realize we elect Presidents and that they must be natural born US Citizens.
For those wanting to look it up, it's actually Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8
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.