Posted on 11/25/2008 11:19:58 PM PST by neverdem
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."
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."
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.
There is absolutely nothing fictitious on my son’s birth certificate. Like I said, I understand you and your child’s birth certificate to be lacking some information and other information replaced because of adoption. But Obama was not adopted so the information on his BC should be accurate.
Difference between Certificate of Live Birth and Certification of Live Birth.
And this statement is so true; Are you afraid that if you were even to raise the subject with your friends that they will think you wear a tinfoil hat, because Factcheck.org, the final arbiter of truth in the universe, said so?
I get “factcheck.org said so” so often I want to bang my head in. But what drives me nuts worse is “Snopes already said he was a citizen”. Ummm, the dumbing down of America has succeeded.
PING to an informational treasure trove!
1.The American Thinker has credibility right? I have heard conservative talk show hosts (Laura Ingraham) source articles from the American Thinker so I know some of radio hosts read these articles.
2. Some where on another thread, a poster shared a response from a Congressman about Obama’s lack of eligibility. Aside form saying it was an internet rumor and not giving it credence the Congressman said he relied on Hawaiian officals who vouched for the birth certificate. Hawaii put out a press release and names two individuals that verified the birth certificate.
I don’t know if we can educate the Congressman and their staffers who are the ones to read these emails but they do not understand why “Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally)for a person to have born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.” It is outlined so clearly in this article from American Thinker.
I will email Governor Lingle’s office in Hawaii to let them know Congress is relying on their office under a false understanding about Obama’s birth certificate.
Governor Lingle is helping Obama perpetuate the fraud. I know everyone here reading this knows these facts already but we need to keep on questioning these Elected officials.
The truth is stronger than this fraud.
Not quite -- I doubt any state in the union would knowingly destroy an original birth record, no matter what the circumstances.
Georgia certainly doesn't.
(TITLE 31. HEALTH CHAPTER 10. VITAL RECORDS)
(f) When a new certificate of birth is established by the state registrar, the original birth certificate shall not be subject to inspection except as provided in this Code section. All copies of the original certificate of birth in the custody of any other custodian of vital records in this state shall be sealed from inspection and forwarded to the state registrar, as the state registrar shall direct.
(g) The new certificate shall be substituted for the original certificate of birth in the files and the original certificate of birth and the evidence of adoption, legitimation, or paternity determination shall not be subject to inspection except upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction or as provided by statute.
I have to wonder if eventually, his orders to our military will come under similar question. If he is not eligible to be president, then he is not eligible to be Commander in Chief and therefore, all of his orders will be illegitimate. Imagine if our military leaders question his standing as Commander in Chief, and therefore, question his orders. I see lots of issues arising here. This thing needs to be settled and in such a way that no questions remain.
In our country, this is about as serious as it gets.
If the truth comes out about barky and he is thrown out of office, before the melee can start in the streets, Obiden will be proclaimed emperor and all will be well.
It's good for us since he will make such a mess in four years Sarah can easily be elected.
So the stakes are really high. We either get 4 years of an obiden adm.or 8 years of barky and a destroyed country on the other side.
Happy Thanksgiving Pen!
best info we have is that when he was adopted his BC in Honolulu(not that he was born there) was sealed at that time.
Let the chumps riot. We have the guns.
Per the Judge in our case, he ordered the original destroyed; not a new one substituted and the old one archived.
Whether it actually happened, I don’t know.
I heard Berg took the case to the Supreme court and David Souter has ordered Obama to produce a legitimate certified birth certificate by December 1, 2008. Any one else hear that?
I believe it is to show a baby born alive as opposed to a still birth. Some states offer a “Certificate of Birth Resulting in Stillbirth and/or a Fetal Death Certificate”. Some states are pushing for “birth” certificates for stillborn babies. Others just issue death certificates. And if your baby dies at birth you have a birth and a death certificate.
That is why there is a certificate of “LIVE” birth.
I have become obsessed with citizenship because of this. I thought the biggie was the adoption but, from what I have read with regard to the law, a parent cannot renounce citizenship for a child. Only the person himself can renounce citizenship and they would not except that from a 6 yr. old, however, you do not have to be 18 to renounce your citizenship, you just have to be able to comprehend what you are doing.
The forces that be will not allow this issue to be resolved. We have more serious problems than to engage in the equivalent of conspiracy theories. The fact is this braindead marxist won the election now we need to concentrate on taking the country back towards the center right. Wasting time on this issue will not do that.
I don’t agree with you but you are welcome to your opinion!
Unlikely, but possible? Considering his sister was born in Indonisia and has a birth certificate on record in Hawaii (showing place of birth as Indonisia) why is that unlikely. Should say it is very possible considering his sister's BC.
Otherwise a very good article with well stated logic on why O should provide his BC.
I have the understanding that Factcheck.org is owned by the Annenburg group (which was headed by Ayers and Obama).
FactCheck.org is a nonprofit[1], nonpartisan website[2] that describes its own goal as "[reducing] the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics." It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.[1] from wiki (not a very reliable source itself) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck
Anybody heard otherwise?
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.