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.
My guess is most people will agree that the fact mom was a citizen is good enough to qualify him.
They don’t sweat the technicalities so they don’t care about the 5-yr. rule in effect then.
The fact is, the ANNENBERG Public Policy Center (APPC), the sponsoring agency behind FastCheck.org, is itself supported by the same foundation, the ANNENBERG FOUNDATION, that Bill Ayers secured the 49.2 million dollars from to create the Chicago ANNENBERG Challenge “philanthropic” organization in which Barack Obama was the founding Chairman of the Board for and Ayers served as the grant writer of and co-Chair of for its two operating arms.
Obumpa!
Did not Justice Souter of the SCOTUS rule that Obama MUST provide his Vault Birth Certificate to the Supreme Court by December 1, 2008. He CANNOT just pretend this isn’t happening. And if he is an American citizen, he just produce the damn thing. This IS preposterous. There IS something to hide. There can be no other reason for the continual refusal to produce this document. CO
If he did order it destroyed then he acted illegally, according to the state laws he presumably swore to uphold.
I think your original post, though, made the point that the laws concerning the retention of original birth certificates vary by state, using Georgia as an example.
Not true, at least not in the State of Georgia.
That’s pretty much my understanding as well.
Even the Dec. 5th is not a hard/firm deal only if 4 justices agree to hear the pleading.
Did you read the Alan Keyes interview? The “reporter” was basically stating that even if he’s not a natural born citizen it shouldn’t apply to Obama. I think a lot of people are going to make that argument.
bump and bookmark for later read.
This is a brilliant article.
It’s worth a read just for the three reasons for Barack Obama NOT to disclose.
Dittoes to everything you said. This one is a MUST READ.
If this is what he is doing (the Saul Alinsky fake-out), it makes everything else he does totally suspect. Forever. It also shows him to be part of a shadow government, takeover-style movement with a huge unspoken agenda.
It also means that every one of his voters, volunteers, and worshippers other than his Fellow Travelers has been used and duped.
Rush Limbaugh has praised The American Thinker on the air as well.
Deport the fraud !!
Send his America-hating wife with him.
No I didn’t read Alan Keye’s interview. But that kind of comment is just so rediculous. WHY NOT??? It shouldn’t apply to Obama? WHY? CO
Surely they will. Surely, on something as important as this. The fact that the man could well be a fraud is more than a serious blow to the Constitution. He ran, if proven, under false pretenses. Your Constitution is your Constitution. It doesn’t change for Obama.!!
Is there a chance? Sure, there’s always a chance. There’s a chance Iceland may invade Russia, too. But I don’t think it very likely, hehehe.
Do you really think that they’d wanna be that out in the open obvious? Its almost something I’d usually ascribe to the Clintons, but they’re the ones who would benefit the most from revelation of 0’s actual birth records. They certainly wouldn’t want any harm whatsoever come to any possible document that in-no-uncertain-terms disqualifies the messiah from being inaugurated this January.
That would also, of course, be the Chicago Way, (so to speak....mysterious fires and such), and is a tactic straight from Al Capone’s playbook.
This isn't like John Kerry's Form 180. Obama really does have to deliver the goods. I'm glad the lawsuits are proceeding.
I hope you are right.
Probably called something more like "Certificate of Still Birth". A quick check shows at that is exactly what it is called in at least a couple of states. Another issues a fetal death certificate.
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.