Posted on 12/03/2008 6:54:22 AM PST by Velveeta
An anti-tax activist from upstate New York who is questioning whether President-elect Barack Obama is a "natural born citizen" eligible for the nation's top job said Tuesday that his non-profit group spent "tens of thousands of dollars" to get his message across in ads in the Chicago Tribune this week.
Robert L. Schulz, 69, chairman of We The People Foundation, took out ads Monday and Wednesday to raise questions about whether Obama's Hawaii certificate of live birth is authentic.
The ads echo accusations circulated online by some Obama opponents before the election. Cases challenging Obama's citizenship have been tossed out of local courts in several states, and Hawaiian officials have vouched for the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate, which is locked in a state vault. The Obama campaign likewise has always dismissed the accusations.
Nevertheless, some critics remain dubious.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
He resembles his father, but he resembles his mother less than Bridget McCain resembles John McCain.
Might as well vouch for Shroedinger’s cat’s existence because the box is sealed.
Everybody go ahead and post a comment under their article refuting this story. It’s free and easy and will get the message out. I posted this:
“Another thing: On this “Certificate of Live Birth” (not a birth certificate) it says “ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE”. Yet it has an alteration: The certificate number is blacked out. So, by the statement on the certificate, it’s not a valid certificate. “
The Chicago Tribune has posted an invalid certificate to prove that Obama is valid.
Wonder if there is a form on file showing who “requested” the COLB and on what date?
There would have to be one somewhere. If not the form requesting ( which has to be filled out ) but also an accounting record of the fee being paid.
Instead of grumbling that they published a piece pooh-poohing the issue, we should be thrilled that the issue is getting coverage (this isn’t intended for you, AR; your comment indicates that you agree with this point)..
We need to send letters to the editor explaining why the facts as laid out in the article are not correct. Democracy at its best involves laying out information before the voters. Doubtless at least one of the letters will be published and the truth will get greater exposure.
Where does the $1 million figure come from? How do we know how much money Obama has spent on this or how many lawyers he has representing him?
“An anti-tax activist from upstate New York who is questioning whether President-elect Barack Obama is a “natural born citizen” eligible for the nation’s top job said Tuesday that his non-profit group spent “tens of thousands of dollars” to get his message across in ads in the Chicago Tribune this week. “
And if our media were honest, the next sentence would be:
“...And Obama has spent $800,000 in legal fees so he can avoid paying $12 to provide a certified copy of his birth certificate.”
WTF does this MF have to hide?
I am sure they know the facts in doubt, they are just interested in defending BHO.
Nope. People have enough experience with crackpots to know that if you produce whatever "evidence" they are currently demanding, they will simply dismiss it and switch to demanding some other "evidence". After going around and around in circles with the Kennedy assasination conspiracy theorists, the Moon landing hoax loonies, the 9-11 Truthers, etc, sensible people know that the only reasonable response to this sort of thing is to ignore it.
I find it very amusing that the “birth certificate” has in its lower left corner a Revision date of 11/01 (Nov 2001?) and the word LASER - not even Dick Tracey comics had lasers in 1961!!!!
~~Chicago BHO citizen ad PING!
**Memory refresher**
###
1. Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.
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.”
2. Contrary to what you may have read, no document made available to the public, nor any statement by Hawaiian officials, evidences conclusively that Obama was born in Hawaii.
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.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/why_the_barack_obama_birth_cer.html
Flat out LIES from the Tribune..
They write .. “If a child is born in the United States—as Hawaiian officials state that Obama was”...
That is patently FALSE.
Can they name those officials that categorically stated that he was “born in Hawaii”??
Thought not.
Officials would be violating privacy laws had they said such a thing.
What officials HAVE stated is that Obama’s original birth certificate exists and is in compliance with all laws and procedures of the State of Hawaii.
In fact they write..
“Initially, Hawaiian officials said that privacy laws prevented them from releasing a copy or confirming that Obama’s copy was authentic. But in late October as questions persisted, Hawaii’s health director and head of vital statistics reviewed Obama’s birth certificate in the department’s vault and vouched for its authenticity.”
That is NOT the same thing as saying he was born there and does not even imply such.
In 1961, foreign born children of Hawaii residents could be registered with the State. Therefore it is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE for Barack 0bama to have an “authentic” legal Hawaiian birth certificate in full compliance with all Hawaiian Laws and procedures but still NOT be a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution, therefore the statements of Hawaii’s officials shed no light whatsoever on Obama’s eligibility to serve as President, nor can they by law.
But that's a standard for citizenship and not natural born citizenship. They are desperate just to show Obama reaches citizenship status and then declare Obama eligible.
First of all, I’m not sure that they do know the facts; the MSM is a closed system and this issue has fallen outside of its ambit of credibility.
Second, some of the readers of the Tribune may have more open minds about it, even if the reporters don’t. By putting a big article on the front page the paper is inviting a dialogue. Shame on us if we ignore the opportunity to enlighten, or at least to get the facts on the record in a fairly significant newspaper.
But that's a standard for citizenship and not natural born citizenship. They are desperate just to show Obama reaches citizenship status and then declare Obama eligible.
To: Sara Olkon & James Janega, Chicago Tribune reporters
***
If you were worth your salt and actually professional ‘journalists,’ you would have done your due diligence and reported that one case, Donofrio vs. Wells, has been accepted by and set for a judicial conference in TWO days, December 5, 2008, at the Supreme Court of the United States.
###
KANSAS CITY STAR - JUST LIKE MSNBC - GETS THE DONOFRIO SCOTUS STORY WRONG, VERY WRONG
Posted in Uncategorized on December 3, 2008 by naturalborncitizen
[UPDATE 11:04 AM] Fox News got some of it wrong. The clip below didn’t have the full Baier quote which appears at the FOX NEWS site.
“Meanwhile — the blogosphere is still abuzz over Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as president. The Supreme Court will decide Friday if it will hear a case challenging whether the president-elect is a natural-born citizen. One similar case has already been thrown out.”
No similar case has been thrown out.
My case is not similar to any other case except for Cort Wrotnowski v. Connecticut Secretary of State which has been submitted by renewed application to Justice Scalia.
If Baier is referring to Berg’s case, he is twice mistaken.
Berg’s case is not similar to mine. Berg never raised the issue that Obama is not eligible because he was a British citizen at birth.
Furthermore, only Berg’s emergency application was denied. His full petition for certiorari is still pending although it probably will be denied on the issue of “standing”.
He went to SCOTUS via the federal courts while my case took the proper State court route. That’s another thing which makes our cases vastly different but the main stream media can’t seem to get their heads around the chasm of difference between the two cases.
Regardless, Berg’s case hasn’t been thrown out as of yet.
Again, why can’t the main stream media simply call the SCOTUS Public Affairs Office and get their facts straight.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
I’m not the right one to ask. I think she needed five years in the US and came up short.
I have now seen $12 as the cost for the certificate. LOL. In the interest of historical accuracy.
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.