Posted on 03/12/2009 7:47:44 AM PDT by Hillary'sMoralVoid
There are at least five ways that Barack Obama can be declared ineligible for the presidency. Here is a list:
1. Obama was not born in the United States. The Certification of Live Birth that he posts on his web site proves nothing. Only the original paper certificate can address this issue, Obama refuses to release it.
2. Dual Citizenship issue: Obama could have British and American citizenship due to his father being a British subject at the time of his birth.
3. Dual Citizenship issue: Obama could have dual citizenship with Indonesia if he was adopted. His school records from Inonesia indicate he was Indonesian. He also traveled to Pakistan, but under what passport?
4. Mother's age at birth. Hawaiian laws on the books at the time of his birth hold that U.S. citizenship may only pass to a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the former was at least 19. Stanley Ann Dunham was only 18 at the time of Obama's birth.
5. Failure to formally renounce dual citizenship described above and reestablish American citizenship at some point and show proof of same.
Obama supporters have unrealistically simplified this issue down to the COLB. There are possibly more issues out there still to be investigated, perhaps willful misconduct on the potential forging of the COLB, etc.
I think that those who are bringing this issue to the attention of the courts need to step back and address the big picture first and then fill in the details.
Are there other potentially disqualifying factors missing from this list?
The COLB proves that his birth was registered in Hawaii.
It does not prove whether or not as some believe, that his birth notice was a late registration.
You’re the one who comes at everyone with the snarky attitude. Don’t dish it out, if you can’t handle it coming back at you.
Actually, regarding DHHL - you have proven my point. Yes, it proves ancestry. BUT also as stated on the DHHL site:
the original long form birth certificate is warranted to verify whether or not there was a late birth registration, indicating that the person was not ‘really’ born in Hawaii.
This sums it up:
“Obama released his birth certificate.” No, he didn’t.
“The short form is the same as the long form.” No, it’s not.
“Hawaii verified his birth certificate.” No, they didn’t.
“Hawaii won’t let him get his original certificate.” No, they will.
“It’s good enough for a passport”. No, not in all cases.
“Factcheck proved he was born in the US”. No, they didn’t.
“Election officials checked his background”. No, they didn’t.
“The Supreme Court ruled that he was born in the US.” No, they didn’t.
“It doesn’t matter, his mother was a citizen.” No, he didn’t meet the criteria of the law at that time.
“The law was changed and made retroactive”. No, it wasn’t.
“The short form is accepted in a court of law.” No, it can be rebutted with the source document and any amendments.
“The burden of proof is on you”. No, the burden of proof is on Obama and Sec. of States.
“Anyone raising this issue is a crazy conspiracy theorist”. No, they believe in the Constitution and realize that when someone spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the release of a ten dollar document, he is hiding something.
“Tough luck, he won, get over it”.
The COLB does not prove whether or not he was born outside of Hawaii and subsequently filed a late birth notification in Hawaii.
“The COLB does not prove whether or not he was born outside of Hawaii and subsequently filed a late birth notification in Hawaii.”
I agree - it proves nothing. My previous response was too vague.
There is this rule of evidence call the best evidence rule. The best evidence is what is available to prove the truth of whatever one is trying to prove. Copies of documents can be admitted into evidence if that is all there is, or there are so many copies out there the contents are beyond dispute.
In this case, the assertion is birth in HI. If only a copy is available at a reasonable cost and effort, then the court would accept it as evidence.
My 26 years of experience in law says no court would accept this scanned manufactured COLB as evidence because getting the best evidence is nearly effortless and cheap to produce. Therefore, it is no evidence at all to prove that which it asserts to prove.
Other Disqualifying Factors....Hmmm...He’s a commie pinko bastard? Probably a muslim, named Hussein, is buds with terrorists,born in Kenya, has erased his past, is a puppet controlled by who knows what kind of evil, can’t speak without a teleprompter, dissed The Prime Minister of England, has no class, is anti-American, is seeking to destroy our country, is an arrogant bastard, schooled for 20 years by unRev Wright, is a black liberationist, is a racist, hates whitey but smiles at him anyway and takes all his money for social programs, is our first usurper in chief...
His epic failure will however result in a one term occupancy of our White House. He will be on the post usurper speaking tour starting Jan 21st, 2013. After he takes a much needed NAP that is. He’s SO tired.
Okay gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.
This is what I recall reading. There may have been follow-ups elsehwere, I don't recall that.
Inconsistencies undermine FactCheck report on Obama "birth certificate" from israelinsider:
This would seem to suggest that Factcheck went through the process of requesting the birth certificate (after all, why else reproduce and link the request form?), but no -- it turns out that they had a special invitation to visit the birth certificate at its residence, as if they were visiting some long lost relatives or a reclusive celebrity:The article goes on to pose many questions, although they don't answer any. I can't recall of later articles elsewhere attempted to answer the questions.
So, now we can move onto the next step of debunking each others sources.
-PJ
Obama treats his as if it's the one and only COLB. Like it's the Mona Lisa hidden to the world in his private art collection. Why have teams of lawyers hide his past when he can easily order hundreds of COLBs from Hawaii having them send his COLBs directly to every news organization in the world and to any person who wants one?
What Obama is doing is preposterous and absurd. Obama says he was born in Hawaii and the COLB he showed online to the world says he was born in Hawaii, so what's the problem?
Give everyone a hard copy of it straight from the the Hawaiian Department of Health. That would go a long way to help Obama quite the criticism to where he was born. Hand his COLB out to everyone like its candy since it's only worth 10 bucks.
Unless Obama was not born Hawaii then he has a problem.
-PJ
They assume it was a special invitation, but there's no evidence of that.
The article goes on to pose many questions, although they don't answer any.
The article is full of inuendo, and very short on facts. As far as I could tell, there are only two facts they bring up:
1) The photos of the COLB were taken within a 6 minute time from. They seem to attach a lot of significance to this, but I'm not sure why. I can't see why it should take a photographer any longer to take picutres of a single document. Six minutes seems like a pretty reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, just because it only took them 6 minutes to photograph the document doesn't mean they only spent 6 minutes looking at the document.
2) The date stamped on the photographs was from March. Again, they attach a lot of significance to this, but I don't see why that's warranted. It either means they examined the document in March, or the date on their digital camera was off. How exactly that is supposed to invalidate the photographs is beyond me.
They also make a lot of assertions about the lighting and image quality, which simply don't ring true. The lighting and image quality seem fine to me. I don't see what they are talking about.
Oh, and of course, they bring up the Annenberg connection, which they totally misrepresent.
If you want to understand that point, Google Lenore Annenberg and read about her political donations over the last 10 years. If anything, the Annenberg connection strengthens the credibility of factcheck.
A hard copy does in indeed prove birth in the US.
What part of "City, Town or Location of Birth: Honolulu" and "prima facie evidence of the fact or birth" do you not understand?
Are seriously asserting that the State of Hawaii deliberate lies on its officially certified documents?
Okay, so let me ask you this. If you personally got a hard copy of the same COLB that was posted on factcheck, would you accept the fact he is a natural born citizen?
“A hard copy does in indeed [sic] prove birth in the US.”
If you will get a consent to order one, I will pay for it.
There is no evidence of anything regarding this subject. There is just an extract document that was given for any births (even foreign) that were registered in Hawaii within one year of the birth.
What there is not is the actual hospital document that was filed within 24 hours of the birth and signed by the doctor. McCain provided one, and his is 30 years older than Obama's. I also have a photostat of my document from another state, with reverse color white text on black background.
It would take something like that, from the hospital at the time of birth, to make this go away. Summary documents, no matter how authentic, that were also given to the foreign-born, are not enough in today's information age.
-PJ
A COLB for a foreign birth isn't going to list Hononlulu as the place of birth, unless you are asserting that Hawaii deliberately lies on its officially certified forms.
Are you seriously asserting that? If so, what is your evidence?
I think the speculation is that the information they print is the information that was provided, either by the hospital or by the parents. The "date filed" vs. "date accepted" distinguishes whether the document was accepted from the hospital at birth or was filed by the parents within one year of birth.
I could be wrong about the interpretation (maybe they just changed the language on the form blank), but there are two nomenclatures on the document images that I've seen.
-PJ
There's nothing in Hawaii state law or in any documentation put out by the DOH that attaches any significance to the difference.
It appears that some offices use a blank form with "date accepted" and others with "date filed," as there are multiple examples of COLB's on the internet of both. There's nothing to indicate it's anything more than that.
curiosity: "They assume it was a special invitation, but there's no evidence of that."
Reporters have asked for the COLB but Obama refused.
Jim Geraghty from National Review, June 9th, 2008, "Reporters have asked for it and been denied, and the state of Hawaii does not make such records public."
St. Petersburg Times April 18th, 2008, "We tried to obtain a copy of Obama's birth certificate, but his campaign would not release it"
A special invitation from Obama appears to be just what happened.
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.