Posted on 09/03/2009 12:58:54 PM PDT by kellynla
Cliff Kincaid, the editor of Accuracy in Media, has released a copy of his own birth certificate, in order to demonstrate what needs to be done to resolve the growing controversy over the alleged birth certificate of President Barack Obama. "My birth certificate includes the names of my mother and father, my mother's doctor, and the hospital in which I was born," said Kincaid. "This certified copy of an original long form document is what anyone who wants to be president should be prepared to produce."
Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
The problem, of course, is that this provision does not require public disclosure of detailed information, in the form of a birth certificate with the names of the parents, hospital, and attending physician, and it does not mandate who makes the decision as to whether a particular candidate is constitutional eligible to be president. Our media should be performing that function.
Kincaid described what was on his own birth certificate: "It reveals that my mother's maiden name was Beverly Ann Mason and my father's name was Clifford Paul Kincaid. It says that my mother's doctor was Walter Washburn. He certifies in the document that I was born at 8:38 in the morning. It says that I was born in Research Hospital in Jackson County, Kansas City, Missouri, on May 16, 1954. It says my father worked as a warehouse supervisor for Owens-Corning Fiberglas."
By contrast, the "birth certificate" released by the Obama presidential campaign includes no name of a hospital, a location of that hospital, or a physician. "The contrast between what is on so many birth certificates for ordinary Americans, such as mine, versus what the Obama campaign has released, is striking," said Kincaid. "This contrast is what accounts for the many questions that have arisen and which have given rise to the so-called 'Birther' Movement. Many ordinary Americans are wondering why the major media have not explained why the Obama 'birth certificate' is so lacking in basic and essential information about where he was born and which doctor by name was there when he was born. If he was born in Hawaii, as he claims, then this information should be readily available and printed on the original birth certificate."
What Happened To Journalism?
"Journalism used to ask who, what, when, where, why and how," said Kincaid. "But today's pro-Obama journalists want to ignore those questions when it comes to the constitutional eligibility of the current occupant of the oval office. They would rather accept what the Obama campaign (and now administration) wants them to believe. The Obama document may reflect what is in another document, but we really have no way of knowing. The only way to address these questions is to identify where exactly he was born, in what hospital, and what doctor was present. All of this information should be on an original birth certificate."
Kincaid continued, "It is not unreasonable to ask questions about Barack Obama's birthplace. Anybody who has an original copy of their own birth certificate, or a certified copy of their own original birth certificate, should immediately understand that the Obama version is lacking in basic information that should be publicly available."
Kincaid asked, "Whatever happened to the public's right to know?"
A Newsmax.com story by David A. Patten noted that, contrary to widespread media reports, Hawaiian health officials have not publicly released President Obama's original, "long-form" birth certificate. He explained, "Many media reports have insisted the President's actual birth certificate is available on the Internet for anyone to download. It is not." What is posted, he noted, is Obama's "certification of live birth."
Patten said, "The document is essentially a summary of the actual long form birth certificate. The certification does not list the attending physician, the address or hospital where the delivery took place, or the parents' occupation. Typically, this information is included on the birth certificate."
Indeed, this is the kind of information on the birth certificate posted by AIM Editor Cliff Kincaid
Patten said that, throughout the controversy over whether Obama was not born in the United States and therefore is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president, "anchors and reporters have assumed wrongly that Obama's 'certification of live birth' contains the same information as an original, long-form birth certificate."
For example, Patten noted that MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews, who interviewed Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., on July 21, lambasting him for co-sponsoring a House bill that would require presidential candidates to submit documents to establish their constitutional eligibility to serve as president, held up a copy of Obama's certification of live birth-not his birth certificate-as if it put the controversy to rest.
Another MSNBC host, Rachel Maddow, stated on June 11: "This baseless, mouth-breathing, whack-job theory became such an issue during the presidential campaign that Mister Obama did actually release a certificate of his birth from Hawaii, showing that he was born in Honolulu in 1961. And yet, the 'birther' movement persists." Over on CNN, anchor Rick Sanchez held up a document for cameras to zoom in on. "This is a reprint of his birth certificate . . . or as it says here, certificate of birth." The document presented by Sanchez was clearly marked "certification of live birth." It was not the real birth certificate.
Patten noted that critics "point out that Obama is the only modern president whose precise place of birth remains undetermined. Honolulu's Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital has been widely cited as his birthplace, but another Honolulu location has been mentioned as well. The hospital has declined to address whether Obama was born there. Presidential birthplaces typically receive recognition and commemoration."
$10,000 Offer
In order to drive this point home, WorldNetDaily.com editor Joseph Farah has offered $10,000 to the hospital where Obama was born that is listed on his long-form birth certificate.
Farah, whose website has been covering the controversy on a regular basis, says that "Barack Obama claims to have been born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961. His entire constitutional claim to the presidency rests on this premise. Yet, he refuses to release a copy of his long-form birth certificate-the only document that could possibly corroborate his claim. Instead, he has released to select news organizations and posted on the Internet a document that could never serve as proof he was born in the United States-a so-called 'certification of live birth,' a digital document that could, can and has been obtained by people who were actually born outside the country. The American people can never be certain their president is legitimate constitutionally without proof."
There were two newspaper birth announcements appearing contemporaneously in two Hawaii daily newspapers about Obama's birth but it's not clear whether they were generated by the issuance of the "certification of live birth" document or something else. In any case, they do not have the information that most people are seeking and which appears in original birth certificates.
WND had previously run on August 23, 2008, an article by Drew Zahn reporting that a group known as FactCheck.org had "obtained Obama's actual certification of live birth and that the document was indeed real." Furthermore, it said, "A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic."
FactCheck.org had claimed that its staffers had "seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate" and that "We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship." But it was clearly not the "original" birth certificate. And whether it meets the Constitutional requirement to be president is questionable.
In other words, FactCheck.org may have seen an "authentic" document, but it was not Obama's real birth certificate. The same group had also defended Obama's misleading campaign ads about his upbringing. Those ads claimed that he was raised mostly by his grandparents, when we know that Communist Frank Marshall Davis was his mentor for 10 years of his young life. Davis, who was black, had been picked by his grandfather, who was white, to be Obama's father-figure.
Columnist Frank Salvato has noted that hosts on the liberal MSNBC and CNN cable networks haven't been the only ones to attack those who raise questions about Obama's birthplace. He pointed out that Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Michael Medved have been quick to condemn the "birthers" as "a fringe group and a group detrimental to the conservative cause." Salvato says this attitude "is not only irresponsible, it is the antithesis of what they say they provide the public: media entities acting as serious governmental and constitutional watchdogs."
He adds, "What we need is for the conservative media to honestly look out for the Constitution...and right now, they are not."
On April 1, 2009, Andrew Walden, a conservative journalist based in Hawaii, tried to claim on Frontpagemag.com that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii and that "By refusing media requests for a look at the actual paper birth certificate, Obama's campaign gave sly backhanded assistance" to those claiming the version posted was a forgery. He noted, "The internet release of the birth certificate via hyper-partisan website Daily Kos on June 12 before posting it on a campaign website was likely calculated to fuel the frenzy." Walden asserted that the failure to release the long-form document was part of a Marxist strategy by Obama to "redirect the opposition down a blind alley."
He added, "It is time for folks to stop being played by the Obama campaign and drop this counter-productive 'phony birth certificate' nonsense. Obama opponents can find plenty of real material by focusing on the hard-left alliances, stated positions, personnel appointments and policy actions of the Obama administration and of the Democrat-controlled Congress."
Taking a different tack, former CIA officer Larry Johnson believes that Obama was born in Hawaii but that the original birth certificate is being withheld for other reasons.
He wrote on his blog http://www.noquarterusa.net that "Barack Obama was not named 'Barack' in the original birth certificate. He was 'Barry' not Barack. But that's not all. The birth certificate was amended when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian muslim, around 1968. David Axelrod and Barack Obama decided against trying to explain these issues, worried that the Soetoro birth certificate would reinforce the charge that Barack was a secret muslim. Such a charge would have muddied the waters and alarmed too many folks in the midwest and south. They covered it up and, with the help of an incurious media, kept these questions tamped down."
Meanwhile, CNN's Lou Dobbs has come under a vicious attack by Media Matters, the far-left media "watchdog" group, for merely covering the issue and raising questions about where Obama was born. The leftist group insists that Dobbs is guilty of promoting "racially charged conspiracy theories" because Obama is black.
Media Matters had previously criticized AIM Editor Cliff Kincaid's comments at the Conservative Political Action Conference, when he merely noted that while we knew where President Reagan was born, we don't know for sure where Obama was born.
As we have previously reported, in order to clear up the controversy, Rep. Bill Posey of Florida introduced H. R. 1503, whose purpose is to "amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution." It was referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
If passed, however, this legislation would only impact the 2012 presidential election.
Constitutional Crisis
If it were to be proven that President Obama was ineligible to hold office, Salvato notes, "it would throw our country into a constitutional crisis the likes of which has never been seen. There is no provision for removing someone from the office of President or Vice President of the United States who has been deemed-after the fact- ineligible to have run for the office." He says the only possible remedy, impeachment, would be a practical impossibility, considering that Obama's political party controls Congress.
What's more, he raises these points:
"If someone is not technically the President of the United States how does the Legislative Branch remove him or her from the position? "Because the Commander in Chief would not technically exist and the Vice President wouldn't be technically seated as the President, would the military be prohibited from executing any order to remove the usurper? And who would give that order? "If the Supreme Court ruled that Article 2, Section 1 was not satisfied, where in the Constitution does it authorize them-or any other body-to nullify a federal election? "What would be the constitutional procedure for validating that the usurper was indeed ineligible to hold office and for removing him or her from control of the US military, the Executive Branch departments and the United States' nuclear arsenal?" Interestingly, back in the Winter 1992-93 edition of Parameters, the U.S. Army War College Quarterly, Charles J. Dunlap, Jr. published a fictional article, "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012," in which he speculated about a military takeover because "Americans became exasperated with democracy. We were disillusioned with the apparent inability of elected government to solve the nation's dilemmas. We were looking for someone or something that could produce workable answers. The one institution of government in which the people retained faith was the military."
Ok...at some point the president was Indonesian?
Fake...and
It takesw two parents.
Not a thing
And Barry Soetoro swore he never went by any other name.
On some application for congress or something...I’ll have to find it again, but it’s there.
I think you may be referring to the claim that he “swore” he never had any other name in his Illinois state bar application.
That claim was debunked by Jeff Schrieber at America’s Right OVER A YEAR AGO, but people keep referring to it as if it were true. It’s just not true. You can call the Illinois State Bar yourself and confirm.
America’s Right article: http://www.americasright.com/2008/08/berg-v-obama-update-wednesday-august-27.html
Because you say it is?
and
It takesw two parents.
Again, because you say it does?
Everyone with a brain knows it’s fake. Note the horizontal impressions on the seal in the front pic, and the dotted impressions on the back view. It’s an obvious fake. Period.
Everyone with a brain knows it take two citizen parents to have a Natural Born Citizen child.
Whos was the doctor at birth?
Which hospital?
What country?
Again, because you say it is? And how anyone can declare a document fake merely from an electronic copy and without having seen the actual document itself defies explanation. But then again, I'm not a birther.
Everyone with a brain knows it take two citizen parents to have a Natural Born Citizen child.
Well since you've got the brain and all, then you can point to the clause in the Constitution or the federal law or the Supreme Court decision that specifically states that?
Whos was the doctor at birth? Which hospital? What country?
How many presidents can you answer that for?
Those are not answers, just arguments.
It’s fake.
His parents were not both US citizens.
At some point he was an Indonesian citizen.
The three above statements are not up for argument. They’re facts.
What kind of prison would someone “throw” the San Fran witch into. I can see it now. Witch’s elbow damaged due to being tossed onto hard concrete floor. Pardon in the process.
So you seriously are not going to disavow or back down in the slightest from the rock solid Obot belief that every person in the entire world is eligible to be President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the US Military? You’re right, you’re not spitting on the Constitution. You’re waging war against it.
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
As you very well know, several terms in the Constitution are not defined in the Constitution itself, that doesn’t mean they are not defined and understood elsewhere and for over 200 years now. Think hard here. If today’s US citizens aren’t eligible to be POTUS as the Constitution clearly points out since no one today was around at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, why are you still riding the bandwagon that proclaims that foreign nationals of all people are eligible to be POTUS? I can’t fathom how you can believe that US citizens aren’t eligible but that citizens of foreign nations ARE natural born citizens and ARE eligible.
No one can be that delusional. You Obots really need better talking points.
Your own messiah himself disagrees with your definition of natural born citizen and even that irony flies over your head.
HTML version from Army War College. With "forwarding Memorandums".
Of course it's a totally different situation. Crime and "malaise" drive the coup, not usurpation, or ineligibility declared by the Courts.
Plus things have not quite played out the way Dunlap envisioned in 1992. For example he saw a unification of the services, rather than "jointness". He also foresaw the virtual elimination of ROTC programs, instead we've see a revitalization of them, and a higher fraction of senior officers having ROTC as their source of commission. He also foresaw fewer women in the military. I just read a story about a female 1LT being the commander during a rather nasty firefight, lasting several hours, that occurred when a convoy was ambushed in Afghanistan.
We are in a whole different world than the one he foresaw in '92. In part due to 9-11-01.
If the courts declared him ineligible, he would not *be* the President, but rather a squater in the White House.
I don't think use of the military be required to remove his sorry self. Instead they might be called on to protect his ash before trial.
Remember, I didn’t say he was right, I said it was thought-provoking! Dunlap makes some interesting observations in a number of his writings, though I think his push for, and definition of, “lawfare” (last 4 Keystone conferences), is a bit off.
Colonel, USAFR
"My birth certificate includes the names of my mother and father, my mother's doctor, and the hospital in which I was born," said Kincaid. "This certified copy of an original long form document is what anyone who wants to be president should be prepared to produce."Thanks Ernest.
Not all of them, no. They're opinion.
I'm not backing down from it because I never said it. But truth has never been a Birther strong suit.
As you very well know, several terms in the Constitution are not defined in the Constitution itself, that doesn’t mean they are not defined and understood elsewhere and for over 200 years now.
For example?
If today’s US citizens aren’t eligible to be POTUS as the Constitution clearly points out since no one today was around at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, why are you still riding the bandwagon that proclaims that foreign nationals of all people are eligible to be POTUS?
Can you please point out where I ever said foreign nationals are eligible to be president?
No one can be that delusional.
I don't know about that. I've been debating Birthers for some time now.
Your own messiah himself disagrees with your definition of natural born citizen and even that irony flies over your head.
I wasn't aware that Jesus Christ ever expressed an opinion on it.
Agreed.
I don't think use of the military be required to remove his sorry self. Instead they might be called on to protect his ash before trial.
Neither. That's a matter for the civilian authorities.
You haven’t said it in those exact words but you cannot deny the fact that you express it quite strongly on a regular basis in these citizenship threads. Let’s do a quick run down, shall we?
Kenya citizenship: Check.
This is confirmed by Obama’s website.
British citizenship: Check.
This is confirmed by Obama’s website.
Indonesian citizenship: Check.
This is confirmed by his school attendance in Indonesia, attendance that is confirmed by Obama’s books and his school registration form that was obtained by the Associated Press.
US citizenship: DENIED!
Zero evidence that he was born in the US. Zero evidence that he became a naturalized US citizen after moving here from Indonesia.
Natural born US citizenship: DENIED!
Barry’s own website claims he’s a native citizen, not a natural born citizen. Plus he voted YES on the McCain resolution agreeing that a natural born citizen has TWO parents who are US citizens.
Since you vigorously believe that foreign nationals of Kenya, Great Britain and Indonesia are eligible to be POTUS, by default you would have no choice but to believe that citizens of every other country in the world are eligible to be POTUS as well. Like I’ve said, you clearly and INDISPUTABLY believe that every person on this entire planet is eligible to hold the office of POTUS. The question is why and the only logical explanation is that like 100% of Hussein’s supporters, you suffer from a raging case of Constitution Derangement Syndrome.
Seriously, how can you possibly claim he’s a natural born citizen when Soetoro himself is on the public record DENYING he’s natural born? Don’t you see the contradiction and that your entire premise and support of him is based on lies, lies and more lies, lies that are even confirmed by him, the one you’re lying for?
I have no idea if you are a paid brownshirt for the Obamareich or if you spread pro-BHO propaganda on his behalf on a volunteer basis out of loyalty to him but if you are one of the paid ones, they must pay you guys REALLY well for you to come here on a regular basis and make such an abject fool out of yourself.
In close, REAL Americans only accept eligible leaders not foreign nationals plus we reject national socialism a/k/a Nazism so we don’t want anything to do with your beloved Hitler wannabe. Just so you know.
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.