Posted on 03/03/2010 2:11:25 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The Hawaii Department of Health claims to have an original copy of Barack Obama's birth certificate, right?
In fact, it is this established "fact" that has persuaded so many people there is nothing to the question of eligibility.
After all, an official in Hawaii has made a public pronouncement that she has inspected the document and declared on her own authority that Obama is a "natural born American" and thus eligible to serve as president.
For many Americans, that settles the question.
However, now a new version of the story is emerging.
The United Kingdom's Sky News reported Saturday: "Authorities in Hawaii have provided an electronic record of Obama's birth because the paper copy was destroyed in a fire which wiped out much of the state's archives."
Which is it?
Does Hawaii actually have an original long-form, paper birth certificate for Obama, or was it destroyed in a fire?
It seems the story is ever-changing.
And that's why it's time for Obama to come clean.
There is little question the heavily Democratic state of Hawaii has no interest in providing any information that would disqualify the first president claiming to be from that state.
If indeed the state has a copy of the original birth certificate, as Director of Health Dr. Chiyome Fukino claims, it should be no problem for Obama to give her permission to release it publicly – and, once and for all, settle the controversy that has resulted in that state being inundated with inquiries from curious American citizens.
Fukino has released two public statements on this matter.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
At the time of the birth of the future president, Arthur's father was an Irish subject of the United Kingdom of Scottish descent, who naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1843.Chester Arthur was one of five Presidents who was never elected — he took office after James Garfield's assassination and served nearly a full term. ...
At least his father became a U.S. citizen 38 years before Chester Arthur became President.
Apparently you don't know history. This is a link to a legal brief and info on A Hinman, a private investigator, searching for info on Chester Arthur.
New evidence came to light on December 6, 2008 which revealed that the naturalization records for President Chester Arthur's father, William Arthur, had been located in the "Chester A. Arthur Papers" at the Library of Congress. The New York State record proved William Arthur wasn't naturalized as a United States citizen until August 1843, fourteen years after Chester Arthur was born in 1829. The fact of Chester Arthur's having been born a British subject was published for the first time on Dec. 6, 2008 and is therefore an "intervening matter not available at the time of the party's last filing."
The definitive biography of Chester Arthur's life is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves. Since Chester Arthur burned his papers around the time of his death, this biography fills many gaps with interviews of family members and authentic documents such as the Arthur family Bible. "Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819.
He also burned his personal papers near the time he died. Chester Arthur's attempt to obfuscate family history during the 1880 campaign provides context that he believed his birth as a British subject made him ineligible to the office of Vice President.
Apparently you don't know the XII Amendment. It provides in part: no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. No "brief" by a private eye, private dancer, or Private Sadsack, can change the fact that no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Either Arthur was not eligible to be elected Vice President and serve as President, or Birtherism is BS.
Come on. Do it. Claim Arthur was ineligible too. You've got to, or back track, or look like a knucklehead.
And they absolutely DID realize it back then.
Do you know what you're talking about? I have no idea since you are running in circles.
And you obviously didn’t read the link.
It’s obvious that Chester Arthur hid the records and obfuscated the issue so that his father’s citizenship ate the time of Arthur’s birth was unknown. If it was known Arthur would not have been eligible for either office — VPOTUS or POTUS.
As President Arthur appointed two of the eight Justices on the Supreme Court which decided Wong Kim Ark: Associate Justices Horace Gray and Samuel Blatchford. They both sided with the majority.
We're sorry. We meant to say tsunami. The state's records were swept away in a tsunami.
-PJ
Dead people have an expectation of privacy? What other rights to the dead still retain, besides voting?
-PJ
If it had burned, what did Linda Lingle seal?
-PJ
Actually Lingle didn’t seal it. That was a claim by WND. there’s a press release stating it was never sealed.
I dont need a BC to see that this guy is Kenyan trash.
He is an enemy of the United States. 20 years in that chicago church with that anti american venim. That who he is, a total scumbag.
I gave up debating Birthers months ago. Now I just bait them into taking preposterous positions in defense of Birtherism. And here we have you stating that Arthur was not eligible to be President, and people knew it at the time, but they just let him go on and be President anyway because they didn't want to hurt his feelings, or because the giant conspiracy to put Brits into the Presidency of the United States is actually 150 years old, or whatever.
I agree that you have to take that position to be a consistent Birther, but wow. Do you have any idea how preposterous that sounds the non-Birthers? It makes me feel kinda bad for baiting Birthers. Its like shooting ducks over baited ground. At the city park. With a belt fed, full auto, 12 gauge mounted on a pintle. It makes me wonder if you are secretly not Birther, but just trying to make them look ridiculous. Parsy is that you?
No. He’s for real. I have been working with him, trying to help him find the “light.” I only do that kind of stuff when I’m messing up liberal sites....
parsy, who remembers the fun days at DU, goading them on to new heights of insanity...I think maybe they are paying us back...Some of these Birthers HAVE TO BE DU TROLLS—
In the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article containing an interview with Chester Arthur regarding Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880.
This age discrepancy was exposed in the August 19, 1880 edition of the Brooklyn Eagle
I know all about the discrepancy as to the date of his birth. That is a fact. If he was born at the earlier of the two dates, he would have been born in Canada, and would not have been a United States Citizen, much less a native born one. But you ignore the second fact, if he was born in one of the several States, to an American Mother and a British Father, as he claimed, then there was no dispute that he was a natural born citizen.
You are trying, very dishonestly, to twist a dispute about when and where Arthur was born, into a dispute about whether he was eligible to be President if he was telling the truth. According to Birtherism, if both Arthur and Obama did tell the truth, they still can't be President. Unfortunately for Birtherism, Arthur was President. And there was no dispute that he was a natural born citizen, if he was born in one of the several States, to an American Mother and a British Father.
Oh, and while you are at it, how about the 14th Amendment? How does equal protection allow there to be two types of citizens born in the United States, only one of which is eligible to be President? (He said, scattering the corn before the waiting ducks. Hint. It doesn't. So you gotta go whole hog, and declare Obama an illegal alien.)
Bye.
I guess the question is one of "What fire, when and where?" Surely any fire which had such an impact of the archives of a State's vital records would have been covered in the media of the day. The archives containing that imformation would still exist.
But the bottom line is that this is the equivalent of "My dog ate my homework", especially when they said they had the original birth records on file.
So long as you are leaving, here is a project to work on while you are gone. Ask yourself: Why is it Birtherism loses in court, every time? I mean, apart from being factually groundless?
Because you can't a get fair shot at Obama in Court. Only the Senate can remove him from office, and then only if the House of Representatives first impeaches him. United States District Courts can't give advisory opinions, and the can't remove Obama from office, so they can't do squat.
But what about State Courts? They can't remove Obama from office. But they can remove him from the ballot. Of course, you have to have standing to sue to get a guy off the ballot. So if Birthers really want a shot at Obama in Court, they should form a political party.1 Study up on the nominating process, and ballot access process, in different states, then select the 2-3 that where it is easiest to get on the ballot. Get the Birther candidate on the ballot in those states, and:
Presto! Ballot access lawsuit. For once, it won't be Disgruntled Conspiracy Theorist v. President of the United States, but Candidate A v. Candidate B. The parties will be on an equal footing. Since you won't be suing Obama because he is President, he won't even be able to have DOJ lawyers represent him.
Will you win? Of course not. The State Courts will pour you out just like the Federal Courts, and there will be much wailing, and posting of "we wuz robbed." But you will have your day in court, trying a case on the merits, if you follow Pilsner's advice. Which is more than Orly will ever accomplish for Birtherism.
1. Don't call your political party Birther Nation. It has negative connotations.
Of course it’s pure BS.
States do, or did, keep a microfilm or microfiche copy on file. But that is not an electronic copy, although it may be indexed electronically. That is using the state's database, from which the Certification of Live Birth was printed, they can search based on the name, get the file number and the location of the microfilm/fiche, perhaps even mechanically retrieve it. But the image is an analog one on film, not and electronic/digital image. I remember reading some years ago that with the price of storage going down, many states were looking into just digitally storing the image of the original certificate, eliminating the film/fiche and the issues of deterioration inherent in any film technology. There would of course be backups and backups of the backups of the digital image data. It would also eliminate the use of the abstract version, which is what the Certification of Live Birth is, in favor a certificate with all the information on the original. If Hawaii did that, the Obama campaign would not have had a minimal information abstract to release, although they could have released a forgery of the long just as easily.. but with more information, it would be easier to cross check and verify the information.
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.