pageok
pageok
pageok
"Because of the Internet, all points of view can live forever.":
The Chicago Tribune has a story, via Howard, arguing that the Internet is helping to keep alive the very silly rumors that Obama's birth certificate has been forged and that he is ineligible for the presidency:
  This is a different army at work, in an environment increasingly influenced by the Internet.
  "It's only being mentioned by a relative few, by the real die-hard, anti-Obama crowd," said Michael Harrison, editor and publisher of Talkers magazine, the trade bible of the talk-radio industry. "On mainstream talk radio, it's not a big deal right now. I think it's run its course."
  "But," Harrison added, "we live in a time that, because of the Internet, all points of view can live forever."
  I suspect that when we get to the bottom of the Obama birth certificate story, we will learn that Obama's true mother is Bristol Palin. I mean, have you noticed that that there are no photographs available of Bristol Palin in 1961, the year Obama was born? What is the media hiding?
J. Aldridge:
Now just how are we gonna get to the bottom of BO's BC when he will never release it? :-)
12.7.2008 11:39pm
Jerry F:
There is a big difference between the Obama-is-not-a-citizen point of view and the Trig-is-not-Palin's-baby point of view is twofold: even stauch conservative bloggers like Michelle Malkin, Powerline, Little Green Footballs, etc. admit that there is no evidence behind the view that Obama is not a citizen, while prominent liberal bloggers like Andrew Sullivan and the Daily Kos are still as of just last week promoting the Trig-is-not-Palin's-baby story. And that is despite the fact that it would be infinitely easier to fake a birth certificate indeed, the Obama camp certainly has faked multiple things that would have been even harder to do) than to fake an entire pregnancy.
12.7.2008 11:43pm
Jerry F:
Not to mention the fact that if it were in fact that case that Obama had a fake birth certificate, the public would never have known about it because the media would protect their messiah at all costs. By contrast, if it were really the case that Trig wasn't Palin's baby, that would have been the front-page news for the Obamedia for month (surely that would have been a better story than how much Palin spent on her clothing).
12.7.2008 11:46pm
OrinKerr:
Jerry F,

I think there's a difference in the evidence, though. Obama's birth was announced in the local Hawaiii newspaper at the time: While you can fake a birth certificate, I have no idea how you can fake 47 year old birth announcements in a widely distributed paper.
12.7.2008 11:52pm
McGrath (mail):
Jerry F,

This is not snark. What documentation has the Obama camp faked?
12.7.2008 11:53pm
OrinKerr:
BTW, Jerry F, you have written something like a dozen comments here claiming that there is a media conspiracy stopping the media from reporting truthfully on the election to make Obama look good a conspiracy that apparently includes Fox News, National Review, and Rush Limbaugh. We get it: No need to keep up those comments.
12.7.2008 11:54pm
Barry P. (mail):
Orin, you are clearly part of the conspiracy to silence Jerry F's valiant efforts to expose the truth about the million-person media conspiracy.

If only he could convince somebody, anybody in the media to speak up!
12.8.2008 12:03am
OrinKerr:
Barry,

Can I at least be a leading part?
12.8.2008 12:07am
Jay Myers:

Obama's birth was announced in the local Hawaiii newspaper at the time: While you can fake a birth certificate, I have no idea how you can fake 47 year old birth announcements in a widely distributed paper.

I'm not intending to make any claims about where Obama was born but the fact that his birth was announced in a certain paper doesn't mean anything unless it was specifically mentioned as happening at a specific hospital.

My local paper runs birth announcements all the time where the birth happened out of town to a local couple or where the couple is not local but has proud relatives living here.

If Obama isn't a natural born citizen then he should be. Jus soli is silly and we should switch to using jus sanguinis exclusively, with appropriate provisions for the offspring of young mothers like Stanley Dunham.
12.8.2008 12:08am
OrinKerr:
Jay,

See the announcement here, found for you through a tool called Google.
12.8.2008 12:17am
Oren:
On the internet, extraordinary claims require less proof than is commonly accepted at your local courthouse.
12.8.2008 12:23am
Ex-Fed (mail) (www):
Is the internet keeping it alive, or is it keeping it more visibly alive? Before the internet, nutty rumors stayed alive via newsletters and videos sold in the back of underground newspapers and badly copied fliers and by word of mouth at various meetings and by more peripheral radio. Now it's more widely accessible by the internet. The upside of that is that it's also more widely subject to point-by-point refutation. Before the internet, the Obama birth certificate crap would have existed in those other media, like the Clinton-killed-Vince-Foster business, without highly visible refutation. Without the internet, the 9/11 Truthers would still be around, but it's unlikely that a Popular Mechanics would have settled their hash for them.
12.8.2008 12:24am
Steve2:
Jay, why do you say jus soli is "silly"? For that matter, what positives does jus sanguinis have to outweigh being based on something irrelevant to the person in question (and really, to the world at large) - namely, the status of some other person at a point in the past. True, it's kind of silly that jus soli grants citizenship to minors - although jus sanguinis can have the same flaw, and it's not necessarily that the birth citizenship adhere prior to the age of majority, but giving credence to the dead hand of the past the way jus sanguinis does strikes me as far worse than any problem jus soli could have.
12.8.2008 12:29am
Oren:
Also, Orin, I would distinguish between idiosyncratic or otherwise silly points of view (a commenter telling us 16A is unconstitutional) and objectively incorrect factual claims (the COLB on Obama's page is a forgery, Schaivo was not irreparably brain damaged, the FBI specifically conspired to run amok in WACO).
12.8.2008 12:30am
Anonperson (mail):
I would guess that the reason Obama has not produced the original is that it is lost. Or, is it possible that the original has some medical information that he would consider embarrassing to his mother's memory? Either way, does anyone really think the State of Hawaii is part of this conspiracy? How else to reconcile belief that he was not born in Hawaii with the fact that the state has publicly confirmed that he was born in Hawaii?
12.8.2008 12:48am
Jerry F:
Orin: I do not believe that there is a media "conspiracy" of any sort; the mainstream media consistently ignores anything that would put Obama in a bad light, but this is not a "conspiracy" in that I don't think that leaders of the NYT, Washington Post, etc. meet in dark rooms to discuss how they will go about their agenda.

And, of course Rush Limbaugh, the National Review and Fox News want to see information that would harm Obama come to light. But Rush Limbaugh and the National Review (like conservative bloggers) do not have hundreds of investigative reporters working for them to uncover information. Fox News has done a great job uncovering lots of information on Obama throughout the campaign (causing even the likes of the NYT to "report" on Ayers), but again, Fox News is just one station, and they do not have nearly as many investigative reporters as all other news stations and newspapers combined, so their capability to find out information is necessarily limited as a result.

I agree that if there was validity to the Obama-is-not-a-citizen view, it would probably have been endorsed by Hannity, Limbaugh and NR, which is why I don't think that there is much validity to that view.

In any case, I apologize if my comments are somewhat repetitive; it's not that I make a point of repeating the same comment over and over again, just that the media consensus against reporting news accurately happens to illuminate the way I think about various different issues.
12.8.2008 12:51am
Barry P. (mail):
Here's a question one of you lawyer times might be able to answer for me.

Any person born on US soil is considered a citizen, as long as they're not born to foreign diplomats. Furthermore, all US citizens have to file tax returns.

So if a (for example) Bolivian woman gave birth to a son while on holiday in the US, and then returned home a few days later with her child, would that child be required to file US tax returns? If he decided to visit the US as a tourist 40 years later, could he be arrested and charged with tax evasion? What about if he decided, at age 40, to reside here, as is his birthright? Would he have to perform retroactive filing and payment, or would he get to start from scratch with the IRS from his date of return?
12.8.2008 12:59am
Barry P. (mail):
but this is not a "conspiracy" in that I don't think that leaders of the NYT, Washington Post, etc. meet in dark rooms to discuss how they will go about their agenda.

Ah, the unnconscious conspiracy. Even more dangerous and insidiuous than the conscious type, because it's existence is even more impossible to prove.
12.8.2008 1:05am
Laura S.:
Orin, I laughed, good post.

Personally, I think these rumors stand not because of the internet but because of the "give not an inch" culture that arose during the campaign. For instance, we heard for months that anyone who said Obama's middle name is Hussein was a lying racist for saying so. I think that was even on fightthesmears for a while---except of course that is his middle name.

When your opponent is refusing to even acknowledge when you're right, why would trust him on anything?
12.8.2008 1:05am
Cornellian (mail):
So if a (for example) Bolivian woman gave birth to a son while on holiday in the US, and then returned home a few days later with her child, would that child be required to file US tax returns? If he decided to visit the US as a tourist 40 years later, could he be arrested and charged with tax evasion? What about if he decided, at age 40, to reside here, as is his birthright? Would he have to perform retroactive filing and payment, or would he get to start from scratch with the IRS from his date of return?

Yes he is obligated to file US tax returns. However, there's often a big foreign earned income exclusion so it's quite possible he wouldn't be liable for any taxes, given the amount of money he's likely to be earning in Bolivia. Hard to believe the government would bother going after him if he didn't actually owe anything. If he is liable to pay US taxes and doesn't, well we know how well an "ignorance of the law" defense generally works out.
12.8.2008 1:10am
theobromophile (www):
Isn't the internet some of the problem with the birth certificate? Had it been given to, say, Bill O'Reilly and a few experts for examination, this entire thing would be behind us. Then a political opponent and his experts could examine the hard copy, determine that it's real, and announce that news to their audience. Since it's published on the internet, though, everyone wonders if it's real.
12.8.2008 1:14am
Asher (mail):
Since it's published on the internet, though, everyone wonders if it's real.

Everyone?
12.8.2008 1:34am
Stormy Dragon (mail) (www):
I suspect that when we get to the bottom of the Obama birth certificate story


When? I'm pretty sure we reached bottom on that story months ago.
12.8.2008 1:41am
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Cornellian:

Yes he is obligated to file US tax returns. However, there's often a big foreign earned income exclusion so it's quite possible he wouldn't be liable for any taxes, given the amount of money he's likely to be earning in Bolivia. Hard to believe the government would bother going after him if he didn't actually owe anything. If he is liable to pay US taxes and doesn't, well we know how well an "ignorance of the law" defense generally works out.


I would add that there are often treaties which govern taxes of dual citizens, though I don't know if we have one with Bolivia.

For example, a dual US/Canadian citizen ends up paying taxes (if I read the treaty correctly, IANAL) on income based on where it was earned. This can lead to a few gray areas that can lead to double taxation but the goal of these treaties is to eliminate double taxation on dual citizens. (Hence it isn't *quite* true that the US doesn't recognize dual citizenship, at least for the purpose of tax law.)
12.8.2008 2:08am
Malvolio:
I suspect that when we get to the bottom of the Obama birth certificate story, we will learn that Obama's true mother is Bristol Palin.
It's too bad that the Volokh Conspiracy is such a dignified, scholarly blog, I don't feel comfortable posting something like:

WIN! I award Orin +1 Intertubes!

but I wish that I could.
12.8.2008 2:08am
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Theobromophile:

It doesn't work that way. You can't just give the original to political enemies. Instead what would need to happen would be a certified copy with chain of custody would need to be given to an independent panel (or at least a trusted panel).

Of course...... Berg v. Obama is just a fishing expedition, so there is no reason to think that will ever happen.
12.8.2008 2:10am
LM (mail):
theo and einhverfr,

It doesn't matter. Disclaimers by persons presumably sympathetic to the conspiracy theorists debunk nothing. They just broaden the conspiracy to include the lying traitors. Essentially that's the response I've gotten when I've told Truthers on the left* that Noam Chomsky considers the 9/11 conspiracies nonsense.

(*Yes, Truthers span the left-right divide, proving that bi-partisanship can work with the proper inspirational message. Kumbaya!)

My personal theory is that Popular Mechanics is hiding Obama's Kenyan birth certificate.
12.8.2008 2:20am
whit:

offspring of young mothers like Stanley Dunham


name the grammatical quirk...
12.8.2008 2:51am
whit:

My personal theory is that Popular Mechanics is hiding Obama's Kenyan birth certificate.



popular mechanics? that's impossible. they are owned by the neocons. their articles debunking the 911 truthers is proof enough of that
12.8.2008 2:52am
Brian K (mail):
You guys want to know the real reason why barack hussein obama hasn't released his birth certificate? it's because he can't! he doesn't have it...i do.

In a daring bit of espionage i snuck into a top secret russian compound using my excellent agility and some codes i got after sleeping with many beautiful women and stole his birth certificate. i then came up with this sneaky plot to make it look like he was born in kenya. and to cover my tracks i set up a ruse to make it look he was pretending to be born in hawaii. of course this all necessitated sleeping with many more beautiful women* and feats of strength that no ordinary mortal can match. yes, this means that obama really is a muslim commie that was planted by portugal conspiring with the russians and australians. and now you know the truth!

(i hear the next bond movie is going to be an adaptation of this daring feat...too bad the actor can't match my dashingly good looks)

*i also cured HIV and all STDs in the process
12.8.2008 3:04am
LM (mail):
whit,

popular mechanics? that's impossible. they are owned by the neocons. their articles debunking the 911 truthers is proof enough of that

What a naif. You think that by applying so-called "logic" to so-called "facts" you're going to get a so-called "answer?" Think bigger. When things don't add up, don't waste your time looking for mistakes. That's exactly what they want you to do. Just keep adding.

And remember the conspiracy's always bigger than you think it is. Never smaller.
12.8.2008 5:22am
LM (mail):
Brian K,

i also cured HIV and all STDs in the process

Since you must know that HIV has nothing to do with AIDS, this can only be another attempt to distract from the real question: When is the mainstream media going to report the truth about Barack Obama's history as a murderous, homosexual drug-dealer?

I especially love the poll at the right hand side of the page:

Does obama have knowledge of Donald Young’s murder?

(1) Yes 87%
(2) No 9%
(3) Not sure 4%"

I have a pretty good idea who the "yes" voters are and who the "no" voters are. But who the heck is "not sure?"
12.8.2008 5:27am
LM (mail):
Jerry F:

I agree that if there was validity to the Obama-is-not-a-citizen view, it would probably have been endorsed by Hannity, Limbaugh and NR, which is why I don't think that there is much validity to that view.

Well, some commenters on Hannity's blog believe it. I'm sure Orin will confirm from his own blogging experience that that's pretty much conclusive proof Hannity believes it too.
12.8.2008 5:39am
John Herbison (mail):
"What is the media hiding?"

I don't know--what is they hiding?

One of the few grammatically correct ways to say "the media is . . ." would be that "'the media' is the plural of 'a medium'."
12.8.2008 5:41am
Truth-seeker:
You are missing the obvious: there is no birth certificate for Barack Obama. He is not human. Not only was he not born in the United States, he was not even born on Earth.
12.8.2008 6:01am
Vermando (mail) (www):
Bless you professor. I do love the symmetry between these stories.

And truth-seeker may have won the thread with that last beauty.
12.8.2008 6:54am
1Ler:
It's so nice to see the parallel lunacy pointed out... each side thinks the other is crazy for believing something so preposterous, but thinks his own case is totally different. Sullivan degrades himself with this business; I tend to think that he wouldn't want to classify himself with the WSJ Law Blog nutcases commenters.
12.8.2008 7:08am
pluribus:
Jerry F:

I agree that if there was validity to the Obama-is-not-a-citizen view, it would probably have been endorsed by Hannity, Limbaugh and NR, which is why I don't think that there is much validity to that view.

Now why didn't I think of that? If you have questions about a controversial issue in the news, just consult Hannity, Limbaugh and NR for the correct answer. It's like going to the Oracle. So simple.
12.8.2008 7:25am
Arkady:
Well, I went to an anagram generator and put in 'barack hussein obama' and got upwards of 50,000 possibles. But the 666th (!!) is the one that is of supreme interest to the future of our Republic:


A Cabanas Bike Rho Mus


1. We know the cabana was invented in Cuba.
2. 'bike' spelled backwards in 'ekib' and is Prof. Kerr's Illuminati name.
3. rho is the 17th letter of the Greek alphabet; 17 is the seventh prime number; Mose Allison's Seventh Son contains the lyric "I'm the One".
4. Mus needs no explanation.

Obama was born of Cuban parents in some Muslim country. Prof. Kerr knows this to be true.
12.8.2008 7:44am
PersonFromPorlock:
It isn't 'the internet' prolonging the controversy, it's Obama's refusal to release the birth certificate. He does that and the whole thing goes away.

I have trouble believing there's anything to the issue, or that if there is it's so big it can't be finessed away; but Obama's intransigence is peculiar.
12.8.2008 7:49am
Snaphappy:
Person:

It's not intransigence to ignore a non-issue that nobody but the lunatic fringe thinks has even a shred of validity. If you want irrefutable proof that "releasing the birth certificate" would not make anything go away, look to the comments of bromophile and einhverfr:


Had it been given to, say, Bill O'Reilly and a few experts for examination, this entire thing would be behind us.




You can't just give the original to political enemies. Instead what would need to happen would be a certified copy with chain of custody would need to be given to an independent panel (or at least a trusted panel).


It's easy to see where it goes from there. Members of the panel aren't truly "independent.": They have ties to a democratic fundraiser, or lived in Tim McVeigh's neiborhood, or watched a Jane Fonda movie, etc.

Any attempt to end the "controversy" simply creates more opportunities for further "controversy."
12.8.2008 8:35am
smitty1e:
There is a great opportunity here: those on the Right can trade the birth certificate slanders to the Left, in exchange for the "Bush stole elections" slanders.
12.8.2008 8:37am
Happyshooter:
The problem is that a good chunk of the public, usually the most well read, knows that the media will conspire to hide bad things about presidental hopefuls they like.

Kennedy screwed anything wearing a skirt? The press ran extra 'great marriage with Jackie' stories to cover.

Clinton screwed anything in a skirt, whether the girl wanted to or not? The press covered by running 'power couple' stories until a federal ind pro uncovered a fairly serious justice related story and then they were shocked--shocked--at what was going on.

FDR couldn't stand up? The press spent years shooting photos and newsreels to look like he was a-ok.
12.8.2008 8:54am
scattergood:
There are actually many issues and claims regarding Obama's eligibility for President.

1) Donofrio v Wells claims that 'natural born citizen', according to the framers and in US Immigration law means a person born of two US citizens, born on US soil. According to his suit Obama, Obama, McCain, AND the Socialist Colero are all not natural born citizen. Interestingly, Colero WAS thrown off some of the state ballots that he appeared but not all, even though he was born in Nicauagra.

2) Berg v Obama, and related suits, claim that Obama is not a natural born citizen because they assert that he wasn't born in Hawaii. These suits claim that the Certification of Live Birth can be faked and thus the original Certificate of Live Birth must be released. There is a 100+ page report on how the Certification of Live Birth that Obama has posted is a fake, here .

3) There are actually 2 bigger issues, IMO. Firstly, Hawaii doesn't accept the Certification of Live Birth for some government programs and requires either the Certificate of Live Birth or 'additional checking'. This can be seen on their own website for the Hawaiian Home Lands program, here. So while we have a Certification of Live Birth released by the state of Hawaii as the only certified documentation of Obama's birth location, the state of Hawaii doubts the veracity of the information on the document and won't accept it for some of their own programs.

4) Also, there seems to be an extremely uneven process of review on natural born citizen status. Colero was thrown off some ballots, but not all. The Sec of State in most states say they have no authority or ability to even reveiw the status of candidates and that it is up to the party to vet them. Further the courts seem to think there is no harm done if an inelligble candidate is placed on the ballot or even elected, and that citizens have no right of redress to the courts on the Constitutional requirements for POTUS. Well, who is responsible for vetting the qualifications of a candidate? Who does have the right of redress with the courts?

5) The birth announcement is also not proof of Obama's birth in Hawaii for two reasons. Firstly, a person can simply pay for such announcements. Secondly, if you think that only a birth registered with the appropriate govt. agency will create an announcement, Hawaii allows for the registration of foreign born children. A description of this law can be found here.

I am sure that people on this thread will start the name calling and ad homonim attacks, but the truth remains the same. All we have seen is a scan and a photo taken of a document that, even if it were an unaltered copy of an original state document, isn't accepted by the issuing state for some of its programs because they doubt the veracity of the information on it.

Because of that, some of us want Obama to release the document that the state of Hawaii does accept for its own programs, the Certificate of Live Birth, and we want the courts and Sec of State in many states to acknowledge that confirming the eligiblity of a candidate is a worthwhile endeavor since it is in the Constitution. To some of us, the Constitution doesn't have elegibility SUGGESTIONS, it has elegibility REQUIREMENTS.

If such documents were released, then many of us would be more than happy to be wrong in our suspicions that Obama may not have been born in Hawaii. But to say that these suspicions are unfounded and that we are tin foil hat wearing nutters for having them shows a narrow-minded virulent orthodoxy on the side of the other side.
12.8.2008 9:09am
JB:
It is worth pointing out that the era in which most people did not get their news from a biased medium of their choice was quite short. Before WWII, multiple, competing newspapers in most cities each spouted their own political views and advocated them with yellow journalism. Choosing which to read was substantially similar to choosing which blogs to read and which news channel to watch. The Chicago Tribune acted as Fox News to a wide area of the Midwest, which voted together, and the suspicions they held of the East Coast Elites make Sarah Palin look like John Kerry.

The internet has allowed us to return to those days.

Remember the Maine!
12.8.2008 9:13am
wm13:
Further to what some of the commentators have said, it is worth noting that the "Obama was not born in the U.S." story is and always has been pretty much underground, whereas the "Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy" story is being pushed by, inter alia, a columnist for The Atlantic. Even if there were no internet, the wacko anti-Republican story would be seeing the light of day and would be preserved forever (you can go read 100 year old issues of The Atlantic at the public library), whereas the wacko anti-Democrat story would not.
12.8.2008 9:15am
PersonFromPorlock:
Snaphappy:

True, it's hard to keep a good conspiracy theory down; but not doing something as basic and cheap as releasing a birth certificate to the general public, instead of expensively going to court, can only fuel speculation.

Besides, a court battle, even if won by Obama, won't convince the diehard believers either.
12.8.2008 9:26am
oledrunk3 (mail):
IANAL. Who has custody of Obama's birth certificate? Is it not the State of Hawaii? Does he have the authority to see the original?
12.8.2008 9:29am
Arkady:
Sigh.


"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record," [Hawaii Department of Health] Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said.

Fukino said she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have 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," Fukino said.


Nothing will ever satisfy the tin foil hat wearing nutters. Of course I'm narrow-minded.
12.8.2008 9:36am
R Nebblesworth:
Or, maybe he doesn't feel obligated to release it just because a couple of crypto-racist internet cranks questioned his citizenship.
12.8.2008 9:41am
R Nebblesworth:
Arkady, it doesn't matter what the state says, they're part of the conspiracy.

OR

AHA! but they didn't actually say WHAT the certificate says, did they! That's because it says "Born in Kenya", which is why Hawaii has it and not Kenya!
12.8.2008 9:43am
R Nebblesworth:
The birth announcement is also not proof of Obama's birth in Hawaii for two reasons. Firstly, a person can simply pay for such announcements.

Do you have any idea how crazy this sounds? Yes, Obama's parents (or grandparents, maybe both) predicted before he was born that he would have political ambitions, so they bribed the newspaper into printing his birth announcement! Curse those wiley furr'nrs!
12.8.2008 9:46am
Happyshooter:
True, it's hard to keep a good conspiracy theory down; but not doing something as basic and cheap as releasing a birth certificate to the general public, instead of expensively going to court, can only fuel speculation.

Obama is smart as heck, or has a really smart inner circle. By playing hide the paper on a non-story he keeps it going until it dies next year.

Meanwhile, there is no time or effort to report the actual issue, which is that all his friends and mentors are terrorists, murderers, and organized crime figures.

With all the issues Clinton had on an investment, what fun could an actual active media have with "Mr President, how did you come to own your home?"
12.8.2008 10:07am
scattergood:

Do you have any idea how crazy this sounds? Yes, Obama's parents (or grandparents, maybe both) predicted before he was born that he would have political ambitions, so they bribed the newspaper into printing his birth announcement! Curse those wiley furr'nrs!



You can read in any motivation for Obama's parents or grandparents you want. I have not stated any motivation on their part. Maybe they were just happy that their daughter had a child and wanted to announce it? Maybe it was pure joy on their part? Why would a grandparent announcing the birth of their grandchild be anything other than that?
12.8.2008 10:16am
Potted Plant (mail):
Obama doesn't respond to these conspiracy theories because, politically, it helps him to have a bunch of crazy people claiming that he wasn't really born in Hawaii.
12.8.2008 10:18am
Sarcastro (www):
These conspiracy theories are planted by Obama and the MSM-Internet cabal as a smokescreen to hide some even more shocking truth from us!
12.8.2008 10:20am
scattergood:

"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record," [Hawaii Department of Health] Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said.

Fukino said she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have 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," Fukino said.



Nothing will ever satisfy the tin foil hat wearing nutters. Of course I'm narrow-minded.


Well, since you admit you are narrow-minded...:)

Can you please describe to us how the above statement would be any different for a Certificate of Live Birth registered for a foreign born child? Or for a Certificate of Delayed Birth? Both of which are perfetly valid Certificates under Hawaiian law.

Hawaii has some unusual birth registration laws, which happen to exist whether you do or don't believe them to exist. The reason why you are narrow-minded is that I at least have stated what would satisfy me, the original, long form Certificate of Birth.

An ambigous statement, that has no real meaning doesn't satisfy the issue.
12.8.2008 10:25am
Snaphappy:

According to his suit Obama, Obama, McCain, AND the Socialist Colero are all not natural born citizen.


So not only Obama, but also Obama? I had no idea the conspiracy ran so deep.
12.8.2008 10:31am
scattergood:

So not only Obama, but also Obama? I had no idea the conspiracy ran so deep.



Typo's do not change the facts and issues being dealt with.
12.8.2008 10:37am
Sarcastro (www):
The Internets are fun!

Republicans saw Democrats having all their angry fun with "Selected not elected" and wanted to get in on that action.

Lucky for them, only 8 years later and they get their chance!

Initially, yelling about ACORN seemed to work, but in the end election fraud didn't work too well in the face of such a large victory margin.

But the BC resonates with the "Obama is an outsider" meme AND allows Republicans to enjoy their own "dissent is patriotic" "Resident in chief" wagon of fun!
12.8.2008 10:51am
Elliot123 (mail):
In a bygone day, some hand-wringer probably said, "we live in a time that, because of the libraries, all points of view can live forever."
12.8.2008 10:58am
Sarcastro (www):
Elliot123 if you ask me, it's stone tablets really do live forever!
12.8.2008 11:02am
cathyf:
I have a question which perhaps some lawyer here might shed some light on:

I have been told (by several adoptive parents of my acquaintence, not family law practitioners) that when a child is adopted his/her original birth certificate is erased from government records and a new, "legal fiction", document is created. For example, a couple I knew took in a pregnant teenager when the teenager's parents threw her out of the house, then adopted the girl. The 33-yr-old mother and 17-yr-old daughter got a good chuckle out of the fact that according to the daughter's new legal birth certificate, her mother had been 16 when she was born. The story was that there was no indication that the birth certificate was reporting a legal fiction, no distinction between childbirth and adoption.

So, anyway, is there anyone here with the requisite family-law knowledge that can tell us what the story would be if Soetero legally adopted Barry when he married Barry's mother? If the adoption was formal and legal and went through Hawaiian courts in 1967, would there exist an official Hawaiian birth certificate of the guy we just elected president which has Barack Hussein Obama on it as the father? Which has Barack Hussein Obama on it as the name of the person who was born?

I go by a nickname, and I changed my last name when I married (like a gazillion other adult women), so I obviously can't produce a birth certificate with my current name on it. I can (and occasionally have had to) produce proof of citizenship through multiple documents (a key one being the passport which shows my maiden name and then is amended to show my married name.) Anyone who has dealt with real-life bureacratic requirements knows of perfectly legitimate reasons why the requisite records might not exist that would prove something or other, or why the records would get kind of convoluted.

Obama's history is a bit sketchy (odd for someone who already has two autobiographies!) but a couple of things stand out: when Obama returned to Hawaii from Indonesia his mother and stepfather separated and his stepfather took a second wife. Under Indonesian law, if Obama was legally adopted, then Lolo Soetero had sole and complete custody over both Barack and his sister Maya, and he could have prevented Barack from having any contact with his mother and/or her family. There is no evidence that Soetero in any way objected to or tried to interfere with Barack returning to Hawaii to live with the Dunhams, but if he had, then legally things would have gotten pretty dicey.

There has been a certain speculation that Obama returned to Hawaii in 1972 and simply resumed his pre-Soetero identity without taking any legal action to undo any adoption. That he used his original 1961 birth certificate (he describes looking at it in his autobiography) to register for school, apply for a social security number, get his first drivers license, passport, etc. This would, of course, be fraud -- if the original 1961 birth certificate had been nullified by a 1967 adoption, then it would be identity theft and fraud to start using it again in 1972 without taking legal measures to reverse the adoption and return to the previous identity. But everyone may have seen attempting to nullify the adoption as being needlessly provocative. After all, Lolo was being such a good sport about letting Barack return to Hawaii and keeping a cordial relationship with his senior wife and daughter. As we all have experienced, once you have official identification, you basically "bootstrap" your identity from that. Michelle Obama recently made some rather cryptic remarks that the people bringing up the birth certificate question are persecuting her husband for being adopted.

So, anyway, my whole interest in the question is that I find it an intriguing mystery: why would Obama spend north of a million dollars on legal fees resisting the moves to force him to produce his official birth certificate when it would be so simple and cheap for him to do so? So one thing that I speculate is that his birth certificate says that his name is Barry Soetero and that his father is Lolo Soetero. Can anyone with knowledge of family-law procedures tell us that's what Obama's birth certificate would say if my speculation about a 1967 adoption is true? OK I'm still perplexed -- would it really be worth all that money to hide the fact that Soetero adopted him? What else could be there? I mean other than the nutcase theory that the birth certificate says he was born outside the US (I'm sorry, I simply cannot believe that Obama would provoke a constitutional crisis by running for president if he knew that he was ineligible.)
12.8.2008 11:41am
Assistant Village Idiot (mail) (www):
cathyf - "why would Obama spend north of a million dollars on legal fees resisting the moves..."
He hasn't. That's where you're going wrong.

I happily recall a cartoon I saw years ago, of an older couple sitting in beach chairs watching the sunset. He says "I've come full circle. Things are what they seem."
12.8.2008 12:22pm
Milhouse (www):

(I'm sorry, I simply cannot believe that Obama would provoke a constitutional crisis by running for president if he knew that he was ineligible.)

Why do you believe that? I mean, that has to be about the most nonsensical thing I've heard said about this whole affair, on either side? If he were not born in the USA, why exactly would he refrain from running for president, since it appears that it's so easy to get away with? If, as it appears, a candidate, even a winning candidate, does not have to present any sort of proof of eligibility to anyone, ever, how can a constitutional crisis be provoked?

Seriously, suppose Schwartzenegger were simply to brazenly announce his candidacy for the presidency, what could stop him? Or what could stop some 30-year-old whom nobody knows from simply claiming to be 35, if he never has to prove it?

As for Obama's specific case, I find it very difficult to believe that he was not born in Hawaii, but the fact is that he has not presented any evidence for it. The copy of the extract that he posted on the web shows signs of manipulation, and the only people who claim to have seen the original are his friends at the Annenberg Political Fact Check. I don't see why anyone should feel obliged to take their word for it, any more than we need to take the word of the three carefully chosen journalists to whom Kerry claims to have released his military records.

The Hawaiian officials' recent announcement is also insufficient. First, if I were in a legal dispute with any one of you, and instead of presenting a document I got some Hawaiian state official to say that the document exists, you would not accept it, and you'd wonder why I didn't just release the document, or better still authorise you to get a copy direct from the state. Second, their announcement seems curiously worded - they confirm that a birth certificate exists, but not what's on it. As scattergood asks, how is that any sort of proof of his birth in Hawaii, since we know that state does hold birth certificates for at least some people not born there?
12.8.2008 12:31pm
Johnny Canuck (mail):
CathyF: The Certification of Live Birth (which you can see by going to Factcheck.org) issued by Hawaii lists place of birth as Honolulu, and his birth parents. This is the document that Hawaii would issue if you were applying for a passport. Since it shows the original birth parents, is not the logical conclusion that he was never adopted, as far as Hawaii is concerned, or if he was, it was nullified in some manner acceptable to Hawaii. All of your speculation might have some significance if this document didn't exist, hadn't been seen, hadn't been attested to by Hawaii government officials.

Millhouse: the govt of hawaii issued the Certification of Live Birth, it lists the relevant information, which they would extract from his original birth certificate. When people doubted, they have taken the extraordinary step of having top department official look at the original and confirm that they indeed have possession of it.
While the state may hold birth certificates for some people who were not born there- why would they issue a document that states he was born in Honolulu?
12.8.2008 12:44pm
some dude:

Since it shows the original birth parents, is not the logical conclusion that he was never adopted, as far as Hawaii is concerned, or if he was, it was nullified in some manner acceptable to Hawaii.
Johnny Canuck



I did not think we were dealing with "logical conclusions" here. I thought we were dealing with the law. Is the issuance of a certification of live birth with his birth parents' names conclusive legal evidence he was never adopted? Or is the certification simply the end result of his improperly using old (superceded) documentation (his '61 certificate of birth) for decades?
12.8.2008 12:57pm
cathyf:
Just kind of a side question... There are tens of thousands of foreign adoptions by US citizens. A child adopted by US parents becomes a citizen at the finalization of the adoption. I'm curious -- do those Americans count as "natural-born" for the purposes to the constitutional test, or are they "naturalized"? I always just assumed that they were "naturalized" (like Ah-nahld...) but now I see it's not so clear.
12.8.2008 1:12pm
Johnny Canuck (mail):
some dude: If the issue is, was he born in Hawaii, yes, Certification is conclusive evidence. says nothing about adoption in some other jurisdiction, but I think eliminates the theory that not producing the original birth certificate relates to some Hawaii adoption that caused original birth certificate to be amended.
12.8.2008 1:15pm
Happyshooter:
I have been told (by several adoptive parents of my acquaintence, not family law practitioners) that when a child is adopted his/her original birth certificate is erased from government records and a new, "legal fiction", document is created.

State Law controls what legal effect the adoption has as to vital documents.

In Michigan, the first birth certificate is sealed. The state officer in charge then issues a new certificate showing him as the 'reporter' (doctor) and with the new name of the child and adoptive parents. (Some have the court clerk shown instead, but I haven't seen many) The old cert is only indexed in the secret safe in a different department (DHS vs community health), and the court records of the adoption are also held in a different record area without index to the main dockets.

There is a legal method to get data, involving an ombuds, in case where something like a transplant is needed, but the whole thing is fairly hard.

Every few years different groups try to get things opened up, for lots of different reasons, and for adoptions of children after 1980 unless the birth parent asked that no info be disclosed, once the child turns 18 they can have their file opened. Prior to that date both the birth parent and child must request disclosure in order to get information.

Anyway, in Michigan people in the know would be able to tell that someone is adopted off the certificate, only if they knew that the reporter was the guy in charge that year and what that fact means.
12.8.2008 1:18pm
Johnny Canuck (mail):
Some dude: have not heard of an adoption theory that had his mother, an American citizen, who during the relevant time was resident in US, put Obama up for adoption. Whether or not stepfather legally adopted him is surely irrelevant for whether he was natural born American.
12.8.2008 1:22pm
Loren:
Can you please describe to us how the above statement would be any different for a Certificate of Live Birth registered for a foreign born child? Or for a Certificate of Delayed Birth? Both of which are perfetly valid Certificates under Hawaiian law.


But wouldn't both such Certificates identify a foreign birthplace for the child? The Certification of Live Birth clearly states, twice, that Obama was born in Honolulu. Where else do you propose the Certification got that information, other than from the Certificate?

Also, Hawaii's short-form Certification of Live Birth is acceptable to the U.S. State Department for purposes of proving one's place of birth. If it's OK for the federal government (and the Presidency is, after all, a federal office), why bring Hawaii's State Department into it at all?

Finally, if you think the Certification, and the newspaper announcement, and the Hawaiian DOH Director's testimony, and the sister's testimony, and the Kenyan grandmother's testimony, etc. are all wrong, and Obama was NOT born in Hawaii, what then is your alternative hypothesis? What proposed place of birth do you think actually has *fewer* logical holes than the mere lack of a hospital-issued Certificate?
12.8.2008 1:25pm
Elliot123 (mail):
Perhaps Dan Rather and Mary Mapes can ferret out the birth certificate.
12.8.2008 1:45pm
some dude:

Johnny Canuck:
Some dude: have not heard of an adoption theory that had his mother, an American citizen, who during the relevant time was resident in US, put Obama up for adoption. Whether or not stepfather legally adopted him is surely irrelevant for whether he was natural born American.



As I understand it, there are several questions with murky answers. The adoption thing would put into question if he is a valid US citizen at all, having lost his citizenship and never took steps to get it back.

Also, if the Certification is conclusive evidence, why does Hawaii not accept it for some things? The president has a lower threshold than anyone else?
12.8.2008 1:47pm
ShelbyC:
@John Herbison --

Yeah, If you're speakin' Latin! For those of us speakin' English, it's common to use "media" as singular.
12.8.2008 2:08pm
liamascorcaigh (mail) (www):
I am constantly puzzled by the snarkiness shown by people who believe Obama was born in Hawaii towards those who are skeptical. What drives the skepticism is BHO's refusal to release his long-form Birth Certificate. In fact he fights court cases to avoid doing so with all the attendant aggravation and expense.

Why?

Why not release it and end the whole controversy? This is a very reasonable request. To refuse to comply is on its face quite odd.

Nobody who derides the skeptics can provide an answer to that simple question.

Furthermore the skeptics are not pusing some crazy conspiracy theory. They're merely suggesting that BHO's refusal of such a simple request (with which we've all had to comply at some time or other in our lives) is suggestive of deliberate concealment.

I find it astonishing that a blog by lawyers for lawyers about the law goes out of its way to deride the skeptics' doubts when in any legal proceedings any lawyer would surely begin to have doubts if his client started to behave as BHO does concerning such a straightforward issue as the production of a Birth Certificate.

Note also that the skeptics are not proposing something inherently outlandish or absurd. They're merely pointing out that in the light of Obama's refusal it is a logical inference that perhaps he was not born in the US. This is quite a reasoable sane theory. John McCain for instance was not born in the USA. Nobody regards this as intrinsically ridiculous or incredible. After all of the 6,000,000,000 humans alive today the overwhelming majority were born outside the US. There is nothing absurd or risible about advancing the proposition that Barak Obama may be numbered among this vast multitude.
12.8.2008 2:17pm
cathyf:
The adoption thing would put into question if he is a valid US citizen at all, having lost his citizenship and never took steps to get it back
That's not the only issue the adoption would bring up. If Obama was adopted legally in 1967, and the official birth certificate in Hawaii ever since then says that he was born in Honolulu and his father was Lolo Soetero, then that means that

1) he has no eligibility problem at all as far as the natural-born citizen rule; but

2) The campaign has released two documents that are supposed to be modern (laser-printed) Hawaiian certifications that the state of Hawaii shows the name of his father as Barack Obama from Africa. If in fact the official Hawaii record shows Lolo Soetero of Indonesia as his (adoptive) father, then his campaign trafficked in forgeries.

But, of course, that's only true if in fact the Hawaiian records show Soetero as his father. I'm speculating that might be it because of Michele Obama's comment that this was about Obama being adopted. Of course to anyone who has read Dreams and/or other official Obama biographical material, it is no secret that Soetero was Obama's father in Indonesia for a 1/2-dozen years four decades ago; whether formally or informally is trivia. The only thing about the adoption that could possibly have any modern relevance is if the campaign used forged documents to "prove" Obama's place of birth. If they are forgeries then they are forgeries, even if the most important information on them happens to be true.

(There is, of course, a different, even simpler, variation. It's possible that the official Hawaiian records have some truly trivial error on them -- something mispelled, etc. That would be consistent with the old "it's the cover up" problem. Because it would prove definitively that the campaign used fake documents.)
12.8.2008 2:24pm
Oren:


Nobody who derides the skeptics can provide an answer to that simple question.

Because the President of the United States is not obligated to answer any of these absurd complaints. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but instead we are given speculation and conjecture. The proponents of these various ineligibility theories are so far from meeting their burden of proof that it doesn't merit any response.
12.8.2008 2:37pm
cathyf:
So, Oren thinks it is "absurd" to pay attention to the Constitution? Just the "natural-born citizen" requirement, or do you think there are other things which it is "absurd" to care about? If there are other constitutional requirements that you think are "absurd" to follow, just what would those be?
12.8.2008 2:47pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"Because the President of the United States is not obligated to answer any of these absurd complaints. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but instead we are given speculation and conjecture. The proponents of these various ineligibility theories are so far from meeting their burden of proof that it doesn't merit any response."

There are a host of things the President of the United States is not obligated to answer. So what? I don't care what he does with his BC, but I presume there are better reasons for withholding it than lack of obligation.

"Evidence" and "burdens of proof" have little to do with politics and political discourse. This isn't a oourtroom.

Can you imagine the news conference?

"Sorry, Jim, I'm not obligated to answer that question."

"Well, Sally, you haven't met the burden of proof, so your question doesn't merit a response."

"Unfortunately, Dan, lacking extraordinary evidence, I have to remind you I am under no obligation to address that speculation and conjecture."

"Next question.. yes back there on the left..."

"Uhh, no, uhh, I, uhh, uhh... I mean, uuh... I feel no... uuh, obligation to divulge how our dog likes his new... uuh, surroundings. Unless you can offer some, uuh, some.... uuh... extraordinary evidence, I decline to answer speculation and conjecture about his... uuh territorial behavior toward either.. uuh, well... uh... Rom or the oval office carpet."
12.8.2008 3:23pm
dr:

They're merely pointing out that in the light of Obama's refusal it is a logical inference that perhaps he was not born in the US. This is quite a reasoable sane theory... After all of the 6,000,000,000 humans alive today the overwhelming majority were born outside the US. There is nothing absurd or risible about advancing the proposition that Barak Obama may be numbered among this vast multitude.


Likewise George Bush. And Clinton and Reagan and every president, um, ever. Entirely possible that we've never had a president who WAS born in the U.S., because I haven't seen any of those people's birth certificates. Odd that nobody ever thought to question the birthplace of a presidential candidate until now. You're right, there is nothing risible about this whatsoever.

As to the notion that "Well it's reasonable to assume he's hiding something, because he hasn't produced the document we've requested..." I assume then that you also believe that Sarah Palin is not Trig's mom? After all, she has yet to produce a birth certificate for him. Suspicious, right?
12.8.2008 3:29pm
Steve P. (mail):
There is nothing absurd or risible about advancing the proposition that Barak Obama may be numbered among this vast multitude.

Absent proof? In fact, in the face of significant evidence to the contrary? Yes... I'm pretty sure that meets the standard for 'risible'.
12.8.2008 3:31pm
Thales (mail) (www):
Arkady wins the thread.

As for this:

"If such documents were released, then many of us would be more than happy to be wrong in our suspicions that Obama may not have been born in Hawaii. But to say that these suspicions are unfounded and that we are tin foil hat wearing nutters for having them shows a narrow-minded virulent orthodoxy on the side of the other side."

What is to stop you from claiming that whatever is released is a forgery? Since you are immune to facts and reasoned discourse, in your minds nothing you suspect can ever be proven false. In any case, the onus is on *you* to present compelling evidence of your allegations. If the allegations and purported evidence fail to meet even basic standards of rationality and credibility (as in this case, they do), the rest of us, court system included, are not obligated to listen. I'm sorry, but you and your ilk *are* nutters.
12.8.2008 3:37pm
Johnny Canuck (mail):
"After all of the 6,000,000,000 humans alive today the overwhelming majority were born outside the US. There is nothing absurd or risible about advancing the proposition that Barak Obama may be numbered among this vast multitude."

Yes, it is risible, after the evidence provided by the Hawaii Department of Health.

"If Obama was adopted legally in 1967, and the official birth certificate in Hawaii ever since then says that he was born in Honolulu and his father was Lolo Soetero"

But the official certification of live birth, issued by Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 shows the birth parents as the parents.
12.8.2008 3:46pm
Thales (mail) (www):
Note also, those devotees of the Berg lawsuit, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
12.8.2008 3:49pm
Johnny Canuck (mail):
"I find it astonishing that a blog by lawyers for lawyers about the law goes out of its way to deride the skeptics' doubts when in any legal proceedings any lawyer would surely begin to have doubts if his client started to behave as BHO does concerning such a straightforward issue as the production of a Birth Certificate."

I suspect any lawyer would order from the relevant State authority a certified document -even if the client had the original - which of course might be a forgery. Strangely, this is precisely what the Obama campaign seem to have done. The Hawaii Department of Health has produced the document which they call a Certification of Live Birth, and when this document was met with skepticism, even had high ranking officials- state health director publicly confirm that she has "“personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
12.8.2008 3:57pm
Thales (mail) (www):
The right way to oppose Barack Obama if you dislike him or his policies is the ballot box, writing op-eds, conversation with your fellow citizens, etc. But these preposterous allegations really don't do you or your cause any credit. Why can't you just disagree like a reasonable adult--why also try with flimsy or no evidence to undermine the legitimacy of his election? It makes your entire cause and country look childish and stupid.
12.8.2008 4:11pm
Loren:
That's not the only issue the adoption would bring up. If Obama was adopted legally in 1967, and the official birth certificate in Hawaii ever since then says that he was born in Honolulu and his father was Lolo Soetero


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the Hawaiian long-form Certificate of Live Birth is prepared by the hospital, at the time of birth. As such, I'm skeptical of the notion that an overseas adoption would cause the original hospital record to be altered. Are you aware of any Hawaiian regulations that would allow the hospital-prepared Certificate to be changed to reflect an adoptive parent?

2) The campaign has released two documents that are supposed to be modern (laser-printed) Hawaiian certifications that the state of Hawaii shows the name of his father as Barack Obama from Africa. If in fact the official Hawaii record shows Lolo Soetero of Indonesia as his (adoptive) father, then his campaign trafficked in forgeries.


The Hawaiian Department of Health *itself* has shared the laser-printed Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, identical to the one produced by Obama. I can't imagine that the DOH would be in the business of trafficking in forgeries.
12.8.2008 4:20pm
Oren:

So, Oren thinks it is "absurd" to pay attention to the Constitution? Just the "natural-born citizen" requirement, or do you think there are other things which it is "absurd" to care about? If there are other constitutional requirements that you think are "absurd" to follow, just what would those be?

It's absurd to make serious allegations without any credible proof. What's absurd is not the requirement, it's the conjecture and speculation without basis in reality. Show me the objective evidence that Obama was born somewhere else (i.e. name the place that he was born and why you think he was born there).


"Evidence" and "burdens of proof" have little to do with politics and political discourse. This isn't a oourtroom.

(1) There are legal suits about the eligibility matter.
(2) In general (politics, science, law, football), I require extraordinary claims to render extraordinary evidence. You have to have proof commensurate to your claims.
12.8.2008 4:31pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"(1) There are legal suits about the eligibility matter."

I agree. I said, "Evidence" and "burdens of proof" have little to do with politics and political discourse. This isn't a oourtroom." Your post said nothing about suits, but spoke of obligations. There is life outside the courtroom.

"(2) In general (politics, science, law, football), I require extraordinary claims to render extraordinary evidence. You have to have proof commensurate to your claims."

I'm sure you do have that requirement, and I accept that as your personal standard. However, history shows that your personal standards are not those which have prevailed in politics and political discourse.
12.8.2008 4:50pm
Sarcastro (www):
Elliot123 is right. Evidence doesn't matter!

Obama better prove
1. his citizenship,
2. his age,
3. that the 15 Amendment was properly ratified,
4. that "natural citizen" doesn't mean "old white dude"
5. that ACORN didn't steal like a hundred million votes to give him the win.

Until I see convincing, non-forged (i.e. not coming from anyone who doesn't hate Obama) evidence, he'll never be my President!
12.8.2008 4:58pm
Thales (mail) (www):
Sarcastro, don't forget about the 13th and 14th Amendments too.
12.8.2008 5:05pm
Sarcastro (www):
Thales makes a good point Obama really should prove he's not a slave before he becomes President. Sure, he CLAIMS to be of Kenyan descent, but I have yet to see any proof!

Joke if you want, but this is a serious Constitutional issue and I’m going to wine about it till Sarah Palin gets into office!
12.8.2008 5:18pm
liamascorcaigh (mail) (www):
"I find it astonishing that a blog by lawyers for lawyers about the law goes out of its way to deride the skeptics' doubts when in any legal proceedings any lawyer would surely begin to have doubts if his client started to behave as BHO does concerning such a straightforward issue as the production of a Birth Certificate."

I suspect any lawyer would order from the relevant State authority a certified document -even if the client had the original - which of course might be a forgery. Strangely, this is precisely what the Obama campaign seem to have done. The Hawaii Department of Health has produced the document which they call a Certification of Live Birth, and when this document was met with skepticism, even had high ranking officials- state health director publicly confirm that she has "“personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate
on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."


Sigh!!!

1.Certification of Live Birth is not repeat not his birth certificate. The Long Form or "vault" copy of the record is what is required. The COLB is not even recognised in Hawaii as sufficient for dealing with the health bureaucracy itself in many instances.

2. The state health director declared that “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures". Let's leave aside fopr a moment that a general pronouncement by a bureaucrat is not sufficient to calidate an unseen document. Instead let us take her statement at face value. She has actually avoided the essential question in such an obvious way that I'm surprised you don't see it.
What's plainly at issue is not the birth certificates compliance with "state policies and procedures" but rather the actual content of the document.

3. Without sight of the document neither you nor I nor anyone else knows what it contains. No amount of point-scoring changes that. There is only one way for us to know: release the birth certificate to the public.

4. Cries of "What about Bush, Clinton, Reagan, ha, ha, ha" are just plain silly. There was and is no doubt about their "natural born" status.

5. I repeat! Any tiny misgivings re Obama's eligibility have grown into robust skepticism because and only because of his steadfast refusal to publish his birth certificate. He is the primary author of this controversy.

6. I repeat!! What sensible straightforward reason has he for not soing so? Some seem to claim it infringes upon his dignity to expect him to comply with such a request as if he were being asked to undergo a cavity search! It's a piece of paper for God's sake!! It's on file.

7. Why is it on file, I ask you? So that it can be conveniently retrieved and produced as and when occasion requires. The reason birth certificates and many other such records are kept is not so that they can be hidden away safe from prying eyes but rather so that they may be produced. That's the raison d'etre of such archives. Otherwise why bother compiling and keeping such material at all!

8. This is not a partisan issue nor a question of opinion. It is an issue of fact and one that can be easily verified. It has nothing to do with Trig Palin, God bless him, or 9/11 Trutherism or the Elders of Zion or bizarre claims of the I-was-abducted-by-an-alien variety. The circumstances of BHO's birth are cold hard facts as objective as the boiling point of water. They are verifiable beyond any doubt.

9. I don't know where Obama was born. Neither does anybody else blogging here. Those who snark at me oppose my skepticism not with factual knowledge but with belief. They have committed themselves to an act of personal faith. They refuse to admit of doubt. They seem to believe that it is outlandish (pardon the pun) that BHO was not born in Hawaii. Of course it is not. Not being born in Hawaii is far more the rule than the exception. Infants are not born in Hawaii every minute of every day. Why is it so unthinkable that little Barry saw the light of day in Kenya among his father's people as his paternal grandmother claims? Back in 1961 if any of us had been told that he had been born in Kenya none of us would have batted an eye. After all it's not the moon. Lot's of people are born in Kenya. They're called Kenyans. Happens all the time. Even as we speak, no doubt.

10. Obama once quipped that he was given his middle name "by someone who never thought he would run for President of the United States". How true. We should remember that his birthplace only took on a vital significance forty odd years later in circumstances that could not have been dreamt of in 1961 and for many years after. Here is a shooting star in the political firmament, a brilliant politician who could go all the way. The circumstances of his birth are not his fault. Besides all this "natural born" business is all just so much legal mumbo-jumbo thought up long ago by guys in funny hats. He's as American as you and me. And seeing how W stole the 2000 election what matter a little soft-shoe shuffle around the Constitution. It's "a living document", ain't it? We can't leave a few commas and the odd semi-colon get in the way of history, I mean History!

Now you're all lawyers. You've met your share of politicians. Now tell me that scenario is outlandish!
12.8.2008 5:31pm
Steve P. (mail):
That scenario is outlandish.
12.8.2008 5:38pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"Until I see convincing, non-forged (i.e. not coming from anyone who doesn't hate Obama) evidence, he'll never be my President!"

Well said. While I am "not obligated to answer any of these absurd complaints," I do note we are actually having a non-obligatory dialogue about politics outside the courtroom, letting neither evidence nor burdens of proof ambush the truth. May the scales of justice fall from all our eyes!
12.8.2008 5:40pm
Sarcastro (www):
I cannot imagine why Obama does not answer the internet fed rumors about his birth certificate! It's very suspicious!

And after he produces is BC, I expect release of his SAT scores, his college transcripts, his thesis, his client list, his Illinois senate records, his high school records, and the bible he will be sworn in on.

And once he produces those, I have others!
12.8.2008 5:43pm
dr:

4. Cries of "What about Bush, Clinton, Reagan, ha, ha, ha" are just plain silly. There was and is no doubt about their "natural born" status.


Yes there is. I doubt that George Bush was born in the United States. I think he was born in China. After all, his father spent some time there, did he not? And anyway, more people are born in China than in any other country on the planet, so the odds are with me. Never mind that the dates don't match up -- move along, nothing to see! -- I have my doubts. I demand George Bush produce his birth certificate. In fact, I have been asking for it for 10 years now. The fact that he has not produced it only bolsters my doubts. Do you not agree?



5. I repeat! Any tiny misgivings re Obama's eligibility have grown into robust skepticism because and only because of his steadfast refusal to publish his birth certificate. He is the primary author of this controversy.


Ah, good! I see you DO agree! Then join me in my battle to get George Bush to come clean about his Mandarin birth! Doubt exists! Why won't he release his birth certificate? What is George Bush hiding?



8. This is not a partisan issue nor a question of opinion. It is an issue of fact and one that can be easily verified. It has nothing to do with Trig Palin, God bless him, or 9/11 Trutherism or the Elders of Zion or bizarre claims of the I-was-abducted-by-an-alien variety. The circumstances of BHO's birth are cold hard facts as objective as the boiling point of water. They are verifiable beyond any doubt.


As are the circumstances of Trig Palin's birth, God Be With Him Always. Why do you not demand information about the birth of Trig Palin, May He Forever Be Blessed? Surely that would be even easier to dig up -- after all, his birth certificate is probably still sitting in some temp's "to file" bin. And yet Sarah Palin refused to release that document, which would have cleared up those silly rumors once and for all. Why didn't she? What is she hiding? Maybe Trig is Chinese too, like George Bush?
12.8.2008 5:45pm
liamascorcaigh (mail) (www):
God love ya, Steve P. Sure, begorrah, 'tis the trustin' fellah that you are. I suppose you don't believe that old Dick Daley stuffed the Cook County ballot boxes for his good buddy Joe Kennedy back in '60 or that old Dick Nixon bugged the DNC headquarters in '74. I won't mention Aaron Burr who after all wore a funny hat. Nor Chester Arthur who provides a startlingly apposite precedent.

Political shenanigans? In America!! Never!!!
12.8.2008 5:51pm
Sarcastro (www):
[To sum up my and dr's hilarious comments without sarcasm:

1. There are a number of possible, non-suspicious reasons Obama isn't producing his BC.
a) because once he does similar demands will never end.
b) because this is a hilarious distraction for his political foes
c) because this is below his attention.

2. Fred Phelps would say God hating gays is nonpartisan. EVERYONE humping this issue has an axe to grind against Obama. It is partisan.

3. Demanding the burden to prove a negative is on Obama is setting you up for a win. See George W. Bush: secret chinaman, above.]
12.8.2008 5:53pm
Loren:
And after he produces is BC, I expect release of his SAT scores, his college transcripts, his thesis, his client list, his Illinois senate records, his high school records, and the bible he will be sworn in on.


Especially that last one. After all, if Obama doesn't hand over that Bible for physical inspection by his critics, for all we know he might actually be swearing his oath on a Koran with a fake Bible cover on it.
12.8.2008 5:55pm
liamascorcaigh (mail) (www):
Demanding the burden to prove a negative is on Obama is setting you up for a win. See George W. Bush: secret chinaman, above.

This is beyond idiotic. Obama is being asked to prove a positive: that he was born in Hawaii. A perfectly straightforward thing to do if it is true. As regards dr's comments they;re utterly senseless.
12.8.2008 5:59pm
dr:

As regards dr's comments they;re utterly senseless.


why?
12.8.2008 6:00pm
dr:

As regards dr's comments they;re utterly senseless.


or rather: of course they're senseless. can you explain (persuasively) why they're any more senseless than your own?
12.8.2008 6:02pm
Sarcastro (www):
[liamascorcaigh OK. You have a point there. I was idiotic, and beyyoond. Obama is not being asked to prove a negative.

Still, my other 2 points hold, I think. Speculating without evidence is fun, but it does not make for a strong basis to demand evidence from the president elect.

It does make for a fun 4-8 years of internet sour grapes though.]
12.8.2008 6:04pm
Barry P. (mail):
I think Obama enjoys watching all these batshit crazy morons whipping themselves into a lather. I sure do.
12.8.2008 6:04pm
liamascorcaigh (mail) (www):
Dr: so you admit you're writing nonesense. Then I see no further reason to debate with you.
12.8.2008 6:04pm
Thales (mail) (www):
"Obama is being asked to prove a positive: that he was born in Hawaii. A perfectly straightforward thing to do if it is true"

You and your ilk have the burden of production and proof that he was not born in the U.S. You haven't met it. Give up. The tinfoil is better used to wrap leftovers than to shield your brain from the orbital mind control lasers.
12.8.2008 6:05pm
dr:

Dr: so you admit you're writing nonesense. Then I see no further reason to debate with you.


Very agile, you are. Yes, I admit we're writing nonsense. I'm only waiting for you to admit it as well.
12.8.2008 6:07pm
Sarcastro (www):
[liamascorcaigh dr was making a point by analogy. By using the same methods of proof Obama truthers do, he arrives at a nonsensical result. This puts your methods in qeustion, and should be addressed.]
12.8.2008 6:08pm
liamascorcaigh (mail) (www):
Sarcastr, I not munching any sour grapes. I didn't support Obama but I don't dispute his democratic legitimacy. He won the election by several million votes. He has a popular mandate to govern. What I'm concerned about is his constitutional eligibility. If it comes to light that he was not 'natural born' all his actions and those of his myriad subordinates as well as any Acts of Congress he will have signed will all be subject to legal challenge including any criminal convictions under laws passed during his tenure. if all such concerns can be put to rest by producing his birth certificate, I don't think it's too much to ask of him.
12.8.2008 6:11pm
dr:

if all such concerns can be put to rest by producing his birth certificate, I don't think it's too much to ask of him.


You may be right, and yet you DO think it's too much to ask of his predecessor, even though that guy is Chinese.
12.8.2008 6:12pm
Sarcastro (www):
[liamascorcaigh I am somewhat skeptical of your claim of objective concern, but I cannot prove it wrong. Still, there doesn't seem to be any there there, and absent evidence chasing down every possible Obama-disqualifying scenario would take forever.]
12.8.2008 6:17pm
Sarcastro (www):
[

if all such concerns can be put to rest by producing his birth certificate


I don't accept that this would be true. Next people would challenge the legitimacy of the BC document. Then the definition of "natural citizen," and after that his campaign promises as "Fraud on the electorate."]
12.8.2008 6:21pm
liamascorcaigh (mail) (www):
dr: The whole burden of my posts is that questions concerning BHO's birth are quite reasonable given his Kenyan father, his mother's footloose lifestyle and his grandmother's claim that he was born in Africa. This is compounded by Obama's refusal to clarify the issue in the only way it can be clarified. If George Bush's Chinese grandmother claimed he was born in Hunan province I would expect him to clear the matter up beyond dispute as well. If he prevaricated even to the extent of spending a significant amount of money on fighting court cases rather than produce his birth certificate I would have the same reason to be skeptical about him.

This is not Obama-specific (McCain has "natural born" problems as well), rather it arises from his transnational background and the rootlessness of his mother's lifestyle all of which bring the place of his birth into play. I repeat: it is he who has fed the flames by his refusal to produce his birth certificate.
12.8.2008 6:24pm
dr:

I repeat: it is he who has fed the flames by his refusal to produce his birth certificate.


I repeat: This is the exact logic -- exact -- used by Andrew Sullivan to urge Sarah Palin to release Trig's birth certificate. You've avoided responding to this, but I'll ask directly: Do you believe that Sarah Palin should (or should have, while she was running for Vice President) release the boy's birth certificate, just to clear up any confusion? Do you believe it would end the issue for those who consider it an issue?
12.8.2008 6:38pm
Loren:
This is beyond idiotic. Obama is being asked to prove a positive: that he was born in Hawaii. A perfectly straightforward thing to do if it is true.


True, it is a matter of proving a positive. And true, it's a perfectly straightforward thing to prove. The problem is that Obama's skeptics have been unwilling to accept the proof provided, and have instead responded by continually moving the goalposts of what constitutes proof.

When the attacks initially began, Obama responded by putting a copy of his Certification of Live Birth on his website. Did that settle matters? No. The Certification was declared a fake by critics; Jerome Corsi even went on TV and claimed it was a Photoshopped forgery.

Factcheck.org then sent folks down to Hawaii to personally inspect the Certification, to see if it matched the one on Obama's website. And it did. They held the original in their hands. They took photos of it, and posted those photos on the website. Did that settle matters? No. Critics accused Factcheck.org of being biased, and said that even if the Certification is real, the [b]Certificate[/b] might say something different. No explanation is offered as to why the official Certification would have information that completely contradicts the Certificate.

The Director of Hawaii's Department of Health then puts out a press release to set the record straight about the Certificate. Did that settle matters? No. Now the accusation is that, as evidenced by her choice of words, the doctor might be helping to hide something about Obama's place of birth.

A Hillary supporter finds Obama's birth announcement in a newspaper printed a week after he was born. Settle anything? No. It's suggested that other family members may have reported it, despite a foreign birth.

And if we're talking about the specific accusation that he was born in Kenya, there's the slight detail about his mother never having actually visited Kenya, while pregnant or otherwise.

Also, while not evidence in itself, if there were any legitimacy to the birthplace allegations, I can't imagine Hillary not using those to her benefit. A two-person race, and the other guy might be ineligible? There's only one reason for Hillary to not pursue that further: because it was meritless.

All this evidence is apparently unsatisfactory. Meanwhile, what actual 'evidence' have the skeptics been able to produce? I can only think of two bits, both of which have fallen apart under minimal scrutiny. There was a supposed Canadian birth certificate that was definitively proven to be a fraud (so definitively, I add, that no one even mentions it anymore). Then there was the conversation with Obama's Kenyan grandmother, where she supposedly said she was "present" for his birth. But listen past that question (at about 4:40), and you'll hear his grandmother say, repeatedly, that he was born in "Hawaii."

(Strangely, when Obama skeptics post that audio on YouTube, guess where they conveniently cut the conversation off at?)

If Obama requested a copy of his actual Certificate, and posted it to his website, would that settle the matter? Or would he be accused of posting a fake, as with the Certfication? If he allowed FactCheck to inspect it, would that settle the matter? Or would they be accused of bias, and their photos declared to be insufficient? What, shy of handing the physical copy of Obama's Certificate of Live Birth to Philip Berg himself in the presence of a Hawaiian official who could testify to its authenticity (if that), would satisfy the standard of proof that has been built up over this issue?
12.8.2008 6:39pm
Loren:
liamascorcaigh:

The whole burden of my posts is that questions concerning BHO's birth are quite reasonable given his Kenyan father, his mother's footloose lifestyle and his grandmother's claim that he was born in Africa.


At the risk of repeating myself, Obama's grandmother said he was born in Hawaii.

When initially asked, through a translator, if she was present for Obama's birth, she said 'yes.' Then when asked, more specifically, WHERE he was born, she said "Hawaii." She then reiterates that he was born in Hawaii several times over the next three minutes of conversation.

So sorry, but your evidence is down to 1)immigrant father and 2)his mother's lifestyle. In other words, utter rank speculation.
12.8.2008 6:45pm
dr:

At the risk of repeating myself, Obama's grandmother said he was born in Hawaii.


Yes, and anyway this phony "revelation" was the result, not the cause, of the Great Obama Birth Certificate Investigation. So as you say, liamascorcaigh's skepticism comes down to two key factors:

1. Obama's mother was "footloose," which is code for "inclined to give birth in Africa."

and

2. Obama's father was a foreigner.

Meanwhile, GWB's mother is a confirmed lover of China, and his father was a well known globetrotter, and yet this arouses no suspicion. Go figure.
12.8.2008 7:08pm
John N (mail) (www):
Double sigh.

People: Last month the Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health released a statement saying she and the Registrar of vital statistics had personally verified the validity of the ORIGINAL birth certificate for Obama. Of course, they are now officially part of the conspiracy.

And bear in mind that James Corsi is behind most of these rumors. The guy who swiftboated Kerry.

So Obama-haters, what do you have? What evidence? What theory? What chain of action? Anything? No, didn't think so.
12.8.2008 7:24pm
LM (mail):
I love when the comment thread swallows the intentional farce of the OP.
12.8.2008 7:43pm
Oren:

Without sight of the document neither you nor I nor anyone else knows what it contains. No amount of point-scoring changes that. There is only one way for us to know: release the birth certificate to the public.

I see, you have no evidence but you assert (and if you assert loudly enough, it's true) that there exists some evidence, somewhere, that validates your claim.

If I pulled that kind of bullshit in my job, I would fired (FYI: I'm the hard sciences -- you either support your claim with evidence or no one believes you.)


I don't know where Obama was born. Neither does anybody else blogging here. Those who snark at me oppose my skepticism not with factual knowledge but with belief.

(1) I have factual knowledge that it is more probable than not that Obama was born in HI. The newspaper, the COLB, the testimony of various officials. That fact has with it a presumption of validity and it is you, who seek to overturn the whole damn world, that has the burden of proof.

(2) That burden of proof requires you to come up with a supported (or at least supportable) alternative theory that fits the facts better than the current one. He was obviously born somewhere and until your complete version of events is more plausible than his complete version of events, there's even less reason to believe you.
12.8.2008 7:45pm
Sarcastro (www):
It's true. Postophage-threads are always the craziest!
12.8.2008 7:45pm
Arkady:

I think Obama enjoys watching all these batshit crazy morons whipping themselves into a lather.



That's a slur on the batshit crazy moron community.
12.8.2008 8:41pm
Tritium (mail):
A conspiracy involves 2 or more persons attempt to mislead or intentionally withhold knowledge for some benefit. (One would think.) Is a politician capable of misleading the public? Yes, as a matter of fact, they've gotten pretty good at it, since accepting bribes continue to be acceptable.

But here is a response from Hawaii's Governor's Office. They have reassured that there is a record that he was not still born in 1961 as well as stated it proves his Citizenship. When I responded back asking if the document proves he was natural born citizen? And no comments had been made.


Aloha,

Thank you for emailing Governor Linda Lingle’s office. A recent article in WorldNetDaily.com (October 26, 2008) claiming that Hawai‘i Governor Linda Lingle sealed Sen. Barack Obama’s birth certificate is false.

Under Hawai‘i’s state law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18), copies of vital records may only be released to those who have a tangible relationship to the person whose record is being sought. Neither the Governor's office, nor any other office in the State of Hawai'i, can provide information concerning birth certificates, or produce birth certificates, to anyone except those who are listed in the law governing vital statistics records.

Vital statistics records, such as birth certificates, are protected by strict confidentiality requirements. Specifically, pursuant to section 338-18, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS), the Department of Health, which maintains these records, may not allow the inspection of a birth certificate, or issue a certified copy of a birth certificate, or disclose any information contained in a birth certificate, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record:

(a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1) The registrant;
(2) The spouse of the registrant;
(3) A parent of the registrant;
(4) A descendant of the registrant;
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8) A personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a non related co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
You can find the complete statute athttp://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/ hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/
HRS_0338-0018.htm
Mahalo,
Office of Governor Lingle


The question to this is extremely important, and should not be put aside. If you are bound by oath as a Senator to protect and preserve the Constitution, and there is intentional efforts being made to not provide the information being requested (Certification of Live Birth he posted contains language not normally found on a 1961 Birth Certificate, and was absent of the commonly found "Eye Color, Hair Color, Single, Twin, Triplet, etc., Doctor's Signature, nurse's signature, hospital, etc. etc.).

If this question was answered, why is it that the document was never requested nor obtained by Barrack Obama and shown publicly (blacking out the parts that are too personal if necessary.) so that all doubt can be washed away? I've personally inquired about his Birth Certificate since he never appeared to be listed under any Census as living with his grandparents.

You don't pick and choose when you pay attention to the Constitution. It's not an "At Will" foundation that may be buried any time it is convenient for them. So are we to ignore this part of the Constitution because it's too absurd to think that he wouldn't have already been qualified prior to entering the primaries.


And if you say nothing now, what right do you have to say something when your rights are being violated and nobody considers it a big deal?
12.8.2008 9:05pm
Loren:
Tritium:

Certification of Live Birth he posted contains language not normally found on a 1961 Birth Certificate, and was absent of the commonly found "Eye Color, Hair Color, Single, Twin, Triplet, etc., Doctor's Signature, nurse's signature, hospital, etc. etc.).


Of course it was missing that information. As shared by FactCheck:

The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details.

The Certification he posted online is identical to the one on file in Hawaii. Are you suggesting that the COLB on the website was a fake? If so, are you suggesting that the one FactCheck saw in Hawaii was also a fake? What exactly are you suggesting here?

If this question was answered, why is it that the document was never requested nor obtained by Barrack Obama and shown publicly (blacking out the parts that are too personal if necessary.) so that all doubt can be washed away?


How should he produce it? Put it online? Give copies to the press? Or, like I asked above, would any production less than handing the original physical Certificate to Philip Berg suffice?

When Obama requested, obtained, and produced his Certification of Live Birth, did that remove all doubt? No. He was just accused of producing a forged document. Heck, just above you appear to still be accusing him of producing a forgery. Why should he think that producing a Certificate would be any more effective at washing away doubt?
12.8.2008 9:32pm
Johnny Canuck (mail):
tritium:
"(Certification of Live Birth he posted contains language not normally found on a 1961 Birth Certificate, and was absent of the commonly found "Eye Color, Hair Color, Single, Twin, Triplet, etc., Doctor's Signature, nurse's signature, hospital, etc. etc.)"

Doesn't the COLB contains the only relevant information:
1. his mother's name
2. place of birth- Honolulu?

Isn't any other information irrelevant to answering the constitutional question of whether he is a natural born American?
12.8.2008 9:37pm
LM (mail):
John N:

People: Last month the Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health released a statement saying she and the Registrar of vital statistics had personally verified the validity of the ORIGINAL birth certificate for Obama.

Yeah, but who are you gonna believe, some stoned-out Hawaiian bureaucrat or World Net Daily?

The spectacle of this stuff coming from people who attributed virtually every criticism* of GWB to BDS is wonderfully ironic.

[*Except of course when it came to immigration and spending. Any sane person knows that Bush's perfidy in those areas warranted impeachment.]
12.8.2008 9:48pm
scattergood:

What is to stop you from claiming that whatever is released is a forgery? Since you are immune to facts and reasoned discourse, in your minds nothing you suspect can ever be proven false. In any case, the onus is on *you* to present compelling evidence of your allegations. If the allegations and purported evidence fail to meet even basic standards of rationality and credibility (as in this case, they do), the rest of us, court system included, are not obligated to listen. I'm sorry, but you and your ilk *are* nutters.


Because as I have said repeatedly, let's have a court of competent jurisdiction review the original document. We all have to put our trust in the system somewhere. You put it in the electronic copies of a dailykos posting of a document that the state of Hawaii doesn't even accept as valid for some of their own programs. I, and my 'ilk', try to have higher standards like puting our trust in a court with it's coercive powers to compel the provisions of documents and testimony. And for not trusting the same thing that you trust to uphold Constitutional requirements you call us nuts.
12.8.2008 9:53pm
Johnny Canuck (mail):
Scattergood:
You put it in the electronic copies of a dailykos posting of a document that the state of Hawaii doesn't even accept as valid for some of their own programs.

what programs? are you referring to programs relating to people with 50% or greater native Hawaiian blood?

Isn't COLB the document any person born in Hawaii would submit to Washington to prove their citizenship when applying for a passport?
12.8.2008 10:05pm
Loren:
scattergood:

Because as I have said repeatedly, let's have a court of competent jurisdiction review the original document.


Really? You've said that "repeatedly"? Where, in this thread of 130 comments, have you previously proposed a review by a court of competent jurisidction?

We all have to put our trust in the system somewhere. You put it in the electronic copies of a dailykos posting of a document that the state of Hawaii doesn't even accept as valid for some of their own programs.


In a similar vein, who said anything about a Daily Kos posting? Kos has been mentioned once in this thread, and that was regarding Kos' treatment of the Palin story, not Obama. It's FactCheck.org, a somewhat less partisan site than Kos, that most everyone has relied on.

And why should we care what Hawaii requires? Obama isn't running for Hawaiian office. The U.S. State Department only requires a Certification, and that's not a new standard on their part. Why do you demand more proof than the Republican administration does?
12.8.2008 10:12pm
Elliot123 (mail):
Any chance John Kerry's military records can get released as collateral damage?
12.8.2008 10:43pm
liamascorcaigh (mail) (www):
Said a certain politician named O
"Whatever I say must be so!
It is a dead cert
I experienced birth
But as to the place
That I can hardly trace,
I was ever so young, don't you know!"
12.9.2008 5:26am
Loren:
scattergood:

To answer one of your earlier allegations:

There are actually 2 bigger issues, IMO. Firstly, Hawaii doesn't accept the Certification of Live Birth for some government programs and requires either the Certificate of Live Birth or 'additional checking'. This can be seen on their own website for the Hawaiian Home Lands program, here. So while we have a Certification of Live Birth released by the state of Hawaii as the only certified documentation of Obama's birth location, the state of Hawaii doubts the veracity of the information on the document and won't accept it for some of their own programs.


Your link was broken, so I had trouble accessing that page earlier. In any case, the first question should be to ask why the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands would ask for a Certificate, and not a Certification.

If you actually read the page you linked to, you'll see that the Department requires not only the applicant's birth certificate, but also the applicant's parents' birth certificites. Why? As the page states:

You must be a native Hawaiian, defined as "any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778." This means, you must have a blood quantum of at least 50 percent Hawaiian.

And why is the Certificate preferred over the Certification?

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).

To establish one's status as a native Hawaiian, it's not enough to establish one's own place of birth; you have to establish your parents' places of birth too. Maybe even your grandparents'. And conclusive identifying information about your parents, including their birth places, is found only on the Certificate, not the Certification.

The state of Hawaii doesn't "doubt the veracity of the information" on the Certification. The Certification simply doesn't provide all of the information that particular program needs.

Meanwhile, for the Presidency, only the candidate's own birthplace is relevant. Hence, the Certification provides all the information necessary.
12.9.2008 8:23am
Forman:
Obama is brilliant. Keep all of them spinning this non-story while he goes about doing real things.

The best are the comments that say, "I don't beleive the story but . . ." or "I don't care about the birth certficate but . . ."

The worst are the foundationless comments that say, 'the certification maybe a forgery and/or Hawaii maybe lieing.'

These people also make up thier own facts, like the grandparents could have slipped a false announcement in the papar 47 years ago. But according to the Department of Vital Records and the paper, the Honolulu Advertiser, in 1961, the hospitals would take their new birth certificates to Vital Records. At the end of the week, Vital Records would post a sheet for the newspaper to pick up that compiled these births. The Advertiser routinely printed this information in their Sunday edition. Thus, this is not a paid announcement that his grandmother could arrange. This is information that comes from Vital Records. The papaer didn’t have a provision for paid, one sentence announcement that would be included in the Vital Records.
12.9.2008 12:37pm
VeritasOmnibus:
"Until I see convincing, non-forged (i.e. not coming from anyone who doesn't hate Obama) evidence, he'll never be my President!"

Such low standards! If anyone produces evidence that supports Obama, they are obviously part of the conspiracy!
12.9.2008 1:18pm
VeritasOmnibus:
"God love ya, Steve P. Sure, begorrah, 'tis the trustin' fellah that you are. I suppose you don't believe that old Dick Daley stuffed the Cook County ballot boxes for his good buddy Joe Kennedy back in '60"

Dick Daley stuffed the ballot for Jack Kennedy's dead brother? This is news!
12.9.2008 1:27pm
Johnny Canuck (mail):
VeritasOmnibus:Dick Daley stuffed the ballot for Jack Kennedy's dead brother? This is news!
I think, if stuffed, it was for the patriarch of the family, Jack's still alive father Joseph P.
12.9.2008 2:14pm
VeritasOmnibus:
Wha? Jack Kennedy's father was not on the ballot.
12.9.2008 3:49pm
liamascorcaigh (mail) (www):
The Joe Kennedy in question was the patriarch of the clan, the former ambassador to the Court of Saint James. not the dead eldest brother. Duh!

He was not on the ballot but was the primum mobile behind the career of Jack whom he designated as the family standard bearer on Joe junior's death. Joe senior was a very formidable political operator and a major player in backroom Democratic politics for decades. It was he who pulled the strings behind the scenes of the 1960 campaign. This is all part of the record for Heaven's sake and is quite uncontroversial. Double duh!

Before any more dumb posts let me point out that the ambassador to the Court of Saint James is the designation for the an ambassador to the UK.

The windbaggery of some posters here is exceeded only by their ignorance. It's a waste of time debating anything with such people.

Cheery pip!
12.9.2008 4:48pm
LM (mail):
This Dick Daley ballot stuffing thing isn't getting the proper attention. Isn't it obvious Barack Obama was the intended beneficiary of fixing that election?* Why would JFK push us into a war in southeast Asia but to eliminate Obama's eventual election opponent? Why has the FBI never released the personnel files of everyone who built and maintained the jets McCain flew? Why wasn't Obama even born until JFK was in office, other than to assure him plausible deniability? And by the way, when was Obama born? Nine months after the election. Coincidence? You tell me.

That McCain foiled the Daley-JFK-Obama plot by being a tougher bastard than Kennedy accounted for doesn't change any of the essential and obvious contours of the conspiracy.

(*And don't even get me started about Obama's racketeering with the current Mayor Daley.)
12.9.2008 6:21pm
VeritasOmnibus:
Exactly LM. But you forgot that Mr. Ambassosor Joe also made that trip to Hawaii in 1961. We all know why. Triple duh!
12.9.2008 7:33pm
New Pseudonym:
Why didn't they just record Barack's birth in the family Koran Bible. IIRC this is still accepted as proof of birth in a number of states. If that's good enough, certainly the "Certification" BHO has produced is good enough.

Much as I hate to admit it, BHO is absolutely right in not producing the "Certificate." Look what happened just a few years ago. Bush kept on producing service records and each new document provided the left with a new reason to call a fighter pilot a draft dodger. Kerry said he would produce his service records, never did, and now everyone has forgotten the equivalent questions about how faithfully he served out his commitment in the reserve.

Speaking of which, if we're going to talk about stupid theories about where BHO was born, whay has nobody raised the stupid question about whether he properly registered for the draft?
12.9.2008 9:33pm
Oren:

If you are bound by oath as a Senator to protect and preserve the Constitution, and there is intentional efforts being made to not provide the information being requested

How could the Constitution require birth certificates if such things weren't even common at the time of the founding?

Moreover, the Constitution requires that he be qualified and says nothing about how he has to respond to allegations to the contrary.
12.10.2008 1:34pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.