Main Menu

When is a Certificate not a Certificate?

In my article What You Don’t Know I asked what was the difference between a “Certificate” and a “Certification”. I meant to ask what was the difference in the meaning of the words. Someone pointed out to me that two very distinct birth documents come out of Hawaii. Folks call one a “Certificate” and the other a “Certification”, but that’s not right. So when is a “Certificate” not a “Certificate”?


Certificate?

Certificate?

Certification

Certification

Both documents are certifications. The Obama Certification (right) is a certified copy of the Certificate made by transcription and computer printout onto security paper, impressed with the State Seal and signed by the state registrar. The other document (left) is also a certified copy of the Certificate but produced by a photographic process, printed onto security paper, impressed with the State Seal and signed by the state registrar. (See Note 1)  While the latter visually shows the word “CERTIFICATE” on it, it is not itself a certificate, but a copy of a certificate and therefore it’s just a certification that the certificate exists–just as the Obama Certification is. Both documents are certifications of what is in the vault, only differing in format and  method of production. Hawaiian law states that they are equivalent for legal purposes and that is because the State certifies the accuracy of the content of each. (See: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm).

Because of a deep and abiding distrust of Obama on the part of some people, they want every possible bit of information that exists and the photocopy has more information than the transcript. However, the difference in content between the transcript and the photocopy does not bear on the essential question of where Obama was born (more on that following).

So why is anyone doubting that the Certification means what it says? (See my popular article just on this topic.) For the balance of this discussion, let’s assume that the Obama COLB as shown on the Internet is what the State of Hawaii issued.

“What about Obama’s half sister. She has a Hawaiian birth certificate and she was born in Indonesia!”

I have never seen any citation or documentation that Maya Soetoro-Ng has a Hawaiian Birth Certificate. Let’s see why it’s impossible. Maya was born in Indonesia  August 15, 1970 (Wikipedia). Stanley Ann D. Soetoro would have been in Indonesia about 3 years when Maya was born.

Let’s look at Hawaiian law. The relevant statue is: [§338-17.8]  Certificates for children born out of State. This law was passed in 1982. It says:

“(a)  Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents [plural] of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b)  Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate.  The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c)  The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

Since we assumed the Obama  COLB is true, the registration date on it (August 8, 1961) is accurate and before the passage of this law. Therefore Obama could not have been registered under this law. Further the Barrack Obama COLB clearly states “BIRTH LOCATION: HONOLULU”. Unless you think Hawaii routinely puts out false documents, this too rules out the scenario for Barack Obama.

Because Stanley Ann D. Soetoro was not a resident of Hawaii for one year immediately preceding the birth of  Maya Soetoro-Ng, she was not eligible for an out of state birth certificate either.

“How come all the witnesses to Obama’s birth are in Africa?”

There are no witnesses who have come forward to say Barack Obama II was born in Kenya. The only named witness claimed is Sarah Obama, and if you listen to the taped conversation of a phone call with her yourself (the full tape, not Berg’s edited version), it says he was born in Hawaii (“where his father was living” [this last word is disputed]). Further there is a 2007 newspaper account of Sarah Obama learning of Baracks’ birth in a letter from her son.

Obama’s uncle Sayid says in The Obama Nation (pp 24-25) as well in a YouTube video that Obama’s “first time in Kenya” was as an adult. Links to the full tape and the Sayid video are on this web site. Jerome Corsi (The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality) was all over Obama relatives in Africa with details about Obama’s every trip and connection to Africa and there’s not a peep about Barack being born in Africa in his book. How is that possible if all the Obama relatives knew it, the Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, as well as the whole rest of the country and Mr. Corsi missed it? Later Corsi traveled to Kenya expressly to get evidence of the Kenyan birth, and returned with nothing but excuses.   Most plausible explanation? It didn’t happen.

“Why has no one come forward in Hawaii remembering Obama’s birth?”

There is a Buffalo News account of a discussion with Dr. Rodney West, a Hawaii hospital administrator who recently died at age 98, who knew of the birth. (A discussion of the veracity of this report and links to it is on this web site). But who’s going to remember a totally unremarkable baby born 47 years ago? How many hospital workers from that period  are even still alive!?

Given that we don’t even know where the “flight to Africa” story comes from and that it’s totally implausible from the start, that no witness in Africa has come forward, the simplest explanation is that it didn’t happen. The birth certificate means what it says.

Chose between the two:

  1. Very pregnant woman flies to Africa, no documentation, no witnesses, no source of story, no international airport in Mombasa, no explanation how the Obama’s could have afforded the flight, investigators interviewing Obama relatives missed it, uncle says no, grandmother says no.
  2. Born in Hawaii, newspaper birth announcement (two), Hawaiian birth certificate with Birth Location “Honolulu”, Hawaiian Health officials say birth registered.

What does William of  Occam say?

I want to add that the terms certificate and certification are substituted for each other in various jurisdictions. For example in Indiana, the computer-printed abstract document is titled: “Certificate of Birth”. Indiana is one of a growing number of states where birth data is entered directly by hospitals into computer systems, and where there is no paper certificate in the vault.

Now for the reward for the stalwart reader who reached the end of the article: look at Obama’s document (above) that says “Certification” at the top. It says “Certificate” at the bottom.


Note 1: The certificate itself is not on security paper. The certificate is a hospital-generated document that is signed by the hospital and then signed and registered by the Health Department. The hospital fills out a “plain form”. This is for security reasons (so security paper can be controlled) and because an original on security paper would lose all its security features when copies were made. (Security paper is designed to be hard to copy and color copiers were unknown in 1961.)  This also explains why Sun Yat-Sen’s fraudulent Hawaiian Birth Certificate from 1904 has identical security to Obama’s. They are both copied onto the same modern paper stock.

Note 2: A birth at a location is a historical event. States, by their laws, register births and record locations. They do this in a variety of ways, including receiving paper forms from hospitals, signed by someone and stamping a number on them, and in modern systems receiving an electronic data file with no underlying piece of paper. That’s what an electronic health record (EHR), a medical record not on paper. States under their laws and regulations certify to others that births are registered. Sometimes they photocopy hospital reports onto security paper, stamp and seal them. Nowadays, since there there are no hospital record to photocopy, they print information from their computer databases onto security paper, stamp and seal those. In the future, birth verification will likely be all electronic, and the paper birth certificate will become obsolete.

, , , , , , , ,

248 Responses to When is a Certificate not a Certificate?

  1. avatar
    Heavy February 9, 2009 at 9:36 am #

    A “Theory” is an idea that must be proven. So, your messiah’s NBC staus is a theory. He must PROVE that he qualifies!

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 9, 2009 at 10:43 am #

    It is not possible to prove something to someone who denies basic rules of evidence and rational processes. Here is my proof of that statement.

  3. avatar
    Heavy February 9, 2009 at 10:47 am #

    Typical Kool-aid drinker response, Dr. Smoke another bowl. He must PROVE that he is NBC or he will be removed. Plain and simple.

  4. avatar
    tes February 9, 2009 at 10:51 am #

    Just who is drinking the kool-aid/smoking a bowl? Clearly, Obama has proven – to the satisfaction of the majority of voters, the electoral college voters, and 100% of the Congress, that he IS, in fact, NBC. Otherwise, he would not have been elected, certified the winner, and sworn in.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 9, 2009 at 11:12 am #

    So how are you coming on getting that Obama birth announcement from the Mombasa newspaper? I got two from Honolulu.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 9, 2009 at 11:18 am #

    So you and your little band of patriots are going to dress up as Indians, slip into the White House, tie Obama up and drag him out?

    The Congress is 100% not interested. The Supreme Court is 100% not impressed with the crank lawsuits. Are you like planning a constitutional convention or something? If you had some proof perhaps somebody might take you seriously, but you don’t and they don’t and I don’t. So how is this “removed” thing supposed to work?

  7. avatar
    Heavy February 9, 2009 at 11:34 am #

    So, the Constitution does not matter to liberals. I think that fact has been clearly demonstrated.

    The “How” will be demonstrated very shortly, in the legal sense. In the physical sense, it will be in shackles. What a great day it will be.

    Then the trial. Oh, what a pleasure that will be to experience.

  8. avatar
    Heavy February 9, 2009 at 11:36 am #

    The real question is what to do with all of the traitors who voted for the usurper.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 9, 2009 at 12:14 pm #

    Give them a medal?

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 9, 2009 at 12:17 pm #

    Calling the Supreme Court “liberal” is not even funny as a silly statement. Calling every member of Congress “liberal” is far enough over the top to reach the level of “mildly funny” if you’re into laughing at delusional thinking which I’m not.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 9, 2009 at 1:25 pm #

    Heavy, could you be specific enough about what you mean by “very shortly” so that we will know when it doesn’t happen?

  12. avatar
    Heavy February 9, 2009 at 1:36 pm #

    This Congress is the most liberal in history. The Supreme court, on the other hand, is not as liberal but it certainly is liberal. They are also intimidated.

    Explain to me why your messiah and his disciple were allowed to have a “Private” meeting with 8 out of 9 SCOTUS justices. He is party to several suits before the court, yet he had a “Private” meeting with those justices and the plaintiffs in those suits were not represented. That is ILLEGAL!

    He is a power drunk usurper who will be removed and tried shortly.

  13. avatar
    tes February 9, 2009 at 2:07 pm #

    It’s just gotta be the long-sought-after hearing on the facts that Berg has been given the opportunity to have! FINALLY, a court is going to actually LISTEN to the factual allegations. So, the “shortly” can only be as soon/shortly as Berg requests that the offered hearing be put on the Court’s schedule!!

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 9, 2009 at 2:22 pm #

    The so-called private meeting was just a social call and something common to the last few presidents before the Inauguration. You nObama cast everything into apocalyptic terms and are totally out of touch with normality.

  15. avatar
    Heavy February 9, 2009 at 2:35 pm #

    A formality? A social call? Either way, what he did was ILLEGAL! Get it?

  16. avatar
    tes February 9, 2009 at 2:36 pm #

    Heavy: What’s your source for the contention that it is *illegal* for a public official to have a private meeting with the justices in a situation where s|he is party to a suit before them?

  17. avatar
    Obot 1024 February 9, 2009 at 2:44 pm #

    Not sure what heavy is talking about.

    Scalia went hunting and had dinner with Cheney (escaping being shot in the face) when the Court had a case pending.

    “In a letter to the Los Angeles Times, which first disclosed details of the trip, Scalia defended his actions, saying they did not threaten his impartiality.

    He said social contacts between high-level administration officials and judges “have never been thought improper” in situations where a judge is considering a case involving actions an official took in his “official capacity,” rather than his “personal capacity.”

  18. avatar
    Heavy February 9, 2009 at 2:51 pm #

    See, you are way off base already. Forget about the facts, just say what you want. How…LIBERAL of you!

    It is ILLEGAL because the plaintiff(s) in the cases were not represented. Clear?

  19. avatar
    Heavy February 9, 2009 at 2:53 pm #

    A social event is not the same as a closed door meeting. The press were allowed to cover the Cheney event, but not your messiah’s. Hmmm…I wonder what they could have been talking about.

  20. avatar
    bogus info February 9, 2009 at 3:00 pm #

    Heavy,

    President Obama was invited by SCOTUS not the other way around, remember?

  21. avatar
    tes February 9, 2009 at 3:18 pm #

    How am I off base merely by asking you for a source? Which .. I note .. you failed to provide. So – no, you’re contention is NOT clear.

  22. avatar
    mimi February 9, 2009 at 3:23 pm #

    Heavy, it’s only illegal if they talked about the case.

    Bush & Clinton both had courtesy meetings with the Supremes as well. And, you can be sure they had suits against them as well. As do ALL Presidents.

  23. avatar
    Obot 1024 February 9, 2009 at 3:28 pm #

    “A social event is not the same as a closed door meeting. The press were allowed to cover the Cheney event, but not your messiah’s”

    The press did not go on the hunting trip nor to dinner with Scalia, Cheney & Rumsfeld. That such a meeting occurred was broken by the LA Times a couple of weeks after the fact.

    The press was at the SCOTUS meeting as evidenced by photos and the immediate reporting of the meetings by the pool reporters who were there.

    I guess you operate from the birther scale of honesty in which “facts” are made up to suit the immediate argument.

    Hey are you and the rest of the birthers going to spring for legal defense funds in the Taitz & Berg disbarrment hearings?

  24. avatar
    Obot 1024 February 9, 2009 at 3:32 pm #

    “It is ILLEGAL because the plaintiff(s) in the cases were not represented. Clear?”

    So a private hunting trip & dinner between two long time friends, when one is a judge in a case and the other is a defendant, is completely above board.

    But a case of a new President meeting with the Supreme Court is prejudicial?

    I think I figured out why these cases do not do well in courts of law.

  25. avatar
    Heavy February 9, 2009 at 3:32 pm #

    Because NOONE else was allowed in the meeting, we do not know what was discussed. One heck of a way for the “Transparency” administration to begin.

    Look folks, this guy is a phony through and through. He has spent millions of dollars trying to hide his history. Now he is trying to spend trillions of OUR dollars as a thank you to those who treasonously got him into office.

    The gig is up and there WILL be hell to pay! Can’t wait!

  26. avatar
    Obot 1024 February 9, 2009 at 3:39 pm #

    “Because NOONE else was allowed in the meeting, we do not know what was discussed. One heck of a way for the “Transparency” administration to begin.”

    “According to Court officials, all the justices except Samuel Alito Jr. joined Obama and Biden in the Court’s stately west conference room, where they sat in highback chairs arranged around the fireplace. “Light refreshments” were served. Also on hand were Jeff Minear, counselor to Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., Gregory Craig, Obama’s choice for White House counsel, and Alan Hoffman, Biden’s deputy chief of staff”

    No one else huh?

    “Look folks, this guy is a phony through and through. He has spent millions of dollars trying to hide his history. ”

    Except he hasn’t spent millions of dollars on this.

    He didn’t even spend that much on campaign lawyers.

    “The gig is up and there WILL be hell to pay! Can’t wait!”

    Yes the competency hearing for Berg should be a hoot.

  27. avatar
    Heavy February 9, 2009 at 3:43 pm #

    Actually, his BC is the least of his problems (Although he will be forced to produce the ACTUAL document). There are the issues of Indonesia, his mother’s ability to confer citzenship, and so on. Not the least of which is his forged SS documents. But I digress.

    Either way you slice it he is at best a naturalized citizen or, at worst an illegal alien.

    Congratulations! You sick, twisted people have managed to ruin this country inside of 40 years.

    You will NOT be forgiven for what you have done to this country!

  28. avatar
    Obot 1024 February 9, 2009 at 3:49 pm #

    “Actually, his BC is the least of his problems (Although he will be forced to produce the ACTUAL document).”

    When will that happen?

    “Congratulations! You sick, twisted people have managed to ruin this country inside of 40 years.”

    You long for the era of Ford & Carter?

    “You will NOT be forgiven for what you have done to this country!”

    And now we have the implicit threat of violence from the flaccid birther movement.

  29. avatar
    Heavy February 9, 2009 at 4:16 pm #

    Violence? REALLY? I don’t remeber saying ANYTHING about violence. But hey, why bother with facts?

    If defending this country against an illegal presidency makes me a so called “Birther”, then count me in!

    Liberals like labels. It makes them feel good about their lack of substance. But name calling is no substitute for truth.

  30. avatar
    Obot 1024 February 9, 2009 at 4:24 pm #

    “Violence? REALLY? I don’t remeber saying ANYTHING about violence. But hey, why bother with facts?”

    Someone get heavy a dictionary and open it to the word implicit.

    Of course you didn’t actually threaten violence heavy because that would take a modicum of bravery.

    “Liberals like labels. It makes them feel good about their lack of substance. But name calling is no substitute for truth.”

    This passage delivered with a lack of self awareness or sense of irony.

  31. avatar
    Heavy February 9, 2009 at 4:35 pm #

    I’m well aware of what implicit means. It’s a word heavily used by liberals when they are losing a debate.

    By the way, what would YOU know about bravery?

  32. avatar
    mimi February 9, 2009 at 4:41 pm #

    “According to Court officials, all the justices except Samuel Alito Jr. joined Obama and Biden in the Court’s stately west conference room, where they sat in highback chairs arranged around the fireplace. “Light refreshments” were served. Also on hand were Jeff Minear, counselor to Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., Gregory Craig, Obama’s choice for White House counsel, and Alan Hoffman, Biden’s deputy chief of staff. No explanation was given for Alito’s absence.”

    Also noted is that Justice ROBERTS extended the invitation. (Obama voted against his confirmation.)

    “The meeting between the two branches resulted from a Dec. 5 invitation sent by Roberts to Obama, inviting Obama and Biden to visit the Court before they are sworn in. Noting that recent predecessors had arranged similar meetings “so that colleagues in public service might become better acquainted,” Roberts said the Court “would be pleased to see that sporadic practice become a congenial tradition.” Roberts promised a “warm welcome” from the Court. Roberts’ friendly tone was notable, since both Obama and Biden voted against his confirmation in 2005.”

    http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/01/a-chat-around-the-fireplace-for-obama-biden-and-the-supreme-court.html

    So Heavy, they weren’t alone. But, media was not present. Because… they WERE NOT INVITED.

    “The court said Roberts, who will administer the oath of office to Obama next Tuesday, invited the pair to meet with him and the associate justices in the ceremonial West Conference Room, and maybe take a tour of the place. Reporters and photographers are not invited.”

    Also, as I said before, it has become somewhat of a tradition.

    “A meeting between the president and the court is something of a modern-day tradition. Ronald Reagan and his vice president, George H.W. Bush, visited with the justices before they took office in 1980, and Bill Clinton and Al Gore made the trip in 1992 (the famously late Clinton kept the justices waiting). In the wake of the court’s 5 to 4 decision in Bush v. Gore that settled the 2000 presidential election, President Bush and Vice President Cheney did not visit before taking office.”

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/01/13/obama_biden_to_pay_call_on_sup.html?wprss=the-trail

  33. avatar
    Obot 1024 February 9, 2009 at 4:42 pm #

    “I’m well aware of what implicit means. It’s a word heavily used by liberals when they are losing a debate.”

    I can’t argue with that logic.

    And I mean that literally.

    “By the way, what would YOU know about bravery?”

    Enough to know that tough talking lectures from the KeyBoard Fighting 101st emanate from the worst sort of cowards.

    So tell us impotent one when we can expect your predictions to come to fruition.

  34. avatar
    chris February 9, 2009 at 4:43 pm #

    While the dictionary is open, please be sure to also check out the passage under “delusional”. Thank you.

  35. avatar
    mimi February 9, 2009 at 4:44 pm #

    It is not illegal unless they talked about the case. Got it. Try and wrap your head around it.

  36. avatar
    mimi February 9, 2009 at 4:47 pm #

    I replied under the wrong box. You know what I mean. My reply was meant for Heavy.

  37. avatar
    mimi February 9, 2009 at 4:49 pm #

    All of that has been debunked on this site, as well as a few others.

    The only way to see it is that he was born in Hawaii a “Natural Born Citizen”.

  38. avatar
    Heavy February 9, 2009 at 4:50 pm #

    When? That’s a good question. But remember, the element of surprise cannot be overestimated.

    We’ll see who the REAL cowards are then punk!

  39. avatar
    mimi February 9, 2009 at 4:52 pm #

    If your case had any substance, the lawyers wouldn’t still be begging for money or sending out useless subpoenaes that aren’t enforceable anyway.

  40. avatar
    Heavy February 9, 2009 at 4:54 pm #

    Delusional…Ah, here it is!

    Someone who thinks something is true when it clearly is not. Sounds like supporters of THE ONE.

  41. avatar
    Obot 1024 February 9, 2009 at 4:58 pm #

    “When? That’s a good question. But remember, the element of surprise cannot be overestimated.”

    When one is left with secret legal strategies, one usually has nothing.

    But please heavy, send every dime you can to Orly and Berg.

  42. avatar
    Heavy February 9, 2009 at 4:58 pm #

    Clearly, you have been drinking the Kool-Aid and don’t know what debunked means. Swept under the carpet and ignored is not debunked.

  43. avatar
    Obot 1024 February 9, 2009 at 5:01 pm #

    “Someone who thinks something is true when it clearly is not.”

    Hmmm sounds like someone who offered the Obama has spent millions lie.

    Or perhaps the Obama forged his Social Security number lie?

    You’ve told so many lies heavy, that its difficult to keep up.

  44. avatar
    bogus info February 9, 2009 at 5:02 pm #

    Amen to that.

  45. avatar
    Heavy February 9, 2009 at 5:05 pm #

    Lies? Really? Do tell.

    The money that your messiah has spent defending himself against the truth is well documented. SS is Selective Service not Social Security, brainiac.

    I’m sorry, where did I lie again?

  46. avatar
    Heavy February 9, 2009 at 5:07 pm #

    Amen to that. See, you people DO worship this pretender!

  47. avatar
    bogus info February 9, 2009 at 5:24 pm #

    Heavy,

    Please provide your source for the legal fees Obama has spent defending himself. Dr. Taitz could not, Robert could not so if you can, please provide a link for your source for this information. Your so called “well documented” proof.

  48. avatar
    Jez February 9, 2009 at 5:26 pm #

    Would you care to let me know where this documentation is of which you speak? I’ve heard figures that President Obama has spent anywhere between $500k to $2.5 million on defending against these charges. Which is kind of interesting considering most of the cases that have been filed are against state officials. Which means the tax payers of the state are the ones paying for defending against the allegations.
    So Heavy, where is the documentation on what has been spent in defending against all of these charges? I, for one, would love to read them.

  49. avatar
    mimi February 9, 2009 at 5:28 pm #

    Yes, Heavy. Where is it “well-documented”.

    The Selective Service card is addressed here, as well as some other sites. It took me about 30 seconds to find those mysterious “obsolete” postmarks online.

    Here’s one site:
    http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.geocities.com/redmondrose/ms/motiveb.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.geocities.com/redmondrose/MS_Chaos_files/Fonts/MS_Chaos1.htm&usg=__qMnsjpJevRoaApQMIsR9nXWugfU=&h=1036&w=1314&sz=53&hl=en&start=84&um=1&tbnid=oeHVGjO0nxvZVM:&tbnh=118&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcertified%2Breceipt%26start%3D80%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1G1GGLQ_ENUS308%26sa%3DN

    The rest of it has been debunked as well.

    Now… where’s your well-documented evidence?

  50. avatar
    bogus info February 9, 2009 at 5:30 pm #

    Heavy,

    No, I do NOT worship Obama.

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 9, 2009 at 5:44 pm #

    SSA is Social Security Administration. SSS is Selective Service System. SS is the Nazis.

  52. avatar
    Obot 1024 February 9, 2009 at 6:06 pm #

    “The money that your messiah has spent defending himself against the truth is well documented. ”

    How is it well documented?

    How would you know what he has spent on lawyers defending cases when most of the cases do not name him as a defendant?

    “SS is Selective Service not Social Security, brainiac.”

    Sorry between the Obama’s social security number and the supposed Selective Service forgery, its hard to keep yup with the birther theories involving the acronym SS.

    “I’m sorry, where did I lie again?”

    When you stated he has spent millions defending his case.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 9, 2009 at 6:26 pm #

    Which law would that be?

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 9, 2009 at 6:38 pm #

    I did not vote for George W. Bush, thank you.

  55. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 9, 2009 at 7:06 pm #

    It might be more accurate to say that Heavy lied when he said the defense expenses were “well documented” which is an easily verified question, while the actual of the defense is literally “anybody’s guess”. However, again, there’s’ no lawsuit I know of that could have been resolved by releasing a photocopy version birth certificate.

    I think that if one hangs out on forums that cheer lead one idea (and ban opposing opinions), one might get the idea that the views expressed there are consensus views, or widely understood views, or well documented views when in fact they are fringe ideas and rumors.

  56. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 9, 2009 at 11:55 pm #

    Typical birther response. Completely ignore any evidence that doesn’t support your paranoid conspiracy theory, resort to insults and snotty comments about the patriotism of people who don’t agree 110% with you.

  57. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 10, 2009 at 12:01 am #

    Heavy – where is the *proof* that he’s spent “Millions of Dollars trying to hide his history”??? I keep seeing estimates ranging from $500,000 to “millions”, but no proof at all.

    The majority of the lawsuits have been against state officials, (Secretary of States and the like). The people paying attorney fees to defend themselves in those cases are the taxpayers of those states. In the two cases (Berg v Obama and Hollister v “Soetoro”) that attorneys for Obama have responded, they’ve been fairly standard moves to dismiss the case, which doesn’t cost “millions of dollars”.

    So I ask again. Where is the proof of that amount?

  58. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 10, 2009 at 12:13 am #

    What Indonesian citzenship??

    The claims of Indonesian citizenship due to adoption by Lolo Soetoro started at the PUMA blog “TexasDarlin”, and were written by someone using the Nom de Plume of “Judah Benjamin”. Later, Philip Berg used those claims in his initial lawsuit. However, there’s a couple major flaws in the theory.

    First off is the US Natualization Act of 1940. Later amended in 1952. In both the original act and the amendment, it states clearly that a US citizen who is a minor CANNOT renounce that citizenship nor can any action of the parents renounce that citizenship. Obama would either have had to live overseas until the age of 23 and NOT take any actions to keep his US citizenship, or go to a US embassy after the age of 18 and renounce it before witnesses, to loose his US citizenship. This is according to US Law.

    In Indonesian law, an adoptive father cannot gain Indonesian citizenship for an adoptive child if it results in dual citizenship. Which means that even if Lolo Soetoro wanted to grant Indonesian citizenship to Barack Obama, (mind you, no credible evidence of any adoption has been found), he could not under Indonesian law.

    So in other words, according to US Law, there is no way Barack Obama OR his parents could have given up his US citizenship as a minor, and according to Indonesian law, there’s no way Lolo Soetoro could have gotten Indonesian citizenship FOR Barack Obama due to his having US Citizenship.

    So, again I say, WHAT Indonesian Citizenship??

  59. avatar
    Heavy February 10, 2009 at 12:31 am #

    Another “Canned” response. You slimy liberals can’t even think for yourselves!

  60. avatar
    bogus info February 10, 2009 at 12:38 am #

    Heavy,

    Instead of insulting Patrick, you might want to go look up what he just told you. You will find that what he says is FACTUAL regarding the law. Nothing “canned” about it. Just facts!

  61. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 10, 2009 at 1:10 am #

    Canned response?? Hardly. I’ve been writing about this nuttness since the primaries ended.

    You might want to look at the facts yourself before you jump on the insult stick. The US law in question is the Nationality Act of 1940, Sections 401 and 407, and the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, sections 349(a) and 355.

    As for Indonesian law, you’ll want to look at #62/1958, passed on 29 July 1958.

    I’ve done my homework and research. The question is, have you?

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2009 at 1:30 am #

    A true and factual responses will always be similar. No originality is needed to answer an non-original complaint.

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2009 at 1:31 am #

    I just finished an article on this: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/hollister-v-indonesian-citizenship-law/

  64. avatar
    Mike February 10, 2009 at 2:46 am #

    But remember, the element of surprise cannot be overestimated.

    Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

    Oh, wait, I’m sorry. We’re not actually in a Python sketch, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding…

  65. avatar
    Ian Gould February 10, 2009 at 5:45 am #

    “We’ll see who the REAL cowards are then punk!”

    So if not violence, what exactly is it people should be afraid of?

    Are you planning to jail everyone who voted for Obama?

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2009 at 8:02 am #

    I had forgotten, Patrick, that you’d already already researched this (and I wasted a lot of time looking for Indonesian laws last night). (I also discovered just now that Yes To Democracy is not linked to from here, but that’s now remedied.)

    But that is the way of sites like ours: we do independent research rather than just cutting and pasting things from other sites which is nothing more than multiplying rumors.

  67. avatar
    Cymraeg February 10, 2009 at 8:46 am #

    I am getting so weary of these conspiracy people. The more outrageous the fairy tale they hear the more likely they are to believe it. The Certification of Live Birth shown on the web is sufficient for me. I am a retired attorney and very well aware of what is acceptable evidence.

    But the birth certificate, and constitution issues are just red herrings. The real issue is that Obama is black. As you read the blogs you see this secret seeping out from underneath the constitutional chatter. If Obama’s father had been Anglo-Saxon or Scots-Irish, and his mother had taken him to live in Sweden for 5 years, you would not be hearing this uproar.

    These anti-Obama people are the people who are trying to trash the Constitution. The courts have been deciding these cases as they should be; they are following the Constitution, legistation and 1000 years of common law. Standing is not a “technicality”. It is an important element of the fair and prompt adjudication of controvercies. They want the courts to abandon all of this because they are whining. They make me sick to my stomach. I wish they would all renounce their citizenship and move back to whatever European country they or their ancestors came from, if said countries would take them.

  68. avatar
    bogus info February 10, 2009 at 9:00 am #

    Sadly, I agree with you. And it becomes more visible on these blogs with each passing day.

  69. avatar
    Heavy February 10, 2009 at 9:14 am #

    No less than a dozen (A dirty dozen at that) of you sick, limpwristed libs against little old me. How refeshing.

    Not one of you have offered ANYTHING other than conjecture and opinion. This is a serious issue. This pile of garbage is illegally occupying the Whitehouse and giving away OUR money at a record pace.

    Have you noticed the sense of urgency in his actions and his words? Why do you think he is in such a hurry to give our money away? Is a few weeks going to make a difference? NO!

    He is in a hurry because this issue is going to be his undoing and he knows it. He wants to inflict as much damage as possible as quickly as he can.

    He will be stopped “By any means necessary”. That is a quote from one of your messiah’s idols, Malcolm X.

    The end will come quickly and catch most of you brain dead sickos by surprise. There will be riots in the streets. This HAS to happen. They will be short lived because you dope smoking piles of dung don’t have the will nor the means to put up a good fight.

  70. avatar
    Ian Gould February 10, 2009 at 9:20 am #

    “There will be riots in the streets. This HAS to happen. They will be short lived because you dope smoking piles of dung don’t have the will nor the means to put up a good fight.”

    This from the person who;

    a. denied threatening violence; and

    b. deplored the use of insults by others.

    Obama is probably going to be President for the next 7 years and 11 months or so, get used to it.

  71. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2009 at 9:22 am #

    I get weary too, typing page after page refuting the same misinformation, rumors and logical fallacies. I get particularly angry at Philip Berg who is a lawyer and should know better than to mangle citations of American and Indonesian law (not to mention mangling what they say!), and cite rumors as if they were facts.

    Race is certainly part of it, but looking at the players you also see anti-abortion activists, anti-gay activists, pro-Gun activists, pro-Israel activists and general hate-anything-liberal activists. Obama’s mixed racial and cultural background and his pragmatic approach is a slap in the face to ideologues and isolationists.

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2009 at 9:27 am #

    A word of encouragement for those who consider carrying the banner of truth a moral imperative.

    They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength.
    They shall mount up on wings like eagles.
    They shall run and not be weary
    They shall walk and not faint
    .

    That’s from Isaiah, quoted from memory so it might not be exactly right.

  73. avatar
    bogus info February 10, 2009 at 9:39 am #

    Heavy,

    Do you have a job? Are you behind on your mortgage payment and in danger of losing your home? Did your retirement fund decrease? Do you own a business and can’t get credit? Do you have a son/daughter who is college bound but can’t get funding/assistance/loans to attend college to supplement what the parents can do?

    I can’t believe people don’t see how college students stimulate the economy and create and just as importantly, “preserve” jobs. Ever been to a college town/city? Hmmm, and what about all those young adults who were college bound who are now competing for a job?

  74. avatar
    bogus info February 10, 2009 at 10:15 am #

    Dr. C.,

    Racism to me isn’t just about “race”–black/white thing. Racism is fearing, hating, opposing anything that is NOT LIKE YOU. Religious beliefs, Jews, Muslims, Orientals, Hispanics; heck the Church of Christ where I live believes and preaches anybody who isn’t Church of Christ is going to HELL. Gays, guns, immigrants. The list is long. People who have no tolerance and respect for other’s opinions is racism to me. And anyone who doesn’t agree with their ideology/opinions is labeled a “liberal.”

    By the way, the teacher who had the kids write the paper on “Why Obama is Like Hitler” has been addressed.

  75. avatar
    Heavy February 10, 2009 at 10:22 am #

    What’s your point? The government will cure what ails the economy? That has NEVER worked before and NEVER will!

    I do own a business and have no problem getting credit. I have children in college and they will become productive members of society not brainwashed lemmings waiting for the next handout.

  76. avatar
    Jody February 10, 2009 at 10:23 am #

    Nice post. I would suggest deleting some of the comments. It makes for an unpleasant experience.

  77. avatar
    Heavy February 10, 2009 at 10:28 am #

    How typical. Liberals playing the race card. What a crock, doc! Just because you feel guilty dosen’t mean the rest of us should.

    Tired of trying to refute fallacies? Too bad. Until your messiah PROVES he meets the requirements for the office, he is a usurper and is putting this counrty in harms way with every breath he takes. It is HIS responsibilty to prove his NBC status.

    It’s only a matter of time before the truth is out and all hell breaks loose. You who support him will be held accountable.

  78. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 10, 2009 at 10:31 am #

    Actually I cited the aspects of both US law AND Indonesian law that show there is no way under United States Law that Obama’s parents could have given up US citizenship for him while he was a minor, and the Indonesian legal code number showing he could not have been granted Indonesian citizenship.

    These aren’t opinions or conjectures. These are legal facts. If you want opinions or conjectures, then go back to the birther blogs, because the conspiracy theories the birthers support is nothing BUT opinions or conjectures, without the slightest shred of credible evidence.

    By the way, don’t call me a liberal. I’m a moderate, a gun owner, and a proud American who has sworn the past to uphold and defend the Constitution.

  79. avatar
    Heavy February 10, 2009 at 10:40 am #

    Sounds like a perfect description of this site and the fringe wackos who frequent it.

  80. avatar
    Heavy February 10, 2009 at 10:46 am #

    Proud American? Really? You support an illegal for President and call yourself proud.

    Moderate? Yeah, right! You may be a gun owner now, but wait until your messiah has it taken away.

    It’s a shame that you people, so blinded by your hatred of Bush, can’t see the forest for the trees.

  81. avatar
    awe_and_shock February 10, 2009 at 11:25 am #

    Dr C,

    Please add Usurper to the Glossary. I also like ‘Checkmate’ and ‘Game, Set, Match’, commonly used at the end of posts on the other sites.

  82. avatar
    Heavy February 10, 2009 at 11:33 am #

    Yes, and please include the definition along with a picture of your messiah.

  83. avatar
    awe_and_shock February 10, 2009 at 11:51 am #

    Based on the domain name, i don’t think anyone needs help figuring out what this site is about. Besides, he’s the first image on the landing page. I do like this picture and should be placed somewhere. Definition not needed.

    http://meltyourfaceoff.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/tin-foil-hat.jpg

  84. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2009 at 11:52 am #

    The Blinking Cursor writes, and after clicking Submit,
    Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
    Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,
    Nor all your tears wash out a Word of it.

    –Obot Khayyam

  85. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2009 at 12:08 pm #

    Heavy, perhaps bluster makes you feel better, but it makes other people feel worse to the extent that the bitterness, belligerence and negativity spawns negative emotions in others. Your conduct here is very much like someone walking down the street and slapping people in the face because they don’t like them.

    If you have anger issues, this is not the place to deal with them. If you are looking for confirmation of your conspiracy theories by seeing them make other people angry, then I suggest you try to find a more rational approach.

    What frustrates me some is that those who lie, and spread misinformation, and generate unnecessary anxiety in people will not be held accountable. It’s called free speech. If Berg persists, he’ll get sanctioned, and Orly I suspect will be disbarred. But the vast majority of irresponsible blogs will not answer for it.

  86. avatar
    brygenon February 10, 2009 at 12:10 pm #

    “Racism to me isn’t just about “race”–black/white thing. Racism is fearing, hating, opposing anything that is NOT LIKE YOU.”

    Then I suggest the more general term “bigotry”, which truly is at the root of this nonsense.

    Against the specific charge of racism, the birthers have a “lots of black friends” defense in Alan Keyes and James D. Manning.

  87. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2009 at 12:11 pm #

    The more I think about it, the more I’m coming to the conclusion that Hollister v. Soetoro (which argues incorrectly from these laws) will be withdrawn.

  88. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2009 at 12:12 pm #

    Thanks for the suggestion. I added Usurper and Checkmate. It was hard to come up with what I wanted for Checkmate.

  89. avatar
    Heavy February 10, 2009 at 12:18 pm #

    Ah, retribution, eh doc. What about the lies you spread through this site?

    If I am walking down the street slapping people in the face, then you are kicking them in the crotch.

    Like a typical yellow bellied liberal, you can dish it out but you can’t take it. That is why your side would negotiate with those who have sworn to destroy us. It is also why your side cannot win.

    Win or lose these lawsuits establish that your messiah is a liar and a marxist. You will never accept this fact because liberals are truth averse.

  90. avatar
    brygenon February 10, 2009 at 12:21 pm #

    “Until your messiah PROVES he meets the requirements for the office[…]”

    That’s done. Question do not remain open simply because kooks refuse to face the answers.

  91. avatar
    Heavy February 10, 2009 at 12:27 pm #

    Done? Hardly! It has not even begun. There are too many qustions and not enough answers.

    He’s hiding the truth and you have fallen for it.

  92. avatar
    brygenon February 10, 2009 at 1:32 pm #

    Let’s take a look at which side is on the fringe here. There are now a few dozen legal actions challenging Obama’s eligibility, and the mix of court decisions is no mix at all: they lose all the time, every time. 100% failure.

    Birthers also made their case to electors of the electoral college, and managed to sway zero of them. They flooded U.S. senators and House members with their letters, resulting in zero objections when congress certified the presidential elections.

    Birthers bemoan the lack of reporting on their cause in the mainstream media, but they get even angrier when serious journalists do report on them.

    When birther lose their arguments, as they do everywhere but their own internet forums and their own heads, they react with charges of corruptions. For specific evidence of corruption, the birthers have nothing; their evidence is simply their own defeat.

  93. avatar
    Heavy February 10, 2009 at 2:13 pm #

    Politician will always do what is politcally expedient. the fact the THE ONE’S “Election” was ratified by the Senate means nothing.

    The SCOTUS is afraid to hear cases challenging your messiah’s NBC status becuase of potential fallout political and otherwise. No the justices are not politicians, per se, but they are political appointees. Besides, who knows what those two shysters said to them behind closed doors?

    The fact remains that your savior has not proven his elligibility, plain and simple. The attempts to do so, on his behalf, have proven to be questionable at best and criminal at worst. His elligibilty is implied only.

    The American people demand proof!

  94. avatar
    A. Kibitzer February 10, 2009 at 2:27 pm #

    I’ll contact you separately to bet on that proposition. You are making the mistake of thinking rationally, and drawing a rational conclusion from the Judge’s order in that case to examine Berg in court.

    In order to withdraw it, Berg is going to need a fantastic cover story.

    He’ll tough it out. He’ll claim that he exercised due diligence and consulted sources that gave him he information in good faith. He can claim that Rule 11 does not require allegations to be “correct”, otherwise we would not have lawsuits.

    I believe you underestimate the power of self delusion in your assessment that Berg with withdraw.

  95. avatar
    Heavy February 10, 2009 at 2:56 pm #

    Q: When is the truth not the truth?

    A: When spoken by a liberal.

  96. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2009 at 2:57 pm #

    Heavy, if you would mention a lie on this site, I will be sure to check it out and correct if warranted.

  97. avatar
    mimi February 10, 2009 at 3:12 pm #

    I agree with Jody. The comments that have a real question or debate are one thing, but Heavy just spams. S/he has nothing to say. But, it’s your blog.

    (Feel free to delete this message.)

    🙂

  98. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 10, 2009 at 5:09 pm #

    Proud American? Damn straight.

    Gun Owner? Absolutely.

    Voted for an illegal? Nope! I voted for a person born in the United States, holding US citizenship from birth. If I wanted to vote for a non-citizen, I would have voted for Roger Calero of the Socialist Workers Party.

    You still haven’t shown any credible evidence supporting your claim of Indonesian citizenship, BTW. I’ve cited the portions of US law AND Indonesian law that show Obama could not have lost his US citizenship. You’ve stomped your foot and went “did so! did so!” without any evidence to support your claim.

  99. avatar
    Heavy February 10, 2009 at 5:33 pm #

    Patrick, you and your liberal horde make me laugh. The burden of proof falls on your messiah.

    Let me guess. You voted for THE ONE to get back at Bush, right?

  100. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2009 at 5:36 pm #

    I think the cover story may be difficult but recovery from a scathing, detailed, “your case is bullshit” written order will be much more difficult.

    “We have received information that President Obama has privately contacted the judge and discussed his interest in appointing him to the next Supreme Court vacancy…In light of this information, we feel that continuing the case would be counterproductive.” Our best hope is to put all our efforts and our severely limited funds into our Sealed suit before a different judge.”

  101. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2009 at 5:38 pm #

    Q: When is a fact not a fact?
    A: When it has no supporting evidence.

  102. avatar
    Ian Gould February 10, 2009 at 5:40 pm #

    One of the most conservative people I know in the US – ran in Republican House primaries in Georgia several times; ran unsuccessfully there as a Republican in general elections; was a delegate for Ron Paul in 2008 then campaigned for McCain – thinks the NBC conspiracy theories are nonsense.

    He LOVES it when birther idiots call him a liberal.

  103. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 10, 2009 at 5:48 pm #

    “The fact remains that your savior has not proven his elligibility, plain and simple. The attempts to do so, on his behalf, have proven to be questionable at best and criminal at worst. His elligibilty is implied only.

    Well, he’s not a “savior”, but…

    The fact remains that neither Berg, Taitz, Pidgeon, Donofrio, Wrotnowski, Kreep, Schneller, Strunk, Martin, Esssk, Connerat, Apuzzo, Hunter, Stamper, Brockhausen, Cohen, Sullivan, Terry, Greenberg, Smith, Marquis, Neal, or Archibold (among others), have NOT disproven Obama’s eligibility. The attempts to do so against him have proven to contain no credible evidence, and a great deal of internet rumor and unfounded claims. His ineligibility is implied only.

    The American people demand proof!

    The American people have seen proof – and gave their opinion of that proof on 4 November 2008. The only ones demanding proof are a batch of conspiracy buffs and internet pundits.

  104. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 10, 2009 at 5:49 pm #

    Be a pretty big jail to contain over 60 million American citizens…..

  105. avatar
    Ian Gould February 10, 2009 at 5:49 pm #

    “P.S. Send more money.”

    How long before we see a Birther version of the Nigerian scam:

    “My father was a Minister in the previous Kenyan government. Before leaving office, he removed the original of Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate for safe keeping. I am prepared to sell it you it you…”

  106. avatar
    Ian Gould February 10, 2009 at 5:49 pm #

    “P.S. Send more money.”

    How long before we see a Birther version of the Nigerian scam:

    “My father was a Minister in the previous Kenyan government. Before leaving office, he removed the original of Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate for safe keeping. I am prepared to sell it to you…”

  107. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 10, 2009 at 6:31 pm #

    “It is HIS responsibilty to prove his NBC status.”

    Rule of law in this country is:

    1) Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
    2) Burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defendant.

  108. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 10, 2009 at 6:37 pm #

    “The burden of proof falls on your messiah..”

    He’s not *my* messiah. And as I said, rule of law in this country is:

    1) Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
    2) Burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defendant.

    I voted for Obama because I felt he could have made a better President than McCain. (and I voted for McCain in 2000 during the primaries). Bush had nothing to do with my vote – he wasn’t running in 2008.

    I also supported Ron Paul during his 1992 presidential bid if you must know.

    And once again, I am not a liberal. Unless you personally define liberal as “someone who disagrees with you”

  109. avatar
    Cymraeg February 10, 2009 at 7:19 pm #

    It is nice to hear some sanity here. I do not think that Taitz, Berg, etc. really want a hearing on the evidence. They have to know that Obama’s and the government attorneys will mop the flow with them. Taitz, et.al. have got to know that they do not have one shred of admissable evidence. Their motivation would appear to be elsewhere.

  110. avatar
    Obot 1024 February 10, 2009 at 7:31 pm #

    “The SCOTUS is afraid to hear cases challenging your messiah’s NBC status becuase of potential fallout political and otherwise. No the justices are not politicians, per se, but they are political appointees. Besides, who knows what those two shysters said to them behind closed doors?”

    So 9 Justices who are appointed for life and can only be removed through impeachment, which has NEVER happened in the history of this country (note Chase was impeached but not removed), feel they owe a new President who did not appoint any of them and in fact voted against two of them some kind of political payback and so they are not taking up birther cases.

    Ok then…

  111. avatar
    bogus info February 10, 2009 at 7:40 pm #

    “I do own a business and have no problem getting credit. I have children in college and they will become productive members of society not brainwashed lemmings waiting for the next handout.”

    Then I suggest you be thankful for your blessings. There are some/many in this country who are not so fortunate through no fault of their own other than the company/entity they worked for cut back or closed their doors. It is easy to oppose assistance when you don’t need assistance yourself now isn’t it?

    And I don’t smoke pot nor have I ever done any type of drugs so I don’t appreciate your remark. I don’t even drink. People can disagree without being disagreeable. Why do you feel the need to insult others and call people names to get your point across? It is really not necessary. No one here has been disrespectful to you because of your opinions. They simply do not agree with them, which is their right. Look around this blog. It is NOT a anti-Obama blog. If you want someone to agree with you and your opinions, you have come to the wrong blog.

  112. avatar
    awe_and_shock February 10, 2009 at 8:24 pm #

    Dr C,

    Please replace ‘Checkmate’ with ‘Liberal’ in your Glossary.

  113. avatar
    Heavy February 11, 2009 at 9:17 am #

    Nice try, lib! When you cash a check, is it your responsibilty to prove who you are or the bank?

    The same holds true for your messiah. When there is a requirement to be met, YOU must provide proof that you meet those requirements. Sounds kind of cut and dried. But, liberals are truth averse!

  114. avatar
    DC February 11, 2009 at 9:35 am #

    This whole thing relies on an absurd claim that BHO actually forged the Hawaii COLB and put in on the internet AND Factcheck went along with it AND the State of Hawaii did not notice the forged document after being asked about by numerous individuals. BHO just ignored this after he posted the COLB on his site in June. He just lets the birthers tilt at the wind mills.
    Should one ever get an actual hearing they will simply bring in a lawyer with the Hawaii COLB and present it. The plaintiifs have nothing other that what they got from BHO himself (the COLB). The burden wil be on them to provide evidence that BHO was not born in HI. Good lucj, all of these birthers have yet to produce anything of substance.
    The native born argument is a different thing, there the birthers just don’t get the courts have worked out two categories of citizenship. BHO is a native born and hence qualified. It is fun to watch them.

  115. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 11, 2009 at 10:43 am #

    Heavy – if you try and cash a check and the place in question keeps making more and more demands for identification over and above what the law requires, who’s responsibility is that? The person writing the check or the company in question?

    And you STILL haven’t addressed the Indonesian citizenship issue.

    Honestly, can you actually hold a civil discussion without tap dancing around the issues and calling the other like a liberal?? Or are you taking the “I don’t know how to answer your question so I’ll act like an internet tough guy and claim everyone is a liberal” approach to debate??

  116. avatar
    Heavy February 11, 2009 at 11:46 am #

    It’ll be even more fun to watch this creep dragged from the Oval Office in handcuffs.

    “HE” posted a COLB on “HIS” website. Just like “HIS” campaign conducted an ivestigation into contacts with Bago and found nothing wrong.

    Where does your gall end? Don’t you see you are being duped?

  117. avatar
    Heavy February 11, 2009 at 11:57 am #

    Patrick, if you try to cash a check with an obviously bogus ID, it won’t work. In fact, you would probably be arrested and have to prove it is not a forgery in court. Hmm…..

    By the way, I never said that you savior was an Indonesian citizen, although the question has been raised by other.

    Truth is, only one person knows the truth… Your messiah. And he’s not talking.

    The burden of proof is on HIM and he ain’t tellin’!

  118. avatar
    Obot 1024 February 11, 2009 at 12:53 pm #

    “By the way, I never said that you savior was an Indonesian citizen, although the question has been raised by other.”

    Heavy says:
    February 9, 2009 at 3:43 pm

    Actually, his BC is the least of his problems (Although he will be forced to produce the ACTUAL document). There are the issues of Indonesia, his mother’s ability to confer citzenship, and so on.

  119. avatar
    bogus info February 11, 2009 at 12:58 pm #

    Obot 1024,

    I was about to do the same thing but you beat me to it. LOL. Good job!

  120. avatar
    Obot 1024 February 11, 2009 at 1:06 pm #

    “I was about to do the same thing but you beat me to it. LOL. Good job!”

    Thanks.

    Its nice to see a few people bringing reality to the tin foil brigade even if they ignore it.

  121. avatar
    Heavy February 11, 2009 at 1:17 pm #

    Liberals are all alike. They think alike. Thanks for making my point. As you can CLEARLY see, I NEVER said he was a citizen of Indonesia!

    But hey, why let facts get in the way?

  122. avatar
    Obot 1024 February 11, 2009 at 1:32 pm #

    “As you can CLEARLY see, I NEVER said he was a citizen of Indonesia!”

    Then why mention Indonesia in a discussion of his citizenship status?

    Please tell us the issue with Indonesia if it has nothing to do with his citizenship.

  123. avatar
    bogus info February 11, 2009 at 1:40 pm #

    Heavy,

    “There are the issues of Indonesia”

    Please tell us what your above statement is referring to? What are the “issues of Indonesia?”

  124. avatar
    Heavy February 11, 2009 at 2:02 pm #

    The issues (Plural) are several. Was he adopted by Sotero? Was he ever an Indoneisan citizen? If so, did he lose his US citizenship (IF he ever had it to begin with)? Did he ever have an Indonesian passport? What’s his LEGAL name?

    These, gentlemen, are just a few of the questions that need to be answered.

    Go ahead. Let me have it! Let’s hear all of the libspeak talking points.

  125. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 11, 2009 at 2:32 pm #

    “Was he adopted by Sotero?”

    There is no credible evidence to support this claim.

    “Was he ever an Indoneisan citizen?”

    Assuming such an adoption took place, Indonesian citizenship could not be granted due to Indonesian law #62/1958, passed on 29 July 1958. Since granting Indonesian citizenship would have resulted in a dual-citizenship situation, then by Indonesian law, citizenship could not be granted.

    “If so, did he lose his US citizenship”

    According to US law, (Nationality Act of 1940, Sections 401 and 407, and the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, sections 349(a) and 355.), a minor cannot renounce his US citizenship or have it renounced on his behalf. So the answer is no, he did not.

    “(IF he ever had it to begin with)”

    There is no credible evidence to support the claim that Barack Obama was not a US citizen at birth.

    “Did he ever have an Indonesian passport?”

    There is no credible evidence to support that he ever had an Indonesian passport.

    “What’s his LEGAL name?”

    According to credible evidence, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (or alternatively, Barack Hussein Obama II). There is no credible evidence he used “Soetoro” for legal last name.

    “These, gentlemen, are just a few of the questions that need to be answered.”

    And they have been answered. Repeatedly.

    “Go ahead. Let me have it! Let’s hear all of the libspeak talking points.”

    Translation – “My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with either facts or the truth”.

  126. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 11, 2009 at 2:35 pm #

    Alternatively, if one presents valid ID and the store claims it’s a forgery, the burden of proof is now on the store to prove their claim.

    And he’s not my “savior” or my “messiah”. How many times do you need that explained to you??

    In a court of law, burden of proof is on the accuser.

  127. avatar
    Heavy February 11, 2009 at 3:00 pm #

    Patrick, just what I thought. You just recycle old opinion. What you present as facts are not. There are factual arguments for every one of them.

    The FACT remains that he MUST PROVE he is elligible. ONLY HE can do that. He has not and will not. Therefore, it is up to those who doubt to provide proof to the contrary.

    The Constitution says that they MUST BE a natural born citizen, not CLAIM to be. Actually, your messiah has not said so himself. His “People” have made the claim that he is. He is keeping himself once removed from the controversy in a very slick Chicago style.

    And no, my mind is NOT made up. If he indeed proves to be qualified, I will support him as I would any other President. Until then, he’s just a pretender.

    Q: Why do YOU think he won’t present the documents requested and end the controversy?

  128. avatar
    Heavy February 11, 2009 at 3:03 pm #

    How about his long form BC, passport records, college records or SS records?

    Any one or all of them would answer the questions.

    Where there is smoke there is fire!

  129. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2009 at 3:11 pm #

    Heavy,

    First, it would be whole lot easier on me if you would read the articles here on the subjects you are asking questions about, and then add challenges, suggestion for improvement, questions, etc to those articles. That way the discussion stays organized, and you see much more information and documentation than is practical to type in here.

    We’ve been over the Indonesia issue in a fair amount of detail in articles here. The main point is that BOTH US and Indonesian law prohibit a US Citizen who is a minor from becoming an Indonesian citizen. US Law forbids a child or someone on the child’s behalf from renouncing his citizenship, and Indonesian law forbids assumption of Indonesian citizenship for anyone from a country that does not have a formal process for renouncing citizenship. Berg’s citations of Indonesian law in Hollister v. Soetoro simply don’t say what he claims (article here on that too).

    As for the passport, there’s no reason I can think of for anyone to think that Obama had an Indonesian passport, anymore than a Soviet passport or a Peruvian passport. (The travel ban to Pakistan was an Internet myth, evidence in at least 2 feature articles here).

    Real name? Berg suggests that Barry had to have an ID card in Indonesia card and that schools checked these, and hence the school record indicates a legal name change. The problem with that is that the ID card mentioned is only issued to people 17 years old or more. A lawyer can tell you whether a name change in Pakistan would have any effect under US Law or not. I’m not a lawyer.

    Be my guest to dig out US/Indonesian laws about name changes. If it’s documented, I’ll put into a main article.

  130. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2009 at 3:17 pm #

    I would say that the short form BC also answers all these questions. I don’t know what question a college record would answer.

    To say “where there is smoke there is fire” is the logical equivalent of saying “all accusations are true”. They aren’t. Sometimes when there is smoke, it’s someone blowing smoke.

  131. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2009 at 3:21 pm #

    No amount of documents will end the controversy. Remember, the COLB was a document presented to end the controversy about where Obama was born. It did nothing. The FOIA obtained selective service system registration form should have ended all controversy on that issue. It did nothing.

    Heavy, whether you have made up your mind whether Obama is eligible or not, but I do believe your mindset is such that there is no level of proof that will satisfy you.

  132. avatar
    Heavy February 11, 2009 at 3:25 pm #

    Doc, there is much documentation that he called himself Barry Soetoro during his youth. So, to say there is nothing to that is an outright lie.

    It is also been rumored that he held an Indonesian passport in 1981. If that is the case, he would have to have renounced his US citizenship as an adult.

    I’m not saying either of these is true. I would like to see evidence to the contrary.

    Again, it would be a lot easier on YOU (Is that really anyone’s concern?) if the usurper would provide the answers rather than dodge the question. Would it not?

    Why are YOU giving him a pass?

  133. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 11, 2009 at 3:45 pm #

    On name changes: the laws vary from one state to another, but in general in the US a person can legally use whatever name they want, as long as there is no fraudulent purpose. Women, of course, do this very commonly when deciding whether or not to take on the name of their husbands, or to keep their married name after a divorce. For example, Hillary Rodham married Bill Clinton in 1975 and decided to keep her maiden name; she only started using the name “Clinton” in 1982 when it seemed to go over better with Arkansas voters during Bill Clinton’s reelection campaign.

    Bill Clinton himself was named William Jefferson Blythe III at birth, after his natural father who was killed in a car accident before he was born. “Clinton” is the name of his stepfather, Roger Clinton.

    Gerald R Ford was named Leslie Lynch King, Jr. at birth. His mother divorced his natural father when he was an infant; his mother later remarried Gerald Rudolff Ford and her son took on his stepfather’s name, although the stepfather never formally adopted him.

    It certainly would not be unusual for a child to “go by” the name of a stepparent without a formal adoption, and for the same child (or his mom) to end up “going by” a series of different names during growing up, if his mother ended up divorcing and remarrying several times.

    So basically the name thing signifies nothing at all. It is likely that Obama used the name Soetero in Indonesia for cultural reasons — it is a patriarchal society where it is probably expected that wives and children bear the name of the man of the household. There would have been no need for a formal adoption for Obama to use that name, and Obama was probably enrolled in school based on his father’s ID papers, not ID papers issued to him. It is equally likely that when Obama returned to Hawaii at in 1971, he ceased using Soetero – he no longer lived with his stepfather, and records such as his birth certificate, medical records, and social security number in the US would have been under the name Obama, so it would have been natural to revert to that use. And, as noted above, in terms of the life histories of past Presidents or Presidential candidates, the name change is quite common.

  134. avatar
    Hitandrun February 11, 2009 at 3:56 pm #

    Greetings, Heavy!

    On what basis do you brand Mr Obama a “usurper?” He may be, but isn’t your allegation conclusory and as yet unfounded?

    Hitandrun

  135. avatar
    Obot 1024 February 11, 2009 at 4:00 pm #

    “Doc, there is much documentation that he called himself Barry Sotero during his youth. So, to say there is nothing to that is an outright lie.”

    What documentation?

    The supposed school record that also identifies his place of birth as Hawaii?

    “It is also been rumored that he held an Indonesian passport in 1981.”

    And the source of that rumor is speculation based on how he got into Pakistan when Americans were banned from traveling there and the unconfirmed Berg claims that Obama didn’t have a passport until he was a US Senator based on an FOIA request.

    Only Americans were not banned from traveling to Pakistan. And you can’t do FOIA’s on such info for living people which means Berg was lying.

    Its a lie built upon a lie built upon a lie.

  136. avatar
    Heavy February 11, 2009 at 4:01 pm #

    Actually, no. Until HE has proven he qualifies, he does not. Therefore, he is NOT President at all. By occupying that position, he is indeed a usurper.

  137. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2009 at 4:02 pm #

    Legal reference?

  138. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 11, 2009 at 4:02 pm #

    There is documentation and news stories he used the nickname “Barry” up until he was in college. No credible reports he used “Barry Soetoro” though.

    And it’s not like “Barry” was used as a legal name either. You know, kinda like “Bill” would sign his name “William” on legal documents….

    The rumour about an Indonesian passport in 1981 is due to claims he went to Pakistan in 1981 while the US State Department had a travel ban against Pakistan. One problem – the US State Department never did have such a travel ban in place. For that matter, the New York Times published a travel article in 1981 about visiting cities in Pakistan.

    So again, no credible evidence of an “indonesian passport”

    “I’m not saying either of these is true. I would like to see eveidence to the contrary.”

    Well, here’s a US State Department Travel Advisory for Pakistan in 1981, No. 81-33A

    http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf

    “Before traveling to Pakistan, American Citizens shoule be aware of the following updated visa requirements: 30 day visas are available at Pakistani airports for tourists only. As these visas are rarely extended beyond the 30 day time per visa. Tourists planning to stay longer should secure visas before coming to Pakistan. Any traveler coming into Pakistan overland from India must repeat must have a valid visa, as 30 day visas are not repeat not issued at the overland border crossing point at Wagha.”

    Oh, and that New York Times article is here:

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DE2DA1338F937A25755C0A967948260&sec=travel&spon=&pagewanted=1

  139. avatar
    Chris February 11, 2009 at 4:07 pm #

    No amount of documents will end the controversy. Remember, the COLB was a document presented to end the controversy about where Obama was born. It did nothing.

    Well, I’d say reasonable people are convinced. I wouldn’t call a handful of tin foil hat nutjobs a ‘controversy’, but that’s just semantics I guess.

  140. avatar
    Heavy February 11, 2009 at 4:07 pm #

    You may be right about the use of aliases. The point is, he claims to NOT have been adopted by Sotero, yet may have used his name. It’s called LYING. If he lied about that, then what else has he lied about.

    Actually, he thinks that he will avoid criminal prosecution, once the sham has been exposed, by having said NOTHING himself. Clever? Maybe, but he’s still going to jail for treason.

  141. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 11, 2009 at 4:08 pm #

    So, citing US law (and Indonesian law for that matter) is “recycling old opinion” and isn’t “facts”, eh?

    I was right – your mind IS made up, don’t confuse you with facts.

  142. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 11, 2009 at 4:09 pm #

    There is nothing in the law that requires any particular proof of Presidential qualifications. Obama has stated under oath that he is a natural born citizen, by way of affidavits filed in those states that require that for placement on the Presidential ballot — and that by itself is legally sufficient to establish the fact unless controverted by other evidence.

    The Constitution explicitly gives Congress both the power to determine laws of Naturalization and to determine the qualifications of the President. They did so when certifying the electoral college vote in January, without any objection being made. If an objection had been raised according to the rules — which would have required a a written objection by at least one member of the House and one Senator — then Congress would have been empowered to hold hearings and debate the matter, and to set forth whatever requirements they specified as to proof.

    Almost seventy million American voters were satisfied that Obama is qualified to be President. That’s pretty much a national referendum on the subject.

    Individuals are entitled to their own opinion, but that doesn’t impact Obama’s legal and fully Constitutional status as the duly elected President. He is, by definition, “qualified” because the US Congress ratified the electoral college vote and designated him as President.

  143. avatar
    Chris February 11, 2009 at 4:09 pm #

    Interesting post. I didn’t know that about Ford/Clinton.

  144. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2009 at 4:11 pm #

    I would like to some evidence in support of these rumors before wasting time trying to dig up refutation.

    Not speaking of Heavy particularly, but it seems to me that nObama’s are essentially a lazy breed, making up rumors and demanding everyone else do the work of proving them false. Granted, there are some nObamas who do research–they just misrepresent the results, causing even more work.

    I mean it took all of 30 seconds for Janet Porter (or whoever started it) to make up a story about a travel ban to Pakistan out of thin air. It took me DAYS to find the newspaper article that proved it a lie, and someone else’s detective work to find an obscure Travel Advisory from the State Department confirming “no ban”. And it may not be possible for anyone to get the fact of that misstatement corrected everywhere it remains.

    Now I don’t mind getting my hands dirty (there are over 180 main articles on this web site) from time to time digging out evidence, and I have my own FOIA filed. But it is aggravating to deal with the lazy, sloppy things others do (e.g. Hollister v. Soetoro and Keyes v. Obama). The so-called nObama evidence is not weak, it is (in the words of a State Trooper describing my excuse for speeding) “crippled”.

  145. avatar
    Heavy February 11, 2009 at 4:12 pm #

    Amazing how you guys continue to just spew the same old taking points. Have you listened to yourselves? I mean REALLY, guys.

    Here’s an idea that may help. Try to forget about what you’ve been programmed to say. Forget about what your heart says for a moment. Now, take a deep breath and let reason take over. It’s easy.

  146. avatar
    bogus info February 11, 2009 at 4:13 pm #

    Heavy,

    “It is also been rumored that he held an Indonesian passport in 1981. If that is the case, he would have to have renounced his US citizenship as an adult.”

    “I’m not saying either of these is true. I would like to see eveidence to the contrary.”

    Rumored? Geeze. Everyone has been showing you “evidence” and you just ignore that evidence.

  147. avatar
    Chris February 11, 2009 at 4:15 pm #

    Almost seventy million American voters were satisfied that Obama is qualified to be President.

    I’d even take that a step further and say that those who voted for McCain would also be satisfied that Obama was at least qualified to be on the ballot.

  148. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 11, 2009 at 4:15 pm #

    But a child doesn’t have to be adopted legally to use the name of their father. There’s no lie — just a kid who went by one name while living as a child in Indonesia, and another when he returned to the US. I think it would have been perfectly legal for him to have adopted the name “Dunham” in Hawaii if he had so chosen — but he opted to keep the name he was given at birth.

  149. avatar
    Heavy February 11, 2009 at 4:18 pm #

    So, Doc, factual to you means repetiton? Hmmm…Lazy? I’d say it’s more like not easily overcome with false hope.

    All of the articles you have painstakingly written cannot overcome reason, no matter how many times you reword the same information.

    You still hve not answered my question of why YOU have given your messiah a pass on these issues. I’m very interested to hear your reason(s).

  150. avatar
    Obot 1024 February 11, 2009 at 4:21 pm #

    “The point is, he claims to NOT have been adopted by Sotero, yet may have used his name.”

    Ummm he could have used Sotero’s name without being adopted by him.

    “It’s called LYING. If he lied about that, then what else has he lied about.”

    Let’s see you have speculation without evidence that he may have used his step father’s name while Obama has claimed that he was never adopted by him. You call that a lie even though both things could be true.

    You then speculate that because of this lie (that you invented) Obama must have lied about other things.

    “Actually, he thinks that he will avoid criminal prosecution, once the sham has been exposed, by having said NOTHING himself. Clever?”

    Mind reading?

    “Maybe, but he’s still going to jail for treason.”

    I thought you said your mind was not made up.

    Guess that was another lie.

    And given your own standard that telling one lie means more lies must have been told can we just call you a liar and be done with it?

  151. avatar
    Heavy February 11, 2009 at 4:27 pm #

    Ok, if it makes you feel better, you were right. But that is pretty much the liberal mantra. It’s all about how they FEEL. Forget about logic or common sense as long as it feels good.

    You claim not to be a liberal, but the facts keep proving otherwise. Just like the laws you claim to cite.

    Not only are liberls truth averse, they cannot be shamed.

  152. avatar
    Obot 1024 February 11, 2009 at 4:31 pm #

    “Ok, if it makes you feel better, you were right. But that is pretty much the liberal mantra. It’s all about how they FEEL. Forget about logic or common sense as long as it feels good.”

    ROFLAMO.

    Heavy gets embarrassed immediately changes the subject to right wing stereotypes about liberals.

  153. avatar
    Heavy February 11, 2009 at 4:32 pm #

    More assumption based on YOUR feeble thoughts. Please, reread my post. I asked a question and you took my question as an accusation. Conscience getting to you? It’s OK. I understand it’s what you libs are programmed to do.

    I don’t have to read his mind. I’m from Chicago. I know EXACTLY what he was trained to do.

  154. avatar
    Heavy February 11, 2009 at 4:34 pm #

    Really? When did I change the subject? Were you trying to make a point? I must have missed it if you were. Please try again!

  155. avatar
    Obot 1024 February 11, 2009 at 4:38 pm #

    “Please, reread my post. I asked a question and you took my question as an accusation”

    That was because your question was an accusation.

    Are you too much of coward to even stand behind what you have said?

  156. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 11, 2009 at 4:41 pm #

    While I disagree with the assertion that Obama has ever “lied” about his name, I would point out that “lying” during a Presidential campaign is not a crime, and certainly not treason. If it were, then we would have a lot more politicians in jail. Whether or not Obama ever went by the name “Soetoro” or was or was not legally adopted by his stepfather in childhood would be irrelevant to his status as a natural born citizen in any case. He could have been adopted by a series of different people and changed his name multiple times, and he would still be a natural born citizen — none of those facts negate citizenship.

  157. avatar
    Jez February 11, 2009 at 4:44 pm #

    Just like the laws you claim to cite.

    Heavy – There are plenty of links in the articles on this site that can and will take you directly to the source files for the laws that are cited. Several people have given you Chapter numbers, sections and subsections for the laws cited. It would be very easy for you to either click the link provided, or if you don’t trust the link, do a search using the engine of your choice.
    Read the laws for yourself. Then decide whether or not the laws are bogus or misleading.
    Calling people names really doesn’t accomplish much, now does it?

  158. avatar
    Heavy February 11, 2009 at 4:55 pm #

    Evidence? Hmmm…I have not seen any yet, although I AM hoping to. See, the ONLY evidence can be provided by THE ONE himself. Until that happens, the rest is just background noise.

    There was plenty of “Evidence” provided by OJ’s defense team too.

    Oh geez, here come the calls of RACIST!

  159. avatar
    Heavy February 11, 2009 at 5:02 pm #

    Obot, I DO stand behind what I said. I asked a QUESTION! An accusation would be in the form of a STATEMENT. Unless you can answer the QUESTION, I don’t see your point.

  160. avatar
    Heavy February 11, 2009 at 5:05 pm #

    I love it when people say it is the will of the people! There is a very precise process to amend the Constitution. Until that happens, what is written is the law.

    Nice try, though.

  161. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2009 at 5:08 pm #

    Which law?

  162. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2009 at 5:10 pm #

    I was particularly impressed by the Certification of Live Birth. That’s what I call “evidence”.

  163. avatar
    Heavy February 11, 2009 at 5:19 pm #

    Well, Doc, that’s the difference between you and me. I’m not so easily duped.

  164. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2009 at 5:21 pm #

    I think I need to start a new article “CAT FIGHT HERE”.

    Words like coward and feeble aren’t going to get anyone anywhere.

    “A soft answer turns away wrath.” It also helps communication.

  165. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2009 at 5:23 pm #

    By the way, does anybody have any comments on the distinction made between a certificate and a copy of a certificate in the main article way, way preceding?

  166. avatar
    Rita February 11, 2009 at 5:29 pm #

    Actually, Heavy, the COLB, the (prima facie) EVIDENCE, was provided by the Hawaiian Department of Health, not by President Obama – he simply put it up for display. So yes, I would consider a birth certificate issued by those with authority to issue such documents, and which indicates he was born in Hawaii, to be evidence.

  167. avatar
    bogus info February 11, 2009 at 5:30 pm #

    Dr. C.,

    Oh No, Heavy is trying to “distract” us from the truth. We must not be fooled by him. We must “stay focused on our goals.” Uh, Dr. C., could you remind me what our “goals” are? My “feeble mind” is coming into play.

  168. avatar
    Heavy February 11, 2009 at 5:36 pm #

    Really? Can you prove that? Don’t confuse Hawaiian Dept. of Health statement with a claim of authenticity of was posted on the web. They are two VASTLY different things.

  169. avatar
    bogus info February 11, 2009 at 5:38 pm #

    Heavy,

    I think we are just rehashing the same old material, don’t you? If you are looking for someone to agree with you, I don’t think you’re going to get it here. LOL

    But, you are welcome to keep trying.

  170. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 11, 2009 at 5:50 pm #

    I can’t find any indication that there is any legally significant difference in meaning. Dictionary searches tend to produce recursive or equivalent definitions. It’s particularly confusing because “certificate” is also commonly used to refer to an instrument like a stock certificate or a document demonstrating credentials or qualifications (such as a teaching certificate).

    I think based on grammatical analysis, I’d view the “certificate” as the piece of paper itself, and the “certification” as being the act the paper represents. So based on that analysis, any all birth “certificates” would in fact be paper documents attesting to the “certification” that the person was born at a given time and place.

    In any case, I think the distinction is irrelevant because the Hawaii statutory law provides that the piece of paper that Obama has released for imaging and display on the internet is all that is required under Hawaii law to establish the fact of birth — and US law accepts it. Of course in a court the actual paper issued by the state agency, with the proper seal, is required.

    By definition, no matter what it is called, a birth certificate (or certification) is hearsay, meaning it is evidence of a fact that is presented without testimony of a direct witness. It fits within established exceptions of hearsay rules for “official records” – and the basic requirement is that the records be kept and reported in whatever manner is prescribed by law.

  171. avatar
    Rita February 11, 2009 at 5:54 pm #

    Well, Heavy, considering that the COLB that Obama has is stamped with the seal of the Hawaiian Department of Health, has the signature of a Hawaiian Department of Health employee and has a small statement above the signature saying that the signature confirms that the information is a true copy or abstract of the record on file with the Hawaii Department of Health, I would say that the Hawaiian Department of Health did in fact issue the COLB to Obama as prima facie evidence of his birth certificate/place of birth. The document also very clearly indicates Honolulu, Hawaii as his place of birth and would not say so if it wasn’t “a true copy or abstract of the record on file…”

  172. avatar
    Obot 1024 February 11, 2009 at 6:04 pm #

    “Obot, I DO stand behind what I said. I asked a QUESTION! An accusation would be in the form of a STATEMENT. Unless you can answer the QUESTION, I don’t see your point.”

    So Heavy when did you stop beating your wife?

  173. avatar
    Obot 1024 February 11, 2009 at 6:07 pm #

    Sorry Doc.

    This is your place and we should respect it.

  174. avatar
    Rita February 11, 2009 at 6:13 pm #

    I’m late to the party, but regarding his “long form”, if you go to the Hawaiian Department of Health website and get an application for a birth certificate, it doesn’t give you an option of “long form” or “vault form” – All you receive when you request a copy of your birth certificate is the COLB, and that is all you need.

  175. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 11, 2009 at 6:25 pm #

    Last time I checked, the Constitution provided for the popular election of the President, via the electoral college.

  176. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2009 at 6:55 pm #

    Truth, Justice and the American Way.

  177. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2009 at 7:09 pm #

    There is an obscure administrative instruction that explains what to write on the standard form to order the long form version. Somebody posted it in a comment here. A simple reading of Hawaiian Birth Certificate law shows that it must be made available.

  178. avatar
    Rita February 11, 2009 at 7:23 pm #

    Thanks Dr. Conspiracy – told you I was late to the party – looks like I’ve come to the right place, though. Thank you for the information

  179. avatar
    Rita February 11, 2009 at 7:28 pm #

    Just looking through the link reminds me of what someone else sent me as well – but the website seemed to indicate that the Department of Hawaiian Homelands relates to Native Hawaiians, similar to the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs. Wonder if they have a stricter birth certificate requirement to ensure you are on the tribal rolls snd can receive additional benefits?

  180. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2009 at 9:13 pm #

    I think the Father and Mother’s Birthplace along with parent’s age are the additional items of information required from the long form. This could show that the parents were residents of Hawaii in the year the Hawaiian Homelands program stipulates.

  181. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 11, 2009 at 9:30 pm #

    ” ..but the facts keep proving otherwise. Just like the laws you claim to cite.”

    You’ve been given the laws and citations in question. Why don’t you go look them up, (since I doubt you would use any URL I provided), and see for yourself if I’m citing them correctly, okay?

  182. avatar
    bogus info February 11, 2009 at 9:58 pm #

    Seems these “patriots” answer is always “nice try.” They don’t even read the information or go to the source provided for them to verify the information provided. Just say “nice try.” I have had my doubts if they can read.

    Yet, they believe/follow people like Orly, Berg, Rush, Martin, Donofrio, etc. without one shred of proof/evidence/or sources to back up the information/evidence provided. Go figure.

  183. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 11, 2009 at 10:02 pm #

    Hawaii has a program that reserves land for homesteading by native Hawaiians — so the linked document is what they need to prove Hawaiian ancestry. What I find interesting is that there is does not seem to be any means other than specifying that the document is sought “For DHHL purposes” to obtain a photocopy of the original certificate.

    The brochure seems to suggest that once that “DHHL” request is made, a secondary process kicks in — not only does the Health Dept. pull up the original certificate, but they also look for records of the parents’ births, and if that is not found, a “No-record” certification is issued.

    So to ask for the DHHL search is really to get the Dept. involved in digging up a series of old records. Of course, since neither of Obama’s parents was born in Hawaii, nothing would turn up for his parents.

    But the main point seems to be that this is a specialized procedure reserved for those trying to document Hawaiian ancestry – something that doesn’t apply in Obama’s case.

  184. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2009 at 10:06 pm #

    This the law that requires the Hawaii to provide the long form: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm

  185. avatar
    Rita February 11, 2009 at 10:49 pm #

    Expelliarmus – that’s what I thought – that the particular process might be only for determining benefits for Native Hawaiians – that’s why I mentioned that it seemed like, based on the basic birth certificate application, there wasn’t uch of a way to obtain the “long form”, as the the process doesn’t apply to Obama. In any case, as has been mentioned before, the COLB is sufficient.

  186. avatar
    Ian Gould February 12, 2009 at 12:05 am #

    “So basically the name thing signifies nothing at all. It is likely that Obama used the name Soetero in Indonesia for cultural reasons — it is a patriarchal society where it is probably expected that wives and children bear the name of the man of the household.’

    Actually Javanese society is considerably less patriarchal than most western societies.

    As far as names go, most of the late President Suharto’s children DON’T use his name.

    When the former President Megawati adopted her father’s name (adding the name sukarnoputri – daughter of Sukarno) it was actually considered rather unuusual and overtly political.

    Abdulrahman Wahid (if I remember correctly)uses his grandfather’s first name and took his uncle’s first name as his surname.

    It should also be pointed out that most Javanese are syncretists. They may be nominally Muslim but they have no problem worshipping Catholic saints; patronising Daoist fortunetellers; making offerings to local nature spirits and generally co-opting whatever elements of other religions they fancy.

    Putting your child’s religion down as Muslim on a school record wouldn’t really mean much of anything.

  187. avatar
    DC February 12, 2009 at 12:10 pm #

    Burden of proof is on you to PROVE a positive, e.g. BHO was born in a place other than Hawaii.
    The state of Hawii long ago confirned that that COLB came from the state and IS the ONLY legal document with bearing, you all just ignored that little problem. Evidence produced to date to support anything but birth in Hawaii is excatly zero Your entire case rests on the claim that the COLB was NOT provided by the State of Hawaii.

    Thus far some 20+ tries have failed to get passed any judge in the United States, why is that? Its called dulusional thinking.

    That is why BHO ignores this, why respond to false accusations. If you ever get him in court they would send a single lawyer (not BHO) along with the COLB and an affidavit from Hawaii – and you will bring what exactly?

  188. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 12, 2009 at 12:44 pm #

    NASA doesn’t pay attention to the moon landing hoax claims either.

  189. avatar
    DC February 12, 2009 at 2:29 pm #

    If you are so sure that the COLD is a forgery why don’t you report it to the Hawaii DoH? Why don’t you contact Dr. Fukino yourself and get their opinion about this. The number is on the Hawaii DoH website.

  190. avatar
    Kelly February 16, 2009 at 2:27 pm #

    The be all end all of the situation is this: the COLB is a certification of live birth listing the location of birth as Hawaii, signed and sealed by the records clerk which means it is under oath. The lack of medical records from a hospital is not unusual considering that most hopsital do not keep records past 10 years. Nothing presented will ever make this right wingers believe the truth because it does not fit their agenda.

  191. avatar
    Hitandrun February 16, 2009 at 3:36 pm #

    Kelly,

    I have little doubt that the CnOLB is consistent with its vault document source as to a Hawaiian place of birth. The essential issue is the nature and provenance of the vault document itself, i.e, whether it is a hospital-generated and properly attested CteOLB, or merely an inadequate registry itself, subject to family deception. The rest are red herrings: they have no legs!

    Hitandrun

  192. avatar
    Kelly February 16, 2009 at 4:09 pm #

    No matter what is produced, it will never be enough. Should the vault doc indeed be a registry then this “controversy” will never cease. If it is indeed a hospital generated doc they naysayers will simply latch on to the British citizen via Kenyan father can’t be NBC argument. There is no winning this argument until the Supreme Court or someone issues an edict as to the definition of “natural born.”

  193. avatar
    Hitandrun February 16, 2009 at 4:37 pm #

    I disagree, Kelly, in that I believe a properly attested vault document will settle the eligibility issue for most concerned. Naturally, an unsaved remnant of ranters, scoundrels, flag-wrapped fanatics, and hyenas, incapable of civil discourse, will persist on all sides of this issue. Just read the many self-preening ‘responses’ on this site–a site which is a cut above so many of the others. I simply hope Mr Obama puts this matter to rest once and for all, rather than obstruct all efforts to do so.

    Stay well,
    Hitandrun

  194. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2009 at 4:50 pm #

    Until the same level of skepticism is applied to “not born in Hawaii” evidence as it is to “born in Hawaii” evidence, no rational conclusions will be reached. Hitandrun is not falling for the obvious nuttery applied to “born in Hawaii”. But I would point out that “family fraud” is ultimately unprovable. The vault record can only confirm press reports and thereby increase family fraud to bribery (or other persuasion) of someone at the hospital, or it will indicate a home birth which makes family fraud slightly more plausible.

    However, if the same level of skepticism were applied to the “born in Kenya” evidence, you know like requiring someone who makes a claim give their name, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

    This is the circular argument:

    Q. Why are you demanding all this extraordinary evidence about Obama’s birth?
    A. Because questions have been raised.
    Q. Why have questions been raised?
    A. Because Obama has not provided all the evidence.

  195. avatar
    Kelly February 16, 2009 at 6:40 pm #

    By producing a certified, i.e. sworn under oath, certification of live birth that indicates the date of birth and location being Honolulu, Hawaii – a document accepted anywhere as proof of birth, then President Obama has indeed “put this matter to rest.” To continue to beat this issue into the ground is indicative of the level to which these people WILL NOT accept any documentation. Further, I have read many of their sites and the location of birth is the least of their issues – it is more now trying to say that NBC is unattainable due to Obama Sr. being a Kenyan/British citizen.

  196. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 16, 2009 at 6:50 pm #

    Hitandrun — as a matter of law, if the custodian of records from Hawaii came to court with the COLB and testified to establish the authenticity of the document … and 10 live people came to court to testify that they had witnessed Obama being born abroad — the court would likely find that Obama was born in Hawaii. Absent specific evidence that the DOCUMENT was fraudulent, the courts would give it more weight. (People tell lies, and can easily be bribed; documents kept as part of official records, according to the procedures established for keeping them, are seen as far more reliable).

    In other words, rather than go off to Africa to try to find people to say that Obama was born there….. the anti-Obama folks need to be finding the evidence in Hawaii that would explain how the birth came to be announced by the local papers and recorded with the Hawaii Dept. of Health back in 1961. And that would also be something that would require strong, contemporaneous documentary support to have a shred of credibility in a court of law. What that support could be, I don’t know … I think TexasDarlin’ had it right when she found the birth announcement in the Hawaii Advertiser: http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-likely-born-in-hawaii/

  197. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2009 at 7:13 pm #

    I think that if there were Kenyans willing to swear knowledge of Barack Obama’s birth in Kenya, we would have heard from them by now.

    Oh yea, I forgot about the death threats.

  198. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2009 at 7:34 pm #

    I’ve updated the text. I realized that the Hawaiian law precluded Maya Soetoro-Ng from having a Hawaiian Birth Certificate because of Stanley Ann D. Soetoro’s residence. Previously I had dealt with it as a hypothetical.

  199. avatar
    bogus info February 16, 2009 at 8:31 pm #

    Dr. C.,

    In the divorce decree of Dunham/Soetoro, it states that Stanley Ann Dunham and her daughter are both U.S. citizens.

  200. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 16, 2009 at 8:43 pm #

    But the law that Dr. C cites relates to Hawaiian residency, not citizenship. Hawaii has a statute, enacted long after Obama’s birth, that allows for registration of the birth of children born out of state to Hawaiian parents, but only if the parents can prove previously established Hawaiian residency.

  201. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2009 at 10:45 pm #

    That’s right. Maya Soetoro-Ng is a citizen of the United States. She got that from her mother who by that time had sufficient residence in the US to pass on citizenship. But Maya is not entitled to a Hawaiian birth certificate unless I am totally misreading the law.

  202. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2009 at 10:51 pm #

    I don’t know the specifics, but Maya would have had some sort of consular birth registration.

  203. avatar
    Hitandrun February 17, 2009 at 4:45 pm #

    But Doc,

    Wouldn’t the same apply to witnesses to Baby Obama’s birth in Hawaii?

    Hitandrun

  204. avatar
    DC February 17, 2009 at 4:53 pm #

    Yes exactly. The COLB is the relevant egal document and it was produced in June. That is why Obama can simply ignore all of this. He has already answered the question. If one of these clown ever got into a court room it would be over in one minute. BHO’s lawyer would take out the COLB and present it. Plaintiff would have nothing to say. Case over. What do they have to present exactly?

  205. avatar
    Hitandrun February 17, 2009 at 5:08 pm #

    Thank you, Expelliarmus and Doc.

    I agree that courts, given their abysmal record on this eligibility issue, would most likely employ your Catch-22 arguments to block limited discovery of the vault document rather than confirm (if properly attested) the CnOLB abstracted from it, and put the matter to rest.

    The larger question is why Mr Obama does not settle the issue on his own by releasing the vault record and, if necessary, supporting hospital documentation without waiting to be legally compelled. The issue would then disappear for most rational people of good will still concerned.

    By the way, Doc, I don’t follow your ‘family fraud’ argument at all. If anything, a properly attested vault document or even an authenticated hospital registry notation would legally disprove family fraud. No?

    Hitandrun

  206. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 17, 2009 at 5:13 pm #

    Yes, exactly. And that means that we should not expect any witnesses to come forward to support or contradict the prima facie evidence of the birth certificate.

    This is exactly why we have birth registrations in the first place, to provide contemporary documentation of an event that would be difficult or impossible to document later.

    I also expect that this is why should any case ever come to court and production of a certificate is ordered, the paper copy of what we’ve all seen is going to be all that is required–because there is no evidence to contradict it.

  207. avatar
    bogus info February 17, 2009 at 5:17 pm #

    Myson’s posts at OC makes lots of sense:

    http://obamacrimes.us/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=311&start=300#p4194

    http://obamacrimes.us/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=311&start=320#p4226

    http://obamacrimes.us/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=311&start=320#p4233

    “Also it was VERY RARE to a non white to marry a white woman in those days (i’m sure it was rare in USA then as well) so it would have been BIG news for them to have a baby, this is Why i’m convinced Obama did not come out in Africa has the whole town would have known about it & they would still b talking about it 2day. Before Kenya’s indepedence, it black & whites do not mix socially so Obama Snr bringing a white girl into the country ruled by white was near impossible.”
    “He would have been arrested & she deported at the airport. check history of what the whites did during this period !!!!!”

  208. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 17, 2009 at 5:22 pm #

    Hitandrun, you have think like a conspiracy theorist here. Here’s a crazy scenario: Obama’s father is really Frank Marshall and Barack Obama was really born in Mexico (no passport, no visa). Marshall, trying to cover up the affair, gets one of his communist cell members [remember all fantasy here] to fill out the hospital registration form, forge a doctor’s signature and slip it in the bottom of the stack of records going to the Health Department. The registration goes through without a hitch. Mexican Obama is duly registered as having been born in Hawaii with a 100% genuine and consistent vault record. Hospital records were destroyed 20 years ago. The doctor whose signature was forged died in 2008 at age 98. The local registrar is still alive and either does or does not remember signing it.

  209. avatar
    Ian Gould February 17, 2009 at 5:45 pm #

    “The larger question is why Mr Obama does not settle the issue on his own by releasing the vault record and, if necessary, supporting hospital documentation without waiting to be legally compelled. The issue would then disappear for most rational people of good will still concerned.”

    This is pretty much word for word what was said before the COLB was released.

  210. avatar
    Hitandrun February 17, 2009 at 6:45 pm #

    Pity Mr Obama didn’t respond earlier and release his vault document then. No?

    Hitandrun

  211. avatar
    Ian Gould February 17, 2009 at 9:43 pm #

    Pity the people who kept saying “release your birth certificate” decided to shift the goal-posts when he did exactly that.

  212. avatar
    Heavy February 18, 2009 at 10:32 am #

    More conjecture, doc. All we want are FACTS. They are easy to come by. THE ONE can end ALL doubt very easily, but he refuses.

    Your messiah is a FRAUD. Until he proves otherwise, that is a FACT!

  213. avatar
    Hitandrun February 19, 2009 at 5:40 pm #

    Round and round,

    Mr Obama has publicly released an imaged certified abstract of the vault document,and nothing more. A Hawaiian birthplace, while likely, has never been definitively and publicly established. NEVER! Until he does so, all the rants, all the knee-jerk ad hominems, all the Catch22 excuses will continue to ring hollow.

    While both the paper CnOLB and paper vault document (whatever it is) may be described as certificates if duly certified and while each alone may suffice for most legal purposes, they are by no means identical nor of equal probative weight. Of all the issues raised, only a foreign birthplace has any chance of unseating Mr Obama and deligitimating his entire administration. Let him dispel this cloud once and for all.

    Hitandrun

  214. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 19, 2009 at 8:47 pm #

    I beg to differ. They are equal in probative weight and they both will certify that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

    However, I personally do not have a copy of the vault record, so you’ll have to look somewhere else if you want to look at it.

  215. avatar
    Ian Gould February 20, 2009 at 7:10 am #

    US Constitution Article 4 Section 1:

    “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

    Hawai’i Law states that the ColB is equivalent to the vault copy in terms of probative value.

    Absent evidence of fraud, the other states and US Supreme Court are obliged to accept it as proof of any fact attested to there in.

  216. avatar
    2burmdad February 20, 2009 at 9:16 am #

    Has the Obama Team/Obama clearly made that COLB available at a time and place where any person or organization can examine it?

    I’d assume or hope so. Assuming it has been stated to be available, has any person or organization done so, and issued a report (especially a “doubter”)?

    Has any of the “actions” stated that this COLB was NOT made available?

    I raised this question on another site recently, and the response was that I should do my own research on this. Of course, I previously had noted the hallmark of jurisprudence = burden of proof being upon the moving party. I’d be curious if there is an answer from our host Dr. C – who might have read these filings in more detail, or anybody else who reads these postings.

  217. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 20, 2009 at 10:27 am #

    I read a remark once that the COLB was available for anyone who wanted to come by the campaign HQ in Chicago and look at it. I consider the remark plausible, but lacking documentation. The only outsiders that I know of that have looked at it physically was the group from FactCheck.org who are a highly-respected independent fact checking organization (no matter what lies are thrown against them).

    Kerchner v. Obama in point 67 sort of suggests that it has not been made available, but you can’t tell exactly which document Apuzzo is talking about in this section. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/kerchner-v-obama-amended-complaint-filed-2-09-09.pdf

    67. Obama wants to be President of the United States and if a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate) exists as his campaign has stated, he should simply order that it be made available to the general public, investigative authorities, and document examiners to settle his birth place controversy.

    However, one cannot infer facts from any nObama lawsuit (unlike most normal lawsuits).

  218. avatar
    Hitandrun February 20, 2009 at 1:13 pm #

    2burmdad,

    The abstracted CnOLB ‘forgery’ issue is a red herring. Its unabstracted source, the vault document, has never been publicly released by Mr Obama, nor any supporting hospital documentation. NEVER! It is the vault document, if properly attested, which could prove Mr Obama’s true birthplace to the satisfaction of most concerned. Keep your eyes on the prize!

    Hitandrun

  219. avatar
    2burmdad February 20, 2009 at 1:28 pm #

    Hitandrun —

    I posted a question that was very specific.

    An answer would be on point, such as Dr. C. has offered.

    You make unsupported statements about forgeries. The COLB is not a “red herring” at all. It’s the real McCoy, prima facie evidence in all states and presumably in all federal courts (when presented in it’s pristine condition as received from the HI folks).

    Now, have you examined this document in person, and what are your qualifications to either deem it to be or not to be unadulterated or adulterated? That is all that is before us. That also is all that would be presentable in a court of law.

    You have to get away from “I heard or read it”, and step back and think. The COLB was a response to an early query. It’s there. Get over it and worrying about some other mystical document that surely has the same info and more. But who cares what hospital, what doctor. Who remembers involvement in a delivery to an unwed mother of mixed race 48 plus years ago?

    The document speaks for itself, as does the newspaper listing of births as provided by the hospital to the Dept of Health, and the newspaper to the papers. The newspaper trail was posted early on the blog of one of the “doubters”.

  220. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 20, 2009 at 2:03 pm #

    I daresay that no one in the Obama campaign anticipated the objections that have been raised against a normal, order off the web site, Hawaiian birth certificate. I have been reading the history through the blogs. Prior to the COLB bloggers were clamoring “why won’t he show us a birth certificate?” So he ordered one and showed it.

    “If the evidence is presented it is either false or insufficient. If the evidence is not presented then it is essential and outweighs any evidence presented.” That’s the nObama rule. It was the rule before COLB, it is the rule now, and it will be the rule going forward. It doesn’t matter what the evidence is.

  221. avatar
    Hitandrun February 20, 2009 at 2:19 pm #

    2burmdad,

    You completely misinterpret what I’ve stated here, as elsewhere. I have little doubt the CnOLB is an authentic abstract of the vault document (whatever the orginal’s nature and provenance) and that both identify Mr Obama’s birthplace as Hawaii. In this sense, the forgery argument is a red herring, as are all the others. We do not know, however, because of BHO’s obstructionism and lack of transparency, whether the vault document itself is properly attested and not a product of family deception. Until it is publicly adduced along with any supporting hospital birth documentation (if needed), his eligibility will remain suspect. That’s all.

    Stay well,
    Hitandrun

  222. avatar
    Ian Gould February 20, 2009 at 2:38 pm #

    “…whether the vault document itself is properly attested and not a product of family deception. ‘

    What information is likely to be contained in the vault copy that almost 50 years later could be proven to be fraudulent?

    In what way would this alleged family fraud make Obama constitutionally ineligible to be President?

  223. avatar
    Heavy February 20, 2009 at 2:47 pm #

    Let’s see…Place of birth for one. But the BC is only a small part of the doubt us crazy “Birthers” have.

    Libs use the statement of HI officials as the end, be all statement. All they really siad is, yes there is a BC on file. Sounds pretty definitive to me!

  224. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 20, 2009 at 3:01 pm #

    It is definitive when born in a year when only those born in Hawaii could be registered.

  225. avatar
    Ian Gould February 20, 2009 at 3:06 pm #

    So you think the vault copy will contradict the COLB which clearly states his birthplace as Honolulu?

    Those other unspecified doubts – would any of them disqualify Obama from the Presidency?

    Let’s say it says his father was someone other than Barack Obama senior – it woudn’t matter constitutionally.

  226. avatar
    Hitandrun February 20, 2009 at 3:36 pm #

    Mr Gould,

    If the vault document is in fact a properly attested hospital-generated “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”, to my mind Mr Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will have been definitively established. There would be no need to further posit any government forgery. However, if the vault document is an indeterminate registry of birth, witnessed, say, only by one or both parents, then a supporting birth registry notation from the birth facility itself would be warranted. Such registration would most likely still be available even at this late date.

    May I refer you and others to Jasper James’ comments (Dec 28, 2008) in the “Judge and Jury” thread (under the CITIZENSHIP category)? Our positions are congruent on this issue.

    Regards,
    Hitandrun

  227. avatar
    Heavy February 20, 2009 at 3:38 pm #

    Who his father was is actually irrelevant. There are several more important questions he refuses to answer.

    And yes, they could disqualify him.

  228. avatar
    Hitandrun February 20, 2009 at 4:03 pm #

    Heavy,

    What else could disqualify Mr Obama?

    Hitandrun

  229. avatar
    Ian Gould February 20, 2009 at 6:05 pm #

    What are they?

  230. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 20, 2009 at 8:26 pm #

    I’m sure I can’t imagine what the new objection would be to the vault copy. There has been a lot creative rewriting of Hawaiian law by some and speculation by others on what should have been a straightforward birth certificate last June.

    In this country we don’t go investigating people without probable cause. We don’t go poking around people’s private lives without probable cause. We don’t disclose their medical records. The president is not above the law, but he is not below the law either.

    Some people seem to think that as taxpayers they own the president. I am not one of them.

  231. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 20, 2009 at 8:28 pm #

    If he answered whatever the questions were, you wouldn’t believe him anyway.

  232. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 21, 2009 at 8:30 am #

    WHO could “disqualify” Obama?

    The Constitution specifically provides the way to “disqualify” a sitting President as follows:

    Article III, Section 4 – Disqualification

    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    The Constitution also says,

    Article I, Section 2: The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

    So how can a lawsuit in federal court get anywhere? It’s pretty clear in the Constitution that the only way to remove or “disqualify” a President is to get the House to vote articles of impeachment.

    (Good luck on getting Nancy to schedule a vote!)

  233. avatar
    Heavy February 23, 2009 at 10:59 am #

    See, this is the most dangerous aspect of THE ONE’S illegal occupation of the White House. He CANNOT be impeached. He is NOT President.

    This is a Constitutional crisis of epic proportion. When found to be ineligible, who can remove him? How? Very sticky situation, but one that must be addressed IMMEDIATELY!

    Every piece of legislation signed, every executive order, every appointment will be null and void. Nancy Legosi will be acting President until an election can be held with REAL candidates.

  234. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 23, 2009 at 6:20 pm #

    Heavy, you are crazy. Obama is the President whether you like it or not. No one appointed you king of the planet, so you cannot wish or imagine that Obama had not been inaugurated.

    Sorry. There is a real world and there is an imaginary world, and you seem to be living in the imaginary one.

  235. avatar
    Hitandrun February 23, 2009 at 6:54 pm #

    Doc,
    No, we don’t own the President, but we have hired his services for a stipulated period. Mr Obama thus far has not definitively established for the public record that he is contracturally eligible for the position entrusted to him. Until he does so, his tenure’s legitimacy will remain suspect.

    Hitandrun

  236. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 23, 2009 at 7:22 pm #

    He has fully demonstrated his qualifications to the satisfaction of at least 70%+ of the American people & both houses of Congress.

    If you don’t like it, vote for someone else in 2012. That’s the way our country works.

    Its in the Constitution.

  237. avatar
    Heavy February 24, 2009 at 9:28 am #

    Yes, EXP, there is a REAL world. And it’s about to hit you and the rest of the traitors, who voted for you messsiah, right between the eyes.

    This is gonna be fun!!!!

  238. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2009 at 10:03 pm #

    I want to add that the terms certificate and certification are substituted for each other in various jurisdictions. For example, in Indiana the computer-printed abstract document is titled: “Certificate of Birth”. Indiana is one of a growing number of states where birth data is entered directly by hospitals into computer systems, and where there is no paper certificate in the vault.

  239. avatar
    Ian Gould February 24, 2009 at 10:51 pm #

    What’s going to be fun is watching these exact same claims of justice being meted out real soon now trotted out for the next eight years, right up until the day in January 2017 when Obama hands over the Presidency to his successor. President Emmanuel.

  240. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 24, 2009 at 11:22 pm #

    It was nice seeing those Supreme Court Justices listening to Obama’s speech tonight.

  241. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2009 at 11:44 pm #

    Obama gave Ginsburg a big ole hug.

  242. avatar
    Heavy February 25, 2009 at 10:54 am #

    Don’t think so. Rahmbo will be in prison too. Maybe they can share a cell together on death row.

    Wait til the Blago tapes become public and you hear Rahmbo trying to twist Blago’s arm about appointing whomever THE ONE wanted.

    The whole demoncrat party is going to implode and rightly so.

  243. avatar
    Notheydidn't February 25, 2009 at 4:59 pm #

    I, too, agree that Obama will serve 8 years but I think that the next president may very well be a female. Hiliary could still throw her hat in the ring but I rising stars in others that would be ripe for the challenge by then. I think we will see some female candidates in 2012 as well.

  244. avatar
    Ian Gould February 25, 2009 at 6:07 pm #

    “The whole demoncrat party is going to implode and rightly so.”

    Consider for a moment the possibility that it doesn’t.

  245. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2009 at 7:33 pm #

    I’ll wait for the tapes to become public before deciding what’s on them.

  246. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2009 at 12:07 am #

    I’ve seen some good writing over at the Native Born Citizen blog. Check it out.

  247. avatar
    Heavy February 27, 2009 at 11:23 am #

    Really, doc? Why dosen’t the same apply for the BC?

  248. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2009 at 11:59 am #

    I don’t have any evidence of what is on the Blago tapes. Biased guesses mean nothing.

    As for the BC, I have some evidence (a scan, photographs and official statements) that the BC meets the legal requirements.

    The difference is evidence vs. wishful thinking.