Main Menu

“Birther” in the news

A couple of stories appeared in the news this weekend.

The Columbus Dispatch (Ohio) published a commentary by senior editor Joe Hallett titled The only substance you’ll get out of the major parties is mud in which he said:

At a recent Darke County Republican Party dinner, two warm-up speakers made “birther” jokes questioning whether Obama was born in the United States and, thus, legally eligible to be president. When his turn came to speak, [Republican Senate candidate Rob] Portman rightly ignored the comments.

Democrats pounced, claiming that Portman’s silence was a tacit admission that he supported the widely discredited birther theory. On Thursday, I received an e-mail from the Democrats breathlessly proclaiming: “Day 5 of Portman Birther Controversy.”

From the Prescott, Arizona Daily Courier comes an article titled: Backing birther bills and signs of diversity. The article samples opinion from local officials on the bill before the Arizona legislature to require future presidential candidates to prove their qualifications with a birth certificate. In a related article, the Courier reported:

Northern Arizona University political science professor Fred Solop described “birthers” as a small fringe group of extremists and said the Arizona lawmakers supporting their cause are walking a political tightrope.

A comment was left by a reader under the name Another Bird that I thought was extremely well written, so much so that I am copying it here.

Those who believe the president hasn’t provided his birth certificate should just check with the state that he claimed he was born in. It is that state that would verify if his birth certificate is authentic or not. Honestly, it isn’t that complicated. In this case Hawaii, as with any other state, would be greatly appreciated.

However, after being inundated with inquires the State of Hawaii has made a press release confirming that Obama was born in that state. Hawaii had to make a second press release.

A reasonable person, an adult, would have accepted that the president has produced a birth certificate and that he was born in Hawaii.

Instead there are adults who are more interested in conspiracy theories that accepting the facts.

– They refuse to acknowledge that America does recognize dual citizenship.

– They try to argue that a certification and certificate means are different.

– They refuse to accept that a person born in America is an American citizen.

– They argue that a document that states a person was born in specific place is only given to people who are born elsewhere.

– They refuse to recognize current American laws on various topics, from women’s rights to citizenship.

– They are willing to accept forged documents where no government agency accepts it as authentic, while refusing to accept one document when the issuing agency authenticates the information on it.

– They argue that states have no rights in verifying a person’s citizenship.

– They act as though they are the gatekeepers to protecting the Constitution, but have shown ignorance to American law.

… And the list goes on.

It would be interesting if a future political born in Arizona ran for president and Arizona Department of Health Services inundated phone calls doubting their birth records. Now, that would be childish.

All birthers have are their conspiracy theory where nothing in law or common sense supports it. What will this bill do? Nothing. Absolutely nothing, other than pander to birthers. Honestly, this bill will not stop Barack Obama from running for president. It will incense birthers as they will for them to accept that Obama is a natural-born citizen.

58 Responses to “Birther” in the news

  1. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 14, 2010 at 10:55 pm #

    I also commend to you this article from The Atlantic.

    Birther Non-Denial Denials from Republican Senate Candidates

    It discusses 5 Senate candidates who have dallied with birtherism in their statements.

  2. avatar
    kimba March 15, 2010 at 11:00 am #

    Read about this on TPM. As an Ohio voter, I believe I am entitled to get a straight answer from the Republican candidate for the US Senate whether or not he’s a birther, supports birthers, wink-wink, nudge-nudges birthers because their ankle-biting at the President is a clever way to interfere with the President’s agenda without any actual politicians getting their hands dirty. It goes to judgement that Portman didn’t put a lid on this at the event that night. I am tired of the frat boy mentality we seem to have in our elected officials.

  3. avatar
    Kathryn N March 15, 2010 at 2:29 pm #

    You have to understand the Republicans’ positon. They’re like a married man with an unstable misstress. They want the mistress to keep giving them sex (votes). So they whisper sweet words to her, give her a wink when they’re in a public place. But they don’t want the birther mistress to demand any public professions of love, because then the sane voters (wife) would know they’re in bed with a crazy person.
    So they try in vain to flatter the vanity of crazies, while not letting the sane voters think that they’ve ever even met “her.”

  4. avatar
    misha March 15, 2010 at 3:44 pm #

    Something else: it’s like living with a wild animal. You never know when it’s going to turn on you. Remember McCarthy.

  5. avatar
    Bob March 15, 2010 at 5:14 pm #

    Taitz’s $20,000 sanction affirmed by 11th Circuit.

  6. avatar
    JoZeppy March 15, 2010 at 7:09 pm #

    Funny…not a word about it on her website.

    I wonder why?

  7. avatar
    Adam March 15, 2010 at 7:16 pm #

    I’m not a birther, but I don’t see anything wrong with the Arizona bill, and I suspect few, if any of those Arizona legislators believe or are trying to validate birther claims.

    Even though there’s nothing to the birther claims, the birther movement has done one useful thing: it’s brought to light the fact that there is no formal process to verify the eligibility of presidential canadidates.

    IMHO, it would be useful to have such a formal process, wherein some state or federal officials are presented documents to prove eligibility, whose authenticity they can verify.

    If there had been such a process in place for the 2008 presidential election, I doubt the birther movement would have gained the momentum it did.

    I don’t think birther movements are healthy to the body politic, so anything that will discourage such movements in the future must be a good thing.

  8. avatar
    kimba March 15, 2010 at 7:38 pm #

    ” I don’t see anything wrong with the Arizona bill”

    You don’t? Really? Have you read it? Do you realize the bill does not specify what “documents” would satisfy their requirement that candidates prove their natural born citizen status? If it is not clear exactly what document(s) satisfies the requirement, it could be arbitrary by candidate. In my opinion, it’s like the old fugitive slave laws that are the source of the notion that a black man always has to show more identification. Why would this bill come up now? Why not in the last election? John McCain is from Arizona and Arizonans have known for decades McCain wasn’t born within the borders of the US. 2008 wasn’t McCain’s first presidential rodeo. Why suddenly does Arizona think they need a law like this? By the way, common sense prevailed and the primary committee,Judiciary Committee withdrew the bill. It’s essentially dead. This was a stunt. What would discourage this behavior is for state legislators to not try to pander to the fanatics.
    http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2441p.pdf

  9. avatar
    Bob March 15, 2010 at 7:49 pm #

    The Arizona birther bill doesn’t apply to the vice president, who has the same constitutional eligibility requirements. Why might Burges want to see Obama’s birth certificate but not Biden’s?

    And here’s the really funny part: There are age, residency, and citizenship requirements to serve in the Arizona legislature. But it is perfectly acceptable for them to self-attest to their eligibility. I wrote to Burges and asked her to demonstrate that she’s eligible to serve in the Arizona legislature, and she refused.

    Somehow I get the feeling Az. HR 2441 really isn’t about officeholder eligibility at all.

  10. avatar
    mimi March 15, 2010 at 7:51 pm #

    That Arizona Birther Bill is bad. Even Burgess describes it as the Secretary of State being able to determine by a candidate’s life’s experiences as to whether a candidate is eligible.

    Isn’t that what the voter does?

    “The kind of certification Burges wants, though, could be more difficult than simply checking for a valid birth certificate, as the arguments about his legal qualification go beyond whether he was actually born in Hawaii.

    A lawsuit filed in federal court in Pennsylvania charged, among other theories, that Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian man and moved there, and that he failed to reclaim it as an adult. But Judge Barclay Surrick threw out the case without ruling on the legal theory, saying Berg did not have standing to sue.

    The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected the case.

    Burges’ bill, if it becomes law, would put the Secretary of State in the position of having to determine whether the individual circumstances of a candidate’s life disqualify him or her from being on the Arizona ballot.”

    http://www.azdailysun.com/news/local/state-and-regional/article_129cafb4-ffcb-11de-bda0-001cc4c03286.html

    Birthers and Tea Baggers. Consistently fighting for the right to give up more of their rights.

  11. avatar
    mimi March 15, 2010 at 8:08 pm #

    Another birther suit, Doc. Ruth Jones.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 15, 2010 at 10:14 pm #

    Thanks much for the link, Bob.

  13. avatar
    Rickey March 15, 2010 at 10:43 pm #

    mimi says:

    Another birther suit, Doc. Ruth Jones.

    My favorite part of her Complaint:

    “Plaintiff is a United States citizen maintaining her domicile and residence in the State of California. She presents in good standing having never been arrested and has always maintained good moral turpitude.”

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/28423656/Jones-v-Obama-01-2010-02-12-COMPLAINT

  14. avatar
    G March 16, 2010 at 1:06 am #

    As a fellow Ohio voter, I’m right there with you on this, Kimba!

  15. avatar
    misha March 16, 2010 at 2:24 am #

    “maintained good moral turpitude.”

    As opposed to bad moral turpitude.

  16. avatar
    Rickey March 16, 2010 at 12:14 pm #

    I actually tried to read her entire Complaint last night. Rambling and repetitive, but with a few highlights. Did you know that we are all under surveillance by Interpol? And that there is increased air traffic over Los Angeles between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m.?

    And Ruth Jones (if that is her real name) has been injured because she has trouble sleeping at night. Good luck on gaining standing with that.

  17. avatar
    Rickey March 16, 2010 at 12:42 pm #

    And just imagine how it would play out if the Arizona Secretary of State actually decided that a nominated candidate was not eligible. What then? The affected candidate would have to file an emergency petition, and most of the time between the conventions and election day could be consumed by the legal fight. What a circus that would be.

  18. avatar
    G March 16, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

    Yeah, I felt the same way. Wasted my time reading through about half of it…that was more than enough.

    Absolutely nothing of value. A lot of repetitive rambling. A potpourri of almost every stupid birther rumor that has been passed along on the Internet all jumbled together into one. She even kept going off about when Obama clearly joked that his middle name was “Steve” as if that was his real name. *faceplant*

    Nothing coming close to evidence of standing or real injury.

    Yeah, I didn’t get all her crazy ramblings on about InterPol and Czars and stuff… I think she must be a TeaBagger-Birther who combined the birther crazy with Glenn Beck crazy to come up with her crap.

  19. avatar
    Adam March 16, 2010 at 4:42 pm #

    “Do you realize the bill does not specify what “documents” would satisfy their requirement that candidates prove their natural born citizen status?”

    That seems reasonable. There is more than one document that can establish eligibility, and different documents may apply in different cases.

    For instance, your passport lists your place of birth, so an individual born in the USA could present a passport as proof of eligibility.

    On the other hand, neither a passport nor a birth certificate would be sufficient for a US citizen who was born abroad to US citizen parents. Such an individual would need a consular report of birth of a US citizen abroad.

    Because the legislators cannot forsee what documents might or might not be sufficient in each individual case, it makes sense to leave the secretary of state the discretion to make that determination.

    Giving discretion to government officials on precisely how to carry out a given law is part and parcel of the common law tradition, upon which our legal system is based.

    “If it is not clear exactly what document(s) satisfies the requirement, it could be arbitrary by candidate.”

    Not at all. That law simply leaves it up to the discretion of the Secretary of State to determine which documents required in a particular case, which, for reasons cited above, may vary.

    This would not be the first instance in which the law that gives some discretion to elected officials in the particulars of how the law is carried out.

    ” In my opinion, it’s like the old fugitive slave laws that are the source of the notion that a black man always has to show more identification.”

    I’m sorry, but that statements is almost as paranoid as some of the nonsense coming out of birther circles.

    “Why would this bill come up now?”

    Because there was no birther movement up until now.

    Birther movements are unhealthy, and a bill like this could potentially prevent such movements from becomes as widespread as the current one.

    “By the way, common sense prevailed and the primary committee,Judiciary Committee withdrew the bill.”

    Why is it such an offense to common sense to have the Secretary of State formally vet candidates for their eligbility?

  20. avatar
    Adam March 16, 2010 at 4:45 pm #

    “The Arizona birther bill doesn’t apply to the vice president, who has the same constitutional eligibility requirements. Why might Burges want to see Obama’s birth certificate but not Biden’s?”

    Good point. Instead of kocking this bill, why don’t you propose an amendment requiring the secretary of state verify the eligibility of the vice presidential candidate, as well as all candidates running for the legislature?

    Just because a bill is incomplete doesn’t mean it’s bad.

  21. avatar
    Kathryn N March 16, 2010 at 5:03 pm #

    Actually it’s quite amusing if you read it as a comedy piece like Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” It’s absolutely full of unintended self-revelation, like when Ms. Jones declares President Obama the enemy of “white Caucasians.”
    To me, the funniest part was where she asserted that “Steve Dunham” was one of the president’s aliases, because at the Al Smith dinner before the election, he joked that his middle name was actually Steve.
    Conservatives do not understand humor.

  22. avatar
    Scientist March 16, 2010 at 6:46 pm #

    Adam- There is nothing wrong with Secretaries of State asking for a birth certificate, so long as they give full faith and credit to whatever form of such documents the candidate’s place of birth issues, as required under the Constitution. I’m not even sure that they are barred from so doing by current law. In this case, both the timing of such a bill and the statements made by some of its backers are troublesome.

    If some Secretary of State decides to go on a fishing expedition for medical records and the like, the whole thing will end up in court and the law will be invalidated. I’m not sure that benefits anyone but the lawyers (no offense intended to the many lawyers here, except for Mario-in his case offense is definitely intended).

    Perhaps the most difficult thing to verify by documents is the 14 year residency requirement. Most of us don’t keep utility bills for 14 years, so there would have to be some discretion allowed on this.

    The real issue for me is that US elections for all offices from dog-catcher to President are controlled and overseen by partisan State officials. Inevitably, they are not seen as fair (whether they are or not) and every close election ends up in court-the 2000 Bush-Gore, the Franken-Coleman race, etc. Once again, this is good for lawyers, but not for the public interest. There should be strong consideration to setting up a non-partisan Commission of career civil servants to run elections, as they have in Canada and most other countries. They would have the credibility to decide controversies from ballot access to counting of results.

  23. avatar
    Adam March 16, 2010 at 7:15 pm #

    “There is nothing wrong with Secretaries of State asking for a birth certificate, so long as they give full faith and credit to whatever form of such documents the candidate’s place of birth issues, as required under the Constitution.”

    We’re in agreement.

    “I’m not even sure that they are barred from so doing by current law.”

    They may not be barred from it, but they don’t have a mandate to do it. I think a mandate would be useful.

    “In this case, both the timing of such a bill and the statements made by some of its backers are troublesome.”

    I care less about the timing of a bill and statements of backers than I do about the substance of the bill. I don’t see much wrong with the substance.

    Furthermore, I don’t see why you’re so troubled about the timing. The fact is there is a birther movement, which has given rise to a significant portion of the population doubting the legitimacy of a president. That is not a good situation.

    What better time would there be to attempt to put such doubts to rest?

    “If some Secretary of State decides to go on a fishing expedition for medical records and the like, the whole thing will end up in court and the law will be invalidated.”

    To go on such a fishing expedition would pose serious political risks to the secretary, as well as to his or her political party. Can you imagine how sleazy the opposing candidate would look if some rogue secretary of state started doing this? It would be a boon to the victim of the fishing expedition.

    That’s why I’m not very worried about it happening.

    “There should be strong consideration to setting up a non-partisan Commission of career civil servants to run elections, as they have in Canada and most other countries.”

    That’s a very good idea. Hopefully someone will propose it.

  24. avatar
    SFJeff March 16, 2010 at 7:20 pm #

    Perhaps we don’t feel that there is an overwhelming need to change current law?

    I wouldn’t be opposed to a good non-partisan effort at defining what documentation would be required- and required to be accepted- but this version of this bill scares me.

    You outlined some specific cases that would be acceptable proof- put those in the bill- make it concrete so there is no political discretion- and make sure it is universally applied, then sure.

    I wonder though how Arizona would have verified the McCain was eligible?

  25. avatar
    misha March 16, 2010 at 7:22 pm #

    “Perhaps the most difficult thing to verify by documents is the 14 year residency requirement.”

    Hoover’s and Eisenhower’s years were cumulative, not consecutive. The Constitution does not state how the 14 years are compiled.

  26. avatar
    Scientist March 16, 2010 at 7:36 pm #

    Adam-The fact that some people choose to be birthers (and it is a choice) should not guide public policy. Should homeland security policies be altered to cater to 9/11 truthers? Should the space program placate those who feel the moon landings were staged on a Hollywood set?

    I’m all for a sound reform of election laws so that they are not overseen by partisan hacks and every close election doesn’t end up in a protracted court fight. There should also probably be reforms that would making voting more convenient and perhaps increase turnout. As part of such a bill, it would be reasonable to consider what documents might be required of candidates.

    The birther bill is not an attempt to address what’s wrong with the current electoral process, of which birth certificates are way down the list. It’s just pandering to people who should be told to grow up.

  27. avatar
    misha March 16, 2010 at 8:01 pm #

    “Conservatives do not understand humor.”

    And when did you discover this?

  28. avatar
    Bob March 16, 2010 at 8:27 pm #

    Instead of kocking this bill, why don’t you propose an amendment requiring the secretary of state verify the eligibility of the vice presidential candidate, as well as all candidates running for the legislature?

    And that’s what I told Burges. And she refused.

    Somehow I don’t think Burges really cares about office eligibility.

  29. avatar
    Dave March 16, 2010 at 9:46 pm #

    I have not seen the text of this bill — only descriptions in the news — but bear in mind that all states have a bunch of hoops candidates have to jump through to get on the ballot, with an election official as arbiter of whether the hoop jumping got done right. The AZ bill appears to add just one more hoop, and a rather minor one at that.

    So your concern about what happens if a Sec. of State arbitrarily decides to bar a candidate from the ballot exists with or without this bill.

  30. avatar
    HellT March 17, 2010 at 2:47 pm #

    States traditionally leave the selection of presidential candidates up to the political parties. Those candidates and their qualifications are vetted by their party’s delegates and elections committees. Rival parties are, of course, free to conduct oppositional research as well.

    As is required with all other political offices, an affidavit of candidacy signed by the candidate attesting to having met the candidacy requirements for the particular office is submitted to the secretary of state in each state in the union.

    We thus already have an open system in place to establish a candidate’s bona fides. The system now involves a great many people in establishing the qualifications. Candidates for U.S. president are not held to a higher documentation standard than that demanded for most other political offices (the exceptions typically being offices requiring proof of professional licensing, such as sheriff or attorney general).

    In other words, we are currently operating under the democratic ideal that an open process involving a lot of people is preferable to one subject to one person’s sole discretion.

    Here’s what the Arizona bill would add to the process:

    20 … WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER SUBMITTAL OF THE NAMES OF THE
    21 CANDIDATES, THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT
    22 OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN WHICH THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE STATES THE
    23 CANDIDATE’S CITIZENSHIP AND AGE AND SHALL APPEND TO THE AFFIDAVIT DOCUMENTS
    24 THAT PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, PROVE THE
    25 CANDIDATE’S AGE AND PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE MEETS THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS
    26 FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 1,
    27 CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

    THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL REVIEW THE AFFIDAVIT AND OTHER
    29 DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE AND, IF THE
    30 SECRETARY OF STATE HAS REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE CANDIDATE DOES
    31 NOT MEET THE CITIZENSHIP, AGE AND RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY LAW,
    32 THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL NOT PLACE THAT CANDIDATE’S NAME ON THE BALLOT

    And that’s where Arizona’s bill becomes potentially very disruptive to our election process. If one person is given the power to wreak havoc on a national campaign by reviewing *unspecified* documents and thus arbitrarily deciding whether the candidate meets eligibility requirements, we no longer have a smooth election process. Instead, we have courtroom battles over what constitutes valid proof of eligibility and what ‘reasonable’ means.

    As pointed out by others, the very fact that the bill specifically addresses *only* the office of President of the U.S. and no other, especially not the office of Vice-President, means the bill is, simply put, a farce. No more, no less.

    This isn’t fixing a broken system. It’s throwing a monkey wrench into a system that for all intents and purposes works the way it’s intended to most of the time.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 17, 2010 at 10:36 pm #

    I don’t see how this creates new problems. We already have secretaries of state using their own discretion to refuse ballot access to candidates, for example, Eldridge Cleaver (too young).

  32. avatar
    Mara April 21, 2010 at 6:37 pm #

    If Obama was adopted his original (truthful) birth certificate was sealed by the State Of Hawaii and an amended (falsified) birth certificate was issued to him.

  33. avatar
    Scientist April 21, 2010 at 7:15 pm #

    If my grandmother had wheels she would have been a fire truck.

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 21, 2010 at 8:51 pm #

    Did you ever call her a taxi?

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 21, 2010 at 8:58 pm #

    Mara: If Obama was adopted his original (truthful) birth certificate was sealed by the State Of Hawaii and an amended (falsified) birth certificate was issued to him.

    Why do people who know nothing about vital statistics law and regulation spout fantasy like this? I was on a one-hour conference call just this afternoon with one of the states regarding their procedure for record handling when one of the adopting parents is additionally the biological parent of the child, a discussion that involved the sealed record procedure in some detail both for this special case and regular adoptions.

    It is true, in the case of most adoptions, that when an adoption happens, the original birth record is sealed and a new one created. It may be (and usually is) that the information from the original certificate is not carried forward onto the new one. However, and I want to make sure that this is understood, the new record is not “falsified”. An adoption is a legal process in which the parents change and the child’s name may change, but the facts of birth do not change. The birth date never changes and the place of birth never changes. The place of birth may be sealed, but it is not changed. This is because whatever the case, birth certificates do not lie (except in the case of witness protection).

  36. avatar
    G April 21, 2010 at 9:51 pm #

    So, I suspect it is just a matter of time before we start hearing birthers come up with some fantasy about Obama being in the Witness Protection Program…(sounds like a story that Sven will be up for.)

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 21, 2010 at 9:56 pm #

    I’ve brought that up a few times over the past months, but no one has picked up on it.

  38. avatar
    Izzy April 21, 2010 at 10:16 pm #

    My husband has an amended BC since he was adopted. The only information that was changed was the names of his legal parents. All other information is original.

  39. avatar
    MuhommadMcLovin April 22, 2010 at 7:38 am #

    Mara: If Obama was adopted his original (truthful) birth certificate was sealed by the State Of Hawaii and an amended (falsified) birth certificate was issued to him.Why do people who know nothing about vital statistics law and regulation spout fantasy like this? I was on a one-hour conference call just this afternoon with one of the states regarding their procedure for record handling when one of the adopting parents is additionally the biological parent of the child, a discussion that involved the sealed record procedure in some detail both for this special case and regular adoptions.It is true, in the case of most adoptions, that when an adoption happens, the original birth record is sealed and a new one created. It may be (and usually is) that the information from the original certificate is not carried forward onto the new one. However, and I want to make sure that this is understood, the new record is not “falsified”. An adoption is a legal process in which the parents change and the child’s name may change, but the facts of birth do not change. The birth date never changes and the place of birth never changes. The place of birth may be sealed, but it is not changed. This is because whatever the case, birth certificates do not lie (except in the case of witness protection).

    Every piece of information on the BC is amendable, including the place of birth.

    A foundling is considered to be born where it is found until a Court with jurisdiction rules the child born in another place based on testimony and evidence presented.

    As to witness protection, there is not much difference between that and a minor seeking refugee status in the US to escape a country in SE Asia under centralized authoritarian rule. Especially after that child enjoyed the privileges of being the son of a military officer who uses the career choice of “Geologist” as cover to search the rural areas for communists. Suddenly, the hunter and his family become the hunted.

    FREE THE HEARING TRANSCRIPT FROM THE SOETORO ADOPTION ANNULMENT!

    (It’s not a catchy slogan, but it gets the job done.)

  40. avatar
    Black Lion April 22, 2010 at 11:13 am #

    Sven trolling trying to push his ridiculous “foundling” theory again. He is requesting documents regarding a person that has never existed regarding an event that has never taking place…We can always count on Aven for a good laugh…

  41. avatar
    MuhommadMcLovin April 22, 2010 at 2:01 pm #

    Hawai`i Vital Records statutes are ripe for corruption.

    §338-17.7 Establishment of new certificates of birth, when. (a) The department of health shall establish, in the following circumstances, a new certificate of birth for a person born in this State who already has a birth certificate filed with the department and who is referred to below as the “birth registrant”:

    (5) Upon request of a law enforcement agency certifying that a new birth certificate showing different information would provide for the safety of the birth registrant; provided that the new birth certificate shall contain information requested by the law enforcement agency, shall be assigned a new number and filed accordingly, and shall not substitute for the birth registrant’s original birth certificate, which shall remain in place.

    (b) When a new certificate of birth is established under this section, it shall be substituted for the original certificate of birth. Thereafter, the original certificate and the evidence supporting the preparation of the new certificate shall be sealed and filed. Such sealed document shall be opened only by an order of a court of record. [L 1973, c 39, §1; am L 1975, c 66, §2(3); am L 1979, c 130, §1 and c 203, §1; am L 1982, c 4, §1; am L 1983, c 65, §1; am L 1984, c 167, §1; am L 1993, c 131, §2]

  42. avatar
    Black Lion April 22, 2010 at 2:11 pm #

    Two problems with your theory Sven…None of the laws you cite were in effect in 1961 and the President’s COLB states that it was filed in 1961. So it was not “established” under that section of the statute. Secondly what would be the reason that Obama’s COLB would have been issued under that statute, had it been in effect at the time of his birth? Witness protection? Citing irrelevant statutes out of context proves nothing….

  43. avatar
    MuhommadMcLovin April 22, 2010 at 3:22 pm #

    Two problems with your theory Sven…None of the laws you cite were in effect in 1961 and the President’s COLB states that it was filed in 1961.So it was not “established” under that section of the statute.Secondly what would be the reason that Obama’s COLB would have been issued under that statute, had it been in effect at the time of his birth?Witness protection?Citing irrelevant statutes out of context proves nothing….

    My theory is that a Court hearing took place in 1971 or 1972 where S.A.D., Madelyn, BO Sr. and Barry Soetoro were in attendance. The purpose of the hearing was to annul the Soetoro adoption, change Barry’s name to BHO II and order a new birth certificate to be “filed” with the HI DoH.

    For all I know, an Order wasn’t issued until 1973 when the statute was signed into “L”aw. And they’ve amended it 6 times since 1973. I wonder what the 1973 statute was.

  44. avatar
    BatGuano April 22, 2010 at 3:45 pm #

    My theory is that a Court hearing took place in 1971 or 1972 …..

    any evidence, ANY, any at all ????? honestly. anything ???? if my theory is that monkeys flew out sven’s butt how does my proof differ from yours ? sven exists, monkeys exist, sven’s butt exists and the physics of aeronautics have been proven by multiple international government agencies and practical implementation. i actually have more proof of my theory than you !!!!

  45. avatar
    JoZeppy April 22, 2010 at 3:55 pm #

    Besides having no basis in fact, it has no basis in law either (well, no basis in reality either). You just cited provisions for changing identities in a witness protection program. Can you explain how changing his identity would “provide for the safety of the birth registrant”? Why would a law enforcement agency request a certificate with new information? And even more to the point, how is it remotely relevant to President Obama’s NBC status? It applies only to persons born in the state.

    You really need to stop smoking what ever you’re packing in that pipe of yours. Your brain cells are going fast. Your stupid theories become more rediculous by the moment.

  46. avatar
    JoZeppy April 22, 2010 at 3:57 pm #

    How does one free a transcript of a hearing that never happened?

  47. avatar
    Black Lion April 22, 2010 at 4:04 pm #

    Sven, you still miss the point. If what you claim had happened, then Obama’s COLB could not say it was filed in 1961. Get it. If there was a so called reissued BC because of the imaginary adoption of an imaginary child named Barry Soetero that was born in 1961, the COLB then would have the date it was reissued in, in your case 1973 if we are to follow your disjointed logic. You may want to give up on this one because it is loser straight out of the box.

  48. avatar
    Greg April 22, 2010 at 4:09 pm #

    My theory is that a Court hearing took place in 1971 or 1972 where S.A.D., Madelyn, BO Sr. and Barry Soetoro were in attendance. The purpose of the hearing was to annul the Soetoro adoption, change Barry’s name to BHO II and order a new birth certificate to be “filed” with the HI DoH.

    For all I know, an Order wasn’t issued until 1973 when the statute was signed into “L”aw.

    So, in ’71 or ’72, the litigants asked the court to do something that wasn’t allowed until a law was passed in ’73. And for all you know, the court just held onto the Order for a year or two in the hopes that a law would be passed allowing it to do what the litigants had asked.

    And they’ve amended it 6 times since 1973. I wonder what the 1973 statute was.

    Hie thee to a law library and look it up! It’s not like they don’t publish a book entitled, How To Research Constitutional, Legislative, And Statutory History In Hawai`i

  49. avatar
    SFJeff April 22, 2010 at 5:03 pm #

    Okay here is my theory.

    Barrack Obama was born in Hawaii, and was never adopted by anyone. He was raised primarily by his mother and his grandparents. He got early exposure to different cultures, first in Hawaii, and then later in Indonesia. He lived in Hawaii from 10 on, and smoked pot in high school. Later he went to college, and then law school.

    Rather than take a high paying law job, he chose to go work with impoverished African American’s, trying to organize them politically so they would have a voice in the decisions being made that affected their lives.

    He married a lovely, well educated woman, and had two daughters. He was a regular member of a Christian church.

    Oh and then he was elected President, and since he is a NBC, he was confirmed by Congress.

    Thats my theory.

  50. avatar
    Greg April 22, 2010 at 5:18 pm #

    That doesn’t make a very good spy novel! Where’s the MacGuffin? Where are the Red Herrings?

    Sven’s story is full of plot devices. The MacGuffin is the birth certificate. The plot revolves around that. He’s got plot vouchers (“good for one escape from a sticky situation”) like the revocation of citizenship papers, the alleged adoption, etc. And he’s even got a deus ex machina – the international refugee organization that swooped in to give Obama a Connecticut SSN.

    Of course, the whole thing is tied together with baling wire and chewing gum, so wouldn’t even work as the most pot-boilingest pulp fiction. If it were a film, it would be directed by Alan Smithee.

  51. avatar
    BatGuano April 22, 2010 at 5:45 pm #

    Thats my theory.

    a bit pedestrian jeff. add a couple of sven’s magical flying butt monkeys and then you’d have a story.

  52. avatar
    Whatever4 April 22, 2010 at 5:58 pm #

    It will never sell. Apart from a possible After School Special about the pot, it’s a Leave It to Beaver/Father Knows Best/Happy Days snoozefest. It needs someting more than just an exotic location or a few minorities in order to put butts in the chairs. Try again.

  53. avatar
    SFJeff April 22, 2010 at 8:35 pm #

    Well Sven’s version has Soetero and young Obama walking to the river with fishing poles over their shoulders whistling the theme to the Andy Griffin Show, with Ann Dunham as Aunt Bea telling Obama “I will get you up at 4 a.m. to teach you and prepare you to denounce your U.S. Citizenship!

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 22, 2010 at 10:14 pm #

    MuhommadMcLovin: Hawai`i Vital Records statutes are ripe for corruption.

    First off, Sven, I don’t appreciate the slight against Hawaii. Their laws are like those of other states. Further, I do not see how the action of law enforcement leads to “corruption.”

  55. avatar
    G April 23, 2010 at 2:23 am #

    Wow, and like actual theory, SFJeff’s version, (while duller than Sven’s fantasies), are actually backed up by evidence and facts!

    Oh, and a response to Greg’s response here – I don’t know if I’d call what Sven peddles as “plot devices” – more like simply endless “plot holes” if you ask me! 🙂

  56. avatar
    MuhammadMcLovin April 23, 2010 at 11:47 am #

    MuhommadMcLovin: Hawai`i Vital Records statutes are ripe for corruption.First off, Sven, I don’t appreciate the slight against Hawaii. Their laws are like those of other states. Further, I do not see how the action of law enforcement leads to “corruption.”

    A new registration number? That’s news to me.

    The fact is every aspect of the vital record of birth can be changed without the public being made aware of the changes.

    And that makes Obama’s COLB worthless in establishing his status as a Natural-born citizen. We’ve got to see his original birth record … warts and all.

  57. avatar
    Black Lion April 23, 2010 at 12:32 pm #

    Again Sven you make no sense. Not only are you referencing laws that were not in effect when Obama was born or when you think this imaginary adoption happened, now you are making up rules that don’t exist. The public has no right to know anything. Once the state of HI validates the fact that Obama was born in HI, and the COLB states that it was filed in 1961, your stupid theories are meaningless. The only think worthless is your ridiculous theory. The COLB is proof of birth. Period. No amount of fictional theories and wrong interpretations of statutes will change that.

  58. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2010 at 2:54 pm #

    Sven: A new registration number? That’s news to me.

    We know from a couple of sources that the certificate number on the COLB was issued on or very close to his birth date. Sorry, “no new registration” for you.