[Beckwith]

Obama's book is a mythology. The Certification of Live Birth is bogu. And the birth announcements aren't admissable in court as evidence.

All we have left is Obama's word. Who you gonna believe, you're lyin' eyes or the Obamamessiah>

Heh, heh, heh!

[butterdezillion]

A judge couldn’t be charged as a co-conspirator if they ruled correctly. So why not rule on it correctly?

[scooby321]

joke

[The Sons of Liberty]

Thank you for presenting evidence of what I’ve said all along - the birth announcement in a Hawaiian paper means nothing. It could have been entered from half a world away (kenya) or sixth months after the actual birth. I could enter one for myself with a birthdate of Jan 4, 2011 and believe me, unlike some of those idiot 0bots, I wasn’t born yesterday.

[forgotten man]

I cannot stand 0bama. Having said that I have this question. If 0bama was born in Kenya, why would his family place the birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper? Did they know the baby would grow up and win the presidential election AND face constitutional challenges?

[NCLaw441]

No person can give valid testimony as to the date, time or place of his own birth. All anyone can do is repeat what others or hearsay documents say about one’s birth. I tell people my birthday when asked, but I could never testify to it.

[allmendream]

“the information in those announcements are sent to newspapers by the family, or agents of the family. They do not originate from government agencies, hospitals, churches or synagogues”

Incorrect. The Hawaii DOH would send them to both Hawaii newspapers, who would then print the birth announcements. This is old news. Try to keep up.

But seeings as how Hawaii would issue birth certificates to those NOT born in Hawaii, a filing for a birth certificate would have most likely triggered the same DOH information being sent to the newspapers - so yes, the birth announcement in the paper is certainly not sufficient to show birth in Hawaii.

Also, under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, if Hawaii says their “short form” (an “original” printed from their database is acceptable in a court of law, despite your assertions otherwise) is proof of birth within the State, the other States are obligated to accept that.

Recently a State Legislature was considering requiring issuance of a “long form” birth certificate for purposes of proving eligibility, only to find out that their OWN state only issues “short forms” also.

Sorry if my pointing out the truth on both these matters causes offense, I apologize in advance.

[FrankR]

[Lurking Libertarian]

This attorney, practicing in a mid-western state, and in the federal courts, pointed to the Federal Rules of Evidence 1002 -- Requirement of Original: "To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by Act of Congress." In simple terms, one must posses and present the original newsprint copy of those "birth announcements" for them to be admitted into evidence. Conclusion -- those microfilm/fiche copies would not be admissible in a court of law.

The author is being highly misleading. Rule 1002 contains an exception where "otherwise provided in these rules." Rule 1004 says, in pertinent part:

"The original is not required, and other evidence of the contents of a writing, recording, or photograph is admissible if--
(1) Originals lost or destroyed. All originals are lost or have been destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith; or
(2) Original not obtainable. No original can be obtained by any available judicial process or procedure; ..."

So yes, the microfiche copies will be admissible in court, unless someone can find a paper copy.

When an article misstates a key fact like that, it makes me question the author's truthfulness and reliability.

[ml/nj]

They do not originate from government agencies, hospitals, churches or synagogues

Nice. But my understanding is that this is not correct. When a birth was REGISTERED with the government, then the government sent information to the papers. Registration could be the result of information sent by hospitals to government or certain individuals (parents, grandparents, and probably midwives) submitting information to the government.

It is possible that the Honolulu papers also accepted birth announcements directly from individuals, but I do not believe that this is how the Obama birth appeared.

ML/NJ

[sanescold]

It makes you wonder who and why they notified the newspapers of the Obama birth. They must have been scared of the inevitable questions surrounding his election when he would run for president. But really, given that, they should have done the birth announcement in a mainland state. They only had to mail the information to the paper to get the announcement, so why not do it in a real state? There are just too many questions. Whoever got this ball rolling must have been powerful and completely incompetent.

[devistate one four]

Surely zero will be “carded” by the new congress if he runs again.

[Nea Wood]

The birth announcement issue is interesting, but the main issue for me is, why did BO spend over a million dollars to avoid showing any records? He may indeed have been born in Hawaii and probably was, but there’s still something he’s hiding. And since, by his own admission, his father was not a citizen, many say that alone makes BO ineligible for the Presidency. So those issues need to be settled.

[rolling_stone]

We can argue this on both sides, to cut to the chase, we need to see Obama’s original long form birth certificate and any amendments, adoption records, his school records, his and his mothers travel records, his social security card application,his voter registration applications and records, his I-9 (who authorized his employment for US govt, did he fill one out?), etc and also have the Supreme Court decide the definition of Natural Born Citizen for Constitutional Presidential/VP eligibility purposes...the rest is all an exercise in futility.