Mr. Obama Refuses To Show He Is Constitutionally Qualified To Be President

Vincent Gioia's Blog ^ | March 2, 2009 | Vincent Gioia

[MHGinTN]

[[ Although the Federal Circuit Court judge, R. Barclay Surrick, has yet to rule on Berg's claim, federal rules of procedure would appear to support his contention, since they specify that any objection or refutation had to be served within thirty days. The Obama team contented itself with a motion to dismiss the case and a protective order, but there has yet to be a ruling on this, perhaps to the surprise and chagrin of Obama and the DNC. Obama's lawyers in these motions, argued that revealing the information (birth certificate, citizenship in other countries, etc.) would “cause a defined and serious injury” to Obama and/or the DNC. They say revealing these documents raises a “legitimate privacy concern” and the above mentioned risk that “particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation.” The source of that embarrassment was not specified.
http://israelinsider.ning.com/profiles/blogs/2018399:BlogPost:10858 ]] At Berg’s website you can view the requested ‘protective order‘. You are being spun a Gordian knot of dissembling goo by someone posing as 'curious' ... Barry Soetoro stated he had a copy of his 'actual' birth certificate, found amongst his 'Granny's saved papers from his childhood. Of course, the claim by the affirmative action fraud fresh prince of Bill Ayers was made in one of his 'autobiographies', so even that is suspect.

[Malsua]

$10 would clear this all up, wouldn't it?

I think we should collect MILLIONs, one dollar at a time and offer it to 0 to release his original cert.

Full page add in the Washington Compost "OBama, we have X million dollars in a trust for your children(or whatever) if you just release your vault BC"

It'd just need to get in the news cycle for average Americans to see it and wonder "odd, the president won't release his BC, why?"

[ecinkc]

I must admit that am having trouble establishing that team Obama stated that they wished to avoid embarrassment.

“particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation.”

I have been lurking about on the Eligibility threads for a long time (long enough to appreciate your many decent contributions in this, MHGinTN), and I remain convinced that Obama should turn over a vault copy BC or be forced to. For once, I’ve decided to take a little time to try to contribute to the discussion, but I apologize in advance for the likely scenario in which I am here repeating what someone else has already clarified.

I'm particularly interested in recent requests from people on these threads for the evidence that Obama/DNC actually asked for dismissal or protection explicitly to prevent “embarrassment”. Ever since I read months ago that the “embarrassment” reason had been cited by the defense, I have made that a part of my “talking points” in conversations about why Obama should hand over his Birth Certificate and other documentation. I would typically ask, “Hmm, now what big embarrassing thing on his Birth Certificate could they possibly need to keep hidden?” So when people started saying on these boards, “Show me where the defense stated they sought to avoid ‘embarrassment’”, I thought that I would take some time and hunt that down. I felt sure I could remember reading it right off of one of the pdf legal document copies of various filings, motions, briefs, etc. I pulled the motions for dismissal and for protection from discovery filed on behalf of Obama/DNC and the one occurrence of the word ‘embarrassment’ that I could find was in the defense's motion for protection. It was a rather generic quotation of a rule stating criteria that could justify an order for protection from discovery. Here is the segment on page 6 of the motion for protection

Rule 26(c)(1) authorizes the Court to enter a protective order to protect a party “from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including an order forbidding the discovery or specifying terms for discovery.(emphasis mine)

While the rule cited does indeed mention ‘embarrassment’ specifically, it is mentioned as only one of five legal conditions for granting protection. As far as I can tell, the idea of avoiding embarrassment for Obama/DNC is never specifically raised in the document as a reason for the protection sought. In short, the defense never seems to come right out and say something to the effect of “we’re trying to avoid any embarrassment that could result from the release of these documents.” Yes, embarrassment is mentioned, but from now on I must admit that as far as I can tell, the defense did not explicitly claim a concern about embarrassment.

That point is ironically underscored on page 16 of 22 of Berg’s own Response in Opposition to the Motion for Protection where he himself says: “Defendants do not allege that disclosure of the requested information will cause any embarrassment.”

So why have I been so convinced until now that team Obama specifically argued that they didn’t want the embarrassment that would result from discovery? Maybe it really was in a legitimate document I can no longer find (please, please someone help me out if this is the case), or maybe I unwisely took something said by Berg or one of his advocates at face value.

I did happen to notice that the phrase quoted in the IsraelInsider story is almost exactly the same as a phrase used by team Berg on page 7 of his Response Opposing Protection. Here are those words in that context: “5. Defendants have not shown any risk that particularly serious embarrassment will result from the requested documents;”. While his point here seems quite correct to me, I simply can’t find where or if counsel for Obama/DNC ever actually claimed that embarrassment would result.

Now that I’ve bothered to open my mouth in the eligibility controversy on these boards, I’m having trouble resisting my temptation to take a few moments of venting:

<VENTING ON>I think that overstatment, deceptive rhetoric, presumptuous extrapolations, and sensationalistic headlines coming from within the movement are hurting our chances at being taken seriously. Perhaps we are damaged as much by ourselves as by the imbeciles in the mainstream who keep parroting the blatantly false assertion that “Officials in Hawaii have already verified that he was born in Honolulu.” Etc.

As grateful as I sincerely am for the tireless efforts of Taitz and Berg to keep pushing this issue, I agonize over the moments where we were told that “Justice Thomas took an extreme unprecedented step to distribute for conference a case that had been rejected by a fellow justice!” or that “John Roberts has sent a crucial message to Congress today by distributing…” or that “We win!--Obama admits that he was not born in Hawaii, since he has ignored the legal requirement to file a claim to the contrary.” Or that “Congressman So-and-so will take the floor tomorrow to oppose the electoral vote count” or that “the unknown senator was intentionally overlooked when he waved his hand to signal dissent” Etc., etc.

I realize that it is an impossible violation of the laws of science and nature for lawyers (even ones on the good-guy side) to present information without twisting it by means of various rhetorical devises in order to make it seem to give greater support to his or her side of an argument, but please can’t we exercise a little restraint here. I think we desperately need to stay on focus with the points of our argument that are much less disputable. Wouldn’t that help us in the long run? I’ve been debating when or how or if I should write the editor or send an email to the local news talk program or find some way to do my part to encourage media involvement with this issue, but I dare not send them to Dr. Orly or to Berg or to the threads here. Maybe I could refer them to Gary Kreep or Stephen Pidgeon or to the Indiana case, but Keyes, as right as he seems to be on this, would be perceived as having too much baggage, and even Donofrio clouded his rapport thanks to his “Artsy” meanderings. We're on the right side of this argument and as such, should be doing better than this.</VENTING OFF>
Thanks.

If I am error on this (extremely possible), I would be grateful for any time anyone would take to correct me.

[freebird5850]

I just designed and bought 10 of these to distribute

[freebird5850]

I just designed and bought 10 of these to distribute

[freebird5850]

They are bumper stickers...gosh my html is poor, but I got it!

[freebird5850]

I revised to capitalize the letter B in Birth Certificate.

[freebird5850]

bflr, sorry for the typo

[TChad]

There you go again.

Like many people, he doesn't have the original, long-form certificate (I don't have mine).

I once found myself in the same position. Here's what I did: I phoned the hospital where I was born and asked them how I could get a copy of my birth certificate. I followed their instructions, and before long I received a nice crisp certified long-form-style copy in the mail. It was not a minimal-information short form, like this one. My birth certificate shows the name of my birth hospital, the name the doctor who delivered me, his signature, my exact weight at birth, the names of witnesses, and so on. Total time expended and money required: under one hour and under $20. It could not have been easier. Why does Obama prefer to spend a fortune defending himself in court, instead of simply doing just what I did, and releasing the long-form certificate to the public? Saying "he doesn't have to" is just dodging the question.

It's good enough to... prove birth in Hawaii for all legal purposes.

False. The short form has been considered inadequate documentation for paternity cases, for some Hawaiian state agencies, and for some federal agencies. Why on earth should it be good enough for him to satisfy the natural-born citizen requirement for becoming the POTUS? The short form is adequate to prove Hawaiian residency, but it does not prove the place of birth. Lurkers should read the Credibility of the "Certification of Live Birth" section of this piece by Robert Reece. Actually, read the whole thing.

Here is the quick, oversimplified partial recap for lurkers:

States need a procedure to deal with resident mothers who give birth abroad, then return home asking for a birth certificate for junior. Hawaii currently has such a procedure:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm

While that specific statute may not have been in effect when Obama was born, it seems very likely to me that there was a similar statute in effect at the time. It fills a pressing need. Parents understand that their kids will eventually require valid American birth certificates for identification. They don't want for those certificates that say something like “Birthplace: Kenya,” they want something that looks like proof of American birth. There is no good reason for states not to give them such documentation.

If Obama's mother gave birth in Kenya, does anyone doubt that after returning to Hawaii she would have tried to get him a legal Hawaiian birth certificate (or something similar) if it was available? If she did, Obama would now be able to produce a perfectly legal Short Form Certification of Live Birth. He has produced such a document. However, he would not be able to produce a detailed long-form birth certificate. He has not produced such a document. That's what this is all about.

I will touch on a couple of the standard objections:

But Hawaiian officials have confirmed that he was born in Hawaii!

Read Recent Statements Regarding Obama's "Birth Certificate" in the linked Reece article. Also, answer this: Why should the unsworn statements of state officials be considered sufficient proof when much more authoritative documentation is so easily available, but has not been provided?

But a Hawaiian newspaper contained a birth announcement!

Obama's maternal grandmother was in Hawaii when Obama was born. She could easily have placed the noticed after receiving a phone call from her daughter from Kenya.

Now, back to Curiosity's post.

I can see it now. Curiosity is pulled over while driving.

Cop: Sir, may I please see your driver's license?

Curiosity: Do have any reason to doubt that I have a driver's license?

Cop: No, but I still need to see that license.

Curiosity: You don't need to see my license. I have a license, I said so, and that's good enough!

Cop: Uh, no sir, it is not good enough. Do you have that license or not?

Curiosity: Only a crazy person would doubt that I have a license. You must be insane!

Cop: No sir, I am not insane, and I need to see that license now. Either you produce it or I will have to arrest you for driving without a license.

Curiosity: Nothing will satisfy you, mark my words. If I give you my driver's license, next you will be asking for my passport, and who knows what else! You tinfoil hatters are all alike!

And so on, to the predictable conclusion. There comes a point where it is perfectly reasonable for the cop to conclude that Curiosity does not have a license. That's where we are now with Obama and the long-form birth certificate.

As I have stated before on FR, I would be happy to be proved wrong about this. I am not comfortable being a "troofer," but until I see better evidence than I have seen so far, I will continue to believe that the most likely reason Obama has not produced his long-form certificate is that it contains information that he wants to hide, or it is missing information that would be present had he been born in Hawaii.

I think the best outcome for all concerned would be for Obama to produce a certified long form certificate showing all the particulars, proving his Hawaiian birth. That, plus a good explanation for the delay, would end the issue for most people, including me. I don't want for the idiot Biden to be president, and at this point, revealing that Obama was never a legitimate candidate would be a national disgrace.

[calex59]

I sent for my BC today. Cost was 12 bucks plus mailing cost: Total was $17.50. Maybe it is the postage Bozo objects to huh? Anyone who still thinks he isn’t hiding something is simply not thinking straight.

[analog9]

I must admit that am having trouble establishing that team Obama stated that they wished to avoid embarrassment.

The Birthers sound more like the Truthers every day. Every time you ask for evidence of a claim, it evaporates.

I can't believe anybody still takes Phil Berg seriously!

[curiosity]

The short form has been considered inadequate documentation for paternity cases,

Yes, and so is the long form. You cannot prove paternity with a birth ceriticate. That requires a DNA test. Duh.

for some Hawaiian state agencies,

False. I defy you to find me a single Hawaiian state agency that does not accept a short form as sufficient to prove brith in Hawaii.

and for some federal agencies.

Also false. I defy you to find me a single federal agency that does not accept a short form COLB as proof of birth in the US.

[TChad]

You cannot prove paternity with a birth ceriticate.

So on your planet, birth certificates are never admitted as evidence in paternity cases, only DNA evidence is ever admitted.

As for the rest, I provided a link, but apparently it was too much trouble for you to click on it.

And, predictably, you did not address my main points.

Too bad. I am still hoping for someone to point out some obvious flaws in my argument, but I guess you aren't that person.

[calex59]

I sent for my BC yesterday and it cost me 17.50 total, 12 bucks for the bc and the rest was for shipping, you know, postage. What is the problem with the bamster getting a BC?

[TChad]

I defy you to find me a single Hawaiian state agency that does not accept a short form as sufficient to prove brith in Hawaii.

As referenced in my above-linked Reece article, the Hawaiian Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts only certain types of birth documentation as sufficient to establish eligibility for a Hawaiian home lands homestead lease:

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

Primary Documents

The primary documents used to show you are of age and a qualified native Hawaiian are:

* A certified copy of Certificate of Birth;
* A certified copy of Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, including testimonies; or
* A certified copy of Certificate of Delayed Birth.

"Certification of Live Birth" is not in the list.

[curiosity]

GOTCHA!

I thought you were going to post that.

The only reason the Dept. of Homelands requires the long form is because it needs proof of Hawaiian Ancestry. Hawaiian birth is not sufficient. From your own link:

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

Do you not bother to read your own links?

The short form of the COLB is enough to prove Hawaiian birth. It doesn't prove Hawaiian ancestry.

Last time I checked, Hawaiian ancestry is not a qualification to become president.

[curiosity]

And, predictably, you did not address my main points.

Your main points were that the COLB is not enough to prove birth in Hawaii. I refuted that decisively.

[TChad]

The short form of the COLB is enough to prove Hawaiian birth.

It is you who are not reading, while you try to change the subject. Neither form by itself is adequate to prove Hawaiian ancestry. Additional certified birth certificates are required to obtain a lease. From the page I linked above:

You will need the certified birth certificates for:

* Yourself
* Your biological father; and
* Your biological mother

So Certifications of Live Birth are not accepted as adequate identification for relatives, either. Odd, since according to you, they are always accepted as proof of Hawaiian birth. If you were correct, COLBs from all parties should be sufficient proof of ancestry. The Hawaiian Department of Home Lands seems to disagree.

The question you relentlessly refuse to answer remains the same: Why should second-rate documentation be accepted, when first-rate documentation should be so easily available? Answer that convincingly and I'll happily give you your "gotcha."

[curiosity]

Neither form by itself is adequate to prove Hawaiian ancestry. Neither form by itself is adequate to prove Hawaiian ancestry.

LOL. I'm trying to change the subject? LOL.

Since when were we talking about ancestry? We're talking about birth.

Any court, and any government agency accepts the COLB as proof of birth in the United States.

The only reason the Dept. of Home lands doesn't accept the COLB is because it needs proof of ancestry, not just birth.

That is a fact that you are unable to refute, my friend.

[TChad]

This thread is getting too pathetic.

The only reason the Dept. of Home lands doesn't accept the COLB is because it needs proof of ancestry, not just birth.

Then why aren't the parents of the applicant for the lease permitted to provide COLBs? Their ancestry is not in question.

You have presented no proof that COLBs always show the correct birth locations for children born to Hawaiian mothers abroad. You don't answer the question of why Obama has not provided the best available documentation of his birth, which is the long-form birth certificate or another document that underlies the COLB.

Anyone interested in this issue should start here.

I would love to be convinced that Obama was born in Hawaii, but your gratuitous assertions don't get me there.