Skip to comments.Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate
Posted on 11/25/2008 11:19:58 PM PST by neverdem
A. From Hawaii's official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country" (applies to adopted children).
B. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.
C. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.
D. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error. See, for example, HRS 338-17.
E. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.
F. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From its web site: "In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."
A. Associated Press reported about a statement of Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Fukino, "State declares Obama birth certificate genuine."
B. That October 31, 2008 statement says that Dr. Fukino "ha[s] personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." That statement does not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained above, under Hawaiian policies and procedures it is quite possible that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii. Unlikely, but possible.
C. The document that the Obama campaign released to the public is a certified copy of Obama's birth record, which is not the best evidence since, even under Hawaiian law, the original vault copy is the better evidence. Presumably, the vault record would show whether his birth was registered by a hospital in Hawaii.
D. Without accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, we nevertheless know that some people have gone to great lengths, even in violation of laws, rules and procedures, to confer the many benefits of United States citizenship on themselves and their children. Given the structure of the Hawaiian law, the fact that a parent may register a birth, and the limited but inherent potential for human error within the system, it is possible that a parent of a child born out-of-state could have registered that birth to confer the benefits of U.S. citizenship, or simply to avoid bureaucratic hassles at that time or later in the child's life.
1. We don't know whether the standards of registration by the Department of Health were more or less stringent in 1961 (the year of Obama's birth) than they are today. However, especially with post-9/11 scrutiny, we do know that there have been instances of fraudulent registrations of foreign births as American births.
2. From a 2004 Department of Justice news release about multiple New Jersey vital statistics employees engaged in schemes to issue birth certificates to foreign-born individuals: "An individual who paid Anderson and her co-conspirators for the service of creating the false birth records could then go to Office of Vital Statistics to receive a birth certificate . . . As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally . . . Bhutta purchased from Goswamy false birth certificates for himself and his three foreign-born children."
3. Even before 9/11, government officials acknowledged the "ease" of obtaining birth certificates fraudulently. From 1999 testimony by one Social Security Administration official: "Furthermore, the identity data contained in Social Security records are only as reliable as the evidence on which the data are based. The documents that a card applicant must present to establish age, identity, and citizenship, usually a birth certificate and immigration documents-are relatively easy to alter, counterfeit, or obtain fraudulently."
A. Had he disclosed his vault copy in the Berg v. Obama lawsuit (which was the first lawsuit filed on the question of his eligibility to be President), and it was established he was born in Hawaii, that would have constituted res judicata, and acted to stop other similar lawsuits being filed. Without res judicata (meaning, the matter is adjudged and settled conclusively) he or government officials will need to defend other lawsuits, and valuable court resources will be expended. Strategically from a legal standpoint, therefore, his refusal to disclose doesn't make sense. Weighing factors such as costs, resources and complexity of disclosing versus not disclosing, he must have reason of considerable downside in disclosing, or upside in not disclosing. There may be other reasons, but one could speculate that he hasn't disclosed because:
1. He was not born in Hawaii, and may not be eligible to be President;
2. He was born in Hawaii, but facts that may be derived from his vault copy birth certificate are inconsistent with the life story he has told (and sold);
3. He was born in Hawaii, and his refusal to provide the best evidence that he is a natural born citizen is a means by which to draw criticism of him in order to make him appear to be a "victim." This would energize his supporters. This would also make other charges about him seem suspect, including his concealment about ties to Bill Ayers and others of some infamy. Such a clever yet distasteful tactic would seem to be a Machiavelli- and Saul-Alinsky-style way to manipulate public opinion. But while this tactic may energize his supporters, it would convince those who believe him to be a manipulator that he's not only just that, but a real pro at it. This would indeed be the basest reason of all, and would have repercussions about his trustworthiness (both here and abroad), which Americans know, is a characteristic sorely lacking in its leaders.
B. His motion to dismiss the Berg case for lack of standing could be viewed as contemptuous of the Constitution. See, "Who Enforces the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen Clause?" Are we to expect yet another White House that hides behind lawyers, and expects Americans to swallow half-truths on a just-trust-me basis?
C. This issue poses the potential for a constitutional crisis unlike anything this country has seen. Disclosure at this stage, however, could even result in criminal sanctions. See, "Obama Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down." Thus, he has motive not to disclose if he were ineligible.
In a clever ploy he'd have control of the last segment of American government that could oppose him. Imagine how much worse FDR would have been had the court not been able to stop some of his madness. Careful what you wish for, it might come true.
I was adopted a few days after birth.....
I actually have two birth certificates issued for me....
The original for my birth and a second one for my new parents.....
Both are on file in Florida but I can only access the later....Certificate of live Birth vs. Birth Certificate. Both have legal standing but one doesn’t have a “chain of custody” from birth.
Much later in life, my wife and I adopted a beautiful little baby girl, in fact,just a few years ago. Both my wife and myself are listed as Mother and Father on a new issued Birth Certificate by the State of Gerogia. Her original birth certificate was destroyed by the state and neither kept or sealed.
This just illustrates the varied differences in state laws and terminology.
Wait for the crowd of “We need to drop this because it makes us all look bad” group of FR trolls shows up.
I've got one of those for my kids as well as their long form. To get a license, you need one or the other.
I too am bumping this because it is the best article I’ve seen on the subject.
It has occurred to me that Obama could have provided the long form Birth Certificate to Berg under some agreement that still kept the contents secret, as long as it answered Berg’s concern’s about Obama’s birthplace. Such an agreed settlement is often made in lawsuits.
I’m more and more convinced there is some serious issue with the Birth Certificate. If it were merely a matter of some inconvenient truth about parentage, then it could have been handled by secret agreement reached with the judge during the Berg lawsuit.
Ping! Will be leaving soon for the holiday, so HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!
Good point about the privacy, and if I recall correctly it was brought up very early in the Certifigate threads, maybe some time in June or July.
Ping for your ping list
One of my all time favorite jokes - "How do they say 'EFF you' in Los Angeles?"
If Obama was found to be ineligible after the fact he could not appoint anyone to anything. In fact everything he had done prior is negated.
Whatever the outcome, adherence to the Constitution is more important than a hissy fit. The Constitution is not there for convenience, it is there for a purpose. We cannot be afraid of the Constitution. If we back down because the lunatics riot then we are not a nation of laws anymore, we have then become a true Democracy, which is mob rule. It will set a precedent, what will be next? One by one the mob will be able to strip of us of our rights so as to avoid a conflict. If it comes to that the Constitution then becomes meaningless.
My birth certificate, issued by Virginia in 1952, is titled “Certificate of Live Birth”
Do you think there is a chance for a mysterious fire in the records section of the records department in HI??
I checked the birth certificates of everyone in our family, from 1958-1996, issued by 4 different states. I have also been the team mom for baseball/football over the past 12 yrs., all kids must provide a birth certificate. I have never run across anything like what he provided. All had the same basic information. I am 45 and recently I had to get a copy of my BC, it is not the long form but, it still had a lot more information than what he produced. The thing that struck me on his COLB was that there was not a embossed seal nor signatures.
Congrats, nevergore - and go DAWGS!
I am looking at my son’s BC right now. It does say State of Georgia Certificate of Live Birth. However, it also has who delivered him, attesting to it being a live birth and the registrars name and signature, along with other info, way more than Obama’s has.
In fact, what I am looking at is a certified COPY of the original(the one you pay $10.00 for) and it also has the signature of the person who reissued it with her actual signature, not a stamped version, and the date that the copy was given to me. It also says Do not accept unless embossed with a raised seal.
You are talking about adoption, Obama was not adopted.
Actually, he was. But that's another story.
I really don’t see this issue going anywhere, and have rolled my eyes countless times when reading here about Andy Martin or the Africa Press International nonsense (still got that Michelle tape?)
BUT, the one aspect of all this that strikes me is Obama’s ridiculous post-election posturing. We keep seeing the ‘Office of the President-Elect’ seal. You can chalk that up to ego and immaturity, sure. But it reminds me of a Tom Clancy plotline from some years ago. I think it was from Executive Orders.
There was a constitutional crisis concerning Jack Ryan’s presidency. The case was settled because the challenger had referred to Ryan as ‘the president’ and somehow that conferred legitimacy. There’s something about Obama’s constant ‘look at me, I’m President!’ stance that makes my antennae twitch a little...
I knew that.....
The point was that Birth Certificates have a lot of room for interpretation, each State manufactures ficticous info on them all the time.
That’s racist! (sarc off)
In any case, it’s not fair we cannot pick our foreigners we like, and “martyrs” of liberal racism, but liberals can.
On the simple basis of fairness in the game, this case has grounds. In our age of welfarized idiots and genocide by preferences for the weak of character, it’s how it not how it works, however.
There is great danger, however, that this multiculturality lead to a Lebanization of American politics. If we have no genuine American/Lebanese team because we have have so “smallerize” politics with wishy washy PC, are we going to be sitting there and be cheering, say, Brazilians vs. Kenyans in future illegals politics?
This is absurd. What about Americans and the US? Who are we? What are we? It shall be proven apparently, and the world will have its national crucifiction. hmmm