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.
obumpa
> Who needs a Certificate Of Dead Birth? Before this I never heard of anything besides a Birth Certificate.
I had never heard of a “Certificate of Live Birth” before, but a “Certificate of Dead Birth” seems like a really fine idea for parents who carry to full term and lose their baby during child-birth.
Much better than pretending that the baby never happened.
A Constitutional crisis is lurking in the darkness in the coming 4 years. And it is not whether the manger the great one was born in was located in Kenya or Cleveland. No, this one is bigger. . . Article 1 section 9 of the US Constitution states “No title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office shall, without Consent of Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State”
The world is waiting for their King and savior and leave it to a bunch of long hairs 200 years ago to mess it all up!
All Hail the Messiah Barack Obama!
www.TheChurchofBarackObama.com
http://thechurchofbarackobama.blogspot.com/
The Church of Barack Obama is not affiliated with the Church of Elvis.
I actually do have a Certificate of Live Birth, as does my brother— we’re both American citizens, but were born in Ontario, so I expect it’s used more commonly with foreign births.
And I already got the tin-foil treatment from my liberal ‘friends’ when I brought up this story before the election and mentioned that FactCheck.org might not be the most reliable source for nonpartisan analysis.
This is for President of the United States. A website copy is not good enough. You have to show proof you can't just say it's on your website.
If Barack Obama refuses to give proof, we have to call for his impeachment. Of course we won't succeed-- but we owe it to the Constitution to try. This guy is spitting on the Constitution like him and his terrorist friends have done their whole lives.
I encourage everyone on this thread to take the time to read the whole post at American Thinker. It is perhaps the most well stated opinion about this issue you’re liable to read anywhere.
The author makes an exceptionally stong case for compelling Obama to immediately release his original birth certificate for a long list of reasons, all of which add up to the most serious legal crisis this nation has ever experienced.
Imagine a complete meltdown of our entire governmental chain of command and the rule of law. Imagine the military refusing to recognize Obama as Commander in Chief.
This is the magnitude of what’s at stake here, and yet, this arrogant narcissist continues to plow forward, refusing to provide his legal bona fides to assume the highest, most important office in the land, if not the world.
It’s a long read, but as I said, it’s the best read you’ll see on this subject. A definite bookmark.
Wow, now it's getting louder! Joe the Farmer from AmericanThinker.com is hiding under his bed. Does this mean the Townhall.com will be covering this soon? Will Hugh Hewitt, et.al., will believe this is a legit issue, too?
What an incredibly asinine comment to make on such an important thread. Jim Rob ought to charge you for the wasted bandwidth.
Go back to playing video games and toking on your bong, kid.
I just became the first signer of this petition.
http://axj.puntoforo.com/viewtopic.php?p=2472#2472
Ping!
bttt
No, he should go to jail and for a long time.
Obama has already made public two accounts of his birth certificate. One, is his published biography where he describes in detail the contents of his Hawaii birth certificate. Two, is his pre-election public website publishing an (arguably) official Hawaii record of his birth certificate. It seems to me these two public self-disclosures, truthful or not, greatly reduce his claim of privacy (vs public record) of his vault copy Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth.
(My appologies for any mulitple pings to other Freepers)
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.
This is the verdict I think is correct.
bump
This is the very best summation and analysis of the entire case I’ve ever read. I’m bookmarking it for future reference. I think the author has hit the nail on the head with the reasoning beyond WHY Obama is hiding his BC.
Marked for future reference.
Excellent question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.