Obama's Birth Certificate (new info?)

I received this in an email from the folks at World Net Daily. While it was a solicitation to participate and donate for a fax campaign to the MSM, I found it to be an excellent summary of the issue. I have deleted all the solicitations:

Is the biggest political crime in American history taking place right before our eyes? Is the man in the White House INELIGIBLE, according to the Constitution, to sit in the Oval Office... is he a FRAUD... a USURPER?

Barack Hussein Obama could put the issue to rest right now by simply releasing his ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

But he WON'T release his ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE. In fact, he is actively RESISTING efforts to compel him to release his ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

He's dug in his heels. He has teams of lawyers fighting efforts to get him to release his ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE, while his underlings look down their noses at the American people and call these legitimate requests "garbage."

And the one pivotal question that those who attempt to dismiss the controversy cannot answer is:

If Barack Hussein Obama has nothing to hide, what's the problem? The more he resists, the more you have to wonder.

Meanwhile the liberal press is trying to drag this story into a dark alley and bludgeon it to death...

Here are some of the disturbing facts surrounding Barack Hussein Obama's ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE — not rumors, not wild theories — just the FACTS.

FACT #1: Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, SPECIFICALLY states, "No person except a natural born citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President..." It's NOT a technicality, or lunacy on the part of our Founding Fathers. It is a specific statement within a document that forms the basis for ALL of our laws and not open to interpretation (unless the entire Constitution should be now open to interpretation).

FACT #2: In order to be a "natural born citizen," you must be born in the United States or, if you are born abroad, you CAN (if specific circumstances are met) inherit citizenship status from your parents. If he was born abroad, then that's a problem for Barack Hussein Obama because his father was NOT a citizen of the United States and his mother had not lived in the United States the required amount of time after attaining the age of consent when Obama was born - meaning SHE COULD NOT pass her citizenship on to Obama.

FACT #3: If Barack Hussein Obama WAS NOT born in the United States, he IS NOT a "natural born citizen" and if that is the case, Obama is guilty of perpetuating the most massive fraud in the history of the United States!

FACT #4: Barack Hussein Obama has ACTIVELY REFUSED to show his ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE to the people who elected him. Under Hawaiian law, only Obama can legally release the document but HE JUST WON'T DO IT! Why not?

FACT #5: Obama has multiple teams of lawyers helping him shield the document from the prying eyes of the American people. Why?

FACT #6: Instead of producing an ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE, Team Obama produced another document — a "Certification of Live Birth" — and said, in effect, "Here's his Birth Certificate! Now shut up!"

And when it comes to FACT #6, Team Obama engaged in a sleight-of-hand that is going unnoticed by the American people, because the liberal media refuses to scrutinize the actions of Barack Hussein Obama.

A CERTIFICATION of Live Birth and a Birth Certificate (A CERTIFICATE of Live Birth)... [notice the difference in the words "certification" and "certificate"] ARE TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS.

A CERTIFICATION of Live Birth - the document that Team Obama produced - is a document that essentially proves that you exist and Barack Hussein Obama most certainly EXISTS - that point is not in dispute.

A CERTIFICATE of Live Birth (an ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE) - on the other hand contains more information. It gives the specific location of your birth, the hospital, the time of birth, the attending physician etc.

For purposes of illustration see the images below. The image on the left is the CERTIFICATION of Live Birth that Team Obama released and the image on the right is a redacted copy of an actual CERTIFICATE of Live Birth (an ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE) from the State of Hawaii from approximately the same time that Obama was born.

The State of Hawaii provides a concrete example of this point! Hawaii maintains programs to encourage property ownership for native Hawaiians.

And pursuant to those programs, the Hawaii Department of Home Lands (DHHL) states the following on its website:

"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."

If the State of Hawaii DOES NOT accept its own CERTIFICATION of Live Birth as proof that an individual was actually born in Hawaii, why should we? If Hawaii REQUIRES an ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE , WHY SHOULDN'T WE??

Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, states in part, "No person except a natural born citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."

That means neither Arnold Schwarzenegger nor George Soros can be President of the United States. Not EVER! Neither can Osama bin Laden. It also means, as previously stated, that IF Barack Obama was born outside the United States, he is not eligible to be President of the United States.

And Obama's paternal grandmother said, she was present at Obama's birth, which took place in Mombasa in what is now Kenya.

Only an ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE can answer that question (not the Certification of Live Birth that Obama produced) — and Obama has multiple teams of lawyers dedicated to the proposition that nobody — but NOBODY — gets to see the one document that can clear up this controversy. That's INSANE!

It's OUTRAGEOUS that Obama continues to cover up the document! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO CONCLUDE THAT HE'S HIDING SOMETHING!

In his grandiose MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, Obama proclaimed:

"SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government: My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government."

Just pretty words. They mean absolutely nothing to Barack Obama, the non-transparent president — IF INDEED HE IS THE PRESIDENT.

You may still remember that the liberal media make a HUGE DEAL out of the fact that McCain was born in the Canal Zone, while his father, a Naval officer, was stationed there. The liberal media relentlessly questioned whether or not McCain met the constitutional test?

While the Canal Zone was not American soil, McCain's parents were both American citizens who had resided in the United States for the required number of years after having reached the age of majority! McCain was good to go.

Can we say the same for Obama? And why isn't the liberal media asking that question?

Strangely, it may have been the liberal media's willingness to savage McCain over the issue that eventually brought this whole controversy to light.

When Obama's grandmother claimed Obama was born in Kenya, the McCain controversy was still fresh in the minds of people who wondered - and are still wondering - why the same standard was NOT being applied to Obama.

But, as the American people are coming to know, you are simply not allowed to criticize or scrutinize "the messiah" or hold "the chosen one" up to any standard.

Now, just raising what was a legitimate question in regards to John McCain makes you a conspiracy theorist or nut when it comes to Obama.

Please understand, no one is saying that Obama is NOT a "natural born citizen." What we're saying is we just don't KNOW, BECAUSE BARACK "MR. TRANSPARENCY" OBAMA WILL NOT RELEASE HIS ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

Not to confound or confuse the issue but here's a complicating twist: the State of Hawaii permits parents to obtain a "birth certificate," EVEN IF THE CHILD WAS NOT BORN IN HAWAII.

"[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child."

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

Okay, an ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE exists. Great... why can't the American people see it since it will clearly indicate the specific place of birth?

As for Obama's inner circle, they offer a quick, arrogant reply to anyone who asks about the rumors surrounding Obama's birth certificate (and this is a direct quote):

Writer Jerome Corsi, pursuing this story, raised the following question: "If Barack Obama was born in Africa, wouldn't there be a birth certificate on file there?" So Corsi hopped a plane to Kenya, where he spent most of his time in a holding area, the next thing to a prisoner. His hotel room was ransacked. He was questioned by the police. But he was never permitted to search for a birth certificate.

Maybe he didn't reckon on Obama's cousin, Raila Odinga. Covering up a birth would have been a piece of cake to Odinga, who has been charged with ethnic cleansing against Kenyan Christians.

Janet Porter, writing for WorldNetDaily.com, raises additional issues. This may be convoluted, but it is well-worth examining, if only to see the tangled web Obama has woven for himself and the American people.

"'There's the matter that Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan, Southern India and Kenya in 1981. He said he went to Indonesia to see his mother. This seemed plausible, except for the fact that his mother returned to Hawaii in August of 1980 to file for a divorce from her second husband, Lolo Soetoro. Unless she went back to pal around with the man she divorced, she wasn't there at the time of Obama's visit."

"'There's another problem. No record of Obama holding an American passport prior to the one he received once becoming a U.S. senator has been found. If he traveled to Pakistan with an American passport, he wouldn't have been allowed in — since Pakistan was in turmoil in 1981 and under martial law. It was also on the State Department's travel ban list for U.S. citizens.... If he couldn't get into Pakistan with a U.S. passport, perhaps he went there with an Indonesian passport. But the only way you can get one of those is if you are an Indonesian citizen.'"

Remember how Dan Rather and CBS News took a lie about George Bush's military service record and twisted it into a major news story? Remember how the New York Times put an old rumor about John McCain on its front page and tried to make it a major issue in the campaign?

In sharp contrast, see how the New York Times and CBS News have run from this story like a rabbit runs from a coyote.

If Obama was in fact born in Kenya, the information may save the United States from bankruptcy: Since Obama's inauguration on Jan. 20, stocks have plummeted to catastrophic lows.

The Dow has fallen 20.4 percent. Investors have lost an estimated $2.5 trillion in market value.

All because an arrogant young man — obsessed with 19th century Marxism — is trying to wreck the United States of America.

But suppose he isn't legally president after all? Then that fact would surely nullify all his official acts, and acts he plans to put into place, including the following: His recent executive order rescinding the Mexico City Policy and committing U.S. taxpayers to fund abortion worldwide;

His upcoming appointments, including FCC members who might attempt to shut down conservative talk radio;

Any treaty he might sign that would weaken our defenses in an increasingly dangerous world;

"Our best hope is to set up a control process which bars the mountebank from reelection.

I think your post is one of the best reasoned arguments I've seen or heard on this subject.

Whatever the case may be, it's too late now to do anything about this term. I'm a firm believer that impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate is the only way to remove a sitting President, regardless of what the extenuating circumstances may or may not be. The time to fix this was before January 20th.

But, I also believe the steps several states have taken are absolutely correct and justified. A state has a duty and an obligation to verify the eligibility of the candidates it allows on it's ballots. Sadly, not a single state took this very seriously last year, and now were in the predicament that we're in.

"Only an actual birth certificate has the additional information. Why did they say a COLB does, too?

You're confusing "Certificate of Live Birth" and a "Certification of Live Birth". A VERY common mistake here at FR. The phrase "Certificate of Live Birth" is a phrase that the Centers for Disease control uses on a document that it provided to all the states. That document, although not binding, was to be used by the states when designing their own proprietary (for lack of a better word) "birth certificate" Almost all states today use an EXACT copy of the CDC's "Certificate of Live Birth" - sometimes called a "birth certificate" or a "vault copy birth certificate" or a "long form birth certificate".

A link for the CDC form is below. You need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the document.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/birth11-03final-ACC.pdf

The "Certification of Live Birth" is what has been bandied around by various websites, including Obama's own campaign website. It is a computer generated document that uses information that is stored in a state's database to fill out, automatically an "official" copy of a resident's birth certificate.

It is true that every court in America be it, City, County, State or Federal will use the "Certification of Live Birth" as a prima fascia evidence of citizenship. But, it certainly leaves out information that might be critical in determining a Presidential Candidate's eligibility for office.

Courts write opinions in support of orders. The Case or Controversy requirement of the Constitution means that an actual person (or artificial person) must come before the court stating a claim for relief of the kind which should result in the court issuing an order. The court might or might not write an opinion justifying the order. But it will never write an opinion without an order. That would be called an advisory opinion and such are eschewed by the court.

In fairness, it ought to be observed that the court will often write opinions which touch on matters far beyond the actual necessity to justify the opinion. That was the situation in perhaps the most important case ever decided by the Supreme Court, Marbury versus Madison, where the opinion gave the court the power to issue an order (which the court declined to issue, finding an excuse.) In other words, Chief Justice John Marshall knew that Jefferson would not obey an order concerning his appointees, so Marshall wrote an opinion saying we could issue such an order if we wanted to, we can decide this case if we feel like it which means that the court could decide the constitutionality of federal actions, but we don't feel like it today, at least not in this case, thank you very much.

So if a litigant goes to the federal courts and says, give me an advisory opinion, that is an opinion in the air, unattached to an order, the court will throw him out. But on its own, the court might undertake an excursion afield and lecture the world about what is right and wrong, prudent or imprudent, fair or unfair, and then issue an order very limited in scope as it affects the rights of the parties. Such excursions are usually called dicta and have not the force of law but are warning signs to litigants and lower courts about the thinking of the author who may be in the majority or the minority.

So it is conceivable that the court would accept one or more of these cases, not dismiss it for want of standing, not dismiss it as a political question, and nevertheless decline to issue the order that removes Obama from the Oval Office. This was much the situation in Marbury versus Madison. In between the acceptance of the case and the issuance of the order, the court could conceivably lecture the country about the definition of a natural born citizen, the proper venue and mechanics for determining same, but nevertheless decline to order the Kenyan born Obama to relinquish Air Force One because the claimants have failed on some technicality.

This would preserve the reputation and power of the court because it would not have issued an order which could be ignored. It would set out the Court's desire as to how these matters should be treated in the future which would probably be observed in practice. It would spare the country riots.

It would, however, certainly diminish the moral authority of the president. Chief Justice Marshall actually wanted to diminish the real and moral authority of President Jefferson. They were political enemies. I do not believe that we can find five members of the present Court who want to leave the nation with a crippled President in the nuclear age when we are making war on two fronts, when we are threatened with terrorist attacks in the homeland, and when we face one of the greatest financial crisis in history, just so they can unburden themselves of dicta .

Otherwise any law repugnant to the Constitution could not be overturned, since it would have been enacted with all the proper procedures, votes and signing by the President and such as that.

This is what the judicial oligarchy would want you to believe. But it is completely untrue on face.

ANY law whatsoever can be overturned, redressed and corrected to be in line with the spirit and letter of the Constitution by any Congress at any time.

Any law passed by Congress which is not in the spirit of the Constitution can and should be vetoed by the President, and can use the bully pulpit to press the issue to the public.

It was never intended that Judicial Review loft "9 unelected lawyers" above the Constitution, nor should it be where all your attentions are directed.

Jefferson wrote:

“Nothing in the Constitution has given [judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them”; “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy”; “I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury v. Madison [the 1803 Supreme Court case establishing judicial supremacy] brought before the public, and denounced as not law…”; “At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous...”.

Justice cannot be separated from truth.

We divorce truth from justice all the time and we do so quite consciously. For example, a policeman stops an automobile and makes an impermissible that is an unreasonable search of the automobile and finds a huge quantity of illegal drugs. The drivers arrested and charged with possession. The defendant does not deny that he was in possession of the drugs but claims that the drugs cannot be used as evidence against him because it is contrary to the fourth amendment. The Court throws out the evidence-the drugs-because the search was contrary to the Constitution. By definition, a guilty man went free. Indeed, by definition suppression of evidence for improper search and seizure is contrary to truth because the defendant, by definition, is guilty.

It is a deliberate policy of the courts that to discourage the police from making unreasonable searches and seizures, that is to protect the privacy of our citizens, the fruits of unreasonable searches cannot be used in evidence. Truth suffers for justice.

If we really wanted to equate justice with truth we would simply water board every witness and check out their stories and confessions and proceed very efficiently to find "truth."

I'm simply trying to say that there are always countervailing values to be weighed. In a search and seizure case the Court holds that "justice", to the degree that it is defined as the search for "truth," must take a back seat to a higher value, in this case, privacy.

If the Court declines to intervene in the matter of a mountebank in the oval office for political reasons or reasons of national security, it certainly will not be the first time the Court has so behaved. The court will say there are higher values at stake. Beyond the obvious overwhelming value of national security is a matter of judicial restraint which is regarded to be a virtue in some quarters.

And I must be missing something from your position on this issue because your comments seem to be missing the point.

If Governor Schwarzenegger so clearly can articulate the status of his U.S. citizenship, then why can’t this President do the same?

Hint: Obama needs to release his original birth certificate documents, currently under seal by the state of Hawaii. That’s all that millions of Americans simply want from him to clear concerns over this issue. Get it?

Just release the original B.C. - no invasion of privacy, no civil rights violated, just a simple act to provide the necessary evidence that he meets the most basic of all requirements to hold office of the POTUS.

How and why anyone would want to defend this man in his effort to conceal his original birth documents is nothing more than an attempt to reinvent our Constitution.

This is what the judicial oligarchy would want you to believe. But it is completely untrue on face. ANY law whatsoever can be overturned, redressed and corrected to be in line with the spirit and letter of the Constitution by any Congress at any time. Any law passed by Congress which is not in the spirit of the Constitution can and should be vetoed by the President, and can use the bully pulpit to press the issue to the public. It was never intended that Judicial Review loft "9 unelected lawyers" above the Constitution, nor should it be where all your attentions are directed.

Of course laws can overturned by Congress, or just not signed by the President in the first place. But those not the only check on the enforcement of unconstitutional laws. That's where the courts come in. They were not lofted above the Constitution, but rather are supposed to enforce it. Even if the people support such a law, it is not allowed, but in such an instance, the Congress and President, rather than having an incentive not to pass it, have every incentive do so.

We are are a Republic, with a written Constitution. Depending soley on what are in essence "democratic" forces to enforce the Constitution is a losing proposition.

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.