Three Part article about the Birthers constroversy
The White House in a desperate move to quiet Americans clamoring for the release of his “in the vault” Certificate of Birth flails out. Instead of releasing his long-form birth certificate, the one that names the hospital, doctor, witness, footprint and state seal, they released a three pronged assault.
Robert Gibbs in Monday’s press briefing makes light of the “birthers” with a tongue-in-cheek comment.
…DNA, it wouldn’t assuage those that don’t believe he was born here.”
Gibb’s comments rings hollow and reeks of cover-up and one of his comments at the briefing is an insult to all Americans. When is it “nonsense” for Americans to ask questions of their leaders and expect a “reasonable” response, like releasing the long-form Certificate of Birth?
I almost hate to indulge in such an august setting as the White House — and I mean this in seriousness — the White House briefing room, discussing the made-up fictional nonsense of whether the president was born in this country.”
Then Hawaii rereleases their October, 2008 presser that claimed Obama’s birth certificate has been inspected and he was born in Hawaii. Americans who have been lied to by politicians regularly including the current administration are expected to believe. This was proffered instead of releasing Obama’s birth certificate.
Mainstream media ridicules the “birthers” not believing Obama is a U.S. citizen instead of delving into the root of the problem, Obama has spent hundreds of thousand to seal his records. Why is that, just release the long-form birth certificate and quit splitting hairs.
Yesterday the House votes unanimously on HR 593, Whereas August 21, 2009, marks the 50th Anniversary of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's signing of Proclamation 3309, which admitted Hawaii into the Union in compliance with the Hawaii Admission Act, enacted by the United States Congress on March 18, 1959; Whereas Hawaii is `a place like no other, with a people like no other' and bridges the mainland United States to the Asia-Pacific region; Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Use the link to see the whole resolution.
Last night on “Factor-Bill O’Reilly” the proclaimed no-spinmeister misreported the transcript of the interview with Sarah Obama. Rush and Hannity have abandoned the call for the President to release his birth certificate (long-form) and other sealed school records. Its not about citizenship, it’s about information the American people should have received before he was elected.
A three pronged assault, media, Hawaii and the House resolution instead of releasing his Certificate of Live Birth. Many of us believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, what most of us want if for the man to release the long-form Certificate of Birth that he owes America. The White House can blame themselves for the wild conspiracy theories about his eligibility; they have continuously poured jet fuel on the fire.
Read the laster the latest installment of Where in the world is Barack Obama's birth certificate
Comments
More proof of fraud, rings true!
Obama & Fukino, You Have Some More Splainin” to Do : UPDATES at Bottom
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking
constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/07/28/obama-fukino-you-have-some-more-splainin-to-do/
“Obama was born Aug 4th and the Nordyke twins were born on Aug 5th, both at Kapiolani. Obama’s birth was registered Aug 8th and the Nordyke twins on Aug 11th. So how is it that Obama’s certificate number ends 10641 and the Nordyke twins are 10637 & 10638.”
WHY DOES HAWAII KEEP HIDING THE TRUTH - NO LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE EXISTS! IF IT DID EXIST WHY DO THEY NOT PRODUCE IT. THESE ARE FACTS. OBAMA IS NOT PRESIDENT! NEVER PROVED HIS NATURAL BORN STATUS. WE NEED ONE OF OUR OWN KIND IN THE WHITE HOUSE. PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN, WE NEED YOU NOW!
...his mother was an American Citizen over the age of fourteen, who lived in the US for at least five years. Regardless of where he was born THIS MAKES HIM A US CITIZEN!!!
Ignoring the newspaper proof, the multiple releases documentation proving his birth is Hawaii, it doesn't matter, since him mom was a citizen. Why are you harping on this issue?
Mike, you are wrong, get your facts right.
But since you seem so smart answer this question.
During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?
@Mike Wrong --
The answer to your question is very simple.
British law governs whether people are considered British subjects by the government of Great Britain.
American law governs whether people are considered American citizens by the government of the United States.
They operate independently. Obama is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States because he was born here. No law of any foreign country has any power to change that, any more than a foreign country could pass a law that takes away anyone's U.S. citizenship.
We have been getting so many "answers" from Hawaiian officials.
None of which, BTW, are under oath or "official." None of which would be acceptable in any court.
I'd like to see someone try to get a driver's license with a press release from some mid level official in Illinois simply stating they have a birth certificate on file.
They'd probably be laughed out of the office....
Oh, Libby, the truth is right under your nose.
What *would* be acceptable in any court is the Certification of Live Birth.
"Certifications of Live Birth ... are official government records documenting an individual’s birth." -- hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl.
I still want two answers (because I don’t trust ANY politician and almost no one in the media either).
1) Why can't we see his long-form? Obama knows that millions of citizens want to see it yet he continues to hide it. What/why is he hiding?
and most disturbingly,
2) Why don't BHO's supporters want to know the whole truth, especially since there’s a reward of $100,000 for proof that Obama is a "natural born" citizen of the United States.
OBAMA, STOP HIDING. SHOW US THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!!
Ah, Gregory, I feel your pain.
The House resolution declaring that Obama was born in Hawaii, as you pointed out, passed unanimously. Not a single member, Republican or Democrat, voted against it. And the best you can do is describe it as an assault by a desperate White House.
It's getting lonely in Birfistan, isn't it?
For the story about how Congress is totally bought and paid for, see worldreports.org
Perhaps it isn't produced because it is sealed with all of the rest of his secrets. A court order is the only way to open it... I think.
This is why I no longer have the need to watch soap operas. Couldn't think this up. Any more news on the 134.5 billion? No talk of that any more. HAHAHA!
Lol! Uh, it's not the White House that is ringing hollow. It's birfers increasingly irrational objections that ring hollow. Have you seen the latest? They are actually trying to make something of the fact the Nordyke twins certificate numbers are earlier than Obama's... by three numbers.
Talk about desperation ringing hollow.
Mike no one could deny that he is a US cit under the terms you quoted above. However, he IS NOT an NATURAL BORN citizen under the terms of the Constitution. Do some research and get educated. If he has a parent who is not a US citizen, he isn't a natural born citizen. Check out the language, upheld by the SC, about this very important regulation governed by the law of the land----The US Constitution. He also said his father was a British citizen. He said it out of his very own mouth. Documented.
Chris, you're wrong. There is nothing in U.S. law, either statute law or case law, requiring a Natural Born Citizen to have two citizen parents. Maybe you think the law *should say* that, and you're entitled to your own opinion.
But the law doesn't say that, and you're not entitled to your own facts.
To all the name-calling, mud-slinging, uninformed members of the U.S.A.... I dare not call you citizens, you are a disgrace to the title of being a citizen. From your armchair, you attack people who have very real questions about a very important issue, and cooly go about your business because, get this, you trust a politician at his word! You could quite correctly be called 'morons', but then the birthers would be accused of name-calling. Birthers wear their title as a Badge of Honor. You think the Constitution is a punchline to a joke. One day, get off your rocking chairs and take a stand for your country. Or if all you have in you is the ability to throw mud, then sit back quietly and let brave Americans take up the cause you are too stupid to understand and too cowardly to assume.
Thank you, Goodside. You have given us an insightful summary into the wealth of evidence the birthers have to support their claims.
Goodside,
No. It's not a question of trusting a politician at his word, it's a question of believing overwhelming evidence--far more than any previous President has given--or stubbornly denying that evidence because it's not what they want to believe.
Captain Steve,
"1) Why can't we see his long-form? Obama knows that millions of citizens want to see it yet he continues to hide it. What/why is he hiding?"
Perhaps he hasn't produced it because he doesn't have one? I don't have one either. Hi. only issues certified copies of short forms.
The real question is why so many people won't accept the overwhelming evidence and continue throwing group tantrums and shouting, "Whaaah! But I want to see the long form!"
What information is on the long form that isn't on the short form that you think is so important? The short form verifies the place and date of his birth. It's a legal BC issued by the state of Hawaii and is prima facia evidence of the facts it presents. It's admissible for all purposes as such, including court proceedings.
Birthers wouldn't accept the long form even if he provided it, so even if he does still have it, what would be the point?
Big Guy,
I'm afraid many birthers will completely miss the irony in your comment.
I finally got it figured out -- Obama is simply too modest to release his birth certificate.
It's so awkward when your birth certificate says your mother is "Mary of Nazareth" and your father is "Heavenly Father."
Seriously, I have yet to see a serious/compelling/realistic/winning reason why Obama would/should *NOT* release his birth certificate.
fight the smears.com continues to say that the document released is a "Birth Certificate". We all know it is not a "Birth Certificate" rather it is a "Certification of Live Birth". The libtards continue to try to hide the facts!!
Hey, Libby, that's funny. I haven't seen one good reason why he should.
Hey, fight, I understand what you're saying, but you don't have it quite right.
If you call Hawaii and ask for a copy of your birth certificate, a Certification of Live Birth is what you'll get. You'll have no choice -- the COLB is the only form of birth certificate they issue.
Over the years, they have issued various forms under various names. But this is the only one you can get now, so it's not surprising that some people simply call it a "birth certificate."
And, of course, the laws of Hawaii give the COLB the full legal force of any birth certificate. Contrary to what you might have heard, it is absolutely sufficient to obtain a passport, a drivers license -- even to get into Little League!
Big Guy,
Obama should release it if he's interested in running in 2012.
It's simple vote math -- does releasing the BC get or lose net votes?
Obama's political guy is probably having fits over this. He's probably wondering what his boss's problem is. Historically, records get released when they're controversial, unless they lose more votes because they're embarrasing.
Obama's Eligibility to be President
Use of the term "birthers" to describe those who doubt and challenge Obama's eligibility mimics a common childhood tactic: calling your opponent names to win an argument in the absence of facts. The facts: 1) Obama's true long form birth certificate has not been provided for examination; 2) the DNC during the election campaign posted on its website an image of a computer-generated Hawaii certificate of live birth - which proves nothing even if it were authentic, and it has been exposed by experts as fraudulent; 3) transcripts and official records from his college days (which could shed light on whether he was registered as a U.S citizen) have never been released; 4) several lawsuits have been filed to obtain his records; some cases have made it to the U.S. Supreme Court; others have been dismissed for plaintiff "lack of standing".
Framers of the U.S. Constitution, to insure loyalty, required Presidents to be natural born citizens. Laws in effec
Libby, let me tell the story from a different point of view.
Obama chose to release the Certification of Live Birth. It is a valid, official State of Hawaii document; and it is absolute legal proof that he was born in Hawaii.
Now there is a very vocal fringe insisting that the document is fraudulent and/or it does not prove that he was born in Hawaii.
And you're trying to convince us that the smart thing for him to do is release another document?
I can't believe he would be that dumb. I wouldn't be surprised if he regrets having released the first one.
The fact is he HAS released his BC. I fail to see the reason why so many continue to deny that. That's the BC that Hi. issues. It's been verified by the Hi. DOH. Why do you and so many others keep dishonestly insisting he hasn't released his BC?
You know, more and more states are going that direction. Mo. is another example of a state that doesn't offer long form BC's any more.
And just what is it on the long form that you so need to know anyway? The pertinent information is on the short form (which is why states are going to the short form) Are you thinking that the long form will show his Dr. was Dr. Frankenstein or something?
He has released his valid Hi. BC. It's the only kind of certified copy they offer. It's been verified by the agency that issued it. It's been further confirmed by other corroborating information.
If that's not good enough for you then it's obvious nothing ever will be.
Fight,
It IS a birth certificate. In Hi. they use the word "Certificate" on the full long form copy, and the word "Certification" on the short form, but both of them are valid, legal birth certificates.
And since they no longer even offer the "Certificate of live birth" except at the actual time of birth, it's the only kind of birth certificate that's available to him.
It IS a birth certificate.
Big Guy,
I know. The birther "fringe" reminds me of the tiny Watergate "fringe" back in the 70's.
Just a bunch of loonies going after a sitting President. My memory fails me -- I don't seem to recall whether they casued any grief or not. (No Internet back then.)
Anyway, Obama seems safe enough, so long as he doesn't want to run in 2012.
Lol! The difference between the birther fringe and the watergate fringe is the watergate fringe had real facts that weren't based on fraudulent experts (Polarik) and email hoaxes (the pakistan passport thing) nor on a simple misunderstanding of what constitutes a birth certificate.
Perhaps the internet is the real difference. The watergate fringe had to do their own research and think for themselves. The birther fringe just swallows what is fed to them by a lot of bloggers who, for the most part, aren't even honest.
The internet has changed the world of conspiracy theories--used to be conspiracy theorists had to have brains and think for themselves--nowadays they just have to be suspicious and have access to google.
Ah! It's amazing how the Obama folks try to frame this issue.
1. They're paranoid "consipiracy theorists" -- like the UFOs. But, real conspiracy theorists accuse entire governments or collections of agencies of hiding warehouses of conjectural documents not known to exist.
Here we have one person hiding a few documents *known* to exist. Where's the "conspiracy" in that? It's just downright hiding.
2. They're a "fringe" -- a few people. Well, no -- this is a tidal wave of people -- millions, perhaps tens of millions -- and it grows month to month. Take a look at the growth in Google pages since last year. These are your neighbors and your co-workers and your relatives. A year ago, perhaps fringe would have been appropriate. But now, I wouldn't call it fringe.
3. They're all "insane." Must be the water? So, where are we going to lock up tens of millions of insane people? :-)
Obama's Birth Certificate on his web-site and FactCheck are forgeries. Here is proof. A comparison of an actual LEGAL Birth certificate and scan results.
See this from 3:00 to 3:20 hex editor results
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIsQJNTvlUE syc1959
And comments:
www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=SIsQJNTvlUE
And his latest July 23, Obama's Folly - The COLB Forgery
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKVr-Evn6Z0&feature=channel_page
And blog nobarack08.wordpress.com
nobarack08.wordpress.com/obama-birth-certifcation-forgery/
Libby, I'm glad you raised the Watergate analogy. There's a lot to be learned from the comparison.
When the original reports of the Watergate burglary were raised, people were skeptical. And a lot of reporters started digging into the story.
Within weeks it was clear that they were onto something; and within months there was a clear public consensus on the basics of what happened.
In the birther case, the suspicions were first raised over a year ago. There's been plenty of opportunity for ambitious young investigative journalists to make a name for themselves -- Woodward and Bernstein were household names within a week or two of their first story -- and plenty of opportunity for a prosecutor to bring charges for the alleged "crimes."
Nothing of the kind has happened. The story has gained no traction; no one of any credibility believes in it.
At this point in the Watergate story, acceptance of the scandal was widespread. Here, it's confined to a small and shrinking fringe
BigGuy,
You're illustrating my point! Framing (mis-framing) again.
Check out Google. This keeps getting bigger and bigger. Not my definition of "fringe" and certainly not my definition of "shrinking."
Again, I gotta think Obama's political advisors must be getting nervous since this whole situation would, in normal circumstances, be so easy to solve -- simply release the records.
LOL, I've already told you, I think he'd be foolish to release any more records considering how the last release was treated by some on the fringe.
And I know, you don't like to call it a fringe, you think the movement is growing. And you think Obama's people are nervous about it.
Well, that's not how it looks to me, but we can disagree about that. I'm happy to sit back and watch it keep going nowhere. And, if you like, you can list some of the credible people who represent your growing movement.
Not to mention that the only way for him to acquire the original vault copy would be to do an end run around the laws and policies of the state of Hawaii. I imagine that, as President, he could probably accomplish that, but it would be a foolish thing to do simply to satisfy people who have clearly shown they won't be satisfied no matter what.
He's already proven his status as a natural born American beyond what any past President has been asked to. But it's still not good enough. You've got all these "internet experts" out there claiming to have proven the certificate he's released is a forgery--and people believing them. Those same internet experts will just claim the long form vault copy is a forgery too--and people will believe them.
Bill,
The simplest (and cheapest) "end around" is NOT to send lawyers to court to obstruct the folks bringing the suits.
All Obama's lawyers have to say is, "Your Honor, we agree with the other party and we'd love to see you subpoena the documnts. The air needs clearing. We have nothing to hide. Thank you!"
Obama is hiding something... now, what could it be?
Libby, of course! Everyone who files a law suit would like nothing better than to hear the defendant say, "Your Honor, we agree with the other party."
But that's not the way our legal system works. The plaintiff has the burden of proof, and so far your side hasn't convinced a single judge that they've got a case worth hearing.
No wonder you wish the defendants would simply drop their objections and agree with you!
My understanding is he's simply moved to dismiss in all those cases. Am I wrong? Are you suggesting he should intentionally allow a frivolous suit to go forward simply to make it easier to obtain a document which proves something which he's already proven to any reasonable person?
Bill -- actually, in most cases, Obama hasn't even been a party to the suits. They've been brought against government officials and others who might have access to the records being demanded or who might have permitted an unqualified candidate to be on the ballot.
But yes, the defense attorneys for the most part felt that the cases deserved to be dismissed and responded appropriately. And in all cases so far, the judges have agreed.
I still haven't heard a solid reason why Obama should hide his documents.
The arguments I am hearing could be applied to any document in the world: "First, prove to me that there is something incriminating in this document and only then will I show it to you."
With that type of reasoning, no politician would ever have to show a single financial record, tax return, visitor log, campaign contribution log, medical record, etc. (though, come to think of it, many of these are explictly required by law -- though again most political advisors have their clients do it routinely anyway to keep shadows away and gain votes.)
Also, the same reasoning would mean that governments or legislatures would never have to release any records unless someone could prove in advance that the records somehow had something incriminating.
I am frankly terrified of these types of arguments because of how they can be used in the future.
In a phrase, be careful what you wish for....
Libby,
I still haven't heard a reason why you keep insisting he's "hiding" something. He has shown his BC which lists his time and place of birth, as well as the names of his mother and father. The information on the long form isn't going to contradict those facts unless you think the entire Hi. DOH as well as the Republican Gov. are in on this massive conspiracy.
So what is on the long form that you so need to know?
I'm not even clear on whether the original vault copy still exists. CNN reported the DOH had gone paperless in 2001. It could be they only have a scanned image. It could be they only have the information from it entered in a file.
But it doesn't really matter since the pertinent information has been released and verified from multiple sources.
Big Guy,
Ah. So I guess when OTHER people move to dismiss frivolous lawsuits that's STILL, in some peoples minds, evidence that Obama MUST be covering something up.
<sigh>
Well, if nothing else this whole thing is certainly entertaining. ;)
Hey, I assume this passion for revealing records applies to the previous administration? All you lunatics are just as angry about the records Dick Cheney refuses to reveal, right? The records he's concealing because of his claim that the VP is part of the legislative, not the executive branch? Your concern for transparency goes at least THAT far, right? Right? Hello?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!