Hot Seat: Obama's Birth Certificate

Kim5:43PM

"Kim5:43PMDec 29th 2008
The Right Side of Life website has an update on the Keyes V.
Lingle case in Hawaii. However, the bigger story revealed is
the documentation provided by forensic document examiner
Sandra Ramsey Lines. Ms. Lines corroborates the analysis
done by Ron Polarik of the so called Obama COLB."

Not from what you quoted, she doesn't. She states that "any image
offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of
the authentic document." Note that her expertise is not in digital images, but in actual documents- so she could not be expected to be expert in whether a posted image is altered or not. She correctly doesn't say that there is a problem aside from the blacked out certificate number. Polarik alleged there were all sorts of problems with the posted COLB. His allegations were debunked by an expert in digital images who was not afraid to stand by his work and give his credentials. Sandra Ramsey Lines does not mention Polarik's findings, so she can't be said to "corrobate" them.

On to, "Upon a cursory inspection of the internet COLB, one aspect of
the image that is clearly questionable is the obliteration of the
Certificate No. That number is a tracking number that would allow
anyone to ask the question, “Does this number refer to the
Certification of Live Birth for the child Barack Hussein Obama II?”
It would not reveal any further personal information; therefore,
there would be no justifiable reason for oliterating it.

4. In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original
of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined
to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or non-genuineness."

All reasonable. However, Factcheck.org did examine the COLB, did photograph it, certificate number and all, and did find it to look like a Hawaiian COLB recently issued.

Good try.

rxsid8:17PMDec 29th 2008

"A) Hawaiian law, at the time of Obama's birth, allowed for FOREIGN born baby's to be registered in Hawaii via a 'Certificate of Live Birth':
"[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State..."

- Yes, but does the state of Hawaii then put a false place of birth on the certificate? Obama's COLB clearly gives location of birth as "Honolulu". Your conspiracy theory would assume the state of Hawaii is in the habit of putting false information on birth certificates.

"Obama could therefore not be a Natural Born citizen because Natural Born citizens can not hold dual citizenship at birth."

- Please show where in the Constitution or US case law that is stated.

EL:

Cherrypicking implies random selection. The Wikipedia quotes regarding the "natural born Citizen" issue were substantive. The first quote presents the general agreement about this issue, i.e., that "anyone born on American soil to parents who are U.S. citizens is a “natural born citizen....” The second quote gives an historical context to the origin of the clause "natural born citizen."

Regarding the Perkins v. ELG case summary from Wikipedia (copied 12/30/08 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen):

Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939): The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Miss Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States."

According to this summary, Miss Elg was born in the United States to parents who were U.S. citizens (naturalized). Her designation as a "natural born citizen" is completely consistent with the generally agreed upon meaning of a natural born citizen.

The 14th Amendment presents a general type of citizenship, which is received by birth under the jurisdiction of the United States. If Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he would be a citizen per the 14th Amendment, but not a "natural born" citizen, a level of citizenship that derives naturally from birthplace and parentage. He was subject to a foreign government at birth due to his father's British citizenship.

Dear Little John,

I appreciate your desire for a measure of civility in this discussion. However this is not the sort of venue where I am interested in playing the role of the classic liberal doormat. The only previous person to show an interest in having a dialogue with me, Fred, started the discusion by calling me a moron and ultimately revealed that he would not be satisfied with Obama's credentials unless he was personally allowed to supervise his next colonoscopy. In my experience, such people are impervious to carefully reasoned arguments. The best use that can be made of them is to turn them into an example for the edification of the broader reading audience. Beyond my brush with Fred, I think I have been remarkably restrained at ignoring most of the filth and bile that has been poured out by some of the posters on this thread.

I also make no apology for the fact that many of my posts are heavy on irony and sarcasm. EL is doing a fine job of dispensing factoids to anyone who is open to such things. I have decided to take the approach of pointing out the internal contradictions in the various arguments about Obama's citizenship. I have rarely encountered a discussion on any topic where people's positions are so deeply conflicted as they are here. Let me just enumerate the most prominent examples.

1. It is fundamentally inconsistent for a person to have voted for McCain in November and to now claim to be concerned about Obama's place of birth (i.e. the birth certificate quest). It has always been known that McCain was not born in the United States. Therefore every McCain voter has made a de facto concession that a person can be a natural born citizen even if they were born in a foreign country. Therefore any McCain voter who is part of the demand for further disclosure of Obama's birth certificate is at least deeply conflicted and is probably operating from some hidden agenda.

2. It is fundamentaly inconsistent for a person to have voted for Palin in November and to now be putting on airs and complaining about Obama's lack of disclosure of the details of his life history. Palin outright refused to release her medical and college records and much of the rest of what we know about her is very sketchy. A person who voted for her anyway has no legitimate cause for complaint about what Obama has withheld.

3. It is fundamentaly inconsistent for a person to pretend to be concerned about the finer Constitutional points of Obama's eligibility and then to argue that it is grounds for some sort of a do-over of the election. If you are genuinely concerned about following the Constitution then the only possible remedy in the event of finding Obama ineligible would be to follow the mechanisms spelled out in the Constitution. That means that the Electoral College or the House of Representatives would choose the next President. It is nothing short of absurb to push for a revote or claim that the election should default to McCain on these grounds.

4. It is fundamentaly inconsistent for a person to claim that they are concerned about the lack of "proof" that Obama was born in Hawaii and to also claim to be concerned because Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen. These two arguments are fundamentally incompatible and at least their chief proponents, Berg and Donofrio, have had the good sense to not mix them. When a person claims that Obama can not be a natural born citizen because he did not have two U.S. citizen parents they are also claiming that it makes no difference even if he was born in Hawaii. Thus the birth certificate issue should be of no concern to them. Conversely, a person who insists that Obama still needs to produce that birth certificate in order to "prove" that he was born in the U.S. has by implication agreed that it is meaningful and thus the citizenship of Obama's father is not. Plenty of people on this thread have tap danced back and forth between the two issues. None of those people have a well thought out understanding of what they personally consider to be the requirements for being a natural born citizen.

5. It is fundamentaly inconsistent for a person to be insisting on proof that Obama was born in Hawaii while being casually oblivious to the fact that Dick Cheney never furnished any proof, eight years ago, that he was a genuine resident of the state of Wyoming. I have pointed out several times that Cheney's election was actually more of a direct violation of the clear language of the Constitution than any of the current concerns surrounding the interpretation of the term "natural born citizen" and how it applies to Obama. This cetainly creates the appearance that for many people, Constitutionality is only important when it is convenient for them and is otherwise something they prefer to ignore.

I hope that I have conveyed here at least a sense of why I find this supposed "Constitutional crisis" to be an almost uniquely bizarre social phenomenon. Virtually without exception, everyone that I have met on this and other forums who claims to be concerned about Obama's Constitutional eligibility is also harboring deep internal conflicts and hidden agendas. Most commonly they have latched onto this controversy as an act of desperation or denial in the hope that it can somehow reverse the results of the election.

Within the next week or two this whole controversy will play itself out as the Congress ratifies the Electoral vote and the Supreme Court denies the Berg petition. While we wait and watch, if you or anyone else has a different perspective on the inconsistencies in any of the positions I have described above, I would invite your well considered feedback.

1) In his oath of office, the President must swear "to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States". How can Mr. Obama satisfy this requirement, yet violate the "Natural Born" requirement?

2) If I acknowledge a President as my leader, this acknowledgement is based on trust and respect. An aspiring leader can only earn trust and respect, they cannot be demanded. Trust and respect are earned by exemplary behavior: honor, duty, country.

3) Providing the most elementary birth, medical, scholastic and selective service records, would in turn be a mark of respect by Mr. Obama for the citizens of this country.

4) If Mr. Obama were to become President, yet not respect the Constitution and customs of this country, then he is not my President. Without legitimacy, his rule will be resisted, damaged and impaired.

5) This can only cause harm to this country.

Jane11:50AMDec 30th 2008

"If Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he would be a citizen per the 14th Amendment, but not a "natural born" citizen, a level of citizenship that derives naturally from birthplace and parentage. He was subject to a foreign government at birth due to his father's British citizenship." "

- Again, please show where in the Constitution or American case law that distinction between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen is stated.

acollins3:19PMDec 30th 2008
" Providing the most elementary birth, medical, scholastic and selective service records, would in turn be a mark of respect by Mr. Obama for the citizens of this country."

If you espouse this, you must espouse this for all candidates and presidents, or you invite the charge of bias.

Can you list the presidents who released their scholastic records?

Governor Palin fell far short of transparency, below what Obama released. John McCain severely limited access to medical records, keeping certain reporters who were doctors out, and permitting only a brief period to go through voluminous records. I never saw him release scholastic records either.

George Bush didn't release many records, including those relating to his absence from his mandated National Guard service. He also concealed a drunk driving arrest, a charge to which he pleaded guilty. Did George W. Bush start his term with your "trust and respect"?

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.
The framers made the distinction between a natural born citizen and a citizen of the United States. The framers were only citizens, as they were subject to foreign jurisdiction.
The framers held a higher ideal for the presidency. And they clarify a citizen:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Kim9:44PMDec 30th 2008
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.
"The framers made the distinction between a natural born citizen and a citizen of the United States. The framers were only citizens, as they were subject to foreign jurisdiction."

The Framers are stating the obvious - that they could not be natural born citizens, as there was no United States at the time of their birth. Since they could not be "natural born," they provided for those who were not "natural born" but were citizens when the Constitution was adopted to be able to serve as president. Else there would have been no one eligible to be president at the time.

Please point where in the Constitution it says dual citizenship, or "subject to foreign jurisdiction" in addition to American jurisdiction, prevents one from being "natural born."

The framers held a higher ideal for the presidency. And they clarify a citizen:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

The Framers could not be natural born citizens, as there was no United States at the time of their birth.

Sorry, parts got pasted twice. The end should be just after

Please point where in the Constitution it says dual citizenship, or "subject to foreign jurisdiction" in addition to American jurisdiction, prevents one from being "natural born."

Hello DaveC
Thank you for your response. My position on this issue has nothing to do with whether McCain or President Elect Obama won the election. I am not hoping for some Supreme Court rejection of the results and some alternate course of action needing to be taken to rectify those results. My only concern is that Barack Obama is qualified to hold the office of President of the United States. I think I have made that clear enough by now. I think that takes care of your #s 1, 2 & 3. Your point in #4, though well argued, is not addressing my expressed concern stated above. I am not debating legalities. It would be ludicrous to assume truths that are not given to us yet. As to having a well thought out understanding in #4 there is something you should consider. This is why I responded to your previous comments before. You shouldn't assume that everyone who differs with you is automatically off course. I am a "natural born" citizen of the U. S. When my wife and I married in 1979 we went through the immigration process to bring my wife from Canada into the U. S. The process requires the utmost of record disclosure or there is no granting of the privilege to live in the U. S. In 1988 we moved to Canada and we went through the same process to bring me into this country. We have two sons born in the U. S. and two sons born in Canada. Both of our sons that are born in Canada have "natural born" status. The two sons that are born in the U. S. have "natural born" status also. The point I am trying to make is that I am not "tap dancing" back and forth between issues but rather expressing my view from a purely academic point of view. I do have a clear understanding of these issues from my experience with immigration departments in the U. S. and Canada. I think it is too bad if people are just trying to grasp for straws if "their" candidate lost since there is a far greater issue at stake here. With regards to Dick Cheney in #5 I have no information on the man but I would hold him up to the same scrutiny if the facts were made clear. I certainly would not trust the opinions of unqualified people giving information about anyone. Which is the very reason I have expressed the need for full disclosure to clear up the matter once and for all. The law applies to us all and I mean all. As to your closing comments, I can assure I do not harbour any deep internal conflicts or hidden agendas. I am not desperate nor am I in denial. I don't know if you were around when the fast food chain commercial was played with the older ladies who came to the fast food counter and asked the question "Where's the beef?" Just refer to my original post p.8 or to my response on p.26. My position has not changed and I think it is a reasonable request to have the man who is going to hold the office of President of the United States show the doccumentation that qualifies him for that office. Whether you feel it is an unbalanced requirement with regards to past or present public servants, given all of the question about his true status and the lack of disclosure I feel it is necessary at this point. You should be careful in your expression of your opinions because it appears to me that you would be all up in arms if McCain's status was in question here. Remember I never said who I voted for and by the way I did vote eventhough I live in Canada. You have inferred that I voted for McCain and that I carry the opinions of people who are simply upset over the results of the election. We need to pray for our Nation that truth may prevail.

thank you, Little John

All of this controversy would go away if Obama would just produce a birth certificate. He is fueling this by refusing to do so, and by fighting the issue in court. That refusal alone should make people suspicious.

Sean2:06PMDec 31st 2008
"All of this controversy would go away if Obama would just produce a birth certificate. He is fueling this by refusing to do so, and by fighting the issue in court. That refusal alone should make people suspicious."

Sean, Obama did produce a birth certificate. The standard Hawaii-issue short form birth certificate has been posted on his website, and he allowed Factcheck.org to examine it "in the flesh".


You don't like the one produced. Those who don't want to trust the standard Hawaii certificate have come up with all sorts of things they want, and I'm not surprised that Obama doesn't want to bother with all the demands I see on these pages.

Further, you are being a bit misleading, in that some of the court cases have nothing to do with his birth certificate, but instead focus on his dual citizenship at birth.

The BC that Obama has produced has already proven to be a forgery. All we ask is that he show a long form showing the name of the hospital and the Dr who delivered him. WND has already proven he was not born in any of the hospitals in Hawaii and his paternal grandmother has stated he was born in Kenya.I simply do not trust the man. I believe he is very dangerous to our country.

Gin7896:48PMDec 31st 2008
"The BC that Obama has produced has already proven to be a forgery. All we ask is that he show a long form showing the name of the hospital and the Dr who delivered him. "

No, Gin789, the posted birth certificate has NOT been shown to be a forgery. The two main self-proclaimed "experts" who alleged it is a forgery are Techdude and Polarik. Neither will give their real name or their precise credentials, and both have been debunked by an image expert who does give his name and credentials.

http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html

Further, the posted COLB was inspected "in person" by Factcheck.org, and found to look like other recently issued Hawaiian birth certificates. And the Hawaii Dept of Health has confirmed they have a birth certificate on file for Obama.

"WND has already proven he was not born in any of the hospitals in Hawaii"

That is completely bogus. No hospital can confirm a birth in that hospital because it is illegal to give out such information under HIPAA laws. Violators are liable for very large fines - up to $50,000.00.

" his paternal grandmother has stated he was born in Kenya."

Funny thing about that claim - only a portion of that interview is posted, and as a transcript. The whole transcript is not posted. The audio is not posted. So we can't be sure what his Step-grandmother actually said.

"I simply do not trust the man. I believe he is very dangerous to our country."

And that sounds like your real issue. You don't like him, you don't trust him, and I suspect that it wouldn't matter how much documentation you had, you wouldn't want to believe it.

I am a USAF officer. The fact is Barak Obama is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of money the American people likely gave him to get elected to keep you the American citizen from seeing documents regarding his birth. Think people!! We do not know him beyond what David Axelrod has carefully constructed. We all want to believe. We all want change and to have hope especially those of us in the military. But before we hand him the keys to the most powerful military the world has ever known to include our nuclear arsenal it seems little to ask to verify he meets the constitutional requirements to be the President of the United Sates. I feel it is nothing less than a slap in the face that he will not do this for us willingly but rather we must fight him to get this information. The very one who promised us transparency in government is doing everything in his power to not be transparent!! What is wrong with this picture?

The fact that Obama's grandmother claims she witnessed Obama being born in Kenya (Mombasa Coastal Hospital in Kenya), and the fact that Obama has spent a million dollars freezing his records and preventing them from being viewed is beyond suspicious! If he had nothing to hide he would have willingly shown them as it probably would have won over some voters for him. I have seen several different versions of Obama's birth certificate posted on Obama's website and on Factcheck.org - they dont even match! The one birth cert. that did even have a seal is clearly NOT an original - it is NOT from 1961. (Yeah, they actually posted a birth certificate that didnt have a seal, proving how desperate they are and their willingness to lie).
Hawaii also provided birth certificates to foreigners:
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.
D. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error. See, for example, HRS 338-17.
So, you can be born outside the U.S and still have a "real" birth certificate that factcheck and snopes would say is "real" - but it doesnt mean the person was actually born in Hawaii!
Also, when Obama was age 6-10, he moved to and attended school in Indonesia which only allowed you there if you were a citizen of Indonesia, and Indonesia didnt allow any dual citizenship; Obama could NOT have been a U.S. citizen while in Indonesia.

Also, there were TWO DIFFERENT HOSPITALS in Honolulu that were claimed to be Obama's birthplace, and both hospitals have no record of he or his mother ever being there!...
(Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children, and Queens Medical Center in Honolulu).

EL, you are incorrect about your claim that McCain didnt release his medical records... he released all of them. Mr. Berg even made this a point before taking his "Obama eligibility" case to trial - it showed a stark contrast between the 2 candidates. Obama even ran a negative TV ad on MSNBC about McCain's medical history based on those records - the ad was pulled due to complaints. (And yes I saw the ad).

Before you go into a deep debate, the basic issues raised are found in this FAQ on Obama's birth.

http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/

After reading the FAQ, you can debate till hell freezes over.

Bottom line is this....it could all easily be resolved. Obama could put this to rest once and for all, but he is not doing that. Clearly, there is a reason for it. The only reason I give this situation any merit is his lack of resolution to the issue. Is he thinking it will just go away if he ignores it? Just release the damn birth certificate.