Hawaii Bill would Grant Access to Obama's Birth Records for a Fee

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Where is any proof that Obama didn't pay to seal his records?

So you now also claim that all previous Presidents also paid to seal their records!

Can you tell me what's he hiding that he doesn't want the public to know about him that's so private?

I would say exactly the same as all previous presidents!

Obama's refusal, while it is his right to do so, to release his birth cretificate is just an example of abuse of power.

So where are all the other birth certificates from all previous presidents? Why didnt you demand them. Oh, none of them were black! Exactly the same abuse of power.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I think you are hiding something. I dont think you are an american. Can you show me proof that you are an american? I think that has allot to do with feelings buddy. I mean who wakes up and look at a person and says "your not american now show me proof?". Never has this happened to any other president but whoa you get the first African "american" president and dammit hes not from here. I mean why not come with something better than your not born here. Where did this idea come from? His father? his sister? His color? Facial features? I mean who just goes around and say your not from here? I think you feel obama is not from here because you have no proof. And thats just what all this is FEELINGS!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Obama initiated it when he started spending millions of dollars to seal his records.

Birther lie #712.

You know, at this point in time, I think I am fed up with this "birther lie" stuff. The smiley doesn't suffice, either. It's time to knock this stuff off.

There is *plenty* of proof that can be obtained that clearly shows Obama has spent a LOT of money on legal fees defending the birth certificate suits. Time after time, I have seen people refute this claim with the "birther lie" insults.

I have made posts before clearly showing, and defending the claim, that large sums of monies have been spent, and no one can come back with anything but more "birther" insults. Funny how those threads are generally ignored, and people discuss the poster or resort to other obfuscations.

Once again, I will clearly outline how Obama *has* spent large sums of money, and once and for all put to bed these claims that, "He has never spent a dime on defending himself in these birther suits, thats just more birther nonsense!" It is a lot like the "god damned piece of paper" lie about Bush. No matter how many times you show proof the supporters of Obama are the ones lying, it just keeps coming back, doesn't it? No, Bush never said that, and yes, Obama spends a LOT of money defending these suits.

Without further ado:

The following is a link to the actual document outlining the decision in the Hollister V. Soetoro suit. Firstly, let me state that if the defendant were not properly named in this suit, it wouldn't have even made docket. This lays to rest the claims, "You birthers are all the same. Show me proof Obama ever went by any other name!" Well, here it is.


docs.justia.com...:2008cv02254/134576/21/

GREGORY S. HOLLISTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARRY SOETORO, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 08-2254 (JR)

The name is clearly not Barack Obama, it is Barry Soetoro, a well known and accepted alias used by our Dear Leader. Finally, you have your documented evidence.

The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force
colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief
(because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is
tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey
orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven -- to the
colonel’s satisfaction -- that Mr. Obama is a native-born
American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be
President.

Now, we can clearly see the name Barack Obama is being used to refer to the defendant in this case, filed as Hollister v. Barry Soetoro. Again, I reiterate, if the names were not synonymous with the same person, the suit would have had to be renamed. It was allowed to stand, and everyone, including the judge, knew exactly who Barry Soetoro is.

The filing and service of the complaint required
private counsel to appear for President Obama and for Vice
President Biden

Please note that in relation to this case, private counsel for Joe Biden had to appear in court. This is important for the next point:

the accompanying order of dismissal
requires Mr. Hemenway to show cause why he has not violated Rules
11(b)(1) and 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and why he should not be required to pay reasonable attorneys
fees and other expenses to counsel for the defendants.

Here we have a direct quote from the court, which was considering filing the sanctions for return of "legal fees" and "other expenses" to "counsel for the defendants", who would be? Joe Biden and Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama.

Moving on:

Link

Robert F. Bauer, is threatening a D.C. attorney with “sanctions,” because the attorney is simply requesting that Obama show proof of his birth.

(snip)

“I represent President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden. I write to request that, in light of the District Court’s March 24, 2009 Rule 11 order in Hollister v. Soetoro, No. 08-2254, you withdraw the appeal filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 09-5080. For the reasons stated in Judge Robertson’s order, the suit is frivolous and should not be pursued.

Should you decline to withdraw this frivolous appeal, please be informed that we intend to pursue sanctions, including costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees, pursuant to federal Rule Appellate Procedure 38 and D.C. Circuit Rule 38.”

The judge eventually backed off of the threat to sue for monetary damages and "sanctions". Why?

Simple. He would have had to force Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama, to produce the birth certificate in discovery *anyway*.

Link

John D. Hemenway also had suggested that if there were to be sanctions, court rules would allow him to require the release of Obama's birth information.

"If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents have permitted in the past," he wrote to the judge.

"The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular case and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truth of those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery," Hemenway said.

and moving on the the last, but best evidence:

Link

President Obama may be using his political action committee funds to stomp out eligibility lawsuits brought by Americans, as he has paid more than $1.35 million to his top lawyer since the election.

Federal Election Commission records for "Obama for America" show that the lobby organization has paid international law firm Perkins Coie exactly $1,352,378.95 since the 2008 election.

FEC records show the following payments made to the law firm from Oct. 16, 2008, to June 30, 2009:

Link

Federal Election Commission records show $1,352,378.95 in payments were made by Obama for America to Perkins Coie while the law firm was representing Obama in various court cases

I believe there is plenty of evidence to show that monies have been paid to the Perkins Coie legal firm, in which it becomes obvious they are in part to defend these lawsuits. The excat amount? No one knows but them and Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama, but one thing I can tell you for certain, it ain't cheap.

Now, we can go round and round about "show me some figures" and other such nonsense, but, I simply wished to put the "birther lie" crap to rest once and for all. The evidence is there, the evidence is clear. If, at this point, people attacking wish to continue with the insults and name calling, it then becomes clear who is really hiding from the facts and that their agenda is to continue defending what has been proven to be the real lie:

"No monies have ever been paid by Obama in defening these suits, thats ridiculous and a bither lie!"

Originally posted by DOUGH3914
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

I think you are hiding something. I dont think you are an american. Can you show me proof that you are an american? I think that has allot to do with feelings buddy. I mean who wakes up and look at a person and says "your not american now show me proof?". Never has this happened to any other president but whoa you get the first African "american" president and dammit hes not from here. I mean why not come with something better than your not born here. Where did this idea come from? His father? his sister? His color? Facial features? I mean who just goes around and say your not from here? I think you feel obama is not from here because you have no proof. And thats just what all this is FEELINGS!

Actually no you are absolutely incorrect there have been other controversies regarding caucasion candidates for President including some who it was determined who were not eligible to run.

Your 'fear' because Obama is black is the cause of this controversy is just racism reversed.

If he didn't have a parent that was known to not only be foreign born, but also involved with the British Government, and he didn't possess a foreign passport, and he hadn't changed his name at least once, it's doubtful there would be any controversy.

While I agree racism is an ugly thing, so is imagining every fair and reasonable concern or question put to someone of color based on things that have nothing to do with color are part of some secret rascist agenda.

I myself live in a city where Latinos are the majority, blacks are the second largest segment of the population and caucasions come in third. Two things to note there, that this is also reflective in local government with those groups holding the majority of positions based on those proportions and that if you were a racist it would be very hard to live here.

Before moving to Miami I lived in Los Angeles a number of years where Mayor Tom Bradley a black was widely loved and enjoyed by the entire population Black, White, Hispanic, Asian and Arab.

So in reality the notion that what fuels the Obama controversy is based off of him being black is absurd.

History does not support it since White Candidates for President who's status was questioned has been a part of Presidential campaigns, and the law itself was created at a time, when Blacks were actually in Bondage in the United States and had no right to vote let alone run for office. So the Law itself was not designed for Blacks but whites, and specifically White males, who were the only people who could legally run for office.

The fear and the reasoning is simple, the consequences to the nation if an agent of a foreign government could usurp the office of the Presidency.

Is that a realistic thread, well, for instance the Founding Conference of the United Nations was chaired by the cheif U.S. Delegate a man named Algier Hiss, later it was found out that Algier Hiss was a Soviet Agent, he was tried, prosecuted and sent to prison for this.

So yes foreign governments at times have conspired to penetrate high levels of the U.S. Government.

If you really imagine based on Obama's sketchy past, foreign passport, father who is not a citizen, that all this was simply born from him being Black you are either being incredibly unfair or suffering from being a racist yourself.

You would know better in regards as to which more than I would since I don't know you.

Certain businesses with politics being perhaps the worst (though the entertianment business comes in a very close second) are very brutal, where indeed people will stop at nothing to discredit, besmearch, harass, defame and otherwise do what every they can to gain an edge over opponents and rivals.

To imagine those long standing traditions and practices are going to stop the minute a 'black man' becomes President and that he is the first person in the history of politics to deal with such challenges is absolutely absurd.

Further when serious questions arise, and serious questions have arisen regarding someone of high political office it is in the people's (all peoples) best interest to get full and honest answers to those questions.

To imagine otherwise based on the person being questioned racial makeup is foolish and selfish.

Ultimately who suffers are the people in general through the division, and the candidate/politician/officer of government who through their refusal to be forthcoming does become percieved as someone dishonest, or hiding something, or abusing the trust placed in them by the public.

If you want to imagine that's simply because of his race, well that's your right, but having the right to be irresponsible and focus in on just one of many potentially valid observations and questions specifically designed to deflect from and dismiss all the other questions as a substitute for actual real hard concrete facts is in itself a shameless political ploy.

Many of the people mean well, in fact there is enough of a racist in all of us, for people to always suspect race can be at play, but I honestly feel in this case people who imagine that is the root deciding factor in this case are being manipulated along racial lines, to in fact ignore discrepencies, inconsistencies, incomplete renderings and pertinent data, and that speaks far worse of them than the people who have questions and want answers.

Thanks.

reply to post by Libertygal


So. In your mind posting a whole litany of birther lies puts to rest the idea that birthers lie?

How about you show cause? The only cause you have shown so far is an aversion to the President having been called Sotero, and having a nickname, "Barry" apart from being half white.

Your post is just a lot of birther lies.

Originally posted by DOUGH3914
And thats just what all this is FEELINGS!

The whole birther cult is based on feelings. There's no evidence. There's no logic. There's no facts. It's ALL about feelings. Feeling suspicious.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Here is the deal, what you feel is not admissible in a court of law, it is here say and innuendo and is not based on anything factual.

Oh so true! Birthers have NOTHING but feelings - that this guy isn't 'merican! He's a foreigner! Proof? Or sorry, they have no proof, it's just a hunch... just a feeling.

Whereas the evidence of his natural-born citizenship gets completely ignored:

CoLB (with raised seal and signature)
Newspaper Birth Announcements
The DNC Official Certificate of Nomination (specifying Constitutional eligibility)
Congressional Resolution Stating Obama Born in Hawaii
Plus the fifty eligibility statements signed by Obama under threat of forgery
Plus the fact that no one, not even his opponent in the election came up with ANY evidence to the contrary.

And what do birthers have?

A feeling that the above evidence was ALL faked.
A feeling that he was adopted (and a feeling that that would affect his natural-born citizenship)
A feeling that he was an Indonesian citizen (and a feeling that that would affect his natural-born citizenship)
A feeling that he was born in Kenya
A feeling that his fathers citizenship affects HIS natural-born citizenship
A feeling that natural-born citizenship means both parents have to be US citizens
Rumors about various SS numbers and passports.
Rumors about his father's paternity ((and a feeling that that would affect his natural-born citizenship)

There are 2 ways to acquire a US citizenship.
1. You are a citizen at birth (natural-born)
2. You were naturalized.

There is no third option of "citizen who was born here but is not a natural-born citizen".

And until the Supreme Court says differently, that's just the way it is.
I WISH they would come out and make a public decision about it.
I WISH Obama would show his original long-form BC.
But it's his Constitutionally-protected right to keep it private, just as it's my right to keep my person private and NOT consent to scanners at the airport.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And while we're at it, here's what I said about the Constitutionality of airport screening, of which I DO NOT approve, and have said so many times.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There's LEGALLY unconstitutional (which the Supreme Court decides) and there's MORALLY unconstitutional, which is what I think we're talking about here. I see drug tests, TSA airport policies and AZ's SB1070 law ALL as MORALLY unconstitutional, but only the Supreme Court can rule if they are LEGALLY unconstitutional or not. There are a lot of issues that we discuss here that we call unconstitutional, and I think it's important to differentiate between the two, which I will be mindful to do in the future.

So, while I DO advise people not to fly in protest of this action (as I have for over 10 years now), the legal Constitutionality has not been established, but MY belief it is a direct violation of the 4th Amendment, MORALLY, just as forcing Obama to reveal his private papers TO THE WORLD would be. So, until the Supreme court figures this out, YES, I advise people not to fly. Hit them where it hurts!

You can believe a snippet taken out of context or you can read what I have actually written to ascertain my somewhat complex views on the subject:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe every president should have to prove his eligibility. But there is no policy and structure set up to do that, as far as I know. There should be. For the future - for 2012, I would totally support a framework to check everyone's Constitutional eligibility. I totally support that.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Meanwhile you might want to check your most recent payroll check and explain your feelings on why your Federal Withholding Taxes increased, your Social Security Taxes went way down, and why some people with self employment income can't even file yet, because the IRS is still waiting on the Federal Government to define last years tax code.

And this has WHAT to do with Obama's citizenship? I find this TIME and TIME and TIME again with birthers. They want to get Obama out of office for POLICY issues, but they USE the birther fiasco to make an argument. It's disingenuous, IMO.

.

if you pay 100 dollars they'll probably give you the COLB copy. Other than that I don't really see how they would be able to do this since the records are on lockdown. the 100 dollar fee is a bit extravagant but for how badly people want to see it they will easily pay that amount of money. I'm guessing there is some kind of catch, like they will only give out the COLB, which would make it a scam because anyone could print off the COLB from the internet and then charge 100 dollars for it.

Originally posted by Libertygal
There is *plenty* of proof that can be obtained that clearly shows Obama has spent a LOT of money on legal fees defending the birth certificate suits.

Oh, I don't doubt that he has spent money to defend these suits. Every legal action costs money. But he's not spending money "to seal his records", which is the birther lie. And yes, I will call it a birther lie. Because that's what it is. Here's the post I said that about:

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Obama initiated it when he started spending millions of dollars to seal his records.

THAT'S the lie. That he sealed his records. Not that he has spent money defending these frivolous lawsuits that attempt to infringe on his privacy.

Firstly, let me state that if the defendant were not properly named in this suit, it wouldn't have even made docket.

You're going to have to back that statement up with more than your word. Because according to this, you can use the wrong name, you just MAY not be able to collect on your judgment.

Your justia link doesn't work.

Filing a Complaint

The first part of the summons and complaint called the caption must list the full name(s) of the party(ies) ... The names of the parties are important. If you have the wrong name you may not be able to collect your judgment even if you do win in court.

Again, I reiterate, if the names were not synonymous with the same person, the suit would have had to be renamed.

Sorry, I cannot take your word for that. The Hollister v. Barry Soetoro complaint also says that Barry Soetoro IS Barack Obama.

Barry Soetoro, in his capacity as a natural person; de facto President in posse; and as de jure President in posse, also known as Barack Obama...

Source

I believe there is plenty of evidence to show that monies have been paid to the Perkins Coie legal firm, in which it becomes obvious they are in part to defend these lawsuits. The excat amount? No one knows but them and Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama, but one thing I can tell you for certain, it ain't cheap.

I totally agree with you on this. Legal fees are not cheap. Defending one's self against an onslaught of lawsuits costs a lot of money.

And I never ONCE said the following. You misunderstood:

"No monies have ever been paid by Obama in defening these suits, thats ridiculous and a bither lie!"

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by DOUGH3914
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

....Never has this happened to any other president but whoa you get the first African "american" president and dammit hes not from here.

Actually no you are absolutely incorrect there have been other controversies regarding caucasion candidates for President including some who it was determined who were not eligible to run.

Further to this point:

Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned

While every President and Vice President to date (as of 2010) is widely believed either to have been a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 or to have been born in the United States, one U.S. President (Chester A. Arthur) and some presidential candidates either were not born or were suspected of not having been born in a U.S. state.[33] In addition, one U.S. Vice President (Albert Gore) was born in Washington, D.C. This does not necessarily mean that they were ineligible, only that there was some controversy (usually minor) about their eligibility, which may have been resolved in favor of eligibility.[34]

* Chester A. Arthur (1829–1886), 21st president of the United States, was rumored to have been born in Canada.[35][36] This was never demonstrated by his Democratic opponents, although Arthur Hinman, an attorney who had investigated Arthur's family history, raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign and after the end of his Presidency. Arthur was born in Vermont to a U.S. citizen mother and a father from Ireland, who was eventually naturalized as a U.S. citizen. Despite the fact that his parents took up residence in the United States somewhere between 1822 or 1824,[37] Chester Arthur additionally began to claim between 1870 and 1880[38] that he had been born in 1830, rather than in 1829, which only caused minor confusion and was even used in several publications.[39] Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot. Since his Irish father William was naturalized 14 years after Chester Arthur's birth,[40] his citizenship status at birth is unclear, because he was born before the 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment, which provided that any person born on United States territory and being subject to the jurisdiction thereof was considered a born U.S. citizen, and because he was a British subject at birth by patrilineal jus sanguinis.[41] Arthur's natural born citizenship status is therefore equally unclear.

* The eligibility of Charles Evans Hughes (1862–1948) was questioned in an article written by Breckinridge Long, and published in the Chicago Legal News during the U.S. presidential election of 1916, in which Hughes was narrowly defeated by Woodrow Wilson. Long claimed that Hughes was ineligible because his father had not yet naturalized at the time of his birth and was still a British citizen. Observing that Hughes, although born in the United States, was also a British subject and therefore "enjoy[ed] a dual nationality and owe[d] a double allegiance", Long argued that a native born citizen was not natural born without a unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance and stated: "Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a 'natural born' citizen of the United States."[42]

* George Romney (1907–1995), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney’s grandfather had emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's monogamous parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States with him in 1912. Romney never received Mexican citizenship, because the country's nationality laws had been restricted to jus-sanguinis statutes due to prevailing politics aimed against American settlers.[43] George Romney therefore had no allegiance to a foreign country.

* Barry Goldwater (1909–1998) was born in Phoenix, in what was then the incorporated Arizona Territory of the United States. During his presidential campaign in 1964, there was a minor controversy over Goldwater's having been born in Arizona when it was not yet a state.[35]

* Lowell Weicker (born 1931), the former Connecticut Senator, Representative, and Governor, entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980 but dropped out before voting in the primaries began. He was born in Paris, France to parents who were U.S. citizens. His father was an executive for E. R. Squibb & Sons and his mother was the Indian-born daughter of a British general.[44]

* Róger Calero (born 1969) was born in Nicaragua and ran as the Socialist Worker's Party presidential candidate in 2004 and 2008. In 2008, Calero appeared on the ballot in Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Vermont.[45]

* John McCain (born 1936), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and was the Republican nominee in 2008, was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station[33][46][47][48][49][50][51] in the Panama Canal Zone. McCain never released his birth certificate to the press or independent fact checking organizations, but did show it to Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs: "A senior official of the McCain campaign showed a reporter Dobbs a copy of the senator's birth certificate issued by Canal Zone health authorities, recording his birth in the Coco Solo "family hospital."[48] A lawsuit filed by Fred Hollander in 2008 alleged that McCain was actually born in a civilian hospital in Colon City, Panama.[52][53] Dobbs wrote that in his autobiography, "Faith of My Fathers," McCain wrote that he was born "in the Canal Zone" at the U.S. Naval Air Station in Coco Solo, which was under the command of his grandfather, John S. McCain Sr. "The senator's father, John S. McCain Jr., was an executive officer on a submarine, also based in Coco Solo. His mother, Roberta McCain, now 96, has vivid memories of lying in bed listening to raucous celebrations of her son's birth from the nearby officers' club. The birth was announced days later in the English-language Panamanian American newspaper."[54][55][56][57] The former unincorporated territory of the Panama Canal Zone and its related military facilities were not regarded as United States territory at the time,[58] but 8 U.S.C. § 1403, which became law in 1937, retroactively conferred citizenship on individuals born within the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and on individuals born in the Republic of Panama on or after that date who had at least one U.S. citizen parent employed by the U.S. government or the Panama Railway Company; 8 U.S.C. § 1403 was cited in Judge Alsup's 2008 ruling, described below. A paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe published in March 2008 opined that McCain was eligible for the Presidency.[59] In April 2008 the U.S. Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural born citizen.[60] In September 2008 U.S. District Judge William Alsup stated obiter in his ruling that it is "highly probable" that McCain is a natural born citizen from birth by virtue of 8 U.S.C. § 1401, although he acknowledged the alternative possibility that McCain became a natural born citizen retroactively, by way of 8 U.S.C. § 1403.[61] These views have been criticized by Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, who argues that McCain was at birth a citizen of Panama and was only retroactively declared a born citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1403, because at the time of his birth and with regard to the Canal Zone the Supreme Court's Insular Cases overruled the Naturalization Act of 1795, which would otherwise have declared McCain a U.S. citizen immediately at birth.[62] The US Foreign Affairs Manual states that children born in the Panama Canal Zone at certain times became U.S. nationals without citizenship.[63] It also states in general that "it has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen […]".[64] In Rogers v. Bellei the Supreme Court only ruled that "children born abroad of Americans are not citizens within the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment", and didn't elaborate on the natural born status.[65][66]

* Barack Obama (born 1961), 44th president of the United States, was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to a U.S. citizen mother and a British subject father from what was then the Kenya Colony of the United Kingdom (which became the independent country of Kenya in 1963). Before and after the 2008 presidential election, arguments were made that he is not a natural born citizen. On June 12, 2008, the Obama presidential campaign launched a website to counter what it described as smears by his opponents, including these challenges to his eligibility.[67] The most prominent issue raised against Obama was the claim made in several lawsuits that he was not actually born in Hawaii. In two other lawsuits, the plaintiffs argued that it was irrelevant whether he was born in Hawaii,[68] but argued instead that he was nevertheless not a natural born citizen because his citizenship status at birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.[69] The relevant courts have either denied all applications or declined to render a judgment due to lack of jurisdiction. Some of the cases have been dismissed because of the plaintiff's lack of standing.[30] On July 28, 2009, Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued a statement saying, "I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen."[70] On July 27, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.Res. 593, commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood, including the text, "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961."[71] The vote passed 378-0.[72]

Link.

One might dispute the particulars, but the list seems sound.

Of course, I doubt that will alter the claim from Obama defenders that those who seek Obama's eligibility for office only do so out of express or repressed racial motivation.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by DOUGH3914

....Never has this happened to any other president but whoa you get the first African "american" president and dammit hes not from here.

Actually no you are absolutely incorrect there have been other controversies regarding caucasion candidates for President including some who it was determined who were not eligible to run.

It's true that other candidates for office have had questions about their eligibility, but DOUGH3914's comment was about presidents, not candidates.

Why don't people read what others SAY instead of twisting it?

I don't think all birthers are racist. Not by ANY means. The race card gets played too much. But as I have said, if this president were white and had a name like Thomas Waterman or Craig Martin, this whole "question" of his birth country and citizenship would NEVER have arisen. Everyone would have assumed that his citizenship was legitimate from the beginning, just as we have all the presidents before him.

Not all birthers are racist, but I think this whole birther movement was fueled by the fact that Obama is black and "different". If he'd been a white guy named Michael Whitmore, we wouldn't be having this discussion and the birther movement wouldn't exist.

reply to post by loam


Thanks Loam for digging up those examples of other Presidents and hopefuls who's citizenship also was called into question.

It's amazing how ignorant of history many people are and choose to be when it comes to this aspect of Presidential politics as example after example clearly displays Obama is not the first to have his eligibility questioned.

While a lot of people want to use dubious desciptions like 'birther lie # - - -' evidently people on the 'Don't ask, don't tell' side of the coin have quite a few innacuracies and ommissions that frame the bulk of their rediculous arguments for suppression of information.

They by and large seem to imagine it is not the privelege of the elected official to serve, but our privelege to serve someone entitled to a presumed position beyond reproach or questioning.

It's amazing that those people making the most foolish and dishonest of arguments have such rancor for people who would simply like a full airing of the facts and documents, that indeed would be required to hold any lawful position of employment within the U.S.

Strangely enough in many ways what this really highlights is the very real immigration problem threatening the economic and political health of America, and while it's exciting and encouraging to see afirmative action make it possible for a minority to hold the highest office in the land, that office shouldn't be treated as an entitlement based simply on that qualification.

When people start playing the race card that is what they are relegating the Office of the President too.

It's a privelege to serve the people, and woe to the politician and party that takes that for granted come election day.

In the long run the stubborn and dishonest obstinance on the part of people arguing against full disclosure is going to deminish them, while they work so hard for dubious reasons to deminish us all.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Now, I want to disagree with you.
It would be an issue with Democrats if a white Republican has birth place issues.
It would be an issue with Republicans if a white Democrat has birthplace issues.
It would also depend on how well-liked the person was.

Surely, with the political divide the was it is in the US, you can't really think race is the issue.
Obama is disliked for his policies...or lack thereof.
If he were well-liked, this issue would become a non-issue.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Surely, with the political divide the was it is in the US, you can't really think race is the issue.

I don't think race is the ONLY issue. I think it's PART of the reason that, after literally years of discourse on this subject, people are still trying to make it out to be that Obama isn't eligible to be president. I suspect that race is a factor in many people's minds.

Obama is disliked for his policies...or lack thereof.
If he were well-liked, this issue would become a non-issue.

EXACTLY! I agree 100%! People dislike him for his policies but they USE this trumped-up citizenship argument as their reason for wanting him out. The truth is - his policies are no better or worse than any other president's, by any degree. And since his POLICIES are what people disagree with, it's his POLICIES they should be going after, not some made up rumor about his citizenship.

I have never made a big deal about my suspicions about race because we can't prove that one way or another, but we CAN examine his policies and the documentation we've seen.

I don't really see where we disagree.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I don't think all birthers are racist. Not by ANY means. The race card gets played too much. But as I have said, if this president were white and had a name like Thomas Waterman or Craig Martin, this whole "question" of his birth country and citizenship would NEVER have arisen. Everyone would have assumed that his citizenship was legitimate from the beginning, just as we have all the presidents before him.

This an assumption based on hypotheticals that in essence is simply just a deflection away from the critical issue at hand.

Yes some of the people questioned in the past were actually elected Presidents so that portion of your argument is incorrect (see Loam's post above), and there really are some valid questions regarding what if any vetting process Obama went through during his candidacy that if properly conducted may have in all reality relegated him to just a disqualified candidate.

When you look at the history of Presidential Politics many people were concerned, frightened and angry over Kennedy's election as the first Catholic President, and certainly we saw in the last election that a lot of people had concerns about Mitt Romney being a Mormon.

Are there Americans who are racist and don't enjoy or want a black President? Sure, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the issue that is all about Obama's eligibility and NOT about people's individual motivations in questioning it.

The issue is a simple one, was Obama really born in the United States and do sometimes complicated and arcane Natural Born Citizen Laws determine he is or isn't a natural born citizen.

That question remains a question and a valid one in my humble opinion regardless of what motivates someone to ask it.

Where your arguments become disengenuous in my humble opinion is that attempt to dismiss the question based on the motives real and imagined you want to assign to people asking it.

That is no way to answer a valid question, and answering the question fully, honestly and completely is vital to earning goodwill and respect as credibility is a key issue all politicians are ultimately judged upon.

As a strategist I can simply tell you this, Obama benefited a great deal during the last election by being a largely unknown and unproven quantity and quality offering hope that he would provide more credible and effective leadership than a lame duck President who's approval rating and performance in the Oval Office was one of the worst in history.

That promise of hope and change was widely embraced by a wide cross section of Americans who counted on him living up to how he was billing himself.

Many would argue that he to date has failed to live up to those expectations, whether they were realistic expectations or not, whether there are valid reasons or not is not relevant, what is relevant is this time around he won't have the benefit of the doubt.

In fact the more doubt that surrounds him the less chance he will gain reelection.

I personally consider it a afront to the American people for it's President to dismiss valid questions regarding their basic eligibility, and while you are unaware of my own credentials with working with documents, documents required to obtain financing for large ticket items, documents that prove people's identity, status, income, finances etc, and I am not asking you to be bound by my professional opinion, as someone who handles these documents routinely and inspects them for the benefit of lenders and creditors I can tell you that if the Birth Certificate that Obama made available online was presented to me, as being just 'a' birth certificate of someone looking for a loan to finance a house or a car, I would believe it to be a forgery and I do believe it is a forgery.

So I have real questions as to why he released what to me is a document full of tell tale signs of alteration and foregery.

As you know, I have a lot of concerns regarding our government and always have. I didn't like Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, either.

I have though watched during the slow decay of America over my lifetime the Office of the Presidency become more and more powerful, with fewer checks by the balancing branches of government curbing it's excesses and I consider it the height of foolishness and dangerous to elevate a President to the position of not having to be accountable to the public he is supposed to serve.

I don't care what motivation a person has when asking a valid question, only that the question is valid, and when it comes to all the discrepencies and inconsistencies and vagueness regarding Obama's past and ultimately his eligibility in my opinion it is a very valid question.

A question that 400 million Americans right to ask, should not be superceded by one man's unwillingness to fully answer, when that man happens to hold the highest office in the land.

Whether you care to see it, can see it, and or admit it, you are helping to set a very dangerous precedent that is only going to further erode any checks and balances the people have when it comes to rooting out corruption in Government.

If your only reason for wanting to do that is to 'protect' a 'black man' at any and all costs, well, shame on you!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Birthers have NOTHING but feelings...

Whereas the evidence of his natural-born citizenship gets completely ignored:

M'kay.

Let's review your supplied 'evidence' to the contrary:

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
CoLB (with raised seal and signature)
Newspaper Birth Announcements
The DNC Official Certificate of Nomination (specifying Constitutional eligibility)
Congressional Resolution Stating Obama Born in Hawaii
Plus the fifty eligibility statements signed by Obama under threat of forgery
Plus the fact that no one, not even his opponent in the election came up with ANY evidence to the contrary.

Starting with:

*******************************************************************************************************

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
CoLB (with raised seal and signature)

As FactCheck.org is primarily funded by the Annenberg Foundation, its claims of non-partisan efforts is questionable as Barack Obama was a founding member, chairman, and president of a project that was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was a Chicago public reform project that brought together civic, business and university leaders, as well as foundations and other groups, in support of 18 school improvement projects. It built broad public-private coalitions consisting of mayors, superintendents, principals, union leaders, civic leaders and community groups.

en.wikipedia.org...

I previously did not know this. Thanks for giving me a reason to discover it.

*******************************************************************************************************

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Newspaper Birth Announcements

"We don't have an editor who handles birth and marriage announcements; we print what we receive from the Department of Health Vital Statistics System," a Star-Bulletin newsroom operator explained to WND.

The operator said, "This is how we've always done it."

Link.

Hawaiian law specifically allows "an adult or the legal parents of a minor child" to apply to the health department and, upon unspecified proof, be given the birth document.

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.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

Link.

So this is meaningless.

*******************************************************************************************************

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The DNC Official Certificate of Nomination (specifying Constitutional eligibility)

DNC Failed to Certify Obama as Eligible in MOST States!

When I first became aware that the Democratic National Committee prepared, signed and notarized two slightly different Certification of Nomination documents for the Obama-Biden ticket in the 2008 election, I was shocked and after verifying both documents as real, I wrote about it in The Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don’t Lie released on September 10, 2009.

The question was obvious – Why TWO different DNC Obama certification documents, and why did one have proper certification of constitutional eligibility in it, while the other had that certification deleted?

The Obama camp had been using the defense that the DNC had properly vetted and certified Obama’s eligibility for months. Judge after judge had used that claim and the fact that Obama’s COLB (Certification of Live Birth) had been “Snoped – FactChecked – blogged and twittered” as “legal proof” that Obama was eligible for office, despite the very real fact that Obama has never released any authenticated proof on the subject.

Then we find out that the DNC did NOT certify Obama as eligible under Article II – Section I of the Constitution, in 49 of 50 states. The DNC had only filed such certification in the state of Hawaii, Obama’s alleged birth place. The other 49 states received a Certification of Nomination which did NOT certify Obama as constitutionally eligible for office.

See also:

The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don't Lie

The Theory is Now a Conspiracy—II

That doesn't sound very helpful to your position.

*******************************************************************************************************

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Congressional Resolution Stating Obama Born in Hawaii

Speaking of feelings...

Let's be a bit more clear. The resolution, introduced by Rep. Neil Abercrombie, (D-Hawaii), was a commemoration recognizing and celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State. The Obama bit appears in a single preamble line:

Recognizing and celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.

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;

Whereas Hawaii has contributed to the diversity of Congress in electing the first Native Hawaiian member of Congress, Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana`ole, the first Asian-American member, Hiram Fong, the first woman of color, Patsy T. Mink, and the first Native Hawaiian to serve in the Senate, Daniel Kahikina Akaka;

Whereas Hawaii is an example to the rest of the world of unity and positive race relations;

Whereas Pearl Harbor is a strategic military base for the U.S. in the Pacific and also a historical site for the Nation, being the location of the December 7, 1941, surprise Japanese aerial attack that thrust the Nation into World War II;

Whereas Hawaii is home to 1/4 of the endangered species in the United States;

Whereas Hawaii has 8 national parks, which preserve volcanoes, complex ecosystems, a Hansen's disease colony, and other sites of historical and cultural significance;

Whereas Kilauea ranks among the most active volcanoes on Earth;

Whereas President Bush nominated the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization World Heritage Centre for consideration to the World Heritage List;

Whereas Hawaii has produced musical legends ranging from traditional favorites such as Alfred Apaka, Don Ho, and Genoa Keawe, to Hawaii renaissance performers such as Eddie Kamae, Raymond Kane, Gabby Pahinui, Israel Kamakawiwo`ole, the Brothers Cazimero, and the Beamer Brothers, and continuing on to contemporary stars such as Keali`i Reichel, Ledward Kaapana, Jake Shimabukuro, and Raiatea Helm;

Whereas Hawaii is culturally rich, as the Hawaiian culture has been protected through Hawaiian language immersion schools, hula competitions such as the Merrie Monarch Festival, canoeing voyages undertaken by vessels like the Hokule`a, and the continuing historic preservation of Hawaiian traditions;

Whereas the Hawaii Statehood Commission has held a Joint Session of the Hawaii State Legislature in honor of statehood and will be celebrating this milestone with a public discussion and with the arrival of the USS Hawaii; and

Whereas for all of these reasons Hawaii is a truly unique State: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes and celebrates the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.

Link.

Preambles have no legal significance, except in cases of sufficient ambiguity in the operative portions. In other words, if the actual operative part of the resolution is clear, preambles have no legal meaning. You could incongruously insert your grandmother's favorite dessert into a military spending resolution. As long as the bill got the votes, it would be forever attached to the law, but have no impact on the law or anywhere else.

in America “the settled principle of law is that the preamble cannot control the enacting part of the statute in cases where the enacting part is expressed in clear, unambiguous terms.”

District of Columbia v. Heller (.pdf)

So the only thing that bill does is "the House of Representatives recognizes and celebrates the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State."

Using this resolution as 'evidence' is simply ridiculous.


*******************************************************************************************************

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Plus the fifty eligibility statements signed by Obama under threat of forgery

I assume you mean perjury. Already answered above.

*******************************************************************************************************

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Plus the fact that no one, not even his opponent in the election came up with ANY evidence to the contrary.

Because the one piece of evidence that would for many dispositively answer the eligibility question, as explicitly expected by the US Constitution, is inexplicably withheld from public view on the lamest of 'privacy' grounds. I mean, really?

Am I to expect now that if Obama bites on an olive pit in his sandwich wrap, he'll sue the White House kitchen staff?

(Kucinich)

Because for me it's even more ridiculous than Kucinich's personal injury claim for Obama to raise a privacy claim over the release of his birth certificate in order to prove he's eligible for the Office of the Presidency.

So what do the Obama defenders "have"?

Empty promises of eligibility.

How is THAT not based upon your feelings of trust? Because from where I sit, that is all YOU have.

*******************************************************************************************************

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
MORALLY unconstitutiona

Finally, when you say "MORALLY unconstitutional", from where does that derive? Is this some document I should have read?

See, BH, this is the fundamental difference between our positions on this subject.

You have faith that the system which doesn't require the reasonable public production of a birth certificate to demonstrate eligibility requirements found in the Constitution, will always get it right and ward against abuses or fraud.

I do not have such "faith".

So forgive me if I cry foul on the likes of your defense, and others like it, that seem based upon nothing more than partisan support for "your" guy.

And just so we are clear, my position would be the same regardless of the letter behind the name.

So when you say:

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I believe every president should have to prove his eligibility. But there is no policy and structure set up to do that, as far as I know. There should be. For the future - for 2012, I would totally support a framework to check everyone's Constitutional eligibility. I totally support that.

But...not...just...now.

:shk:

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I find this TIME and TIME and TIME again with birthers. They want to get Obama out of office for POLICY issues, but they USE the birther fiasco to make an argument. It's disingenuous, IMO.

To damned funny.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
This an assumption based on hypotheticals that in essence is simply just a deflection away from the critical issue at hand.

It is my opinion, yes. It's what I think, but as I said, it's really not relevant because we can't prove it one way or the other. I usually don't bring race up at all. I did this time, just to add my opinion about it.

The issue is a simple one, was Obama really born in the United States and do sometimes complicated and arcane Natural Born Citizen Laws determine he is or isn't a natural born citizen.

That question remains a question and a valid one in my humble opinion regardless of what motivates someone to ask it.

I agree. It is a valid question in MY opinion. You will not find me telling birthers to shut up or that they don't have a right to ask for what they're asking for. NEVER have I suggested that people don't have the right to ask and have these doubts and discuss them at length and even bring lawsuits to satisfy their curiosity. NEVER.

And I have also stated that I would like to see it all brought out.

Where your arguments become disengenuous in my humble opinion is that attempt to dismiss the question based on the motives real and imagined you want to assign to people asking it.

I don't remember dismissing the questions asked based on anything. I participate in these threads to HAVE the discussion. If there are questions to ask, I FULLY support asking them.

I also fully support the rights of the people, even the president, to be secure in his person, houses, papers, and effects.

I can tell you that if the Birth Certificate that Obama made available online was presented to me, as being just 'a' birth certificate of someone looking for a loan to finance a house or a car, I would believe it to be a forgery and I do believe it is a forgery.

How can you tell that by looking at a scanned PICTURE of a document? Your eagerness to call a jpg file a forgery makes me question your judgment. Even the best document analyst cannot look at a picture on a computer screen and say whether or not it's valid. And for you to claim to have this skill is more than I can believe.

Whether you care to see it, can see it, and or admit it, you are helping to set a very dangerous precedent that is only going to further erode any checks and balances the people have when it comes to rooting out corruption in Government.

HOW? How am I helping to set this precedent?

I FULLY support a structure in place to prevent this in the future. That way, a person running for president will KNOW what kind of proof is expected of him - and that he will have to show his papers to get the job. (Just as anyone entering an airport knows they will be scanned). But doing it retroactively is wrong in my opinion.

If your only reason for wanting to do that is to 'protect' a 'black man' at any and all costs, well, shame on you!

Well, that isn't the reason for my position at all.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
It's amazing that those people making the most foolish and dishonest of arguments have such rancor for people who would simply like a full airing of the facts and documents, that indeed would be required to hold any lawful position of employment within the U.S.

For me, this is the reason I see our nation in peril. Our culture no longer expects accountability.

It's really just that simple.

The tyrants, and their minions, sit in the seat of opportunity, constructed for them by the apathy and ignorance of the American electorate. :shk:

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I personally consider it a afront to the American people for it's President to dismiss valid questions regarding their basic eligibility, and while you are unaware of my own credentials with working with documents, documents required to obtain financing for large ticket items, documents that prove people's identity, status, income, finances etc, and I am not asking you to be bound by my professional opinion, as someone who handles these documents routinely and inspects them for the benefit of lenders and creditors I can tell you that if the Birth Certificate that Obama made available online was presented to me, as being just 'a' birth certificate of someone looking for a loan to finance a house or a car, I would believe it to be a forgery and I do believe it is a forgery.

So I have real questions as to why he released what to me is a document full of tell tale signs of alteration and foregery.

...

I have though watched during the slow decay of America over my lifetime the Office of the Presidency become more and more powerful, with fewer checks by the balancing branches of government curbing it's excesses and I consider it the height of foolishness and dangerous to elevate a President to the position of not having to be accountable to the public he is supposed to serve.

I don't care what motivation a person has when asking a valid question, only that the question is valid, and when it comes to all the discrepencies and inconsistencies and vagueness regarding Obama's past and ultimately his eligibility in my opinion it is a very valid question.

...

Whether you care to see it, can see it, and or admit it, you are helping to set a very dangerous precedent that is only going to further erode any checks and balances the people have when it comes to rooting out corruption in Government.

If your only reason for wanting to do that is to 'protect' a 'black man' at any and all costs, well, shame on you!

Well written!

We are cut from the same cloth on this issue.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

People dislike him for his policies but they USE this trumped-up citizenship argument as their reason for wanting him out. The truth is - his policies are no better or worse than any other president's, by any degree. And since his POLICIES are what people disagree with, it's his POLICIES they should be going after, not some made up rumor about his citizenship.

But his citizenship is one thing that people can latch onto to get rid of him before 2012.
Latching on to reasons/causes is what those who dislike the POTUS do: whether it is being Catholic, starting the Iraq war, not ending the Vietnam war, or a blue dress, those who want the man out of office find something to end the guy out.

In this case, there is a big question in my mind as to his citizenship legitimacy. And, as I am his employer, as it were, I think I have every right to see his papers.
Everyone was so caught up in the movement for "change", I feel they neglected to thoroughly vet the candidate.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But doing it retroactively is wrong in my opinion.

...because he's your guy.

Otherwise, what legal position would you be advancing to support your opinion?