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

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I did provide it. I have no reason to think he's hiding anything. That's my answer.

You have no reason to think he's hiding anything?

ALL his records are sealed. If records are sealed, they are being hidden. It's only common sense to think if every thing is sealed (ie: hidden) that he is hiding something (everything).

Wasn't one if his (broken) campaign promises that his administration would be one of TRANSPARENCY?

During the last few voting cycles, I made it a point to thoroughly research the possible candidates and Obama was the only one of all the candidates that I researched that I could not find any but the most basic info on. I mean, about the only info I could be sure about was that he was breathing. THAT......was the reason I did not vote for him.

That said, after doing my research, I would not have voted for Guliani, Romney, Thompson, McCain, or Hillary either.

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

To the OP, I haven't tried to get a birth cert in my area for a while. Last time I did, for a fee of about $10, and having the right info, you could get anyone's birth certificate. The birth certificate would be a short form that had just the basic info.

In order to get a long form, you have to get it from the hospital where the person was born, usually. I have a copy of my daughter's long form from the hospital, and the short form, from the Dept of Vital Records. The long form has a lot more information, including the time of birth, hospital name, and the delivering doctor's name. It also shows the home address of the parents at the time. I don't know if just anyone could get this information (the long form) though.

$100.00 does seem rather excessive, though.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
But his citizenship is one thing that people can latch onto to get rid of him before 2012.

I don't see him leaving before 2012, but with 10 states trying to draw up legislation to see proof to get on the 2012 ballot it could get interesting when the 2012 election rolls around. If he really doesn't have a birth certificate, Obama may not even run for re-election and come up with some other excuse for not running again.

But if he has one, that's fine with me, I'm not particularly trying to get rid of the guy, I just think all the bizarre circumstances such as nobody having a clue what hospital he was born in are fishy, and that makes him the first president where we don't know his birthplace, even though Benevolent Heretic tried to convince me it's Kapiolani, but can't prove it!

Governor Lingle claimed the same thing and she embarrassed herself almost as much as governor Aercrombie when Fukino never confirmed what she said Fukino would confirm about Kapiolani. Maybe everything's in order but it just seems very fishy to me and the truth is, only one person in the entire world really knows (that I know of), and that's Fukino. That's way too much responsibility for one person. There are no checks and balances in a system that relies entirely on one person.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But if he has one, that's fine with me, I'm not particularly trying to get rid of the guy, I just think all the bizarre circumstances such as nobody having a clue what hospital he was born in are fishy, and that makes him the first president where we don't know his birthplace, even though Benevolent Heretic tried to convince me it's Kapiolani, but can't prove it!

...it just seems very fishy to me and the truth is, only one person in the entire world really knows (that I know of), and that's Fukino. That's way too much responsibility for one person. There are no checks and balances in a system that relies entirely on one person.

It's also interesting to me that MANY of the very people who legitimately cried foul the most with all of the voting irregularities during the Bush years are now the very ones applying an entirely different standard of accountability to this subject.

Our political system has become a farce.

Here's why I don't think this law should apply to the current administration. It's in the Constitution.

Article 1 - Section 9
...
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Source

An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from after the action") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

If Congress wants to make a law that for 2012, ALL candidates much show their long form birth certificates to an agency or persons to be fully vetted and confirmed Constitutionally eligible, I would FULLY support that. But I do not support ex post facto (or retroactive) laws as it is unconstitutional.

And "my guy" will most likely be running in 2012.

Originally posted by sezsue
You have no reason to think he's hiding anything?

ALL his records are sealed.

His records are no more sealed than mine are. You can't get my birth certificate, either.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
...we don't know his birthplace, even though Benevolent Heretic tried to convince me it's Kapiolani, but can't prove it!

I don't know where he was born and have never claimed to know. So, of course I can't prove it.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Here's why I don't think this law should apply to the current administration. It's in the Constitution.

Article 1 - Section 9
...
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Source

An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from after the action") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

Too bad you didn't research further...

However, not all laws with ex post facto effects have been found to be unconstitutional...

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Doe (2003) that forcing sex offenders to register their whereabouts at regular intervals and the posting of personal information about them on the Internet does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, because this does not constitute any kind of punishment.

Link.

So explain how being required to produce a birth certificate to prove eligibility for presidential office is "punishment"?

Is your research really this sloppy or are your omissions intentional?

Originally posted by loam
So explain how being required to produce a birth certificate to prove eligibility for presidential office is "punishment"?

I did know about that, but it's irrelevant. A violation of his 4th amendment right would be the punishment.

JUST as the person entering the security area of an airport KNOWS to expect a scan or grope, under a new law, a candidate entering a race would KNOW to expect to show SPECIFIC private papers.

Not only that, Obama has already shown the necessary paperwork to the authorities, not to mention to all of us. To require him to go beyond what any other president has been required to do would be a violation of equal treatment under the law.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

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.

Please be aware that you have more or less just cut yourself with a two edged sword.

If I, someone who actually get's paid to review documents for authenticity am not able to make a determination simply because the document in question has been scanned and posted on line, then the reverse of that argument is there is not way then for anyone to authenticicate the document that was posted on line.

Since the most common argument of people looking to dismiss this controversy is "He posted a copy of his Birth Certificate online, what more do you want?" then clearly by your own admission, that act and document is not conclusive.

Hence the controversy, and while yes, I would prefer to see the original primary document, I only have what has been made available.

Further it should be noted that lenders make determinations regarding people's work status, citizenship, income, and finances all the time on scanned and facimile copies, which by the way typically work out in the forger's best interest since background water marks in paper as well as speciality papers designed for specific documents don't typically fax or scan well.

So in other words a lot can be hidden though scanning, and faxing by a skilled forger that makes it much easier for them to pass the document off as genuine.

So if even with that added bonus handicap given to you, and your document is still coming up short in key portions that are identifiable in any medium then what you have is a really bad, really bad forgery.

Not that you have any reason (that I know of) to be aware of these things, but I do deal with sensitive documents frequently, almost always a copy, scan or fax, and yes, there are still things having to do with proportion, type face, sequence numbers, revision dates, editions, etc.

I don't make such a charge frivolously but honestly BH when I first glanced at the Obama Online Birth Certificate my immediate response was to literally laugh out loud.

There is little to no chance that was an authentic Hawaiian Short Form Computerized Certificate of Birth.

I am amazed that Factcheck.org would even publish it, and that organization suffered a huge blow regarding it's own credibility in how I view tham as supposedly being a neutral organization in the political process.

It is simply one more corrupt tool of the Powers that Be.

You have been on ATS long enough now to know that yes, many of us do really believe both parties to be corrupted by the same Corproate Shadow Government and yes those of us who do, do not subscribe to the left/right, Republican/Democrat, Black/White arguments that are the typical talking points in controversies like these.

I see this simply as more evidence that the political process (which I know for a fact through first hand experiences) is completely corrupted by a group of powerful oligarchs and the fact that they are using a black man to decieve the American people is absolutely no different than them using a white man, a red woman, a hermophodite or any other sex, race, to mislead the American people into imagining that the political process and the government is an honest one.

I know some of the players involved (the Powers that Be) and I know they love to capitilize off of and play people's emotions such as pride, and prejudice, and while I understand those who have pride that a black man has been elected to the highest office in the United States as something that is important to them and validates, and provides hope, as well as a thermometer and measuring stick of the over all social health of the nation, I also know that the easiest way to reinvent Bush policies, was through the guise of someone that would effect the kind of pride, that would lead to the kind of blind devotion many who are supporting this forgery are amply displaying.

I consider it a particuarly cruel manipulation for that reason, that something that means so much to so many (real equality in society) is simply being used to protect the greedy ambitions of the shadow government, but that pride and those emotions in that accomplishment does not outweigh the need for real integrity and justice which is dangerously lacking in our government.

So it is what it is.

The Powers that Be playing their typical tricks, and a good deal of the population being manipulated along emotional lines to react in the way the Powers that Be need them to, to keep playing their usual manipulative tricks.

If you actually knew who was running this nation and to what end, most of what you are focused on in this issue would go right out the window.

Am I prepared to give Barack Obama or any Government Official greater rights and priveleges than are being denied to everyone who gets on an airplane, or makes a cell phone call?

No not even, and I really wonder why the one person's rights we seem to be most worried about, happens to be the spokesperson for taking everyone's elses rights and dignities away.

I respect you, I feel like I have gotten to know you some over the years here on ATS and I do believe your heart is in the right place.

However because you are at your core, a decent loving person, I don't think you or most people who share those admirable qualities can truly imagine just how undecent, and how unkind, and how capable and committed the corporate elite and oligarchs are when it comes to corrupting the systems and institutions of government to serve them for their benefit at our expense.

Meaning well, and doing well, are two different things.

Personally I feel the right move is to demand the documentation have it independently verified by qualified experts and if it fails to meet the grade to start waterboarding so we can do the one thing that is absolutely vital to ensuring our own future and prosperity and that's rooting out the shadow government, and resotring government to the people.

The fact that Obama is black does not make him impervious or greater than this very corrupt and very powerful group of oligarchs who's power to corrupt and bend, far exceeds any one person's ability to defy and withstand.

There is nothing honest about what is going on in Washington, and there is certainly nothing honest about Obama's participation in it.

Skin color has nadda to do with that my friend, zilch, zip, zero.

Thanks.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by loam
So explain how being required to produce a birth certificate to prove eligibility for presidential office is "punishment"?

I did know about that, but it's irrelevant. A violation of his 4th amendment right would be the punishment.

JUST as the person entering the security area of an airport KNOWS to expect a scan or grope, under a new law, a candidate entering a race would KNOW to expect to show SPECIFIC private papers.

Not only that, Obama has already shown the necessary paperwork to the authorities, not to mention to all of us. To require him to go beyond what any other president has been required to do would be a violation of equal treatment under the law.

Well, at least we know you're not a lawyer...or a very good one at that.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
If I, someone who actually get's paid to review documents for authenticity am not able to make a determination simply because the document in question has been scanned and posted on line, then the reverse of that argument is there is not way then for anyone to authenticicate the document that was posted on line.

I agree completely. And have always said that. I make no claim that the document is authentic. Never have. In fact, I have said that this document cannot be authenticated or verified as a forgery. MANY times.

And I am not as partisan as you assume. I am not a member of a political party. Never have been. I have voted for people of several different parties and Independents. Don't let other people assumptions outline who I am. I know both parties and the government in general are all corrupt. I know our rights are being chipped away.

I am not some pie-in-the-sky, hope-and-dream Obama lover, no matter what anyone says. I'm very pragmatic. I know Obama is a politician and he's no different than any other president we've had.

My position and opinions on this issue are born out of Constitutional protections. I will fight for Obama's rights just as I would for my own. If the law needs to be changed, then let's change the law, but NOT retroactively and NOT just for one person.

Originally posted by loam
Well, at least we know you're not a lawyer...or a very good one at that.

Yeah, somehow I knew you'd go ad hominem...

Look, I don't claim to be a lawyer. I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion about this. If you want to, as well, please provide something that contradicts what I'm saying instead of calling me a Nazi or whatever else is in your bag. Otherwise, I don't see why I should respond to you at all. This isn't about ME, it's about Obama's birth records and our right to see them.

Originally posted by sezsue
To the OP, I haven't tried to get a birth cert in my area for a while. Last time I did, for a fee of about $10, and having the right info, you could get anyone's birth certificate. The birth certificate would be a short form that had just the basic info.

When this report was issued in the year 2000, 37 percent of all the birth certificate issuing offices in the US allowed public access to birth records, and 63 percent, like Hawaii, don't. So it's really a mixed bag:

oig.hhs.gov...

Some States Allow “Open” Access to Birth Records. In 36 States, New York City, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico, access to birth records is considered “restricted.” In these locations only the person listed on the birth certificate and others designated for access by State or local governments (e.g., parent, child, sibling, grandparent, or others who demonstrate a direct and tangible interest) can obtain certified copies of a birth certificate. However, in 14 States, public access to birth records is “open” at the State or local level, and virtually anyone can review birth records or purchase a copy of any birth certificate from issuing entities as long as they know the name and birth date of the person listed on the birth certificate. There are 2,375 such “open” access locations in these States, which account for 37 percent of the 6,422 issuing offices nationwide.

If Obama had been born in one of the 37 percent of offices that already allow public access (or whatever the current percentage is), this birther thing might not be an issue (or it might be a bigger issue, depending on what Hawaii does or does not have on file for him).

That report also suggests why there is is a higher likelihood of fraud if the birth occurs at home rather than a hospital:

Midwife birth registrations were also identified as an area of concern. Midwives provide a valuable service in insuring the healthy delivery of children and accurate registration of births. However, out-of-hospital births attended by midwives have raised concerns. Sixteen State registrars indicate they have encountered problems specifically linked to midwife birth registration. Our discussions with Federal, State, and local staff during our onsite visits indicate that problems associated with midwife registrations are concentrated along the United States-Mexico border. In fact, midwife registration has become such a problem in one border city we visited that they now require a police officer to be called to the scene shortly after any midwife delivery to verify that the birth actually occurred in the United States. All 41 States that allow midwives to register births have procedures and guidelines in place for such registration, but only 17 of those States require information in addition to or different from that required for hospital births. The additional information required to register midwife births in these States can include attendant affidavits, prenatal and/or post-partum records, and notarized statements or other documentation verifying the birth took place. In addition, some States require that midwives provide documentation that the mother lived in the State at the time the birth occurred.

Very interesting stuff. If it turns out Obama's birth was a home birth, the type of verification documentation present or absent might be why they are keeping it such a big secret. It's interesting that only SOME "States require that midwives provide documentation that the mother lived in the State at the time the birth occurred" which implies that in the other states, the midwife could register the birth even if they had no proof the mother was even in the state at the time the birth occurred. And I noticed that the passport documentation for Obama's mother closest to the date of birth was found to be "missing" in FOIA request. Maybe I'm a little suspicious about the irrelevant records being readily available, but the relevant records being missing. I'd feel better if those records hadn't turned up missing.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
My position and opinions on this issue are born out of Constitutional protections. I will fight for Obama's rights just as I would for my own. If the law needs to be changed, then let's change the law, but NOT retroactively and NOT just for one person.

Except your legal analysis makes ZERO sense. It's gibberish.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by loam
Well, at least we know you're not a lawyer...or a very good one at that.

Yeah, somehow I knew you'd go ad hominem...

Then let me explain to you how silly your argument is...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
A violation of his 4th amendment right would be the punishment.

The 4th amendment, among other things, protects 'against unreasonable searches and seizures when the searched party has a "reasonable expectation of privacy". '

How could you possibly believe that anyone has a reasonable expectation in this context to avoid production of one's birth certificate to demonstrate eligibility to the Office of the Presidency? Birth status is an explicit requirement found in the Constitution.

Under your theory, the government would NEVER be allowed to obtain ANY information about you. :shk:

Moreover, you ridiculously convert this into a punishment?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
JUST as the person entering the security area of an airport KNOWS to expect a scan or grope, under a new law, a candidate entering a race would KNOW to expect to show SPECIFIC private papers.

Another ridiculous argument. Has Obama ever read the Constitution? I would imagine it would hardly be a surprise to him that he might have to show his birth certificate to prove his birth status and therefore his eligibility for office.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Not only that, Obama has already shown the necessary paperwork to the authorities, not to mention to all of us.

Really?

When and where was that? I've already addressed this in a previous post.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
To require him to go beyond what any other president has been required to do would be a violation of equal treatment under the law.

So now investigation of possible fraud-- Obama's questionable eligibility-- converts into an equal protection argument?

Really, BH, I can't figure if you really believe what you write or just like to stir the partisan pot.

EDITED TO ADDRESS:

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Look, I don't claim to be a lawyer. I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion about this.

Except, you weakly claim:

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If you want to, as well, please provide something that contradicts what I'm saying instead of calling me a Nazi or whatever else is in your bag. Otherwise, I don't see why I should respond to you at all. This isn't about ME, it's about Obama's birth records and our right to see them.

I've never called you a Nazi and I haven't made this about "you". All of my posts address your material and faulty logic. I don't care if you respond to me or not. It certainly doesn't impact my ability to respond to you.

But I will say this about you!

When it becomes clear you don't like a position I've asserted, you always eventually convert yourself into a "victim" of my supposed 'personal motivations' and publicly cry about it...

Well, I'm calling you out!

Take your concerns up with the MODS or the administration of this site and quit baselessly claiming, either expressly or by implication, that I am violating the T & C.

I'm sick of it.

Under the T & C, I think I ought to be free of your repeated and ridiculous public accusations against me, whenever we might appear in the same thread.

Originally posted by loam
How could you possibly believe that anyone has a reasonable expectation in this context to avoid production of one's birth certificate to demonstrate eligibility to the Office of the Presidency?

He fulfilled the legal requirements in place at the time he was running for the office. He does, in fact, have a reasonable expectation of privacy as regards having to go BEYOND the requirements of the law at that time.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
He fulfilled the legal requirements in place at the time he was running for the office. He does, in fact, have a reasonable expectation of privacy as regards having to go BEYOND the requirements of the law at that time.

Even after reasonable assertions of fraud?

You have a spooky sense of how to govern and protect against abuses or fraud.

Originally posted by loam
Even after reasonable assertions of fraud?

Unless someone has evidence of fraud, then the assertions are meaningless. Anyone can make assertions.

I think I've gone as far as I want to with this thread.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Unless someone has evidence of fraud, then the assertions are meaningless. Anyone can make assertions.

There's plenty of evidence to raise reasonable doubt- much of it already presented in this thread. You simply refuse to acknowledge it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think I've gone as far as I want to with this thread.

Indeed.

On that at least we agree.

reply to post by DOUGH3914


CMON. We don't need a pock suppet anymore, there's a whole Administrative State out there that's
running the whole show. You know, that unaccountable Shadow Government that's right in our faces?

Ok ok ok Bottom line is this: Obama is our president and will be until its time for him to leave office. So good luck to you guys who need the birth certificate cause i got a feeling you are going to be waiting maybe for the rest of your lives. And whoever the next president will be hopefully he has his certificate on display so he wouldn't have a problem with being born in america if he was. It's been great getting to know the birthers and how many reasons they could come up with for a president who is an american to show some proof. It really cracks me up.


Thanks Guys

Originally posted by DOUGH3914
Ok ok ok Bottom line is this: Obama is our president and will be until its time for him to leave office. So good luck to you guys who need the birth certificate cause i got a feeling you are going to be waiting maybe for the rest of your lives. And whoever the next president will be hopefully he has his certificate on display so he wouldn't have a problem with being born in america if he was. It's been great getting to know the birthers and how many reasons they could come up with for a president who is an american to show some proof. It really cracks me up.

Thanks Guys

Actually Obama is the President of a corporation known as, and on file as the United States Inc. I am neither a stock holder of, or an employee of the corporation and I need to make that perfectly clear. I do not recognize this corporation's legitimacy to many of it's titles and claims, nor do I grant it any authority in my name.

Futher in a temporal phsyical world while it's a reasonable assumption he may finish his term as the Cheif Executive of the United States Inc, history has displayed Presidents have been impeached, resigned and assissinated while in Office, and while I certainly wish no person any ill or harm, the office he occupies does come complete with some risks as evidenced by history.

The fact that you chose a Conspiracy site to argue left/right politics along party lines personally really cracks me up, but hopefully as you spend time on the site you will gain some valuable insights into the reality of the world you live in, and will become increasingly aware of many of the base deceptions that the United States Inc employs in it's ongoing criminal enterprise.