In a society once renowned for its dedication to open, even raucous discussion and debate it’s shocking to witness an increasingly systematic effort to suppress any views that run counter to the zealous stupefaction that characterizes the Obama media claque. Because of his willingness to recognize the need for a factual resolution of the issues being raised with respect to Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for the Office of President of the United States, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs is being attacked, described as a “far-right hater”, and subjected to a campaign for his removal from the network. In the same vein, “Jon Klein, the chief of CNN’s U.S. operations, has issued orders that no more talk-radio hosts will be allowed on CNN News programs… .” Because he has championed the views of those in opposition to the Obama faction’s national socialist makeover of American society, the Obama faction has now made Glenn Beck the target of “a furious campaign…culminating in major companies such as Geico and Lawyers.com pulling their spots from the Fox News star’s daily show.”
It appears that one of the key hallmarks of the much touted change heralded by the Obama faction is the substitution of repression for debate when it comes to dealing with opposing views. The faction’s corporate fellow travelers on the road to the new national socialist order now openly seek to eliminate from the public platforms they control views that don’t conform to their elite party line. Their efforts remind me of what Major Sean M. Hoyer observed about the environment for thought created at the inception of the Third Reich in the mid-twentieth century. “The individual intellectual capacity was greatly degraded….The Nazis sought to completely own the minds of their minions.”
Ownership of the mind (or as Thomas Jefferson put it “tyranny over the mind”) is the indispensable prerequisite of successful dictatorship. The will of the rulers must provide the only criteria of reality. Facts, experience, logic- all must give way to their will. The frenzied invective against people who question the specious evidence thus far put forward regarding Obama’s eligibility for President is a perfect instance of this tyrannical imposition.
As direct evidence of Obama’s citizen status, the media agents highly paid by the Obama faction’s corporate fellow travelers have relied upon the Certification of Live Birth published on the internet during the presidential campaign. As a matter of fact, 1) at the time of Obama’s birth, such certificates were issued for babies born on foreign soil; and 2) the published form contains no indication of the facts that usually serve to substantiate the physical location of a baby’s birth (such as the hospital where he was born, or the signature and/or name of the doctor who delivered the baby.)
As a matter of law, 1) Obama’s father was a foreign national; and 2)according to the law at the time, his mother was not of age to transmit citizenship by blood. He therefore had no claim to US citizenship at birth unless he was born on US soil. This makes it necessary to ascertain exactly the facts omitted on the published form of the Certification of Live Birth. Hence the simple demand for the release of the long form Birth Certificate that should contain the required information.
People who insist on this evidence are not necessarily questioning Obama’s eligibility. Lou Dobbs has repeatedly stated that he believes Obama is a natural born citizen, as the Constitution requires. His sin (if it is one) is that he understands the need to substantiate this belief with something other than statements by Obama, his press secretary or other government officials. He dares to acknowledge that it is reasonable to demand factual evidence. But this demand implies that the word and will of the government officials is not the sole criterion of reality. It implies that they are subject to scrutiny based on a standard of proof and reason they do not dictate, and which gives individuals legitimate grounds for independent thinking and judgment.
The frenzied effort to vilify, humiliate and discredit so-called ‘birthers’ thus reflects the underlying goal, which is for the proponents of the new national socialist order what it was for the henchmen of the old national socialist regime: to degrade individual intellectual capacity and own the mind of the people.
Thomas Jefferson pointed to the best antidote for this tyrannical ploy when he wrote “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Obviously, the chains of the Constitution will be of no avail if its provisions are made to depend on confidence in the word and will of government officials no longer subject to the demand for factual evidence and logically reasoned proofs.
As the repression of individuals becomes more open and intense, it becomes increasingly clear that the issue at stake goes to the very heart of the survival of American freedom. As it began with the reasonable recognition of self-evident truths not dictated by human will and power, so it must end when the will and power of an arrogant elite are permitted to drive from the public square the common sense demand for a similarly independent and reasonable standard of truthfulness.
![\"\"](\"https://d5nxst8fruw4z.cloudfront.net/atrk.gif?account=ysXpg1asOv0023\")
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"//pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-181n2qUGr7EKo.gif\")
![\"Google](\"//static.getclicky.com/media/links/badge.gif\"){kind=icon}
![\"Clicky\"](\"//in.getclicky.com/100801391ns.gif\")
If they even bother to hold elections in 2010….
The more they ("liberals") talk, spit and foam at the mouth, the more air time this matter gets. Everyday I hear more people talking about it on talk radio, EVEN ON SHOWS WITH "CONSERVATIVE" HOSTS WHO DO NOT APPROVE OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE QUESTION!!! And they are not just concerned about the birth certificate question, they are concerned about an entire non-existent history of a man who thinks he is the RULER of OUR country.
We need to leave him NO support in 2010. VOTE in an entire NEW congress!
Alan Keyes was the first person I know of to raise this question about Barack Obama's eligibility to be the President, and it is a valid question to ask because our Constitution explicitly states the eligibility requirements to be met. Whenever I hear the word "birther", it just comes across to me as though someone recognized early on how the right-wing is hurting for a strong leader who best represents their interests in the post-Bush era. Near as I can tell, Alan Keyes has the perfect résumé for it. I'm sure I'm not the first to notice, and so I have to wonder if the word "birther" was invented just as a way for the democrats (and a few republicans) to ridicule him before he's a chance galvanize the conservative side of the political spectrum unto a new republican party. I apologize if I'm being offensive or insensitive, but it's a natural reaction to being insulted by the "Southern Democrat" elitism found in the media these days over this issue. Once upon a time, the abolitionists were ridiculed per their stance on equal rights. These days, it seems the other way around, but it's still the same old race-baiting tactic, and everyone's sick of it. We're not all fifth graders out here in the real world, you know?
Everyone who's tired of watching Charles Manson's "Helter Skelter" being played out in the media, please raise your hand…
"The dispute is not over his US citizenship, the dispute is over his Article II constitutional eligibility." (IONU)
Let's kick Bobby Jindal to the curb before he gets any ideas about his potential candidacy for POTUS!
Please allow me to modify my statement.
CORRECTION: He therefore had no claim to natural born US citizenship (one of the prerequisites for the office of POTUS) SOLELY due to his father's foreign nationality, even if born on US soil.
The dispute is not over his US citizenship, the dispute is over his Article II constitutional eligibility.
Dr. Keyes: "As a matter of law, 1) Obama's father was a foreign national; and 2)according to the law at the time, his mother was not of age to transmit citizenship by blood. He therefore had no claim to US citizenship at birth unless he was born on US soil."
CORRECTION: He therefore had no claim to US citizenship at birth SOLELY due to his father's foreign nationality, EVEN IF BORN ON US SOIL.
The word is stupidity – not ignorance – and Dr. Keyes is neither. People who think we are free and law abiding are both and naive. It is because of this birth certificate debacle that the future of our nation is near an end. If the "leader" of our nation refuses to honor and uphold the very document that binds us together, then what, pray tell, do all you ever so smart people with all your MANY MANY WORDS pretend to think will keep us one nation under GOD????????? It is people like you who, although you are able to think as you do because of the blood of many before you, make people like me absolutely SICK. You are educated WWWWAAAAYYYYYYYYYY beyond your intelligence. When this finally does come to the light, what are you gonna do then? Think about that while you are wasting your time trying to convince those of us with common sense that poor wittle King Hussein is not hiding every bit of his true identity for a reason. Things about himself that any NORMAL person would be PROUD for everyone in the world to know if THEY were ELECTED president…
What a joke you people have allowed yourself to become. We are so smart and call ourselves a superpower, but we have a man that no one knows anything about that has had the most powerful position in the history of government GIVEN to him by a few ultra rich WHITE people who are hell bent on the destruction of the USA as a sovereign nation.
Y'all need to really wake up…
This is insane. Mr. Keyes, it has already been proven many times that Obama was born in Hawaii. To see you still debating this fact is pure foolishness. I am no an Obot – I disagreee with a lot of things Obama is doing lately. But I cannot understand why such a thing as him being born in Hawaii would bother you so much. It is this ignorance that wil most likely prevent me from voting for you in the next election you run in.
"All the dancing about doesn't get past one simple question: Why all the fuss, when a simple decision will lay the matter to rest?" (Alan Keyes)
That's because a simple decision will not lay this matter to rest. If you are true to your words, then you know that you can't allow the matter to rest. Ever. At least not until he is removed from office. Only then Dr. Keyes would you be satisfied.
Strauss is an Obot, ignore him. He is leading you astray, down a dead end road. The BC issue is a red herring, a tactic designed to divert attention away from the FACT that Soetoro is INELIGIBLE to be POTUS for the simple reason that he was born a British citizen and thus had dual and questionable allegiance to the United States and is under no circumstances a natural born citizen. Mr. Soetoro, a constitutional "scholar," knows this – he states it on his website.
The burden of proof is not on those who question Obama's eligibility but on Obama, given his sworn duty to satisfy the Constitution's requirements and his moral obligation to be seen to do so with integrity so as to preserve respect for the authority of the Constitution.
The government of Hawaii only recently decided to accept the certification of live birth as proof of Hawaiian birth. How is it suddenly the case that no other birth certificate is available? What is needed is a certified copy of the original paper birth certificate the State of Hawaii issued, which the State of Hawaii still has intact in its possession. Pretending that Obama cannot obtain such a copy because it suddenly does not exist is disingenuous, to say the least.
All the dancing about doesn't get past one simple question: Why all the fuss, when a simple decision will lay the matter to rest?
BTW, asking Obama to show his constitutional credentials is no violation of his privacy. Since when are the publicly recorded and maintained facts of one's birth a matter of merely private interest? They are publicly recorded and maintained in order to serve an essential public interest, which includes maintaining the demographic integrity of the sovereign body of the people (i.e., determining for voting purposes, who is a citizen, and who isn't.)
Advocates of Obama's cover-up should take heed: Sophistry breeds suspicion.
Alan Keyes
In short, the idea that Obama’s mother went to Kenya while she was pregnant is far fetched. There is an official birth certificate in Hawaii, which has been repeatedly confirmed. There have been no documents found in Kenya proving birth there, and there would have to be US documents showing travel from Kenya to the USA, and they have not been found.
As the Wall Street Journal put it on July 30 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)
“Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”
Re: ‘That demand might cease if Obama simply released the long form birth certificate, with the necessary corroborative info. He refuses. Why?”
Refuses is the wrong word. The simple answer is that he does not have it. He cannot show what he does not have.
As noted at the beginning, Hawii only sends out the Certification, not the Certificate. It sends to Certification to everyone. So Obama asked for a copy of his birth certificate, and Hawaii send him the Certification. Can Obama get a copy of his Certificate? No. Hawaii sends out only the Certification (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html).
Interestingly, there is a move afoot in the Hawaii legislature to change the laws or the regulations so that the original birth certificate can be sent out. A Democrat legislator proposed the action, for the simple reason (which I entirely agree with) that the original birth certificate must show that he was born in Hawaii.
So, this proposal was discussed on a birther site, and I said that it was a good idea and I support it, and guess what? The reaction was that the only reason that the Democrats would propose such legislation is that Obama has now created a “perfect forgery,” which he has slipped into the file.
This reaction, ironically, is exactly what the Wall Street Journal predicted would happen. “The release of the obsolete birth certificate would not “resolve the issue” to those for whom it is not already resolved. They claim without basis that today’s birth certificate is a fake; there is nothing to stop them from claiming without basis that yesterday’s is as well.”
Re: “His refusal is a violation of his oath of office.”
How can he show something that he does not have?
Counselor, here is a thought experiment. Imagine you are an American citizen in 1961 trying to bring a child into the United States from Kenya. Then, as now, you would need some kind of travel document for the child. If the child was born in Kenya, he or she would presumably have to have a Kenyan or British passport. But that would not be enough, he or she would have to have a US visa on that passport or we would not let the child into the USA. In other words, there would be a US document issued and a record in US files of that visa being issued. WND claims that the only reason we cannot find a birth certificate for Obama in Kenya is because Kenya has sealed the files. But to get a child from Kenya to the USA, there would be US files, and they cannot be sealed. If there were a US visa for a child named Obama issued in Kenya in 1961, it would have been found by now.
Some people say that it was possible for a child of a US citizen to travel on his mother’s US passport. Yes, but in this case there is a question whether the mother were old enough to pass on citizenship. But, say that she was, if so there would still have to be a travel document for the child, in this case a change to the mother’s passport while she was in Kenya to include the child, and that also would be on record in US files that cannot be sealed, and if this document existed, it too would have been found by now.
While you say “people like me don't say that any evidence or testimony publicly available is true or conclusive one way or the other. We simply demand an authoritative investigation and determination” your willingness to believe that the grandmother said that he was born in Kenya (when she did not say it, and you can hear her yourself) is somewhat surprising. You also knew that to get a child from Kenya to the USA requires some kind of US document, which has not been found—and yet you still give some weight to the reports that the grandmother said that he was born in Kenya. The Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii is an official state document, and it has been repeatedly confirmed, and yet you still gave some credibility to the fabrication that he was born in Kenya.
In 1961 pregnant women rarely traveled in the last few months of pregnancy, and airlines frequently refused to carry them if they wanted to because of the possibility of still births. In 1961, if you wanted to travel to Africa, you had to get a Yellow Fever shot, which is really bad for the child during pregnancy. There were no direct flights from Hawaii to Kenya, so the trip would have had to go half way around the world with many, many stops, and it was relatively expensive.
And, if you had the money to pay for such a trip, it would make a damn site more sense (and remember the father is studying to be an economist) to do the trip after the child is born rather than before because: (1) of the dangers of still birth; (2) the Yellow Fever shot; (3) the fact that the mother wouldn’t be carrying so much weight and could enjoy the trip more; (4) US hospitals most likely being better than Kenyan hospitals .
Re: “people like me don't say that any evidence or testimony publicly available is true or conclusive one way or the other. We simply demand an authoritative investigation and determination.”
Counselor, did people like you demand an authoritative investigation and determination into the birth place of any previous president? Now, because a “news agency” like WND says that an old Kenyan lady said that Obama was born in Kenya (when she did NOT say that he was born in Kenya, and you can hear her yourself) and WND says that there are files in Kenya that are sealed (but there has been no confirmation from anyone else), and WND says that Hawaii did not accept the only legal birth certificate that it currently issues, when it did accept it, and of course it HAD to (since it was the official birth certificate), now you say you want an investigation.
Well, McCain did investigate (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/07/24/mccain_lawyers_investigated_obama_citizenship.html) and found the allegations without merit.
Quotes:
David Weigel talked with Trevor Potter and other lawyers for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign who said that they did look into the Obama citizenship rumors and found them without merit.
Said Potter: "To the extent that we could, we looked into the substantive side of these allegations. We never saw any evidence that then-Senator Obama had been born outside of the United States. We saw rumors, but nothing that could be sourced to evidence. There were no statements and no documents that suggested he was born somewhere else. On the other side, there was proof that he was born in Hawaii. There was a certificate issued by the state's Department of Health, and the responsible official in the state saying that he had personally seen the original certificate. There was a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser, which would be very difficult to invent or plant 47 years in advance."
End quote.
And the two officials of the Hawaii government who looked into Obama’s birth certificate files and said repeatedly that there is an original birth certificate in it. In 1961 Hawaii did not accept foreign birth certificates, so the original in the file must be from Hawaii. Moreover, the spokeswoman for the department says that their statement does mean that they saw proof that he was born in Hawaii.
And there is this lady who recalls being told of the birth in Hawaii in 1961 because she wrote about the unusual event of a woman named Stanley giving birth to her father, also named Stanley (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html)
That is what she actually said, not that he was born in Kenya, but that he was born in Hawaii. Berg has two affidavits on his Web site, one from the Rev. Kweli Shuhubia, and the other from Bishop Ron McRae. However, Kweli Shuhubia, is a pseudonym. It is hard to understand how an affidavit given under a pseudonym could have any legal or common-sense weight, especially since he claims in the document that it is common knowledge in Kenya that Obama was born there. There are literally hundreds of journalists (mainstream and freelance), diplomats, CIA agents, and investigators who if this were true, would be glad to report it. This witness also alleges that there are Obama birth files in Kenya which have been sealed by the Kenyan government, which, again, if true would have been found by now.
Bishop McRae, who is the other witness to give an affidavit, was not in Kenya at the time of the interview, and merely says that he heard her say on the telephone that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. But the tape recording and the transcript both show that she did NOT say that. All that she said was “yes” in response to this question: “Was she present when Obama was born in Kenya?” This was translated, and it may have came out as: “Was she present in Kenya when Obama was born?” The answer to the latter was, of course, yes. It is misleading or lying to say that someone said that Obama was born in Kenya when she says as part of the same interview that he was born in Hawaii. And, in any case, there have been no documents showing his birth in Kenya (but continual forgeries, most laughable).
During the recent spate of discussions following the most recent forged birth certificate, someone made the sensible decision to call the alleged hospital in Kenya where he was allegedly born, and the hospital said that it has been checking its records for 1961 and cannot find anything. To be sure, none of the hospitals in Hawaii will say anything either, but that is because of our privacy laws.
Re: The Certificate of Live Birth and the Certification of Live Birth are not the same. Of course they are not the same.
It is the CERTIFICATION of Live Birth that is now the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is the only birth certificate that Hawaii sends out. (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html)
I have attempted to search for the document you referenced in this (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageld=103408) but does not show anything specific. However, the Department of Health of Hawaii has said that the Certification of Live Birth is accepted by all the departments in Hawaii (yes, including DHHL, I checked), and it is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department. For some time, Hawaii sent out only the Certification, as this article, by a blogger and journalist based in Hawaii originally written in November of last year shows:
Quotes
Barack Obama: Born in Hawaii By: Andrew Walden
FrontPageMagazine.com
A fairly impressive internet industry has sprung up claiming that Obama was born in either Kenya or Indonesia. This is nonsense which distracts from the broadly unexplored story of Obama’s upbringing. This kind of nonsense has emerged because the McCain campaign chose not to raise the many questions about Barack Obama’s numerous hard-left alliances. Barack Obama was born in Hawai'i, August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu.
Obama’s birth certificate posted online is exactly the same birth certificate everybody in Hawaii gets from the State Department of Health. It is not forged. There is nothing unusual about the design or the texture. In addition to the birth certificate, the August 13, 1961 Honolulu Advertiser also carries an announcement of Obama’s birth. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin also carries the same announcement. Both papers printed an identical list of birth announcements supplied to them by the Hawaii State Department of Health. Conspiracists have made much of the fact that the Territory of Hawaii gave a phony birth certificate in 1904 to Chinese republican leader Sun Yat Sen for diplomatic reasons. But the modern State of Hawaii has never supplied Certification of Live Birth indicating US birth for foreign-born children.
End quotes
Re: “According to sworn testimony, the Kenyan grandmother stated that Obama was born in Kenya. A purported recording of her statement exists.”
Indeed, there is a recording of the Kenyan grandmother in which she can clearly be heard saying: America, Hawaii” after the clear question “Whereabouts was he born?” Here is the complete recording on Berg’s site: (http://www.obamacrimes.com/Telephone_Interview_with_Sarah_Hussein_Obama_10-16-08.mp3). Be sure to listen for at least five minutes, until after the question “whereabouts was he born?”
If it is too difficult to listen to the tape, here is a transcript of the telephone call. (http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obamatranscriptlulu109.pdf)
I am still heeding Rev. Wilkerson's warning. The more I read and the more I hear, the more I am sure something coming down the path is awful. I really think this is way out of hand with the whole birth certificate because the crook's father (supposed father…) was NOT an American. And who knows… his mammy was a tramp. No tellin' WHO his daddy REALLY is. Everything about him is shrouded in mystery. Is that REALLY what we want as the leader of OUR country. And as a radio personality said last week, Americans are bred with freedom. We do not know communism and neither have our forefathers. WE ARE AMERICANS! Do these people really think we are going to go out without a fight? Maybe that is why they advertised on the National Guard website for job openings to work at internment camps…
"Well, given that Stanley Anne did so several more times, based on the 'official account' in Obama's own (purportedly) autobiographical works, it's more than a rational suspicion that she was capable of doing so." (chiu_chunling)
Capable of what? Sneaking out of and back into the country? If so, then somebody needs to come straight out and state that. Dr. Keyes?
"Ann Dunham sneaked out of the country to give birth, and then sneaked back into the country after giving birth to Barack Obama Jr. in Kenya."
There it is. Right there on a silver platter. Instead of going after President Obama, instead, go after his mother. He may want to protect his privacy, but do you think that he is willing to sacrifice his mother's dignity as well? Since she is unable to speak for herself, then it would fall upon him to stand up for her. (And he would look very bad if he did not come to her defense.) So come out and state that she committed a criminal act. Let's get to the bottom of this.
OK, on the issue of Alan Keyes for US President. First thing he needs to do is learn to summarize. His speaking and writing is too articulate and too baroque for most people, even the highly educated. sometimes I think he tries to be super elite in his words to impress even himself. He is too infatuated with the word. It's like someone who puts too much electronics and special effects into their music. He needs to turn down the reverb, echo, gain, etc. and learn how to play short and clean.
The Pittsburgh Tea Party performance was excellent. Although, the faint hint of shuck and jive to prove that he is still black was not necessary. Well, could say more, but there is a barbeque across the street I have to go to. Oh, PS: $200M/year for me and I will quit my day job and be one of Alan's campaign advisors… But then I wonder, he's a great motivator and I admire him, but can he manage people effectively?? ie, is anyone good enough for Alan?
Well, given that Stanley Anne did so several more times, based on the 'official account' in Obama's own (purportedly) autobiographical works, it's more than a rational suspicion that she was capable of doing so.
Then again, I approach the controversy from a different perspective than Dr. Keyes. He still hopes that the national government can be made to respect the provisions of the Constitution. I entertain no such belief…and truthfully I no longer even hope for such a thing. My allegiance has returned to its original loyalty. And yet, this does not prevent me from hoping that individual Americans may escape the fate which has been decided for your nation.
To that end, Obama's patent idiocy and incompetence is of benefit to all who heed the consequences while there is still time. Though it may inconvenience me in the performance of my duties, I laud the awakening of America.
"The rational suspicion is that something in the long form either doesn't support his eligibility, or is based on info that won't stand up under the kind of close scrutiny it would now be subject to." (Alan Keyes)
Which is why there is also a "rational" suspicion that both Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. were both able to sneak out of the country to go to Kenya, and then sneak back into the country upon their return from Kenya.
The Certification of live Birth and the Certificate of Live birth are not the same. Until recently, the state of Hawaii did not accept the Certification of Live Birth as proof of citizenship (see the WND report on July 8,2009 noting the change in policy, which apparently came in response to the current controversy http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageld=103408)
According to sworn testimony, the Kenyan grandmother stated that Obama was born in Kenya. A purported recording of her statement exists.
In any case, people like me don't say that any evidence or testimony publicly available is true or conclusive one way or the other. We simply demand an authoritative investigation and determination. That demand might cease if Obama simply released the long form birth certificate, with the necessary corroborative info. He refuses. Why? The rational suspicion is that something in the long form either doesn't support his eligibility, or is based on info that won't stand up under the kind of close scrutiny it would now be subject to. He has a duty to the Constitution to end this controversy. His refusal is a violation of his oath of office. This violation feeds further suspicion. That's why the issue won't 'go away.' Neither should it.
Re: "It has never been corroborated by the state of Hawaii as being official issuance.'
No. Hawaii did not confirm that the physical document is an official document. It could not, not having seen the physical copy. However, we do know, that Hawaii has never said that the posted copy is fraudulent, nor did McCain or Palin or Hillary–and they would if they thought it was forged. Moreover, there are branches of our government that look closely at fraudulent documents, the FBI and the US Treasury, and they said nothing.
What Hawaii did say, and it is strange that you do not mention it, is that it corroborated the facts of the document. The main fact being that Obama was born in Hawaii. You can say that they did not use the actual words "he was born in Hawaii."" But one official actually did use those words.
Quotes: "Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
"Yes," said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. "That's what Dr. Fukino is saying."
End quotes:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html
And, as I said eawrlier, the birth in Hawaii is confirmed by a witness. There is no legal or witness evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii. (The Kenyan grandmother did not say that he was born in Hawaii. She said that he was born in "America, Hawaii.)
Re :"As a matter of fact, 1) at the time of Obama's birth, such certificates were issued for babies born on foreign soil;"
No. That is not a fact. It is outright wrong. The law that allowed the registration of a birth outside of Hawaii was not passed until 1982, more than twenty years after Obama's birth. In 1961, the reverse applied. NO foreign birth certificate could be entered in a Hawaii file. So the original birth certificate in the file cannot be a foreign birth certificate. Moreover, the two officials who looked into the file said that there was an original birth certificate in it. Not a late birth certificate. Not a certificate of Hawaiian birth, but an original birth certificate. Obama's birth in Hawaii was confirmed by this witness who recalled being told of his birth in 1961 because she wrote about the birth to a woman named Stanley to her father, also named Stanley. (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html)
Re: "2) the published form contains no indication of the facts that usually serve to substantiate the physical location of a baby's birth (such as the hospital where he was born, or the signature and/or name of the doctor who delivered the baby."
That is true. But the birth certificate that Obama posted is THE legal birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is the only one that Hawaii sends out. (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html)
So the problem is with Hawaii. If you want to see the original, get Hawaii to change the law or the regulations to allow the original to be sent out. In fact, there is a move afoot, sponsored by a Democrat, in the Hawaii legislature to do just that. I approve, because the original will inevitably show that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Unfortunately, when I discussed this proposed legislation on an other Web site, the birthers were quick to say that the only reason it is being proposed is that (they allege) Obama has now created a "perfect forgery," which he has somehow slipped into the file.
and 2) the published form contains no indication of the facts that usually serve to substantiate the physical location of a baby's birth (such as the hospital where he was born, or the signature and/or name of the doctor who delivered the baby.)
The image released in 2008 by Obama's proponents appeared to be a document titled Certification of Live Birth, not a Certificate of Live Birth or Birth Certificate as repeated often by the media. To call it a certificate of live birth or birth certificate tends to grant it (the image or the document it represents) more weight and credit than it deserves, especially in such a serious matter as the constitutional eligibility of the President. As has been pointed out that image or document (even if genuine) left out important details; such a document could be issued for persons not born in the state of Hawaii. Furthermore, as Joe Farah pointed out in "What conspiracy theory?" posted August 14, 2009 (today): "It has never been corroborated by the state of Hawaii as being official issuance, despite the lies, distortions or misunderstandings of the professional and amateur conspiracists in the media." http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106806