Friday, December 12, 2008

Still No Answer From Obama Regarding His Natural Born Status

Given the state of Illinois politics lately - don't you think this deserves some answers?

WHY hasn't Obama produced and shown his vaulted long form of his birth certificate? WHY is he keeping it sealed? WHY isn't he sharing documents about his college applications? WHY are other documents being hidden? The people of our nation deserve the truth here. What is the problem with providing the evidence to put all questions to rest?

This is NOT about sour grapes that he won the election - it is NOT about disgruntled Republicans - This is NOT about some crazy "wing-nuts" - This is about possible fraud being perpetrated against our country. All that is necessary is for Mr. Obama to produce his birth certificate, just as you or I are asked to do when applying for a passport or other important reason.

We The People - Robert Schulz and Philip Berg at the National Press Club speaking about the facts regarding Obama's citizenship. (2.5 hours long)

Current lawsuits are listed here regarding Obama's natural born status.

On Dec. 11 the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it had denied bringing Donofrio v. Wells – one of several cases challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president – before a full hearing.

It looks like the Supreme Court is afraid to open up this issue for fear of a Constitutional Crisis that would have great impact on this country. They are hiding behind the notion of who has "standing" in this case. I think every American has "standing" in this case.

Furthermore - the media seems to be doing a good job of hiding the truth in this issue. Media reports have twisted the facts such as this as posted by We The People:
On October 31, undoubtedly in reaction to the growing number of lawsuits surrounding the issue of Obama’s eligibility, Chiyome Fukino, director of Hawaii’s Department of Health, issued a public statement regarding her office’s inspection of Obama’s birth certificate. In her brief press release she stated:

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”

At no point in the release does the Director of Health state or claim that Obama was actually born in Hawaii. She merely states she has personally inspected the original document in their possession and that it is being stored according to state regulations.

This omission speaks volumes, strongly suggesting that either something may not be right with the official documentation produced by the Hawaii Department of Health or that the 2007 documentation proffered by Senator Obama may in fact be fraudulent.
The media continues to say that Hawaiian officials have certified that Obama was born in Hawaii. That is simply not true.

Below is a message that is being sent to the electors who will meet on Monday 12/15/08 to cast their votes for president of the US. Let's hope that they at least ask the question and demand proof of eligibility prior to casting their votes.


Anonymous said...

What *exactly* does this have to do with "the state of Illinois politics"?? Do you think persons or organizations within the Illinois state government are implicit in an attempt to cover up irregularities in President-elect Obama's birth records? Who, or what organization in particular do you suggest may be involved? Beginning when? To what end?

Common sense alert!

Why would the state of Hawaii endeavor to hide any alleged irregularities in President-elect Obama's birth records? What might be the benefit for Hawaii to do so? What would be the penalty on the state of Hawaii if they discovered an irregularity and made it public? Who, or what organization or department, in Hawaii do you believe are involved and what *exactly* do they have to gain or lose by any actions they may take to either cover up or uncover the circumstances of President-elect Obama's birth?

What would be the reasons behind any alleged irregularities? President-elect Obama is obviously an American citizen. Why, 47 years ago, would anyone have falsified his birth record to show he was born in Hawaii rather than elsewhere? To what end?

Back in August 1961 did someone have a flash of deja vu that some time in the future this infant would run for President of the United States and so set in motion a forty year conspiracy -- involving medical personnel, friends and family, the Honolulu Advertiser which printed a birth announcement in August 1961, governmental departments of at least two states, the United States Department of State, the Courts of numerous states in the U.S., and the Supreme Court of the United States -- to cover up the circumstances of his birth?

Oh please.

Kristina said...

Why, 47 years ago, would anyone have falsified his birth record to show he was born in Hawaii rather than elsewhere? To what end?

This is not a matter of something that happened 47 years ago, rather a matter of something that is happening now. I don't know what the answer to this is. But, I know that as long as Obama refuses to allow access to those records (thus perpetuating the "cover up"), there will be questions in people's minds. That is what needs to be resolved. If there is no issue, why won't he resolve the questions?

Anonymous said...

"Cover up" of WHAT?

The state of Hawaii has issued statements that President-elect Obama's birth records are in order. All evidence and common sense tell us that there is no "conspiracy." Yet the "theories" of a small group of disgruntled webizens have people's knickers in a twist over something that is simply silly.

You state that "this is not a matter of something that happened 47 years ago." It most certainly IS.

The entire "theory" that President-elect Obama is hiding something about his birth is predicated on the supposition that in August 1961 -- 47+ years ago -- someone took action to hide the place of his birth, and that for 47 years a huge number of people and agencies -- including the governments/governmental agencies/courts of municipalities, states and countries -- have been party to covering it up.

Yet no one can say who took that action in 1961. No one can say why. No one can say how.

No one can provide any reason or explanation of why -- for almost 50 YEARS -- so many people and agencies would have been complicit in this alleged "coverup."

Why anyone would give any credibility to this ridiculously unsupported claim is beyond me. I think the President-elect is giving it exactly the attention it deserves, which is none.

Kristina said...

I don't think you understood my thoughts. Perhaps I didn't articulate them well. I think there is probably nothing to this. However, the "cover up" comes when people won't answer questions, whether there is anything to cover up, or not. The reason the President-elect needs to give this attention is because the question is there. As he governs, the question will become more pronounced in more people, just because that is what happens to presidents. When he does something unpopular with the conservatives, or even liberals, (and he will--no president can go through their entire presidency without angering some people) this issue will resurface, again and again. Rather than having to deal with it throughout his presidency, perhaps hindering his ability to accomplish some of the things he wants to do, he should deal with it now.

If there is nothing to it, and, even as an anti-Obama person, I really believe there is nothing to it, then why won't he prove it? People were all up in arms about the fact that McCain was born outside the country, but Obama won't even prove that he was born here, or did not lose his citizenship when he was adopted by his step-father. It should be easy for him to do.

Instead of doing it, these lawsuits are being dismissed on technicalities. Why doesn't he just produce his birth certificate for the public? Why should the govenor of Hawaii "testify" to the authenticity of his birth certificate instead of allowing the public to view it? Why won't he allow us to view it? Is he ashamed of something? It's just a birth certificate.

Why won't he prove his natural born status? That's all I want to know. Because, if he doesn't, there will always be questions, always.

Miss Roxie said...

I am confused about something. Would not a person have to produce all necessary and acceptable documents just to _run_ for the office of President of the US? I mean, wouldn't these items ALL need to be in line before entering one's name on the ballot? Did not everyone have to produce one? How would one person not?

Anonymous said...

Miss Roxie,

When you have been called upon to produce your birth certificate, are you required to provide the original, or to provide a copy which you have obtained at the town hall or from the state?

When I or my children got a passport, a driver's license, a marriage certificate, certain jobs, permissions, clearances... whatever... no one asked for an original document. A copy with a raised seal was all that was required; that certification of the keeper of the records sufficed. Have you had a different experience?

In my experience in CT, one can go to the town hall and get a copy of a birth certificate (dependent upon one's relationship to the person); one has the option of getting a full-size copy of the original certificate kept by the Dept. of Vital Statistics in the town of birth, or a wallet-size document, both of which have a raised seal. The rules for obtaining a copy of a birth record in CT can be found here:

Each state has different rules regarding the handling of its documents, but I doubt ANY state hands over the original document which was filed at birth. And I'd be a bit uncomfortable with a state statute that allowed anyone who pleased to stroll in and get a copy of my records.

I don't believe any of us want our personal information made available to all comers without restriction. I don't think you'd like me to be able to obtain your birth records, simply because I am curious about you -- or because a group of people have theorized there is something suspicious about the circumstances of your birth.

If the President-elect was required to provide documents, I am sure he did. And by the fact that he was allowed to run and be elected, those documents must have fulfilled the requirements.


You say, "Why should the govenor of Hawaii "testify" to the authenticity of his birth certificate instead of allowing the public to view it?"

Should the public be allowed to view your birth certificate? Would you be happy if anyone who wanted could write to the state or go to the town of your birth and request your records?

"As he governs, the question will become more pronounced in more people,"

I doubt it -- certainly not with anyone beyond a group of disgruntled bloggers on the internet. First, because there is no story to this. Second, because rational people will be paying attention to his policies and actions. I really don't see responsible citizens saying, "Gee, I'm opposed to Obama's budget because I think his birth certificate is fishy."

Ladies, I don't know if you believe the theories that there is a monster living in Loch Ness -- but I don't hear you calling for the loch to be drained in order to prove rational people's dismissal of the legend.

Anonymous said...

CotG demands: "All that is necessary is for Mr. Obama to produce his birth certificate, just as you or I are asked to do when applying for a passport or other important reason."

I'm sure the President-elect did produce the required copy of his birth certificate at the time he applied for a passport. And if required to produce it in order to run for election, one can bet he did --and that it was adequate -- since he did indeed run and win.

The key here is that he produced the document to the proper persons and/or agencies who had the authority to request it. There is no requirement to provide the document to a bunch of bloggers on the internet.

Should I blog that there is some question about *your* birth and begin a call throughout the cyber world that *you* be required to let a self-ordained posse of the disgruntled see your birth certification? Can we send a deputation to the state where you were born with permission to handle the original?

What other invasions of your privacy should we be allowed to perpetrate?

Ah, but you say you have not run for President. You did, however, run for a lesser private office. Perhaps there is something in the requirements to run that could be made issue of. On the other hand, you have set yourself up as an arbiter of whether or not the President-elect has fulfilled his requirements and you have decided he hasn't -- despite the satisfaction of all governmental agencies that he has. So perhaps, in the interests of all citizens being equal, you will set an example and call for EVERYone to provide, on demand, access to their personal data.

What next? Special citizen commissions who with authority to demand our papers and investigate our lives whenever anyone makes an accusation against us, whether it is sensible or not? Sounds pretty USSR to me.

Judy Aron said...

The question remains - there are legitimate questions regarding his eligibility that are being raised and there are questions about his birth and his youth which have not been satisfactorily answered.

All Obama has to do is produce a birth certificate and he refuses to do so. WHY?

This is NOT an invasion of his privacy - he is going to be the president of this country for goodness sakes.

This is NOT about him presenting his birth certificate "to a bunch of bloggers" - it seems quite likely that no one has asked for them because they made assumptions that he already showed them to someone else. How are "You sure" that he presented his passport of birth certificate to anyone - Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean et al...?? You can't be sure at all.

People I know who have run for Congress were never asked to show their birth certificates. Doesn't that say something?

All Obama has to do is show Americans - and not just bloggers - that he is indeed qualified according tot he US Constitution to serve as president.

I honestly don't care if he could fix every problem in this country because in the end he will do more damage to our country and our Constitution if he is ineligible and serves. You don't seem to understand that if indeed he is ineligible and is allowed to serve that the documents he signs can be considered null and void - that he will be violating the very oath of office that he takes.

Anonymous you don't seem to understand that what he has presented (the Certificate of Live Birth is NOT the same thing as the full length birth certificate) the COLB is not acceptable when you apply for a passport or any other legal document. In Hawaii the COLB is given out to people who are registering foreign births as well.
Could you please do some homework and check up on the difference instead of relying on FactCheck or SNOPES? Only the long version of the birth certificate will be proof and the question remains as to WHY he refuses to produce it.

If he serves illegitimately and is allowed to do so then we ought to just suspend the rest of the US Constitution because why bother having one if you don't abide by it? We have already trampled so many parts of it already.

Anonymous said...

You should stop getting your information from conspiracy websites. Most of it is simply wishful rhetoric.

The whole thing is a non-issue being used to keep the pot a-boiling. It doesn't change a thing, but have fun.

If you're so concerned that baby Barack was snuck into the U.S. via Hawaii, after being born in Kenya, it should be easy enough to check the records of who entered the U.S. through Hawaii in August, 1961. How come you guys aren't requesting that information, or filing FOI requests or whatever is needed for that?

Is it just not so much fun?

Ted said...

The consequences of the Supreme Court declining to address the US Constitution’s “natural born citizen” clause on the morning of Monday 12/15/08 — thereafter enabling the College of Electors to transform the crisis from “law” to “political and Congressional”, leading to the ‘inauguration’ of Mr. Obama, are nothing less than catastrophic. Lawsuits by members of the military challenging his ‘commander in chief’ status are INEVITABLE. And a military takeover to oust the “usurper” may be inevitable as well. Where is the media? This is no “tin foil hat” joke.

Jennifer said...

Are Hillary Clinton and John McCain also part of this alleged conspiracy? Considering how hard both fought in hopes of being the president-elect instead of Obama, it seems odd that neither of them thought to play the "My opponent isn't Constitutionally eligible" card. Hillary went so far as to play the race card -- remember when she said she should be the Democratic nominee because white Americans wouldn't vote for Obama? Yet neither of them said anything about this birth certificate nonsense. What does that tell you?

Kristina said...

I really don't see responsible citizens saying, "Gee, I'm opposed to Obama's budget because I think his birth certificate is fishy."

Again, you misunderstood me. What I think is that those people who are already disgruntled by something Obama does, will think about this and bring it up again and again, reguardless of whether it has something to do with whatever he's proposing. It's a classic technique to sling personal mud at someone when you can't poke holes in their logic, or when the person ignores the holes in their logic. I think he should clear this now to avoid this mud.

Of course there are constitutional issues at stake. Of course there are many problems if this comes about later in, or after, his presidency. But, you wanted to know why he would do something about it. My answer is: to get rid of a problem now, instead of waiting for the wound to fester.