Home
 Search       Members   Calendar   Help   Home 
Search by username
Not logged in - Login | Register 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Click to Donate to Vibe.us to Help Keep the Site Up and Running



Quote Post
Username: *

Message:

Emoticons
Bold Italic Underline Align Left Center Align Right Ordered List Unordered List Quote Insert Image Insert Link Insert Code Tags  
   

 Preview   Send 



Topic Review
AuthorTopic
Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sat Dec 27th, 2008 08:24 am


Preface


If you have reached this page from Birther.com or FirstAmendment.info, welcome.  These two domain names are being used as vehicles to drive relevant core political speech to this website because the keyword "birther," which is a derogatory term that was invented by the Internet media and adopted by the general public, is associated with an ongoing constitutional issue.

The goal of this post is to address unanswered legal and factual questions about the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a President be a natural born citizen, and how they relate to President Obama.  It is by no means a complete analysis of the facts and issues.  I welcome any editing suggestions and response posts.   Input is welcome, criticism is expected.



Post - Part I

President Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. As his only evidence that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a President be a natural born citizen, he produced a document called a "Certification of Live Birth," which he posted on his website under the title: "Barack Obama's Official Birth Certificate."  Find backup offiste copy here.

At first blush, it is case closed. A closer examination of the facts, however, reveals that President Obama failed to point out on his website that his posted "Official Birth Certificate," as he called it, is actually not a copy of his 1961 birth certificate, but rather it is a digital image of a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed brief summary of his 1961 vital record(s) on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health.  What we do not know, however, is what 1961 vital record the Certification of Live Birth is briefly summarizing.

In 1961 there were at least six different procedures available to generate a vital record (birth certificate) that the Certification of Live Birth could be summarizing. Five of the six Hawaii state procedures lacked adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness because they created opportunities for fraud.  These procedures are the same kind that the United States government's Office of Inspector General has concluded create opportunities for fraud.  Read the report here (page iii of pdf document).  Backup offsite copy is here.  That said, until we learn which one of these 1961 procedures was used, we cannot determine how much weight to assign to President Obama's posted Certification of Live Birth (a brief summary of one of those six 1961 procedures).  Without this determination, no one can say with any reasonable degree of certainty if President Obama has proven that he has met Article II's eligibility requirements.

Now, here is a look at the procedures used to generate a vital record at the time of President Obama's birth.  The following citations are from the original Hawaii Session Laws books recorded on microform that set forth these procedures.  You can either click on the individual Hawaii Session Law to see an actual scan of it (red links), or you can click 
here to see all of the laws on one long page.

1. Certificate of Live Birth (Long Form, vault, not to be confused with the Certification of Live Birth that President Obama posted on his website).  In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulted from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician.

The Certificate of Live Birth is the most trustworthy and reliable birth certificate because the doctor's signature and supporting hospital information can be verified to a reasonable degree of certainty.  One would think that if President Obama, who claims that he was born in a specific hospital in Hawaii, had one of these, he would produce it to put the matter to rest.  The truth is, he has refused to disclose anything other than his posted
Certification of Live Birth, a summary.

2. Compulsory registration of births, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-8 (second citation down in left column), enacted 1955, reads:

§57-8 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the board, a certificate of every birth shall be filed with the local registrar of the district in which the birth occurred, by the physician, midwife or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth, or if not so attended, by one of the parents.

This law allowed one of the parents to file a birth certificate for a claimed unattended birth.  This procedure arguably
created opportunities for fraud because a parent could have given birth to a baby outside of the U.S., brought him to Hawaii, and then claimed that she had an unattended birth (no witnesses) in Honolulu.

3. Local registrar to prepare birth certificate, authorized by
Hawaii Revised Law §57-9 (second citation down in left column), enacted 1955, reads:

Local registrar to prepare birth certificate.
(a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided (referring to 57-8), is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.


(b) The board shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as "delayed" or "altered."

This procedure arguably
created opportunities for fraud because it allowed the local registrar to prepare a birth certificate for a claimed unattended birth using information from anyone claiming to have had knowledge of the birth.  Under this law, a parent could have given birth outside of the U.S., brought the baby back into the country, and then had anyone supply the false information to the local registrar. Furthermore, anyone could have supplied that same information to the registrar while the woman and baby were outside of the country.  For all we know, Ann could have been in Kenya, given birth to Barack, instructed someone to supply the information to the local registrar, and then returned to the US at her leisure later on.

4. Delayed or altered certificates, authorized by
Hawaii Revised Law §57-18 (second citation down in left column), enacted 1955 reads:

§57-18. Delayed or altered certificates.  A person born in the Territory may file or amend a certificate after the time prescribed, upon submitting such proof as shall be required by the board, except that no certificate of birth may be filed later than one year after birth.

This procedure arguably
created opportunities for fraud because  a parent could have given birth to a baby outside of the U.S. and brought him back into the country up to a year after his stated DOB, and then filed for the BC using §57-8 or §57-9.

Special Note:  It has been widely circulated on the Internet that since President Obama's posted Certification of Live Birth had no "delayed" marked on it, then Ann Dunham could not have filed for a late birth certificate.  This is simply not true.  Read:

§57-19.  Procedure concerning delayed and altered certificates.
   (a) Certificates accepted subsequent to thirty days after the time prescribed for filing, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the registrar general, shall contain the date of the delayed filing and the date of the alteration, and be marked distinctly "delayed" or "altered."


This §57-19 did not require the "delayed" mark be placed on the certificate until thirty days after the time prescribed for filing (time prescribed is unknown), and under §57-18, it is arguable that the time prescribed for filing could have been be a year.  In any event, Ann had at least up to thirty days after Barack's August 4 date of birth to file without having a "delayed" mark placed on his vital record.  It should be noted that President Obama's posted Certification of Live Birth does have the date August 8, 1961 as the "Date Filed By Registrar," which is 4 days after his birth.

5. Certificate of Hawaiian Birth (2010 Hawaii DOH website talks about it), authorized by the 1911 Hawaii law called Act 96, established the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth in 1911 and terminated it in 1972.  An analysis of these two documents is made in the Keyes v. Bowen lawsuit. Paragraph 75 of the Keyes complaint reads, in part:

In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. For births prior to 1972, a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child's birth. For that reason, its value as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained...

Therefore, the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the Live Birth.


This Certificate of Hawaiian Birth procedure arguably
created opportunities for fraud.

6.  Foundling Report, authorized by
Hawaii Revised Law §57-10, (second citation down in left column), enacted 1955 reads:

Registration of foundlings; foundling report.
(a) Whoever assumes custody of a living child of unknown parentage shall immediately report, on a form to be approved by the board, to the local registrar, the following:
     (1) Date and place of finding or assumption of custody;
     (2) Sex;
     (3) Color or race;
     (4) Approximate age of child;
     (5) Name and address of the person or institution with whom the child has been placed for care;
     (6) Name given to the child by the finder or custodian.
(b) The place where the child was found or custody assumed shall be known as the place of birth, and the date of birth shall be determined by approximation.
(c) The foundling report shall constitute the certificate of birth.
(d) If a foundling child is identified and a regular certificate of birth is found or obtained, the report shall be sealed and filed and may be open only upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

This procedure allowed anyone to walk into the local registrar's office, claim that he or she found or assumed custody of a child, and then fill out a foundling report.  The statute required the state to assume that the birthplace was where the child (of any age) was reportedly found, or custody assumed . Furthermore, the statute allowed the finder to name him, approximate his age and the foundling report itself "shall constitute the certificate of birth."

On a purely speculative note regarding the foundling report statute, Ann Dunham could have brought Barack into the US after he was allegedly born in Kenya, then used the foundling statute to get Barack a Foundling report birth certificate. Ann could have given Barack/Barry any name she wanted, including her or her husband’s last name. The statute does not appear to prohibit the finder from giving the foundling a last name as well as a first name. His age could also have been estimated under the statute (effect is to backdate a birth certificate), and the birth certificate could have read Honolulu, Hawaii, as the place of birth, or where custody was assumed.  Anyone else could have also done the same thing by claiming that she assumed custody of a foundling.  What an end run around immigration laws that would have been. This might be why President Obama does not want his original 1961 birth certificate disclosed.

Moving along, it should be noted that in any jurisdiction, there is also the possibility of a seventh way to obtain a birth certificate.  For example, former Hudson County New Jersey Deputy Registrar Jean Anderson pleaded guilty for illegally transferring birth certificates.  As part of the scheme, an illegal alien who paid Anderson and her co-conspirators for the service of creating the false birth records could then go to Office of Vital Statistics to receive a birth certificate.  Read the United States Department of Justice press release
here (apparently no longer there).  See evidence that the DOJ had the page once here. See an offsite backup copy of their cached copy of their original press release here  Note: Birth certificates previously issued by the Jersey City/Hudson County Office of Vital Statistics (with the raised seal from Hudson County):
  • Are no longer accepted by the federal government when applying for a U.S. passport;
  • May not be accepted by other federal agencies; and
  • May not be accepted by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, depending on year of birth.
Read New Jersey's announcement here. Backup offsite copy here.

Other acts of rampant birth certificate fraud have occurred in Puerto Rico.  In response, the Government of Puerto Rico recently enacted a new law (Law 191 of 2009 as Amended) aimed at strengthening the issuance and usage of birth certificates to combat fraud and protect the identity and credit of all people born in Puerto Rico. The new law was developed in collaboration with the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to address the fraudulent use of Puerto Rico-issued birth certificates to unlawfully obtain U.S. passports, Social Security benefits, and other federal services, and to commit other types of identity theft and fraud. After September 30, 2010, all certified copies of birth certificates issued prior to July 1, 2010, will become invalid.  See a backup copy of the governement of Puerto Rico's website announcement here.

That said, any summary of a birth certificate, like any state's or territory's version of a Certification of Live Birth, could be masking a fraudulent document.  Such a summary would therefor need to be examined to determine what practices and procedures generated it.

From an evidence standpoint, five of the six above vital records procedures support the argument that Hawaii's birth certificate printout, called a
Certification of Live Birth, is a summary derived from 1961 business records that lack adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness that would afford the trier of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of document's statements. Accordingly, President Obama's Certification of Live Birth must be excluded as evidence of his alleged natural born citizen status, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, which he is not willing to do, despite numerous lawsuits asking him to do so -- Keyes v. Bowen, Berg v. Obama, Donofrio v. Wells, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, and Kerchner v. Obama, to name a few. The Kerchner v. Obama court filings can be found on the right hand side of attorney Mario Apuzzo's website.


Post - Part II


President Obama’s posted Certification of Live Birth does indeed call into question his eligibility to be President, however, an important foundation question is what is any candidate's burden of proof that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a President be a natural born citizen. In determining which standard of proof applies, it important to remember that the goal should be to set a stable standard of proof that ensures that, we the people, will get a qualified presidential candidate, no matter who he is, no matter which party he is from, no matter what political climate dominates the times, and no matter in which election year he runs for office.

Turning now to the foundation question of what is any candidate's burden of proof that he meets the
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a President be a natural born citizen?  Burden of proof refers to both the burden of production, and the burden of persuasion.  Burden of production is the obligation to come forward with evidence to support a claim.  The burden of persuasion is the obligation to persuade the trier of fact of the truth of a proposition.

The answer to the burden of proof production question lies with who has this burden of proof, the candidate, or the people?  Allocating the burden of proof, is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations."Keyes v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973).  The burdens of pleading and proof with regard to most facts have been and should be assigned to the plaintiff who generally seeks to change the present state of affairs and who therefore naturally should be expected to bear the risk of failure of proof or persuasion. 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence §337, 412 (5th ed. 1999).  Moreover, in most cases, the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists.

It seems apparent that a presidential candidate is seeking to change the present state of affairs by wanting to become the new President.  The candidate is also the one who is claiming that something exists, which in this case, is that he is a natural born citizen.  Furthermore, he is also applying for a job.  As such, the burden of proof rests on him.

It takes no stretch of the imagination to understand that it has been a commonly accepted and expected fair practice for any candidate applying for a job to produce evidence that he meets its eligibility requirements. Typically, he produces a resume, certified copies of education transcripts, documents his work history and residences since age 18, and, in cases of classified government jobs, submits to and produces without reservation, documentary evidence such as a birth certificate for use in an extensive and thorough background check.  Since the greater includes the lesser, it follows then that a more important job, like being President, would include at least the aforementioned production of documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion.  Arguably then, it follows that a presidential candidate has a similar burden of production and persuasion that he meets the eligibility requirements for President.  To create a presumption of eligibility that shifts the burden of proof to the People would otherwise defeat the search for the truth about the candidate’s eligibility.  This is especially true when the candidate shields the evidence of his eligibility.

Turning now to the burden of persuasion question, once some evidence has been produced, the question becomes does the evidence submitted persuade the trier of fact that a candidate meets the natural born citizen requirement of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution?  The degree of proof required depends on the circumstances of the proposition. In this case, the standard that applies should ensure that the candidate meets the eligibility requirements to be President of the United States.

The President of the United States is one of the three branches of government.  He is the Executive branch. The nation speaks to all people through one voice, the President's.  The President can make treaties, grant pardons, sign and veto legislation, appoint a Cabinet, as well as Supreme Court Justices.  In addition to these duties, the President knows the nation's most important and secure secrets, and as the Commander in Chief of the military, has the military's nuclear launch codes at the ready, and who can arguably, either take steps to weaken the nation, or even destroy it.  In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, "The president of the United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States.  He could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen.  He doesn't have to check with anybody.  He doesn't have to call the Congress.  He doesn't have to check with the courts.  He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in."

So which burden of persuasion should apply to the evidence submitted by a President elect given the job for which he is qualifying? There are at least three major burdens of persuasion - preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing, and beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Preponderance of the Evidence - (lowest level) This is the lowest standard of proof that uses a more likely than not test. It is the test used in most civil lawsuits, including personal injury cases. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true.

If this standard is accepted, then arguably the President elect will get the opportunity to prove that he meets the requirements to be President by a little more than the odds of a coin toss.  Using this standard also seems to equate the importance of a candidate meeting the Constitutional requirements to become President with giving a car accident plaintiff a chance at winning a lawsuit.  The ramifications and consequences of being wrong in each one are at opposite ends of the spectrum.  This standard, therefore, does not seem high enough.

Even if this standard is accepted, determining which 1961 vital record the
Certification of Live Birth is summarizing, the one with doctor and hospital documentation, or the five other ones that lack adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness, would be merely a guess.  It is arguable then that none of these vital records is more likely to be the source document than the others, so it does not appear to satisfy the more likely than not standard.

Clear and Convincing Evidence - (medium level) The person must convince the trier of fact that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true.  This standard of proof is used in the termination of parental rights, and restraining orders, among other civil actions. If this standard is accepted, then arguably the President elect will get the opportunity to prove that he meets the requirements to be President by the same standards that are used when two people are either fighting over custody of their children, or seeking an injunction to keep the other away by a few hundred feet.  The ramifications and consequences of being wrong in each one are again, at opposite ends of the spectrum.  Even if one were to argue that the clear and convincing standard should apply, it is inconceivable that one could argue in good faith that a
Certification of Live Birth substantially proves that the unknown 1961 source document is credible and trustworthy.  This standard, therefore, does not seem high enough.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - (highest level) The proposition being presented must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person.  This standard has been traditionally applied to criminal defendants, not to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant, but rather to ensure that the individual's freedoms of life and liberty are given the highest protections so that he is not deprived of them. 


True, a presidential candidate is not a criminal, but the justification for applying the beyond a reasonable doubt standard to his Article II qualifications is so that the citizens do not lose their lives or liberties at the hands of an unqualified President.  For the highest office in the land, and for arguably the most powerful leadership position in the world, it follows that the highest burden of proof that he is qualified to be President of the United States of America should be required.

This is where the road to the White House should have ended for President Obama. He can not meet any burden of persuasion for becoming President with only a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed
Certification of Live Birth.  Unfortunately however, to date, not one single person or agency in the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches of government has subjected his Certification of Live Birth to any burden of persuasion scrutiny to determine if he meets the United States Constitution's natural born citizen requirement to be President.

Who then, should determine which standard applies?  Moreover, who gets to interpret it?

Should the states get to decide this question?  If you look to state law for deciding which burden of persuasion applies, then a problem arises because one might foresee not all states using the same burden of persuasion.  One might also expect to find up to 50 different interpretations for each of the three burden of persuasion standards (one for each state). This could result in as many as 150 different interpretations for the three standards. It's arguable then, that having as many as 3 different standards with up to 50 different interpretations of each one could lead to 150 different possible ways to qualify a presidential candidate. Arguably, this outcome would favor some candidates over the others, with each election year providing for unequal treatment of the candidates depending upon from which state's record each candidate seeks to establish his birth (or age).  It would undoubtedly result in a risk to the nation that an unqualified President would be elected.

Imagine if one state uses a preponderance of the evidence standard while the other state uses a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Who has the advantage here and what are the risks to the nation and its citizens?  Let's assume that two states require clear and convincing evidence, but one state interprets clear and convincing to mean less than the other state's interpretation. The end result would be unequal treatment of the candidates resulting in different states having the power to gain an advantage over the other state's candidate by lessening or lowering the burden of persuasion and weakening its interpretation. Furthermore, there would be an increased opportunity for planting fraudulent birth records in the states with the weakest burden of proof that have the highest incidents of uncontrolled illegal immigration.

So where does this leave us? Should each state decide what is their native candidate's burden of persuasion? Or should each state agree to have one standard for all candidates? Who gets to decide which standard applies, and who gets to interpret the standard?

Perhaps we should look to the federal courts to establish a standard instead?  Keep in mind that the constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen is a federal one.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes federal law the supreme law of the land.  Furthermore, the Office of President is one of the three federal branches of government. Perhaps that as such, there should be a federal standard of proof that ensures that only a candidate who meets the Natural Born Citizen requirement of the U.S. Constitution could become President.

Once again, problems arise. There are 13 federal circuit courts in the U.S.  Each one could cause the same selection and interpretation problems that were just discussed with the states. Only this time, the candidates would get their advantage or disadvantage by being born in a particular circuit, thus making circuits more or less appealing to the candidates and their respective parties. Furthermore, circuits wherein there is a history of identification document fraud by foreign nationals might be more likely to erroneously qualify a foreign born national to be a presidential candidate. Again, different circuit standards would result in unequal treatment of the candidates, and hence unequal risks to the nation that an unqualified candidate would become President.

Another question to consider is, should we leave it to the Federal Election Committee (FEC)?  No. The FEC filed a
motion to dismiss in the Berg case admitting that it has no oversight over the Constitution's Presidential Qualifications Clause.

What about leaving it to the candidate’s respective party?  Should such a bias political organization decide the issue of their own candidate’s eligibility?  No.  Allowing such a process would be tantamount to the fox guarding the henhouse.

What about leaving it to the Electors?  Are they any less bias than their respective parties?

What about the United States Supreme Court?  The first paragraph of their own
website makes the following promise to the American People - “As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.”  To date, the United States Supreme Court has failed to do anything in furtherance of the search for the truth about President Obama's natural born citizen status.  They seem to be ducking the issue.

Even if the Court does indeed have this duty to function as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, then when must it act to qualify the President elect?  Before, during, or after the election?  Should it be barred from deciding this issue because of timing, i.e., the candidate has already won the election, so it’s too late?

Perhaps we should turn to the
20th Amendment for guidance.

“If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

Section 3 of the 20th Amendment does allow for the possibility that a President elect might not qualify.  The language of the Amendment suggests that the qualification period can come between the period when the candidate wins the election and when he is sworn in.  As the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, it's arguable that the Court must scrutinize the President elect's natural born citizen evidence during this time period.  If the Court, instead, turns a blind eye to it, then just who will be the judge of "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify,...?"  If no one gets to determine the natural born citizen issue, then that provision of the Constitution becomes not worth the paper it is printed on.  I doubt very much that the framers of the Constitution intended for this to happen.

I'll close this post with a quote:
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."


Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sat Jan 3rd, 2009 06:17 am
I don't think many people know what the issues are with President Obama? It's no wonder. Look at factcheck.org's reporting of the issue -

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

They claim, "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate." They then provide a link in the article to a photgraph of this "original birth certificate." It is a picture of the Certification of Live Birth, and not the original birth certificate. Looks like a misrepresentation to me.
 
This misrepresentation matters to me because I've talked to many professionals about the issue. They reply by citing factcheck.org's birth certificate as evidence that he's a natural born citizen. They almost appear dumfounded when I clue them in. Then there's dead silence as they walk away.

RadarCat
Member


Joined: Wed Jan 7th, 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 6
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sat Jan 10th, 2009 01:17 pm
As I understand it, the Hawaiian Certification Of Live Birth (COLB) is merely a document with limited data produced from a computer data base.

The only document that can be truly trusted is the original vault certificate as examined by an honest and competent forensics lab.

My guess is that Obama was born in Kenya and his original birth certificate states as such and that is one reason the Hawaiian officials who examined it were extremely careful to be very tight-lipped about it when they made their public statements that they had examined it.

RadarCat

RadarCat
Member


Joined: Wed Jan 7th, 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 6
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sat Jan 10th, 2009 01:25 pm
There is also buzz going around the Internet that the COLB being presented on the Internet as BHO's birth certificate is a forgery.

Among other things, there are serious questions as to the authenticity of the border pattern.

RadarCat

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sun Jan 11th, 2009 01:18 am
RadarCat wrote: There is also buzz going around the Internet that the COLB being presented on the Internet as BHO's birth certificate is a forgery.

Among other things, there are serious questions as to the authenticity of the border pattern.

RadarCat


There has never been a COLB (Certificate of Live Birth) being presented on the Internet as BHO's birth certificate.  These posters have mixed up the terms.  When they said COLB, what they were referring to as a forgery was the Certification of Live Birth that was posted on President Obama's website and factcheck.org's website.  Note the difference, Certificate verses Certification.  The COLB is the original, whereas the Certification is a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed summary document of BO's original 1961 birth record on file with the state of Hawaii.

As for the posters who claim that the Certification is a forgery, the Director of Health, Ms. Fukino, issued the following statement in response to these allegations:

"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 Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

From this statement I'd have to conclude that the Certification posted on BO's and Factcheck's website is authentic. However, the Director qualified her statement.  See the above bold type in accordance with state policies and procedures.  This means that the posted Certification is a summary of BO's 1961 birth record per state policies and procedures; however, until the original birth record is disclosed by him, we won't know if the Certification of Live Birth is derives from the long vault form or the form fraught with the potential for fraud, aka the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.


Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Fri Jan 16th, 2009 07:43 am
Nobody has made President Obama prove that he meets the Constitution's natural born citizen requirement to be President.  To ensure that this issue is not resolved, President Obama has locked down any evidence that might allow others to prove that he is not eligible.

I've read many Internet post that claim the following:

"Who, out of all of you can prove that he is not a natural born citizen?"

The burden of proof is on President Obama (read my above post by forseti).  Assuming, arguendo, that the burden of proof falls on the citizens, President Obama has locked down any evidence that he is not a natural born citizen, thereby obstructing any proof, and hence truth, from being discovered.

When the powers of government fail to support and defend the Constitution, and the President elect does everything in his power to prevent the citizens from discovering the evidence that would allow them to support and defend the Constitution, then the President elect becomes above the law.



Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Thu Feb 5th, 2009 07:57 am
What is a computer-generated printout like President Obama's Certification of Live Birth? It is a hearsay document that is susceptible to the perils of computer viruses, trojans, spyware, hackers, and chain of custody issues? Read about Computer Records and the Federal Rules of Evidence on the Department of Justice's website.

Even the
Supreme Court of the United States does not trust computer-generated documents and requires a follow up of them with its paginated versions in...print.  Furthermore, in cases of discrepencies between the print and electronic versions of orders, the print version controls.

From The U.S. Supreme Court's own website: Caution: These electronic orders may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official printed versions. Moreover, all order lists and miscellaneous orders are replaced within a few months by paginated versions of them in a preliminary print of the United States Reports, and one year after the issuance of the preliminary print by the final version of the orders in a U. S. Reports bound volume. In case of discrepancies between the print and electronic versions of orders, the print version controls. In case of discrepancies between order lists or miscellaneous orders and any later official version of them, the later version controls.

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Wed Jan 6th, 2010 12:22 am
There are reports that someone found a birth announcement in an August 13, 1961 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser that read:

Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Klanianaole Hwy., son, Aug 4.

So this birth announcement was planted so President Obama could run for president 47 years later?  Laugh if you like, but doing so will only redirect you away from considering an alternative, more serious and plausible possible motive -- this announcement was not placed so he could one day run for president, obviously, but rather it was placed so Ann Dunham would have had documented evidence for immigration purposes should Barack's birthplace ever be called into question when he was younger.

The announcement could have also been automatically generated as a result of the issuance of any birth certificate.

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 07:10 am
Factcheck and Fightthesmears websites called the Certification of Live Birth an original birth certificate.  Director Fukiko of the Hawaii Department of Health issued a news release stating:

"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 Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

The representation by FactCheck and FighttheSmears is not the same thing as the representation by Director Fukiko, with the former being a summary of one of the six types of birth certificates, and the latter being one of the actual six types of birth certificates discussed herein.

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 07:11 am
Neither the FEC, the DNC, the RNC, nor any court in the United States has subjected President Obama's birth certificate evidence to any level of scrutiny.  For all intents and purposes, they have just accepted the 2007 computer-generated, laser printout of the summary document Certification of Live Birth as conclusive evidence that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a President be a natural born citizen.

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Thu Jan 14th, 2010 03:23 pm
These two citations -

Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, "Birth Certificate Fraud"

United States Department of Justice press release

provide additional evidence that birth certificates can be obtained by fraud. A legitimate summary of a fraudulent document is not worth the paper it is written on. President Obama's Certification of Live Birth is a summary of his 1961 vital record on file with the state of Hawaii's DOH. All any of the birther's want to see is this original document to determine if it too, is legitimate.  Spend $20 to produce it, and the birthers will go away.

The way I see it, birthers want examine the evidence, and the President Obama followers want to suppress that same evidence.  So much for a free (and "transparent") society.


Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sun Jan 17th, 2010 03:05 pm
A legitimate record (Hawaii-issued Certification of Live Birth that President Obama posted) that summarizies a record (original 1961 vital record) that lacks an adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness is not worth the paper it is printed on.
Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sat Feb 13th, 2010 04:46 pm
Many people justify their opinions with the facts and the law, whereas others do not let the facts and the law get in the way of their reasoning. Which one are you?

If you are one of those people out there who thinks that the birthers are nuts, then let’s consider something that is not nuts — which one of the three burdens of proof applies to any candidate for President regarding his Article II eligibility? Is it by a preponderance of evidence? By clear and convincing evidence? How about by beyond a reasonable doubt?

Once you decide which one applies, and you must pick one if your argument is to be credible, you can use it to decide if President Obama has met his burden of proof by posting his 2007 Certification of Live Birth on the Internet. You might, however, want to consider this fact before drawing a conclusion — Although Hawaii calls the posted 2007 Certification of Live Birth an "official" birth certificate, it is nothing more than a digital copy of a scant summary of a 1961 vital record that derives from one of the six birth records procedures in place at the time of President Obama’s birth, five of which arguably lacked adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness because they were fraught with the potential for fraud. You can read the actual Hawaii Revised Laws in effect in 1961 at http://birther.com .

Does anyone really know which one of these procedures was used to generate a 1961 birth record for President Obama? President Obama won’t tell. Was it the one with a doctor’s signature and hospital documentation, or was it from one of the other five, one of which allowed a family member to mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC? Consider this hypo — state A issues a birth certificate to a person who supplies a hand-written note that claims baby B was born somewhere on so and so date. No independent witnesses are required. Later, the state issues an "official" scant summary (Certification of Live Birth) of the "original" birth certificate." The issue is, do you trust that kind of a summary?

Apparently, all three branches of the government, as well as the media and the Left, do. To date, not one single solitary person in the three branches of government, or anyone else for that matter, has bothered to look at President Obama’s 1961 vital record. They have instead just chosen to accept his posted 2007 Certification of Live Birth, a scant summary of that 1961 vital record, as conclusive evidence of his alleged birthplace simply because it reads -"Born in Hawaii." It reminds me of someone who tells another, "Because I say so."

What other evidence is the because-I-say-so kind that they are saying proves President Obama’s natural born citizen status? How about that 1961 Hawaii newspaper birth announcement? For those who dare to scrutinize it, the Left claims that the birthers believe that the announcement was planted so President Obama could run for president 47 years later. This is their way of discrediting them. Let’s be honest here. Nobody on either side of the fence really believes that scenario. It is nothing but a ridiculous distraction from an alternative, plausible motive — the announcement could have been placed so Ann Dunham would have had documented evidence for immigration purposes should Barack’s birthplace ever be called into question by the INS when he was younger. Even if you are not willing to accept this scenario, in 1961 a family member could mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC. The state registrar would then send that information to the papers. So the Hawaii newspaper announcement is not reliable or trustworthy evidence either.

So there you have it, President Obama’s evidence – a 2007 scant summary (Certification of Live Birth) of an unreliable and untrustworthy 1961 record, and an old newspaper announcement generated from that same unreliable and untrustworthy 1961 record. Has President Obama satisfied his burden of proof? You decide.

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sun Feb 14th, 2010 06:58 am
“You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police. Yet in their hearts there is unspoken – unspeakable! – fear. They are afraid of words and thoughts! Words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home, all the more powerful because they are forbidden. These terrify them. A little mouse – a little tiny mouse! – of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic.”

Winston Churchill

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sun May 16th, 2010 01:23 am
The left claims that people are challenging Obama's NBC status because he is black. They argue that because such a challenge has never been made before on a past (white) candidate, McCain aside, then we must be doing it because we are racists. What the left conveniently fails to consider is that the Internet, which is relatively brand new, has allowed the people to become more educated and vocal about political issues.

To give you an example, the other morning I woke up, had my cup of coffee, and turned on the news. Same old, same old, I thought. Afterwards, I went on the Internet and found this article that I must have missed seeing on the evening news three weeks ago: “The government of Puerto Rico is invalidating every birth certificate issued on the island before July 1, 2010, in an attempt to curb rampant fraud and identity theft that officials say has ruined lives, strained social service programs and compromised national security.”  Read the story here. 

Interesting.

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Fri May 21st, 2010 10:56 pm
This website has been on and offline periodically over the past three weeks.  My apologies.  The issue has been resolved and this site should remain up and running 24/7 indefinitely.
Notice
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sat May 29th, 2010 03:41 pm
For unknown reasons, this forum has been experiencing the following problems:

1) Sometimes when a visitor types in http://www.birther.com, birther.com, http://www.vibe.us, or vibe.us to reach this forum, a login/password box appears instead of the website. I don't know why this has been happening.

Solution - If one of the above site addresses doesn't work, then try the others. If those fail, then just retry them again in a few minutes.  One should eventually work.

2) This forum recently closed itself to new replies. I don't know how this happened since I am the only one who can authorized such an action.  I have since reset it to where it should not close anymore. If you ever do see "Topic Closed," then just retry it later.  That being said, this forum will never intentionally close any post.

Thank you for your understanding and support.

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Fri Jun 4th, 2010 12:13 am
Taken from puzo1.blogspot.com:

First, some of our founding principles:

“A Constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government, and government without a constitution is power without a right.” Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, Part the Second, Chapter IV, Of Constitutions (1792).

“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." John Adams.

"If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great Security." Samuel Adams

"Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln.


___________________________________________________________

It is truly a national disgrace that all three branches of government have blindly accepted Obama's digital summary (Certification of Live Birth) of his 1961 birth record as the only evidence needed to establish Article II eligibility.

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Mon Aug 2nd, 2010 02:55 am
Anyone care to answer these questions?

If a 20 year old man, who looks 20 to millions of people, represents himself to be 35 years old and is elected President, and all three branches of government accept his driver's license that states he is 35 years old as the only evidence of his age, who would have standing to challenge his eligibility?  Does every citizen have an individual constitutional right to have a President who meets Article II's eligibility requirements?

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Tue Sep 7th, 2010 04:39 pm
On September 6, 2010, I added the following post to the original first post above:

Special Note:  It has been widely circulated on the Internet that since President Obama's posted Certification of Live Birth had no "delayed" marked on it, then Ann Dunham could not have filed for a late birth certificate.  This is simply not true.  Read:

§57-19.  Procedure concerning delayed and altered certificates.
   (a) Certificates accepted subsequent to thirty days after the time prescribed for filing, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the registrar general, shall contain the date of the delayed filing and the date of the alteration, and be marked distinctly "delayed" or "altered."


This §57-19 did not require the "delayed" mark be placed on the certificate until thirty days after the time prescribed for filing (time prescribed is unknown), and under §57-18, it is arguable that the time prescribed for filing could have been be a year.  In any event, Ann had at least up to thirty days after Barack's August 4 date of birth to file without having a "delayed" mark placed on his vital record.  It should be noted that President Obama's posted Certification of Live Birth does have the date August 8, 1961 as the "Date Filed By Registrar," which is 4 days after his birth.


Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Thu Oct 28th, 2010 02:08 am
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution is a specific guarantee to each American that the President shall be a natural born citizen. There is an amendment process to change the Constitution, and it does not include inaction by Congress as one of the processes.

If a 20 year old man, who looks 20 to millions of people, represents himself to be 35 years old and is elected President, and all three branches of government accept his driver's license that states he is 35 years old as the only evidence of his age, who would have standing to challenge his eligibility? Each and every American should have standing to challenge the President’s eligibility because the intended beneficiary of the natural born citizen clause is the People, and not Congress, the Courts, or the President himself.


William Piatt
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Tue Nov 23rd, 2010 08:21 am
This site cuts through all of the bs and smokescreens Obama is putting out and calls into question the very serious, real legal issues the courts must discover and legally determine if he is a native born citizen and qualified under the Constitution.

Thank-you.

William Piatt
Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Fri Nov 26th, 2010 10:59 pm
I was reading the ARIZONA CHRISTIAN SCHOOL TUITION ORGANIZATION, v. KATHLEEN M. WINN, ET AL. oral argument transcript when I came across line 17. It reads:

JUSTICE GINSBURG: "And if we leave out the fine points that you were discussing, isn't the underlying premise of
Flast v. Cohen that the Establishment Clause will be unenforceable unless we recognize taxpayer standing?"

We could say the same thing about the Eligibility Clause.  Unless we grant standing to the individuals who have been filing the "birther" lawsuits,  the Constitution's Article II Eligibility Clause will be unenforceable.

MRBeyer
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Fri Jan 21st, 2011 11:07 pm
Forseti,
I realize this is an old string. Since your arguments are very valid, the Hawaii governor has now stated he cannot find Obama's COLB, and Obama's campaign has started the filings for the 2012 election, this makes your string remarkably timely again. As I see it, these new election filings allow birthers to challenge his applications 50 times. While state filing requirements or legal interpretations can differ, ultimately any win is a win for birthers. Possibly, any win can catapult into a total win for the birthers. With your analysis of the birth certificate, what is your analysis that he must have both parents as American citizens?
Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sat Jan 22nd, 2011 03:08 am

Thank you for your post.  Although the post was started two years ago, I visit the site daily and continue to research the issues on a regular basis.  I still have a lot of work to do, but I expect to make a major announcement some time in the fourth quarter of this year.  I assure you, what I am working on now will make a positive difference, but these things take time.

Moving on, here's how Obama and his followers are approaching the issues and why it is an uphill battle against people who are feigning ignorance and turning a blind eye to the truth:

A man applies for a job that requires a college degree. During the interview, the employer asks to see the degree. The man says, “Prove that I do not have it.” When the employer cannot meet this burden because the man has refused to produce the degree, the man then says, “Your complete lack of evidence means that I am indeed qualified.”

Now obviously this line of reasoning doesn't even rise to the level of an elementary school student's reasoning, but it is working for those who want to keep Obama in office. It is working because of who Congress, SCOTUS, and the military are. They are all federal employees, and their job and economic security depend upon the stability of this country. In their eyes, any removal of Obama would affect this stability.  Gone are the days of patriots who would risk it all for their country. We now have people in power who are more concerned about their Ipods, big screen TVs, suburban homes, SUVs, and pensions.

Just take a look at what the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was quoted as saying:

"The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there. That's good enough for me."

I say wow, he would have made a great Founding Father:

Speaker John Boehner - We declare our independence!

King of England - You cannot do that because I say so.

Speaker John Boehner - Okay, never mind.

Maybe John Boehner isn't getting enough sleep at night and it is affecting his judgment. I hear that it is difficult to sleep without a backbone, a backbone he lost as soon as he got his new job as Speaker of the House.

So here they are, in for a penny, in for a pound. Obama has been in office for nearly two years now. Not one branch of government has addressed or will address the merits of the eligibility issue. To do so now would be to admit that our government officials failed to do their constitutional duty, and that won't get them reelected, or appointed, or promoted to a better job.

Turning now to your question, "With your analysis of the birth certificate, what is your analysis that he must have both parents as American citizens?"  I have to admit that I have not researched this issue.  I can tell you that attorney Mario Apuzzo has.  You can read all of his works on the issues here.  it will open your eyes.

On a closing note, I would encourage you to read the Declaration of Independence , in particular, the reasons the Founding Fathers cited for the Declaration. See if you can find any parallels to present day issues.  That said, if this country continues on its present course, there will come a time when we either wake up without a home of our own, or the people do what they are empowered to do under the Constitution.

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Fri Feb 11th, 2011 02:40 pm
Posted at TheHill:

Oh please, Obama’s posted Certification of Live Birth is nothing more than a brief summary of his 1961 birth record on file with the Hawaii DOH. In 1961 there were six procedures available to generate a vital record. Five of the six procedures created opportunities for fraud. One of the procedures even allowed any third party to go into a registrar’s office and say that he/she had knowledge of an unattended birth, and a BC would be issued. Obama won’t release his original 1961 vital record because then everyone would be able to scrutinize the procedure used to generate it. To see actual microform copies of the original Hawaii vital records laws in effect at the time of Obama’s birth, please visit http://www.birther.com. See for yourself.

Forseti

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Tue Mar 29th, 2011 02:03 am

 


Donald Trump's Hospital Birth Certificate










 


Donald Trump's Department of Health New York City


Birth Certificate







 



Donald Trump's Department of Health New York City


Birth Certificate, with Notation









 



 



Obama's Certification of Live Birth










Donald Trump's birth certificates have the verifiable hospital and doctor information.  Obama's does not because his is just a summary of his 1961 vital record on file with the Hawaii DOH.





 


texmom111
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Tue Mar 29th, 2011 05:57 am
I never could understand how Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. could be President Obama's father. He looks nothing like him. The President's skin is light, with no vestiges of the dark Kenyan skin of his father. His hair is completely different. No facial feature matches that of the President. On the other hand, President Obama looks just like one would expect the son of the lighter skinned Frank Marshall Davis and Ann Dunham to look like. Pres. Obama's got the shape of his mother's face and a mixture of her lips and Frank Marshall Davis'. He's got the hair, nose, eyes and ears of Frank Marshall Davis. If you go to the link below the pictures, you can enlarge 3 of the pictures of Frank Marshall Davis, Pres. Obama, and Ann Dunham and see exactly what I'm talking about. I agree with the article below that it is because Frank Marshall Davis is his real father that Pres. Obama does not want his birth certificate revealed. Someone should push for a DNA comparison between  Pres. Obama's brother and the President. We SHOULD KNOW WHO OUR PRESIDENT IS!! It is UNBELIEVABLE that we do not!! - texmom111 
 
Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. – A Brief Biography





Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (1936-1982)Barack Obama, Sr. was born in 1936 in Nyangoma Kogelo village in Kenya. It is located on the shores of Lake Victoria
 

  
                   
 

Frank Marshall Davis (1905-1987).
 

 
 
                                                                 
President Barack H. Obama

".It was during one such free love affair that University of Hawaii student Ann Dunham became pregnant by Davis" 
 
Barack Obama is not Barack Obama (REAL Father is Frank Marshall Davis)
| 10/22/08 | Andy Martin

Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 10:57:31 PM by mn-bush-man

Barack Obama is not Barack Obama
The Obama investigation in Hawai’i, Part Three
Obama’s Hawai’i Years: The truth finally revealed
Barack Obama is not “Barack Obama”
ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com
“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
“OPERATION ALOHA OBAMA” YIELDS UP THE TRUTH ABOUT BARACK OBAMA
PART THREE: BARACK OBAMA IS NOT BARACK OBAMA
“OBAMA’S FATHER WAS FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS. OBAMA IS REALLY FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS, JR.,” SAYS ANDY MARTIN
OBAMA’S ‘DREAMS FROM [HIS] FATHER] WAS REALLY A BOOK ABOUT HIS REAL FATHER, FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS
OBAMA WAS THE VICTIM OF A HISTORICAL ANOMALY, AND ROBBED OF HIS BIRTHRIGHT AS THE SCION OF CIVIL RIGHTS ROYALTY
OBAMA’S ORIGINAL “VAULT” BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS EITHER INCOMPLETE OR TAMPERED WITH, WHICH IS WHY IT HAS NEVER SURFACED.
MARTIN SAYS OBAMA SHOULD SUBMIT TO DNA TESTING WITH HIS BROTHERS
WAS OBAMA THE “VICTIM” OF A PRO-LIFE MOTHER?
(HONOLULU, HI)(October 22, 2008) Internet powerhouse Andy Martin told a Honolulu news conference today that after an intense international investigation he is convinced that Barack Obama, Junior, the presidential candidate is really the son of Obama’s controversial mentor Frank Marshall Davis.
“Mendacious adults ‘switched’ Obama at birth. That is why he has refused to allow access to the original or ‘vault’ birth certificate,” Martin told a Honolulu news conference. “We believe the original certificate did not list a father. Barack Obama became the father as a result of an agreement between Ann Dunham, Frank Marshall Davis and Barack Obama, Sr.
“Davis was already married to a White Woman. He did not need a nonmarital child by a second one. Ann probably refused to have what was then called a ‘back alley’ abortion. Davis may have felt that ‘Obama’ would face less stigma with an ‘African’ background than a Negro one. The civil rights revolution, of course, turned that gambit upside down. In discovering and understanding what happened we cannot forget we are dealing with events in 1961, not 2008.
“The irony in all of this is that Obama once stated he did not want his daughters to be ‘victimized’ with a child. And he is alive because his mother took the contrary view.
“Barack Obama has known this since adulthood, and the shock of this discovery still reverberates in his psyche.
“Ironically, what I have to say today dilutes the ‘Muslim’ theory that has propagated. Davis was not a Muslim. If Obama had told the truth at some point in his life, instead of living endlessly with the lies that were imposed on him by the adults in his life, we would have avoided a great deal of confusion. I, for one, have deep compassion for Mr. Obama. He is not the first person in history to be caught up in this kind of family fraud.
“The disclosure by the two women in his life that he was not the ‘son’ of his ‘father’ also explains why he manifests such extreme ambivalence to both his mother and grandmother. He is angry because he was cheated of his real father.
“Obama was robbed of his birthright of being the son of civil rights royalty, and of a father with whom he was completely simpatico. He could have grown up the son of Frank Marshall Davis, civil rights pioneer and activist, cutting-edge journalist, poet and man of letters. Mr. Davis was an extraordinary man in a dark period of this nation’s history, the pre-dawn of the civil rights era.
“Obama has probably suspended his campaign and is flying to Honolulu because he is deathly afraid his grandmother may make a ‘dying declaration’ and blow the whistle on his family fraud. Dying people often blurt out the truth. The true facts of Obama’s parentage also reflect why there has been so much tension and alienation, as well as genuine love, in Obama’s relationship with his grandmother.
“There has been a great deal of confusion and misconception about Frank Marshall Davis. A brief history lesson is essential to understanding the bizarre facts of Obama’s provenance.
“During the 1920’s and 30’s many Negros (African-Americans) became ‘communists’ because the Soviet Union and the Communist Party USA promised to end racial segregation and Jim Crow laws in the United States. The Democratic Party, of course, was the powerful force behind segregation and Jim Crow. So it is a twist of fate that the same party that oppressed Blacks has now nominated one for president.
“Madelyn Dunham is the last surviving person who knows the truth about the switch. That is why as we closed in on Dunham, Obama went ballistic, cancelled his campaign and came to Hawai’i to head us off.
“I actually carry an official, certified pocket-sized birth certificate on me at all times [Andy shows a copy to media]. But this is NOT my ‘birth certificate.’ The original certificate is held in the City Clerk's vault in Middletown, Connecticut. That is what has come to be known as the 'vault copy.'
“Likewise, the document that Obama has plastered over the Internet is NOT his original birth certificate or even a copy of his original certificate. It is a computer generated facsimile of an official record and nothing more. The original certificate was either handwritten or typewritten, not computer-generated in 1961. No one has ever seen that original certificate except the people that are working so hard to keep it hidden from the American people.
“I am asking Judge Ayabe to impound the value certificate and have the court hold it for safekeeping.
“By the time Barack Obama learned who he was, it was too late to change his identity. He was who he was, so he continued the ruse of being the son of an ‘African herder,’ which was yet another lie. ‘Dreams From My Father’ bears no connection to dreams from Barack Obama; there were none. It was Frank Marshall Davis who communicated his dreams to his secret son.
“There is a simple way for Obama to resolve this controversy: he can either admit the truth of these facts and order the immediate release of his vault certificate; or he can submit to a DNA test. We can conduct a Maury Povich-style DNA test to determine filiation between Obama and his brothers, one of whom blogs at BarackObama.com.
“In closing, I can only say that we used the fictional ‘Hawai’i Five-O’ as our dramatic template for this investigative operation. We could have as easily used the great, real-life Hawai’i detective Chang Apana as our polestar. He was featured in yesterday’s newspaper.
“As for Mr. Obama, all I can say is ‘Book’em Danno.” Case solved. Barack Obama the presidential candidate is the son of Frank Marshall Davis.” Martin stated.


forseti1
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Wed Mar 30th, 2011 01:48 am
I have seen TV episodes of Jerry Springer and Maury Povich where two men have slept with the same woman and the host says, "You ARE the father!" and the child looks nothing like the father. I have also seen these shows when the host says, "You are NOT the father!" and the child looks a lot like the man. So, pictures alone do not, and should not, conclusively prove paternity.

Now it does not make sense that Obama would not show his original birth record if Frank Marshal Davis were indeed his biological father. That would certainly silence the people who claim that his dual-citizenship under Barack Hussein Obama (Sr.) disqualifies him to be president under Article II's NBC clause. Unless of course Obama's 1961 birth certificate was generated using one of the suspect vital records procedures discussed in this post, and he does not want anyone to know it.

sosiosh
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Wed Mar 30th, 2011 05:57 pm
Mario Appuzo argues that one must be born in the U.S.A. to be eligible to hold the office of President.  John McCain was born in Panama, and is not the first candidate to run for President that has been born outside of a state. Given that both McCain's parents were U.S. citizens, and that his family lived there as a result of his father being a member of the military and stationed there, I believe the strongest case can be made that McCain is indeed a natural-born citizen.

The only reason I state this is that I believe Appuzo comes to a conclusion that might be appealing, but that he doesn't necessarily argue to that conclusion from the facts. He may be arguing the facts from the conclusion instead.

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Thu Mar 31st, 2011 04:56 pm
sosiosh wrote: Mario Appuzo argues that one must be born in the U.S.A. to be eligible to hold the office of President.  John McCain was born in Panama, and is not the first candidate to run for President that has been born outside of a state. Given that both McCain's parents were U.S. citizens, and that his family lived there as a result of his father being a member of the military and stationed there, I believe the strongest case can be made that McCain is indeed a natural-born citizen.

The only reason I state this is that I believe Appuzo comes to a conclusion that might be appealing, but that he doesn't necessarily argue to that conclusion from the facts. He may be arguing the facts from the conclusion instead.

Can you expand on what you mean by the second paragraph of your post?

If Obama was not born in this country, it seems obvious that he does not meet Article II's NBC requirement to be president.  If on the other hand, he was born here, lawyers like Mario are arguing that Obama still does not meet the eligibility requiremts.  The question is, will SCOTUS even address the issue this late in Obama's presidency?  I don't think so.

My post is addressing the birth certificate issue. It is something I have researched. I have not researched Mario's position.

 

Ricardo Parks
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Mon Apr 11th, 2011 08:28 pm
That John McCain was born in Panama is bogus information. His Father was a Navy officer at the time, stationed at a Navy Base in the Panama Canal Zone. The Panama Canal Zone was an area for U.S. military bases and personnel and was under a 99-year lease from the Republic of Panama until the lease wasn't renewed under the Carter presidency. Dependents of military personnel and U.S. civil servants born in the Panama Canal Zone had birth status equal to Americans born in the (then) 48 States. I know because my Father was stationed at Albrook Air Force, Canal Zone, from 1957-1960 and I, a teenager at the time, and his oldest son, was with him for those three years in the Canal Zone. During our assignment at Albrook AFB, my brother Christopher and sister Anne were born at Gorgas Army Hospital in the Canal Zone, and they are most certainly U.S. citizens.

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Tue Apr 12th, 2011 01:41 am
Thank you for this information. It helps.
Ms. Truth
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Wed Apr 27th, 2011 02:20 am
Why won't Mr. Obama show his real birth certificate? 
I know he does not have one!!!! I said this before he was elected.  I will say this, he is a wonderful liar and theif.  He could end this quickly, show the birth certificate.

Hopefully America is not wishing for term for this man, until he proves his ligitmacy!

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Wed Apr 27th, 2011 02:52 am
Obama won't release his original 1961 vital record on file with Hawaii's Department of Health because then everyone would be able to scrutinize the particular procedure that was used to generate it, the credible one requiring supporting hospital and doctor documentation, or one of the other procedures that lacked credibility and trustworthiness.

As for the claims that he has no birth certificate on file at the DOH, he had to have one in order to get a Certification of Live Birth. Take a look at the Hawaii Revised Laws cited in this post. There were lax procedures to get a birth certificate at the time.
meredlp
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Wed Apr 27th, 2011 05:01 am
How do I get the kind of birth cwerticate tat proves that I was born in the united states?
meredlp
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Wed Apr 27th, 2011 05:13 am
I have a birth certificate from an Air Force Base in Altus OK with an actual print of my little tiny baby feet on it and the signature of the doctor and the nurse attending at the birth as  witness and it includes the time of birth and has a big sticker from the hospital and comments from the doctor written below and my father's signature and my mother's signature . Is this good enough to prove I was born here? Do I need to prove something more? Please let me now. I've considered myself a citizen  of the United States of America all my life.
American Jihadists
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Wed Apr 27th, 2011 01:35 pm
Released.

What now?

Its not real!

Its not real!



Retards....

Crotchety
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Wed Apr 27th, 2011 08:14 pm
It would be a mistake for Obama to even entertain releasing any more than he already has. No matter what he produces it will never be enough for the birther morons and retards. If God himself came down from the heavens and declared Obama a natural born U.S. citizen the birthers would accuse him of being part of "the conspiracy". The president has met all the requirements to serve and that is that. Deal with it.

Crotchety
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Wed Apr 27th, 2011 08:34 pm
Ricardo Parks wrote: That John McCain was born in Panama is bogus information. His Father was a Navy officer at the time, stationed at a Navy Base in the Panama Canal Zone. The Panama Canal Zone was an area for U.S. military bases and personnel and was under a 99-year lease from the Republic of Panama until the lease wasn't renewed under the Carter presidency. Dependents of military personnel and U.S. civil servants born in the Panama Canal Zone had birth status equal to Americans born in the (then) 48 States. I know because my Father was stationed at Albrook Air Force, Canal Zone, from 1957-1960 and I, a teenager at the time, and his oldest son, was with him for those three years in the Canal Zone. During our assignment at Albrook AFB, my brother Christopher and sister Anne were born at Gorgas Army Hospital in the Canal Zone, and they are most certainly U.S. citizens.

What you fail to properly convey is that McCain was not born on any U.S. military base or vessel. He was born in the municipal hospital in Colon, Panama which which has never been held by the U.S.

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Thu Apr 28th, 2011 02:23 am
After more than two years President Obama has finally released his official long-form birth certificate, complete with verifiable hospital and doctor information. It is all people like me have ever asked for. We just wanted him to satisfy his burden of proof with respect to his Article II eligibility that he at least be born in this country.

Today the media and President Obama are crying that the silliness can finally stop and we can now turn out attention to more important issues. To this I say his original failure to satisfy his burden of proof regarding his place of birth was never silly. His posted online Certification of Live birth was nothing more than a summary document derived from an unknown vital records procedure. With that, he created and maintained his own sideshow by failing for more than two years to prove that he was eligible to hold the highest office in the land, as my post has argued all along. In addition, during that same time all three branches of government and the media failed to recognize the importance of his duty under the Constitution. People need to remember that.

Americans like me did not lose today. We won because we succeeded in doing our part in making sure that the Constitution was respected and followed.

My thanks go out to Mr. Trump for his efforts to get President Obama to release his original birth certificate (something Obama and the media claimed could not be done). Without Mr. Trump's help, President Obama would have continued to thumb his nose at his duty to satisfy his burden of proof, as my post has so argued all along.

Now here is President Obama’s long-form birth certificate (released by the White House):








Here is a copy of it that the media posted online:


http://www.loandesk.com/obamalongformbirthcertificate.pdf


 


Here is the correspondence from President Obama's lawyers asking Hawaii's D.O.H. for a copy of his birth certificate:


http://www.loandesk.com/birthcertificatecorrespondence.pdf



Here is the Nordyke twins' long-form birth certificates for comparison:



Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Fri Apr 29th, 2011 03:08 am
The mainstream media is now asking for an apology from the public figures who had asked Obama to do what he should have done more than two years ago - satisfy his burden of proof regarding Article II eligibility by releasing more than the Certification of Live Birth, which is a mere Hawaii state summary of his birth record (and we all know we should trust the government's interpretation and summary of things).  They owe him no apology.

The media and the Left have claimed with simplistic analysis that Obama's posted Certification is no different from a long-form birth certificate. It is. In addition, the media is now feigning with the same simplistic analysis that the production of his long-form birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii automatically equates to his being a "natural born citizen." It does not. Legal distinctions do not matter to these people. They are happy to approach these issues with the most simplest of reasoning because it suits their political agenda.

Now let's take a look at the First Amendment, which the media and the Left are all too familiar with:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Have the media and the Left ever analyzed these 45 words with the same lack of sophisticated reasoning with which they approached the birth certificate issue and natural born citizen issue?  Of course not; they are selecting which issues to analyze intellectually and which issues to analyze on a cursory level.


All in all, I am thoroughly disgusted with the media and the Left over these issues. For them, ignorance is bliss. For everyone else, such ignorance may one day be the death knell of the Constitution and this country.


Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Fri Apr 29th, 2011 02:22 pm


If the media claims that birthers will continue to analyze the birth certificate issue then let's not disappoint them.

I looked at the flash version (White House), a .pdf version (the media), and a higher resolution .jpg version of the long-form birth certificate, which I got from accessing the slideshare.com link/icon located on the bottom right-hand corner of birth certificate (flash file frame) on the White House website (slideshare link no longer there).

Right click on the pic immediately below and save it to your desktop. Then open it up and magnifiy it.

Look at section 18a (magnify it, too).  To me, the signature (Stanl*y) in parentheses looks like an "a."  It should be an "e." Compare it to the "a" in "Dunham" and the second "a" in "Obama" (still looking at 18a). It has the "a" hook shape. It does not look like the letter e.  The flash and pdf birth certificate versions, on the other hand, blur the letter in question.



Now examine the letter e in her passposrt renewal signature.  Right click on the pic and save it to your desktop, then open it up and magnifiy it.



Big difference, at least online. The letter e in the passport photo looks nothing like the letter in question in the .jpg version of the birth certificate (green).

The White House could have taken a closeup high resolution scan of Obama's long-form birth certificate, but instead they chose to take a lower resolution one in flash format from an unnecessary distance away.

Does anyone know if the White House released an actual paper copy of the posted long-form bc?

Afterthought: Consider how one who is signing for someone else could easily misspell a name with that letter sound.  Also consider that such a signer could have added (Stanl*y) after it was signed, as if the signer remembered after she had signed "Ann Dunham Obama" that Ann also went by the name Stanley.


Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sun May 1st, 2011 10:11 pm
Here is a comment I left on cbsnews.com.

President Obama started this entire controversy by submitting a Certification of Live birth as his only evidence of meeting the Constitution's Article II eligibility requirement. That document, Mr. Smiley, was not a copy of his birth certificate. It was only a brief summary of his 1961 vital record on file with Hawaii's DOH.

It is people like you, Mr. Smiley, who want to turn a blind eye to such a fact. Imagine that in this day and age highly educated politicians, legislators, judges, and the media would say that such a scant document was enough to qualify someone to hold the highest political office in the land. Shamefully ignorant.

Perhaps you and your kind thought that it was A-OK to not examine the source document that the posted Certification of Live Birth was summarizing. Never mind that several of the procedures available at the time of President Obama's birth created real and significant opportunities for fraud. Did you know that, or are you the kind of reporter who believes someone else's interpretation of everything he sees, hears, or reads?


Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sun May 8th, 2011 04:19 pm
Picture, if you will, a state that has two procedures to generate a birth certificate. The first one requires a doctor's signature and hospital documentation.  The second one requires only that a 5 year old write in crayon that he knows of someone who was born on a particular date somewhere.  A birth certificate is issued.  Forty plus years later, the state prints out a summary of that birth certificate that does not state which of the two procedures was used.  That birth certificate summary is then used to prove that someone is eligible to become president.  After the person is elected president, he refuses to disclose the original birth certificate. Some people think that procedure number one was used, while others believe that procedure number two was used.  After more than two years goes by, the president releases his original birth certificate and everyone sees that procedure number one was used.  The media, and those people who like the president all cry out in unison, "See, we told you he was born in this country.  You were crazy to believe otherwise."

What is wrong with this picture?

Were the Birther's really crazy, or did they just recognize and pursue the issue of reliability and trustworthiness with the original birth certificate procedures at the time of the president's birth?

Was the entire birth certificate a red herring to keep attention focused away from Obama's admitted dual citizenship at birth?

If the birthers do not go away then I would argue that it is precisely because of the valid questions presented above.




joebanana
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Thu Jun 23rd, 2011 06:16 pm
May I point out that the "long form" states Obama's fathers birth place as Kenya. Making him a British citizen. I thought it took both parents being citizens to produce a natural born citizen.

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sat Jun 25th, 2011 09:56 pm
joebanana wrote: May I point out that the "long form" states Obama's fathers birth place as Kenya. Making him a British citizen. I thought it took both parents being citizens to produce a natural born citizen.



There is no blackletter law on what is a natural born citizen. Given its importance, it should be an issue for the Supreme Court to decide.  They are the ones who are responsible for interpreting the Constitution. It is unlikely, however, that SCOTUS will hear such a case anytime soon. Remember, in the end, they are all federal employees just trying to keep their jobs. Gone are the days of the true patriots who were willing to sacrifice everytihg for this great nation.
Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Thu Oct 6th, 2011 03:31 am
Even though a long-form birth certificate was released by the Obama camp, we must not forget that Obama was allowed to be sworn in as president without having to satisfy his burden of proof that he had met Article II's natural born citizen requirement to be president. It appears that the rule of law does not apply to the elitists involved in this breach.  They interpret the law to meet their need to remain in power.  When that happens, the rule of law becomes an illusion to pacify the masses.

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Thu Dec 22nd, 2011 08:21 pm
December 22, 2011. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Judge Carter's Ruling in Barnett-Keyes v Obama: No Standing.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/12/22/0956827.pdf

Offsite backup copy is here.

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Wed Feb 8th, 2012 11:36 pm
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero

Considering the above quote, who would you trust as president of the United States?

A person who was born in another country?
A person who was born in another country and who now has U.S. citizenship?
A person who was born in this country and whose parents are both citizens of another country?
A person who was born in this country and who has one of two parents who was born in another country?
A person who was born in this country and whose parents are both citizens of this country?


haha
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sun Mar 18th, 2012 06:28 am
This blog KILLS me.

How many times does this need to be proven by impartial credible sources ?

Born in Kenya ?

Where is THAT birth certificate ?

And how did they "plant" a birth notice in the Hawaii newspapers ? Magic ?

You guys really need a new hobby.

I know you'll delete this post or argue some nonsensical hyperbole to not answer those two questions ...
Also
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sun Mar 18th, 2012 06:32 am
Why are the only posts that are not nuked either yours or agreeing with you ?

Censorship of fact ?

You're just controlling the feeding of the sheeple that still believe this.

It sure is odd that the seeming thousands of posts disagreeing with you do not appear.

Fair and balanced LOL
Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sun Mar 18th, 2012 07:22 am
You said, "How many times does this need to be proven by impartial credible sources?"

Which burden of proof are you referring to, by a preponderance of the evidence, by clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt? Cite your impartial, credible sources and their evidence?

You wrote, "Born in Kenya?"

I never claimed that President Obama was born in Kenya.

You wrote, "And how did they "plant" a birth notice in the Hawaii newspapers? Magic?"

I already addressed this issue in my post. I'll repost it for you:

"What other evidence is the because-I-say-so kind that they are saying proves President Obama’s natural born citizen status? How about that 1961 Hawaii newspaper birth announcement? For those who dare to scrutinize it, the Left claims that the birthers believe that the announcement was planted so President Obama could run for president 47 years later. This is their way of discrediting them. Let’s be honest here. Nobody on either side of the fence really believes that scenario. It is nothing but a ridiculous distraction from an alternative, plausible motive — the announcement could have been placed so Ann Dunham would have had documented evidence for immigration purposes should Barack’s birthplace ever be called into question by the INS when he was younger.

Even if you are not willing to accept this scenario, in 1961 a family member could mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC. The state registrar would then send that information to the papers. So the Hawaii newspaper (birth) announcement is not reliable or trustworthy evidence either."

You wrote, "You guys really need a new hobby."

Is that what engaging in core political speech is to you, a hobby?

You wrote, "I know you'll delete this post or argue some nonsensical hyperbole to not answer those two questions"

Do you have any other erroneous beliefs that are guiding your writing? Did you even read my post? Pay particular attention to those 1961 birth certificate procedures I cited. You are certainly welcome to do a line by line analysis of my post. I will answer all of your objections (and anyone else‘s for that matter).

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Mon May 28th, 2012 06:15 am

A jpeg snapshot of a secondary source .pdf file of the “Verification of Birth” letter (dated May 22, 2012) sent by the Hawaii State Registrar Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D, to Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett can be found here.


Take note that the letter does not verify the date of birth, just the time.  It doesn't even verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, just that there is a birth certificate "indicating" that Barack Hussein Obama's name is on it.  The letter does, however, read "Additionally, I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files."  All this may mean is that the information in Obama's long form birth certificate is similar to or exactly the same as what is written in Hawaii's record.  It does not necessarily mean that the long form birth certificate is an exact copy of a birth certificate in Hawaii's record.  Obama's long form birth certificate could just be an abstract of multiple separate documents in Hawaii that make up a birth record.  It does nothing to verify that there was no fraud in the creation of the B.C. on file.


Also look at number 10 in the letter. It only verifies the date of 8-7-61 is entered in the birth certificate box 18b for the "Signature of Parent" box 18a. It does not verify that Ann Dunham signed box 18a or that the date in box 18b is accurate.


Now look at number 11 in the letter. It only verifies the date of 8-8-61 is entered in the birth certificate box 19b for the "Signature of Attendant" box 19a. It does not verify the actual signature of the attendant in box 19a or if it was actually signed on that date listed in box 19b.


On a final note, I thought it odd that Registrar Onaka called him "Mr. Obama" and not President Obama.


cybervigilante
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sat Sep 1st, 2012 02:53 am
Hey nutjob - if Obama has to render up his birth certificate, why doesn't Mr. Leveraged-buyout-job-destroyer have to give up his tax returns?

I have some spare tinfoil hats if you want one to protect you from the Martian mind rays that are forcing people to vote for a commienest nigra muslim traitor.  Do they still  let you guys out on bus tours like they did in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?

cybervigilante
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sat Sep 1st, 2012 02:56 am
If you want to look into fraud, try the 60,000 punchcard ballots that were destroyed in Jacksonville in 2000 by double punching them with IBM 1020 keypunches in the dead of night, creating a True fraudulent President, who proceeded to destroy our economy with unfunded wars and tax breaks for the rich.

And unlike you, I had real evidence sent by a Washington Post reporter.

cybervigilante
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sat Sep 1st, 2012 03:00 am
I spit on your shoes.

Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sat Sep 1st, 2012 03:57 am
cybervigilante wrote: Hey nutjob - if Obama has to render up his birth certificate, why doesn't Mr. Leveraged-buyout-job-destroyer have to give up his tax returns?

I have some spare tinfoil hats if you want one to protect you from the Martian mind rays that are forcing people to vote for a commienest nigra muslim traitor.  Do they still  let you guys out on bus tours like they did in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?

Name calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears or arouse positive prejudices with the intent that invoked fear (based on fear mongering tactics) or trust will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion, in respect to the former, or a positive opinion, with respect to the latter, about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to believe. The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem. The above quoted passage was taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling .

Moving along, Obama never had to "render up" his birth certificate, although many wanted him to do so as evidence of his satisfying (or not) the Constitution's natural born citizen requirement to be president. As for Romney and his tax returns, I couldn't find anything about taxes in Article II, although, given the importance of the job of president, perhaps he should disclose them to the people.

Now, in case you missed it when you skimmed my post, I'll repost what I said about the office of the president:

The President of the United States is one of the three branches of government.  He is the Executive branch. The nation speaks to all people through one voice, the President's.  The President can make treaties, grant pardons, sign and veto legislation, appoint a Cabinet, as well as Supreme Court Justices.  In addition to these duties, the President knows the nation's most important and secure secrets, and as the Commander in Chief of the military, has the military's nuclear launch codes at the ready, and who can arguably, either take steps to weaken the nation, or even destroy it.  In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, "The president of the United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States.  He could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen.  He doesn't have to check with anybody.  He doesn't have to call the Congress.  He doesn't have to check with the courts.  He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in."

By the way, I justify my opinions with facts. You, on the other hand, don't let facts get in the way of your reasoning.


Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sat Sep 1st, 2012 03:59 am
cybervigilante wrote: If you want to look into fraud, try the 60,000 punchcard ballots that were destroyed in Jacksonville in 2000 by double punching them with IBM 1020 keypunches in the dead of night, creating a True fraudulent President, who proceeded to destroy our economy with unfunded wars and tax breaks for the rich.

And unlike you, I had real evidence sent by a Washington Post reporter.

I don't know anything about what you are claiming. If you would like to write about these issues then please feel free to create your own separate post on this site.
Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sat Sep 1st, 2012 04:00 am
cybervigilante wrote: I spit on your shoes.

How did you know that I liked a good spit shine now and then?
Carlos
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Wed Oct 3rd, 2012 07:49 pm
:) This is deffinetly NOT name calling, but YOU have proven nothing, YOU have shown zero evidence of anything! BTW I can only say that ALL the evidence points to a serious "racial" biased against the first African American ever elected President.  The great thing about this country is that.....I said no name calling...."folks" such as yourself can post totally unfounded theories like this "birther" thing, and level headed individuals can point and call them out for what they are CRAZY!
Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Wed Oct 3rd, 2012 10:54 pm
Carlos wrote: :) This is deffinetly NOT name calling, but YOU have proven nothing, YOU have shown zero evidence of anything! BTW I can only say that ALL the evidence points to a serious "racial" biased against the first African American ever elected President.  The great thing about this country is that.....I said no name calling...."folks" such as yourself can post totally unfounded theories like this "birther" thing, and level headed individuals can point and call them out for what they are CRAZY!
Carlos, did you even read my post?  Do you understand what burden of production and burden of persuasion mean?  If you did, then you would not have claimed "you have shown zero evidence of anything!"  Carlos, the burden of proof was on Obama, not me.

Now you made a claim that "ALL the evidence points to a serious "racial" biased against the first African American ever elected President." To what evidence were you referring?  I'd like to see you support your claim here with evidence.  Otherwise, you are just another person playing the race card.

You also claimed that I posted an unfounded theory. Not true. I supported my "theory" with facts and law." You, on the other hand, did not let facts and law get in the way of your reasoning.

Thank you for posting.


Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Sun Jan 5th, 2014 11:01 pm
My apologies for turning off the option for vistors to post. The spamming and sabotaging of this site got out of hand.
Trough Master
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Tue Jan 14th, 2014 02:07 am
If they presented the real birth certificate, why didn't Lobo use it on his white house webb site instead of proffering 2 fakes over a period of time? Maybe ya'll were the kings birth certificate holders. Don't make me laugh. Your fake birth certificate, his fake birth certificates---Their all hogwash.
Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 72
Status:  Offline

  back to top

Posted: Wed Jan 15th, 2014 05:58 am
So, did you enlarge Question 18a in Obama's birth certificate? The second vowel in the signed "Stanl*y" sure looks like the letter "a."

http://www.loandesk.com/obamalongform.jpg

That aside, do you understand why people don't believe that Obama satisfied his burden of proof with respect to establishing Article II eligibility?





WowUltra 1.15 Copyright © 2007-2008 by Jim Hale
Page processed in 0.3039 seconds (12% database + 88% PHP). 44 queries executed.