| Author | Post |
|---|
Forseti
Administrator
back to top
|
Posted: Sat Dec 27th, 2008 08:24 am | 1st Post |
|
Preface
Please do not assume that because you might have reached this website from birther.com that I believe that President Obama was not born in the United States. Birther.com is simply being used as a vehicle to drive relevant core political speech to this website because the keyword "birther," which was invented by the 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 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."
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 scant 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 summarizing.
In 1961 there were at least six different procedures (numbered below) available to generate a vital record (birth certificate) that the Certification of Live Birth could be summarizing. Five of the six procedures lacked adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness because they were fraught with the potential for fraud. I have included actual scans of these 1961 Hawaii Session Laws vital records procedures in the next paragraph so you can see for yourself how they were fraught with the potential for fraud. 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. 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.
The following citations are from the original Hawaii Session Laws books recorded on microform that set forth the procedures used for generating a vital record at the time of President Obama's birth. All of these citations can be found on one page here. The other red links below contain the complete history of these laws from before President Obama was born to present day.
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. His act is suspect because it raises the question - what is he hiding?
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 is arguably fraught with the potential 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 is arguably fraught with the potential 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 is arguably fraught with the potential for fraud. Under this law, 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 is arguably fraught with the potential 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. That said, any summary of it, like any states version of a Certification of Live Birth, would be masking a fraudulent document.
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 that would afford the trier of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of document's statements. In other words, 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.
President Obama’s posted Certification of Live Birth does indeed call into question his eligibility to be President, however, the most 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 locks down 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. 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. It is used in civil cases such as personal injury lawsuits.
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 the right private litigant 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, 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. 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), and resulting in unequal 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 with 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 unequal risks to the nation that an unqualified candidate would become President.
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 organization decide the issue of their candidate’s eligibility? 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.
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."
Last edited on Mon Sep 6th, 2010 11:49 pm by Forseti
|
Forseti
Administrator
back to top
|
Posted: Sat Jan 3rd, 2009 06:17 am | 2nd Post |
|
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.Last edited on Sun Apr 11th, 2010 03:25 pm by Forseti
|
RadarCat
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Sat Jan 10th, 2009 01:17 pm | 3rd Post |
|
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.
RadarCatLast edited on Sat Mar 27th, 2010 06:28 pm by Forseti
|
RadarCat
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Sat Jan 10th, 2009 01:25 pm | 4th Post |
|
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.
RadarCatLast edited on Sat Mar 27th, 2010 06:29 pm by Forseti
|
Forseti
Administrator
back to top
|
Posted: Sun Jan 11th, 2009 01:18 am | 5th Post |
|
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.
Last edited on Sat Mar 27th, 2010 06:30 pm by Forseti
|
Forseti
Administrator
back to top
|
Posted: Fri Jan 16th, 2009 07:43 am | 6th Post |
|
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.
Last edited on Sat Mar 27th, 2010 06:27 pm by Forseti
|
Forseti
Administrator
back to top
|
Posted: Thu Feb 5th, 2009 07:57 am | 7th Post |
|
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.
Last edited on Sat Mar 27th, 2010 06:30 pm by Forseti
|
Forseti
Administrator
back to top
|
Posted: Wed Jan 6th, 2010 12:22 am | 8th Post |
|
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.Last edited on Sat Mar 27th, 2010 06:31 pm by Forseti
|
Forseti
Administrator
back to top
|
Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 07:10 am | 9th Post |
|
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.
Last edited on Sun Jan 10th, 2010 05:10 pm by Forseti
|
Forseti
Administrator
back to top
|
Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 07:11 am | 10th Post |
|
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.
Last edited on Sat Mar 27th, 2010 06:32 pm by Forseti
|
Forseti
Administrator
back to top
|
Posted: Thu Jan 14th, 2010 03:23 pm | 11th Post |
|
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.
Last edited on Sat Mar 27th, 2010 06:25 pm by Forseti
|
Forseti
Administrator
back to top
|
Posted: Sun Jan 17th, 2010 03:05 pm | 12th Post |
|
| 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. Last edited on Sat Mar 27th, 2010 06:24 pm by Forseti
|
Forseti
Administrator
back to top
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13th, 2010 04:46 pm | 13th Post |
|
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.Last edited on Sat Mar 27th, 2010 06:23 pm by Forseti
|
Forseti
Administrator
back to top
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14th, 2010 06:58 am | 14th Post |
|
“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
Last edited on Sat Mar 27th, 2010 06:32 pm by Forseti
|
Forseti
Administrator
back to top
|
Posted: Sun May 16th, 2010 01:23 am | 15th Post |
|
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.
Last edited on Sun May 16th, 2010 01:23 am by Forseti
|
Forseti
Administrator
back to top
|
Posted: Fri May 21st, 2010 10:56 pm | 16th Post |
|
| 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
back to top
|
Posted: Sat May 29th, 2010 03:41 pm | 17th Post |
|
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.Last edited on Fri Jun 4th, 2010 12:01 am by Forseti
|
Forseti
Administrator
back to top
|
Posted: Fri Jun 4th, 2010 12:13 am | 18th Post |
|
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.Last edited on Fri Jun 4th, 2010 03:15 am by Forseti
|
Forseti
Administrator
back to top
|
Posted: Mon Aug 2nd, 2010 02:55 am | 19th Post |
|
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?
|
Current time is 09:19 am | |
|
|
|
