The Contrapositive: If No Long Form Birth Certificate, Then Obama “Birth Narrative” is Fraudulent

If Barack Hussein Obama II was born in a hospital in Hawaii, then there would be a long-form Birth Certificate (including delivering doctor’s signature) on file with the State of Hawaii.

Now, let’s look at the contrapositive… 

Contrapositive The contrapositive of a conditional statement of the form “If p then q” is  “If  ~q then  ~p“. Symbolically, the contrapositive of p q is ~q~p.A conditional statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive.

If Barack Hussein Obama II was born in a hospital in Hawaii (p), then there would be a long-form Birth Certificate for Barack Hussein Obama II on file with the State of Hawaii (q).

p q

The contrapositive,

~q~p

is:

If there is not a long-form Birth Certificate for Barack Hussein Obama II on file with the State of Hawaii (~q), then Barack Hussein Obama II was not born in a hospital in Hawaii (~p).

And if Barack Hussein Obama II was not born in a hospital in Hawaii, then his “birth narrative” is fraudulent.

So, is there a long-form Birth Certificate for Barack Hussein Obama II on file with the State of Hawaii?

Tim Adams, the former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu, says, “No“.

Which brings us right back to:

OK, Speaker Pelosi, How Did the DNC Certify Obama’s Eligibility?

And:

Which Government Organization Was The First To Say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”?

A careful analysis of what evidence has and has not been presented reveals that Obama’s eligibility is A Matter of Faith

About these ads
This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility. Bookmark the permalink.

94 Responses to The Contrapositive: If No Long Form Birth Certificate, Then Obama “Birth Narrative” is Fraudulent

  1. Ryan says:

    You are correct, and since Hawaii says there is one on file, everything is fine and dandy.

    Thanks for clearing this birther nonsense up.

    By the way, your buddy Tim Adams has done another interview where he pretty much contradicts everything he said in the first interview. Looks like he just wanted some attention. But you’ll believe anything. Some guy says another guy “told him” that there is no birth certificate for Obama, and you write a blog post and believe everything he says – with absolutely no evidence. He now says there is a birth certificate on file, and since Hawaii has confirmed the details are correct, the birthplace says “Hawaii”.

  2. with absolutely no evidence

    There has been absolutely no evidence of a long form Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama II.

    President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history

    Yet he won’t be open and transparent enough to release a long form birth certificate…

    And you want me to “believe everything he says – with absolutely no evidence”.

    You are a “Truster”. I am a “Verifier”.

    Trust, But Verify

  3. Ryan says:

    So no comments on Tim Adams, the liar?

    There has been absolutely no evidence of a long form Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama II.

    So it’s your opinion that there’s no evidence he was born in Hawaii. You have stated that a Kenyan official saying Obama is “the son of this soil” (a phrase that on the entire internet, only you seem to misinterpret) is evidence that he was born in Kenya, so that establishes what you consider to be evidence, yet you still think there’s none that he was born in the United States. How do you even take yourself seriously?

    Long form birth certificates don’t some out of the vault. That’s just how it works, and there’s good reason for it. You’ve been given the next best thing, and the Hawaiian government was nice enough to verify it for you. You jump on them when they break protocol for anything whatsoever, but you expect them to break protocol and send you an original copy (which you would immediately call “doctored” since you’ve already established that you do not trust the people who would need to send you the certificate).

  4. Sally Hill says:

    Ryan, I really want you to think about the question I’m about to ask you.

    You know what the media has said, you know what you want to believe …BUT

    How much money would you be willing to lay on the table to say there is a long-form on file?

    I think there is a long-form, but I wouldn’t put but about $5 on the wager and I’ll tell you why. The American government has a nasty little habit of lying to its people, and Obama has been particularly bad about it since he burst onto the political scene.

    And I’ll have to agree with Mr. Pill – Hawaii has NEVER, NOT ONCE, not even gotten close to saying they have a long-form on file for Obama. They have barely said there is even a COLB on file.

    Go back and read DOH statements….and make sure you read them for what they are really saying and not for what you WANT them to say. They have never confirmed the information either. As Mr. Pill points out, you seem to want to have it both ways. I call foul.

    Here is another little problem for you to ponder about his COLB, which the media states he was able to use to get his passport.

    Obama was purportedly born in August of 1961. I was born in September of 1961. In 2005, I went to my DOH in Texas and filled out a request for my BC because we had an international trip planned, and this was when the laws were changing and you would be required to have a passport rather than just a BC.

    GUESS WHAT?
    My COLB (that contains the exact same information as Obama’s) was rejected. I got a letter from the State Department stating that they would need my long-form in order to get a passport.

    So, I had to back to my DOH and I got the request form – oopps….no place to ask for a long-form. So I went up to the info desk and the lady asked me why I needed a long-form. I told her it was for a passport. She immediately said – oh yes, you have to verbally ask for it because we no longer supply long-forms, but you do have to have a long-form for a passport application.

    So – did the State Department discriminate against me because of my race, gender, state, or because my last name isn’t Obama? OR…..maybe Obama didn’t get a passport with his COLB either – in which case, we’ve been lied to.

    ALL States HAVE the long-forms, but they just don’t give them out anymore as a matter of record. The real question is – does Obama have one?

  5. Ryan says:

    Sally, I’m not about to put money on there being a long form BC on file. This isn’t about me being sure. It’s about the evidence that’s on the table and where it points.

    Here’s how I’ve come to the conclusion that Obama was probably born in Hawaii:

    1. If Obama was not born in Hawaii, the Hawaiian government, including quite a few officials, knows that he was not born there.

    2. The official statements made by Hawaii indicate that he was born there. Even if these statements are vague, as you state, they have the INTENT to deceive us into thinking that he was born in Hawaii, which is considered a lie under the law.

    3. If the government of Hawaii has lied in official statements, there must be a coverup and quite a conspiracy.

    4. If government officials from Hawaii are willing to go this far (basically commit crimes that could carry the death penalty), they would probably not have a problem creating and releasing a conjured up long form birth certificate.

    5. If there are no records that prove Obama was born there, future administrations would be privy to that information, and could easily expose this conspiracy.

    6. How did a Democrat senator manage to set up such a conspiracy with Republicans in charge? Under Bush, the Patriot Act pretty much allows the government to covertly look at any records they want. I’m sure the FBI knows where Obama was born. They have more resources than anyone in the world. The Republicans could have had an easy election win had they exposed this.

    In short, it’s just not within reason to believe this conspiracy.

  6. Long form birth certificates don’t some out of the vault. That’s just how it works, and there’s good reason for it.

    B.S.

    If one existed, Obama could get a copy and release it. And, he claimed in “Dreams From My Father” to have found his Birth Certificate… back in the days before the COLB. Why hasn’t he released that?

    And how is that you, as a Canadian, pretend to know, “That’s just how it works”? Sally’s personal story proves you wrong.

    You’ve been given the next best thing, and the Hawaiian government was nice enough to verify it for you.

    The Hawaiian government has never verified the “COLB” that was produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago.

    If I am wrong, then please provide a link to where “the Hawaiian government was nice enough to verify it [the COLB that was produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago]”.

    I’m not about to put money on there being a long form BC on file.

    Smart move.

    This isn’t about me being sure. It’s about the evidence that’s on the table and where it points.

    It’s about supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States, including Article II Section 1, and Amendment 20 Section 3.

    Here’s how I’ve come to the conclusion that Obama was probably born in Hawaii:

    “Probably” is not good enough. Congress has the Constitutional authority and Constitutional obligation to ensure that both the President and the Vice-President qualify to hold the office.

    1. If Obama was not born in Hawaii, the Hawaiian government, including quite a few officials, knows that he was not born there.

    Really only Fukino, Onaka, and the attorney general. Governor Lingle has never inspected the vital records, and she has misquoted Fukino’s press releases. Lingle thinks Fukino said things that she never actually said.

    2. The official statements made by Hawaii indicate that he was born there. Even if these statements are vague, as you state, they have the INTENT to deceive us into thinking that he was born in Hawaii, which is considered a lie under the law.

    Fukino, in her October 31, 2008 release did NOT say “Obama was born in Hawaii”. She waited months upon months without saying anything more, and then mere hours after H.Res.593 passed the U.S. House of Representatives, Fukino rushed to release a second press release which echoed the words of H.Res. 593.
    To this day, Fukino has yet to explain what evidence she used to say “Obama was born in Hawaii”.

    3. If the government of Hawaii has lied in official statements, there must be a coverup and quite a conspiracy.

    I have never said that the government of Hawaii has lied in official statements. To the contrary, I believe that they very, very carefully parsed the words of both of the official statements, and have legal reasoning to back up. Remember, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’, is.” I have written posts about both of the official statements. In neither case did I claim that the government of Hawaii lied. Now, I do think that Governor Lingle is being ignorant and lazy. Governor Lingle thinks that Fukino said things she did not say, and Governor Lingle has never claimed to have inspected the vital records herself.

    4. If government officials from Hawaii are willing to go this far (basically commit crimes that could carry the death penalty), they would probably not have a problem creating and releasing a conjured up long form birth certificate.

    I agree with you there. But it would be much harder to forge a long form birth certificate than a COLB. They still could do so, but if a delivering doctor’s name and signature were to be forged, there would be new information to validate.

    5. If there are no records that prove Obama was born there, future administrations would be privy to that information, and could easily expose this conspiracy.

    I never said “there are no records that prove Obama was born there”. My premise is that his birth was reported to the State of Hawaii, but by relatives, not a hospital. This birth was “filed by Registrar”, not “accepted by Registrar” because there was no confirming evidence. I believe H. Res. 593 was used as the “confirming evidence” to enablle Dr. Fukino’s second press release. But that’s a chicken and egg scenario. Congress can’t confirm Obama’s birth to Hawaii, it must be the other way around.

    6. How did a Democrat senator manage to set up such a conspiracy with Republicans in charge? Under Bush, the Patriot Act pretty much allows the government to covertly look at any records they want. I’m sure the FBI knows where Obama was born. They have more resources than anyone in the world. The Republicans could have had an easy election win had they exposed this.

    I think that’s quite a strawman. And if we’re going to build strawmen, how about this one: since Obama does not appear to have been at Columbia during the years he claims he was there, where was he? Perhaps he was in Pakistan as an agent of the CIA, KGB, or both. If Obama had been a CIA agent, then any records he wanted covered could be covered. How’s that for a strawman?

    In short, it’s just not within reason to believe this conspiracy.

    In short, it’s just not within reason to believe Obama’s “birth narrative” without proof.

    If No Long Form Birth Certificate, Then Obama “Birth Narrative” is Fraudulent.

  7. Sally Hill says:

    Ryan, what conspiracy are you referring to?

    I have told you that I believe he was born in Hawaii and yet you go on and on about those that are in on the cover up and the FBI and the Republicans exposing something. Exposing what? That he was born in Hawaii? Well…isn’t that what Obama says too?

    But tell me this – why would the FBI care? Or even have looked into where he was born? As a state senator you automatically receive the highest of security clearances – with NO background check or vetting. If he already had a security clearance, why would he need to be checked out by the FBI for a security clearance when he was elected POTUS?

    Exactly what committee, agency, or government body do you think checks out candidates eligibility? When this all first cropped up, I thought, oh surely someone, some head of state, or agency is in charge of verifying his documents….NOPE!

    Here is what bothers me about his COLB. There is a Date Filed by Registrar, but NO date ACCEPTED by Registrar. It’s one thing to file information, it’s another for it to be accepted and filed by the registrar. My concern is that the possibility of a birth outside of Hawaii was registered by his mother, grandmother, or even Obama at a much later date. The Hawaii DOH takes the information and all documentation and he is shown as tentatively being born in Hawaii. There is a reason why Obama has multiple documents to verify his birth. How many do you have? I only have 1. My 1 birth certificate. If I had been adopted or needed to supply proof of birth in my state, I would have multiple documents. Why does Obama have multiple documents to prove his birth in Hawaii?

    At this time, however – I must believe what he says, as I have no evidence to the contrary. If that is a conspiracy – so be it.

    I’m surprised you won’t put money on the table. You so adamantly believe every thing Hawaii officials and Obama has to say and have provided. If you believe every word and can state (as you have) with such certainty that he was born in Hawaii – then why not place a wager?

    Because you know there is no proof either way – that’s why.

  8. Ryan says:

    Ryan, what conspiracy are you referring to?

    You asked me if I thought there was a long form BC on file. If there isn’t, then a conspiracy has surely taken place.

    As a state senator you automatically receive the highest of security clearances – with NO background check or vetting.

    I didn’t know that (and didn’t believe it until I looked it up). Either way, he would have passed his background check, since Hawaiian officials have confirmed his birth there. You can’t honestly say you agree with Mr. Pill that she carefully chose her words to avoid lying, can you? She said he was born in Hawaii. Given her position, no resolution passed by any level of government allows other public officials to tell half truths or flat out lie.

    I’m surprised you won’t put money on the table.

    I said that more because I’m not the betting type. If you had the answer in an envelope and asked me if I would place a wager, I probably would put some money down, but just for fun. I think it’s overwhelmingly likely that the man is telling the truth about his birthplace. I don’t think it’s easy to cover up things like this. If he was born elsewhere there are numerous ways it could be confirmed, and nothing has come up, despite all the people looking for evidence.

    I have a hypothetical situation I’d like to hear your opinion on. Let’s say for a minute that Obama was not born in Hawaii, but in Kenya and his parents filed a false report of his birth in Hawaii for some reason. Let’s also say he doesn’t know about this, and believes he was born in Hawaii. If you came a across this information with the knowledge that you, and only you know about this, and there was no possibility of anyone else finding out, what would you do?

  9. Sally Hill says:

    Why would there be a conspiracy if there is no long-form. Wouldn’t it rather just show that there are flaws in the system, rather than a conspiracy?

    And Yes, I most definitely think DOH chose their words VERY VERY carefully. They were counting on most people to read those statements as you have – for what you want them to say. Try re-reading them as if you don’t believe he was born in Hawaii. IF you are truly trying to get to the truth, that’s what everyone would do. Try and put yourself on the other side and look at the evidence FOR the other side. It’s the only way to truly objectively evaluate what is out there. We can all spin what we see and read to our point of view, but can you spin it the other way and see the flaws?

    No one ever said it was going to be an easy cover up – but there IS something he is hiding, common sense tells you that. It could be something as insignificant as no father being listed on his original BC, or a different birth mother listed (just examples, I’m not saying either are likely)…but something is amiss or he would bring out all the evidence he has to put this to rest.

    If he actually gets the DNC nomination in 2012, I’m curious how he is going to handle this. I’m guessing there will be states that find a way to exclude him from the ballot due to state laws that are passed requiring verification of documents as to eligibility. And I think plenty has come up about his birthplace. However small the slights of tongue have been – they are there. Grandmother, Ambassador, but most damning in my opinion is the fact that his own wife thinks his mother was unmarried when he was born and that his home country is Kenya. I think it is little flaws in the miraculous birth of Obama that creates cracks in his story. As Americans, we SHOULD want and get clarification.

    Do I think he is obligated to release his long-form? No. But I do think in the interest of the nation, he should address the situation and give those that question him some answers. Obama has divided this country more than I have seen it divided in my life time. He has brought a new meaning to racism and has taken us back 50 years in that regard. All the while, he campaigned on bringing the nation together. I’m all for ethnic diversity in our government, but I knew this man, with his own racial issues would not advance racism, but hinder it – as has been the case.

    Hypothetically, who has this information/knowledge? POTUS himself, or a government official, or an average citizen? I wasn’t sure if you were using ‘you’ metaphorically as in ‘someone’ or Sally Hill.

    Sally Hill would bring forth the information, because it is precisely what the Founding Fathers were trying to guard against. Their fears are now being realized in this president. He is all over the map with foreign affairs, wanting to talk to dictators without preconditions, while snubbing our allies at the same time. He is making us look weak to our enemies – the very nations that he seemingly wants to befriend. When Carter left office, foreign affairs was a nightmare….when and if Obama leaves office, a nightmare won’t begin to cover the situation. All due to not knowing where this man’s loyalties and allegiances lay….it’s a very dangerous situation America is in.

    P.S. did you catch Beck yesterday? I didn’t watch, but my son called me to discuss Beck’s take on the connection between Soros, Podesta, BP, and Obama. What’s your take on Beck’s point of view?

  10. Ryan says:

    So you think there is something wrong with his long form that the government officials in Hawaii are covering up. She said she has seen documents that verify that Obama was born in Hawaii. That’s all that she needs to say, and anything else would violate privacy. It does not matter if his mother’s name is wrong, or his father’s name is missing. It does not matter, and it’s none of anybody’s business.

    I meant you as in “Sally”, and I’m concerned with what you would do. My scenario was crafted to eliminate the “allegiance” issue, since if Obama thought he was born in the United States, regardless of the truth, the allegiance would be in place as the founders would have wanted. The fact that you would expose him means that his allegiance at birth is not really the issue here. The issue is to get Obama out of office in any way possible, even if it’s underhanded.

    I did not catch Glen Beck, as I try not to, but I’m not surprised that he is aligning Obama with BP. That’s sort of expected. Did he align Bush with the Saudis? Blaming Obama for the oil spill? Come on now.

  11. Ryan,

    She said she has seen documents that verify that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    I have covered what she said in her first press release here, and she did not say “Obama was born in Hawaii”. She could have said so then if the vital records on file at the time supported that claim.

    Her second press release did say “Obama was born in Hawaii”, but she refuses to say whether she based that claim on H.Res. 593.

    That’s all that she needs to say, and anything else would violate privacy. It does not matter if his mother’s name is wrong, or his father’s name is missing.

    Wrong. It matters a great deal, because it would be a clear indication of fraud… that the “COLB” produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago was a forgery, and people need to go to jail.

    It does not matter, and it’s none of anybody’s business.

    It’s every U.S. citizen’s business. Worse Than Watergate.

  12. Ryan says:

    If there was fraud, it would have been Fukino’s responsibility to expose it. If there was fraud, the evidence of that fraud would be available to every records clerk employed by the Hawaiian Health Dept now and in the future. Ant one of those people could send anonymous proof of this fraud easily, or simply go public as a whistleblower.

    Look, if you think she was lying, say so, but you seem to think that people can avoid lying by very carefully choosing words. Courts of law view misleading someone as the same as lying. You simply cannot deny that Fukino’s statement was meant to lead people to believe that Obama was born in Hawaii. Given that Fukino said she has SEEN the records, and did not expose ant fraud in what Obama says is his certificate of live birth, then there is either a major crime being committed by Fukino and her staff, or Obama told the truth.

  13. Given that Fukino said she has SEEN the records, and did not expose ant fraud in what Obama says is his certificate of live birth, then there is either a major crime being committed by Fukino and her staff, or Obama told the truth.

    She never specified what records she used to make her statements. She never claimed to have seen a long-form birth certificate. She never claimed to have seen a vital record proving Obama was born at a hospital in Hawaii. She could have seen a record that was created by a relative reporting a birth… a record which was “filed” but not verified in 1961.

    Then, Fukino saw Nancy Pelosi’s notarized document.

    Then, Fukino saw H.Res. 593.

    Were those the “records” that Fukino used to make her statements? Fukino won’t say, but the timing of her second press release, mere hours after the passage of H.Res. 593, strongly suggests that is the case.

    And the point of Tim Adams’s interview is that the State of Hawaii deferred to what other people said. (Of course he then goes on to smear those like me as “racist”, but that sort of baseless attack is nothing new.) But the key point here is that Hawaii was NOT the source of the documentation claiming Obama is Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President. That documentation came from Nancy Pelosi.

  14. Ryan says:

    , Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii

    You think this refers to Pelosi’s signed nomination? That is a stretch I didn’t even think you were capable of. Could a statement by Pelosi be considered one of the “vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health”? Since when does the Hawaii Department of Health maintain Democratic presidential nomination forms?

    Also, where on the document form Pelosi does it say that Obama was born in Hawaii? It just says he is eligible, unless I am mistaken. You may be referring to a different document.

  15. I submit that Tim Adams’s statements, absent any clarification from Fukino, point to Fukino’s first news release being based on Pelosi’s notarized document of Obama’s eligibility. I have pointed out from the beginning that Fukino’s first news release did NOT claim “Obama was born in Hawaii”, even though the press and FactCheck.org falsely claimed it had. (Hmm… FactCheck.org got their “facts” wrong… if they can’t get that right, why should we take their word on anything? The fact is that FactCheck.org got their “facts” wrong on multiple occasions.)

    I submit that Pelosi, as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, also played a direct role in the passage of H.Res. 593 and I further submit that, absent any clarification from Fukino, the timing points to Fukino’s second news release being based on a combination of H.Res. 593 and Pelosi’s notarized document. Pelosi swore that Obama was “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution”. Since the Constitution requires a “natural born Citizen”, and Pelosi swore Obama is “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution”, it’s not hard to see how the Hawaiian Attorney General could legally justify Fukino saying Obama is a “natural born Citizen” based on Pelosi’s sworn certification.

    So, both of Fukino’s statements can be traced to Pelosi.

    A post I wrote over a year ago:

    Pelosi and Obama – Partners in Crime?

  16. In my opinion, it appears that Fukino has not broken the law, but Obama and Pelosi have.

  17. Ryan says:

    You know very well that you re only offering pure speculation, and your theory only holds water if Fukino, and all members of her staff who have access to Health Dept Documents are guilty of capital crimes. Even without a statement from Fukino, given that Obama released a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, anyone with knowledge of a discrepancy is required to speak out by law.

    An official statement from Pelosi actually makes it far more important for anyone with alternate information to come forward. You can’t hide behind information from your superiors. Ask Hitler’s staff about that. Breaking the law is breaking the law, regardless of who it’s traced to.

  18. Ryan says:

    Also, saying that both statements can be linked to Pelosi, your only evidence is timing on one of the statements. That’s not enough when it’s all you have. The fact that they contain similar information is due to the fact that both statements were answering the same question.

  19. given that Obama released a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii

    Stop saying that. It is demonstrably false for multiple reasons. Obama has not “released” any document. Tell me, what physical document has Obama “released” for Congress to inspect? Obama did not release it, and none of the members of Congress have pressed (yet) to have the Obama birth certificate released from the state of Hawaii. The document that Obama’s campaign showed (not “released”) to FactCheck.org was not a “birth certificate” (or a “Certificate of Live Birth), but rather a “Certification of Live Birth”. And it was not “released … from the state of Hawaii”, it was “displayed at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago”. And it wasn’t Obama who displayed it, but rather members of his campaign. Show me any video where Obama has ever made any claims about his birthplace. He hasn’t been asked, and he hasn’t told. Talk about “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”.

    If I strike out the parts of your quote above that are not true, here’s what it looks like:

    given that Obama released a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii

    So your statement should be modified as follows:

    given that Obama Obama’s campaign released displayed a birth certificate Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago

    Or, more cleanly,

    given that Obama’s campaign displayed a Certification of Live Birth produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago

    There’s quite a difference between the truth and what you said.

    You also said

    Fukino, and all members of her staff who have access to Health Dept Documents are guilty of capital crimes

    Fukino has stated that only two people, herself and Onaka, have seen the original vital records. Her staff does not have authorization to look at them. And if they tried, they’d probably be treated like those who looked at Obama’s passport records (one of whom was murdered) and those who looked at Obama’s student load records.

    If there was ever a Kenyan birth certificate on file in Hawaii, for example as part of the divorce records of his parents, I would guess that it has long since been removed, maybe even by Obama himself during one of his trips to Hawaii. You will note that the divorce records are missing pages.

  20. You know very well that you re only offering pure speculation,

    No, not quite. Tim Adams’s statements support what I am saying. Hawaii deferred to the DNC when it came to the issue of whether or not Barack Obama was Constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President.

  21. Ryan says:

    Tell me, what physical document has Obama “released” for Congress to inspect?

    Get your head out of your rear end, and realize that a digital document is as official as any. To please you, I won’t call it a “document”. Obama released INFORMATION. Obama’s campaign acts on his behalf, so Obama released it. It was also not produced in Chicago. It bears the seal of the state of Hawaii, and is stamped by the Health Department. It’s from Hawaii, or it is made to look like it’s from Hawaii. If Hawaii didn’t send it, then someone there would be required to say so.

    Let’s put facts aside, and say you are right about my whole statement and I’ll revise it as follows:

    “Obama’s campaign displayed a Certification of Live Birth produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago”

    The “Certification of Live Birth” stated that Obama was born in Hawaii. Anyone with official information that indicates otherwise, or is any different from that which was released is required to say so.

  22. Ryan says:

    Mr Pill, the trigger for Fukino’s statement was to try to relieve her staff from getting numerous daily requests from “concerned citizens” about Obama’s birthplace. Perhaps these requests were triggered by the House Resolution. I don’t know. The “trigger” is not important. A statement was made, and needs to be truthful.

  23. Ryan,

    What do you think was the “trigger” for Fukino’s second news release?

    I don’t see anything other than the passage of H.Res.593 that makes any logical sense as a “trigger”. Earlier that same day, the October 31, 2008 news release was what was being sent out via email to those raising questions. There was not any indication that a second news release was in the works. Then, in the course of mere hours, H.Res. 593 was passed, and Fukino issued her second news release.

    If H.Res. 593 was not the “trigger”, what was?

  24. If Barack Hussein Obama II was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center in Hawai‘i then a long-form birth certificate saying so is on file in Hawaii.

    If a long-form birth certificate saying so is NOT on file in Hawaii then Barack Hussein Obama II was NOT born at Kapi’olani Medical Center in Hawai‘i.

    ——————————————

    We need to all keep the faith until members of Congress begin supporting and defending Article II Section 1, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

    Step 1 is verifying the “Obama birth narrative”… seeing the original, certified, hard copy vital records to determine the truth of Soetoro/Obama’s birth.

    Step 2 is reacting to the outcome of that verification…

    If the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% true, then he is a usurper because he does not meet the Natural Law definition of “natural born citizen”.

    George Washington, John Jay, and the Natural Law Definition of “Natural Born Citizen”

    A usurper should be immediately removed from office, all of the usurped actions (including Obamacare) stricken from the record, and the usurper and sent to Gitmo .

    If the “Obama birth narrative” is not 100% true, then he is guilty of forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc., so even if he is a natural born citizen of the United States, he would still be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, and should be impeached, convicted, removed from office, and sent to Gitmo.

  25. Ryan says:

    If you were shown a long form birth certificate for Obama, you would say it was fake, so why bother even asking for one. You’ve already said that Obama could have messed with the records himself, so why not give up? there’s no evidence that would make you believe he was born in Hawaii.

    An unfalsifiable theory is a weak one indeed.

  26. If you were shown a long form birth certificate for Obama, you would say it was fake, so why bother even asking for one.

    I never asked for the long form birth certificate to be shown to ME. I have asked for it to be released, under seal, directly from the State of Hawaii to members of Congress, just as was done for two other certificates.

    You’ve already said that Obama could have messed with the records himself, so why not give up?

    Why do you focus so much energy on getting other people to give up?

    There is no expiration date on my commitment to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

    there’s no evidence that would make you believe he was born in Hawaii.

    You lie. I have said many times that I would accept the long form birth certificate as proof of Hawaiian birth. That, coupled with a Supreme Court ruling on “natural born citizen” would put this to rest.

    An unfalsifiable theory is a weak one indeed.

    If a long-form birth certificate is NOT on file in Hawaii then Barack Hussein Obama II was NOT born at Kapi’olani Medical Center in Hawai‘i.

    After more than two years of people asking to see the long form birth certificate, none has been produced. Occam’s razor implies that no long form exists, and therefore the Obama “birth narrative” is fraudulent.

    This is not an “unfalsifiable theory”. If I’m wrong, release the long form under seal, directly from the State of Hawaii to Congress.

  27. Ryan says:

    You lie. I have said many times that I would accept the long form birth certificate as proof of Hawaiian birth.

    To do so you would have to trust the Hawaiian government, and you have said you don’t. You also said Obama could have altered the records personally. Obviously you would not believe anything released by them.

    Occam’s razor implies that no long form exists

    The most simple explanation is a massive coverup, or Hawaii simply following the rules? Occam’s razor would chose the latter.

    I have asked for it to be released, under seal, directly from the State of Hawaii to members of Congress

    Congress isn’t interested in seeing it. They are satisfied with the current evidence. It’s you that wants more proof.

    coupled with a Supreme Court ruling on “natural born citizen”

    The Supreme Court does not rule on things that are already common knowledge. Perhaps you could get them to rule on whether we landed on the moon too. The judges of the Supreme court do not want to waste time ruling on frivolous claims by fringe groups with little or no evidence. Lower courts have laughed at these claims – what makes you think the Supreme Court will be different?

  28. Sally Hill says:

    My scenario was crafted to eliminate the “allegiance” issue,

    Ryan, you scenario in NO way eliminates the allegiance issue. It doesn’t make any difference if he were born on the White House lawn, if he knew who his parents were (and I’m assuming he did, as you didn’t say he was born thinking he was a bastard child), then his allegiance would have been passed to him through his father – that of being governed at birth by Britain.

    It would seem that you have jumped to conclusions and I think through innuendo accused me of being racist, to which I take offense. When you set up a scenario, you have to look at ALL angles as I did when responding to your scenario. His allegiance would STILL be called into question even if his parents were criminals in their act of trying to pass him off as a US Citizen – knowing that by way of his fathers citizenship that was the best they could hope for their son by lying about his birth location – as he would never be a NBC.

    aligning Obama with BP. That’s sort of expected. Did he align Bush with the Saudis? Blaming Obama for the oil spill? Come on now.

    Beck did NOT blame the oil spill on Obama – that would be ludicrous – just as Obama blaming it on Bush. Beck, in very specific detail – showed the connection between Obama, Soros, and BP and how Obama has loaned Brazil 2 Billion dollars to a Brazilian company named Petrobras for offshore oil exploration at a depth of 15,000 feet. There are a couple of odd things about this US investment in a Brazilian company.
    1) Soros just happened to have made a MAJOR investment in Petrobras just days before Obama made the loan.
    2) The depth of the rig is 15,000 feet – that is 3x the depth of the BP oil well…..but the moratorium by Obama suspended drilling at depths of 5,000 feet, because it was just too dangerous and the possible environmental impacts were just too large AND we need to pass Cap and Tax.
    It’s a rather complicated circle, but he provided proof of everything he said. Bottom line – It’s always about Obama’s agenda, no matter what the truth is. Perhaps you should watch the 6/21/10 show on You Tube – then you can poo-poo it. :)

    Sorry to have gotten off-topic.

  29. Sally Hill says:

    Here is my take on Fukino’s statements:
    1.) Dr. Fukino, Director of the Department of Health on Oct. 31, 2008:

    “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.”
    ***********************
    I, Fukino have pesonally seen and verified that Obama’s original BC is on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    She does NOT say she has seen the actual COLB or even long-form. In my opinion, she is saying she has verified, through index data, that there is a BC on record in accordance with policies and procedures. I don’t think she or any of her staff ever physically looked at the BC, or her statement probably would have been vastly different – such as the next statement she issued.

    2.) Dr. Fukino, Director of the Department of Health on July 27, 2009:

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
    *********************
    I, Fukino, have seen the original vital records maintained by the state verifying Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.

    WOW – what a difference 9 months can make (ironically the same amount of time to make a baby!) LOL Suddenly what she saw went from “original birth certificate” to “original vital records”. Why record(s) plural and why did she not personally view the original birth certificate this time? How many records would Obama have on file? I just have one – how many do you have Ryan?

    Suddenly what she has seen is no longer “on record in accordance with policies and procedures” – now these “vital records” are just “maintained”. Of course it CAN’T be on record in accordance with policies and procedures, because the records have just merely been filed and never recorded/accepted.

    What she personally saw was not a permanent record of the state (not a COLB or long-form), but vital record(s) which stated that Obama was born in Hawaii – so she isn’t lying – just reporting on what she has seen….skirting the truth, but certainly not lying.

    And now – the best part. “….and is a natural-born American citizen.” What the hell does that mean? An American citizen who was born naturally? Again, the wording is chosen very carefully. In my opinion, there is no way she is saying that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen of the US. If so – why not just say it exactly as it is in the Constitution to avoid any confusion? Because she intended it to be misleading.

    People like Ryan will now be totally satisfied that Hawaii has stated Obama is legit, when they have done no such thing. In fact, I think Fukino created more questions than answers with her statements.

    Ryan WANTS the statements to say what he NEEDS them to say for Obama to be legit, but in reality they just don’t say what he THINKS they say. :)

  30. Brava, Sally, Brava!

    Fukino created more questions than answers with her statements.

    Well said!

    Ryan WANTS the statements to say what he NEEDS them to say for Obama to be legit, but in reality they just don’t say what he THINKS they say. :)

    We must always remember Bill Clinton saying, “It depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

    They are very careful to parse every word they say, to create a misleading perception without actually breaking the law… “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” That was only “true” in Clinton’s eyes because oral sex did not fall within his legal definition of “sexual relations”.

    Fukino used an opinion from the Hawaiian Attorney General in order to make her second statement. By Hawaiian law, when an opinion is used to make a public statement, then the opinion itself must also be made public. Yet Fukino and the A.G. refuse to make that opinion public. They are breaking the law by not releasing that opinion. They are hiding something. It would be very eye-opening to discover how they came to the conclusions presented in Fukino’s second statement.

  31. Ryan says:

    OK guys, you win.

    Sally, I tried really hard to show you that you are making quite a large leap in accusing Fukino of things that are extremely speculative, but you can’t seem to see my side.

    It’s not me believing what I want. Talking to you both about these things is like debating evolution with a creationist. It’s a losing battle, because the person you are trying to convince begins the debate having already won. The best arguments for anything are first and foremost ‘falsifiable”, and with the birthers and the creationists, although you have complaints about the currently accepted theory, you don’t actually have any evidence of your own.

    You can’t beat a person at poker when they don’t bring any money to the table.

    Do I want Obama to be legit? To be completely honest, I really could not care less.

  32. Ryan,

    OK guys, you win.

    Thanks, quitter. ;-)

    you don’t actually have any evidence of your own.

    We have evidence that a supposed letter from Obama to Kapi’olani Medical Center was not scanned to create an image, but rather was created from scratch using HTML. Occam’s razor says the simplest way to display an image of a real letter would be to scan it, not create a forgery from scratch.

    You, on the other hand, don’t actually have any evidence of your own to support the belief that Obama was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center.

    If there is no long-form showing Obama was born Kapi’olani Medical Center, then the Obama “birth narrative” is not true. It is a lie. It is fraudulent.

    Election official: I’d testify Obama not born in Hawaii
    Clerk willing to swear in court about no hospital birth record

    You say:

    The best arguments for anything are first and foremost ‘falsifiable”

    My argument is that Obama was not born at Kapi’olani Medical Center. That argument is ‘falsifiable”… just produce the long form birth certificate.

    You’re quitting because you’re losing. And for someone who claims “To be completely honest, I really could not care less”, you sure spent a lot of time trying to get me to quit.

  33. Ryan says:

    We have evidence that a supposed letter from Obama to Kapi’olani Medical Center was not scanned to create an image, but rather was created from scratch using HTML.

    I’m a web developer, and I do that all the time. You scan the graphical elements, like the signature and/or logo, and recreate the rest in HTML when displaying it on the web. It makes it easier to read, and compliant with section 508 (the disabilities act), making it readable by people who are blind. In addition to that, it makes it indexible by Google, faster to download, viewable on mobile devices, and countless other reasons. Since this is a hospital website, they are legally required to do it this way. Ask someone before jumping to conclusions. The original letter is available in many places. What kind of evidence is that anyways?

    you sure spent a lot of time trying to get me to quit.

    Everyone needs a hobby.

  34. You scan the graphical elements, like the signature and/or logo, and recreate the rest in HTML when displaying it on the web.

    Then you understand HTML comments, too. If the letter was legitimate, then why did the hospital scramble to cover up the HTML letter, once it was exposed?

    Within an hour of WND’s report, the image, which also featured no presidential or White House seal, vanished from view on the hospital’s page celebrating its 100th anniversary.

    WND can now reveal the hospital did not completely remove the image of the letter. It actually covered it up electronically using a special hiding code called “commenting out” that prevents readers from seeing it when anything is put between “.”

  35. Sally Hill says:

    Ryan, I’m sorry if you felt I wasn’t seeing your side. When you say you tried really hard to convince me that I was making a leap with Fukino’s statement – I’m sort of at a loss. Where and what was your evidence?

    I see the other side of the whole eligibility issue. I really do. I don’t see the other side of Fukino’s statements; however.

    Fukino’s statements are too wide and varied. Say what you mean and mean what you say. She should stop trying to say it in a round about, or convoluted manner – it only serve to continue to confuse the issue – which I think she did on purpose.

    She wanted to put the issue to bed and to be honest, when she first issued her statement, I was very taken in by it. I was, kinda like, hummm, well, ok – I guess there really isn’t anything there. Then I got to reading it and realized that it said a lot without saying anything really, but I still wasn’t convinced that it was parsed just so so….until….she issued her second statement. When that statement was so different from the first, saying basically two different things, I realized the Hawaii DOH was running scared.

    You say that I cannot see your side – how about you seeing our side?
    I see where you could interpret the statements to mean he is legit, can you see where we are coming from the way we interpret her statements?

    I think the bottom line is this…..NO ONE really has a freaking clue about Obama and his birth, eligibility, citizenship, academics, etc. This is the first president who has been so secretive. Secrets are kept for reasons.

  36. Ryan says:

    HTML comments are used when you want to remove something view, but keep the content there for later.

    Sounds like a hospital administrator got embarrassed, not knowing why the developer recreated the letter in HTML, and told him to remove it immediately. The safest way to do this is “comment it out”. It proves the developer was not embarrassed about recreating the letter, as all developers know that commented out code is viewable by anyone willing to hit the “view source” button in their browser. Go ahead and view the source on this page. There is a section that is commented out – it’s a part used to show commenters what HTML tags can be used in their comments. The designer of this theme probably chose not to display it, but left it there in case anyone wanted to enable it.

    The developer did the right thing recreating the letter, but developers usually work for people who are clueless when it comes to the web, and often make stupid decisions, and often panic when somebody complains. I’m surprised the developer did the right thing, since the code he writes is very poor. If I had done it, it would have looked exactly like the original.

    Why on Earth would the letter not be legit? Are you saying the hospital forged it, or did Obama write a fake letter from … himself? I don’t even get it.

  37. Ryan says:

    SAlly, if Fukino was trying to cover something up, don’t you think here statements to the public would have been perfect and calculated? You’re right, they seem almost clumsy. They seem to me to be last minute statements meant to shut people up so she can get on with what is likely a busy stressful job. If you stood to stand trial for treason if you got your statement wrong, wouldn’t you work pretty hard on it? In fact wouldn’t you likely not make a statement at all?

    If you really can’t even see that Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth (that he says is real), coupled with the fact that the state of Hawaii has not denied its validity, constitutes at least a little bit of evidence that he might have been born in the United States, then no, I can’t see where you re coming from on the place of birth issue.

    On the NBC issue (having a British subject as a father), I don’t know where to start. The constitution says he needs to be born in the USA, of a certain age, and blah blah blah. It doesn’t say anything else specifically. In fact, no document says that one needs parents who are citizens. So how can we debate that when you don’t have a reason, let alone evidence that this is law. I understand that you want his parents to be American citizens, and that’s fine, but it is not the law.

  38. The constitution says he needs to be born in the USA, of a certain age, and blah blah blah.

    No, the Constitution says

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    If you remove the now-irrelevant “grandfather clause”, it says:

    No person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    The question focuses on the definition of natural born citizen. (Although the State of Hawaii has never released a document verifying Obama’s birthday, so technically we don’t have vital record proof that he meets the age requirement… but forget about that)

    You claim that “natural born citizen” means “born in the USA”. I claim that the word “natural” in “natural born citizen” refers to Natural Law, and the recognized authority on Natural Law at the time the Constitution was written was Vattel. And you know how Vattel defined “natural born citizen”…

    natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens

    By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him

    By the law of nature alone, Obama followed the condition of his father, and was born a British subject.

  39. Sally Hill says:

    constitutes at least a little bit of evidence that he might have been born in the United States,

    Ryan, Ryan, Ryan – you exasperate me! Have I not said all along that I ‘think’ he was born in Hawaii? What more do you want in order for me to say there is at least a little bit of evidence that he might have been born in the US? Again, I ‘think’ he was born in Hawaii. Do I have proof – absolutely not, none, zip, zilch, nada. That means you don’t have proof of that fact either, and you obviously are not willing to put money on the assertion! We have to use common sense to conclude that.

    On the NBC issue (having a British subject as a father), I don’t know where to start. The constitution says he needs to be born in the USA, of a certain age, and blah blah blah. It doesn’t say anything else specifically. In fact, no document says that one needs parents who are citizens. So how can we debate that when you don’t have a reason, let alone evidence that this is law. I understand that you want his parents to be American citizens, and that’s fine, but it is not the law.

    NO – it does NOT say you need to be born in the USA. It says you need to be a NBC.

    So, now YOU, Ryan, are the US Supreme Court and all knowing interpreter of the Constitution? Exactly what part of the Constitution says (please tell me the exact words that state) he must have only 1 US Citizen parent?

    You are right on one account – “it doesn’t say anything else specifically”. That’s the point Ryan. That’s the whole point I’ve been trying to make. The Constitution is unclear as to the meaning of NBC. YOU interpret it one way, and I interpret it another. Pill is correct – at the time the Constitution was written – children received their heritage/lineage (citizenship) from their father, NEVER the mother, unless the child was a bastard and the father was unknown.

    Are you advocating that we need to change the Constitution? I can understand why you would feel that way – in order to clarify your interpretation, but as it stands today, it’s just not there.

    I can see your side, but I don’t believe you can see mine, simply because you don’t understand that it is an interpretation issue – the definition that you WANT is just NOT there. My definition is NOT there either, but I understand that and feel historical case law supports my interpretation, not yours.

    “In fact, no document says that one needs parents who are citizens.”

    In fact, no document says that one needs only one parent who is a citizen.

    To go a step further, are you advocating that anchor babies, children with NO US parents, should be eligible as long as they are born on US Soil? Do you really feel that’s what the Founding Fathers intended? Especially since the 14th Amendment, which was NOT in affect at the time the Constitution was adopted – ONLY by default gave anchor babies the simple US Citizenship they current have.

    So – I can ask you the same questions:
    How can we debate that when you don’t have a reason, let alone evidence that this is law. I understand that you want there to be only one American citizen parent (or maybe NO American citizen parents) necessary and that’s fine, but it is not the law.

    You’re right…it’s not the law. It’s YOUR interpretation of the law.

    Don’t you think we should leave that interpretation of something so important to those that were actually put in place to interpret our Constitution – the US Supreme Court?

  40. Sally Hill says:

    SAlly, if Fukino was trying to cover something up, don’t you think here statements to the public would have been perfect and calculated?

    They were perfectly calculated – down to the very last word. There was a lot of pomp and circumstance included to make it sound very official (not saying there is anything wrong with that – but it just made it all flowery sounding – easier to fool people with lots of extra words), then the truth was told in a very round about way.

    You’re right, they seem almost clumsy.

    Clumsy is your word – not mine. They seemed contradictory – they were widely varied in their meaning – not clumsy. But neither were felonious in nature either.

    They seem to me to be last minute statements meant to shut people up so she can get on with what is likely a busy stressful job.

    HAHAHAHAHA – have you ever worked for a local, state, or federal agency in the United States? I’m betting not, since you think her job is busy and stressful. NO government job – outside of the White House under Obama – is busy or stressful. Government employees have to work at making the day go by. If a fellow employee does more work than you – it is all out war, because they are possibly making you look bad, it’s just not done. Trust me – I have experience in the matter. I was the government employee that was told to STOP performing over and above as it was reflecting badly upon my co-workers. This extra work reflected badly on my performance review!!!

    You did hear about the porn on the government computers….so much that the computers were full of viruses, right? Yeah, those people were oh, so so busy….just not busy doing government work!

    If you stood to stand trial for treason if you got your statement wrong, wouldn’t you work pretty hard on it? In fact wouldn’t you likely not make a statement at all?

    Treason? Why do you feel Fukino committed treason? She told the truth – just not the truth you think she told. She obviously is an intelligent woman – she very well knew the lines she needed to stay within.

    Please answer these two questions:

    1)Why was the “original birth certificate” “on record in accordance with policies and procedures” changed to “original vital records” that were now merely “maintained”?

    2)Why wouldn’t the “original vital record(s)” also be “on record in accordance with policies and procedures”?

  41. They were perfectly calculated – down to the very last word. There was a lot of pomp and circumstance included to make it sound very official (not saying there is anything wrong with that – but it just made it all flowery sounding – easier to fool people with lots of extra words), then the truth was told in a very round about way.

    You are right, Sally. And then the press and FactCheck.org spread misinformation (a.k.a LIES) about what Fukino said in her October 31, 2008 news release.

    Fact Checking Annenberg Political Fact Check

    Parsing the Associated Press Story About Barack Hussein Obama’s Official Birth Certificate

  42. Ryan says:

    There’s no point in going over all of your questions since we’ve been over them all before I don’t get that you think Fukino is hiding something, yes you also think Obama was born in Hawaii. #1, if he was born in the US, he can be president. #2, if she is hiding something, she is committing a crime. Government officials are not allowed to hide things that could have ramifications for the president.

    You’re right, this is an interpretation issue, but the interpretation has already been done. It’s been done by the fact that a dual citizen at birth is now president. There are two kinds of citizenship. Citizenship that you acquire at a point in your life (naturalized citizen) and citizenship that you are granted by being born in a jurisdiction (natural born citizen). If you know of an interpretation that differs from this, again, please let me know.

    On Anchor babies, yes, they can be president. The constitution does not mention anything about parents having a bearing on the citizenship of Americans. If it does, please point me to that section. If you’re so worried about a person with foreign interests becoming president, tell voters to get off their asses and vote.

    Why was the “original birth certificate” “on record in accordance with policies and procedures” changed to “original vital records” that were now merely “maintained”?

    Stop reading so much into things. There’s nothing suspicious about eithe r of those comments.

    Why wouldn’t the “original vital record(s)” also be “on record in accordance with policies and procedures”?

    Who says they aren’t? Just because she didn’t reiterate her previous statement, you assume something changed? Classic tin-foil hat nonsense.

  43. #1, if he was born in the US, he can be president.

    No, not necesarily. Besides the issue of foreign subjecthood/citizenship/allegiance, there is also the issue of fraud. Even someone born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens is still not eligible to hold the office if they are simultaneously guilty of fraud, forgery, perjury, etc. Which brings me to your second point…

    #2, if she is hiding something, she is committing a crime. Government officials are not allowed to hide things that could have ramifications for the president.

    What you said also applies to Obama himself. “If he is hiding something, he is committing a crime. Government officials are not allowed to hide things that could have ramifications for the president.”

    As you are someone who is familiar with HTML, I assume that you are also familiar with SSL and the concept of a Certificate Authority. Think of it this way… the Hawaii Department of Health is a Certificate Authority. A certificate coming directly from them is accepted as trusted. The Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago is NOT a Certificate Authority, and no certificate originating from them should be accepted without a chain of trust back to a trusted Certificate Authority. You will claim that the signature and seal on the document provides this chain of trust. However, the original COLB images lacked any evidence of the signature and seal, and the later hard copy could have been forged. The Hawaii Department of Health has NEVER vouched for the authenticity of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) that was produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago. Therefore, it should not be trusted.

    If the Obama “birth narrative” is authentic, then there is a long form birth certificate on file in Hawaii proving that he was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center.

    If there is no long form birth certificate on file in Hawaii proving that he was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center, then the Obama “birth narrative” is not authentic. I.E., it is fraudulent.

    Even if Obama had been at Queens Medical Center in Hawaii, fraud would have been committed.

    Even if Obama had been in Hawaii, but only his mother was listed on the birth certificate, fraud would have been committed.

    If no long form birth certificate is produced to prove that the Obama “birth narrative” is true, then we must assume that no such long form birth certificate exists, and the Obama “birth narrative” is false.

  44. Ryan says:

    We are getting closer.

    Yes, if fraud has been committed, there is reason to question Obama’s presidency. Fraud is a crime, and I’m sure you know that it is not up to a person – ever – to prove his innocence.

    What you said also applies to Obama himself. “If he is hiding something, he is committing a crime.

    It’s not a crime to hide something. If he is hiding something that would make him guilty of a crime, then yes, he is in trouble. If anything on that document his campaign released is wrong, he is in trouble. Maybe the doctor that delivered him later turned out to be some Nazi war criminal in hiding. It’s not a crime to keep that private.

    As for the authenticity of the certificate, if there is a single thing wrong with it, or if it did not come directly from the office of the Health Department of Hawaii, it is required of them to say so, or they are accessory to the crime. They would have witnessed fraud on the highest level, and cannot remain silent.

  45. Sally Hill says:

    #1, if he was born in the US, he can be president.

    In your opinion – not in my opinion.

    #2, if she is hiding something, she is committing a crime.

    Why do you think Fukino is hiding something and what is she hiding? Personally, I don’t think she is hiding anything. I think she made truthful statements both times….but she said two very different things both times, in my opinion. In your opinion, I’m guessing you think she is hiding something – what?

    You’re right, this is an interpretation issue, but the interpretation has already been done. It’s been done by the fact that a dual citizen at birth is now president.

    Ummm…not really. It is only precedent if the majority of voters KNEW he was a dual citizen prior to casting their vote. That is highly unlikely since most voters didn’t even know which candidate thought there were 58 states in the Union! Do you?

    There are two kinds of citizenship. Citizenship that you acquire at a point in your life (naturalized citizen) and citizenship that you are granted by being born in a jurisdiction (natural born citizen). If you know of an interpretation that differs from this, again, please let me know.

    Yes, I know of another interpretation:
    Case law Minor v. Happersett SCOTUS included in it’s ruling the definition of “natural born citizen” as it related to that case. This would be what is inferred by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the united States Constitution.

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. ”

    CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    88 U.S. 162; 21 Wall. 162

    OCTOBER, 1874, Term

    Notice the sentence: “include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. ” These children (such as Obama) MIGHT have been considered citizens, but NOT NBCs.

    The constitution does not mention anything about parents having a bearing on the citizenship of Americans. If it does, please point me to that section.

    The constitution does not mention anything about parents NOT having a bearing on the citizenship of Americans. If it does, please point me to that section.

    Right back at ya Ryan. That’s why it is an interpretation issue…but you just cannot seem to realize that.

    Stop reading so much into things. There’s nothing suspicious about eithe r of those comments.

    You want me to stop reading ‘into’ Fukino’s statements, yet you want to read ‘into’ the Constitution. Hummm….double statndard do you think?

    Fukino’s statements were contradictory. I’m not reading anything ‘into’ them – just reading them for what she is really saying and not what I WANT or NEED them to say.

    Who says they aren’t? Just because she didn’t reiterate her previous statement, you assume something changed?

    If the type of document she is referring to changed, why wouldn’t you assume the type of filing changed as well, especially when she used totally different wording?

    Why do you assume they are on file in accordance with policies and procedures and not merely maintained? If they were and she really wanted to put the issue to rest, wouldn’t she have said as much? Why leave anything open to interpretation? Why not be as crystal clear as possible – if – as you assert – she is so busy and just wants to put the matter to rest?

    She didn’t state they were “on record in accordance with policies and procedures” because she couldn’t without lying. The index data is ‘on record’, his vital records are ‘maintained’. Why is it so hard for you to understand the differences in the documents, the type of filing and her overall statements?

    Classic tin-foil hat nonsense

    Classic Alinksy attack – “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

    I’ll leave it at that, and not stoop to that level. :)

  46. Sally Hill says:

    if there is a single thing wrong with it, or if it did not come directly from the office of the Health Department of Hawaii, it is required of them to say so, or they are accessory to the crime. They would have witnessed fraud on the highest level, and cannot remain silent.

    Wrong!

    The Hawaii DOH was never asked to verify the document that FactCheck or Fight the Smears published. It is not their job to verify and make such determinations about every document published on the Internet.

    If you think they don’t have time to answer simple citizen request, do you honestly think they have time to comb through the Internet looking for each and every COLB and BC posted from Hawaii then compare it with their file information to ascertain it’s veracity?

    Hawaii DOH cannot possibly be held responsible for what FackCheck, Fight the Smears, or Obama himself posted to the Internet. If any of the documents presented by Obama or his agents are false – they are just false and there is no fraud committed by Hawaii DOH. In fact, the first document released by the Obama campaign was in fact forged – but I certainly don’t remember any Hawaii DOH employee coming forward to decertify it nor was anyone arrested for fraud.

    That would be like saying, if I posted a scan of my drivers license to the Internet with slight changes, Texas Dept. of Motor Vehicles would be committing fraud by not immediately coming forward and saying there was something wrong with the information.

  47. Ryan says:

    which candidate thought there were 58 states in the Union

    Oh my god.

    The constitution does not mention anything about parents NOT having a bearing on the citizenship of Americans.

    It also does not say anything about the citizenship of the grand-parents. What about them?

    Why do you assume they are on file in accordance with policies and procedures and not merely maintained?

    What’s the difference? Both means they HAVE the documents.

    In fact, the first document released by the Obama campaign was in fact forged

    That is absolute bullshit.

    he Hawaii DOH was never asked to verify the document that FactCheck or Fight the Smears published. It is not their job to verify and make such determinations about every document published on the Internet.

    This is not “any” document. It’s a document they have been asked about numerous times by the public, resulting in a public statement about said document.

    It’s like talking to brick walls.

  48. ladysforest says:

    Wow. Good thread. I only had time to scroll, but it’s like a trip down memory lane, an excellent refresher course.

    Ryan, I’m NOT trying to bust your chops here, but do you concede that nobody out there is still trying to keep up the illusion that obama’s parents lived together after being married?

    That is a big change from even six months ago. Now the likelihood that they never lived together after marriage is no big deal. The accepted “truths” seem to be a changin’.

    I am not trying to bust on you here, but so many things that were advanced as “facts” are now misty little memories.

    And a brick wall is something solid and tangible and very real.

  49. Ryan says:

    do you concede that nobody out there is still trying to keep up the illusion that obama’s parents lived together after being married?

    I have no idea and don’t care. Why do you? Some perfect parents raise murderers and some deadbeat parents end up producing amazing inteligent people. This whole idea that a person’s future, (and citizenship status) is dependent on who his parents are is reminiscent of a caste system. Disgusting. Take a person for who he is, and who he chooses to be.

    Things are popping up about Obama’s past all the time. Why is that? Because a few hundred bloggers who think they understand journalism are digging up tidbits of information. Nothing has come up that is in any way incriminating at all.

  50. Sally Hill says:

    Oh my god.

    Does that mean you don’t know which candidate it was?

    It also does not say anything about the citizenship of the grand-parents. What about them?

    What about grandparents? Do you think they should have a bearing?
    I’m guessing you’re being flip while trying to skirt the issue that YOU brought up.

    You originally said: “The constitution does not mention anything about parents having a bearing on the citizenship of Americans. If it does, please point me to that section.”…..now you want to drag grandparents into the mix? I think you’re just trying to cloud the issue because you realize you don’t have any facts to prop up your argument.

    I will concede that the Constitution doesn’t mention anything about parents with regards to NBC…but you seem to think it says something about soil with regards to NBC. I do NOT see the words PARENTS or SOIL anywhere in the Constitution…..

    Again – interpretation, but I’m guessing form your flip remark you still think you see the word SOIL in there somewhere.

    What’s the difference? Both means they HAVE the documents.

    I walk in the Court House and ask the clerk to register this deed for land that I just purchased. I pay the recording fee and get a recording number. The deed is now ‘on record in accordance with policies and procedures’ of my county.

    I walk in the Court House and ask them to file these addendum documents with my land plat deed. The clerk asks me if I want them registered. I tell her, no – I just need them kept on file as addendum should I ever decide to sell the property. These addendum are now ‘maintained’ on file at my local Court House.

    Had I not ‘registered’ the ‘deed’, only ‘filed’ the ‘addendum’ I would NOT be able to sell the property. Why not!?!?!?! They HAVE the documents! But the documents are different types of documents although they pertain to the same piece of land. They are kept on file in different manners, because of the legality of each type of document.

    Obama’s birth ‘index data’ is ‘on record in accordance with policy and procedure’, but his ‘vital records’ are only ‘maintained’ on file. Do you see the difference now?

    When the ‘index data’ was created, it had to be created according to policy, and must be ‘on record in accordance with policy and procedures’, but the ‘vital records’ (which does NOT necessarily refer to a COLB or BC) are NOT legal records – because the COLB and BC have never yet been ACCEPTED (meaning, never recorded by the registrar), so they only have to be ‘maintained’.

    Ryan, why are there plural ‘vital records’?
    I only have 1 birth certificate – just one vital record (singular).

    It’s a document they have been asked about numerous times by the public, resulting in a public statement about said document.

    Yes, many people have requested his COLB and BC from the DOH in Hawaii, but they have NEVER, NOT ONCE spoken to the veracity of what was posted by the Obama campaign.

    If you believe they have – please show me where any statement has referenced or been a direct response to the COLB that was posted by his campaign.

    It’s like talking to brick walls.

    Only because you are having trouble with the definitions of some words such as:
    Interpretation
    Maintained
    Vital Records
    Record
    Natural Born Citizen (I promise you, the word SOIL is NOT there).

    And BTW – I noticed you made no comment to the interpretation of NBC I provided to you. Is case law like a brick wall too?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s