White House Posts PDF of Certificate of Live Birth

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

(And since this isn’t likely to live on whitehouse.gov forever, I also saved a copy of the PDF here.)

Obama should have no problem, then, asking the State of Hawaii to send an officially certified copy of the long-form Certificate directly to Congress under seal, just as was done for this certificate and this certificate.

Make it official.  Have Hawaii send an officially certified copy of it, under seal, directly to the Congress.

Congress, not the media after all, has the Constitutional duty to ensure that the President and Vice President have qualified:

… 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.

- From Section 3 of the 20th Amendment

If Obama balks at having the State of Hawaii send an official copy directly to Congress under seal, then that should set off flashing red sirens that the “document” just produced for the media is actually fraudulent.

If Obama does have the State of Hawaii send an official copy directly to Congress under seal, then we can put issue #1 behind us (Trust, but Verify), and move on to issue #2 (“Natural” born citizen).

—————————————————————

UPDATE: There has been some discussion about the PDF having multiple layers. Some claim that the layers are the result of OCR having been run on a scanned image. I do not believe that explanation holds water, for the following reason…

1) Try searching the original PDF for the letter ‘e’ (the most commonly used letter in the English language). You will get a popup window that says, “Acrobat has finished searching the document. No matches were found.”

2) I ran OCR on the original PDF and saved it as a new PDF, which I have uploaded here. (http://itooktheredpill.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/birth-certificate-long-form-with-ocr.pdf)

3) Try searching the new, OCR-enabled PDF for the letter ‘e’. You will find multiple words containing the letter ‘e’.

CONCLUSION: The PDF that was “released” on the White House  web site was NOT OCR-enabled.

So, what’s the new explanation for why that PDF is multi-layered?

If the original document is authentic and legitimate, why not “release” a hard copy of it directly from the State of Hawaii (the Certificate Authority, after all)?

Why are we asked to trust a multi-layered PDF on a web site, when that is not considered “acceptable documentation” by the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification?

———-

UPDATE:

One of two subpoenas:

HI Deputy Attorney General’s Response To Subpoenas:

HI Deputy Attorney General’s Response To Subpoenas (as OCR-searchable PDF)

 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 45. Subpoena

Hawaii Deputy Attorney General Jill T. Nagamine did not specify what “procedural defects” led her to conclude that “Neither subpoena was issued or serviced upon my client in accordance with the requirements
of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), Rule 45″.

And she has no desire to specify what those “procedural defects” were. If those “procedural defects” were resolved, how could those subpoenas not qualify Orly Taitz as a person who has “a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record” under HRS § 338-18(b)(9):

The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:

(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;

Isn’t a subpoena “an order of a court of competent jurisdiction”?

Hawaii Deputy Attorney General Jill T. Nagamine does not provide any more detail than this:

My client is not satisfied that you have a direct and tangible interest in the record you seek, and you have not claimed to have such an interest. Therefore, because you are unable to satisfy HRS § 338-18(b)(9), the Director of Health cannot provide to you the birth record you seek.

Based on the above, please be advised that this letter serves as written objection to your subpoena pursuant to Rule 45(c)(2)(B), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Is the problem that Orly did not explicitly “claim such an interest”?

Or is the problem with how the subpoena was (or wasn’t) served?

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

154 Responses to White House Posts PDF of Certificate of Live Birth

  1. Smart Guy says:

    You were wrong! wrong wrong wrong!!! Just admit it and move on dummy!

  2. Hey, “Smart Guy”, I have said all along that the Birth Certificate is only 1 of 2 distinct issues.

    The Birth Certificate issue will be over once Obama has the State of Hawaii send an officially certified copy under seal directly to members of Congress, just as was done for the other two certificates I linked above. I’ll be happy if Obama does so, so that we can put issue 1 behind us and move on to issue 2.

    But if he balks at doing so, there is good reason to believe the PDF posted at whitehouse.gov is not authentic.

    “Trust, but Verify.”

  3. The sooner we can get a certified, sealed copy of the Certificate of Live Birth into the hands of members of Congress, the better.

    I would love to put issue 1 behind us and focus in on issue 2… that is:

    When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    By both British Law and Natural Law, Obama was born a British subject, and is therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States, even if he was born a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment (which is, in itself, open to debate because the 14th Amendment states, in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”, and Obama admits that he was born subject to the jurisdiction of The British Nationality Act of 1948.)

  4. CNN Political Ticker deceptive spin…

    The U.S. Constitution says only “natural born” citizens can become president – a vague clause that some members of the birther movement contend disqualifies Obama because, they insist, he was born outside the United States.

    Skeptics contend, among other things, that Obama was born in his father’s home country of Kenya.

    “a vague clause”
    No reference to Vattel or prior Supreme Court cases.

    “that some members of the birther movement contend disqualifies Obama because, they insist, he was born outside the United States.”
    Obama is disqualified because his father was not a U.S. citizen.

    “Skeptics contend, among other things, that Obama was born in his father’s home country of Kenya.”
    Obama’s father’s home country was Kenya, and Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Obama’s father was first a British subject who passed British subjecthood on to his son, and then both later became citizens of Kenya.

    Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.

  5. TooMuchTime says:

    Bascially, what just happened is that Obama has officially admitted that he is not a natural born citizen. The question is, what is a natural born citizen? I believe that question has been answered perfectly on this very blog.

    Unfortunately, no court will hear any case concerning this. They are putting the constitution second because they fear blood in the streets.

  6. Hawaii Certificate of Ascertainment, sent directly from the State of Hawaii, under seal, to the United States Congress.

    Hawaii Certificate of Vote, sent directly from the State of Hawaii, under seal, to the United States Congress.

    Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth, posted as a PDF on the whitehouse.gov web site.

    See any difference in how those three Hawaiian certificates were handled?

    The White House has posted a PDF of a Certificate of Live Birth on the White House web site. Obama should have no problem, then, asking the State of Hawaii to send an officially certified copy of the long-form Certificate directly to Congress under seal, just as was done for the other two certificates mentioned above. If Obama balks at having a certified copy of the Certificate of Live Birth be sent directly from the State of Hawaii, under seal, to the United States Congress, that would raise all sorts of red flags.

    Remember, Obama himself said: “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”

  7. zmalfoy says:

    Not to mention, the growing evidence (thanks to the practice with Dan Rather) that this document was electronically tampered with, and whoever did, forgot to flatten the image before making it a PDF. Market-ticker.org has some detail.

  8. Randall Schwegman says:

    Hello Mr Red Pill, I am writing to you today to let you know how much I appreciate your comments wherever I find them. I know I can count on them being well researched, well stated, and backed up with credible sources. Lately, it seems, I find myself thinking about the verse in the bible, where it says ” they received not the love of the truth” and so on. You know seeds on stoney ground? But don’t forget, the more you sow some is bound to find fertile ground. I’ve seen you on the Blaze, N B Citizen and Malkin, but it seems not as much as I used to. I have too tell you yesterday I was listening to Hannity, and you could tell he thinks, “naturalized” means the same as “natural born”, and that is very frustrating. On the other hand, I feel a little better knowing people like you are out there, disseminating the truth, and it is my hope that people find it, not only in politics, etc., but ultimately, in Jesus Christ, whom I believe, is soon to return. Please keep up the good work, and God Bless You. Your brother in Christ, Randall

  9. Randall,

    Thank you very much for your comment. I appreciate what you said about the sower.

    It’s interesting that you bring up Hannity… I was listening to his radio show yesterday, and picked up on the same thing you did. So I tried to call in to his program, and after about 20 ties with busy signals, my call connected and their phone rang. His assistant answered the phone and said, “I’m looking for people who don’t want to talk about the birth certificate.” I replied, “I want to talk about Natural Law.” And she said, “Sorry, not interested.”

    Nice, huh?

    I have to assume that she takes her direction from Sean Hannity, and that while he wanted to talk about the release of the birth certificate and how that relates to Trump’s campaign, Sean did not want to let others talk about the meaning behind the word “natural” in the Constitutional requirement of “natural born citizen”.

  10. Randall Schwegman says:

    Red Pill, Thanks for your effort on trying to educate Hannity, but I fear it is a bigger job than I thought, as it happened again with Mark Steyn, whom I like verry much, while he was in for Rush. He brought up Wong Kim Ark, and stated that since Obama was born on US soil and his mother was a citizen he is natural born. The ignorance is astounding, when you consider Obama (and his birth cert) admits who his father was ie; non citizen. I hope my statements don’t sound to disconnected, and there was more to his rant, but I think you get the gist. Since I’m not that saavy when it comes to computers, I was wondering if you thought it would be worthwhile to E-Mail these people your site address and mabye Leo Don Ofrio’s site. What do you think?

  11. TRUMP2012 says:

    *BEEP BEEP BEEP*

    HEY, PAL! WHERE DO YOU WANT THESE GOALPOSTS MOVED TO THIS TIME??? COULDJA MAKE UP YOUR MIND PLEASE? WE’VE MOVED THEM FIFTEEN TIMES THIS YEAR ALONE! WE’RE — YUP, HE’S MOVING THEM AGAIN! BACK UP THE TRUCK, TONY!

  12. skeeter says:

    According to Senate Resolution 511 in 2008, McCain would have been declared ineligible to run for the presidency had only one (1) of his parents been an American citizen.

  13. TRUMP2012 says:

    Enjoy, birthers:

  14. skeeter says:

    “Natural-born citizen’ info vanishes off Wikipedia
    In wake of Obama’s release of his long-form birth certificate”

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=293069

  15. skeeter says:

    Obama has 22 certificates of his birth each one diferrent from the other, mostly pasted throughout the internet. What makes this last one any better than the other 21? The L?
    What is his legal name?
    Barack Hussein Obama II, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, or Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah?
    All of these names appear in various documents produced since 2008 regarding Obama’s life story and his passport records. Which one is occupying the White House?

  16. TRUMP 2012,

    I’m not moving the goalposts for Obama, and I’m not going to move the goalposts for you.

    As for Obama:

    I’ve been saying for well over two years what the goalposts are in order to put this controversy completely to rest:

    Submitted on 2009/01/07 at 3:13 pm

    We’re asking for two simple things:

    1) For the Hawaii department of health to release the original Obama birth certificate, and

    2) For the Supreme Court to rule on the definition and requirements to be a natural born citizen.

    And as to the first of those two, no one else in America could release a PDF on a web site and claim that as their Birth Certificate for the purposes of a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

    If a PDF isn’t acceptable for a job at McDonalds, why should it be acceptable for the office of President and Commander in Chief?

    If the PDF is legitimate, then release the hard copy directly from the Certificate Authority… the State of Hawaii. If Obama really wanted to put issue one to rest, he would have his Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth treated the same way the Hawaii Certificate of Ascertainment and the Hawaii Certificate of Vote were treated… sent directly from the State of Hawaii, under seal, directly to the United States Congress.

    Instead, he released a multi-layered PDF to the media via the White House web site.

    To put issue 1 to rest, release the hard copy Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth under seal, directly from the State of Hawaii to Congress.

    Issue 2 will not be resolved until the United States Supreme Court addresses and puts to rest the doubts that they themselves admitted exist as to whether or not a person in Obama’s situation can be considered a natural born citizen of the United States.

    Congress has a responsiblity under section 3 of the 20th Amendment to ensure the President and Vice President have qualified.

    Again, I’m not moving the goalposts for Obama, and I’m not moving them for you.

    As for you:

    Submitted on 2011/04/17 at 9:20 pm

    I’d like you to explain yourself. Your statement seems to be an anti-Trump statement, complaining that my blog is “in the tank for Trump!” Yet, your name “TRUMP2012″ implies that you are supporting Trump in 2012. It sure seems to me that you are a troll who at times is pretending to be a Trump supporter, when you are not.

    I’d like you to explain yourself. What is your worldview, who do you support in the 2012 Presidential election, and what is your purpose in commenting here?

    I do not like deceptive people. Explain yourself.

  17. TRUMP2012 says:

    “I do not like deceptive people. Explain yourself.”

    Love to. The Republican coalition is made up of two separate, but more or less equally-sized groups. Roughly half of Republicans are normal, patriotic, tax-paying Americans who don’t like excessive government spending and treasure their civil liberties.

    The other half are flaming nutbars such as yourself who will agree with anything anyone does as long as they have an R beside their name, as long as no Democrat has ever thought it was a good idea. No idea espoused by a conservative is ever wrong, no matter how against core conservative principles (borrowing heavily from China to pay for two wars? yes please!), and no idea a liberal has is ever right, even if it was a conservative idea just ten years ago (hi, single payer healthcare system!).

    The only way to separate the overall conservative yet sane voters (or RINOs, as you call them) from the nutbars is to run a nutbar candidate. He will lose the nomination, of course, but the best part comes when the nutbars, like the spoiled children denied candy they are, stay home on election day.

    I support Donald Trump for the Republican nomination, because Trump 2012 is the best way I can think of to ensure Barack Obama four more years in the White House.

  18. Trump 2012 is the best way I can think of to ensure Barack Obama four more years in the White House.

    So “Trump2012″ is dishonest, because you don’t really want “Trump2012″, you want “Obama2012″. I have banned people before for deceptively impersonating someone else. Your screen name deceptively implies a person who wants Donald Trump to win the Presidency in 2012. As such, you’re banned. If you want to come back as “Obama2012″, I’ll consider allowing your comments.

  19. Responding to one part of another comment from “Obama2012″ (who is masquerading as “Trump2012″)…

    And no, you don’t move the goalposts. You simply set a standard to which the President is under no legal obligation to conform and nobody in authority (the Supreme Court, anyone in Congress) is asking for, and then whine and moan when he doesn’t reveal information in that exact specific way.

    I don’t “whine and moan”. I speak the truth about the Constitution and current immigration law.

    When one combines the legal requirements of:

    1) Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution

    2) Section 3 of the 20th Amendment to the United States Constitution

    3) The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

    … then one sees that Obama and Biden are legally required to produce hard copy documentation of not only their eligibility to work in the United states but also their eligibility to hold the office of President.

    And Congress has the legal responsibility to ensure that the President and Vice President have qualified.

    A Constitutional Republican expects those who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution and the Rule of Law, to actually do so.

    Is the President above the law?

    The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 requires that:

    All employees, citizens and noncitizens, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States must complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

    Where is the Form I-9 that Obama was legally required to complete?

    Where is the acceptable hardcopy documentation that Obama was legally required to present along with his I-9 form?

  20. UPDATE: There has been some discussion about the PDF having multiple layers. Some claim that the layers are the result of OCR having been run on a scanned image. I do not believe that explanation holds water, for the following reason…

    1) Try searching the original PDF for the letter ‘e’ (the most commonly used letter in the English language). You will get a popup window that says, “Acrobat has finished searching the document. No matches were found.”

    2) I ran OCR on the original PDF and saved it as a new PDF, which I have uploaded here. (http://itooktheredpill.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/birth-certificate-long-form-with-ocr.pdf)

    3) Try searching the new, OCR-enabled PDF for the letter ‘e’. You will find multiple words containing the letter ‘e’.

    CONCLUSION: The PDF that was “released” on the White House web site was NOT OCR-enabled.

    So, what’s the new explanation for why that PDF is multi-layered?

    If the original document is authentic and legitimate, why not “release” a hard copy of it directly from the State of Hawaii (the Certificate Authority, after all)?

    Why are we asked to trust a multi-layered PDF on a web site, when that is not considered “acceptable documentation” by the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification?

  21. Further analysis of the PDF:

  22. MissTickly:

    The Odds must be racist.

    The fact is, when Obama released his long form birth certificate last week, some people (like myself) decided it was time to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. We decided it was best to accept the record as authentic…although in doing so, I also had to accept that Obama is a narcissistic, sociopathic asshole with horrible judgment and the maturity level of a seven year old brat.

    But none-the-less, I had all but resigned myself to this logical conclusion….until the Odds started whispering their racist hate-speech in my ear. Evidently, the Odds cannot stand that a black man is POTUS.

    The Odds say that Obama is a liar and a document forger. The Odds say Obama has been busy unfairly ridiculing ordinary American folks for asking a simple question. The Odds say Obama is a common criminal and that there is a conspiracy underway.

    In fact, the Odds say that Obama presented us with a poorly-made, phony birth certificate that likely came from one of the Nordyke twins’ birth certificates.

    Leo Donofrio:

    Miss Tickly Proves Obama’s New Document Is A Fraud.

  23. 1) Open the PDF from the White House web site.
    2) Select the entire image
    3) right-click and copy
    4) Open Microsoft Paint
    5) Paste the image from the clipboard

    This is what you get…

  24. Gradin says:

    All of these made-up problems with the birth certificate are due to file compression artifacts. This is clear to anyone who works with images.

    If the white house was to post a fake document online, why would they post one with obvious digital issues?

    There is a really easy way to take an image that has been faked digitally and disguise the problems. You print it on a crappy printer and then re-scan it on a crappy scanner. All done.

    You don’t seem to realize that the document itself does not prove anything. The proof lies in what the document represents, and the fact the the state of Hawaii has not come out and said “Wait a minute, that’s not the document we sent”.

  25. Gradin says:

    I also took a look at the arguments on the site you linked to. Do a bit of research on the methods that Acrobat uses to compress images. similar letters or symbols, during the compression process, get represented by identical pixel sets. This is part of the compression algorithm. Try it yourself. Scan some document, and heavily compress it. You will end up with a low-bit image with tons of identical pixel sets, and some very strange shading going on.

    There’s no evidence that anything has been tampered with.

  26. Aaron says:

    Just as suspected, the little troll was just another liberal.

    A lazy, worthless piece of human trash who can’t support himself and just wants more welfare hand-outs paid for by those who work harder than him. Typical left-winger.

  27. skeeter says:

    redpill:
    When Compared side by side with the image produced by the expert
    Ivan Zatkovich of Tampa-based eComp Consultants, your last image is identical to his.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=293421

  28. Gradin,

    Go back and read the comment I made above on April 27, 2011 at 2:53 pm.

    Hawaii sent two certificates, under seal, directly to Congress, but has not done the same with the third certificate.

    Tell me why you think the third certificate should be treated differently than the first two.

    And explain how Members of Congress are supposed to support and defend Section 3 of the 20th Amendment to the United States Constitution without having this third certificate in their hands.

  29. Gradin says:

    Sure, change the subject. I completely prove your points to be wrong, and you bring up something else.

    You know what? Members of congress are not interested in looking at Obama’s Birth Certificate. That would be a waste of their time, and doing so would in no way be defending any part of the Constitution. They are busy people and don’t have time to chase conspiracy theories.

    I knew when Obama released his birth certificate it would do nothing to convince birthers. I was right.

    If you are so sure this is a fake, put your money where your mouth is. There are hundreds of private forensics labs in the US and abroad that specialize in document forgery detection. It costs between $1000 and $2000 dollars. They can do a proper analyses and provide a result in a few days. If you don’t have the money, I’m sure one of the high profile birthers do.

    I’d have to say, any one of these firms could do some pro-bono work to defend the constitution, and get some serious publicity. I wonder why no firm world-wide has exposed the same forgery evidence as these supposed experts on Youtube.

    Surely the Donald has a bit of cash left over to prove this is s a forgery. Or maybe he knows this is all a publicity stunt…

  30. Harry H says:

    As Sharon Rondeau points out today at The Post & Email, Obama’s April 27 document is entirely lacking the bottom portion of a legitimate Hawaiian long-form bc, the part with official signatures and a raised official seal. Instead, O’s doc just has a date stamp and a stamped facsimile of one signature. No embossed seal. No actual current signatures. Thus, it is not a certified copy.

  31. skeeter says:

    Obama’s new online birth cerificate was annalyzed by top experts.
    “It was analyzed by Ivan Zatkovich of Tampa-based eComp Consultants, which consults on intellectual property for telecommunications, web publishing and ecommerce and has provided services for corporations such as McGraw-Hill, Houghton-Mifflin, Citicorp and Amazon.com. Zatkovich has 28 years experience in computer science and document management and for more than 10 years has been an expert witness providing testimony in federal court in both criminal and civil litigation.”

    “The content clearly indicates that the document was knowingly and explicitly edited and modified before it was placed on the web,” he said.

    “A second opinion, from Jon Berryhill of Berryhill Computer Forensics, said for a complete analysis, access to the original document would be best.

  32. Harry H,

    Exactly. It’s not a certified copy. That PDF is not considered “acceptable documentation” for an Form I-9. That PDF could not prove Obama eligible for a job at McDonalds, but we’re supposed to accept it for the job of President and Commander in Chief?

  33. Skeeter,

    Someone from the White House Press Corps(e) should ask Barry to release the actual hardcopy document to them. Barry, of course, will refuse to do so. At which point the member of the Press should ask, “If the PDF is authentic, why won’t you release the hard copy document to prove it?”

    Barry committed to making his administration “the most open and transparent in history”, but he has consistently failed to deliver on that promise.

  34. Gradin says:

    Red Pill (If that’s your real name, speaking of transparency)

    #1. You do know that one cannot put PAPER on the internet right? The document in question has been scanned and copied to a PDF specifically so you can see it. The release of this birth certificate was not for members of congress. It was not for any official purpose. He released it because people asked him to, and the response from those very people who he has obliged proves that the certificate was not what they were looking for. They just want him gone, by any means, and this was a shot in the dark.

    #2. (and please answer at least this one). If your congress-person called you and said (s)he has seen a hard copy birth certificate with a seal sent by secure bonded courier directly from the state of Hawaii, would you be satisfied? If yes, why? You already believe that the state of Hawaii is part of a conspiracy, since they are standing idly by while an allegedly forged document manifests itself as an official Hawaii birth certificate. If they are willing to do this, why would they not fake another document and send it to anyone who asks? It simply does not make sense.

  35. Gradin,
    If you take issue with my using a pseudonym, perhaps you should remember that the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court used a pseudonym when he co-wrote The Federalist Papers.

    I have described the meaning of my pseudonym here, on my “About” page.

    I choose to blog under a pseudonym because I know how unhinged the left can be, and I don’t want to put my wife and children in unnecessary danger. I live by faith, not fear, but I’m also not stupid… I don’t need Alinsky-ites showing up at our house when I’m not there. But I’ll also tell you that my wife is an excellent shot (she was trained by an off-duty FBI agent).

    To your point #1, When one combines the legal requirements of:

    1) Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution

    2) Section 3 of the 20th Amendment to the United States Constitution

    3) The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

    … then one sees that Obama and Biden are legally required to produce hard copy documentation of not only their eligibility to work in the United states but also their eligibility to hold the office of President.

    And Congress has the legal responsibility to ensure that the President and Vice President have qualified.

    Confirming the details of Obama’s birth, with hard copy documentation that is considered “acceptable documentation” by a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, is step 1 of 2.

    Step 2 of 2 is having the Supreme Court rule on the Founders’ original intent of the Constitutional requirement of “natural born citizen”, and then applying that standard to Obama. If the Court rules that the word “natural” is a reference to “natural law”, as referred to in the Declaration of Independence (“the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”), and as explained in Emmerich de Vattel’s: “THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS”, then Obama is a usurper because he was not “born in the country to parents who are its citizens”.

    To your point #2, I would be satisfied if/when the Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth is treated the same way that the Hawaii Certificate of Ascertainment and the Hawaii Certificate of Vote were treated… sent directly from the State of Hawaii, under seal, directly to the United States Congress.

    And I’ve been saying that for well over 2 years.

  36. Birfer says:

    Give it up crazies! He has provided the accepted state birth certificate and the magical long form that birthers drooled over.

    Just accept that you will never believe he was born here because of your internal hatred that he was elected President. There could be video of him popping out of his mother’s hoo-hoo onto the State Seal of Hawaii and covered in red, white, and blue afterbirth and you guys would find an “internet expert” that would claim its a fake.

    Move on with your lives!

  37. Obama could have been born in the Oval Office and he still would not be eligible to hold the office of President. Why not? Because he does not meet the definition of “natural born citizen” as understood by the Founders.

    By both Natural Law and British Law, Obama was born a British subject. That disqualifies him from being a natural born citizen of the United States.

    The birth certificate fiasco is a distraction. But to that point, what Obama has “produced” to the public (including members of Congress) is:
    1) A URL containing a JPG image of his supposed Certification of Live Birth
    2) A URL containing a multi-layered PDF of his supposed Certificate of Live Birth

    … neither of which is considered “Acceptable Documentation” by a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

    Neither of those URLs would be acceptable to get a job at McDonald’s, but somehow they are acceptable to hold the highest office in this country?

  38. An excellent analysis of the Obama administration’s “release” of birth information…

    Obama Long-Form Gaggledygook

  39. Birfer says:

    “Obama could have been born in the Oval Office and he still would not be eligible to hold the office of President. Why not? Because he does not meet the definition of “natural born citizen” as understood by the Founders.”

    Interesting that you say “as understood by the Founders” but then only mention Washington and Jay in the linked post. More importantly the link is presumptive to assume based on the checking out of books at a library that Washington and Jay believed “natural Born” to include parentage. James Madison believed differently:

    James Madison – It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.

    Read the Congressional Research Service Memo (14 pages which is long memo) for more information on why Congress has not pursued investigation into Obama’s birthplace, Supreme Court rulings on natural-born citizens, etc.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/41197555/41131059-MoC-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-in-Answer-to-Obama-Eligibility

  40. Birfer says:

    “Neither of those URLs would be acceptable to get a job at McDonald’s, but somehow they are acceptable to hold the highest office in this country?”

    You do realize the URLs are just there so the public can see the detailed information. If you actually go to the whitehouse website, there are other pics of the doc being held and showing seals. That document would get him a job at McDonalds. Every Joe Schmoo will not have actual access to his BC, so posting a scanned copy is the only real option.

    Why is that hard to understand?

  41. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874): In this case decided after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court stated (pp. 167–68):

    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 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”… “Some [not all] authorities go further and include as citizens [not natural born citizens, but citizens] children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts”… The court decided that, “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

    Well, the resolution of those doubts is long overdue.

    And, I think it is clear that [First U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice] John Jay’s warning:

    “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    Is clearly intended to keep anyone with foreign influence away from the office of Commander in Chief. Compare that to Obama’s campaign web site admitting that he was born a British subject and held Kenyan citizenship. He may have also held Indonesian citizenship. We’ve never been told whether or not Obama ever possessed a passport from a foreign country.

    Obama is precisely the kind of person that the First U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice and the First U.S. President intended to ban from ever holding the Presidency.

  42. You do realize the URLs are just there so the public can see the detailed information. If you actually go to the whitehouse website, there are other pics of the doc being held and showing seals.

    Another URL and more .JPG pictures which are not considered “Accetpable Documentation” by a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

    That document would get him a job at McDonalds.

    An authentic document could, but not a URL with JPG images. You can’t submit a URL as your documentation for an I-9 form.

    Every Joe Schmoo will not have actual access to his BC, so posting a scanned copy is the only real option.

    I never asked for “every Joe Schmoo” to have access to his actual BC.

    What I’ve been saying for well over 2 years is that I would be satisfied with the BC issue if/when the Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth is treated the same way that the Hawaii Certificate of Ascertainment and the Hawaii Certificate of Vote were treated… sent directly from the State of Hawaii, under seal, directly to the United States Congress.

    If the document is legitimate, Obama should have no objection to authorizing the State of Hawaii to send it under seal directly to the United States Congress.

    And Congress has the Constitutional authority and obligation to ensure that the President and Vice president have qualified to hold the office.

    Obama doesn’t have to produce his actual birth certificate to “every Joe Schmoo”, but he does have to prove to Congress that he qualifies to hold the office. See section 3 of the 20th Amendment.

  43. Birfer says:

    “Is clearly intended to keep anyone with foreign influence away from the office of Commander in Chief. Compare that to Obama’s campaign web site admitting that he was born a British subject and held Kenyan citizenship. He may have also held Indonesian citizenship. We’ve never been told whether or not Obama ever possessed a passport from a foreign country.”

    How is John Jay’s quote “clearly” saying or even inferring someone with foreign influence should not be President. The quote as read, says “Foreigners” not foreign influence. You are adding that inference. Clearly he states Foreigners, which Obama is not, as his birth in the US makes him a citizen.

    My point of the James Madison quote was to counterpoint your claim of what the Founder’s intended when you made inferences of a few (not words) based on book readings.

  44. Birfer says:

    “An authentic document could, but not a URL with JPG images. You can’t submit a URL as your documentation for an I-9 form.”

    You are ignoring the point and continue down this odd path. Why ignore photos of the actual document and the fact that Congress is not asking for the doc (just the Joe Schmoos) partly because they don’t buy into these shenanigans.

    Secondly, you obviously will never be satisfied (and i assume on purpose) because you set unreasonable and out of the ordinary expectations. Why would and should the State of Hawaii send a separate sealed document with his BC when I am 100% sure they or any other state have had to do this. The seal on the BC is from the Hawaii Dept of Health, so why would a State Seal be required? Also, the documents you listed are requirements of the State in order to process official voting records. Send a State Seal on a BC is not a requirement.

    So why the unreasonable expectations?

  45. Birfer says:

    Should have read:

    I am 100% sure they or any other state have NOT had to do this.

  46. ———

    No. 10-1351
    Title:
    Alan Keyes, et al., Petitioners
    v.
    Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State, et al.
    Docketed: May 4, 2011
    Lower Ct: Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District
    Case Nos.: (C062321)
    Decision Date: October 25, 2010
    Discretionary Court
    Decision Date: February 2, 2011
    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~
    May 2 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 3, 2011)

    ———
    Supremes put another Obama case on docket
    Challenges officials’ refusal to check presidential qualifications

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