Fact Checking Annenberg Political Fact Check

Annenberg Political Fact Check (www.FactCheck.org) claims that:

FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate

and

The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.

Both of those statements are NOT TRUE!

An “original birth certificate” (CertificatE of Live Birth) looks very different from a laser-printed CertificatION of Live Birth.  They are TWO VERY DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS:

obama-certification-vs-authentic-certificate

Note that field 7c on a CertificatE of Live Birth says:

County and State or Foreign Country

So yes, it is possible to have an original birth certificate on file in Hawaii and have been born outside of the U.S.!

The document that “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed” was NOT the “original birth certificate” (CertifcatE of Live Birth).  And it is unethical to claim it was.

They examined a CertificatION of Live Birth, and they examined it

at the Obama headquarters in Chicago

It is wrong to just blindly accept that this document came from the State of Hawaii (rather than the Obama campaign), and given that FactCheck got their facts wrong (it was NOT the original birth certificatE) no one should assume that it came from the state of Hawaii. 

No Hawaiian official has ever verified that the document at the Obama headquarters in Chicago is authentic.

In regard to the second claim:

The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.

Dr. Chiyome Fukino, in her statement released October 31, 2008 NEVER confirmed that Obama was born in Honolulu.

In addition, Dr. Fukino:

NEVER claimed that the CertificatION of Live Birth (presented on Daily KOS, Fight the Smears, and Factcheck.org) is valid,

and NEVER claimed that the data on the CertificatION of Live Birth matches the data found on the original Birth CertificatE that Dr. Fukino has on record.

 Dr. Fukino never said Obama was born in Hawaii.  Dr. Fukino never verified the document that the Obama campaign produced. 

The information that Annenberg Political Fact Check presents as Obama’s “original birth certificate” is not that at all, and what they present has never been verified by Hawaiian officials in any way, shape, or form.

Again, the CertificatE and the CertificatION are two different documents, and there has been a LOT of misinformation spread by the so-called Mainstream Media. 

People have been misled to believe things that are simply not true.

Annenberg Political Fact Check is wrong to claim that they have examined a document they never examined (the original birth certificate).

Annenberg Political Fact Check is wrong to claim that the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Obama’s birth location (something she never confirmed).

Annenberg Political Fact Check cannot be trusted as a an “authority” to authenticate Obama’s birth documentation. Especially when Obama himself has prior ties to Annenberg (he was the chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge).

Too many Senators and Representatives wrongly believe the following UNTRUTHS:

1) Being born on US soil is sufficient to be a “natural born citizen” (It’s NOT – you must be “born in the country, of parents who are citizens”)

2) The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu. (She DIDN’T)

3) Fact Check verified that the “original birth certificate” from the State of Hawaii (They DIDN’T…they verified the “CertificatION of Live Birth” from the Obama campaign).

Wake up, Neo…

UPDATE August 11, 2009:
In the last month, Dr. Fukino did say that Obama was born in Hawaii… but she did not say which “Vital Record” was used to make that statement. It could have been nothing more than the sworn statement of an Obama relative (for example, his mother, or one of his grandparents). Even in her update, Dr. Fukino did not claim that the COLB produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters is authentic, nor that it matches information in any Vital Record they have on file in Hawaii.

TexasDarlin has a great new post up: FactCheck.Org: A Real Fact-Checker??

UPDATE: TD and her blog are “on break” for a while. One of the excellent posts to which TD referred was one by jbjd that showed that Annenberg Political Fact Check (APFC) does NOT check facts!

UPDATE Sept 2, 2009: CONFIRMED: Factcheck.org Published Bogus Fact Regarding Obama’s Kenyan Citizenship.

UPDATE Sept 11, 2009: Factcheck.org: Correction #2

“Son of This Soil”

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Fact Checking Annenberg Political Fact Check

  1. Loren says:

    “Note that field 7c on a CertificatE of Live Birth says: County and State or Foreign Country

    So yes, it is possible to have an original birth certificate on file in Hawaii and have been born outside of the U.S.!”

    Nope. Note what field 7a says, two boxes to the left: “Usual Residence of Mother: City, Town or Rural Location”

    The entire #7 question, including all subparts a-g, deals with the MOTHER’S RESIDENCE, not the newborn’s place of birth. Place of birth is question #6, and there is no “Foreign Country” box under question 6. Only City/Town and Island.

    http://www.Barackryphal.com

  2. CalifGirlInMaine says:

    Whether 7c refers to birthplace or mother’s residence, Hawaii DID permit the registration of out-of-state births, including those occurring in foreign countries.

    Sec. 338 – 17.8: Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.HTM

  3. William Creofvel says:

    My hitch is up end of Feb. I am so glad.

    Nothing will be done.

    The Courts have sealed access to correcting this. The only people who have “standing” are those who want the guy, so he could serial-murder on a stage infront of the Washington monument with dull chainsaws, (though he’d probably charge admission…) and no one would blink an eye. We survived one imposter, but this one wants to erase us.

    I think 3years, tops, and we’ll never get rid of him or his fellow travellers. President Ayers, anyone?

    For years everyone has said that both parties were the same. Now I see it. Goodbye Constitution, hello “International Consensus”. I hope the Liberal ants like the concentration camps. Remember Stalin’s & Mao’s gifts to their supporters? Theyll be the 1st The One’s new Brownshirts will take away. Real anti-Obamas will be 2nd. Watch for it, its how its always been done. The noise from quelling the Obama-bots will be used as reason to kill the 2nd Amendment. Then, we will be picked up.

    When I’m in a camp, everytime I meet an Obama-drone, I’m going to vent — physically. Then ask the guards to take the mess away.

    We are undone.
    Look here:
    http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.org/index.php?topic=2021.msg8486;topicseen

  4. sc_dem says:

    CaligirlInMaine –

    that law was passed in 1982.

  5. sc_dem says:

    William.

    you’re insane.

  6. Loren says:

    “Whether 7c refers to birthplace or mother’s residence,”

    There’s no ‘whether’ about it. It’s a simple matter of reading the document. Here’s a big version of a Hawaii birth certificate:

    6a reads “Place of Birth: City, Town, or Rural Location.” 6b then asks for “Island,” 6c for the hospital, and 6d for the judicial district of birth.

    7a reads “Usual Residence of Mother: City, Town, or Rural Location.” 7b then asks for “Island,” 7c for “County and State or Foreign Country,” 7d for “Mother’s Mailing Address,” 7e for judicial district, 7f for “Mother’s Mailing Address, etc.

    There’s no ambiguity here. The place of birth spot on the birth certificate is in question 6, and only question 6, where there is no option for a foreign birth. Question 7 is *entirely* about the Mother’s address. Any attempt to confuse this matter is just plain intellectually dishonest.

    http://www.barackryphal.com

  7. CalifGirlInMaine says:

    Loren, we are still left with the fact that Obama’s father was a British subject, and consequently, Obama himself was a British subject at birth and under the jurisdiction of UK (see British Nationality Law of 1948), and therefore not a natural born citizen (child born in U.S. of TWO U.S. citizens), and NOT eligible for the presidency.

    How ya gonna spin away his father’s citizenship and therefore his? Your boy is a usurper, and even if sworn into office, still is and always will be.

  8. Loren says:

    “Loren, we are still left with the fact that Obama’s father was a British subject,”

    Okay, so we’re changing the subject to something that wasn’t even part of this post. I’ll take that as a win.

    “and consequently, Obama himself was a British subject at birth and under the jurisdiction of UK (see British Nationality Law of 1948), and therefore not a natural born citizen (child born in U.S. of TWO U.S. citizens), and NOT eligible for the presidency.”

    I’m betting that you can’t actually produce any US caselaw saying a “natural-born citizen” must be a child born of “TWO” US citizens. It would certainly be a strange requirement for the founders to make, since all of them were the children of British subjects themselves.

    It would also be strange for the US to allow how is and isn’t eligible to be President to be determined by OTHER nations’ laws. Under your proposed definition, if the UK decided to grant automatic UK citizenship to anyone born in the US, that would automatically disqualify EVERYBODY from being President.

    “How ya gonna spin away his father’s citizenship and therefore his? Your boy is a usurper,”

    Whaddya mean “your boy”? I voted for Barr. I’ve never voted Democratic in a Presidential election. It just doesn’t take an Obama supporter to notice how flimsy the arguments against him are.

    http://www.barackryphal.com

  9. Loren,

    I strive to be intellectually honest. I have reviewed your analysis of field 7c and I agree with your analysis. Field 7c modifies “Usual Residence of Mother”, not “Place of Birth”.

    Does that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii? No, and it is intellectually dishonest to imply it does. Why? Because CalifGirlInMaine is correct that Hawaiian law at the time of Barack’s birth allowed Certificates for children born out of State, even out of the country. The law has since been modified, and perhaps that modification is the source of the “1982” date, but go back and look at what the law was in 1961. Others have done so, and it confirms what I just said. Go look it up yourself.

    Now, CalifGirlInMaine is also correct about Obama’s father.

    We contend that based on Natural Law and the 1758 Law of Nations (upon which our founders relied to define terms) that “natural born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”.

    That means that there to be a “natural born citizen of the United States”, three conditions must be met:
    1) Born “in the country” (on U.S. soil).
    2) Born to a father who is a U.S. citizen.
    3) Born to a mother who is a U.S. citizen.

    In regards to those three requirements:

    1) Obama has refused to release his original vault birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. The only document that has been produced was:
    – a CertificatION, not a CertificatE,
    – produced AT THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN OFFICE in Chicago,
    – NOT verified as authentic by Dr. Fukino
    – declared a forgery by document experts

    There is simply no excuse for Obama, “Mr. Transparency”, to refuse to release his original birth certificate, and rely on misrepresentations by others (FactCheck.org, the MSM) to provide cover for him. He is unqualified until he proves himself qualified.

    2) Obama has already proven himself disqualified by admitting that both his father and he had British citizenship at birth.

    3) Obama’s mother was a United States citizen, so Obama meets this third requirement, but meeting one out of three requirements is not sufficient. He may (or may not) be a U.S. citizen, but he is NOT a “natural born” citizen.

    I suggest you read:

    It’s Not the Birth Certificate

    Natural Born Citizens: Or How to Beat a Subject to Death with a Stick.

    “STAND BY ME…”

  10. Loren,

    In the interest of further intellectual honesty, I agree with you that Ed Hale strongly implied the divorce decree for Barack Obama’s father and mother indicated they had “one child under the age of eighteen, born in Kenya.” … but then the divorce decree pages shown did not say that.

    If he produces an authentic document that contains those words, good for him, as that would be the bombshell that ends any pretense of Obama’s eligibility.

    But for now, the discrepancy between Ed Hale’s claim and the actual documents produced, does nothing but make Ed Hale look like a fraud.

  11. CalifGirlInMaine says:

    Loren, you win nothing. Thank you, itooktheredpill, for explaining what I would have re: natural-born.

  12. Jax says:

    CalifGirlInMaine,

    You could go ahead and look through all the rebuttals on this site which go through all the rebuttals to Red’s posts which he tacitly ignores and goes back to posting his opinions as though they are facts. I’ll simmer them down to two points, though.

    1) His belief that both parents have to be citizens is made up. There has already been one President, Chester A. Arthur, whose father was an Irish citizen. To back it up, he cites two things: “Natural Law,” which I don’t think has any document behind it and he’s basically just capitalizing words to make his argument seem stronger, and “The Law of Nations.” Although the name might make this sound like, you know, a law, or at least some sort of government document, it is in fact a philosophical work by a Swiss philosopher named Emer De Vattel. It carries no legal weight. At all. The Constitution doesn’t refer to it. The Bill of Rights doesn’t refer to it. All that stuff about:

    “2) Born to a father who is a U.S. citizen.
    3) Born to a mother who is a U.S. citizen.”

    He’s making that up. I know, the whole bold letters thing and numbering make it look official. He’s wrong.

    2) (See how official?) Every prediction Red has ever made has been wrong. Every one. Seriously. He’s batting .000. You’re not putting your faith in a broken clock so much as you are putting your faith in one with no hands at all.

    My advice to you is my advice to him: Take a breath. Realize you lost fair and square. Find another guy you like next election and vote for him. That’s democracy.

  13. Jax,

    You claim:

    “The Law of Nations.” Although the name might make this sound like, you know, a law, or at least some sort of government document, it is in fact a philosophical work by a Swiss philosopher named Emer De Vattel. It carries no legal weight. At all. The Constitution doesn’t refer to it. The Bill of Rights doesn’t refer to it. All that stuff about:

    “2) Born to a father who is a U.S. citizen.
    3) Born to a mother who is a U.S. citizen.”

    He’s making that up. I know, the whole bold letters thing and numbering make it look official. He’s wrong.

    But guess what? It’s not me that’s wrong. It’s you.

    The Supreme Court referenced Vattel as a “legal source” in a well-publicized decision less than 7 months ago!

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    Syllabus
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

    On page 17:

    E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (“Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords”);

    Care to apologize and/or admit that you are wrong?

  14. From The Supreme Court Historical Society: {emphasis mine}

    Vattel regarded the rules of interpretation as fully derivable from the natural law and the morality implied by it. Noting the moral motive in legal interpretation, he bases the necessity of legal interpretation on the need to frustrate “the views of him who acts with duplicity,” and announces several maxims “calculated to repress fraud, and to prevent the effect of its artifices.” He then articulates a bundle of interpretive principles that includes all those mentioned by Blackstone and Grotius, with some additions: (1) the words in their customary use; (2) suitability to the subject matter; (3) avoidance of absurd conclusions, whether physical or moral; (4) consideration of the context of the discourse; (5) the need to harmonize the law and to avoid readings that would render portions of it surplusage; (6) the reason of the law–its motive, object, or end; and (7) adherence to the intention of the lawgiver in preference to his words, since good faith adheres to the intention, whereas fraud “insists on the terms.”

    Summarizing the formulations of Blackstone, Grotius, and Vattel, we can say these things: (1) For all three commentators, the will, or intention, of the lawgiver is the law. (2) All assert that discernment of intent must begin from a consideration of the words used by the lawgiver to express the law. (3) All assert that general custom and common usage are the standards to be employed for resolving ambiguities in the meaning of the words used by the lawgiver. (4) All declare or strongly suggest that the context of that portion of the law being interpreted–its relation to other parts of the same law–is relevant for determination of its meaning; that is, that laws should be harmonized. (5) All emphasize that the object, end, or purpose of the law–the “mischief” that it was enacted to overcome–is crucial for determining its meaning. (6) All allow consideration of effects or consequences of the law only when its terms, as commonly understood, would yield an absurdity in its application.

  15. Jax says:

    Red, someone who parses words as carefully as you do should understand the difference between a legal source and a legal precedent. Of course The Law of Nations is a legal source, it’s a pre-Constitutional philosophical discussion of the rights of citizens and nations. So are Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther would be considered legal sources, too. Just because something is a legal source does not make it a recognized code of laws for the United States of America. The argument you cited also quotes the Statute Law of Scotland from 1769, which claims fealty to King George the III… does this mean we have to go back under British rule?

    The Law of Nations is a book is one man’s philosophy regarding natural law. It has no legal weight over the Constitution of the United States. So no, you’re still wrong. But hey, don’t take my word for it. Wait two weeks until Barack Obama is sworn in as President and absolutely none of the stuff you’re predicting comes to pass.

  16. Pingback: POTUS & The I-9 Form « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  17. Pingback: Consider This… « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  18. Pingback: Leo Donofrio’s Recent Posts « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  19. Pingback: Birthers: “We choose to wallow in the gutter” « Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub

  20. In regards to the trackback above…

    We’re not “Birthers”…

    …we’re “Dualers“.

  21. Harry H says:

    I’m a Dualer in that I believe Obama is ineligible for office, and therefore a faux-pseudo-fake-fraudulent-usurper-president, because he held divided allegiance at birth through his British-subject/citizen father. Every day he remains in office is a national disgrace.

    I am also a Birther in that I believe the burden of proof is on Obama to prove his eligibility for office, first and foremost by providing or permitting a certified copy of his real vault birth certifcates in Kenya and Hawaii. And not through some third party loyal to him. I guess that makes me a Dualer in two senses: dual citizenship at birth and dual birth documents in Kenya and Hawaii.

    So, will the real B. H. Obama please stand up and explain to this nation who the devil he is?

  22. Harry H,

    I agree that the burden of proof is on Obama to prove his eligibility for office. At this point in time, the only “Obama birth certificate” for which someone has been willing to sign an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, is a birth certificate from Kenya.

    Even when Dr. Fukino claimed that Obama was born in Hawaii, she didn’t do that. And she didn’t say whether she based her claim on an original birth certificate or an amended birth certificate upon adoption by Lolo Soetoro in Hawaii. (An adoption creates a new birth certificate…)

    Of course, Obama’s own campaign web site quoted (and therefore intended for people to believe was true) the FactCheck.org statement “his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

    Not only does that statement admit that Obama had Kenyan citizenship, but the claim that this citizenship “automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982” has been proven inaccurate by Leo Donofrio.

    Leo has accomplished two very significant things in this “tussle” with FactCheck.org:

    1) Leo has shown that FactCheck does not do an adequate job of checking facts.

    2) FactCheck has shown themselves to be biased.

    Both of those are very important because, as others have pointed out, Senators, Representatives, and Judges have all assumed that FactCheck.org is a competent, unbiased organization. That assumption is utterly false.

    —-

    The “birther” and “dualer” issues are distinct, but I agree with both issues.

  23. Papoose says:

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=3246

    Hi RP,

    please check this out …the thread in particular is about Nancy Pelosi and the change made on the notarized dNC certification of whathisface’s eligibility -there are 2 documents – one makes reference to the Constitution – and the other does not which appears to be the one filed They are both notarized.

    I found ithis blog at Dr. Kates and it is very interesting in general.

    Thanks,

    Papoose

  24. It has been advanced that both papers printed identical lists as the general rule. As I mentioned before, this was pointed out to add more “weight” to the (ahem) proof these newspaper birth announcements lend to obama’s birth story… So I pulled a sample size of ten days from each paper. I began the splendidly tedious process of comparing the incidence of the same birth announcements being listed in both papers. Mainly with an eye towards how often they matched in exact order.The only time this occurred in that particular way within the ten days that I researched, was on the dates that had obama’s birth announcements.

    And I even took the extra steps of comparing editions to a three day range (edition before, same date, edition after) of the sister publication. So, I tried to cover all the bases in a fair comparison.

    Well, OK. The ONE and ONLY time that the two papers published the birth list, beginning at the first announcement, in order, was in the editions that obama’s birth announcement appeared. This was indeed the only time that these announcements were printed this way, as the closest the papers came to doing this again never had all the same names listed in the exact same order. I figured the ten day sample would give conclusive data as to if this was uncommon.

    That wasn’t the only anomaly she found… follow the link for more.

  25. Pingback: Obama’s Eligibility: It’s a Matter of Faith « We the People of the United States

  26. Pingback: “Progressives”, Fear, and Palin « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  27. As to Dr. Fukino’s first News Release….

    So, now we have our answer. We know whether or not “Date Filed by Registrar” matters. It matters. A lot. Because Dr. Fukino said that the “original birth certificate” was in the “Registrar’s” custody. It was still in the procedural stage. And because someone other than the Hawaii State Registrar was custodian of Obama’s original birth certificate on October 31, 2008, we know that Obama did not have a valid original birth certificate and he possibly had an application for a ‘Late Birth Certificate’ on file that was pending acceptance by the State Registrar….

    And if it was not in the State Registrar’s custody and under his authority, then his “original birth certificate” was not evidence to “date and place of birth and parentage.”

  28. As to Dr. Fukino’s second News Release….

    Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

    There were just under 5 hours between the chicken (H.Res.593)
    and the egg (Dr. Fukino’s second News Release).

    On July 27, 2009, the vote on House Resolution 593 came at 6:55pm EDT (12:55pm HST).

    And on that same day, Dr. Fukino’s second News Release was first made public in a PDF attachment in an email sent to MissTickly at 11:45pm EDT (5:45pm HST).

  29. Pingback: Trust, But Verify « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  30. “Trust, but Verify.”

  31. The issue has persisted even though Hawaii has released an official Certificate of Live Birth showing Obama was born there, a fact confirmed in non-partisan investigations by FactCheck.org and others.

    The issue has persisted because:

    Hawaii has never released a Certificate of Live Birth.

    Hawaii has never released a Certification of Live Birth.

    Hawaii has never verified that the Certification of Live Birth produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago is valid and authentic.

    FactCheck.org has connections to Annenberg.

    Barack Hussein Obama has connections to Annenberg, specifically the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where he got the chairmanship with the help of, and sat on the board with, unrepentent terrorist and revolutionary communist Bill Ayers.

    No governmental agency has “released an official Certificate of Live Birth”.

    No governmental agency has inspected “an official Certificate of Live Birth”.

    The media continues to spin and lie, while the man who promised “the most transparent administration in history” has yet to authorize the release of his vital records.

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