The Hawaiian state health official who personally reviewed Barack Obama's original birth certificate has affirmed again that the document is "real" and denounced "conspiracy theorists" in the so-called "birther" movement for continuing to spread bogus claims about the issue.
It’s kind of ludicrous at this point," Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the former director of Hawaii's Department of Health, said in a rare telephone interview with NBC.
Fukino, sounding both exasperated and amused, spoke to a reporter in the aftermath of Donald Trump's statements on the NBC Today show last week questioning whether Obama has a legitimate birth certificate.
Trump, who says he is considering a run for president, repeated his claims on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday, saying that "nobody has any information" about the president's birth and that "if he wasn't born in this country, he shouldn't be president of the United States."
No matter what state officials release on the issue, the "birthers" are going to question it, said Fukino. "They’re going to question the ink on which it was written or say it was fabricated," said Fukino. "The whole thing is silly."
As the top Hawaiian official in charge of state health records in 2008, when the issue of Obama's birth first arose, Fukino said she thought she had put the matter to rest. Contacted by NBC, Fukino expanded on previous public statements and made two key points when asked about Trump's recent comments.
The first is that the original so-called "long form" birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a "record of live birth" — absolutely exists, located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health. Fukimo said she has personally inspected it — twice. The first time was in late October 2008, during the closing days of the presidential campaign, when the communications director for the state's then Republican governor, Linda Lingle (who appointed Fukino) asked if she could make a public statement in response to claims then circulating on the Internet that Obama was actually born in Kenya.
Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files. She then put out a public statement asserting to the document's validity. She later put out another public statement in July 2009 — after reviewing the original birth record a second time.
"It is real, and no amount of saying it is not, is going to change that," Fukino said. Moreover, she added, her boss at the time, Lingle — who was backing John McCain for president — would presumably have to be in on any cover up since Fukino made her public comment at the governor's office's request. "Why would a Republican governor — who was stumping for the other guy — hold out on a big secret?" she asked.
Her second point — one she made repeatedly in the interview — is that the shorter, computer generated "certification of live birth" that was obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007 and has since been publicly released is the standard document that anybody requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would receive from the health department.
The document was distributed to the Obama campaign in 2007 after Obama, at the request of a campaign official, personally signed a Hawaii birth certificate request form downloaded on the Internet, according to a former campaign official who asked for anonymity. (Obama was "testy" when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said. The White House has dismissed all questions about the president's birth as "fictional nonsense.")
The certification that the campaign received back —which shows that Obama was born in Honolulu at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961 — was based on the content of the original document in state files, Fukino said.
"What he got, everybody got," said Fukino. "He put out exactly what everybody gets when they ask for a birth certificate."
Hawaiian officials say that the certification is, in fact, only one piece of abundant evidence of Obama's birth in Hawaii. Joshua Wisch, a spokesman for the Hawaii attorney general's office, noted that a public index of vital records, available for inspection in a bound volume at the Health Department's Office of Health Status Monitoring, lists a male child named "Obama II, Barack Hussein" as having been born in the state.
In addition, as Factcheck.org and other media organizations have repeatedly pointed out, both of Honolulu's newspapers, the Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961, and the Honolulu Star Bulletin, on Aug. 14, 1961, both ran birth announcements listing Obama's birth on Aug. 4 of that year.
Even Fukino accepts that her comments are not likely to end the matter for the die-hard birthers. Trump and other skeptics have questioned why the original birth certificate has not been released.
But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general's office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of "vital records," including an original "record of live birth" — even to the individual whose birth it records.
"It's a Department of Health record and it can't be released to anybody," he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.
But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated "certification of live birth" form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.
Barack Obama creates and uses turmoil. His agenda is that of Rahm Emanuel: "never let a crisis go to waste". He can end this situation and take the issue away from them anytime he so desires. He only has to produce a verifiable birth certificate. And why does he NOT do it? Because he uses the chaos.
Glenn Beck said, "watch the other hand". We have good reason to do so!
[This message has been edited by texasfiero (edited 04-10-2011).]
The question has alsways been, and always be, "Why did he seal his records?"
I personally hope he continues to keep them sealed. Last time I looked, (and it's admittedly been a long time), over half of the southern voters surveyed have serious doubts about his birth certificate, and historically, it has been very rarely that a president has won re-election without carrying a good chunk of the southern US voter block. Considering that the southern and south central US is the fastest growing region of the US population, due to an infux from people fleeing other parts of the US, that "chunk" is now larger than ever before. So as long as Obama is content to let the above question go unanswered, controversy and doubt will continue, which does not help his re-election chances, regardless of whether there is anything to the question or not. IOW, like many other issues, no one has to actually prove anything--doubt alone is often eneough.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-10-2011).]
IP: Logged
03:07 PM
Scottzilla79 Member
Posts: 2573 From: Chicago, IL Registered: Oct 2009
Excellent point Maryjane especially since 2012 will be after redistricting and the south will have even more electoral votes. I have always thought that Obama is using this to make the GOP look bad and will pull it out right before Nov. 2012. Unless it does say something like Muslim on there which I don't even know if that is on a birth certificate.
Heh, just show the dam thing and end it one way or another.
He pretty much is going to have to do it to even get on the ballot at all in some states. It is almost insulting to be asked to take somebody's word they have seen it. Really, at face value, that is only hearsay.
Wait, I'm confused, was something extaordinary done and Obama's records were sealed? Please explain.
They refer to this extaordinary document:
quote
THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release January 21, 2009
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489
- - - - - - -
PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a) "Archivist" refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee.
(b) "NARA" refers to the National Archives and Records Administration.
(c) "Presidential Records Act" refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207.
(d) "NARA regulations" refers to the NARA regulations implementing the Presidential Records Act, 36 C.F.R. Part 1270.
(e) "Presidential records" refers to those documentary materials maintained by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice Presidential records.
(f) "Former President" refers to the former President during whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created.
(g) A "substantial question of executive privilege" exists if NARA's disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch.
(h) A "final court order" is a court order from which no appeal may be taken.
Sec. 2. Notice of Intent to Disclose Presidential Records. (a) When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege. However, nothing in this order is intended to affect the right of the incumbent or former Presidents to invoke executive privilege with respect to materials not identified by the Archivist. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.
(b) Upon the passage of 30 days after receipt by the incumbent and former Presidents of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Archivist may disclose the records covered by the notice, unless during that time period the Archivist has received a claim of executive privilege by the incumbent or former President or the Archivist has been instructed by the incumbent President or his designee to extend the time period for a time certain and with reason for the extension of time provided in the notice. If a shorter period of time is required under the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist shall so indicate in the notice.
Sec. 3. Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President. (a) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.
(b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection (a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any such determination.
(c) If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and the Attorney General.
(d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order.
Sec. 4. Claim of Executive Privilege by Former President. (a) Upon receipt of a claim of executive privilege by a living former President, the Archivist shall consult with the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel), the Counsel to the President, and such other executive agencies as the Archivist deems appropriate concerning the Archivist's determination as to whether to honor the former President's claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege. Any determination under section 3 of this order that executive privilege shall not be invoked by the incumbent President shall not prejudice the Archivist's determination with respect to the former President's claim of privilege.
(b) In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order. The Archivist shall notify the incumbent and former Presidents of his determination at least 30 days prior to disclosure of the Presidential records, unless a shorter time period is required in the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 21, 2009.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 04-10-2011).]
IP: Logged
07:15 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
I don't think the birth certificate really matters, his mother IS an American citizen, that has to count for something. I think the problem he has is that he may have dual citizenship. If that is the case, it may revoke his American citizenship, and that is why I think his records have been sealed.
IP: Logged
08:50 PM
htexans1 Member
Posts: 9110 From: Clear Lake City/Houston TX Registered: Sep 2001
Originally posted by texasfiero: He can end this situation and take the issue away from them anytime he so desires. He only has to produce a verifiable birth certificate. And why does he NOT do it?
"Even Fukino accepts that her comments are not likely to end the matter for the die-hard birthers. Trump and other skeptics have questioned why the original birth certificate has not been released.
But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general's office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of "vital records," including an original "record of live birth" — even to the individual whose birth it records.
"It's a Department of Health record and it can't be released to anybody," he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.
But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated "certification of live birth" form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago. " . . .
[i]"Even Fukino accepts that her comments are not likely to end the matter for the die-hard birthers. Trump and other skeptics have questioned why the original birth certificate has not been released.
But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general's office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of "vital records," including an original "record of live birth" — even to the individual whose birth it records.
Since when? I have mine, complete with raised state seal as well as my feet prints. I doubt a computer generated it in 1967 when I got it from Austin. And another, (Certificate of Live Birth) with a totally black background and white text--again with a raised State seal, which I retrieved from a box of papers my mother kept..
quote
"It's a Department of Health record and it can't be released to anybody," he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.
How conveinent.
quote
You DID actually read the article, right?
Read an "in the tank" MSNBC article? Not a chance. I give them the same amount of credence I give Fox, 'Batboy found' WND and the Drudge Report--which is zero.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-10-2011).]
MJ, have you considered that Texas law may vary a bit from Hawaii state law? They only became an official state in 1959, a mere 2 years before Obama was born. (Wherever he was born.) And that Texas has, somewhere in its archives, the ORIGINAL of your birth certificate, which they will give you a copy of, but NOT let even you check out the actual original?
As texasfiero pointed out: "Watch the other hand!" Ever played "Three-card Monte"?
IP: Logged
10:47 PM
texasfiero Member
Posts: 4674 From: Houston, TX USA Registered: Jun 2003
"Even Fukino accepts that her comments are not likely to end the matter for the die-hard birthers. Trump and other skeptics have questioned why the original birth certificate has not been released.
But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general's office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of "vital records," including an original "record of live birth" — even to the individual whose birth it records.
"It's a Department of Health record and it can't be released to anybody," he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.
But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated "certification of live birth" form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago. " . . .
You DID actually read the article, right?
Yes, I read the article and I know the difference between "certifiable photocopy" and computer generated "certification". It provides just what Obama needs, a shelter against what many people believe to be a lie. Let me quote myself:
quote
Originally posted by texasfiero:
..................He can end this situation and take the issue away from them anytime he so desires. ...........
Glenn Beck said, "watch the other hand". We have good reason to do so!
Isn't it convenient that the Hawaiian Legislature passed legislation that provides for cover?
If you REALLY believe that Obama can't provide what is being asked for; if you REALLY believe he can't put a definite end to this controversy, you've been drinking too much kool-aid.
[This message has been edited by texasfiero (edited 04-10-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:32 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
MJ, have you considered that Texas law may vary a bit from Hawaii state law? They only became an official state in 1959, a mere 2 years before Obama was born. (Wherever he was born.) And that Texas has, somewhere in its archives, the ORIGINAL of your birth certificate, which they will give you a copy of, but NOT let even you check out the actual original?
As texasfiero pointed out: "Watch the other hand!" Ever played "Three-card Monte"?
Sure, I've considered that, whcih is why I asked "since when?" I should have been more clear I suppose. I have the original of my certificate of live birth, which I picked up in person in Austin in 1967. Austin has a copy.
For the thread, I have never cared whether or not he was a citizen. I DO believe he is, but I really couldn't care any less either way. He wants what is best for our country. We won't talk about whether or not they are good ideas, but I truly do believe he has a good heart and wants what is best for everyone.
IP: Logged
11:55 PM
Apr 11th, 2011
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
He wants what is best for our country. We won't talk about whether or not they are good ideas, but I truly do believe he has a good heart and wants what is best for everyone.
I want with all my heart to believe EVERY President wants that, above all else. But it's a tough call. Is war sometmes better then peace when it comes to what's good for the country? Which wars?
How does anyone ever really know what's best for us, as a country, in the long haul?
"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few............or the one."
Star Trek can answer all questions?
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 04-11-2011).]
I want with all my heart to believe EVERY President wants that, above all else. But it's a tough call. Is war sometmes better then peace when it comes to what's good for the country? Which wars?
How does anyone ever really know what's best for us, as a country, in the long haul?
"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few............or the one."
Star Trek can answer all questions?
Exactly.
My point is this: The main reason for having a President be a natural citizen seems to be so that the President never views another country's well-being above America's. Because that is the main goal (perhaps not the only goal, but the main one), I don't really care whether or not he is actually born here or not, because in my heart I believe that he does want what is best for America.
This is not to say that I wouldn't be upset if he turned out not to be, but I really just don't care enough to look into it because he wants the same thing I do--a better America.
I just hate the way he does it
IP: Logged
12:48 AM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
during the campaign Obama spent upwards of 2 million in legal fees sealing his records along with college records.
Wasn't that for ALL his legal fees?
Also, when someone is served with a suit, they often have to spend money in defending themselves regardless of the merit of the case. Because the President of The United States is dealing with suits relating to his Office, he is legally using the resources of his Office to defend himself - that means tax dollars.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 04-11-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:50 AM
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
during the campaign Obama spent upwards of 2 million in legal fees sealing his records along with college records.
Discovery time! You, of all people, should know how this works. The "preponderance of evidence" standard, and even the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, supports Obama's U.S. citizenship. If you have factual evidence to prove your allegations, produce it! Otherwise, if all you have is more unsubstantiated allegations ....
Absence of evidence proves nothing.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 04-11-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:39 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Discovery time! You, of all people, should know how this works. The "preponderance of evidence" standard, and even the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, supports Obama's U.S. citizenship. If you have factual evidence to prove your allegations, produce it! Otherwise, if all you have is more unsubstantiated allegations ....
Absence of evidence proves nothing.
All he has to do is show the damn original birth certificate, and all the questions and conspiracies would end.
IP: Logged
02:04 AM
NEPTUNE Member
Posts: 10199 From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places. Registered: Aug 2001
I used to laugh at all the "crazy birthers." But with Donald Trump joining this 'maybe not so crazy' group, there just might be something going on here. This could really complicate the 2012 elections, and maybe even knock President Obama from a sure thing to a distant maybe for reelection. I had to show my birth certificate (certified copy) to renew my drivers license, and I've lived in Florida all my life. Good thing President Obama has a chauffeur!
IP: Logged
02:10 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I used to laugh at all the "crazy birthers." But with Donald Trump joining this 'maybe not so crazy' group, there just might be something going on here. This could really complicate the 2012 elections, and maybe even knock President Obama from a sure thing to a distant maybe for reelection. I had to show my birth certificate (certified copy) to renew my drivers license, and I've lived in Florida all my life. Good thing President Obama has a chauffeur!
You have to ask the question, if there's nothing strange about the birth certificate, why doesn't he just show the damn thing and shut everyone up?
For the record, I think he's a citizen, and was born in the U.S. I just think there's something on it he doesn't want anyone to see.
IP: Logged
04:29 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
If Obama was not hiding anything, he would have produced the document when this was first brought up. He is trying to keep the documents sealed because there is something wrong with them. As for "so and so verified the documents".... don't you think these people can be bought? Really? How much would it take for you to lie? $10M? Chump change to get Obama elected and for him to remain in office.
As for Obama, the man who talks about transparency, he must think those ideals do not apply to him.... well a lot of what he talks about doesn't apply to him. Man of the people? Right... NOT!
§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
The law covering the restriction of vital records release is covered under a statute revision enacted in 1979.....when Barack Obama was 18 years old. The Hawaiian law it revised was enacted in 1949 (L 1949, c 327, §22; ).....12 years before Obama's birthdate. A link to the text of the statute is as follows:
It would appear the conspiracy to hide Obama's birth records required quite an act of prophesy on the part of the Hawaiian Legislation no less than 32 years ago. Not only that, the conspiracy appears to have begun 62 years ago to protect the birth records of someone born in 1961.
I wonder if I can get them to pick lottery numbers for me......
IP: Logged
09:11 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Donald Trump is a shameless self-promoter. His prowess as a developer and businessman has been greatly exaggerated. He has crawled around in the muck and mire of what now passes for popular culture, and deserves at least some of the blame for tawdry's victory over grace in that sphere. He is an outsized egotist (about on a par with Obama) whose passion for self-congratulation is the only reliable thing we know about him. And that his future candidacy for president may soon be taken seriously owes to no one so much as it does Barack Obama, whose own candidacy seriously eroded the standards for presidential qualification.
But Trump has achieved something important. His decision to focus like a laser on Obama's failure to produce a birth certificate has highlighted the absolute corruption of the American media on the subject of Obama, and the dangers of power granted in the absence of an unaligned press.
Given that Obama's primary claim to the presidency has been his compelling life story -- his biracialism, his international upbringing, especially the time he spent in Muslim lands -- the media has shown shockingly little interest in several pieces of information about Obama's life which might legitimately concern voters. Nowhere in his biographies, for example, does Obama mention his 1981 trip to Pakistan, where he stayed with influential political leaders from that country at a time when a State Department advisory warned U.S. citizens against travel to Pakistan. There has also been a strange disinterest in Obama's 2006 trip to Kenya where, as a sitting U.S. senator, Obama criticized the incumbent government (a U.S. ally) and barnstormed with a Marxist candidate he supported. So too, there has been nary a peep among media elites over Obama's funding of the radical "education" work of bomb thrower Bill Ayers, or his own work on behalf of the activist group ACORN, the now defunct largest purveyor of voter registration fraud in American history (and, apparently, an enabler of under aged prostitution.).
One of the functions of the media is to protect the public from fraudulent statements made by public figures. The unwillingness of the media to fulfill this role in the case of Obama has led to significant, and probably needless, public tension. Obama's resistance to releasing the long version of his birth certificate, has served not only to raise legitimate speculation about the circumstances surrounding his birth, but to give fodder to anti-Obama extremists.
Gail Collins, the New York Times's most reliably uninteresting liberal attack dog, questioned Trump's sanity just for raising the birth certificate issue. But would she say the same about famed black Vanderbilt University Law Professor and Obama supporter Carol Swain? Swain has said "I think that by not releasing it [the full birth certificate], it makes people much more passionately opposed to the president. Moreover, for a president who was elected on the basis of his personal background, it is troubling that Obama himself would want to withhold such basic information."
The media's curiosity about the background of those running for national office seemed to know no bounds when it came to George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard or the sexual behavior of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's daughter. But during and since the 2008 campaign a virtual wall of silence has been constructed around Obama.
This has important implications for the country. Questions about Obama's family and his relationship to Islam, for example, and hence his world view, remain subjects of speculation. Former CIA officer Larry Johnson, for example, believes that the full birth record from the State of Hawaii was probably amended in 1968 to show Obama was adopted by his step father, the Indonesian Muslim Lolo Soetoro, that he became formally known for a time as "Barry Soetoro," and may even have his religion listed as Muslim. This would completely change what Obama has said about his past and represent a public fraud of a very significant magnitude.
At the very least the full record might help explain Obama's strange discomfort with exercising American power against radical Muslim regimes in Libya and elsewhere, where he has farmed out the defense of American interests to the United Nations, and his insistence on "dialogue" with rogue Muslim regimes in Syria and Iran. All of this while touting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Al Qaeda associated Muslim opposition groups in Libya as democracy craving freedom fighters.
Some of the missing details of Obama's life are doubtlessly trivial. Obama probably has benign explanations for not providing more information about them. Even Trump admits that the evidence strongly suggests Obama was born in Hawaii and is an American citizen. But that Obama has not yet released this information, and that the media refuses to criticize him for not doing so, is a testament not to the insanity of the "birthers," but to Obama's penchant for secrecy, and the dangerous amount of latitude the media has been willing to cede him.
George Will cites the presidential nomination process as the weakest point of the American political system. He thinks the Founders would have been appalled at letting
Iowa and New Hampshire weigh in so decisively. He's probably right about that.
The system both parties are stuck with is not so old. It resulted from the Democrats' adopting the "McGovern Rules" in 1972 and the Republicans falling in behind. Should we be surprised that McGovern's system is weak? Most of us have forgotten the idiocy of McGovern Rules that led to such announcements on the floor of their Miami convention as: "Wisconsin casts 235.314 delegate votes for..."
Now, we are seeing a return to that kind of nuttiness in the other party, the supposedly serious one. The idea that Donald Trump could run for president is absurd on its face. But it points to the Will statement. We need somehow to fix the nomination process. We have seen a number of candidacies that have taken advantage of the gong-show "debates" to attract attention to causes.
History is no straight jacket. Because something has never happened before does not mean that it cannot, or should not, happen now. Still, when you have an unbroken record of fifty-six presidential elections over two hundred twenty-two years, we might at least consider the results of those contests as we look forward.
There have been only five men who attained the presidency without holding prior elective office. Even such great military heroes as George Washington and Andrew Jackson held elective office.
Mexican War leader Zachary Taylor was chosen by the expiring Whigs in some desperation in 1848. He served honorably, but briefly. Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower's elections hardly need explaining. The Civil War and World War II were the greatest conflicts in our history and those victorious generals were rightly viewed as national heroes.
William Howard Taft and Herbert Hoover were great men, distinguished Cabinet members in highly popular administrations, but they were never elected prior to their first run for the White House. Both presidents soon came to grief and lacked the political experience and skill to get themselves out of it. They are hardly arguments for dismissing elected experience.
For a time, Lee Iacocca was being touted. He wisely stayed out. Ross Perot not so wisely jumped in, jumped out, and jumped up and down. Pat Robertson tried to gain some traction as a broadcasting executive. His campaign quickly turned into a test pattern. Pat Buchanan had a lot of fun on his campaign bus, which he impishly dubbed Asphalt One. Jesse Jackson tried to become the first black president, but he was dissed, even by members of the Congressional Black Caucus. One of these elected officials waggishly said, "Jesse's never run anything but his mouth." Steve Forbes was a most worthy and thoughtful candidate. Gary Bauer was eloquent, knowledgeable, and sincere. None of these never-before-electeds came within hailing distance of his party's nomination.
Does this suggest that the American people are trying to tell us something? We Americans may be most unhappy with the political leaders we currently have. We may almost be willing to pull the lever for "none of the above."
But we will undoubtedly choose "one of the above." And unless we get pretty serious this year and next year, we stand a terrible chance of seeing President Obama re-elected.
We must remember that the wonderful outpouring of sentiment, including the TEA Party uprising, that was saw last November is no guarantee of a similar electoral wave in 2012.
We face a conundrum: If the Republicans who took the House Majority and strengthened their position greatly in the Senate don't make the economy better, it will turn off millions of Independent voters who were desperate to stop the headlong dash to disaster. But if the economy does pick up, millions of Independents may conclude that Obama is not so bad after all.
Worse, if the GOP gives us another Dole/McCain choice, Obama's prospects will improve mightily. President Bill Clinton was eminently beatable in 1996, but he was never behind one day in any national poll from the moment voters realized the alternative was Dole. If the Republicans put up any of the ho-hummers currently revving their engines, Obama could sail to a second-term win. And that could put us over the brink.
As for Trump, he's now a born-again conservative. Who knew? Might he have helped the team by running for Governor of New York? Or U.S. Senator? Or even Mayor?
Ronald Reagan was forever dismissed by the media as an actor. But he had been willing to do more than test the waters. He jumped right in. California was liberal when Ronald Reagan beat a liberal sitting governor by more than one million votes.
Republicans had good reason to hope that this still-popular ex-governor could carry the Golden State in his race for the White House. We have no such expectation of Donald Trump, in New York, California, or any other big state. He's even willing to show us his birth certificate. That's great, and it'll distract people from asking to see his wife's birth certificate.
It's time to get serious. Let's be the adult party again.
Trump isn't an ideal candidate for the Republican party and definitely isn't the best one out there.
IP: Logged
10:14 AM
PFF
System Bot
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
The law covering the restriction of vital records release is covered under a statute revision enacted in 1979.....when Barack Obama was 18 years old. The Hawaiian law it revised was enacted in 1949 (L 1949, c 327, §22; ).....12 years before Obama's birthdate. A link to the text of the statute is as follows:
It would appear the conspiracy to hide Obama's birth records required quite an act of prophesy on the part of the Hawaiian Legislation no less than 32 years ago. Not only that, the conspiracy appears to have begun 62 years ago to protect the birth records of someone born in 1961.
I wonder if I can get them to pick lottery numbers for me......
Can a Hawaiian access their own record? Also, could a court access the record? Why can't Obama ask for the record, or ask the State court to do so? Hmmm, seems like a simple procedure if you have nothing to hide.
§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
The law covering the restriction of vital records release is covered under a statute revision enacted in 1979.....when Barack Obama was 18 years old. The Hawaiian law it revised was enacted in 1949 (L 1949, c 327, §22; ).....12 years before Obama's birthdate. A link to the text of the statute is as follows:
It would appear the conspiracy to hide Obama's birth records required quite an act of prophesy on the part of the Hawaiian Legislation no less than 32 years ago. Not only that, the conspiracy appears to have begun 62 years ago to protect the birth records of someone born in 1961.
I wonder if I can get them to pick lottery numbers for me......
So, you are saying, that as an individual, (and the leader of arguably the most powerful nation on the planet) he cannot, of his own volition, release all of his own erecords, from his file cabinet or wherever he keeps all his personal copies?
Is that what you are saying?
Texas probably has a similar law nowdays, but as I have nothing to hide.......... I'm gonna dig all mine out in a little bit, and post pictures of them and see if the dark hand of State govt somehow comes down in an overt act of censorship and deletes them from Cliff's server. Maybe I'll start a CliffW type thread entitled "Will Don go to jail for releasing all his own records to the public?"
IP: Logged
11:00 AM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
Looks like Obama could ask to disclose his record. Now... because Obama has common ancestry to a few people, couldn't they ask to see the records?
"According to genealogy site Ancestry.com, President Obama and Sarah Palin are tenth cousins, through ancestor John Smith. He's also tenth cousins with Rush Limbaugh through ancestor Richmond Terrell. And Obama, Palin and President George W. Bush are all related through Samuel Hinckley. If it makes Obama feel any better, he's also related to Brad Pitt and Warren Buffett.
§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1) The registrant;
(2) The spouse of the registrant;
(3) A parent of the registrant;
(4) A descendant of the registrant;
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8) A personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
(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;
(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
(c) The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made.
(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.
(e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.
(f) Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies. Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct.
(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:
(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;
(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities;
(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]
Or, perhaps, I will just defer to the State of Texas in Austin, and let them issue whatever statement they wish to in order not to have to do anything at all myself.
I'm pretty dang sure, that if I the power, by the simple stroke of a pen, to commit 100,000 men into harm's way, to save a convicted man from execution (or send him to his death), to order the covert assasination of a foriegn leader, to increase, decrease, or abolish income tax, to launch every single nuclear weapon in our arsenal, that I could also order the FBI, Dept of Justice or another federal agency to procure my piddly little records and show them all to an open live press conference. Yep, there would be consequences for any opr all of that, but I'm pretty dang sure I could do the last part without a whole lot of static------IF I had the Executive power and really really wanted to.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-11-2011).]
I don't think the birth certificate really matters, his mother IS an American citizen, that has to count for something. I think the problem he has is that he may have dual citizenship. If that is the case, it may revoke his American citizenship, and that is why I think his records have been sealed.
I don't think the actual paper matters, its how he addressed the citizens concerns that is the issue. ( ok, i guess 'didn't address' would be more accurate )
IP: Logged
11:19 AM
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
I'm gonna dig all mine out in a little bit, and post pictures of them ...
... and the skeptics will respond, "Those aren't the originals, they're only copies of the originals. Worse, they're copies of copies. We don't care that your copies are legitimate and fully acceptable to the U.S. government and the various State governments to establish citizenship for the purpose of issuing a passport, voting, and other legal purposes. We demand the originals! " Then again, maybe the skeptics won't respond that way unless you're "not one of us."
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 04-11-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:31 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
I found this article while looking up information on the presidents relatives. What is says is interesting. Did you know? Obama's half sister, born in Indonesia, has a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth http://www.examiner.com/ora...cation-of-live-birth
quote
Maya Soetoro was born to Indonesian businessman Lolo Soetoro and American cultural anthropologist Ann Dunham and half-sister to the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama. While living in Indonesia, she was home schooled by her mother and then attended Jakarta International School and returned to Hawaii and attended the private Punahou School in Honolulu, Hawaii, graduating in 1988.
Besides being the First Sister Maya has a HawaiiaCertification of Live Birth despite be born in Jakarta Indonesia. Supposedly this certificate was used by the Daily Kos to forge an Obama version. Anyone find it odd that Maya, undisputedly born in Indonesia, would have the same type of document as Barack Obama to forge?
Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate is forged using his sister’s Maya Kassandra Soetoro’s COLB. Publication of a forged document with intent to deceive is a crime. Forgery of an Official Document is a crime. Conspiracy and Misprision are crimes. We may also have prima facie evidence of crimes under INA 1952 http://tinyurl.com/ydugj2r . Falsifying a Birth Certificate is a crime http://tinyurl.com/ycbqegh .
Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. Statute 338 is in substance and 178 are minor revisions.The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had NOT been previously registered in Hawaii.
Since Hawaii issues “Certificates of Live Birth” to children not born in Hawaii and “Birth Certificates” to children who are born in Hawaii, the only way to know where Hussein Obama was actually born is to view Hussein Obama’s original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him. The COLB has been show to be fraudulent and is also considered Rebuttable Presumption. The Vault Copy is Conclusive Presumption. Since Barry Soetoro presented the Rebuttable Presumption to the American Public at large, he must now prepare to answer for the Conclusive Presumption. IOWs, he must show from where the COLB was drawn. We do know that Barry in his college days used his Indonesian passport. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship.
All he has to do is show the damn original birth certificate, and all the questions and conspiracies would end.
He will, just give him time.. Just like any politician hes gonna hold on too that one until it will benefit him the most. Yes he will hold on to it, so the Republicans can continue making themselves look stupid, and then he will show everyone.
On a side note, before anybody here even tries to say anything different. If the situation was reversed, the Republicans would do the same damn thing. So i don't wanna hear any BS about Obama "never let a crisis go to waste" crap.. First off, this is hardly a crisis, if it is to you, you need serious help. Second, the Republicans would do the exact same thing if the situations where reversed, and they also love to use a crisis to help push their own political agendas. That is when they actually acknowledge the crisis.. I guess there was no political gain during Katrina, as Bush and his Republicans ignored it for over a week before even acting.
Go back to watching Glenn Beck... err wait you cant.. Even Faux News realized what a loony he was and got rid of him. Oh well, you guys still have Rush too instill fear and hatred into you..
Keep fighting the good fight though "birthers", maby, just maby one day you will get the "black man" out of office, and things will go back to normal for you again.. But i doubt it.
[This message has been edited by Jonesy (edited 04-11-2011).]
... and the skeptics will respond, "Those aren't the originals, they're only copies of the originals. Worse, they're copies of copies. We don't care that your copies are legitimate and fully acceptable to the U.S. government and the various State governments to establish citizenship for the purpose of issuing a passport, voting, and other legal purposes. We demand the originals! " Then again, maybe the skeptics won't respond that way unless you're "not one of us."
No doubt, but taking the easiest way out is simply playing into their hands as we see now, leaving controversy and much doubt, and of course, it's not as if the federal govt, at direction of the executive branch hasn't often inflicted it's will and authority over existing and lawfully passed State statutes--both in contemporary times and all thru history, and this of course, continues even today.
The President could put this to rest for "most" people with little effort in a matter of days if he really wanted to, and IMO, it's to his advantage to do so. Why he hasn't, when he has shown that he is not beyond instructing Justice to do everything in it's power to over ride various State laws is beyond me. I do think he is legally qualified to be POTUS, but I also have to wonder why he would be so willing to cast aside so many swing votes.
Recent presidential elections have been pretty close, I would think that any candidate, whether an incumbent or challenger would do EVERYTHING in their power to remove any doubt or question that might cause any voter to not support them.
